Jump to content

Talk:Private investigator/Archive 1

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

Worldwide

Is there anything we can do to make this a more global page? The whole page is very US-centric with very little information about outside the US. --hydeblake 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask a PI?

Has anyone any sensible and constructive ideas?--hydeblake 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Probable Cause

This line from the Godfather confuses me: "Tom Hagen: I'm an attorney for the Corleone family. These men are private detectives hired to protect Vito Corleone. They are licensed to carry firearms. If you interfere you'll have to appear before a judge in the morning and show just cause. "; What gives private investigators the right to usurp police authority in this instance? ---- Mbac

Mbac, the above took place in the U.S. so it falls under U.S. law, specifically the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Without probable cause police do not have the authority to interfere with the movement or actions of anyone including the private detectives mentioned (he could of said they were auto mechanics and it would of made no difference). Probable cause could include seeing an exposed or concealed firearm (depending on local or state law), which is probably why Hagen informed the police that the detectives have permits for their guns. Hagen also informed the police that he is an attorney at law (officer of the court) and represents the parties involved which makes it easier for Hagen to win an harrasment lawsuit against the police had they gone ahead and detained the detectives to see if they had licenses for their firearms (something every cop is aware of). Unfortantely various government entities try to usurp guarantees under the Fourth Amendment with laws that allow police to conduct searches without probable cause, like searching a person found loitering or searching an automobile stopped for a minor infraction (based often on the fact that driving in the U.S. is not a right, it's a privledge granted by the government) or most notably the fishing expeditions allowed under the Patriot Act.

Pinkerton

'm. Do the Pinkerton folks count as PI's? -- April

Pinkerton's? I'd say security guards, though it's entirely possible they have PI's. --Brion

Pinkerton is now a security guard company; most of the big players do investigative services on request, but this is a sideline business. Most Pinkerton employees are not private investigators, just as most police are not detectives.

Pinkerton is not even Pinkerton anymore, they are Securitas, a security company.

The original Pinkerton is often considered the first of the Private Investigators in the US. They often blurred the lines between investigators/security though. Steelsun 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)steelsun


The current text regarding the Pinkertons and the Homestead labor riot does not reflect a neutral point of view. Just saying that the Pinkertons shot and killed several strikers is misleading and biased. In fact, Congressional hearings conducted after the riot determined that the strikers fired their weapons first on the Pinkerton guards, leading to a protracted exchange of gunfire in which several Pinkertons were killed along with several strikers. It is well established that the Pinkertons were forced to surrender and were brutally beaten and abused by the strikers. Mullaghbrack 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mullaghbrack

Holmes not a PI

Sherlock Holmes did not call himself a Private Investigator. Ergo, Wikipedia cannot insert the interpretation. 24.162.140.213 23:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes is generally regarded as a private detective. He was certainly a detective with a private clientele. Regardless of what he called himself, he was a private detective. Modern PIs in China, for example, do not identify themselves as "private detectives" because of the ambiguous legal status there. Similarly, I identify myself as a "professional investigator" and not a private detective; neither I nor my Chinese counterparts would, I suspect, put up much argument to being identified as private detectives.

Huh? Oh, I put that here a long time ago, in the middle of a debate about whether people who didn't identify themselves as "anarcho-capitalists" but had identical philosophies could be so labeled. One of the antagonists kept saying that because someone didn't self-identify as something, Wikipedia "could not insert the interpretation". I guess I just got carried away with mocking him. MrVoluntarist 13:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Glad that's sorted out : o ) Blaise Joshua 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I Must admit that form A UK perspective a PI is the Classic Philip Marlow type an not Sherlock Homes

PI associations

There are various valid, professional and non-proft making associations relating to the PI industry and it would be most useful to have links to them. This would allow further enquiry by anyone interested in the profession. Many of these associations are also at the forefront in representing investigators to government in such areas as legal issues, licensing and access to data. From my enquiries, this would appear to be in line with Wikipedia policy and many such professions have their respective associations linked (see vets, surgeons and graphology for examples). Therefore, I am putting the links back in. If there are any issues, please feel free to discuss them here. Blaise Joshua 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we build some of idea of what associations should be included and what shouldn't? Personally, I think only notable national and international associations are valid - rather than regional associations (for example, limited to California). Blaise Joshua 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any feedback on this? Blaise Joshua 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There were no comments, so I'll go with my suggestion. We can come back to discuss this at any time Blaise Joshua 13:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some contention again about those associations that qualify and those that don't. An editor recently took off a link to what he described as a network rather than an association, a description I agreed with. If anyone feels differently or, as before, wants to discuss this subject in general, please do so here. However, the person who is putting up there own association, asserting its '700 membership', while at the same time taking down the link to a world association, isn't being particularly helpful. Please discuss here. Blaise Joshua 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be going by the name only and by what you don't see yet on their new web site. An association can go by any name, it does not have to have the word "association" in it's title. American Heritage's description of an association is: "An organized body of people who have an interest, activity, or purpose in common; a society." From Merriam-Webster: "A group of persons who share common interests or a common purpose and who are organized with varying degrees of formality."

I'm not going by the name at all. I've looked at the site a number of times (including again today) and I still can't see that it qualifies - it seems still to be a network, albeit a somewhat larger and more established one than the tens and tens of similar PI networks out there. If it's an actual association to the degree of the others listed, I would ask where it's admission requirements are listed (from what I can see, you don't have to be a PI to be part of the network), what legal representation it makes on behalf of the industry, what code of ethics it has, what disciplinary measures it takes against members who break the law, etc. We would not possibly link all of the networks that do the same thing that this one does - there are just too many and they don't actually help anyone reading Wikipedia to learn more about the profession. I shall refrain from taking off the link again for now as we could really do with another opinion on this, so please could anyone else make their thoughts known here. Blaise Joshua 08:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Admission requirements include being an establish PI and licensed (if required in their locale). What they've chosen to not display on their web site does not disqualify them from being an association and the association you consider "notable" and "worldwide" is neither, which I don't object to because it is a resource for locating PI's that does not contain an objectionable amount of advertising (I say leave them both up for that very reason). It's important to remind you that the original set of criteria you wanted to use did not include listing only associations that make the following available online to the general public: admission requirements, legal representation, a code of ethics, and disciplinary measures displayed (which anyone can throw up on a web site and are of little value as a resource to PI's or the general public). There is also a good argument for including State and Local associations as a valuable resource for the public over National or so-called "Worldwide Associations". State and local associations have more experience with and more information on local PI licensing, regulations and laws and they are much more effective when it comes to disciplinary measures. I don't think a PI in Hong Kong is going to loose sleep over a 100 member organization 7,000 miles away revoking his membership and I don't think a Worldwide Association in Germany or wherever is going to be of much help to me, a consumer in the USA or elsewhere, when things go wrong.
'Admission requirements include being an establish PI and licensed' - The site quite clearly states that you can be a process server, an attorney, bail bond agent, etc, so you seem to be mistaken in the belief that you have to be a PI. Regarding the idea that what they might not have on their website should not disqualify them, what else are we supposed to go by? The reason a link exists is to provide information to people reading Wikipedia! If the information isn't on the site, what's the point in having the link? It would seem quite obvious that any linked site should have a reasonable amount of information availabel to the public, other than just advertising PI agencies. If someone wants a PI, they don't need Wikipedia, just a phone book. Regarding your statement about what I originally wanted as the criteria, I don't see that I put up any specifics; one thing I did mention was the value in such associations representing the profession to government. This is very much a part of what professional associations do. Having looked over the site again, it just looks like a network of PIs and an advertising source, of which there are probably hundreds. There's nothing particularly convincing in the site or in what you say to justify it as a link. Blaise Joshua 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"The site quite clearly states that you can be a process server, an attorney, bail bond agent, etc, so you seem to be mistaken in the belief that you have to be a PI". Wrong, you are talking about their discussion forum located elsewhere, not their website. I don't have a problem with any association having an open forum, which is of far more value to people reading Wikipedia then the display of admission requirements, legal representation, a code of ethics, and disciplinary measures. It's a FREE forum where the public, and people in the legal profession, can seek out PI's and ask them questions and it's a place where PI's can exchange ideas and resources. "If someone wants a PI, they don't need Wikipedia, just a phone book." Then what purpose does a link to a worldwide association with no discussion forum and hardly any members outside of one country serve?
I'm glad that this discussion has been put back in. I've got no idea why it was taken down. Blaise Joshua 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"See Also" section

This is just a thought, but I don't think all of the entries in the "See also" section are particularly helpful or relevent, namely: Jakes "J.J" Gettes and De Fino. Both lead to stubs of fictional detectives that aren't (as far as I'm aware) particularly notable. I think the article would be more concise without them. Any thoughts? Blaise Joshua 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There were no disagreements, so I've removed them. Blaise Joshua 08:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I added W. David Rabern to this list. He's a very famous and well respected private investigator. He needs to be mentioned somewhere in this article. You can read about him here if you don't know who he is http://www.icsworld.com/Private_Investigators/David_Rabern.aspx Peter4045 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the link you gave above that would suggest Mr. Rabern is "a very famous and well respected private investigator". The link you gave is to a commercial association he founded. The one article listed under "News and Press" goes to a page with nothing on it. A search on Google turns up nothing in regards to articles written about Mr. Rabern in the news media. I am really clueless as to why we would want to include Mr. Rabern in the group of people we have in that section, most of which are well known not only in the profession but outside of the profession. PeetMoss 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more stories on David Rabern. He's been mentioned in almost every major magazine and newspaper. Here's one article: http://www.globalpulse.net/archives/united_states/cia_attended_ro_000459.php Peter4045 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Globalpulse is not a "major magazine or newspaper". GlobalPulse.net is a free site for news releases and news feeds and the article you reference does not list the author, source or name of the person who posted it. What I did find in regards to the article you've provided a link to is this:

"This reference to David Rabern… intrigued me. I called Jack Hawkins, the Marine Colonel in charge of the paramilitary side of the Bay of Pigs …... He said what I thought: the only two American CIA contract employees who even made it to the beach during the invasion - and then against orders - were Rip Robertson, now dead, and Grayston Lynch…Hawkins seemed quite certain Rabern was not part of the invasion force itself. ”. Bohning said he was “99.9 per cent certain that David Rabern was not a part of the Bay of Pigs invasion force, as O'Sullivan identifies him”. In fact, Bohning had never heard of a David Rabern."

Source can be found here: http://hnn.us/articles/32193.html PeetMoss 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting David's involvement in the Bay of Pigs.

This is actually where the article originated from I believe http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1952393,00.html If you have disagreements with the facts in their article you might want to contact the editor. I'm just posting what I know to be true. He's a guy they went to asking questions about the CIA because of how reliable and well known he was.

No reason for me to contact the editor. I was just showing you that your article did not come from a major news source (it came from a blog/RSS feed) and that the facts surrounding Rabern's background (as stated in your article) are disputed elsewhere. That's all. PeetMoss 17:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this guy David Rabern shows up a lot for private investigators on search engines. I even made a couple phone calls. I tried calling David at his business but they wouldn't give me a forwarding number. The two PI's I contacted have only the highest things to say about him. He's retired now but in the 70's and 80's he was featured in PI magazines like "PI Magazine". He's obviously known more in Arizona in California because of his business, but is still known by PI's all over the United States. He has been featured on the TV networks there dozens of times in the past 20 years. In my research I also found out he was the 10 year trainer of the CPP program in Arizona with ASIS.

There's a few private investigators that are unsung heroes out there (probably a handlful) and David Rabern is one of them. Peter4045 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, if you have something that shows Rabern is a notable figure and if it's true that "He's been mentioned in almost every major magazine and newspaper" then simply create a page on the guy and cite your references. I tried but can't find anything that would help you with your claim. Outside of the small mention he got in the article you produced (which came from a blog and contains facts disputed elsewhere) all I can find are business/association directories that list his name and company. PeetMoss 17:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"External Links" section

Linking to professional associations is good, but the links to individual PI firms should be eliminated. This isn't Yellow Pages, right? IddAhazi 4:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no arguments with the above. Blaise Joshua 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PINOW is NOT an affiliation. It is a paid advertising directory and should not be listed here per the terms of Wikipedia.

Private Investigators in Fiction

If you want to refer to private detectives as "stock" characters, then you'll have to cast back to the 1920s and '30s; the late '40s was simply the noir period of detective fiction. Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler defined the early twentieth century private eye in the pulp magazines and later in novels.


National Network of Private Investigators

This appears to be a members-only forum and a commercial list for advertising purposes, neither of which are appropriate links for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so, the front page of the discussion forum says it's an open forum.

It would appear the two of you from England are using double standards when it comes to associations, for some odd reason. 100 or so members on a web site with information of little value to anyone outside the organization does not make your association notable, reputable, well known or of any value other then another place to find a PI, and certainly nowhere near the standards you expect other associations to meet. Less then 10 members in the USA and one of them is a magazine? There are over 30,000 licensed PI's in the USA, a few phone calls and you could gather more then 100 PI's for a barbeque here. No license numbers and only a few links to web sites where license numbers are displayed? A training link that goes to a site that talks about starting your own exciting and rewarding PI business (with a picture of a jet taking off) through a distant learning course approved by the association? Show me another association that would approve of that. A code of ethics that says little more then "follow the law" 5 times? Occasional letters to a newspaper and authorities that one editor here wants me to believe is an example of effective government/legislative action? I could go on and on but I don't care to because I think both associations serve a purpose.
First, it is a forum which you can only access if you log on to it. It is therefore a members only forum and useless to anyone following a link from Wikipedia. Second, you are misinterpreting our objections to it. It is a commercial site. It advertises PIs' services. It is therefore not welcome on Wikipedia under WP:ADVERT. -- Necrothesp 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The forum is a link on the association's site, not a link that was placed on Wikipedia, and like the vast majority of free discussion forums out there it requires a user sign-up before participating. Why do you think having to sign-up on free forum makes the forum useless? In regards to "It advertises PIs' services" you are talking about their membership directory. Every association on the list (including the other two I posted links to), and the majority of associations I've seen, have a membership directory, some (WAPI for instance) contain a lot more details (advertising) on each member. In fact, NALI (the largest and most respected on the list) accepts advertising on their site: http://www.nalionline.org/advertising.html. NALI also requires paid membership in order to access their listsrv (discussion), articles, news, videos, transcripts and other misc. documents online. I haven't heard anyone say the latter makes the NALI site useless. I suggest eliminating the section on associations if you are going to apply double standards to the associations I post on Wikipedia.
I really don't think there's the double standards you speak of. I didn't put the NALI link in (it's been there for a long time), but it's a link I wouldn't have any objection to because it's a useful source for people, particularly in America, to research further information about PIs. Also, it's most definitely an association. If you cast your eyes over the talk page, I have asked on numerous occassions for feedback on the what associations should be included to provide the best article - there has been very little interest in contributing to this discussion. Currently, we have an excellent American association (NALI) and an excellent world association (WAPI), whose members you correctly point out are primarily from Britain, but who have members from every continent except Antarctica! There's no conspiracy to hold other groups or associations down - they just have to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and it is my honest opinion that a network doesn't do that. Blaise Joshua 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is in fact an association and the NALI link has not been up there long, I put it up. I don't have a problem with your WAPI link, except when you try to put in a class with NALI or when you insist that other associations meet standards WAPI does not meet.

Which of the following from WAPI is a standard other associations should follow?

The WAPI disclaimer that accepts no responsibility for anything on the site?:

"No liability or responsibility is assumed by the authors, publishers, or providers of any information contained in the WAPI domain. Always take independent legal advice from a suitably qualified professional and do not rely on any of the information contained at the WAPI Internet World Wide Web site."

Looks pretty commercialized for an association to me. 2 links on the resources page and both go to what appear to be family owned companies.: http://www.wapi.com/resource/index.htm

The resource page has only 2 links and they go to the following full page ads for commercial services provided by outside firms (notice the name of the contacts, Withers is the founder of WAPI):

1) Forensic DNA testing: http://www.wapi.com/resource/r0003.htm 

  Company	1st Priority Forensics
  Representative 	Ian Withers
  Web site	www.1stpriorityforensics.com

2) Training: http://www.wapi.com/resource/r0001.htm 

  Company	Academy of Professional Investigation
  Representative	Stuart Withers
  Web site	www.pi-academy.com

The following blurb they use for the above "distant learning course"?:

"When you have successfully completed the Distance Learning Course modules, you will have the option to take the Final examination to receive the Academy's Diploma in Private Investigation in recognition of your achievement, entitling you to use the letters, DipAPI. With your new found knowledge you will then be in a good position to acquire either employment within the investigation profession, or start your own agency."

The "Inter-Agency assignment opportunities and support" link found on the "Benefits" goes to a web page where you can sign up on a free Yahoo forum (exactly the same as the NNPI forum a Wiki Admin said is of no use to Wiki visitors because it requires people login): http://www.wapi.com/benefit/uki.htm

Nationwide Investigations Group, a company found by Withers, is a firm mentioned numerous times on the WAPI site, with links to it in articles on the site also: http://www.nig.co.uk/ How many people on the WAPI Governing Council http://www.wapi.com/gc.htm either work for Nationwide Investigations Group or operate a Nationwide Investigations Group franchise ( http://www.investigationfranchise.co.uk/ )?

How many other companies and websites do the Withers have selling services on the WAPI site? There was another one to a commercial PI directory ran by Withers but I can't find it the 2nd time around.

Is there a news article on the site that you feel is of value to Wikipedia visitors that is original (not a repeat of what was found in the news) and does not mention or link to another Withers company or maybe a link on the site to some resource of value to Wikipedia visiotrs that is not a Withers controlled firm??

The members benefits page has only 4 links - 2 go to the Yahoo Group info mentioned above, one goes to a place where you can buy insurance and the other is to a copy of a photo ID you get when you join.

I'm happy with the links as they are in the association section and can live with imperfection so long as there is not an objectionable amount of "in your face" advertising on the association sites, which is the best standard we are probably going to get out of this industry if we want association resources listed (even NALI fails many a standard you have mentioned for an association). Otherwise let's take the section down.

It appears this section was being abused by several members of an obscure very small organization in England to promote and spam said organization as a notable worldwide association. Repeated attempts to discuss the value of the link to the so-called association with those supporting it were ignored.

There has been no abuse, as far as I'm aware of, and if you cast your eyes over the talk page you'll see at every stage of change I've asked for feedback from anyone else willing to offer it or contribute. The links should still be in place until a concensus is reached. Blaise Joshua 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article bears a strong resemblance to http://www.einvestigator.com/links/license.htm But I can't tell if one contains material taken from the other. RJFJR 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your copyvio tag added in Mar 2007

You claim there was plagiarism from the Occupational Outlook Handbook. But the Handbook is in the public domain. Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheaters Detective Agency

Cheaters Detective Agency is notable as a link on the private investigator page.

Many major news outlets have covered the Cheaters Detective Agency, including ABC, NBC, and AP Newspapers. 5 million people per week watch their work. I believe it fits Wikipedia's notability criteria. They are the definition of private investigators on reality television, being on the air since 2000.Alibond 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not the issue. You have not added a source that states the show is about Cheaters Detective Agency. If it's not about the agency, like Dog the Bounty Hunter is about Dog the Bounty Hunter, I don't see the point in mentioning the agency in this section. What if there are other agencies involved, do we mention them? The CDA web site makes it clear CDA is not actually doing investigations yet what you added to this section states they are. Woxd 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheaters Detective Agency does investigations across the country. I don't know where you are seeing that they don't investigate. Call 1-800-CHEATERS, they will tell you they are investigating all across the country. Cheaters is about infidelity, and all cases are investigated by the Cheaters Detective Agency. I will add the source that says Cheaters Detective Agency does the investigations and undo your change.Alibond 20:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
An 800 number is not a source. Cut from the CDA website: "we are not actively accepting new work at this time" http://www.cdacase.com/cda/License%20Interest%20page.html The source you added, without a working link, does not state the show is about a particular agency or investigator. It states the show is about people who want their spouse/lover followed, sometimes people who are low income and paid a small sum to be on the show, according to the author. Woxd 07:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where on that long page you found information that Cheaters Detective Agency is not taking on new cases. Review their comprehensive website at http://www.cheatersdetectives.com and you will find that they are currently taking on cases from all across the country and the world. The source I added states that Cheaters Detective Agency investigates cases of infidelity on the show. Get someone else's point of view before you continue your personal attack.Alibond 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll need to either do a search on the page I gave you a link to or read the entire page to find where Cheaters Detective Agency states they are no longer accepting assignments. I also don't think your link belongs here because the show has never been about the agency. If you believe I have attacked you personally then I suggest you ask an admin to review our discussions on both articles. Woxd 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Along with myself, Kariteh has also undone your removals of Cheaters Detective Agency from the private investigator page. The show documents the investigations of Cheaters Detective Agency agents in every single episode. Refer to the independent academic source cited on the page. Alibond 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The show is not about the agency itself and this is not a section for private investigators that have been hired by TV shows. You also ignore the fact that the agency's web site states they are no longer accepting assignments. I don't even think this section belongs in an encyclopedia. A link to the Cheaters page, where you've added a link to the agency's Franchise/Licensing opportunity and delete just about anything that does not show the agency or show in a favorable light is more then most editors would care to see on Wikipedia. Woxd 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Their site says, " ...cases are directed to our nearest licensed office..." (http://www.cdacase.com/cda/License%20Interest%20page.html). They not only investigate cases, but they have over 50 other offices nationwide. Get your facts straight. If you have something against Cheaters Detective Agency, write a letter to their corporate office. But so far, a second user independent from myself has reverted your changes. You are wrong in my opinion and in Kariteh's opinion. Stop changing my work. Alibond 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Private_investigator/Archive_1&oldid=146948934"