Talk:GIGN

message: I must point out that there is a rather obvious discrepancy in the data regarding numbers of GIGN troops. The information displayed on the page says 120 men, specifically citing 11 officers. However, the sidebar says "about 380 gendarmes." That's quite a difference.
206.40.211.51 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in Sidebar and General Information 

message: Every part of the article says its a different number i can see 120-380 and 80 in different places  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.90.156 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any of you have Reliable Sources to back that size up? - SantiLak (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Many? 

message: If nobody disagrees, I will shorten the section about comparable units and replace it with a link to "List of special police units". This section should only give an idea of what units the GIGN can be compared to, i.e. GSG 9, GEO, etc. This section is way too long and it's starting to turn into a copy of the article about the list of special police units. --Der rikkk (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable special forces section 

message: Do we know anything about the GIGN's involvement in countering the gunmen? I am just speculating but this will probably need to be added. JJ5788 (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems it was Paris' municipal police SWAT so far but initial reports are usually inaccurate, if they were, it should be added. - SantiLak (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2015 Paris attacks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Gendarmerie Intervention Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061216174939/http://www.gign.org:80/structure-du-gign/organisation.php to http://www.gign.org/structure-du-gign/organisation.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061017101845/http://www.gign.org:80/groupe-intervention-gign/hommage.php to http://www.gign.org/groupe-intervention-gign/hommage.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I have temporarily removed the links while reorganizing the whole article. The info linded into is not current anymore but it might be useful to place back in the article (in a separate paragraph) later on. Rgds, Bruno --Domenjod (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I just updated the article and still plan to add material (mostly references and biographies) in the coming days. Please feel free to improve the text since English is not my mother language (for example, I am not sure if the current moto is best translated as : "to enlist for life" or "to enroll for life". Best regards, Bruno --Domenjod (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 update 

message: Hi , I notice you placed the acronym GIGN before the name in the lead in a 18 August 2017 recent edit. I note the NASA article for example in the lead uses "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).." with the acronym last. I think it should the name first and then the acronym. Also, BBC "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a.." GSG9 article is name first and then acroynm. There is a policy WP:ABBR. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Sorry for not answering earlier. You have a point with the examples you provide (NASA, BBC, GSG9) but I couldn't find an explicit rule describing exactly our case in WP:ABBR (nor in ). Personnaly, I still think that, the article name beeing "GIGN", the format I proposed makes sense (article name first, which happens to be an acronym) but if everyone agrees to change the fist sentence back to Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale (GIGN), that's okay with me.--Domenjod (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hi . You recently replaced the term SWAT in the paragraph "History" by : Police Tactical Unit. 
While I fully agree with the term and definitely think it should be used to describe the current GIGN, I thought it would be a good idea to keep the word SWAT - in spite of its US connotation - to describe the "old" GIGN for the following reasons :
* 1- If the current GIGN (previously GSIGN) is a PTU, then it is strange to also define the old GIGN, which was then a component of GSIGN, as a PTU as well (a PTU as a component of a PTU?).
* 2- It seems to me (but I could be wrong) that the term SWAT gives a better description of what the "old" GIGN was, ie a purely "intervention" unit (ie no surveillance of national threats or organized crime, no protection of government officials etc.).
By the way, "Police Tactical Unit" is accurate but it is a mouthful and I am leery about using it to many times in an article.
Do you see my points? Do you agree we should use another word for the "old" GIGN (for example "intervention component" as in the paragraph "Structure")? Thanks and rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term SWAT

message: Hello, I wish   had read the talk page before renaming the article. He would have seen that the change from "Groupe d'intevention de la Gendarmerie nationale" to the current tittle "GIGN", had been proposed and then subjected to a community vote according to WP rules. He would thus have avoided such a rash change (and resulting waste of time). Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted name change  

message: Hello, I reverted 's contribution and removed Paul Barril from the short list of "notable" GIGN commanders in the infobox as 1-Barril was only an interim commander and 2- he was sacked due to his actions in the controversial "Irish of Vincennes" affair. One may indeed think that he is indeed a "notable" commander (in a disreputable way) but I think he should not be mentioned as such as 1- the affair itself is not mentioned in the article and, 2- the blame was attributed to himself personnaly rather than to the unit. By the way, other controversial commanders (like Legorgus, for example) do not rate a mention in the inforbox either. So if notable is taken in a positive way, only  Prouteau and Favier deserve to be mentioned there because of their deeds. Any thoughts on that matter? Rgds,--Domenjod (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the logic behind that decision. Maybe we should add another section dealing with controversial GIGN operations and/or members? Yosy (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me but do we need a new section? The two operations I mentioned above (I can't think of another one at this time) could be inserted in the existing "Operations" section. Or we could add a new section. What do you think? Ant it would be interesting to get opinions from other contributors as well on this matter. --Domenjod (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's not that many controversies I'll just add "controversial" to the existing Ouvéa mention Yosy (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, thanks.--Domenjod (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added to the list the controversial arrest of the Irish of Vincennes. Not their finest day, but an encyclopedia should be comprehensive and it wasn't a minor event--Domenjod (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Paul Barril from Infobox 

message: should the Irish of Vincennes affair be included? From what I gather the arrests were not made by the GIGN but by the "anti-terrorist cell" at the Elysee. Although the latter was led by Prouteau and certainly included former GIGN operatives, the GIGN as an organization wasn't directly involved. Or was it? Yosy (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , the arrests were made by GIGN, who were operating in support of judicial police officers (OPJs) from the Vincennes Section de Recherche (ie Gendarmerie judicial police unit). Prouteau was not in an operational role any more at the time, beeing, as you mentioned, part of the "anti-terrorist cell" at the Elysée and Barril, who had obtained the info on the Irish suspected terrorists and who followed-up the whole affair until GIGN made the arrests, was interim GIGN commander at the time. The episode is well known and Prouteau himself mentions it in Au Service du Président, written in 1999. Btw, the episode is also mentioned in an article in the French Wikipedia.--Domenjod (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't know that it was the GIGN that made the actual arrests! Since the GIGN, other than Proteau and Barril, was involved, I agree that the case should be part of the "Operations" heading. Yosy (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and, in case I didn't make it clear enough, Barril was present (and leading the GIGN team). --Domenjod (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish of Vincennes 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello to all. I moved the paragraph below, written by  from my Talk page to this one since it relates to this article. After reading the guidelines provided, I reverted my initial revert (well, almost). Of course, guidelines are only suggestions  so I could argue that Police tactical unit and "French National Gendarmerie" both use a lot of characters but, in the end, I got the point that A short description is not a definition and went back to a short description using less than 40 characters as per the guidelines provided. --Domenjod (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description