Talk:List of secret police organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 

Advice for citations in List of secret police organizations (Pinned)[edit]

Hi, when I proof-read the edits today, it occurred to me that this article would be a lot less controversial if the citations met the following guidelines:

Editors should:

  1. Give priority to printed sources over web links: examples of printed sources are books, journals and newspapers. The problem with web links is that unless they appear on Archive.org, it would be hard to verify them later. However, printed sources have to be checked for reliability, because there are newspapers that back fringe theories. If you later find that a web article has a printed version, the printed version should replace it.
  2. Ensure that web links have an Archive.org entry: if you have to use web links because it is from an established source and the evidence is compelling, then make sure that Archive.org has archived it, so as to reduce the difficulty of verifying them later.
  3. Ensure that the source directly refers to it as such: I removed a BBC source because it did not actually refer an alleged organisation in Turkey as the country's secret police. Please make sure that the source actually refers the alleged organisation as the secret police, or as a successor to a widely acknowledged secret police (such as the KGB).
  4. Provide short quotes to back the claim: the quotes should be short enough to back the claim and avoid copyright infringement. Phrases like "…the Ministry of Love… …the secret police of Oceania…" should do fine.
  5. Provide two or more citations: you will boost the case for the claim that an organisation is a secret police if you can find two reliable sources that back the claim.
  6. Give priority to new sources over old sources: Politics change quickly, so for this article, I think we should avoid adding sources that were published before 31 December 2012, unless they are backed by newer sources that prove that the old source is still relevant.
  7. Use common sense: this is not an article about countries we do not like. Most likely it is a coincidence due to how they run the country.

Any thoughts?

--Marianian(talk) 00:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Is the Special Branch really a secret police org? Thanx 68.39.174.150 11:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This question has been the cause of considerable reversion and counter-reversion on this page and secret police (likewise the FBI and other US organisations). It all comes down to your definition of a secret police organisation and your politics. -- Necrothesp 15:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't feel like a revert war so I'll leave it. Thanx 68.39.174.150 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
not sure why that's controversial. I guess some people take 'secret police' to be a value judgement rather than a neutral category, i.e., something negative associated with enemy states. The Special Branch is certainly 'secret' and 'police' and political, if that's a defining characteristic. Bobanny 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. However certain people do not want to admit that the USA has a secret police. There is no doubt that the FBI and Special Branch are secret police organisations. If they are not secret police, then neither was the Gestapo. It is entirely artificial to limit the definition of secret police to secret police "in dictatorships"Royalcourtier (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be artificial to limit it to dictatorships and it isn't, there are countries with elected governments on there, Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran, Nigeria. The FBI doesn't belong on there because they aren't a secret police organization and they definitely don't meet the requirements for listing. - SantiLak (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing FBI[edit]

I am removing the FBI from this list of secret police organizations. The FBI is a national police force and not a secret police force - there is a substantial difference between these two definitions given by Wikipedia. Specifically, the secret police entry specifies that a secret police is only held accountable to the executive branch of government while the FBI is held accountable to Congressional reporting requirements and the federal court system. Inclusion of the FBI ignores the fact that the secret police entry specifically states that "Secret police differ from the domestic security agencies in modern liberal democracies, because domestic security agencies are generally subject to government regulation, reporting requirements, and other accountability measures" including published annual reports and specific delineation of responsibility under statute. If the FBI is to be included it must be clearly cited as to under what grounds it is included as a secret police organization. Any other commentary on the organization as a secret police organization should be included in the Criticism section of the FBI article itself. 207.250.239.174 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


FBI COINTELPRO:: They were monitoring citizens and dissidents. It's probably still up as are various "red squad" police force partnerships. Stop acting like the USA is some bastion of perfect freedom. There are two national police forces that operate under the cloak of secrecy. Quit being naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.81.246 (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The FBI has as much transparency as one might expect given the nature of the criminality that they are responsible for investigating. The suggestion that it's a "secret police" service is laughable.
I'd add that the one example that's being used as "evidence" reported nearly 40 years ago, and the organisation is now a very different beast, indeed much of the current governance and transparency is a result of the weaknesses highlighted at the time.
ALR (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why has secret police been limited to including only organisations in dictatorships? The definition of secret police cannot be so limited. The FBI should be restored to the list, along with similar non-uniformed organisations elsewhereRoyalcourtier (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • It isn't limited it to dictatorships and it isn't, there are countries with elected governments on there, Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran, Nigeria. The FBI doesn't belong on there because they aren't a secret police organization and they definitely don't meet the requirements for listing. - SantiLak (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aww come on, while the FBI and NSA may be controversial recently, I and SantiLak have long figured out that there has to be widespread association with them and the term "Secret Police" in the common media (if mainstream isn't enough), and not just in fringe theories: furthermore, I know the US is not some bastion of perfect freedom: nowhere practically is. --Marianian(talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The CIA is certainly a secret police organization so I will add it.[edit]

Remember Guatemala.71.182.209.56 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Guatemala? What an agency does overseas has nothing to do with their status as a domestic secret police agency. Orpheus (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
While this comment is certainly irrelevant, the point still stands: just as the article notes Domestic Intelligence Agency is commonly used, I see no reason why the CIA shouldn't be classed as a secret police agency. They're just a secret police organization that operates in other countries as well as their own. 75.154.113.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
The CIA is forbidden by law from operating in the U.S., and from operating as a law enforcement agency anywhere. It is just a foreign intelligence agency. Jsc1973 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, the CIA should be included:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.81.246 (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


The FBI belongs on this list. Period. Stop being so Americentric and thinking that the USA is incapable of having such an agency as a secret police. --174.102.201.14 (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The FBI operates openly. It is the national police force of the United States, but it is not "secret." The CIA doesn't meet the definition of a secret police as used here, because it is forbidden to operate on U.S. soil and is not a police agency. The United States Secret Service does qualify under that definition, and it is listed as such. Jsc1973 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Except the Secret Service doesn't actually work secretly. Generalcp702user talk 23:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
What about the National Security Agency? What about a subsection that lists organizations alleged to have secret police characteristics by reliable sources? --86.144.155.203 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


The CIA may be "forbidden" by law, but that does not mean that they do not in fact operate on US soil. They are de facto the secret police of America, as defined by the secret police entry. See Project MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird to see what I mean. 71.191.189.195 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only are they secret police but also the world's largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.29.204 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of these aren't really secret police[edit]

Many of these are not secret police CIA operates outside the U.S. and if the FBI is included why not SIS or intelligence agencies of other countries not just the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander v99 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay everyone, here's the deal: if you can find two reliable sources that any of the UK or US organizations report solely to the head of state, without de jure or de facto judicial oversight, then we'll consider it such. Sounds okay? --Marianian(talk) 18:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Deal. The Protect America Act allowed for de facto proscription without any judicial inputs, and the persons under PAA certified order liability-removed from "any court".
PAA was certified by the DOJ and/or ODNI, and that de facto makes the ODNI and DOJ-AG heads of secret police agencies. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.220.249 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And what would be the two (preferably academic) sources to describe one organization as a secret police (and I don't mean the InfoWars ones)? --Marianian(talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like there was an agreement among editors above to add the FBI (I assume the counter intelligence branch of the FBI was intended), the SIS (MI5) and the FSB to the list. They operate in secret (for example the identities of operatives are protected) and they protect the state. They may have become more humane than secret police in other states, but that does not automatically exclude them from the definition. As far as I can see, neither parliamentary nor judicial oversight are relevant to the definition. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I am taking caution on this article is that it is particularly vulnerable to fringe theories and that this article only just escaped deletion provided that more effort is put into the reliability of citations. Any future additions should be dependent on evidence of broad and wide usage, not just from the point of view of one country, or the internet community. --Marianian(talk) 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The FSB is also not a real secret policy.--Gerhardt Rauchfeldt (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It meets the requirements. - SantiLak (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of secret police organizations. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete this article[edit]

This ridiculous list should be deleted, it is political motivated and based on personal subjective opinion. There is no such a thing us secret when it is well how some unit operates or details about units are made public, when we know who is in lead of such units or organizations etc. Method that is used in police or federal securities or similar units is different and methods on which units operates should be discussed but that has nothing to do with political or personal motivated lists such is this. Any abuse by police or other government forces should be discussed but this is wrong thing to do. Many if not all police forces in world had in some time done something wrong.

Term "secret police" is more Hollywood films based terminology then it is used in reality from people in countries that are marked as having such secret police units. Most people don't even know to make a difference between regular or other more specialized police or army units and uses their official names so using such broad term can lead to bad judgment. Such bad call is that FBI is secret police by definition and not by action they take or vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.35.21 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's based on reliable sources and a clear and agreed upon by consensus set of guidelines for inclusion. - SantiLak (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with anon. This list is not based on objective criteria and is entirely useless. Zerotalk 07:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Include Uzbekistan's National Security Service[edit]

Since the page is protected, I am unable to edit this list. But I would like to recommend the inclusion of Uzbekistan's National Security Service. By numerous accounts, including three listed below, this organisation makes considerable use of torture and mass domestic surveillance on political opposition. It has even been alleged that the organisation was responsible for massacre of several hundred protestors in 2005 (see Andijan Massacre for details). I think this fits the requirements for inclusion.

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/uzbek-secret-police-roam-russian-prisons

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/uzbekistan/report-uzbekistan/

http://www.rferl.org/content/Former_Uzbek_Spy_Seeks_Asylum/1195372.html

37.9.61.83 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Added.--Froglich (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What This List Is and Is Not[edit]

Is this page an article in an encyclopedia or a page to attack states which the US and the UK dislike or have problems with?! :-/ MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The entries are referenced. It happens to be the case that those countries with secret police organisations are more likely to be adversaries of the West (there are plenty of reasons for this). The fact that the majority of the entries listed are from the second world and have anti-Western governments is therefore incidental. This is not an WP:NPOV issue, in other words, as you seem to be implying. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It is exactly an issue of lack of impartiality and neurality. You use your own philosophy. What are those reasons? Why do you say these? Any organization applying surveillance is a secret police organization; but there are not any mention to organizations like NSA or DoHS because here is English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Gooya News belongs to the opposition and the lother reference(s) were of low quality. Why is China metioned here? Because it is USA's rival. MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@L.R. Wormwood: Is BBC a biased reference and one that is based on opinion? You removed NSA and rejected all the refs. including BBC. MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996: i. There's no mention of NSA (anymore) because it isn't a secret police organisation. China is mentioned here because it has a secret police organisation. ii. The BBC is a reliable source of information. iii. I removed the NSA because none of the references actually supported the entry. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Iran[edit]

Are you sure? Both references refer to the organisation as the Iranian "secret police". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@L.R. Wormwood: Those references are not neutral and impartial. SAVAMA is a lie Hoessein Fardoost made to say he is important for the revolutionary government. Iran's intelligence organizations have never been officially called SAVAMA. The references are not verifiable and neutral and impartial. They belong to oppostion or are of low quality. MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Most of that was entirely un-supported. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The following two links would provide additional support [1] [2] L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is not an acceptable resolurce because it belongs to Israel. MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What is secret police? I am an Iranian and I don't know anything about it.... Iran's MoI is something like CIA of the US. I don't know why you insist that Iranian MoI is a secret police. They have too many things to do that they don't have time for such things. :-D MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is an acceptable source; it's reporting is accurate and the newspaper maintains high journalistic standards. Where it is published does not matter. Secret police refers to intelligence services or police which operate with little oversight or accountability, and which are often involved in extrajudicial activities. My instinct would be that the Iranian security services operate in this way, and this would appear to be supported by several sources. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is not a reliable source. We do not work based on you instinct and the sources you mention are all biased. My instinct says NSA and CIA operate in this way as well and there are sources to deduce that. I don't reply anymore. MarcusAureliusAntoninusMaximus1996 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't operate based on your prejudices. I have provided sources, and therefore the claim will be restored unless you can demonstrate that the Iranian intelligence services act in an accountable and transparent way. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@L.R. Wormwood: Now that you love such stuff, please add Iranian Security Police, Iranian Police Criminal Investigation Department, Intelligence Organization of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, Intelligence Protection Organization of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution and Basij, too. You please gather resources yourself. Make sure you use stupid biased sources, too. :-D Enjoy! :-) EditingAgent (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@L.R. Wormwood: Of course that CIA and NSA do everything in a transparent way. :-) EditingAgent (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Still a useless article[edit]

More than 3 years ago, I suggested that this article be renamed "List of police and intelligence organizations in countries we don't like", which was the only description I could think of that actually matched the content. Visiting again now, nothing much has improved. It is a thoroughly crap article. However, I've been around too long to imagine that an AfD attempt could succeed. Zerotalk 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could like this comment 1,000,000 times. EditingAgent (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to include entries which you think apply. I'm inclined to agree with you that in several cases, the term "secret police" probably shouldn't apply.
I disagree that this is simply a "list of police and intelligence organizations in countries we don't like"; the majority of these countries happen to be adversaries of the West in some way, and this isn't coincidental. Societies which lack political pluralism are more likely to depend on opaque and unaccountable policing methods to address internal opposition, and these countries are also more likely to have anti-Western governments. Incidentally, not all the entries listed are "countries we don't like" (Nigeria and Bahrain are listed, for instance). That we don't list the Chinese security services, and only the 610 Office, would also contradict your suggestion that we have just listed the police and intelligence organisations of "countries we don't like". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
So you prefer "countries hostile to the West" in place of "countries we don't like"? Actually most (probably all) western countries have intelligence services, or police special branches, that satisfy the definition at secret police fairly well. Zerotalk 02:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"So you prefer "countries hostile to the West" in place of "countries we don't like"?": This is obviously not a summary of my argument. Since you have refused to respond to my substantive points, and have instead provided a dishonest summary, presented without comment in such a way that ought to make it obvious that it wasn't a reasonable inference from my argument, I won't waste my time any further by discussing this with you.
Your second suggestion also happens to be unsupported assertion. None of the definitions provided in our article on the subject apply to the intelligence services of "probably all" Western countries. The idea that the NSA, say, is a "secret police" organisation, and belongs in the same category as Mugabe's CIO, is absurd. The intelligence services of "Western countries", as you put it, operate with government oversight, are accountable to elected institutions, and are not used to harass the opposition. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If you simply object to the term "secret police", that isn't a basis for deleting the article. If you're unhappy with my tone, then in future please do me the courtesy of actually addressing my points. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Kazakhstan[edit]

It seems that it is not well-sourced enough, with one Telegraph source. Should it remain for now? Mellk (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mellk: I think it was well sourced even with one telegraph source but i've added another source from the Guardian. I also found a few RFE/RL sources but I assumed some editors might have an issue with it considering its funding, if you can find other RS that also refer to it as secret police then that would definitely be helpful. Thanks! - SantiLak (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC- Use of Human Rights Groups as sources[edit]

(non-admin closure) No consensus has been reached.- MrX 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wanted to get input from other editors on whether they think it would be appropriate to use human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human rights watch as sources when listing secret police organizations. - SantiLak (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes International groups are the most reliable source of information concerning these types of organizations. LK (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Secret police are not a conspiracy theory. Governments may have reasons to counterfactually deny their existence while the example orgs have a vested interest in correcting errors in their reporting. Dakleman (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No. While some such organizations can be RS, a lot of them (most, I would wager) are tax-write-off-mongering and/or government-funded political front-groups. The UN agencies are of course uniformly deplorable propaganda outlets. (I would be far, far more likely to trust an organization such as Médecins Sans Frontières which is actually physically present in various nations doing things rather than just yammering into microphones full-time.)--Froglich (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No A lot of these various Watchpuppy orgs. write whatever pleases them. If 2 or 3 of them got together and agreed on something, I'd be ore likely to approve, but by themselves, they are noise makers. See Frog's comment. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes for the ones you mentioned, certainly. Others probably have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. In general scholarly sources are likely superior even to HRW or AI, but these two are frequently more accurate and thorough than most news media, for instance. There's absolutely no evidence that UN groups are "propaganda outlets"; care to back that up, Froglich? Though if an independent secondary source is contradicting them, then we should probably tread carefully. I'd certainly go with the UN over most national government sources, for instance. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems that the majority of sources here are editorial commentaries, opinion pieces and such, written by a single author. According to Wikipedia in identifying reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." - so if we are trying to list secret police organisations as a fact, these kind of sources would not help. I've even seen a few that do not label them as a 'secret police' organisation, those of news reports it seems that are actually much more reliable than those reports by single authors, who I've not seen to be reputable or known. Mellk (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mellk: You asked to correct you if you were wrong, so I will, yes you are wrong. The majority is not editorial commentaries or opinion pieces, I didn't find any at all, at least among the sources I just added in the last few days, but if you saw some please point them out. I also removed that mashable source. - SantiLak (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@SantiLak: Many are clearly written by single authors/contributors, which I am referring to. Despite them coming from usually quite reliable media outlets and websites, they are different as they are written by a single author as I would say to be editorials or an analysis or that sort of nature, unlike actual news articles and reports from these outlets, and so, according to Wikipedia, is rarely reliable for statements of fact. For example, the 38th citation from the BBC, is written by a single author, and is part of "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS". Another example is the 11th citation, which is part of 'HKFP voices', which is clearly an opinion piece. There is a very good reason why such works by single authors, whether it is in the nature of editorials, analysis, opinion and so on, is rarely accepted, especially in articles such as this. Factual reports are needed, not the words of single authors and contributors. This is supposed to be a list of for-sure, secret police organisations, not those 'alleged' by a few contributors, or else this should be moved into 'list of alleged secret police organisation'. I hope you can understand from there. Mellk (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've also noted that for Syria, only the 'Mail on Sunday' (a tabloid paper) is used. This is clearly not a reliable source for labelling agencies as 'secret police'. Mellk (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mellk: Are you really suggesting that if a news articles is written by single author that it is therefore unreliable for this? That would mean we would have to invalidate most of wikipedia as most articles from RS are not written by multiple persons. As to the HKFP Voices, thats one of the categories the article is under, including "LGBTQ & Gender" and "Politics and Protest", it isn't an opinion piece, its a news article. Also the BBC article isn't a part of "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS", it is a profile on the FSB, that is a suggested link at the bottom of the article. As for the Syria citation, i'll be sure to add more citations from RS. If you have any other citations you are concerned about, please raise them. - SantiLak (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@SantiLak: I'm concerned because listing 'secret police agencies' is something controversial and requires most scholars and sources to label it as a secret police agency, not just using few sources. Therefore it makes no sense to do that, and then mention instead that only the following particular sources 'allege' them to be secret police agencies. This is supposed to be a list of agencies that are definitely secret police. I've not taken a good enough look at all the sources, so I thank you for trying to explain them. These did not seem to be news reporting to me. Looking at the BBC source, actually it shows that this profile is listed under 'analysis and profiles' on the right hand side, as this is clearly a kind of analysis. I've looked at the HKFP article, and HKFP voices section shows many articles that are clearly opinion pieces and such, 'politics and protest' is the category the piece is based on. I then looked at HKFP voices, where it writes that "Views expressed on the HKFP Voices platform are not necessarily shared by Hong Kong Free Press" - so it would certainly seem that these articles are based off views. Mellk (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mellk: I agree that listing secret police agencies is controversial, that is why several years ago, "In this list, reputable sources, with relevant quotes, allege the organizations in this list to be secret police." was added to the lede. In a way because of the controversial nature of it, we have to frame that we are alleging based on reputable sources. Of course if you asked the State Security Department of North Korea if it was a secret police it would probably deny it, and the same with Jordan's GID or Syria's Air Force Intelligence or all the rest, and as so we have to have that listed as alleged in the lede. You are correct that the BBC article is under "Analysis and Profiles" and not "Features, Views, Analysis." That being said, it is not analysis but it is a profile, one of the two kinds of articles listed under "Analysis and Profiles" and you don't have to look farther than the title of it which is "Profile: Russia's secret police." As for the HKFP article, again it is a news article, it was not written by HKFP which is why it is a part of the voices category, but it is also under the "LGBTQ & Gender" and "Politics and Protest" categories. If it were an opinion article, it would be categorized as such because they have an opinion section. Again, the reason it is under the Voices section is that it was written by journalists from the "Varsity" magazine, another RS by the way, but published by the HKFP. Thank you for continuing to engage in a civil discussion about this. - SantiLak (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that a self-definition by these agencies would not be acceptable, obviously, though I would find that it would be best to list agencies by if the majority of scholars and reliable sources list them as such, I don't think that using only a handful of sources (which are sometimes questionable) would be enough. As you have already mentioned in the article, that these are 'alleged', I would so recommend moving this article to 'list of alleged secret police organizations' (and Wikipedia lists of something alleged are nothing new), rather than having the article's name make it seem that these are definitely secret police agencies, as it seems misleading when these are then noted as 'alleged'. That will depend on how you'd feel about that of course. Another issue I find of with some single authors, such as the BBC source, is that the FSB is labelled as 'secret police' by the author, however I do not see any other BBC articles doing the same, so this label will differ significantly with different sources, and it may be the case that only a minority of reliable sources consider this label to be correct. On the other hand, there will undoubtedly be sources that mostly, if not virtually the entire time, label agencies such as North Korea's, as being secret police. I've seen this such as where Reuters with its news reports, labels North Korea's agency as being secret police instead, such as 'North Korea sacks head of secret police', whereas it does not do the same with the FSB in its news reports. Let me know your thoughts. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think its necessary to move it to a title where alleged is included, and actually I think it probably would be fair to change the disclaimer a bit considering the sources provided for all the agencies aren't really alleging that the organizations are secret police but rather they are asserting it. I think it would be a better idea to change it to "In this list, reputable sources, with relevant quotes, assert that these listed organizations are secret police." As for the BBC, if you'd like I can add a number of other news articles from the BBC describing the FSB as a secret police to the article, I decided to hold back on adding those because I didn't want to over-cite or make it seem as if only one source was describing it as such. - SantiLak (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles for example? I searched for all results on the FSB, and did not seem to find an article which labelled it as such, up to the 'analysis-kind' article you cited (which is 2006 by the way). Mellk (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It also makes no sense in this article to say that this is a "list of current secret police organizations", and then say it's alleged right after? Mellk (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, RT -- There's four, the last three of which directly use the term "secret police", and the last of which, RT (Russia Today), is the country's own propaganda channel.--Froglich (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Well here, I will post a bunch of them for you, "the FSB secret police headquarters", "Russia has expanded the powers of its FSB secret police" "near Moscow's FSB secret police academy", "came from the FSB secret police", "Russia's FSB secret police announced", "quoted a source in the FSB secret police", "to Russia's FSB secret police". Like I said I decided to hold back on adding those because I didn't want to over-cite or make it seem as if only one source was describing it as such. If you'd like, I can add these citations into the article rather than the BBC profile which you believe is actually an analysis piece. You are right that it doesn't make sense to put alleged in there, which is why I suggested assert because we are asserting based on reputable sources that these are secret police organizations. - SantiLak (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Important i have citations proving USA as having secret police[edit]

1. the agencys as follows (department of homeland security, national security agency, all agency's within DHS or operating on their behalf, Tigerswan paramilitary organization, JTTF.) 2. now onto the citations proving these are in fact secret police forces THERE CITATIONS WAKE UP Memetrident (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)memetrident

1) YouTube videos from assorted non-notable blokes and conspiracy mongers are not reliable sources.
2) WikiLeaks is a Russian front, and therefore categorically not an objective, reliable source.
3) Democracynow.org is a Pacifica Foundation syndicate; Pacifica Foundation is a Cold War-lineage communist-front group, and therefore categorically not an objective, reliable source.
4) Surveillance entities AKA "spy agencies" (e.g., the NSA) are not "police".
5) Pig LEFOs may be bad cops, but they're not an institution accountable to no one.
6) As has been beat to death ad-nauseum, the FBI and CIA have legislative oversight.
7) In your giant list, the only usable RS is the New York Times (which has hardly been objective in such matters)...but the linked article concerns something speculative rather than existent. So, whiff on all counts.--Froglich (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
...Snipped gigantic list (view at link) of Memetrident's non-RS "refs" that were otherwise going to lurk forever at the bottom of the TP riding underneath everything else.--Froglich (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done @Memetrident: Pretty much the same reasons listed on the talk page again and again when this has come up before. - SantiLak (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Truth[edit]

This proves that Wikipedia is a propaganda source for the American regime I listed 30+ citiations and you didn't debunk anything all you did was slander well reputable news organizations and call everything that's not bought out by the government fake news and communist news you even admitted your one sided Ness therefore I concluded this website as a whole is a propaganda tool for the regime (USA ) Memetrident (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Memetrident

Honestly your post probably deserves to be deleted based on WP:NOTAFORUM, but if you'd like to believe that, you can go ahead and continue doing so. Cheers - SantiLak (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

+1 to deletion[edit]

Without listing literally all intelligence services and domestic security services, this article is not ever going to be WP:NPOV.

A secret police is defined on the main page as 'intelligence services or police and law enforcement agencies which engage in covert, domestic law enforcement, intelligence, and counter-intelligence operations', which would cover most of the security services on the planet.

The citations for the FSB - justifying its inclusion - refer to the Litvenenko assassination, suggesting that a common thread across all 'secret police' services is their nature of being 'above the law'. The FBI illicit use of barbituates[1] and the consequential murder of Fred Hampton and his colleagues would fit this 'above the law' nature. This also ties into the illegal COINTELPRO, which used illegal surveillance and methods to hinder 'subversive' individuals and groups.

There appears to be three solutions:

1) Include all security services which are not subject to freedom of information legislation, in accordance with the simple definition on the secret police page - which would make it indistinguishable from 'List of intelligence agencies';

2) Refine the definition on the secret police page in order to justify including the FSB and similar organisations but not the FBI - which I don't think is possible, without explicitly referring to NATO vs former Eastern Bloc countries;

3) Delete the page.

Fouriels (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The difference is that a secret police is an organisation working in secret against a government's opponents and a normal intelligence service works in secret against the country's opponents irrespective of who is in government. The FSB does target people who are anti-Putin but the FBI does not target people who are anti-Trump. Therefore I've updated the current definition on the secret police article to clarify this important distinction. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 11:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fouriels: The article inclusion requirements are pretty clear, i'd refer you to the pinned post. - SantiLak (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely convinced - arguably the difference between 'governmental enemies' and 'state enemies' could be boiled down to a question of the ideology of the department in question - where if the ideology of the department differs from that of the government it's an 'intelligence service', and if it's the same (even if the government does not directly dictate ideology to the department) it's a 'secret police'. It also inherently implies that secret extralegal activity in the name of 'the country' - a nationalistic ideal - is legitimate, while secret extralegal activity in the name of an ideology (in the case of China, for example) is not. I would prefer to recognise neither form of extralegal activity as more legitimate than the other.

I feel like it would be constructive to look at the most famous and least controversial example of a secret police - the Gestapo - which was a sub-administration of the SS paramilitary. As a result of this structure, the ideology of both the gestapo itself and the government of Nazi Germany was nigh-identical, because the gestapo was essentially party-political. These forms of secret police appear pretty rare. I do think your amendment to the article has made the situation less straightforward - thank you for that! - but i'd like to hear what your opinions on my further comments are. Perhaps there could be a further re-evaluation of the definition which would make the situation even clearer. Fouriels (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fouriels: No its not just ideology, is actions and allegiance. A normal intelligence service does not support any individual government, but a secret police does. Its this political aspect which is the distinction I pointed out above. A government's enemies include opposition parties, human rights activists, environmental activists, pretty much anyone who voices decent from the government's narrative. So in the US for example the then Obama Democratic White House was the government and the Republicans where their opponents/enemies. The state's enemies are terrorists/other countries etc. totally different. A normal intelligence service like the FBI or CIA is political neutral and would not care if the government after the election was Democratic under Hilary or Republican under Trump, they would support whoever won and continue their work defending their country within the law as created by Congress.
You mention the Gestapo, but remember the Gestapo was only division 4 within the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, division 6 was the Foreign Intelligence Service, the equivalent of the CIA + NSA and division 5 was the Kripo for 'non-political' serious crimes effectively the equivalent of the FBI. The Gestapo dealt with political crime, i.e. suppression of opposition to the Nazi government. Organisations categorised here as secret police, may also do the non-political work covered by the CIA/FBI/MI5/MI6 etc. but they also have this political work as well.
If the FBI for example was a secret police and therefore linked to the Obama Democratic white house in the same way the CIO is linked to Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the last US election would have been very different. What you would have probably seen is Bernie Sanders dying due to "natural courses of old age" to make way for 100% support for Hilary as the Democratic nominee just like in North Korea when the SSD ensured 100% support in the party for Kim Jong-un succession after his father. Then just like in Russia you would have seen leading opponents (ie the Republicans) arrested on trumped up charges of tax evasion or something just before the election and released just after. Others might have just disappeared turning up days or weeks later tortured like what Zimbabwe's CIO did. You would never have seen Republican news or campaign material as supply of it would have been significantly disrupted and all news channels sources would have been controlled by the secret Censorship Directorate in the FBI HQ. All this would have ended with a very comfortable victory for Hilary on election day, after all even if the vote ended with a Republican win, this fictionalised FBI would have stuffed the ballet boxes with fake Democrat votes, usually from dead people or just made up voters which never existed. Then again maybe the election would never have happened because any opposition to the Democratic Party would have been illegal and suppressed by this FBI just like in China, North Korea, Belarus etc. All work of organisations which are secret police defending their governments by suppressing political opposition to them. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 17:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a fair reply. I didn't realise the extent to which the FSB suppressed the Russian opposition. I rescind my original suggestion. Fouriels (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)