Jump to content

Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

FBI database

After reading this [1] bit of news earlier today, it made me think that criticisms of their computer capabilities may be deserved. Thoughts? Comments? I've read, from more than one source, that the search systems are often unable to process more than one word at a time, though I currently have no objective material to support this. Confirmation either way would also be appreciated on this factor. --AWF

If anything... it goes under Criticism. There won't be much since the FBI is usually very hush hush about it. I didn't see any news article on any of the major news sites. Got any links? -- Shane (talk/contrib) 06:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OPR - Office of Professional Responsibility

The OPR is the FBI's version of internal affairs. If anyone is knowledgeable in this area please contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuszero (talk • contribs)

I removed the section. I'll mention it in the history (a line or something) or the "Controveris" section, but it doesn't need it's own section. I don't know to much about this office so any information you can give (or when I do a search for it) would be helpful! :) --Shane (T - C - E) 14:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting Ready for Featured Article Status

In preperation for nominating this article for WP:FA I have cleaned up the talk page. I also have been hard at work expanding the article. It is getting very close to down. I have one more section to do on the history and then expand the lead paragraph and fix the order of the See Also section. I am also going to create a "navagation" box because the FBI has many sub-categories, but this won't be done untill after a possiable FA. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would aim first for Good article status. While the article has improved quite a bit, I don't think the article would pass WP:FA at this stage. There are some things missing from this article, including:
  1. Organizational structure
    1. Quantico is mentioned only in context of training; It's also home to the FBI Crime Laboratory, the Behavioral Sciences Unit, and other specialized functions.
    2. Clarksburg isn't mentioned.
    3. No mention of legal attachés
  2. References
    1. The article needs to be better referenced.
    2. The current selection of references may not reflect WP:NPOV, as six of the nine are the FBI's own website.
These are just two most obvious points that I see, which need to be addressed. (which I'm willing to help with) -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure no problem. Just been hacking away from it, trying to at least expand the page which was very small in fact before I started addiung content. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The "publications" section is also lacking. It doesn't mention the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which really is the only thing I'd consider a "publication". I would consider UCR as part of a section on "Crime statistics", which also needs to discuss the National Incident Based Reporting System. I'll try to address these problems, and we can keep working towards FA. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a red link! There needs to be something about the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which has been published for quite a long time. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My goal was to expand this article as much as possaible, and then break down and create all the other pages including the divions of the FBI, List of FBI divisions. Since most of them are published on the FBI website, I am sure I can find information to list each one of them. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good strategy. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For improvement, suggestions were given at Wikipedia:Peer review/Federal Bureau of Investigation/archive3. Some of them still apply, good work so far! :-) — Wackymacs 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we are saving the WP:LEAD for last so we get content in then we can know what we can refer to from the lead. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Still needs more expansion, see the CIA article. — Wackymacs 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
CIA for sure needs {{cleanup}}. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. — Wackymacs 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

This article needs some images, but does anyone have an ideas on what to use? --Shane (T - C - E) 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed Good Article review due to lack of complete references. I have marked some of the statements in need of citations and have listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA/Nominations, to assist in obtaining the necessary references. Kafziel 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is premature as it's only been a few days and I was getting to your cites. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearance

The ref cited states that all FBI employees have a Top Secret clearance. When I was being recruited for the FBI, the agent who interviewed me did not have an SCI clearance; he made a point of saying that my clearance was higher than his. I don't doubt that many agents are cleared TS/SCI, but not all of them are. Personal experience (original research) on either side is not an acceptable source, so at this point I've edited the statement to say that all FBI employees hold a TS clearance. Kafziel 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When was this? In my recent recruit and process, I been going through a TS/SCI clearance. Check the NSA website, they use the same clearance as the FBI and CIA. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This was in 2002. TS/SCI is specific to the job. If you don't need it, you don't have it. They may even clear you for it, but still not grant it until needed. NSA has more SIGINT jobs, which almost always necessitate an SCI clearance (that's what mine was from). Kafziel 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, all FBI positions require at least a Top Secret Security Clearance.. It doesn't say just TS and that's it. So I am going to change the wording once more. My process is going on right now as of 2006. FBI does the same SIGINT stuff that the NSA does or they would not want translators. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
At least a TS clearance means exactly that - it does not necessarily include SCI. If you don't have a reference other than your own experience, it shouldn't be there. Kafziel 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
SCI is different then TS. All FBI employees are required to have TS. Morphh 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.clearancejobs.com/index.php?action=view_job&jobID=312064 --Shane (T - C - E) 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That position is for an Intel Analyst. Yes, that would require SCI. That's not representative of every job in the FBI. Kafziel 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If I was an agent, and wanted to talk with an Intel Analyst, would they let me? I would hope so. an FBI Top Secert Clearance includes the SCI. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
FBI TS does not include SCI. Kafziel is correct. SCI is position specific. If you were required to talk to an Analyst about data that was SCI then you would have to do it with SCI cleareance in an SCI specific area. Morphh 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the FBI, all employees require a TS. As Morphh says, the SCI is an added level of clearance beyond TS. The FBI hires for numerous non-agent professional positions such as "Automotive Worker" and "Mail and File Clerk" that only get a TS clearance. Anyway, I find the wording of this sentence is unclear and not sure what point your trying to make.

"Because the FBI is the primary focus in the Federal Government..." and "...so it does not interfere with the FBI's investigations."

I suggest just delete it. -Aude (talk contribs) 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many agents also do not get SCI. It is a specific requirement. Morphh 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I will re-word it. This is a very minor technicaility on the FBI website -- I am sure it is an error -- but to discredit the possability that TS/SCI is the default cleareance is just riduculas. I am going through the SSBI process, and haivng to talk to a number of FBI agents myself that are agents, no less, all of them have TS/SCI clearance. what you said about them adding SCI clearance onto someone just so they can get a blurb is rediculous. You would be supprised on what the lowend jobs at the FBI require. I once read a report that the janitor that works at the FBI/NSA/CIA have more access than most people. Kafziel would have more clearance because of his miltary background. I don't have one so again, this is assuming he is right if it is removed. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can tell you with absolute certainty that not everyone has SCI. There is this little thing called "need to know". While it applies to TS, it is very relevant to SCI. If you don't have it, you don't have the need to know. If you require the need to know, you'll get the SCI clearance. Morphh 19:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm also not just taking about low end jobs. Many agents do not have SCI until they need it. Morphh 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded the paragraph, adding the fact that investigations are conducted by the Office_of_Personnel_Management. -Aude (talk contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article passed

Since lack of some pertinent references were all that held it back last time, I'm happy to pass this now that the problems have been fixed. Everything else looks as good as before, and the cites and prose are much improved. Nice job! Kafziel 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

YAY! :) --Shane (T - C - E) 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now it just has to be worked into WP:FA mode. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

history

Question.What was the situation/status whatever , before the FBI?What every state police was on it's whon.

Are you talking about Pre-BOI? (Before 1908?) --Shane (T - C - E) 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive Created

Moved old-stuff to archive -- Shane (talk/contrib) 07:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy-Edit

This article requires a copy edit for it to get through WP:FA. I can not do it since I am really biased and did a majority of the episode. Anyone willing to take on this task, I would give a cookie to ya! Thanks in advance! -- Shane (talk/contrib) 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Task completed. :)Shane (talk/contrib) 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

harassment of innocent people harassment of innocent people harassment of innocent people harassment of innocent people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.239.34 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criminal force

To the people who keep adding:

It has the widest sphere of authority of all federal police services in the USA, it is the classical federal (criminal) police.

is very much untrue. Stop adding it. Thanks. Shane (talk/contrib) 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


As a matter of fact, the FBI does not have the broadest investigative authority in the United States Government, nor does the U.S. Marshal's Service. Neither agency possess the authority to investigate Title 19 (Customs) issues nor full Title 8 (Immigration) and Title 31 (Bank Secrecy Act) issues. The FBI does not possess specific search authority nor stop authority beyond that of a local police force. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) most likely possess the broadest investigative authority in the U.S. government by expresly having the authority to investigate all criminal violations within the 50 Titles of U.S. Code as well as purposefully written broad stop and search authority (without warrant) anywhere within the United States (within certain guidelines and sometimes without probable cause). Another candidate agency that may possess the broadest investigatve authority withing the U.S Government might be the various military investigative agencies such as NCIS, AFOSI, or the Army CID. In addition to general federal criminal investigative powers, these agencies also possess the authority to enforce violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (an authority that neither the FBI, ICE, or USMS possess).

History

If folks are trying to get this article to FA status, it needs way more references. The history section has none for the early part and it reads like it was written by the FBI itself. It doesn't reflect the historiography of the last 30 years, most of which has been extremely critical of the FBI. Particularly Theoharis, who is mentioned in further reading, as is Richard Gid Powers. A glaring omission is Communism, which was an obsession of J. Edgar Hoover throughout his life. I'll try and do some work on this when I get a chance, but I'm not sure when that'll be so I thought I should mention it here. cheers, Bobanny 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Spending more time on this article is on my to-do list (see WP:1FAPQ#First_quarter_2007). Right now, I'm busy with some other articles, including the Gun violence in the United States article. Thank you for your peer review critiques for that article. --Aude (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I could be at the FBI Academy by the time you start. Shane (talk/contrib) 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Great -- there's probably some good sources in their library! Otherwise, I promise to start before you graduate.Bobanny 06:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt I could be considered fair then. Shane (talk/contrib) 07:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been 2 years since this conversation, and the article still reads like it was written by the FBI. What happened, guys? You said you'd write about FBI anticommunism, Bobanny. You lied to us, Bobbanny. You let us down. :( —Jemmytc 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

corruption and crimes comitted by the FBI

This is a good article. i have just a suggestion(i don't know much about the fbi) but I think adding information about cases of corruption, (I'm sure such cases exist, no police force is free of corruption) would add to the credibilty of the article. Esmehwp 12:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

hiring process

In addition to the drug test, there is a polygraph test personnel have to pass, with questions ranging from drug use and how much a person has sold in their life.

In the quote above "and" should be replaced with "to", and the "how much a person has sold in their life" should be replaced with something that makes sense.—24.210.140.97 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, be bold. Bobanny 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Espionage section?

It seems like there should be a separate section devoted to espionage. There are several cases already include in the article. Surprisingly, however, there is no mention at all of the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions -- Duquesne Spy Ring. Others might be added as well. Ctatkinson 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


FBI IN INDIA?????

Hey I got a rumor or rather heard it after the Glassgow incident that FBI is going to launch one of its centers in INDIA. Now I do not wether it is true, can anyone confirm it to me if what I heard is true or not? Sorry I could not log in this Rencin24 rencin24

Probably an Asia legat office: [2] Mmernex 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

There should be some mention of the "huge payout for men framed by FBI" in the article --Pinar 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the late additions are clearly not NPOV. Regardless of whether the allegations are true, the wording is definitely not neutral. Cerowyn (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Collection System Network

There is some interesting information at Wired about the FBI's new national wire tapping network. I think this would be worth including in the article if any FBI inclined editors have time, or it may warrant the creation of its own page as per Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, Total Information Awareness etc. Saganaki- 09:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian attack on wikipedia

In 2007 June-July when editting articles about The Red army crimes I've suffered sharp attack of red army fans and possibly russian agency hacking my pages illegaly changing their content and falsly accusing me.

user TTTURBO212.122.73.26 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith instead of sinister intentions. If you're having problems with other editors, see WP:DISPUTE for direction, or if it's blatant vandalism, WP:VANDAL. This is only the Wikipedia article on the FBI, not the actual FBI, and therefore not the place to report cyber-intrigue or vandalism. bobanny 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this locked and why?

How come you can't add to this page or article? I was going to copy-edit some parts of it. -- Audie Holmes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audie Holmes (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen "History Section". The article has been vandalized by a bunch of jackasses. 65.173.104.140 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FBI files on specific persons

is it even logically or even humanly possible for the FBI to acquire VERY personal information about a person? I haven't been the subject of an investigation but in the movies where background checks are involved they can literally get info the brand of products you use, your daily routine and even your relationship with the people around you (whether you get along well with them or not). There's even some cases where they know the character killed and when even though there was no one around to witness anything. Somehow I don't think that's even possible by a long shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch4dwick (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Backfire

Was going to insert this and/or other FBI operations, but someone locked down the article. This particular one is aimed at taking out Environmentalists and Eco-Terrorists, such as PETA, ALF, ELF, Earth First! 65.173.104.140 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FBI agents

FBI agents: There was probably trace amounts of metal toxins due to the burning of technical equipment. I think you all are correct about arsons setting the 2007 October Fires.. Note Holly Berry's ex-husband's house was one of the homes consumed. She was in Great Britian at the time-Wales I think.......Also, were the avacados part of Jamie Fox's unknown location. His avacado garden he hired people to take care of that. There was I think Spanish talk going around a few months back. I told a little girl about it..Hollywood movie stars making real movies? Somebody paid them a lot of money that is all I know. They were not very friendly to me...Wal Mart in North Carolina. -- Hanzjo 04:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Media stuff on the main page

hey this comes directly from the FBI FAQ page(this is the orginial) How accurately is the FBI portrayed in books, television shows, and motion pictures? Any author, television script writer, or producer may consult with the FBI about closed cases or our operations, services, or history. However, there is no requirement that they do so, and the FBI does not edit or approve their work. Some authors, television programs, or motion picture producers offer reasonably accurate presentations of our responsibilities, investigations, and procedures in their story lines, while others present their own interpretations or introduce fictional events, persons, or places for dramatic effect. Learn more about working with the FBI. so might this need looking at mellonmarshall

I have undone the previous edit as per this comment. I realize the concern that the previous (and now current) wording seems to have been lifted straight from the FBI FAQ page, however, the replacement wording was inadequate. Specifically, its implications that there have been times that the FBI has participated directly in its media portrayal so as to portray itself in a more positive light actually goes against the obvious intention of the wording on the FBI's own page (which attempts to distance itself from any perceived coercive or unfair participation in the media). The idea of the FBI's wording seems to attempt to portray itself as being open to assisting artists attempting to ensure the accuracy of their portrayal of the FBI, without violating any artisits' rights of portraying the FBI how they please. If there is any refutation of this sentiment, it definitely requires citation and discussion before being added to the FBI's main page. In any case, if someone would like to rewrite this section so it does not mirror the FBI's page, that's fine, but it should be done in a way that reflects the accepted view on this issue. (LPG3 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC))
I reverted back and added a reference. Much of the 1930s "war on crime" was conducted through the media, and the bureau actively cultivated the pro-FBI "G-Man" image that resulted. As for direct involvement, J. Edgar Hoover collaborated in what eventually became the Gang Busters radio program and later a TV series. The daughter article has more info. bobanny (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One or two infoboxes?

Resolved

I see that there is common infobox for all {{FBI}} related articles.

However, there is a new standard {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}} to get a consistent world view of all law enforcement agencies. For the FBI, it would look something like:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Flag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Flag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Common nameFederal Bureau of Investigation
AbbreviationFBI
MottoFidelity, Bravery, Integrity
Agency overview
FormedJuly 26, 1908; 116 years ago (1908-07-26)
Employees35,104[1] (October 31, 2014)
Annual budgetUS$8.3 billion (FY 2014)[1]
Jurisdictional structure
Federal agency
(Operations jurisdiction)		United States
Operations jurisdictionUnited States
Legal jurisdictionAs per operations jurisdiction
Governing bodyU.S. Department of Justice
Constituting instrument
General nature
Operational structure
HeadquartersJ. Edgar Hoover Building
Northwest, Washington, D.C.
Sworn members13,260 (October 31, 2014)[1]
Unsworn members18,306 (October 31, 2014)[1]
Agency executives
Child agencies
Major units
5
Field offices56 (List of FBI Field Offices)
Notables
People
Programs
Significant Operations
Website
www.fbi.gov
{{Infobox Law enforcement agency
| agencyname      = Federal Bureau of Investigation
| commonname      = 
| abbreviation    = FBI
| fictional       = 
| patch           =
| patchcaption    =
| logo            = US-FBI-Seal.svg
| logocaption     = Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
| badge           = 
| badgecaption    = 
| flag            =
| flagcaption     =
| motto           = Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity
| mottotranslated = 
| formed          = 1908
| preceding1      = 
| employees       = 30,762 ([[October 31]], [[2006]])
| volunteers      = 
| budget          = 8.7 billion [[USD]] ([[2006]])
| country         = United States
| federal         = Yes
| map             = 
| mapcaption      = 
| sizearea        = 
| sizepopulation  = 
| legaljuris      = opsjuris
| governingbody   = United States Congress
| constitution1   =
 [http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title28/partii_chapter33_.html
 United States Code Title 28 Part II Chapter 33]
| overviewtype    = 
| overviewbody    = 
| headquarters    = [[J. Edgar Hoover Building]], [[Washington, D.C.]]
| sworn           = 12,659 ([[October 31]], [[2006]])
| unsworn         = 18,009 ([[October 31]], [[2006]])
| electeetype     = 
| minister1name   = 
| minister1pfo    = [[United States Department of Justice]]
| chief1name      = [[Robert Mueller|Robert S. Mueller III]]
| chief1position  =
 [[Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation|Director]]
| chief2name      = [[John S. Pistole]]
| chief2position  =
 [[Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
|Deputy Director]]
| chief3name      = [[List of FBI Directors]]
| chief3position  = Other directors
| child1agency    = [[FBI Academy]]
| child2agency    = [[FBI Laboratory]]
| child3agency    =
 [[Criminal Justice Information Services Division
|Criminal Justice Information Services]]
| unittype        = Major unit
| unitname        =
 {{collapsible list |title=6 |[[Behavioral Analysis Unit]] (BAU)
 |[[Critical Incident Response Group]] (CIRG)
 |[[FBI Counterterrorism Division|Counterterrorism Division]] (CTD)
 |[[FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin|Law Enforcement Bulletin Unit]] (LEBU)
 |[[Hostage Rescue Team (FBI)]] (HRT)
 |[[Joint Terrorism Task Force]] (JTTF)
 |[[National Security Service (United States)
|National Security Branch]] (NSB)}}
| officetype      = Field office
| officename      = 56: [[List of FBI Field Offices]]
| stationtype     =
| stations        = 
| lockuptype      =
| lockups         = 
| vehicle1type    = 
| vehicles1       = 
| boat1type       = 
| boats1          = 
| aircraft1type   = 
| aircraft1       = 
| animal1type     = 
| animals1        = 
| person1name     = [[John Edgar Hoover]] 
| person1reason   = being the founding director
| person1type     = [[Director]]
| person2name     = [[W. Mark Felt|William Mark Felt]]
| person2reason   = [[Whistleblower|whistle blowing]]
, [[Watergate scandal]] 
| person2type     = former [[Federal Agent]]
| person3name     = [[Joseph L. Gormley|Joseph Leo Gormley]]
| person3reason   = expert testimony
| person3type     = [[Forensic Scientist]]
| programme1      = [[FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives]]
| programme2      = [[FBI Most Wanted Terrorists]]
| programme3      = [[National Incident Based Reporting System]]
| programme4      = [[Uniform Crime Reports]]
| activity1name   = [[COINTELPRO]]
| activitytype    = Operation
| anniversary1    = 
| award1          = 
| website         = http://www.fbi.gov/
| footnotes       = 
}}

What do people think about having {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}} the {{FBI}}, or having the {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}} only?

Peet Ern (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Change of direction: I have now set this up so that it can be accessed from the main article, as above, and from related articles, where it can look like:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Flag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Flag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Common nameFederal Bureau of Investigation
AbbreviationFBI
MottoFidelity, Bravery, Integrity
Agency overview
FormedJuly 26, 1908; 116 years ago (1908-07-26)
Employees35,104[1] (October 31, 2014)
Annual budgetUS$8.3 billion (FY 2014)[1]
Jurisdictional structure
Federal agency
(Operations jurisdiction)		United States
Operations jurisdictionUnited States
Legal jurisdictionAs per operations jurisdiction
Governing bodyU.S. Department of Justice
Constituting instrument
General nature
Operational structure
HeadquartersJ. Edgar Hoover Building
Northwest, Washington, D.C.
Sworn members13,260 (October 31, 2014)[1]
Unsworn members18,306 (October 31, 2014)[1]
Agency executives
Child agencies
Major units
5
Field offices56 (List of FBI Field Offices)
Notables
People
Programs
Significant Operations
Website
www.fbi.gov

Peet Ern (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just update the {{FBI}} template with the static one. I don't like the one with the collapsible bar. Shane (talk/contrib) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done Peet Ern (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More discussion: There is now a much better version available. On related pages, instead of just the name of the agency and the hide/show appearing, now the snapshot infobox always displays the header information including one image if one is available, and collapses the rest of the information.

What do people think ?

Peet Ern (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Good job! Shane (talk/contrib) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Shane. Peet Ern (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
PS According to your user page you are not wikiing any more ? I went there yesterday to let you know explicitly about this new version, but there seemed no point . . .
Not "full time". I don't want any contact on my pages, but I keep in touch with what I have worked with so in-case I am needed and any watched page. My goal is to have this FA'ed by August 08. Shane (talk/contrib) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The new template seems to have been accepted. It has now been normalised to its 'main' and 'related' presentations.  Done Peet Ern (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving Federal Bureau of Investigation to FBI. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#10 May 2008. Brian Jason Drake 05:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My reason is (as noted on Wikipedia:Requested moves): The organization is almost exclusively referred to using the abbreviation (Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things). Brian Jason Drake 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise oppose, just like the proposed move/rename of Central Intelligence Agency. To be consistent, there would have to be similar proposals for National Security Agency and a host of other U.S. intelligence community agencies, which I would likewise oppose. Plausible to deny (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Oppose. Shane (talk/contrib) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a recent similar move request (but in reverse) was made at Talk:BBC. Also mentioned were ITV, CNN, NBC, HBO, RTL, NASA, FIFA, and UEFA standing at their abbreviations. — AjaxSmack 01:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose --CapitalR (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FA Comments

We should really get all the project involved with this article as the 100th birthday is coming up in August. So lets get this thing good so it can be an FA in the next few months. Shane (talk/contrib) 05:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Shane (talk/contrib) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep! I'm interested. AdjustShift (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar Agencies

I think that the list of similar agencies needs to be reviewed. The New Zealand S.I.S for example, which is currently listed, is nothing like the FBI. Rather it is an intelligence agency, analagous to the C.I.A or Mossad. The New Zealand Police handle the kind of matters that the FBI does in the United States and accordingly I have changed it to show as such. If a reference is needed simply look at the Nz police website at www.police.govt.nz Ilusiv (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the intention of including the NZ SIS is to reflect the FBI's counter-espionage role, a job handled by intelligence agencies in most countries. For instance, the list also includes Canada's CSIS, which is strictly an intelligence organization. Cerowyn (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another agency that should be added is National Bureau of Criminal Investigatin (NBCI) in Ireland. It is the same kind of thing just on a smaller scale. wiki already has a page on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannym1991 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Valid IP edit of FBI template ?

Can someone who knows a bit about the FBI review this edit please. Peet Ern (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. ninety:one 22:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Peet Ern (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Armored Vehicle in Photo

Maybe a small detail but I wanted to help. The 'Armored Vehicle' in this picture "Fbi Tactical.jpg" appears to be a MRAP. I would suggest changing the text to read: FBI agents from the Washington Field Office with one of the MRAP tactical vehicles they had standing by for the 2009 Presidential Inauguration --71.231.240.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

He FBI itself

It helps a lot of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.125.133 (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu

Can the Swine Flu be created in a lab? My reason for asking this question is because of what I heard about some terriost or someone said that thay had a suprise or something to that effect for America. I remember what Niketa Krushave said "We will destroy you from within", maybe someone is using that technique on us now. Why does all Indian stores have the big antennas on top of they business? I assume that these thing have been considered by the US I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.143 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism point

Under the part about Robert Hanssen, the last part about the Promis system being acquired by bin Laden and helping him evade US authorities is ridiculously far-fetched, and the article used as a citation makes some assumptions that anyone with basic technical inclination would find absurb (though it could mislead people without a technical orientation). For example, it claims that the software may have been used to bin Laden to access FBI databases and view their progress in tracking him or his financial transactions. Besides the obvious problems in whether this software could've made its way from Russian intelligence to one of their most public enemies in Afghanistan, it doesn't even attempt to touch on the issue of authentication that would be needed along with the software to access any of the FBI's systems. If this truely needs to be in the FBI article, I think we should recategorize this entry into the Conspiracy Theories category as this point is more in tune with the Fake Moon Landing article than any objective view of US law enforcement.

169.253.4.21 TH

moving unsigned misc. comment from the top of the page

The preface "Bold text The FBI Protects us every day. This is my first admendment right. Do not delete." I suspect was not intended for: A. Citizens of the United States B. Was intended for the article itself.

Org structure

I modified the organizational structure of the FBI to reflect how it actually exists. There is no Administration Branch; those functions are directly under the Director's Office. Also, there was a reorganization after 9/11 to create the Human Resources Branch and Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. Also, in 2008, the Office of the CIO was renamed the Information and Technology Branch to fit more in line with the rest of the Bureau. I also added the blurb right above the org breakdown which describes how executive management is performed (EADs run branches, ADs run offices/divisions under branches, etc.). I think this is fairly important to understand the branch breakout. Feel free to make changes to my wording because I admit that I'm not the best author. Sam (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Who does the FBI report to.

It may be that I missed it, but I did not see any statement that the FBI is administered by the Justice Department.

It also may be good to discuss the operational control chain of command and the administrative chain in various situations. If you read the FBI web site, it sounds more like an homage to the Director than anything else. It does not say we take orders from A, we tell B about a terrorist plot and so on.

Fred (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Secret police

Please provide some reliable sources that state the FBI was a secret police organisation, and also compare it with the other articles in that category. It didn't even approach the level of those. ninety:one 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.

Here are my concerns with this article:

  • There are six dead links, which include: 39, 38, 11, 24, 22, and 30. Also the ODMP link in the external links section is dead.
  • The "National Incident Based Reporting System" sub section has no in-line citations.
  • The Hiring Process sub section has two in-line citations, there should be more.
  • The "BOI and FBI directors" sub section also has no in-line citations.
  • The Organization section is sparsely referenced, as is the History section, including a [citation needed] on since April 2008.
  • The Lead is very undeveloped. This needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead is to be a summary of the entire article, touching on all aspects of the article in a summary fashion. The lead in this article is significantly lacking.

It is shame to delist this article as it should be a Good article, but considering the amount of work that needs to be done especially on the referencing. I don't see any other option. Please fully reference the article, fix the dead links, and expand the lead and renominate at WP:GAC. H1nkles (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Felt

Under "Notable People", Mark Felt is listed with a "citation needed" tag next to him. Since he was Deep Throat, is that really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.1.57 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FBI as "internal intelligence agency"

In the intro sentence, I'm confused by the word "internal".

Does it mean that the FBI gathers intelligence regarding USA citizens? But that'd be redundant, since by definition, that's what a "federal criminal investigative body" always does. Or does it mean that the FBI gathers intelligence regarding non-USA citizens who are inside the USA? Or regarding USA citizens who are allegedly linked to foreign threats?

One more idea: Might "internal" refer to investigation of activities inside the USA government? I'd avoid replacing "internal" with "domestic", as that is also ambiguous. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm a bit stumped. Any ideas? NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, it defends the internal security of the US from both domestic and foreign threats, and acts as an intelligence gathering organisation within the country —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackharman (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dheeraj, 7 August 2010

Please add the recent controversy where in FBI raised issues against usage of its logo on Wikipedia.

FBI has recently come to stand against the use of its LOGO on Wikipedia. The FBI says that the presence of its seal on the site is “particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations of restrictions by Wikipedia users.”

Wikipedia’s counsel recognizes that there are restrictions in place regarding the display of the seal, but that “the enactment of [these laws] was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognisable assertion of authority with intent to deceive.” Source: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/03/and-now-the-fbi-has-a-bone-to-pick-with-wikipedia/ ````Dheeraj Agarwal 59.164.0.70 (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, see the above discussion. This is mentioned in Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but is not strictly relevant here per WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done SORT OF: Your comment exists on this discussion page. When there is resolution and consensus, then it may be added. Right now there is no consensus. It is unclear to me what the default is. In Wikipedia, must there be consensus to add it? Or to keep it out? The consensus page suggests an algorithm of bold edits then discuss then compromise by a different edit then repeat and repeat. I am not involved anymore in this discussion except a rank ordering of different possible controversies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

Xeno removed a controversy sub-section. I propose that, with every article, we consider all controversies and then put in the article the ones that consensus feels is the most important. Sort of rank ordering them to decide. When writing the article, we don't have to say 1, 2, 3 but when considering them in the talk page, we should sort of distinguish really big ones. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible inclusions

  • In March 1971, a Media, Pennsylvania FBI resident office was robbed; the thieves took secret files and distributed them to a range of newspapers including the Harvard Crimson.[2] The files detailed the FBI's extensive COINTELPRO program, which included investigations into lives of ordinary citizens—including a black student group at a Pennsylvania military college and the daughter of Congressman Henry Reuss of Wisconsin.[2] The country was "jolted" by the revelations, and the actions were denounced by members of Congress including House Majority Leader Hale Boggs.[2] The phones of some members of Congress, including Boggs, had allegedly been tapped.[2]
  • In the early 1980s, Senate hearings were held to examine FBI undercover operations in the wake of the Abscam controversy, which had allegations of entrapment of elected officials. As a result in following years a number of guidelines were issued to constrain FBI activities.
  • In the early and late 1990s, its role in the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents caused an uproar over the killings.
  • During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, the FBI was also criticized for its investigation on the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. It has settled a dispute with Richard Jewell, who was a private security guard at the venue, along with some media organizations,[3] in regards to the leaking of his name during the investigation. In the 1990s, it turned out that the fingerprint unit of the FBI's crime lab had repeatedly done shoddy work. In some cases, the technicians, given evidence that actually cleared a suspect, reported instead that it proved the suspect guilty. Many cases had to be reopened when this pattern of errors was discovered.
  • In 2000, the FBI began the Trilogy project to upgrade its outdated information technology (IT) infrastructure. This project, originally scheduled to take three years and cost around $380 million, ended up going far over budget and behind schedule.[4] Efforts to deploy modern computers and networking equipment were generally successful, but attempts to develop new investigation software, outsourced to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), were a disaster. Virtual Case File, or VCF, as the software was known, was plagued by poorly defined goals, and repeated changes in management.[5] In January 2005, more than two years after the software was originally planned for completion, the FBI officially abandoned the project. At least $100 million (and much more by some estimates) was spent on the project, which was never operational. The FBI has been forced to continue using its decade-old Automated Case Support system, which is considered woefully inadequate by IT experts. In March 2005, the FBI announced it is beginning a new, more ambitious software project code-named Sentinel expected for completion by 2009.[6]
  • Carnivore was an electronic evesdropping software system implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the Clinton administration that was designed to monitor email and electronic communications. After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before. The Associated Press reported in mid-January 2005 that the FBI essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in 2001, in favor of commercially available software, such as NarusInsight.
  • In February 2001, Robert Hanssen was caught selling information to the Russians.
  • The 9/11 Commission's final report on July 22, 2004 stated that the FBI and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were both partially to blame for not pursuing intelligence reports which could have prevented the September 11, 2001 attacks. In its most damning assessment, the report concluded that the country had "not been well served" by either agency and listed numerous recommendations for changes within the FBI.[7] While the FBI has acceded to most of the recommendations, including oversight by the new Director of National Intelligence, some former members of the 9/11 Commission publicly criticized the FBI in October 2005, claiming it was resisting any meaningful changes.[8]
  • On July 8, 2007 the Washington Post published excerpts from UCLA Professor Amy Zegart's book Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11.[9] The article reported that government documents show the CIA and FBI missed 23 potential chances to disrupt the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
  • A March 2007 report by the inspector general of the Justice Department described the FBI's "widespread and serious misuse" of national security letters, a form of administrative subpoena used to demand records and data pertaining to individuals. The report said that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI had issued more than 140,000 national security letters, many involving people with no obvious connections to terrorism.[10]
  • The National Academy of Sciences conducted an 18-month independent review of comparative bullet lead analysis. In 2003, its National Research Council published a report calling into question 30 years of FBI testimony.

As a result of the 60 Minutes/Washington Post investigation in November 2007, (two years later) the bureau said it will identify, review, and release all of the pertinent cases, and notify prosecutors about cases in which faulty testimony was given.[11]


  • In July 2007, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Boston found the bureau helped convict the four men of the March 1965 gangland murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan. The U.S. Government was ordered to pay $100 million in damages to the four defendants.[12]
  • In August 2010, the FBI contacted Wikipedia and requested the FBI seal be taken off or changed into a lower resolution image of it, because of their fear of people copying the seal and impersonating FBI agents. Wikipedia's lawyers refused to do so writing a letter that CNN characterized as "whimsical".[13]
One editor requests that we temporarily (for a few days) not discuss this in this controversies discussion, which is geared to deciding the top controversies of the FBI from its origin to 2009. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There's not one of these controversies that shouldn't be included in the article - except for the logo flap, which is only important to us. Controversy sections are a bad format but deleting their contents is far worse. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just put in 15 minutes of machete-work on the controversies and criticism section. It's not gone, but I've moved some parts to obvious places in the main article. I'll see how this goes over here. Dealing with the residuum is going to be difficult because the article is currently arranged in a strange way, where the existing categories are limited by both decade and activity. I think it may be necessary to greatly change this scheme, laying out the different historical activities according to (perhaps) approximately the existing organizational subdivisions of the FBI, or else giving them strictly decade-based titles that don't limit the scope of each section. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
After a second look, I finished carving up the controversy section (though I've left part as a controversy sub-section "evidence processing controversies" under Infrastructure. These were structural revisions, and so far I've omitted doing some major condensation on sections like the bullet-lead controversy which has its own article and should be summarized. But the biggest problem with integration now is simply that lots of material is missing. For example, we have a couple of controversies about processing fingerprints and bullet lead, but no comprehensive list of the techniques the FBI routinely uses. The "Notable persons" section should also be deleted, but only after the History section is expanded to include information about each of these people and the broader context of their involvement. I hope that removing this "POV fork" within the article will help people address these major omissions. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I think these should remain in chronological order. I think that the Wikipedia logo use row should not be included in this article (it is fine at FBI seal), unless it grows feet and escapes the 24-hour news cycle. –xenotalk 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Chronological ordering is fine. The question this section deals with is not the written order but what is most important. We may find that a minor controversy in 1935 is not important. Fine. We may find that a minor controversy in 1945 is not minor. Fine. And then fit it in between the 1940 and 1950 controversy. This discussion is to decide on the most important controversies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I misunderstood/misread (I thought you wanted them ordered by importance). –xenotalk 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with Xeno. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This should not be added here at the moment, it is suitable in Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
...and FWIW that little blurb doesn't even speak to criticism of FBI, it criticizes Mike Godwin. –xenotalk 15:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's step back from the seal controversy (for this section) and decide on the others. The seal discussion can be held in other sections of talk. Ok? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I nominate the Hansson controversy as a "must include", one of the most important ones. I also nominate the FBI-Martin Luther King controversy, which is not listed. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html and also many google articles about the same topic. I temporarily recuse myself from the current WP controversy as far as deciding whether it is important, at least for a few days. I'm not sure if Abscam is in the top 3 or 4 controversies but haven't decided if it is still big enough for inclusion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I nominate the July 8, 2007 event (Washington Post article on a book) as the most insignificant controversy of the list and also undue weight to keep it in. If the CIA and FBI missed 23 changes to stop 9/11, they missed 90,000 chances to stop car thefts and bank robberies. The event is just someone's book and might be suitable for their book article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row

I think this warrants a mention: Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row. → AA (talk) — 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Beat me by like 30 seconds! I don't think it warrants a mention. I'm sure the FBI sends out lots of similar letters and there's no telling where this complaint will go. It's very insignificant relative to the other information contained within the article.Lord of the Ping (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Can add it to the "press" at the top of the talk page. (Change it to a {{pressmulti}}) –xenotalk 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the sort of thing that would only ever be included because the content appears on Wikipedia, and so it should be left out. A one-time back and forth between the FBI and the WMF is just not significant enough to be mentioned. Nathan T 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Interesting news, but not weighty enough to be included in the article-proper. –xenotalk 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; unneeded in the article itself. But let us note here the Wikimedia Foundation's reply to the FBI. 159.54.62.79 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It's something of interest in this discussion page (the first place I came to, to check it was indeed here) but not of wide enough interest at the moment for the main article. It's trivia. Truthmonkey (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and adequately covered (with ref to NY Times article, F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law linking to both FBI's & WikiMedia Foundation's letters) in more relevant WP article, Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Latter letter has fine explanation of ejusdem generis -- which WP appropriately redirects to statutory interpretation. Fun story, but I wish the vandals would stop playing with the logo on this article. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering whats up with the FBI seal in this article when I view it - I understand that there is an issue with it's use at the moment; when I go onto the "/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation" page, I see the full, proper seal at the top of the page. When I go to "/FBI", I see the "redirected from FBI" at the top, except the seal has been replaced with "File:Fbilogofix.png". Are there conflicting versions of this page? I'm no expert at this kinda stuff - just wondering why sometimes I see the seal, and other times I see the scribbled out version!! WillDow (Talk) 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody is being a dick by adding the scribbled out version. As for inclusion in the article, although WP:NOTNEWS applies, it depends on the amount of media coverage. This has picked up a good deal of coverage, and may be worth mentioning.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just would like to point out that Wikipedia is not censored and the FBI does not seem to have a legal basis for their cease and desist letter. Therefore taking the logo down is contrary to policy. Please restore it promptly. User_Talk:maxgorcowski 11:25, 3 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.112.23 (talk)

It's there as of this writing. –xenotalk 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a seperate thread of this conversation on the image discussion page here. Some thing (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another article discussing the incident at New York Times. This also showed up on Fark.com, where there is no shortage of opinions about the legalities and all. And as of this edit, the image is in the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Response in the BBC article are worth quoting:
In response, the lawyer for Wikipedia - Mike Godwin - wrote back to the bureau saying that there was a big difference between the words "problematic" and "unlawful". "The enactment of [these laws] was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognisable assertion of authority with intent to deceive. "The seal is in no way evidence of any 'intent to deceive', nor is it an 'assertion of authority', recognisable or otherwise," he wrote. Mr Godwin claimed that the FBI letter sent to Wikipedia omitted key words, which changed the interpretation of the law. "We are compelled as a matter of law and principle to deny your demand for removal of the FBI Seal from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons," said Mr Godwin adding that the firm was "prepared to argue our view in court." k.Some thing (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants a mention in the article, unless they take the matter further. Although in that eventuality I suspect that office actions would apply for obvious reasons. --WFC-- 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Proposed Move of Conversation; (apologies for not taking wikietiquete) This Conversation concerns an image on wikipedia that exists on many other articles besides this one. i propose moving the Conversation to the image file discussion page for sake of assessing the role of the image itself on wikipedia. (notice the title of this discussion) Some thing (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    This particular discussion concerns whether to mention the disagreement about the image between the FBI and Wikipedia in this article. It is not whether or not the image (itself) should be used in this article, or what-have-you - which can be done on a case-by-case basis. Also, the image is not even hosted here, it's on the Commons. –xenotalk 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict with Xeno saying the same thing): Further discussion of whether the image should be hosted on Wikimedia (or reduced in quality, etc.) belongs at Commons. Discussion of whether this incident should be mentioned in this article belongs here, as does discussion of whether the image should be used on this page. Either way, there's no need to move the existing discussion anywhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I called the FBI to see whether there was a journalistic story here. I had an interesting chat with a spokesperson about the FBI's view, but he basically re-iterated the claims they made in the letter. My sense of the matter, from my own experience, is that this is akin to a trademark letter (note, sigh, "AKIN TO", I didn't say it WAS such a letter), where an organization has someone send out a legal nastygram so that they're covered bureaucratically against any negatives. At a meta-level, if the Wikimedia Foundation didn't cave in immediately, knowing how they work, I suspect the Wikimedia Foundation is certain they'll never have to go to court over it. Oh, in my view, this is way too trivial to warrant mention in the FBI article, that'd be pure WP:NAVELGAZING. (Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Though I hope it doesn't come to this, if they do go to court it'll be interesting to hear the FBI go on record as to exactly why they decided now to go after Wikipedia when, as far as I understand, the logo has been on the Wikipedia servers and, presumably, the article, for more than half a decade. Did somebody "just notice"? CNN.com's report cites a representative of Reddit as speculating as to whether the FBI might have WP confused with Wikileaks... 68.146.81.123 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I specifically asked about the why-now issue. The spokesperson said they got a report, so they acted. That's pretty common with trademark-type letters. I think the really interesting thing would be finding out who sent in that report, but I was sure the FBI was not going to tell me that. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If this was for anything else, i.e. something that did not make the news and brought people to the site and/or something that did not allow you all to cry "censorship!", the image would have been taken down already. Believe me, I've tried in the past to put up a photo for which Wikipedia did not have permission (this was before I knew the rules) and it was removed within hours. Just take it down. You don't have permission. End of story. 137.222.231.37 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really not. There's a difference of opinion between the FBI and Wikimedia's counsel on the relevant law. As far as we (and the Foundation's lawyer) can tell, the image doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies or American laws. Your experience with images which (presumably) did violate Wikipedia's policies isn't relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I understand both sides of the argument; it's just that in my opinion (this is a 'discussion' page) it is easiest if it is taken down. It just seems polite and reasonable, based on a request by the subject of the article which happens to own the intellectual property rights to the image. Is that okay for me to say on this 'discussion' page? Also, as a separate point, please do not conflate Wikimedia's counsel with everyone who uses Wikipedia - you seem to have divided this into a 'you' (i.e. me) and 'we' (you, Wikimedia's counsel and, implicitly, all right-thinking users of this website) situation. Remember that the users and/or editors of Wikipedia are all different people and as such have different views - if that were not the case, there'd be no need for these discussion pages. It is possible for a user/editor to have a different view to that of the owner/host of Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia, just as it is possible for users/editors to have the same view (which I respect, though happen to disagree with). 137.222.231.37 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I disagree with your opinion, but I'll support your right to express it here. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the FBI is an agency of the United States federal government, and many (but not all) of the intellectual property of the federal government is automatically, de jure, public domain. What you're referring to above about permissions is the issue of licensing, but that is generally moot when it comes to IP owned by the fed. There appears to be no dispute that the licensing issue is not relevant in this case. Nathan T 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think there may be a licensing-like issue here. That is, not a trademark issue itself, this not being a trademark, but a similar type of issue, where the way one thinks about trademarks and copyrights has relevance to the case. That is, there may be a fair-use legal right analog, but Wikipedia's own policies often consider downstream issues, and getting permission is laudable, etc. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove the FBI Logo unless you want us to land on you like a ton of Bricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's "us"? Do you expect us to believe that the FBI, having failed to achieve its goal via official channels, would try to get the logo removed via anonymous threats on the talk page? (On the other hand, the original request was so stupid that perhaps this is plausible.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be careful of blithely saying "the original request was so stupid" - these things happen :-) --- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
IP Information - 80.1.250.215
IP address:                     80.1.250.215
Reverse DNS:                    cpc3-nfds13-2-0-cust726.8-2.cable.virginmedia.com.
Reverse DNS authenticity:       [Verified]
ASN:                            5089
ASN Name:                       NTL (NTL Group Limited)
IP range connectivity:          9
Registrar (per ASN):            RIPE
Country (per IP registrar):     GB [United Kingdom]
Country Currency:               GBP [United Kingdom Pounds]
Country IP Range:               80.0.0.0 to 80.7.255.255
Country fraud profile:          Normal
City (per outside source):      London, England
Country (per outside source):   UK [United Kingdom]
Private (internal) IP?          No
IP address registrar:           whois.ripe.net
Known Proxy?                    No
Link for WHOIS:                 80.1.250.215
Source http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall/?tool_id=67&token=&toolhandler_redirect=0&ip=80.1.250.215
Probably not the FBI. 128.104.255.12 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point, well made. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We should remove the logo. What's the big deal? It will only get Wikipedia in hot water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Razor (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not violating any laws and is not going to get in "hot water". See the discussions above. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The water is at the most tepid, and removing the image at this stage would raise, not lower, its temperature. The FBI's request has been handled at the WP:OFFICE level; there's really no need for editors here to worry about it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Josiah Rowe. There is no need to inflame matters. I suspect that when the posturing of both sides is over, the Wikimedia Foundation will quietly seek, and be quietly granted, the authorization necessary to be in compliance with the relevant law. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We should remove the logo anyways. It doesn't really serve a purpose other than adding weight to the page. That way all parties are happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Razor (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing that would just cause even more "CENSORSHIP!" drama. If you really care, just write to the FBI requesting authorization for use of the logo in the article. That way, everyone will be even happier. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a moot point, given that Wikimedia Foundation has already responded to the FBI here --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, it's not moot - the FBI says WMF is not authorized, WMF says not need permission - but that doesn't stop anyone from asking for permission. Now that I think about it, there might be an internal-Wikipedia-policy licensing question here, which then goes back to the WMF's position. Relying on WMF's letter might not be the greatest idea for downstream users. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe it has already been made clear that the FBI is not giving permission, but ask away if you think that's relevant. In my opinion, editors here on Wikipedia are right to rely on WMF's legal response to the FBI's cease and desist demand, hence 18 USC 701 is a moot point. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is clear at all that the FBI would not give permission. As far as I know, nobody has asked. For many reasons, it would be extremely impolitic for me to ask for permission on behalf of Wikimedia. However, for someone who wishes to do something to be diplomatic per above, my suggestion is not to pre-emptively remove the image, but to try to get permission. Again, though, there might be a policy/licensing issue here, somewhat like trademark fair-use (tedious note - I didn't say this WAS a trademark fair-use issue, I said SOMEWHAT LIKE that). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, Wikipedia doesn't need the FBI's permission to include the logo so discussions about seeking permission are moot. Maybe there is someone else who would like to discuss that issue with you further. With regard to the discussions taking place in this thread, the dispute between the FBI and Wikimedia Foundation revolves around 18 USC 701 which is a criminal statute and hence bears little connection to civil licensing issues. --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@Seth The fact that there is a downstream issue here, is addressed by the fact that like most of our Insignia, seals, medals and coats of arms images, this image carries a warning template on its description page, that additional laws besides copyright might apply and limit the legal use of the image. There are so many of these kinds of laws in the world, we can't protect everyone from everything. Don't use the image to print your own badges, if you do, you're an idiot, but it's not our fault. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As an American tax payer, who fronts the bills for this wasteful and useless organization who has outlived it's relevancy. You have my god damned permission to use a symbol of an organization that I pay for every year out of my overbloated income taxes. Feel free to use the CIA or ATF or the Department of the Treasury as well. You have my permission as an overburdened tax payer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.47.30 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm just realised that Britannica Online Encyclopedia has removed the seal from the FBI article. No comments.--Ben.MQ (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From the article perhaps, but it is still in their media gallery. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
And have you played with the magnifier tool in the gallery pic? Wiki needs one of those! 122.200.166.202 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole matter is silly. If the FBI really cared about the matter, then why would it put the seal where it could be grabbed and put on wikipedia?--205.215.88.178 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A 2000px image was not easily "grabbed". Not just anybody can extract the image from a Homeland Security PDF like it was extracted in this case.Bdell555 (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That's so easy to do that you are just not credible. Sophos II (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The FBI has chosen to contact office directly. Hence, unless office determines that it needs to be removed, there is no need to remove it. This is a situation were the editors can sit back and wait what happens at the higher levels before anything needs to be done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from a few anonymous users who disagree, that's what most editors who've commented here think as well. At least, there seems to be a general consensus that the image should stay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I HIGHLY CONCUR that the image should remain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its breadth and accuracy of content have been recently compared to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. That it's mere logo should be so hotly contested not only raises serious questions as to why the U.S. Government is trying to slam a lid on what has arguably become one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias of all time, but their (the FBI's)actions along these lines raises serious questions as to their effective and efficient use of our taxpayer dollars. Is this really the sort of activity we expect from our millions of taxpayer dollars? I don't think so!

Good grief - this response is cartoon-characterish, at best. Please, stop! The cold war has been over for nearly two decades. This reaction by the FBI over an encyclopedia's use of its symbol as an entry portraying the organization itself is utterly insane!

FBI: Please grow up. Technology changes, including that of encyclopedias. We no longer "notch our arrows." We simply post replies such as this on various websites, which, by the way, have already been forwarded to (prior to my hitting the "Save page" button) to Congress. Please knock it off! And yes, I swore the same oath to our Constitution as you did, so don't think for a second I'm "feeling for 'ya." My oath is to our Constitution - I sincerely hope you're adhering to your oath on this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.190 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I learned of this situation on a Facebook advert which read "FBI threatens Wikipedia -- The FBI has threatened legal action if Wikipedia doesn’t remove their seal from its site. Read more at CNN Tech." Seriously? Even if the present seal was deemed to be inappropriate, another one can easily be taken off other documents which the FBI has put into public domain. IMHO, I'm guessing the FBI has too many lawyers on staff, and too little actual work to do. no? CaribDigita (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IT'S PUBLIC DOMAIN. Everything the US government creates (unless classified to be kept secret)(or needing special protection like paper dollars) automatically falls into the public domain, per Congressional law. Which makes logical sense. The taxpayers paid for government documents/seals/et cetera - the end product belongs to the people who provided the money. It belongs to the public, without restriction. ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Change the picture to an actual seal

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Common nameFederal Bureau of Investigation
AbbreviationFBI

Humour alert! The following is not to be taken seriously!

I think this would be the perfect solution - truth in advertising and all that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Calling in the ROFL Chopter! Thanks for the laugh! --ANowlin: talk 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Made my day even better :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just replace the FBI logo with a low-res version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.255.28 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the one offered on the official FBI page has a very very low resolution picture that we could possibly use. Stuntman crow (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Solidarity!

Here's my little tribute of solidarity with WP on this matter: http://robertcargill.com/2010/08/03/wikipedia-wants-the-seal-even-without-the-fbis-seal-of-approval/ Anyone else? --XKV8R (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


JUST THE FACTS, M'AM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.35.192 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FBI LOGO

What is the big fucken deal? They said we can use a picture of it that is in public domain. Should I change it to a picture? Good?--Bigbadcar (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

“When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty.” Change nothing. You don't have to appease the bully. And... if they're not down with that? Wikipedia's attorneys have two words for 'em. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.115.176 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the FBI seal should be a featured picture for a day. I wonder how the FBI will react to that? ;D -BluWik (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at T:TDYK as a Main Page "did you know" item, which is the next best thing... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
great idea! they should make it today's featured article. :) --XKV8R (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And thereby prove that Wikipedia is not, in fact, neutral but is an activist entity? If the agenda is advancing knowledge in a neutral way this suggestion would have come up before on its own merits.Bdell555 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The FBI could suck my beep if they want to remove the seal! We pay for taxs, they should let us use it. Right?--Bigbadcar (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! The FBI should be focusing on catching the criminals like Osama Bin Laden, not trying to take down a pointless FBI seal, where you can see hundreds of them on Google Images anyways... -BluWik (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The FBI has no authority to act internationally; they cannot lift a finger against bin Laden unless he comes to the United States. Powers T 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"The FBI should be focusing on catching the criminals like Osama Bin Laden, not trying to take down a pointless FBI seal, where you can see hundreds of them on Google Images anyways..." -BluWik (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was the CIA's job. In any case, you're right, they should be busy finding domestic criminals and investigating our outbreaks of violent unsolved murders. Johngagon (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest news on FBI threat to wikipedia

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/03/fbi.seal.wikipedia/index.html?iref=obnetwork&wom=false#fbid=j7W_wOFxNuw Hassanfarooqi (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste from seal image: Why FBI is wrong

"This image is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."

D'oh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.230.112 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about copyright however, so you are wrong too. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FBI logo spam on video games

The kicker is that previously the spamming of this logo in computer arcade games was mandated in the so-called "Winners Don't Use Drugs" program. Is it the FBI's position that the widely reviled graphic linked in that article, once mandatory, is now forbidden, with not so much as a shift in underlying law? Wnt (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The FBI had granted explicit permission (and requirement of it) trough FBI director William S. Sessions. We do not have an official permission from an FBI director (the only one able to grant such permissions) to use the seal. (that does not make usage illegal per se btw.) Wether or not such a thing is logical is another thing all together. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
hi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.249.237 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Controversy

Should the recent incident with the FBI and the use of the seal on Wikipedia be included? It is a pretty important incident, and if Wikipedia isn't biased and isn't afraid to write about themselves, then they should include it. -BluWik (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is covered in Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but has WP:TOPIC issues here at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, in the discussion above and below there's a fairly broad consensus that this isn't important enough in the scope of the FBI's 102-year history to mention here. As Ianmam says, the seal brouhaha is mentioned, appropriately, at Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we seek a compromise

Some people, particularly Americans, make up their mind and refuse to change it. They will then go through expensive legal battles just to "prove" that they are right.

A possible compromise is to consider each situation individually. In the case of the FBI, we might take down the seal but state in the talk page that editing out the seal does not constitute endorsement of the FBI legal position.

Joke: Better yet, take down the FBI seal as punishment for their "legal threat". We can't ban them because they are not a user, but we can certainly "punish" them by removing the seal!

Wikipedia has been dragged in the mud as the WP lawyer's letter was called "whimsical" by the CNN. Let us not prolong it. We can remove it and see how the article looks.

On the other hand, we could consider fighting a huge legal battle, collect donations from all users so that we can hire Skadden Arps to fight in every court possible.

Frankly, I see no huge benefit from having an FBI seal. I see having a photo of the headquarters are editorially more beneficial to the article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, Suomi, if you think that the CNN article's characterization of Mike Godwin's letter as "whimsical" amounts to dragging Wikipedia through the mud, I think you're misunderstanding how that word is used in English. The tone of the CNN article merely noted — appropriately — that the letter contained more humor than is customary in such proceedings. There's nothing negative in that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Another possibility is to keep it here to "prove" that Wikipedia is tough then remove it on September 1. The FBI will be mad but after 9/1 think they won. WP will think they won. Win-win. If we want we can bring it back again on 1/1/2011.
Also, we MUST consider that the OFFICE (WP administration) is just defending WP's alleged right to use it, not whether or not a specific edit should be put in or not (if they did that would be Wikipedia, not FBI, censorship). The OFFICE does not edit and decide how to write things. WP consensus is very much against the OFFICE telling editors what to do, witness the Jimbo deletion of porn images and the controversy among editors. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is nonsense. When the Internet Watch Foundation got itself into a flap over Virgin Killer in December 2008, it failed to take into account that the image is widely available in a Google search. The same is true with the FBI seal, so even if Wikipedia took down the image, all those nefarious forgers would still have little difficulty in finding the image elsewhere on the Internet. This has become a good example of the Streisand effect, because the FBI has called attention to something that few people cared about before this week.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The FBI made a request. We should carefully consider it. The legal office in Wikipedia can decide if we are allowed to put it in but editors decide how to edit and are not dicatated to by the legal office, except to strongly consider WP's legal office's interpretation of the law. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
From a strictly editorial perspective, I think the FBI seal belongs as the lead image. Consistent with Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, United States Marine Corps, etc. –xenotalk 15:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

"In August 2010, the FBI contacted Wikipedia and requested the FBI seal be taken off or changed into a lower resolution image of it, because of their fear of people copying the seal and impostering FBI agents."

Imposter is a verb, but it doesn't have the meaning intended here. It should read:

"In August 2010, the FBI contacted Wikipedia and requested the FBI seal be taken off or changed into a lower resolution image of it, because of their fear of people copying the seal and impersonating FBI agents." Everettattebury (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for noticing this grammatical error. I've actually just removed the entire section because I still do not believe there is consensus to include this relatively trivial piece of information here. I highly suspect this will be forgotten in a few weeks and will not have made a major impact on the history of the FBI. It belongs at FBI seal. –xenotalk 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a FBI controversy. But having it in the FBI history section is way too much. I've moved it to the contoversy section. There others can debate which are the most important controversies in the FBI and then include the top ones. I recommend a separate discussion on the controversies and which are the biggest ones. This is the best way to go about it rather than fight about the seal. The seal discussion is just about if we should include it or not. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not a controversy. It's a little tiff, and it's basically news of the week. It will be forgotten next week. We need to keep in mind our own internal biases and beliefs (that Wikipedia Is The Most Important Thing In The World) and ensure that material is presented with the appropriate weight. Consensus was formed above that this does not belong in the article at present. –xenotalk 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another compromise proposal

I do not like to fight. Another compromise proposal (the first one was to insist that we have the right to put it but then don't use that right...win-win for the WP and FBI). This alternative proposal is to put a WP watermark on it. You wouldn't see it unless you really looked but if you clicked on the seal and got the big version, it would appear. That would also defend WP against copy cats. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the FBI would have an even bigger problem if we tampered with the logo. At the present time, no action is required. The use of this logo from a legal perspective is above our pay grade and there is no need for further editorial input. –xenotalk 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Permission or lack of permission is beyond us but editors decide whether to include it, if Wikipedia permits it. I strongly want to point out this distinction but I don't care about editing the seal myself. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
So present an editorial reason to not include the image. I can't think of one. –xenotalk 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with "compromise" is that it means defeat. Think about how many different federal agencies there are, with so many different logos, which appear not only in Wikipedia articles but in Wikipedia Commons and are reused all through the other Wikimedia projects, not to mention documents that are hosted as US government public domain that include such logos and letterheads. If Wikipedia runs away on this issue now we'll keep running until tens of thousands of useful files and images are deleted. But if we stand on this issue, we stand with the knowledge that one of the best respected lawyers on the planet has told us that the FBI misquoted the law to make it sound like something was illegal that isn't, and that the WMF is ready to back us up in keeping something that is otherwise found without difficulty all over the web and in any country other than the United States. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise that doesn't provide a high quality seal

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/73534290.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA54824D993B152AC4C6664453E99948FFB8F9C8347B71E5C137D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.14.207 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What purpose would it serve for the FBI to want the seal removed from it's Wikipedia page?

Supposedly having the seal displayed on Wikipedia would facilitate criminal activity. I'm not exactly sure how that would help criminals, maybe taking the image from here and using someplace else to imply that there was some sort FBI endorsement or authorization of their criminal actions. If that is the case, the criminals would have plenty of other options, a Google image search of "FBI seal" returns more than 226,000 hits. In my (non-educated) opinion, Wikipedia is within it's rights to display the image as the offical seal of the FBI in the page. If the FBI is so determined to have it removed, they should go to court and show cause as to why they can make Wikipedia remove it and have the court issue an order of removal and if the order is issued, Wikipedia should appeal it, which I could see ending up in being argued all the way to the US Supreme Court. Ceo255 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

FBI badge

The FBI badge, File:FBI_Badge.jpg displayed in the article does seem to fall within the statute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-.html Also, it is not from what I would consider a very reliable source. See deletion debate at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBI_Badge.jpg Fred Talk 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to impeach the source - people photograph things all the time and put them in articles, and we trust that something is what they say it is unless we know otherwise. (Even species of plants and animals, which is quite an expert judgment to trust an editor to make, and surprisingly, they don't seem to botch the identification that often)
This is purely a legal issue, and it applies primarily at Commons since it doesn't matter how the photograph is framed in text, so far as I know. It may not be worth the risk of reverting your edit here at the instant, but once Mike Godwin weighs in and the Commons discussion starts moving toward a conclusion, Wikipedia should follow that no matter which way it goes. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Wnt. Removal gives an appearance of an end-run trying to enact deletion de facto pending commons discussion that presently has strong arguments against the basis given here. That's the place to decide whether the image is usable on these legal grounds. I don't see anything Wikipedia-project specific being raised, so why do we need to jump ahead of the commons discussion? DMacks (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
File:FBI Badge & gun.jpg has surfaced which the FBI gives explicit permission to use. It is nearly impossible to identify the author of the other image. Fred Talk 19:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It all looks like we will keep it after all. Oh, and there should be mention of this on the actual page. Stuntman crow (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Another compromise - Invoke the Constitution

Simply send a brief note to the FBI: "Please show us where *in the US Constitution* the FBI Seal has been granted special exemption from the First Amendment (free speech, free press), and/or special status as a non-copyable image of the US Government (hint: it isn't there), and we will happily remove it. Otherwise we shall exercise the 9th and 10th Amendment Laws (rights and powers reserve to the People), and ignore your request as Nullified by the Constitution (i.e. has no legal effect)." --- Theaveng (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logos, Specific cases, U.S. government agencies - guideline apply as internal standard?

How not to contact Wikipedia

As has been pointed out by others, the Wikipedia:Logos#U.S._government_agencies page states that in the specific case of U.S. government agencies (my emphasis) "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required.". Does this affect anyone's views on the use of the FBI seal in the article, and whether it would be proper Wikipedian conduct to have asked, or to ask now, for permission to use it? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all a bit confusing. Wikipedia's main worry is the copyright status of images, and as the guideline points out, works by the US government are usually considered to be public domain. It was the FBI that raised the concern that a forger might use the image. Had this been raised in an informal letter, it might have received a more positive response than a legal threat, which is not very helpful when a Google search will soon show the image elsewhere. In some ways, this repeats the mistakes made over Virgin Killer. Singling out Wikipedia for criticism is rarely a good idea when the material is widely available.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I read that page as stating the internal requirement is independent of copyright - the first sentence states "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction ...", which is clearly meant as distinct from copyright, since, as you point out, it later states that this is NOT copyright ("this does not affect the copyright status"). By the way, if one reads the FBI counsel's letter, there is a mention that informal communication had been tried, and rejected (bottom of PDF page 3), so that would seem to gainsay your assertion there. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Internal consistency has also been cited here. There are many US government agencies (CIA etc) yet it was the FBI that complained. Anyway, since this brouhaha occurred, the FBI logo has been all over the Internet, which is classic Streisand effect territory. This sort of own goal scoring last occurred with Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite follow your argument. Are we in agreement that Wikipedia has an internal guideline, apart from any law, that applies to this situation? Are you stating that since it is not generally followed ("Internal consistency"), it shouldn't/wouldn't/is wrong to expect (I'm unclear there) it to be followed here, even if the agency involved specifically wants it to be followed? Without endorsing the FBI here, it's entirely possible to be legally and morally right yet to lose a PR fight, so that is not something I'm trying to debate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) @Seth, the onus in that line is of course the " if required.", which translated means as much as "we don't know where WE are on this one (But counsel once told us to only worry about copyright and lets him worry about the rest), but if YOU want to use the image, you might wanna read up." And this is of course not limited to the US Government. It is true for many other countries in the world as well, and possibly also true for a lot of the medals that countries hand out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
There was a debate about this at File talk:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg. Some users (including me) argued that the Scalable Vector Graphics version was the source of the problem, but anyone who wanted to make a fake FBI badge (rather than a wall poster) would find a Google image search to be more than adequate (eg the news story here). This seems to be another example of "Let's bash Wikipedia for things that are widely available elsewhere".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
@TheDj - Well, I would have thought "if required" would cover the situation where the relevant agency makes as an issue of permission, as it seems rather nonsensical to me to have a guideline to get permission if it's an undisputed legal requirement. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but like i said, we have always been told not to worry too much laws other than copyright, unless counsel tells us otherwise. As a community however, we are informing others of this law and saying that although Wikipedia is probably ok, if you want to use it for something else, you might wanna double check. Same for trademark law. Oh, another element which you often cannot reproduce without authorization of a government. Their flags !!! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to seem tendentious, but I just don't see it (my emphasis) - "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, Seth, you are never tendentious. All Wikipedia guidelines are intended to be interpreted with common sense. This is why, IMHO, this has become a non-story, because a) the FBI provided no concrete evidence that the Wikipedia version of the image had been misused, and b) inventive criminals would have little difficulty in finding the image elsewhere on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see how our interpretations differ Seth. Guidelines and policies also list background information. The policy part here is "These should be tagged with {{insignia}}." The rest of the paragraph is background as to WHY we want them to be tagged with {{insignia}}. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
@ianmacm - I understand your views on the legality of the FBI's request. I do not seek to argue about them here per se, and let me re-iterate, in this discussion, am not intending to either support or oppose of the FBI's view of the law's applicability. However, it does seem to me that the plain text of the Wikipedia guideline page above would indicate that Wikipedia internal standards bear on the issue, especially if the relevant agency complains. So I'm attempting to explore that topic. I have to admit I'm no further illuminated from the responses, but policies can be difficult to understand in practice. @TheDJ - So, are you saying the meaning of that page here is not "get permission", but "tag as {{insignia}}"? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Correct and it even that is 'just a service' per Wikipedia:Restricted materials. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
We should be careful using the example that the seal is available elsewhere for scammers. That could be like saying that it is ok to sell any country or terrorist organization dynamite since they could get it anywhere. Wikipedia should do things in the most upright fashion possible. This comment should not be thought of as a legal opinion on the controversy, merely a comment of the available elsewhere comment. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is what US law says about this:

Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

All very interesting, but the FBI has dug a hole for itself by singling out Wikipedia for criticism. Unless it is prepared to show its consistency by going through every instance of the image that it finds in a Google image search, the last word should go to Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who called the affair “silly” and “troubling”, and said “I have to believe the F.B.I. has better things to do than this.”[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel-Hafiz

I found some hidden goodies in the external links section (inside a comment), including:

However, there are apparently some other views of the situation, e.g. [4]. I think including only one of the external links would be biased, and that External Links isn't the place to document all sorts of angles on a case. Maybe starting Gamal Abdel-Hafiz would work, but it's a bit thin for a biography and Wikipedia has some mundo-bizarro rules about starting an article about a living person. FBI Counterterrorism Division might be relevant; I'm not sure. I don't see any obvious article yet written about an FBI division in Saudi Arabia, despite its familiarity from news and cinema - would be nice to start one. Any suggestions? Wnt (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seal as an image for the infobox

Why is there not the original, or a lower quality seal image in the infobox? I've spent a few minutes looking above and don't see the reason. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

good morning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.107.1.178 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for Notable FBI personnel?

Is the criteria former agents or directors who already have Wikipedia pages? Some have notable investigative experience, but it is unclear who makes this list and why.Parkwells (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about the infobox at the bottom of the page in that respect as well. For example, which is Rod Blagojevich there and not John Douglas? 75.158.106.200 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Indian Reservations"

Does anyone think that the line "It is the government agency responsible for investigating crimes on Indian Reservations in the United States" should be changed to read "Native Americans" instead of "Indian"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.140.209 (talk • contribs)

If it were just the term for the people, "Indian" vs "Native American", I'd say that would be fine, but it doesn't. It is the term for the reservation, which is more commonly know as an Indian Reservation that describes land owned by Native Americans. See this discussion - Talk:Indian_reservation#Requested_move. In this sense, I believe the term is probably a proper noun in itself, and should use the most common term as described by reliable sources. So at this point, I would disagree with such a change. If the Indian reservation article gets renamed based on a discussion and consensus, then we should follow suit and use the term of the article. Morphh (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

fbi

slt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.210.170 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

FBI files on specific persons

Here are the updated links for this section. Someone with editing rights please replace them. http://vault.fbi.gov/ http://vault.fbi.gov/Jack%20the%20Ripper/Jack%20the%20Ripper%20Part%201%20of%201/view 24.218.46.19 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done Morphh (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

For such a high profile public agency I would expect to find fewer problems than I'm finding in this article. Please help with cleanup, everyone. Pinetalk 09:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone decided that I'm not allowed, so I don't give a fuck. --79.223.3.245 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Recovery Team

I think this may be a significant division of the FBI, worthy of an article section, or perhaps a separate article.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.255 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

vandalism

a bunch of this page has been vandalised around the march 4 revision i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.250 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Content validity

Why doesn't the article say anything about peonage-hiring. FBI original hiring procedures including involuntary servitude (peonage) hires of the DOJ. It's ironic of course, given that peonage is currently considered a federal law violation, but it's factual.

Beyond this, why is there no mention of the problems the FBI has with informant-hiring? The fact that people (some of them innocent civilians) are being coerced into FBI-service? Is this a vanity article, or is it NPOV?

193.239.220.249 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

An organization that sends innocent men to prison for decades and abets serial killers (the Whitey Bulger case) would have no qualms about abusive hiring practices. This article also fails to mention the FBI's use of slander and libel as an investigative tool. But that's what they did to Richard Jewell and countless others... When not shooting unarmed people and blacklisting critics. Tmaxr (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FBI to spy on Skype

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The FBI will soon launch the department to spy on Skype and wireless telecommunications, CNET announced. Representatives of associations for the protection of civil rights in the U.S. seeking to disclose the details and what will control the FBI.78.2.65.232 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the CNET article.[5] It's a surveillance unit capable of spying on Skype conversations and other Internet communications per court order requests. The Domestic Communications Assistance Center (DCAC) is a collaborative effort between the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. What controls them are the rules that control existing surveillance, which has not changed as far as I'm aware. Stop spreading misinformation. Morphh (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

HSI Book

The 'Further Reading' section mentions 'HSI BOOK Government HSI Files' - what is that supposed to mean?

Please clarify with a link/ISBN/comment or delete it if it does not have relevance to the article. --Gms (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protected

I just noticed that the article on "Federal Bureau of Investigation" contained inaccurate information. Under the "Legal Authority" section, it stated that ICE-HSI has nearly the same amount of investigative manpower as the FBI. This statement is inaccurate, since ICE-HSI only has approximately 8,000 investigative personnel, versus the FBI's 13,000-plus investigative personnel. In addition, this same section stated that ICE-HSI and the FBI are both integral members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The fact is the FBI leads the Joint Terrorism Task Force, while ICE-HSI is only one of many members of the task force. Can anyone make the corrections to ensure the most accurate information is reflected in the article? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ2389 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2013

In response to organized crime, on August 25, 1953, the FBI created the Top Hoodlum Program.

SHOULD READ In response to news of the mafia's Apalachin conference, the FBI in 1957 created the Top Hoodlum Program. [14] 70.36.134.24 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I followed the reference link already in the article: Turning Point: Using Intel to Stop the Mob, Part 2:

"In 1953, the New York office—facing rising mobster activity—specifically asked to open intelligence files on 30 top hoodlums in the city to get a general picture of their activities and to keep an eye out for violations of federal law. On August 25th of that year, we made it an official national “Top Hoodlum Program,” asking all field offices to gather information on mobsters in their territories and to report it regularly to Washington so we’d have a centralized collection of intelligence on racketeers."

Not sure how to reconcile the FBI's own website with your source, ISBN 978-0897749916. Maybe you can look up what is says happened in '53. See Apalachin Meeting. Seems there may have been multiple "Top Hoodlum Programs." – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this {{edit semi-protected}} request as nearly 2 weeks have elapsed and there is no consensus to edit the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI

Under 'Civil Rights movement', it reads "In March 1971, the residential office of an FBI agent in Media, Pennsylvania was robbed; the thieves took secret files and distributed them to a range of newspapers, including The Harvard Crimson.[29]" This theft was in fact an activist attack on illegal FBI practices by a group that called itself "Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI". This sentence should read something like "In March 1971, the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into the residential office of an FBI agent in Media, Pennsylvania and took secret files, which they distributed to a range of newspapers, including The Harvard Crimson.[29]", including a link to the relevant page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI I would take out the reference to the Harvard Crimson as well, since they distributed the materials to many papers, of which the Crimson was not the most important. Borgonlandor (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-Hoover heads of the FBI

Following the death of Hoover, there was a period in which FBI leaders were replaced frequently and the entire organization was reorganized and made into a law-abiding institution. The FBI was a central part of the Watergate scandal (explained clearly in Tim Weiner's "Enemies: A History of the FBI", and elsewhere). This period is not mentioned at all in this entry, though it is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. It now reads as though the FBI wrote the page themselves, leaving out the parts they don't want to talk about. This period needs to be included and entries added to various other pages with more detail, such as: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Watergate http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Deep_Throat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgonlandor (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals

There are categories for fictional portrayals of the San Fransisco, Los Angeles, Pittsburg, New York City Police Departments and with the FBI getting proximate attention on film and television, it makes sense that shows and movies that use the FBI as subject matter should have Its own category. Please explain why what I created was deleted.--67.84.73.254 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

James B. Comey new head of the FBI?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: U.S. President Barack Obama has chosen James B. Comney the new head of the FBI, the New York Times. Comey has worked in the Ministry of Justice in the administration of George W. Bush. Choice Comney be confirmed by Congress.78.2.82.246 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Under the gun

When did the Bureau's agents first get permission to carry firearms? (Was it still BoI then?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

re: COINTELPRO

...The country was "jolted" by the revelations.... Why the quotes around jolted? Was the country actually NOT jolted? Is jolted some sort of litle-known colloquialism? Please fix.Gimelgort (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

correction to text: "there is no specific evidence that the FBI has, in fact, inquired into library records without a court order"

The article reads:

Under the PATRIOT Act's provisions, the FBI also resumed inquiring into the library records of those who are suspected of terrorism (something it had supposedly not done since the 1970s). The word "library" does not appear anywhere in the USA PATRIOT Act, and there is no specific evidence that the FBI has, in fact, inquired into library records without a court order.

I disagree with the wording "there is no specific evidence that the FBI has, in fact, inquired into library records without a court order." The FBI did issue a NSL (which is not a court order) for library records: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Doe_v._Gonzales

Even the Patriot Act article mentions the case: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Patriot_Act

In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in Connecticut, known as the Connecticut Four worked with the ACLU to lift a gag order for library records, challenging the government’s power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act. This case became known as Doe v. Gonzales. In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order.

22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.138.64.221 (talk)

Jurisdictional Issues

Federal Protective Service (United States) is a newcomer and competitor to the FBI in times of emergency and falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. In critical moments, jurisdictional confusion and chaos generally follow disaster. Chaos costs lives when it comes to physical body trauma and shock. This article needs to get it sorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.129.244 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Old comment

An editor made a comment to a subpage, so it may have been missed by readers of this page. The subpage is likely to be deleted, so I am copying the comment here so it doesn't get lost. I don't see any action to take, but want the comment in the record.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

FBI agents: There was probably trace amounts of metal toxins due to the burning of technical equipment. I think you all are correct about arsons setting the 2007 October Fires.. Note Holly Berry's ex-husband's house was one of the homes consumed. She was in Great Britian at the time-Wales I think.......Also, were the avacados part of Jamie Fox's unknown location. His avacado garden he hired people to take care of that. There was I think Spanish talk going around a few months back. I told a little girl about it..Hollywood movie stars making real movies? Somebody paid them a lot of money that is all I know. They were not very friendly to me...Wal Mart in North Carolina. Hanzjo 04:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality: This is *not* a neutral article

This page reads like the PR office of the FBI wrote it.

The FBI is a *highly* controversial organization in the United States, with a 105-year history of continual abuse of civil and human rights - followed by a consistent pattern of claims that "this is in the past". That was true in 1920, it is true today. There are many that would call the FBI the Federal secret police, notwithstanding strong FBI protestations to the contrary.

Why is there no 'voice of criticism' in this article.

Again- it reads as-if written by the PR office of the FBI.

  • "There were worried about this problem, but it was solved" (kind of a thing).
  • "People have expressed concerns, but that isn't so" (like of a thing).
  • "We have taken that into consideration, to make sure it isn't like that" (kind of a thing).

When the reality of the situation is that the FBI has, for over a hundred years, been the tool of crushing public dissent and the tool of persecution for any person deemed to be anathema to the state, in the United States.

The FBI has outright murdered people (notably during the Black Panther-era, also during the AIM investigations), has conducted campaigns of persecution for decades against certain persons (usually U.S. persons) and none of that is mentioned in this article. I am not mentioning blithe "criticism of the FBI". I making note of "missing pertinent information" about how the FBI operates on a continual, repetitive and inherent basis. Rabbit Eared Radio Antenae (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and found abundant references to real and alleged FBI abuses of power. The problem being in cases like the ABSCAM investigations, allegations from Congress that its members were entrapped by FBI are no more probative from OUR standpoint in Wikipedia than FBI denials that such entrapment occurred - both sets of allegations could use a nice dose of WP:PROVEIT. As it stands, this is a fairly balanced article with one glaring omission, the Whitey Bulger case (and since Bulger was just convicted of the crimes of which he was accused, a definitive section on Bulger and his friend in the FBI could hardly have been written till now). loupgarous (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
We'd all like to see you produce evidence that qualifies under WP:PROVEIT of an ongoing FBI tradition of murder. The omission of the Whitey Bulger case would be close but not exactly probative of such - it was a case in which one Supervisory Special Agent went against FBI policy to help his personal friend and confidential informant James "Whitey" Bulger conceal several murders committed not at FBI instance, but simply to further Bulger's criminal career. If you can, indeed, prove that the FBI has sanctioned even one murder, please produce the evidence, by all means. loupgarous (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a "Controversies" or similarly-headed section should be included? Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think such a section coverage [revised] would be a good idea; when one reads a book such as Curt Gentry's biography of J. Edgar Hoover (Gentry, Curt (1991). J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets. Plume. ISBN 0-452-26904-0.), one finds ample evidence of ways that the FBI needs checks and balances from the rest of the society and government in order to keep the republic/representative democracy/constitutional democracy concepts from being hollowed out. Of course, this is true for any national police, counterintelligence agency, or intelligence agency within what aspires to be a democratic republic form of government (and the fact that the DDR called itself a democratic republic, and that the DPRK does so, shows how badly shit can go wrong behind a label). Bottom line, power corrupts; humans do bad shit when getting away with it seems likely, and being in such an organization can provide "opportunities" to get away with shit. Gentry's book provides plenty of info on the 1920s to 1970s; I haven't read others covering ≥1980s, but it would be nice to find the time. I doubt I will get around to building such a section anytime soon, but FWIW, commented here. As for how much the FBI will come periodically whitewash such a section: it would be interesting to conduct the experiment. Sadly I already don't have enough time to devote to WP editing, let alone adding this to the wish list. Wish more people contributed; someone could have done this item already. — ¾-10 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe it also infiltrated other governments, paricularly in 20th century Latin America, with results ranging from changed election outcomes to deposing leaders, etc. Point being that controversies need not be limited to inside the USA only. If there are reliable sources, such controversial issues could be located in such section as well. Mercy11 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Be careful with "Controversy" sections as they can come close to NPOV WP:STRUCTURE issues, see Wikipedia:Criticism "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." As described by criticism template, It is better to integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. Morphh (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
True. You're right, it would be better to build coverage throughout the article. Regarding the reply above about murder (WP:PROVEIT etc), there's truth in both comments. Rabbit Eared is right that a "continual abuse of civil rights" happened, at least during J.E. Hoover's half century (Gentry's book and others document it), although loupgarous is right that it rarely included murder. And loupgarous is right that the current article version contains "abundant references to real and alleged FBI abuses of power", and yet it is still incomplete to the point that it does suffer from the "There were worries about this problem, but it was solved" (kind of a thing)" that Rabbit Eared mentioned. For example, the current version says "as long as the FBI did not break into a person's home to complete the tapping" and later "as long as they obtain a warrant beforehand". What's not stated in the following sentences is "...which sounded great on paper, but was later repeatedly violated" (which Gentry documents). So, on the one hand, it's not at all like a 20th Congress sort of thing, where a ton of extrajudicial murders happened and then later a de-Whatever-ization took place (de-Nazification, de-Stalinization, de-Baathification). But on the other hand, there's an upshot that isn't adequately covered. Really the lesson from the J.E. Hoover era is not that the U.S.'s constitutional democracy was trampled to death (it wasn't) but rather simply that most of the locks barring the door from such a thing happening, which Americans have traditionally prided themselves on, were left dangling open, which sounds tamer but is still scary because such a door left ajar is likely to get walked through eventually. The reason why constitutional law exists is to lock the door such that people trying to jimmy it are caught before they get completely through. They may all be crooks, but at least no 1 crook gets his hands on unlimited power. Anyway, barely have time to write these thoughts, let alone expand the content coverage, but can at least point at what would be needed, if anyone ever gets time. — ¾-10 00:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

can we please add a link to the COINTELPRO page where it is mentioned in the article? Thank you --Dhornbein (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. It was already linked in one section; but I linked it at first mention in another section because if a reader goes straight there, then it's the first mention that they see. — ¾-10 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No reference to ABSCAM

There is no reference to the FBI operation, termed ABSCAM, during the late 70s. This was a significant operation for the FBI, an historic turning point, and one of heightened controversy, especially for the FBI use of questionable entrapment methods and their perceived prosecution of congressional democrats in response to the Church Committee investigations of the FBI.

In the wake of Abscam, Attorney General Benjamin Civilett issued "The Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Undercover Operations" ("Civiletti Undercover Guidelines") on January 5, 1981. These were the first Attorney General Guidelines for undercover operations, and they formalized procedures necessary to conduct undercover operations.

Additional reference could be made to the 2013 film, American Hustle, as an exploration of the moral issues surrounding the FBI ABSCAM operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btburke (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FBI Cell phone taps and Onstar tap

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WHERE'S WHITEY?

Why no mention of the FBI's corruption of special agents, U.S. attorneys and federal judges in the Whitey Bulger case? A conspiracy to protect a serial murderer for decades and wrongfully imprison four men for Bulger's murders is a relevant part of the FBI story. Not including this sorry episode (with links) here makes the page look like it's been censored by the FBI.[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmaxr (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h "Frequently Asked Questions". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2016-09-02.
  2. ^ a b c d Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 40. ISBN 0465041957. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ "Richard Jewell v. NBC, and other Richard Jewell cases". Media Libel. Retrieved 2006-06-06.
  4. ^ Sherman, Mark. "Lawmakers criticize FBI director's expensive project". Newszine. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  5. ^ Gerin, Roseanne (2005-01-14). "SAIC rejects Trilogy criticism". Washington Technology. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  6. ^ Arnone, Michael (2005-06-25). "Senators seek to fast track FBI's Sentinel". FCW.Com. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  7. ^ Shovelan, John (2004-06-23). "9/11 Commission finds 'deep institutional failings'". ABC Au. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  8. ^ "Ex-FBI Chief On Clinton's Scandals". CBS News. 2004-10-06. Retrieved 2006-06-06.
  9. ^ Zegart, Amy (2007-09-01). "Spying Blind". Princeton University Press. Retrieved 2007-07-08. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  10. ^ Jeffrey Rosen (2007-04-15). "Who's Watching the F.B.I.?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
  11. ^ "Evidence Of Injustice". CBS News. 2007-11-18. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
  12. ^ "U.S. Must Pay Out $100 Million for Wrongful FBI Conviction". Reuters. 2007-07-27. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
  13. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/03/fbi.seal.wikipedia/index.html?hpt=Sbin
  14. ^ Athan Theoharis (ed.), The FBI: A Comprehensive Guide, 35
  15. ^ www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/17/whitey-bulger-s-trial-conspiracy-john-connolly-speaks.html

FBI Background

Background checks for new hires are conducted by the FBI. Either by Special Agents or contractors under the BICS program.68.55.132.127 (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)PWDoughertyCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Personal experience

Edit request: update the Personnel section

The source [6] now states, "On October 31, 2013, a total of 35,344 people worked for the FBI, including 13,598 special agents and 21,746 professional staff. Among our employees are 15,296 women, 8,650 minorities, and 1,302 persons with disabilities."--Fgwwln (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory dates under "Blank Panthers"

Under "Controversies", the section "Black Panthers" has this statement:

Accuracy in Media (AIM) reports that "Within one year of the formation of the Black Panther Party, the FBI established a special counter-intelligence program called COINTELPRO, to neutralize political dissidents.

I couldn't find the statement in the link to the AIM story (which was not about the Black Panthers), but it is contained in the other cited source, a PBS webpage on Huey Newton. The problem is that, according to their Wiki articles, COINTELPRO started in 1956,and the Panthers in 1966. How are 1956 and 1966 "within one year"? Either one or the other date is wrong, or the quote is nonsense. Regards. Plazak (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Federal Bureau of Investigation. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

why yout think think you can acuse me of iligal web page if the page are not from this planet sowhy you and the gvertment are keep all this s years plus stold web pagess away from me sincelong ago and you dint do a think to stop the abuse of tecnoloogie and make money outiling pagess of me and why youthink is ok to do itmif they cost me money so you are corupted and be on the side of the money buys all ask gogle how musch stold from me ?so whr i my money of all this years beacuse se of me ou hav a tablet and droid cell phone plus olgram thechnology I am Rick matthew and I whearsnswers of all that abuse?????? I stay on 1240 N 760 W Orem Utahv the goverment or you try too kill me why ??? I have seen it so you are a creamynoll t o be awear and buyoff with money ?????????????? I am God why you thik you can get away off you bue ??????? show me how much you make out me??????????????

 Not done - Is there something you want changed here? --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the message above that seems like random Bible to me. This is really strange and I'm not quite sure of how to go about this editing stuff initially but this page certainly should reference the FBI's access of the murder in California's phone. In an article published in Fortune Magazine it claims that the FBI cracked for routes iPhone and might have obtained information. This should probably be part of this page if someone wouldn't mind adding it I think that would be appropriate. DCman69 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

done people believe that people the FBI does anything like really @@@@4846695986À 2601:989:4301:4CCA:68FD:EBE:52B8:9FBC (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Bureau of Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton email investigation

Laws

Will we be including the fact that the FBI has approved a double standard for laws? Some laws apply only to the "little people"? But not to big, powerful, important people (with money)? Will that get included in the article? I have many reliable sources to that effect. That the FBI is now a COMPLETE JOKE. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joseph: The idea that the FBI has "approved" a "double standard" for laws is not only not a "fact," it's nonsense. And, no, the FBI is not a "joke." Your comments leave the impression that you wanted Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted, and you're angry because that hasn't happened. That is not a rational basis for adding information to a Wikipedia article. Let's stick with the Wikipedia rules on Reliable Sources, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
PS: In fairness, I note that you do say you have reliable sources! Famspear (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Comey said (in paraphrase): "I will not prosecute a case with these facts. However, if someone else in the future were to have the same exact facts, they should not think that they will go un-prosecuted." Translation: "If any person in the USA did this, they would get prosecuted under these facts. However, if the only distinction is that the person's name is Clinton, then -- of course -- they would not get prosecuted." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joseph: What is your source for that "paraphrase"? Famspear (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It was in his 15-minute press conference. You know, the unprecedented one. And the one after which he would not take questions. Yeah, that one. A source is here: [7]. His exact words were: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." That's his political double-talk. The English translation is, as I stated above: "I will not prosecute a case with these facts. However, if someone else in the future were to have the same exact facts, they should not think that they will go un-prosecuted." ... and ... "If any person in the USA did this, they would get prosecuted under these facts. However, if the only distinction is that the person's name is Clinton, then -- of course -- they would not get prosecuted." It's official. The FBI is a laughing stock. And a joke. Thanks, Mister Comey! Great job! Very impartial! And not at all political! Piece of shit. Oops! I meant: Fine, upstanding citizen! And great leader! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Sorry, but the so-called "English translation" interpretation and the related commentary is emotional, hair-on-fire, raving baloney.
Look at what Comey said. You posted the statement yourself: ".....would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to SECURITY or ADMINISTRATIVE sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now..." (emphasis added). What he was deciding related to CRIMINAL sanctions, not SECURITY or ADMINISTRATIVE sanctions.
Comey said NOTHING that would lead a reasonable person to believe that anyone else -- on the same facts -- would be subject to prosecution. You're trying to give the false impression that Comey must secretly believe that SOMEONE ELSE under the same facts would be prosecuted. You are clearly wrong. You're upset because Hillary is not going to be prosecuted. My sense is that no result would have made you happy that did not involve her prosecution. Now, you're engaging in personal attacks against Comey because you're highly upset with the result.
Look for what reliable, previously published third party sources say about the matter, and report on what THEY say. Famspear (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You are 100% correct. And I am 100% wrong. Geez. Not sure what I was thinking. This has been a very above-board process. No one at all in the USA feels that it is shady and/or suspect. No one. Comey has been an exemplary leader of the highest morals and scruples and ethics! Definitely! That cannot be called into question! This is a good day for America! And this keeps intact the integrity and reputation of the FBI! Yeah, definitely! Not sure what I was thinking? I must have been crazy! Can we add all these facts into the article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what you "think" or "feel," and I don't care what other people in the USA "feel." If you need work through your thought processes or your feelings, go find a couch somewhere and have at it. I'm not your shrink. The purpose of the article on the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not to reflect what you as a Wikipedia editor "feel." And the purpose is not to reflect what people in the USA "feel." Again, look for reliable, previously published third party sources SAY. This talk page is not the proper place for you to vent your feelings.

And, yes, I am 100% correct. That's why I make the big bucks. Famspear (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I admitted that you are 100% correct. Read my above post. Thanks for your insightful posts! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
For example, an administrative and security sanction for a government employee in a similar situation would likely result in getting fired and having their security clearance pulled, which is why Republicans tried to get Comey to say that in the congressional testimony. Comey sort of skirted around it by saying it would follow a security review process to determine "suitability. Morphh (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

James Comey Director FBI

Your cowardly decision on the Clinton case will affect your legacy forever. FIRST YOU CRITIzE, THEN RELEASE her obnoxious behavior. You have proven that Clinton is above the law. Not an example for AMERICA. Further, the decision you have made will be with you forever and how in the future will you explain to your children and grandchildren your political position. They will have this stigma forever also. A very sad moment in AMERICA'S history!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.188.253 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Obnoxious behavior is not a criminal offense. More to the point: This is not the proper place for foolish ranting. Take it elsewhere. Famspear (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

These are legitimate topics. They have been raised in RS's. And the question is to what extent they belong in the article. It's a legitimate question and topic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people and events, so I suggest we wait and see how this plays out. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion - see WP:NOTNEWS. If this does endure and create a legacy for Comey or the FBI, then it would be appropriate to include in the articles. Morphh (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
At what point is "a legacy created"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That was the phrasing that the IP used in this section and I was only repeating it. At what point does it become enduring and encyclopedic. not sure, but two days is too early IMO. I would say it has a stronger case for being included on James Comey, since his history of notability is less extensive than the FBI itself. Part of Comey's notability may be from battles with encryption and Clinton's email, where it's a minor blip to the FBI as a whole. I tend to look at it from a historical perspective - if in 20 years, someone reads this article.. what is the importance of X event to the topic. Morphh (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
OK. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

THE FBI SHOULD CHECK THE DEALINGS OF COPART SALVAGE AUCTIONS. THIER INSURANCE FRAUD AND THEIR OVERALL DEALINGS WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC. ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS, NEW YORK AND THE STATE OF OHIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.236.162 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 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: Request withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Federal Bureau of Investigation → FBI – per WP:COMMONNAME – the abbreviation F.B.I. is historically known as the abbreviation for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and is almost always referred to be its acronym in the media. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 23:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"While common names are generally preferred over official names as article titles, there are some valid exceptions." "The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: Obscurity."- again, not the case here. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Professional sources use "Federal Bureau of Investigation" before "FBI", and I believe Wikipedia should follow the same pattern. Most of them won't say "FBI", they'll say "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)". Just search news results for that and you'll see. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not "almost always" referred to as the "FBI" in the media. (And "FBI" is not an acronym. It is an abbreviation. Some, but not all, abbreviations are also acronyms, but "FBI" is not one of those.) In an encyclopedia, the proper course is to use the official name of the agency in the title of the article. Changing the name of the article to "FBI" would be like changing the name of the article on the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to "IRS," or changing the name of the article on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to "FDA" -- merely because those abbreviations happen to be used a lot in the media. Virtually all abbreviations are used a lot in the media. There is another problem as well: While many Americans know what these abbreviations stand for, people in other countries generally are not as familiar with the abbreviations. Famspear (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw – My request move for this article is very ignorant now that I think about it. A redirect is just fine. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:42, 10 September 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Could somebody add "(as Bureau of Investigation)" and add the Start date and age template too, so that it says "|formed = {Start date and age|1908|7|26} (as Bureau of Investigation)" to show its original founding name?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine  u/c 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Could somebody change and add the Start date and age template to "|formed = {Start date and years ago|1908|7|26}" to "|formed = {Start date and age|1908|7|26}", since the Start date and years ago template redirects to the Start date and age template?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone. per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Paine  u/c 23:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

New book

New book -- maybe relevant for expanding Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#J._Edgar_Hoover_as_director? Branding Hoover's FBI: How the Boss's PR Men Sold the Bureau to America by Matthew Cecil, 2016, University Press of Kansas. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

how do you you ask them questions?

trying to ask questions have not found out how you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC92:B8E0:6C26:BCB7:BBB4:AE05 (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a court procedure to follow for that. SSZ (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Federal Bureau of Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"...which included assassinations of political activists..."

Something like "which included assassinations of political activists" should either be sourced or removed. I would like to see a credible reference or proof of assassinations by FBI of political activists as part of cointelpro (or part of anything else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.204.200 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


See Fred Hampton as an example. The book cited does not seem to say that the FBI was involved in "assassinations of political activists" (at least not in the section the citation references). I will work on adding necessary citations but I think for now the phrase should stay, as the article on Hampton is well-sourced and the public revelations regarding the FBI at the time included this topic. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Federal Bureau of Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for update on FBI database

The project started in 2006 with a $425 million budget. After several delays, new leadership, a slightly bigger budget, and adoption of agile software development methodology,[2] it was completed under budget and was in use agency-wide on July 1 2012"

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sentinel_(FBI)

Current mention in article is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned-up Image

I cleaned up the image a bit. The noise around the edges of the clipped badge bothered me. For some reason it wouldn't let me just upload the image, so here's the direct link: http://i.imgur.com/kzCC3bf.png.


Trevor Sears (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Trevor Sears. For changing images you can go directly to the image page on wiki commons. You can get there by clicking on the image, and then either a link to wikipedia commons or "more info". I have uploaded the fixed badge but it might take some time for it to appear on this page. Best, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

OK! Looks like it's updated now. Thanks for doing that, and thanks for the info! Trevor Sears (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Who goes where?

There is a minor typo in the 2nd paragraph of the Personnel section. It should be "69 agents who have died". It's locked otherwise I would do it. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing this out. - SantiLak (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

Removal of Comey section. (168) Comey did not ask for more funds or personnel. Comey sought more money for FBI's Russia probe days before he was ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../comey-sought-more-money-for-russia-probe-days-... May 10, 2017 - A Justice Department spokeswoman denied that there had been a request for more funding or other resources. ... Comey, who was fired by President Trump on Tuesday, made the ... Such a request, she said, “did not happen. 2601:543:4402:D5E4:CD06:567:6FE3:1638 (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made a couple changes (see diff), but this could use more eyes. The section may need to be edited, however, I don't see any reason to remove it. The NYT and WaPo have the same report indicating the two sources state Comey asked for more resources (i.e. personnel). Note the WaPo url appears to show that the title of their article may have been changed from "Comey sought more money for Russia probe days before he was fired officials say" to "Comey sought more resources for Russia probe days before he was fired by President Trump, officials say". -Location (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Perhaps some unbiased editors could have a look a some recent edits to this page? A relatively new editor (joined 10 days ago, has a total of 15 edits to 2 pages so far) added this, this & this. There are some serious allegations here and I don't have access to the sources being cited. I am concerned about UNDUE WEIGHT and some obvious buzzwords. Some statements are made as factual ascertions when I'm thinking they should at least be framed as "alleged". The editor tried to add a majority of these edits to the lead. I reverted them out, but he just reverted them back in. An admin immediately reverted them out again and this editor has now spread the edits about the article body. Considering the seriousness of some of these additions and the subject of the article, I think a peer review of the edits and their sources, if possible, is in order. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 01:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve looked at them and they look good to me. You’re right about too much in the lede, but as it is at this moment the lede lacks any reference to FBI’s controversial activities, and it should mention them somewhere.
I share your concern about who this single-topic editor is. On his User page he gives a previous name, also this one on the same topic and all the edits on a single day. I don't know how to handle this.
I also worry about plagiarism. Those detailed edits with a lot of documentation came from some other document, I suspect. But that’s a hunch, not a basis for action. deisenbe (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, strangely enough, it seems this editor has now suddenly reverted himsef, removing 2 of the 3 edit noted above. (#'s 2 & 3 are now gone, #1 so far remains). His edit summary says he basically changed his mind. >shrugs< ...alrighty then. - theWOLFchild 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Heads up about RFC

There's an RFC about whether Wikipedia should mention anywhere that the potential firing of FBI Director Comey was publicly discussed by both Democratic and Republican politicians before Trump fired him. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI about RFC regarding FBI official

FYI, there is an RFC happening here regarding FBI official Peter Strzok. The question is whether the lead should say that he rose to become the number two official in the FBI Counterintelligence Division. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible FBI Corruption in Russia Probe

Mainstream media is reporting of a massive scandal in the FBI brewing over possible corruption of high-level officials. I will be adding a section in the main article space. Any edits made in this section will be subject to review for tone and reliable sources to prevent bias. See the following links: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] RedGreenBanana (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you've mixed up your sources, I can't find any reference to a DOJ investigation in the politico article. (To other editors please note that the two bananas are not the same!) BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I added the sources in the main article space. Attorney General/DOJ announcing the probe of the FBI, please see source: [13]

And, yes, they are the same! RedGreenBanana (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The DOJ has now "found" text messages from the missing period and the "scandal" seems to have subsided considerably.[14] I propose that we delete the section as it no longer seems appropriate to give the topic such weight in an article about the entire FBI (not just the recent investigations). If there are no objections, I will remove the section later today. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
There still seems to be a scandal brewing, as the content of the messages may include bias and haven't fully been recovered, see link: [15]. May I also suggest that the messages were lost and were only recovered after Trump's DOJ was forced to recover them from a third party, hence why it became a cover-up scandal, according to media reports. Let's wait until all the text messages are released, if there is no bias, I would strongly advocate the deletion of the section and a replacement explaining the allegations. RedGreenBanana (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The Washington examiner piece is an OPED, please see WP:NEWSORG. Opinion pieces are primary sources only.
Some sources have been speculating the existence of a scandal, this section clearly violates WP:PROPORTION. There is no consensus among WP:RS that this story remains significant, and the events covered are clearly insignificant with respect to the entire history of the FBI, as covered in this article. Whether something is relevant to an article must be demonstrated, saying that it might evolve into something more is not grounds for inclusion.
If other editors are watching, please join in so that we can find consensus. I will tag the section with current and unbalanced to attract the attention of more editors. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the tags! I think deleting the section would be a possible conflict of interest, given that the scandal is still currently under DOJ investigation and hasn't been resolved yet, as reports suggest. If the lost messages turn out to be insignificant, there still needs to be a section explaining what occurred and how it concluded, given the magnitude of the allegation. My responsibility as a Wiki contributor is to make sure there isn't any bias or special treatment of the subject; deleting a massive scandal involving a US President, the DOJ, Attorney General, and high-level FBI officials sound a bit bias, if you ask me. Leave the tags, so readers can know that the information may change at any moment. Hopefully all this clears up very soon. RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation/Archive_2&oldid=1142760882"