Talk:United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations article.|
|WikiProject Law Enforcement|
AFOSI has undergone a major shuffle in the organization. Much of this article is seriously outdated. I am not familiar enough with the wikipedia process to make the changes, but I'm very familiar with AFOSI. Any recommendations on how to proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Additional Information Request
There needs to be some information relating to AFOSI and the UFO phenomenon. Many cases have been traced back to AFOSI operatives as disinformation or who-knows-what-their-intent-was. Timewalk92 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that stuff just used to cover up research. There were all kinds of ufo sights in the test area for the stealth fighter test flights. It don't bother me if their putting disinformation out there about that stuff national security and all that.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should protect the page from vandalism. Someone keeps putting up a section on the AFOSI STTF ?? I have not heard of this and I am a retired NCIS Special Agent, I googled it and I cant dig up much info, also it has NO refrences. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree the user also put up the SITT stuff on List of Special forces united (under the USA section), SITT is not real to my knowlege, the AFOSI has anti-terrorism teams, alsmost every federal law enforcement agency does after 9/11, i know this because i am a NCIS special agent. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
SITT is garbage... frankly it makes us look stupid... it needs to be removed.
- I have removed (I hope) all of the SITT content. I have no knowledge of such a group, and couldn't comment if I did. Tgeairn (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The 'SITT' stuff has been showing up with regularity for a while now, presumably posted by the same person using different IP addresses. I think the only way to stop it at this point would be to protect or semi-protect the page.--Ndunruh (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Civilian or military personnel?
- They are Special Agents, federal criminal investigators. Agents can be civilians, or Air Force enlisted or officer personnel. More info here  EricSerge (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Paragraph headed: 'Information Operations'
In this paragraph, who is the 'our' referrred to? I would guess that the author is assuming a United States readership, but many readers (such as myself) are not from that country. I would suggest that the personal pronoun be replaced here.
per WP:NNC: The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. However, AFIP is noteable. It is the first reported program of its type within the DoD, and calls into question the Agency and possible legal or moral implications that could have a long term affect on the agency and the DoD. As for NPOV concerns I'll admit that use of the term "Unfortunately" gives a negative connatation to the information, find a better way to present the facts and I will accept it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Recentism relates to articles, not content, it is also not a policy or guideline. In addition the section does not overburden the content in the article. The information is not flimsy. Just because something is new does not make it recentism, as long as the content has long term value to the article it does not qualify. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, recentism does include content. Regardless, I also cited WP:NOTNEWS. you are incorrect that notability isn't a factor in content. The policy says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". That's my issue here. I don't see the enduring notability and you're saying notability doesn't matter when it clearly does. We're not a newspaper and just because something made it into the news cycle doesn't mean it gets included here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that everything in the news does not belong on wikipedia. However, you are ignoring the facts: WP:Note: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." WP:RECENT seems almost entirely focused on articles. It also says "Material may need to be moved, deleted, or added to." You have only considered one option, I have offered to allow you to add to or edit the section in the spirit of wikipedia. In addition as stated, RECENT is not a policy or guideline requiring you to delete content. "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Finally NOTNEWS, I think this event COULD definatly stand the test of time. It will be some time before we see if there will be a significant effect, however, the requirements of WP:EVENT are met. LASTING: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." As I stated, this is the first time an event of its type has happened to a military FELO. GEOSCOPE: The event effects the entire US Air Force stationed globally. Indeed, information could come from this program involving crimes committed on foreign soil. INDEPTH and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE may be established later, it is better to include the information now and to remove it later than just to act as if the event did not occur, IMO. DIVERSE is met, numerous sources are reporting on the event, the original article was expansive and in significant depth, investigating incidents with numerous individuals. I only linked 2 for the current time, I will await more reporting to expand the section if and when there is additional information.
- First off, don't ever litter my talk page again with your absurd COI template again. If you took 2 seconds to look at my page, you'd see I was in the Army, not that Air Force. Second, you didn't "offer to allow" me to do anything. Third, don't lecture me on what a policy is and isn't. It's a waste of my time. Next, you talk about what could be notable over time. You know how we find that out? We wait and see. This isn't a race to see how fast we can put it on, the leave it there for a year to find out. You need to show cause for it to be included. The rest of your response, citing GEOSCOPE etc, is just stretching. The continuing coverage isn't there yet. We don't base it on your crystal ball. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Be Civil. 2, an editor has the right to post a warning notice. 3, I am aware you are Army as I stated you have a CID logo, I stated that they are both Military FLEA's which presents a potential COI, you may be inclined to make a brother agency look good or keep its name looking good. 4, wikipedia content is subject to wikipedia policies and guidlines. You are using them to make you point, I have the right to do the same. The policy for notability does not require, to my knowledge, all the criteria to be met. I will seek uninvolved editors to comment on whether the information should be included. Ultimately it doesnt matter what I think or you think, the community decides. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- 1)Don't be a dick. 2) An editor should only post templates that apply and that one clearly didn't. Further, the essay WP:DTTR reminds us that templating regulars "tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil." 3) That's a pretty weak excuse for your unwarranted actions. Apparently you know nothing about the agencies of which you speak or you'd know that your premise is ridiculous. Further, you base is solely on your silly guess. You have nothing of substance to base your uncivil and patronizing template on. 4) The difference is that my citations actually support my position and you're grasping at straws. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lets get back to the topic. We have a disagreement on whether the policies allow the content. I have requested a third opinion hopefully we get some input. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at WP:NOTNEWS and note item 2: News Reports - "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I think this information is definitely enduring and notable. I find the content to be appropriate, though I do think it could be cleaned up a bit. Finally I think wholesale deleting is not editing. Often it is censorship. Buz lightning (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. I want to be clear that I understand the ideals behind Niteshift36's edits, I just feel that 1, the content should be included, and 2, if my edit was in any way POV, it can be edited to be more NPOV. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
3O Response: *I do not think there is a "recentism" problem if sources have emphasised this new issue. Sometimes recent events are important.
- Notability rules describe what articles we create, not what details we can add to those articles.
- It is hard to write neutral content. Are there any other sources on AFIP apart from the two news articles? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Continued reporting-    The third article provides some critical dates that can be used. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you're confusing yourself. You're confusing the Wikipedia policy on notability with the common use of the term. When I say something isn't "notable" enough to be in the article, I'm not talking about applying the notability policy. It is referring to giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, I cited WP:NOTNEWS, which clearly states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". I believe this is the case. There is nothing that unusual here. A law enforcement agency using informants is nothing new. This story will be getting no coverage a year from now, let alone the 10 year guideline that the essay on recentism suggests. While this incident may be appropriate for the article on the AF Academy, it doesn't merit inclusion here and not as a stand alone section where this minor story is being highlighted and weighted disproportionately. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC).
- Continued reporting-    The third article provides some critical dates that can be used. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- My .02, Enduring notability does not just refer to whether it will be reported on, but whether the information has an enduring effect. It has already had an effect as they have changed their policies to have Academy oversight. The reason the info is here, rather than on the Academy page is because the criticism was primarily directed at OSI, not the Academy which had little oversight, when it was even aware of an investigation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that this is a low visibility article, no one is rushing to edit it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You weren't able to wait a day to discuss anything. In a day, you forced the edits back in multiple times, reported a premature 3RR that ended up boomeranging and trumped up a COI issue. Seems like you had plenty of "rush" going on. Here is another part of the issue: You're making this all about the Academy. The Informant program, has existed for years and will continue to exist. Almost every agency uses informants. This is nothing new. But when you try to focus on a single event, that's when we start crossing into UNDUE, NOTNEWS and Recentism. Again, this is a story that nobody will be covering 2 years from now and, despite the incorrect opinions rendered here, enduring coverage (ie notability used as a common word) is a factor in determining inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The informant Program is not at issue, the program at the Academy is. As the other editors have asserted, the information meets wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just because a couple of people agreed doesn't make it a dead issue. Neither of them have gone beyond offering a passing opinion and, at least in one case, was based in part on a faulty premise. Basing this on a passing "issue" is exactly what we should be avoiding and what makes this a NOTNEWS issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you do not agree that the revelation of this program forcing a policy issue does not lend itself to being notable? Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- You say that the content is not notable enough to be in the article: Not referring to the policy, but to neutrailty. You have edited the article to address the issue of neutrality-resolved.
- You quote notnews, your reasoning being that many agencies have informant programs. You are neglecting the obvious fact that the reason it is being reported on is the treatment of the informants.
In addition you missed the next line in notnews,"For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." The information is not in any of the mentioned categories, and you should review WP:PERSISTENCE "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't confuse yourself. I object to the entry. Period. Since you refuse to discuss it before forcing it into the article, I've made edits addressing the POV way you wrote it. That doesn't mean I have accepted it as valid for inclusion. I'm not neglecting that there is temporary interest in the program. That's sort of the point. The program has existed for years. There is a temporary bump in interest, then it'll go back to something nobody covers until the next temporary bump. I didn't ignore what NOTNEWS says. Instead, I paid attention to it. PERSISTENCE doesn't give you a free pass. Yes, it's impossible to be sure, but we can predict based on previous incidents that shared similarities. If you look at Google trends for "office of special investigations", you'll see that that it is a pretty low search term over the past few years. Even with this incident, there hasn't been much of an increase. And that's only mentions of OSI, not necessarily related to this incident. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. I should have read the talk page before editing. Sorry. This piece is not notable enough to include the way you have it. If it is included it should be under Criminal Investigations as an example. Which means all of the other sections such as Threat Detection and Technology Protection should include examples as well. Johnsagent (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since when have I refused to discuss anything? Please provide diffs Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment on AFIP
I am responding to RFC from an independent. Prima facae the AFIP appears approriate to the page. I think however that stylistically it does need to be re-written to make it more encyclopaedic. If the existence of AFIP came to light recently it would be appropriate to say that it came to light on x date as a result of x. It would then be appropriate to say its details are as follows, of which case y was the first case ever to come to the attention of the media or not as the case may be. Ideally there should be some reference to the body with oversight of the programme as this currently appears to a be an ommission. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)