Talk:Gerry Hutch

Untitled
A rewrite is needed to remove POV, opinions, and a subjective tone. Paul Klenk 18:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC) If that is the case, then the entire reportage on modern day irish criminality needs a new approach. The esence of CAB is that it operates in a gray zone. The tensions between the failure of the criminal courts system, public opinion or oprobium and even in some cases open admiration for people like Hutch ensure that his life and works will only ever be played out in the shadows. This is as good as it gets, sad to say. Paddy Hegarty.

I would object to the use of inverted commas around "works" in 'and "works" for a living as a limo driver'. This is hardly the kind of thing you'd see in an encyclopedia.83.70.254.134 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Posting unsigned comments isn't the kind of thing people do in an encyclopedia, either. Your IP address tells me that you live in Dublin, so forgive me if I have some reason for suspecting that your comments may well have POV issues. Lexo (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added citations etc and some extra facts from newscuttings and generally tried to Wikify the article. I have left in the existing references to "His gang was said to have amassed an estimated IR£40 million from a series of bank robberies, jewellery heists, and fraud scams spanning almost 8 years." although I couldn't immediately find any source for this statement. --User:Thejohnfleming 00:06 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal from Google Search
See - This page is, for vertain search terms, removed from the google search results in Europe ... Sicherlich  Post 10:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ... and this fact is getting noted in news coverage now - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw a BBC news article on this, and subsequently searched on Google for the WP:en articles apparently removed from Google searches: "Tom Carstairs" (related to an image on Commons) and "Gerry Hutch". Both the Commons image (which isn't used on any article) and this article on Gerry Hutch still show up in Google UK searches, so they don't seem to have actually been removed, at least not yet.--86.132.36.33 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, still showing up on google.co.uk for me. Also, Streisand effect looks relevant here. Wonder how many people had heard of Gerry Hutch before this happened?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pages are not actually removed from Google's index, only from particular results pages. Of the people mentioned by name in this article, the only one who triggers Google's censorship warning is Felix McKenna.2.103.236.122 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The information about Felix McKenna is correct and it throws a whole new light on this affair. It would be ironic if the removal was nothing to do with Hutch himself, but a former Garda mentioned in the article. People have been warned against assuming that it was the subject of the article who made the "right to be forgotten" request. In the light of this, Felix McKenna's name could be removed from the article on WP:BLPNAME grounds. It would, however, have been much easier for him to request this through the normal channels.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 20:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't particularly object to removal of the name, given that it doesn't really matter to our readers whether he is called Felix McKenna or Archibald Hammerthrower. But, as a matter of principle, I don't think a public statement by a senior police officer falls under BLPNAME. It's just regular attribution, and it was part of his job to be quotable. Formerip (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an article about McKenna. He was the former chief of the Criminal Assets Bureau until 2006, and in 2013 he joined a private security firm. None of this is super secret, so it is a mystery why his name is producing a block in Google Search.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the complainant may well not be McKenna in any case. It seems that the notice on Google search results comes up for just about every other name you type in (my hypothesis is that it generates the notice whenever it recognises that the search string is the name of a non-public figure living in Europe). Formerip (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but see User_talk:Wnt. The mystery remains: Why, with over 4 million English language Wikipedia articles to choose from, has this one led to a block in Google Search?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like you discovered it: Global Risk Solutions. It would make sense Google would honor requests from organizations involved in anti-terrorism and security type stuff. -- Green  C  14:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevant to mention 'Right to be Forgotten' in article?
I added a relevance template as it's unclear if this is relevant to mention in the article. We have the Press mention on the talk page above, so it's not unnoticed. But not sure if a whole sub-section in the article is navel gazing, an attempt at creating a Streisand effect, plausibly deniable punishment for censorship, or actually notable for inclusion. -- Green  C  15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To aid in figuring this out, and I think it's a good question, I'm going to start adding other Press links above, in fact, I've added three more. Is there a way to put multiple such links into a single template?   --j⚛e deckertalk 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I boldly added a small paragraph.-- cyclopia speak! 17:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no relevancy of that paragraph to Gerry Hutch. It's about his Wikipedia article, not about him, and there is no evidence that Hutch himself made the request. See WP:SUBJECT. Thus I'll remove the paragraph. Huon (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, indeed, WP:SUBJECT implies that the incident shouldn't be covered in this article. Thanks, I didn't know that guideline. -- cyclopia speak! 17:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, yes. The last sentence of WP:SUBJECT is suggestive of where a line might be drawn, and this is not yet a notable event in Hutch's life.  I can see how it might (or might not) become one, but I don't see it was being there yet.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Those who don't live in the US tend not to see the profound value and importance of freedom of all information; to recognize what's relevant and newsworthy. That's the sort of thing that happens when one grows-up in a country where it's okay for the government to censor something; and it was against the backdrop of that misguided mindset which allowed the Right to be Forgotten law to be passed in the first place. It was a huge mistake which I believe Europeans will live to profoundly regret.


 * It's NEVER okay for the government to censor in the US. Never. In the US, it's all relevant; it all matters. And nothing could be more relevant to Gerry Hutch story on Wikipedia than that his article, here, is one of the first to be blocked under the thoroughly wrong and repugnant Right to be Forgotten law. Hutch's article needs to be here; and that he wanted it removed from search engines needs to be here; and the consequences of that -- specifically the Streisand effect -- is none of either this article's or Wikipedia's concern; that's the part that's irrelevant!


 * Also (and this one's really got my dander up), another user wrote that "[w]e have the Press mention on the talk page." So what? The "talk" page is not the article. The vast majority of Wikipedia users never read the "talk" pages, nor should they for purposes of learning anything about the subject. The "talk" pages are not part of the articles; they're where we hash things out; they're "behind the scenes," from the article's perspective. It matters not what's mentioned on the "talk" page. Saying that some mention of something on the "talk" page is good enough is analogous to a newspaper deciding not to print a relevant part of a story simply because all the editors talked about it in the newsroom. I'm sorry, but that one really chaps my youknowwhat. Shame on anyone, here, for thinking like that!


 * That Hutch's article was removed from EU search engines because of the godawful Right to be Forgotten law is as relevant as any other factor about Hutch. It's not punishment for censorship; it's news. I propose that the relevance template be removed immediately; and that this kind of classically-European thinking about press freedom, and information disclosure, cease, here. It's all relevant. It all matters. It's all fair game.


 * Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I am European, and yet I "see the profound value and importance of freedom of all information". Curiously enough I mostly meet censorship attempts and justifications from the American editors. However while I first added a paragraph on the incident here, the guideline above is clear enough. The incident should be on WP, but not in this page. I've moved the sentence to the right to be forgotten article.-- cyclopia speak! 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia: You might also consider a note at Censorship of Wikipedia as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe, Deselms, that you've misread GreenC's point entirely. I believe that that editor was simply calling attention to a source, which was and is listed here, as evidence that the Google redaction had received press attention, which is one factor in determining whether including information about the censorship is appropriate under our own policies within this biography, which is the limited nature and scope of the discussion in this section. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As to whether all news is relevant on Wikipedia, please read WP:NOTNEWS, which is called "NOT NEWS" for a reason. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The tricky part about the relevance here is that we don't necessarily know that the censorship of a Wikipedia article about Gerry Hutch on Google actually has anything to do with Gerry Hutch. Indeed, the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales presently seems to be leaning against it.  We should be careful about confusing what is important to us here with what is important to the person reading about the subject of the article, and it may be that this is an issue only for an article about Wikipedia or a subtopic thereof. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted the removal of Felix McKenna's name, which was just done right after he was mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page as possibly the subject actually being concealed on Google, because McKenna was high ranking in the police and worth, for example, a newspaper article when he joined Global Risk Solutions.  We cite his book in the article on Criminal Assets Bureau.  An encyclopedia article may exclude totally irrelevant material, but in this case we see that this was a very serious cop coming to make this case, and the diligent reader may try to figure out how the two crossed paths with some success.  And as for NOTNEWS, do follow that link and read it, because it says that news is treated no differently.  (Except for "routine announcements", which this is not) Wnt (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the ping. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Clonshaugh and Marino Mart
Re this edit: Hutch was never convicted in a court of law over the Clonshaugh or Marino Mart heists, so sources stating or implying this are wrong. WP:BLPCRIME applies here, as does WP:LIBEL. Part of the problem with the article is that the Garda Síochána has claimed that Hutch is a big time criminal, but has never been able to prove it in a court of law.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Penguin Books source by Paul Williams (Irish journalist) didn't contend that he was convicted in a court of law, rather Williams says that he did it, two different things. The source is not "wrong" it just holds a POV, and so long as things are framed correctly we can provide (multiple) POV's. I guess OJ Simpson would be a model to follow since he also was not convicted but we certainly can discuss the case in his biography. If it comes down to that we can have sections on the crime as it happened, the criminal case, post trial events. -- Green  C  19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Hutch is a living person, we have to be careful here. Hutch has taken legal action against his critics in the past, and it would be inadvisable to use the word of an author to state or imply that Hutch was guilty of two very serious armed robberies. Paul Williams' views on this issue are not suitable for inclusion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct wording, then, would be "According to journalist Paul Williams , (list purported events)."   Geoffrey.landis (talk)
 * Attribution is an excellent suggestion. Between publication by reputable magazines (nevermind the disreputable ones) and Penguin. My sense from these sources is that Williams appears be a well-known enough source that his views should be included rather than removed. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when did a single "citation needed" cause an article to be considered for deletion?
This article is currently being considered for deletion.

The only complaint I see is, "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources."

At the current time the only citation needed in the article is this one:
 * The episode which aired March 2008 was solely devoted to the assets and finances seized by the CAB of both Hutch and his suspected criminal and family associates.[citation needed]

Lots of Wikipedia articles have single "citation needed" annotations and many have several.

So why is this article being considered for deletion?

50.71.210.133 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the template saying "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification", because as you point out, there is now only one "citation needed" in the article. Former versions of the article were poorly sourced, but thanks to the media coverage, experienced eyes have looked over the article and filled in the sourcing. The reference to Dirty Money: The Story of the Criminal Assets Bureau is probably correct, but the two links in the article about it are now dead. Time for a look on the Wayback Machine. This page with the DVD of the series is the only one that I can find at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

metainquiry: can RTBF exercise be notable?
I am wondering whether the fact that this article has been removed from Google's indices (and presumably those of other search engines) in Europe warrants mention in this article. That it was is getting media attention from reliable sources (e.g. ), but I'm hesitant to boldly add it because of concerns about WP:BLP, WP:META, and the general uncertainty surrounding the RTBF. Thoughts? betafive 06:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thinking the same thing (although as of this morning, when I used Google in Europe, the article came first in the search results, so not sure of the current siuation). For those interested here is the take down notice (from https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines) Testbed (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SUBJECT also applies here. At the moment, we have no idea who submitted the "right to be forgotten" request, and the article in The Irish Independent has fallen into the trap of assuming that it was Hutch himself, when there is no evidence for this and the Wikipedia article about him is still showing up in European Google Search results. It is ridiculously unclear why this article was on the list of blocked articles sent to the Foundation. I don't think that this is notable enough to mention in the article at the moment, per WP:SUBJECT.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the RTBF is a personal right, and, as such, only Gerry Hutch or his representative could have made the request. Regardless, we don't get to second guess reliable sources. W/r/t WP:SUBJECT, I'm not sure it's applicable. What's notable isn't the article, it's the demand that Google de-list it from search results. betafive 07:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The "reliable source" of the Irish Independent is wrong here. Google is not at liberty to reveal the name of the person who made the request, the Wikimedia Foundation does not know who did, and none of the publicly available material points the finger at Hutch. It doesn't have to be Hutch, whose Wikipedia article is still being returned as the top result in a European Google search. It is ironic that the Irish Independent has done Hutch no favours by stating that he made the request, when other media outlets were more careful and saw that this was not to be inferred from the available information.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reliable source in question is the Irish Independent. You're trying to debunk an article published by a reliable source here, but that's immaterial OR. The question is whether information from that article should be included in Gerry Hutch, not whether the article is correct. betafive 07:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am refuting what a reliable source said. Some reliable sources said that Wikipedia claimed that the monkey owned the copyright on its selfie, much to Jimbo's annoyance, because Wikipedia said no such thing. Reliable sources are not infallible. The wording in the Irish Independent about Gerry Hutch is slightly unclear. If they are implying that he made the claim, it is a mistake because the workings of these requests do not allow the name of the person who made it to be released.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article does make the claim that Gerry Hutch requested the removal ("GERRY Hutch... has had information removed from Google under the 'right to be forgotten.') Can you cite a reliable source refuting that assertion? betafive 08:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also gonna drop a link to WP:TRUTH here. betafive 08:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that the Irish Independent article is now number two in the Google search results on Gerry Hutch's name. On Wednesday 6 August 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its first removal requests about the right to be forgotten. Gerry Hutch was the only English language article affected. Neither Google nor the WMF gave the media any information about who was responsible for the requests. Other media sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph and British Independent got it right, and did not attempt to state who had made the requests on the basis of this information. Whoever it was must have filled in this webform. Theoretically, it must have been a living European person mentioned by name in the article at the time. Since the Wikipedia article mentioned in the block notice, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Hutch, is still number one in a Google European search on his name, it is a contradiction to assume that it is Hutch who made the request if this is the case. However, the whole thing is so Kafkaesque that it is unclear who made the request. What is clear is that the Irish Independent overstepped the mark by stating or implying that Hutch made the request.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not at all clear. A bunch of sources state that they do not know who made the request. The Irish Independent states that it was made by Gerry Hutch. That's not even contradictory. I reiterate my request for citations to reliable sources (as opposed to original research) that contradict the II article. Failing that, I think the claim meets WP:V and is thus appropriate for inclusion. betafive 09:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only information that Google and WMF released to the media about Gerry Hutch on 6 August 2014 is here. In the real world of newsrooms, with deadlines to meet, and often staffed by interns, mistakes are made. Let's not fall into the same trap by assuming that everything in the mainstream media is checked thoroughly before publication. The Irish Independent was given the same press release material as everyone else, and misinterpreted it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of words you wrote about things you assumed, but no sources for any of it. Please let me know if you find one. 11:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betafive (talk • contribs)

Comments from other editors needed here. The Irish Independent has gone out on a limb and should not be cherry picked to prove something that other reliable sources managed to avoid saying. Unless the Irish Independent was given different information from everyone else on 6 August 2014, nobody knows who made the takedown request. This is important because it is a WMF issue, and we should not be copying errors from the mainstream media into the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still assuming that the article is in error, yet it hasn't been retracted nor is it contradicted by any other sources I can find. I once again ask you to cite your claims. betafive 11:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am assuming that the article is in error, for the good reasons given above. Mainstream media articles are not handed down on stone tablets. Anyway, why not ask the Irish Independent if this is correct, or the WMF?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As you've repeatedly pointed out, the WMF doesn't know who made the request. If the Irish Independent didn't believe their article was true, they would issue a retraction. Did you read WP:TRUTH? betafive 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the Irish Independent could possibly have known who made the request. Let me point to WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". The available evidence makes it vastly more likely that the Independent erred than that they got a confirmation by either the person who would like to be forgotten or one of the few people at Google in a position to know, who are probably all bound by confidentiality. We do have the editorial discretion to ignore obvious errors by an otherwise reliable source. Huon (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're now going round in circles on this. The Irish Independent would issue a retraction only if someone pointed out the error. Maybe The Times of India will get round to issuing a retraction for telling its readers that a monkey owned the copyright on its selfie.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to have a source to show that another source is wrong. If we have reason to believe that the source is making an unfounded claim here (which we do - it's a clear case of putting 2 and 2 together wrongly), then not only can we ignore it, but we should, particularly where BLP is relevant. It's not OR to ignore dodgy information, it's only OR to add information to an article which is not directly verifiable from a source. Formerip (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're writing off an otherwise considered reliable source as "dodgy" based on your assumptions, but we're not in the business of fact-checking the news. The claim "Gerry Hutch had information removed from Google's search indices in Europe" is verified by the source given way above. The "verification" policy requires is that claims in WP articles are supported by the source, not that the source itself is "correct." Again, please consider WP:NOTTRUTH. betafive 12:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't even read NOTTRUTH, but it's a user essay. The relevant Wikipedia policy is here: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Formerip (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different argument. Is the article facially incorrect (and if so, where are the reliable sources contradicting it?) or is the claim made by the article simply inappropriate for inclusion given WP:UNDUE? These things: they cannot both be true. betafive 17:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia policies are intended to be interpreted with a degree of common sense. Some "reliable" sources took the WMF's press release material and said that a monkey owned the copyright on its selfie (it didn't, the image is listed as public domain). From the available information, it looks like the Irish Independent has made an honest mistake. The real loser in all of this is Gerry Hutch, because a) a large amount of media attention has been drawn to a Wikipedia article that was averaging 25 views a day in July 2014, and b) at least one "reliable" source has given the impression that he made the removal request himself, when none of the publicly available information supports this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree The Independent claim should be left out until there is better evidence per BLP. There's legitimate concern The Independent might be wrong, and contrary to Betafive we are in the business of thinking for ourselves and making editorial decisions for this article. -- Green  C  14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said we weren't; please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that we're not in the business of fact checking the news, which is absolutely correct. betafive 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * True you didn't use those words but that is what is implied by "we're not in the business of fact checking the news". We fact check when there is reason to suspect there is a problem with the source. It would be correct to say we don't second guess sources without reason, just based on "I don't like it", but if there is a rationale reason to second guess the source, in particular for BLPs, we can do so. It comes down to consensus on what to do as each case is unique. -- Green  C  18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Right, I understand why some suspect the source isn't correct, but should we be privileging our suspicions over the claims made by reliable sources? Is it appropriate to second-guess sources like this in the absence of any contradictory evidence at all? For all we know, the II article may be based on information they have other than WMF and Google's press statements. betafive 18:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Before adding the controversy here, please think carefully about whether the story is actually relevant to Gerry Hutch, the person, rather than  Gerry Hutch , the Wikipedia article. There are cases that can rise to this, for example the mention of Wikipedia in John Siegenthaler - but that was a case where the subject's reputation could have been directly affected, the news media interviewed the subject and got his reaction to the story which could be quoted at length. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying: the fact that the article is removed from some searches isn't relevant to this article. However, the claim that Gerry Hutch had this article removed from Google searches-- as the II report claims-- is. In other words, "this article is removed from some Google searches" is outside the scope and fails WP:META. On the other hand, "Gerry Hutch caused the article about him at Wikipedia to be removed from some search engines" would be, as this article properly and appropriately can discuss the actions taken by its subject. betafive 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. The caveat is that most of the articles, notably excepting the one linked at the top of this section, do not claim that Hutch removed the link, but only cover that Wikipedia is squawking after receiving a notice from Google about the page.  Others point out that this page still comes up in searches from Ireland.  Given the general situation with BLP on Wikipedia I think we need to be a little skeptical of this one article, in that it seems a little strange that they say Hutch removed the link without saying that they interviewed him, which you'd think they'd crow about in the article if they'd actually done so. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But there's no one saying this article isn't true, other than skeptical Wikipedia editors. It's a pretty serious charge. Maybe the Irish Independent has an independent source for the information that they're trying to protect. betafive 23:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Claiming to know who issued that request is an extraordinary claim which would require either confirmation from the subject which doesn't want to be talked about (highly unlikely), or a leak within Google (also highly unlikely). Such an extraordinary claim would require multiple reliable sources to back it up. Huon (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wouldn't call it "extraordinary". Unfortunately, these requests are not extraordinary and can now be made rather routinely.  If there's a story in a newspaper like the one cited that simply says, "a spokesman for Hutch's law firm said that...", or any other degree of detail that would give the impression it was genuinely sourced, I'd accept it.  It's just that when I see no such detail, I think it's plausible that the paper looked at the exact same story as all the others, sourced to Google via WMF, but somebody simply forgot to consider the notion that the request could have been filed by someone else mentioned in this article. Wnt (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is what happened with Stanley O'Neal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Except, with every other source out there going to great lengths to parrot the WMF's disclaimer about not knowing who submitted the request, how could they have possibly screwed that up? betafive 11:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Such touching faith in the infallibility of the mainstream media. They managed to screw up on the monkey selfie quite well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You keep bringing up the monkey thing, but it's still beside the point. Are you claiming that the Irish Independent is not a reliable source? I'm happy to ask WP:RSN to weigh in if that's the case. betafive 12:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Betafive, in all honesty, I'm struggling to understand how you are managing to miss the point. Just because something is verifiable and/or published in what might normally considered a "reliable" source, it does not mean we are obliged to include it in the article. It seems to me really obvious and simple. And, in this case, we have information that it appears no editor believes is factually correct, which is obviously a very good reason not to include it. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not "missing the point," nor am I claiming that we're obliged to include it in the article. I also neither believe nor disbelieve the article. I'm questioning whether it's appropriate to dispute the "factual correctness" of reliable sources based on editors' assumptions. betafive 12:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, so long as it's rational, it's appropriate.
 * The source isn't even clear in the first place. "GERRY Hutch ... has had information removed from Google..." - that could plausibly mean that he asked for the removal, but compare "GERRY Hutch ... has had his car stolen." Formerip (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With this (^), I agree. It's the only real reason I haven't boldly added the II's claim to the article proper. betafive 13:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a reliable source ≠ being infallible. If Gerry Hutch did not make the removal request himself, then it is a pity that the Irish Independent source is prominent for the news stories about him in a Google search on his name. Time to give the horse a decent burial.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. Suppose another source makes the same claim. Is it still in error, or would it then meet your standard for inclusion? betafive 13:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I for one am missing the point. What is your point? Do you actually have a point about improving the article, or do you just enjoy debating hypotheticals for argument's sake? While I too enjoy a good debate, I'd say the article talk page is the wrong venue for mere hypotheticals. Huon (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Irish Independent's claim is undisputed by reliable sources. Discussion as to if and when a consensus might exist to add it to the article is obviously appropriate for this venue. betafive 22:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors may want to consider adding a link to this file if the RTBF issue is included in the article. -  t u coxn \talk 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is relevant to Hutch. The given source doesn't say he did it, and the latest rumor I heard actually said the opposite. See also WP:SUBJECT: The article should discuss Hutch, not itself. Quote: "even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself". The fact that an unknown party asked Google to remove the article from its search results (apparently only for specific search terms which do not include the name "Gerry Hutch") is irrelevant to Hutch. If "The effect of it does affect him", as Andy Dingley claimed on my talk page, please provide a reliable source explaining how it does so. Huon (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article hasn't been removed in a search on "Gerry Hutch" on google.ie or google.co.uk. It still shows up as the first result, so it seems unlikely that Hutch made the request himself. Which leaves the theory that someone else mentioned in the article made the request, and a mystery that remains unsolved. I believe that there is a WP:SUBJECT issue in mentioning this without clear evidence that Hutch was the person who made the takedown request since a) we don't know that he did, and b) the evidence suggests that he didn't. Also, per WP:TOPIC, the information would fit in better in an article about the right to be forgotten.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

September 2015 shooting
Gary Hutch, who is a nephew of Gerry Hutch, has been shot dead.. Looks like reports of Gerry's death are an exaggeration.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: reports of Gerry Hutch's death are still an exaggeration. This time, it was Eddie Hutch who was killed in an apparent gangland feud. Eddie Hutch is Gerry Hutch's brother.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Check dates
Though born in 1963, the article states that Hutch 'received many convictions between 1970 and 1983 intermittently spending time in prison.' That'd mean he started receiving conviction and/or entering prison when he was 7 ? Are we serious here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericvb (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact what the source says. He received his first conviction at age 8. Not particularly hard to believe. -- Green  C  22:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugsy Malone Gang
Re this edit: the film Bugsy Malone was not released until 1976, so Hutch cannot have joined the "Bugsy Malone Gang" in 1973. It is cited here and one possibility is that the name of the gang was coined later on by the media. Rather than inserting snarky comments into the article, it would be better to do some more research into this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree need more sourcing to clarify. The source doesn't actually say he joined the gang in 1973, though it's somewhat implied, the dates don't make sense. Seems fair to say his life of crime started at age 10 and he joined the gang sometime in the 70s. --  Green  C  13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
User:GreenC, your recent reversion is in violation of MOS:NICKNAME. This MOS states "Consider as a "common" hypocorism one that shortens in a conventionalized way, sometimes also with a diminutive suffix added, and which is derived from a name frequently used in English-speaking countries". Gerard is a commonly used name in Ireland, an English-speaking country, and Gerry is a direct hypocorism like this, so to add the nickname as you did is against the MOS. This is why Gerry Adams, Gerry Ryan and various other Gerries do not have this nickname included. I urge you to self-revert. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright it seems to be common enough convention on Wikipedia to do it that way. -- Green  C  16:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)