![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I suggest just delete it. - Aude ( talk contribs) 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Question.What was the situation/status whatever , before the FBI?What every state police was on it's whon.
Moved old-stuff to archive --
Shane (
talk/
contrib) 07:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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. :( — Jemmy t c 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 TTTURBO 212.122.73.26 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 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)
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 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 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation | |
![]() | |
Common name | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Abbreviation | FBI |
Motto | Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity |
Agency overview | |
Formed | July 26, 1908 |
Employees | 35,104 [1] (October 31, 2014) |
Annual budget | US$8.3 billion (FY 2014) [1] |
Jurisdictional structure | |
Federal agency (Operations jurisdiction) | United States |
Operations jurisdiction | United States |
Legal jurisdiction | As per operations jurisdiction |
Governing body | U.S. Department of Justice |
Constituting instrument | |
General nature | |
Operational structure | |
Headquarters |
J. Edgar Hoover Building Northwest, Washington, D.C. |
Sworn members | 13,260 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Unsworn members | 18,306 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Agency executives |
|
Child agencies | |
Major units | 5
|
Field offices | 56 ( List of FBI Field Offices) |
Notables | |
People |
|
Programs | |
Significant Operations | |
Website | |
www |
{{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 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation | |
![]() | |
Common name | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Abbreviation | FBI |
Motto | Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity |
Agency overview | |
Formed | July 26, 1908 |
Employees | 35,104 [1] (October 31, 2014) |
Annual budget | US$8.3 billion (FY 2014) [1] |
Jurisdictional structure | |
Federal agency (Operations jurisdiction) | United States |
Operations jurisdiction | United States |
Legal jurisdiction | As per operations jurisdiction |
Governing body | U.S. Department of Justice |
Constituting instrument | |
General nature | |
Operational structure | |
Headquarters |
J. Edgar Hoover Building Northwest, Washington, D.C. |
Sworn members | 13,260 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Unsworn members | 18,306 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Agency executives |
|
Child agencies | |
Major units | 5
|
Field offices | 56 ( List of FBI Field Offices) |
Notables | |
People |
|
Programs | |
Significant Operations | |
Website | |
www |
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:25, 9 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can someone who knows a bit about the FBI review this edit please. Peet Ern ( talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
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).
It helps a lot of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.125.133 ( talk) 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
I will be doing the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.
Here are my concerns with this article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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. – xeno talk 15:37, 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)
I think this warrants a mention: Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row. → AA ( talk) — 12:24, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Federal Bureau of Investigation | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Common name | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Abbreviation | FBI |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
"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)
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)
hi —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.47.249.237 (
talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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.
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)
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)
good morning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.107.1.178 ( talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
slt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.210.170 ( talk) 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. Pine talk 09:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
The 'Further Reading' section mentions 'HSI BOOK Government HSI Files' - what is that supposed to mean?
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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."
I have closed this {{
edit semi-protected}}
request as nearly 2 weeks have elapsed and there is no consensus to edit the article. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 20:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
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.wikipedia.org/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)
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgonlandor ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
The article reads:
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Gonzales
Even the Patriot Act article mentions the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.138.64.221 ( talk)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
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
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
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
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)
Under "Controversies", the section "Black Panthers" has this statement:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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??????????????
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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: What is your source for that "paraphrase"? Famspear ( talk) 19:48, 7 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://losangeles.ibtimes.com/articles/168679/20110623/america-s-most-wanted-fugitive-james-whitey-bulger-caught.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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"
/info/en/?search=Sentinel_(FBI)
Current mention in article is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
And, yes, they are the same! RedGreenBanana ( talk) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I suggest just delete it. - Aude ( talk contribs) 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Question.What was the situation/status whatever , before the FBI?What every state police was on it's whon.
Moved old-stuff to archive --
Shane (
talk/
contrib) 07:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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. :( — Jemmy t c 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 TTTURBO 212.122.73.26 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 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)
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 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 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation | |
![]() | |
Common name | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Abbreviation | FBI |
Motto | Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity |
Agency overview | |
Formed | July 26, 1908 |
Employees | 35,104 [1] (October 31, 2014) |
Annual budget | US$8.3 billion (FY 2014) [1] |
Jurisdictional structure | |
Federal agency (Operations jurisdiction) | United States |
Operations jurisdiction | United States |
Legal jurisdiction | As per operations jurisdiction |
Governing body | U.S. Department of Justice |
Constituting instrument | |
General nature | |
Operational structure | |
Headquarters |
J. Edgar Hoover Building Northwest, Washington, D.C. |
Sworn members | 13,260 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Unsworn members | 18,306 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Agency executives |
|
Child agencies | |
Major units | 5
|
Field offices | 56 ( List of FBI Field Offices) |
Notables | |
People |
|
Programs | |
Significant Operations | |
Website | |
www |
{{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 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() Badge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation | |
![]() | |
Common name | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Abbreviation | FBI |
Motto | Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity |
Agency overview | |
Formed | July 26, 1908 |
Employees | 35,104 [1] (October 31, 2014) |
Annual budget | US$8.3 billion (FY 2014) [1] |
Jurisdictional structure | |
Federal agency (Operations jurisdiction) | United States |
Operations jurisdiction | United States |
Legal jurisdiction | As per operations jurisdiction |
Governing body | U.S. Department of Justice |
Constituting instrument | |
General nature | |
Operational structure | |
Headquarters |
J. Edgar Hoover Building Northwest, Washington, D.C. |
Sworn members | 13,260 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Unsworn members | 18,306 (October 31, 2014) [1] |
Agency executives |
|
Child agencies | |
Major units | 5
|
Field offices | 56 ( List of FBI Field Offices) |
Notables | |
People |
|
Programs | |
Significant Operations | |
Website | |
www |
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:25, 9 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can someone who knows a bit about the FBI review this edit please. Peet Ern ( talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
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).
It helps a lot of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.125.133 ( talk) 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
I will be doing the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.
Here are my concerns with this article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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. – xeno talk 15:37, 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)
I think this warrants a mention: Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row. → AA ( talk) — 12:24, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Federal Bureau of Investigation | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Common name | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Abbreviation | FBI |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
"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)
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)
hi —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.47.249.237 (
talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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.
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)
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)
good morning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.107.1.178 ( talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
slt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.210.170 ( talk) 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. Pine talk 09:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
The 'Further Reading' section mentions 'HSI BOOK Government HSI Files' - what is that supposed to mean?
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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."
I have closed this {{
edit semi-protected}}
request as nearly 2 weeks have elapsed and there is no consensus to edit the article. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 20:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
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.wikipedia.org/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)
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgonlandor ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
The article reads:
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Gonzales
Even the Patriot Act article mentions the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.138.64.221 ( talk)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
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
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
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
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)
Under "Controversies", the section "Black Panthers" has this statement:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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??????????????
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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: What is your source for that "paraphrase"? Famspear ( talk) 19:48, 7 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://losangeles.ibtimes.com/articles/168679/20110623/america-s-most-wanted-fugitive-james-whitey-bulger-caught.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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"
/info/en/?search=Sentinel_(FBI)
Current mention in article is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Federal Bureau of Investigation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
And, yes, they are the same! RedGreenBanana ( talk) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)