Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Federal Bureau of Investigation was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / FBI / Government / Public policy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject FBI (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Public Policy (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Espionage (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Federal Bureau of Investigation is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Espionage and Espionage-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton email investigation[edit]

Laws[edit]

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

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

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

It was in his 15-minute press conference. You know, the unprecedented one. And the one after which he would not take questions. Yeah, that one. A source is here: [1]. His exact words were: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." That's his political double-talk. The English translation is, as I stated above: "I will not prosecute a case with these facts. However, if someone else in the future were to have the same exact facts, they should not think that they will go un-prosecuted." ... and ... "If any person in the USA did this, they would get prosecuted under these facts. However, if the only distinction is that the person's name is Clinton, then -- of course -- they would not get prosecuted." It's official. The FBI is a laughing stock. And a joke. Thanks, Mister Comey! Great job! Very impartial! And not at all political! Piece of shit. Oops! I meant: Fine, upstanding citizen! And great leader! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Sorry, but the so-called "English translation" interpretation and the related commentary is emotional, hair-on-fire, raving baloney.
Look at what Comey said. You posted the statement yourself: ".....would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to SECURITY or ADMINISTRATIVE sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now..." (emphasis added). What he was deciding related to CRIMINAL sanctions, not SECURITY or ADMINISTRATIVE sanctions.
Comey said NOTHING that would lead a reasonable person to believe that anyone else -- on the same facts -- would be subject to prosecution. You're trying to give the false impression that Comey must secretly believe that SOMEONE ELSE under the same facts would be prosecuted. You are clearly wrong. You're upset because Hillary is not going to be prosecuted. My sense is that no result would have made you happy that did not involve her prosecution. Now, you're engaging in personal attacks against Comey because you're highly upset with the result.
Look for what reliable, previously published third party sources say about the matter, and report on what THEY say. Famspear (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You are 100% correct. And I am 100% wrong. Geez. Not sure what I was thinking. This has been a very above-board process. No one at all in the USA feels that it is shady and/or suspect. No one. Comey has been an exemplary leader of the highest morals and scruples and ethics! Definitely! That cannot be called into question! This is a good day for America! And this keeps intact the integrity and reputation of the FBI! Yeah, definitely! Not sure what I was thinking? I must have been crazy! Can we add all these facts into the article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

James Comey Director FBI[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 5 September 2016[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Request withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


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

"While common names are generally preferred over official names as article titles, there are some valid exceptions." "The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: Obscurity."- again, not the case here. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Professional sources use "Federal Bureau of Investigation" before "FBI", and I believe Wikipedia should follow the same pattern. Most of them won't say "FBI", they'll say "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)". Just search news results for that and you'll see. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not "almost always" referred to as the "FBI" in the media. (And "FBI" is not an acronym. It is an abbreviation. Some, but not all, abbreviations are also acronyms, but "FBI" is not one of those.) In an encyclopedia, the proper course is to use the official name of the agency in the title of the article. Changing the name of the article to "FBI" would be like changing the name of the article on the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to "IRS," or changing the name of the article on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to "FDA" -- merely because those abbreviations happen to be used a lot in the media. Virtually all abbreviations are used a lot in the media. There is another problem as well: While many Americans know what these abbreviations stand for, people in other countries generally are not as familiar with the abbreviations. Famspear (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment you make a wonderful point! This is definitely in encyclopedia! CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 23:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw – My request move for this article is very ignorant now that I think about it. A redirect is just fine. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done  Paine  u/c 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016[edit]

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

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

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