Talk:GIGN

GIGN and special forces

I don't think we can really say the GIGN is from the special forces. They are not under commande of the COS (special operations command). David.Monniaux 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we can (see similar categories, like Category:Special forces of Germany; see also List of special forces). The GIGN fits the definition of Special forces: "relatively small military units raised and trained for special operations missions such as Special Reconnaissance (SR), Unconventional Warfare (UW), Direct Action (DA), Terrorism (T), Counter-Terrorism (CT), and Foreign Internal Defense (FID). These highly-trained, often self-sufficient units rely on stealth, speed, close teamwork, and specialized equipment." This definition does not exclude French units not under command of COS. Apokrif 13:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is "military". While technically the GIGN is a military unit of the Gendarmerie, it effectively carries on extreme police actions, not military actions. Of course I have a very naive view of the topic and a member of the GIGN would certainly have much more interesting things to say, but I think that intuitively, you can compare actions of the GIGN to actions of the RAID more easily than you could compare them to, say, the Naval commando.

Besides (and without any particular connection to the present discussion), I suspect that there is a tendency to have categories "the Special Forces in my country is bigger than yours". This is neither a sign of maturity for the Wikipedian, nor a sign of quality for the unit. Rama 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The lists I link to include police forces and even a unit of the German customs. I think we could change the definition in Special forces accordingly. It's difficult to distinguish special police forces and special military forces insofar as both perform the same type of missions, i.e. law enforcement in difficult situations (e.g. hostage rescue for the SAS and GIGN, the assault on Ouvea cave for GIGN and naval commandos, drug enforcement for naval commandos, protection of civilians in war zones for EPIGN). Apokrif 14:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Special forces really seems to be about purely military actions. Even if for some reason someone had forgotten to mention the GIGN as one crucial step toward modern security and intervention groups, I cannot but notice that no mentions are made of the much-publicised US groups (SWAT, Hostage Rescue Team and such). Rama 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see list of special forces. It includes both military and police special ops units. Also the article states clearly: (...) French special forces operate under the Special Operations Command. First circle units are permanently under that command, while second circle units may be called in if necessary: (...) Second circle: (...) Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (...) --Nkcs 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, it would be useful to have something like a "SWAT Unit" or "special police unit" category. Apokrif 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gendarmerie Nationale is part of the army, whereas the Police Nationale is not; then the GIGN should be regarded as a military organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.172.126 (talk • contribs)

Micheletti's book says the GIGN performs "blue" missions (gendarmerie missions) but also "khaki" missions (with the COS). Apokrif 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly it is very ignorant to describe GIGN as a pure policing organisation as they carry out many operations that a police unit would neither be capable of or authorised to do so. They regularly deploy with other French Special Forces units worldwide and during certain operations come under French Special Operations Command. There role would best be compared to the eilte military units counter-terrorism role such as the British SAS, the United States 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta and DEVGRU. But along with the same responsibilities they inherit the responsibilities to conduct high-risk law enforcement situations. I believe the changes i made on the article best reflect the true responsibilities of the unit. A military unit. iiXtC 17:03, 07 July 2011 (AEST)

Discrepancy in Sidebar and General Information

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)RuggedGoodLooks

There was a big change on 1st Sept 2007 : GIGN and EPIGN are merged (Gendarmerie Det /GSPR disbanded) in one unit called GIGN (new GIGN command is nearly same as former GSIGN). So old GIGN had ~120 people, the new has ~380 (inculding support units such as GSIGN training center). Rob1bureau 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How Many?

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) There are articles all over the internet about the reorganisation of the French GIGN absorbing all other French Gendarmerie special mission units. Therefore their numbers are much higher than beforehand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiXtC (talk • contribs) 07:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The total size of the unit may well be around 400-500. Only less than 100 are operators. The current description of the unit size is therefore misleading.101.98.140.129 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Do any of you have Reliable Sources to back that size up? - SantiLak (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparable special forces section

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)

November 2015 Paris attacks

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)

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)

According to the Washington Post, it was Brigades de Recherche et d’Intervention, and not GIGN. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/11/17/this-is-the-battle-worn-shield-police-apparently-used-to-storm-the-bataclan-theater-in-paris/

206.113.192.12 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Gendarmerie Intervention Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

2016 update

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).

PS : I am leery about the title. I think it should be just "GIGN" (just like "GSG 9" is the title for the German unit). I know there is a redirection but I would recommend changing it anyway. Any opinions?

Redirection

Hello,

As proposed in my edit of March,30, I just changed the article name to GIGN (in fact I swapped the article and an existing redirection page) since keeping the old title : "National Gendarmerie Intervention Group" didn't make any sense. There is a redirection page should someone type-in the old name.

Even in France, the full name of Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale is never used (and I am thinking of proposing a name change too) but at least it is the official name while "National Gendarmerie Intervention Group" ...

By the way, I have also checked that the acronym GSG 9 is used as a title for the German unit, rather than the full German name (which is not used anymore anyway).

Best regards, Bruno--Domenjod (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bruno.

So that the history of the page is retained, you will need to move the page, rather than copy and paste the content.

You can do this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/National_Gendarmerie_Intervention_Group

Simply enter the new name into the box where the current name is, and leave the "Move associated talk page" checked.

If there is an error, you'll need to request the page is moved (see WP:RM).

Regards, Rob984 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, looking at your talk page I assume there is an error when you try to move over the redirect. I will open a request move below. Rob984 (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob984, thanks a lot for your help. Regards, Bruno --Domenjod (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

---

National Gendarmerie Intervention Group → GIGN – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "GIGN" is unambiguous, precise and more recognisable than the current title. I'm not sure "National Gendarmerie Intervention Group" can even be considered an alternative name, since the English, non-abbreviated form isn't actually used. Should only be noted as a literally translation of French non-abbreviated form. Rob984 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Support. My reasons : Recognizability, (that's the only name used by the media), Naturalness (that's the name the readers will search for - and for those few readers that don't know or remember the name "GIGN", the old name should be kept as a redirection). Precision (unambiguously identifies the article's subject) and Conciseness. Bruno --Domenjod (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Motto translation

Hello, before we get into another reversion battle, I would like to discuss the new (2014) GIGN motto: S'engager pour la vie, which I translated as : "To enlist for life". Mathglot proposed instead : "A lifelong commitment" which, in my opinion, conveys only one of the two meanings of the motto (ie the long term commitment) but misses the second one (to enlist - or enroll - for protection of life). As English is not my mother language (neither is it mathglot's, I believe) and I may have missed something so I would be interested in opinions/advise. Thanks in advance. Bruno--Domenjod (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User Domenjod is correct in that "A lifelong commitment" only conveys one of the two possible meanings of the motto. "Enlist" or "enroll" however, is incorrect here. In French, the original contains a double meaning; whether this is the intent or not of GIGN is an interesting question, and imho the best approach would be simply to ask them. The two possible literal meanings in English of the original French are these:

1. Committed to [saving/protecting] life [of others]; and
2. Committing [myself, i.e. dedicating myself, to this job] for life

Some possible translations are:

• Enlisting for life, To enlist for life, and similar expressions
• Lifelong commitment
• Commitment for life

The translation "Lifelong commitment", as Domenjod pointed out, preserves sense 2, but not sense 1. Likewise, "To enlist for life" preserves sense two, but not sense 1, but is awkward and not how an English native speaker would render it. "Commitment for life" has a double meaning encompassing both 1 and 2 (although sense 2 would be better rendered by "Committed to life", but in translation you can't have everything, and "commitment for life" adequately retains both meanings, even if the preposition seems less than ideal in one of the two. "To enlist for life" definitely does not adequately retain the double meaning, but only meaning 2.

English is my mother tongue, and I am non-native fluent in French. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Mathglot:. Thanks for the quick answer. I don't fully agree with everything you wrote but I think we're making progress. Regarding the meaning of the new (2014) motto, I have very few doubts. As far as asking GIGN - as you suggested - I try to avoid calling too often but I'll probably meet some of their PAOs next week (coincidence). Anyway, at this time, I'd suggest we wait until we get more opinions/advice on the topic before making any change, if that's OK with you. Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

PS (Mathglot): You write "Likewise, "To enlist for life" preserves sense two, but not sense 1"...Isn'it the other way around?

@Domenjod: Waiting is fine with me. To answer your question, no, it's not the other way round, which is why I made my first edit on the page. One request: when you speak to GIGN this week, would you kindly request if their responses can be quoted on Wikipedia (fr or en), either exactly, or paraphrased? My questions to them would be, "Who came up with the motto, an individual, a committee, when and where? Is there general agreement on what it means (in French) and is the intent of the motto to incorporate the double meaning? (I assume the answer to that is yes, but I want to hear it from them. I'd also prefer to see their responses in French, i.e., not translated as the whole point of this talk section relates to problems with translation. Normally talk pages on EN wikipedia should be in English, but an original quote can be included in the original language, and translated later.) I'm glad you'll be talking with them, maybe we can resolve this pretty quickly. Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Mathglot:. Three points if I may.

1-I don't know if I'll see anyone from GIGN next week but if I do, I am not going to bore them with requests for written statements, or comments on who said what to whom. Even during "normal" times, they are swamped with requests from the press every day so I am sure you can imagine that with the current situation in France, (terrorism threats, Euro football competition, up-coming Tour de France etc.) they have enough on their plate. I THINK I heard sometime that the new motto was devised by Gal Favier - the current Director General of the Gendarmerie and a former GIGN CO - and if I get a chance, I'll do try to broach the matter but, as far as the double meaning of the motto, it should be pretty clear for anyone who is fluent in French (like you), who has read about them since creation in 1973 (like me) or simply who has fully read the article (see paragraph : "Motto and values" and especially the mention of their previous motto : Sauver des vies au mépris de la sienne).

2-I don't know if "To enlist for life" is as awkward as you mention. Before proposing that translation, I made a few researches and found - among others - http://www.linguee.fr/anglais-francais/traduction/enlisted+in+the+army.html. So the term, to enlist in the army seems rather widely used. But once again, I am NOT going to teach English to English native speakers. That is why I would really like to have other opinions. Maybe @Rob984: and, @Jenks24:, who kindly helped me on previous occasions ?

3-If we end up choosing another translation, your first proposal (lifelong commitment) doesn't sound right to me, as you admitted. Committed to life might be better (in fact Committed to life for life would be closer but awkward too...). In any case, I think I'll add a note emphasizing the double meaning in the French motto.

Yes, translation is a fine art and, as you said, in translation you can't have everything! Thanks for you help. Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

1 Wasn't suggesting GIGN provide written anything, only that you report back what they said by writing it here on the talk page, with their agreement.

2 Since you repeated your doubt about "enlist for life" I'll repeat my comment about it: It is as awkward as I mention. All of the examples at your link, like "enlisted in the Army" are perfectly fine. "Enlist for life" is possible and grammatical but awkward. I think you understand the basic meaning of 'enlist' without understanding the nuances of its usage. 'To enlist' has a nuance of meaning regarding the entry point to membership in an organization, but not the strength or weakness of that attachment nor the ongoing fact of being in that organization after you had enlisted. 'To commit to something' has a meaning that encompasses 'to enlist' as far as the moment when you first made the commitment, but goes beyond it to include the sense of the strength of that attachment and the continuous timeline of commitment beyond that original moment, that 'to enlist' does not include. S'inscrire is a bit more like 'enlist' and s'engager as bit more like 'to commit' but the analogy is not perfect, as it rarely is in translation, as saying 'il s'engage dans la Légion Étrangère' could certainly be translated as 'he enlists/-ed in the Foreign Legion' OR 'he commits/-ed to the Foreign Legion' but in English those two sentences mean slightly different things. The first means only that 'he joined' or 'became a member' (and maybe three days later he left because he changed his mind or only joined as a result of a drunken dare) whereas the second means both that he joined, and also strongly implies that this was preplanned, carefully thought out in advance, and carries an inner strength of attachment that would predict a long-term membership. Does that help distinguish between 'to enlist in' and 'to commit to'?

3 You're right that 'Committed to life for life' is closer but awkward which is why 'Commitment for life' is the best compromise, in my opinion, given the assumption that the original has a double meaning, which we won't know until #1 is resolved.

This is too many words on a Talk page for so few words on the article page, so AFAIC you can do what you like, I won't object anymore, regardless of my opinion of its correctness. Have a great rest of your weekend! Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the motto, the best translation is "A commitment for life" which carries both meanings and has that nice PR swing to it -- as the other bilingual native-English speaker argued above. It's what I was all set to put even before seeing that editor's entry. In fairness, I can't be bothered reading the entire discussion but suffice to say that -- as a general principle as well as in this instance -- non-native speakers of any language should readily defer to someone who is a native speaker for translations *into* that language. This is not the first disagreement I've seen in Wikipedia when a (clearly) non-native speaker insisted on telling someone how to speak their own language. I'm going to be bold and change the bloody thing. alacarte (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello to all. To User:Professor alacarte, who admitted that he couldn't be bothered reading the entire discussion:

1 I see that after asserting that "the best translation (was) "Committed for life"", You came back and changed it. I don't blame or tease you. This indeed is not an easy translation.

2 "A commitment for life" or "Committed for life" may have "a nice PR swing to it" but I am not too concerned about PR. Since WP is an encyclopedia, I am more interested in explaining the double meaning of the French motto, so I just added a footnote.

I also made a few minor changes or updates to the article. Thanks in advance to anyone who will improve the wording if needed.

Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really a special forces - or a special operations - unit

Hello, I just undid an edit by @USMC Lance: and would like to further explain the reason here, in order to avoid a confusion - or an edit war. This topic has already been discussed a while ago (see above) but I think it is better adressed now that there are separate articles for military units (see List of military special forces units) and civilian or gendarmerie-type police units (see List of special law enforcement units).

I think we should refer to the NATO definition of special operations cited in the article Special forces : military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, trained, and equipped forces, manned with selected personnel, using unconventional tactics, techniques, and modes of employment. The key words here are "military activities" (not military personnel) and "unconventional tactics, techniques and modes of employment". GIGN's mission is not to fight an ennemy army or to use "unconventional" tactics such as guerilla warfare.

Presenting then GIGN as a special operations unit just because the gendarmes are part of the armed forces is misleading. The Gendarmerie IS a police force : its only military missions are military police, protection of certain sites and control of the nuclear forces. It is true that Gendarmerie units have fought as front-line units alongside the Army in the past, but this was long ago and is not the case anymore. The last time was during World War II - against the German Army (and to a lesser extent, against guerilla-type forces during the First Indochina War and the Algerian War).

Gendarmerie units (including GIGN) were engaged recently in the former Yougoslavia, in Afghanistan (POMLTs) and in various African countries but never as front line combattant units and always in a police-orientated mission falling under the category of Foreign internal defense. Some of these missions are also undertaken by special forces so there may be some overlap, just like, for example, when a hostage situation occurs abroad - as illustrated by GIGN's involvement in the hostage situations at Ouvéa (1988) or on the Ponant (2008) alongside French special forces but operating with army or navy special forces doesn't make GIGN a special force in the NATO meaning of the term. And the fact that the Gendarmerie is now part of the Ministry of Interior clearly shows that this is not going to change.

To sum up, I think the term "special operations" should not even appear in the article and the only reasons to leave it there at this time are : 1- because the selection process, training and technical expertise involved are similar to those of the military special forces and 2- for lack of a better term. A better term indeed should be "Special police operations" or "Special Law enforcement operations" (see List of special law enforcement units). Maybe we should create such an article and use this term in the GIGN article instead of "special operations".

Best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. And as far as the NATO meaning of the term, how is hostage rescue and counter terrorism against HVTs make the GIGN conventional in any way? That is not special operations? You don't see your regular police or military force doing that. And yes I understand how the GIGN primarily engaged in peacetime operations as a special police force, but at the end of the day they possess much more capabilities than operating internally. So "special police operations" isn't very suitable, as it's not all they're capable of or trained to do. They're a special operations force specializing in hostage rescue and high value counter terrorism. They train with units all over the world and have operated all over the world. Different priorities and national interest have put their main focus on internal issues, but again, it's not their only capability which makes them more than a special police force. USMC Lance (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @USMC Lance:I see your point but I think you're missing mine (maybe it's my fault and I didn't explain well enough). The more I think of it, the more I find the term "Special law enforcement unit" appropriate. GIGN is definitely an elite unit and its personnel are trained to the same level of expertise as the special operations units. The difference is :

1 GIGNs mission is not to fight an ennemy army (contrary to the British SAS or the US Delta or Seals for exemple). And they are not going to engage in such type of unconventional warfare as guerilla for exemple.

2 GIGN operators are gendarmes and operate according to the French laws. Most if not all of their actions will have a judiciary ending.

3 In practice the vast majority of GIGN missions are police missions like protection, surveillance of criminals or national threats and arrest of dangerous criminals - or deranged persons - in high risk missions. Of course, they are trained for high level counter-terrorism - in France or abroad - but special operations abroad are really the realm of COS (Commandement des Opérations Spéciales) the Special Operations Command, a joint Army/Navy/Air Force organization, for the "official" missions (ie those that are "avowable" if you will) and of the DGSE's Service Action for those that are not - or must remain secret. Even the 2015 Bamako hotel attack was handled by US and French special force personnel (GIGN was sent but arrived after the assault, otherwise it could have been a shared mission).

To be clear, my aim is certainly not to demean GIGN, an elite unit whose history I have followed up since its creation in 1973 (by the way, they allowed me to take most of the pictures illustrating the article which doesn't make a spokeperson of me but tells you I know a little bit about them). Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I am just trying to find a better term than special operations for units such as GIGN (or GSG9) that are really law enforcement units. If you will, they are a special brand of special operations unit but I think WP, as an encyclopedia, should help the readers understand the differences. Best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay that's fair, I now get what you mean much more and you bring up good points. I just think special police force would kind of distract from their full capabilities, you know what I mean? Just because of the wording, but your points are well within reason. USMC Lance (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created a Police Tactical Unit article. GIGN would fall under a Police Tactical Unit. Special forces / special operations units are military units if you read the definitions that are publicity available such as NATO and United States. Previously, there was not a general police tactical unit article only a SWAT article that is United States focused. GIGN, however, seems to be different to most police tactical units (that handle counter terrorism on a national scale) in that it can tasked for military operations. The FBI Hostage Rescue Unit has recently been doing this. Blurring the lines between what is a police tactical unit (the term I have settled on - used in some literature) and what is a special forces unit. As GIGN is gendarme the most appropriate to use is police tactical unit also the majority of operations being law enforcement and not military.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi @Domenjod:, 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)

Hi @Melbguy05:. 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Format of the first sentence). 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)

Use of the term SWAT

Hi @Melbguy05:. 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)

Unwarranted name change

Hello, I wish @Jinbo4514: 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)

Removed Paul Barril from Infobox

Hello, I reverted @Yosy:'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)

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)

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)

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)

Fine with me, thanks.--Domenjod (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Irish of Vincennes

@Domenjod: 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)

Hello @Yosy:, 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)

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file LOGO-GIGN.png on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• GIGN logotype.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of the GIGN logo

The following is an extract from a recent communication with Commons admin Majora who kindly explained the reason the logo image had to be removed from Commons but could be directly uploaded to enwiki. I have edited the text for brevity (the original is on Majora's talk page. Best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Majora:,

I understand you are the one who deleted the GIGN logo (File:Emblème du Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale.svg) from the infobox in the article GIGN.

Now, would it be OK to use, as a substitute, a close crop taken, from the following picture that I posted some time ago : File:GIGN40 Domenjod 270918.jpg (the photo is actually used in the article) ?

Thank you in advance for your answer & best regards

--Domenjod (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

PS : I copy @Futurhit12: who is the author of the file you deleted

@Domenjod: Unfortunately, any close crop of the logo would not be acceptable here. The reason it had to be deleted was because the logo is not free. It did not have a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial use). The reason the photo of the truck can exist here is because of a copyright concept call de minimis. What that means is that the copyright violation is so trivial as to not matter. Cropping the image and focusing in on the logo would no longer make it trivial. It would be a pure copyright violation. There is an option though. The English wikipedia allows for fair use images. The logo can be uploaded locally directly to enwiki even though it is copyrighted. It cannot exist here. I'm currently on vacation and I won't be back till next week. If you still need help with this I can help you then. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

Hello to all interested contributors. @Ominae: recently deleted the whole paragraph "In popular culture", in reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Popular culture. While I personnaly won't miss the parts about video games and fiction books, I would like to offer the following comments :

Of the four films that were removed, only one (L'Assaut) was done with the collaboration and advice of the unit : there are fictional personnal stories intertwined with the action (where female actors are involved) but otherwise, the film matches the numerous accounts that have been made by the real participants of this action.

The other three films are either VERY loosely based on the event they describe ("15 minutes of war), controversial as they present the view of a former GIGN commander who left the unit after the action (L'Ordre et la Morale) or entirely fictional The Island .

I understand it is difficult to assess whether some of these films deserve a mention in WP or not. I personnaly would leave the "Assault" and "Rebellion" but this is only my opinion and, of course, I'll accept the final decision that will be made on this topic.

For your information, please find below the text that was removed (part of it was written by me).

Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

---

− The 2019 film "15 minutes of war" is based upon the GIGN-led liberation of the French pupils captured by the FLCS (Front de Libération de la Côte des Somalis, "Somali Coast Liberation Front") in Djibouti in 1976.

− GIGN is featured in L'Assaut, a 2010 French film about the Air France Flight 8969 hijacking. It was done with the collaboration and the advice of the GIGN.

− L'Ordre et la Morale (Rebellion) was released in 2011 and is about the controversial 1988 Ouvéa cave hostage taking in New Caledonia as seen from the perspective of then GIGN leader Captain Philippe Legorjus. Even though he had played a major role in the negotiations, Legorgus's leadership during and after the action was contested even in his own unit and he left GIGN a few months later.

− In Michael Bay's The Island, Djimon Hounsou plays Albert Laurent, a French private military contractor and GIGN veteran hired to bring back Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson).

Hello everyone. Since there has been no reaction to my previous message following the removal by @Ominae: of the entire whole paragraph "In popular culture", I assume there is no problem with my proposal to restore part of the paragraph "Cinema". I suggest the following text:

---

GIGN is featured in :

• L'Assaut, a 2010 French film about the Air France Flight 8969 hijacking. It was done with the collaboration and the advice of the unit. There are a few fictional personnal stories intertwined with the action (mainly where female characters are involved) but otherwise, the film matches the numerous accounts that have been made by the real participants in this action.

• L'Ordre et la Morale (Rebellion) a film released in 2011 about the controversial 1988 Ouvéa cave hostage taking in New Caledonia as seen from the perspective of then GIGN leader, major (then a captain) Philippe Legorjus. Even though he had played a major role in the negotiations and he participated in the first part of the assault, Legorgus's leadership during and after the action was contested - even in his own unit - and he left GIGN a few months later.

---

If anyone has a problem with that, please let me know.

Best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Short description

Hello to all. I moved the paragraph below, written by @GhostInTheMachine: 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)

Thank you for adding Short descriptions to articles. However, many of these descriptions have been too long – the current guidelines at WP:SDSHORT advise a limit of around 40 characters. Please read the full guidelines at WP:SDCONTENT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2022 update

Hello. Here is a summary of several updates I just made:

• Removed the mention Special operations from the text and the infobox. As mentioned several times in the Talk page (see above), GIGN is a Police tactical unit. While there are similarities with Army (or Navy or Air Force) Special forces in operators profiles, in training and in some of the missions, GIGN (just like the French Gendarmerie) is not a war-fighting organization. It is a police force operating under the control of the French judiciary system.
• Moved 3 key pictures to the top of the article for clarity (and for visibility, especially since, when using a smartphone or a tablet, photos in an end-of-page gallery don't appear until the end).
• Corrected a few errors
• Added info & references (AGIGN training, Ukraine deployment, Glock photo etc.)

In case of a problem, please discuss it here. Regards, --Domenjod (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)--Domenjod (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Aside from a few copyedits, I reverted a handful of things that I assume are your work. Here are my reasonings for them.

• Removed the gallery of their mission or whatever. Other articles don't have a gallery in the lead, and this article already has a gallery section. "Clarity" and "visibility" do not matter; these images, especially in that context, provide very little to this article, and teeter on promotional schlock (for a police tactical unit that surely doesn't need to be promoted).
• Removed multiple mentions of what AGIGN is. It's already defined in a few sections, so I doubt the reader needs to be told each and every time what AGIGN is.
• Redid the dating format on some image captions. Usually, putting a dash before the date is odd formatting. It should flow like a sentence, unless it can't—and in those instances, they can.

As a side note, I'm looking at the references on this article, and they seem to be... notes? They're not citations, most of them are notes that just add onto article text that don't add anything themselves and aren't sourced to begin with. Do you not have any academic sources or additional sources or links to these sources so they can be proven? Because if you don't, someone could very well wipe half of this article out as it stands, and no one would really stop them. Saying this for you, not me.

So yeah, there's that. AdoTang (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AdoTang: - and of course to everyone reading this

Thank you for your comments but it would be nice to reach agreement first in the Talk page. Since English is not my mother language, I am not going to comment on style or wording except when words really matter. As an example, there is a difference - in France just like about everywhere else in the world - between a parachute unit and another unit whose members may be parachute-qualified individually. I am not going to comment either on your changing the order of photos or illustrations in a gallery (patches, weapons). I fail to understand the need for it but it you have fun doing this, that's fine with me !

I have reinstated the initial gallery in the lead section for obvious (to me) reasons. As they don't seem obvious to you, here are the explanations :

1. The role of an encyclopedia is to explain things - and to remove ambiguity when there is any. Two points need to be made here : a) although the French Gendarmerie is part of the armed forces of France, GIGN is NOT in the warfighting business. Their mission is law enforcement. b) As a Police tactical unit, GIGN has three core missions : intervention, protection and observation/research. These three core missions need to be explained - and illustrated - as early as possible in the article. Otherwise there would be a risk of confusion with other military units like the SAS, Delta, the Navy Seals etc. that do share a few missions such as hostage rescue but otherwise are clearly warfighting units. Don't forget some readers may have known of GIGN only by playing video games. So there is a need to explain clearly what GIGN is and what it is not. The lead section is obviously the right place to do that.
2. Please also read (or re-read) the following extract from the guidelines on the lead section (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) : The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read".
3. Contrary to your statement, there is nothing that forbids or prevents pictures or galleries in the lead section. Please look again at the above link and/or at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead. I chose the packed gallery format so that all 3 pictures will appear together (remember the lead section must remain compact). This is especially true with mobile devices. Without the initial gallery, if you use a smartphone, you won't see these 3 pictures until you reach the end of the article.
4. The (unfortunate?) removal of the "Mission" paragraph by an earlier editor (you ?) made this choice even more justified. A classic sequence for a military unit presentation is : 1- overview (lead) then 2- history, then 3- mission(s), then 4- organization (or structure) but, to me, the omission of the "mission" paragraph is acceptable as long as the mission is cleary stated in the lead section.

The other changes I have reinstated are needed to better explain the differences between the AGIGNs and the main Satory unit. Aside from the parachute specialty, training duration is 8 weeks for AGIGN members vs 14 months for the Satory operators. Another point : clearing an airliner is a main unit mission except overseas due to distance and time constraints etc. so it makes sense to mention that the AGIGN operators clearing an airliner belong to an overseas unit. Dates (year) of the photos in the gallery have also been reinstated because of the changes in uniform colours and equipment over the years.

Finally, the remarks on notes and references has merits. I already delt with this need in the article in French and have plenty of material. Hope you can help as well (this is fun and useful too but I don't doubt you already knew that !).

Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC) - Edited for clarity on 22 december 2022