Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Add "Major Expansion" Tag

According to media reports, President Trump has approved to release a memo by a chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, possibly causing significant changes to the Bureau's image based on allegations of corruption. Therefore, I have added 'a major expansion tag' on the section of possible corruption in Russia probe. RedGreenBanana (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@RedGreenBanana: Yeah, that's great but, but is there some reason why you can't (or just won't) leave edit summaies with any of your edits? You haven't left a single summary, not one, since you joined. This is despite you already being notified of this on your talk page. You are making a lot of edits to articles that are on a lot of editors watchlists, including this article, so please start leaving some kind of note in the edit summary box mentioning what you changed and why, as per the guideline. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 18:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thewolfchild, thanks for your response. Just read the notification. Thanks for notifying me, I'll be sure to leave a summary of my edits. RedGreenBanana (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@RedGreenBanana: It would be great if you actually did that. Since your reply, you've made about 3 dozen or so edits to this article in just a few hours. Where you did add a "summary", you only added a single word, like "clarify". Also, if you're planning on making major/mass changes to an article, especially one as significant as this one, I would suggest that you first work them out in your sandbox, that way you're not filling up the page history as well as all the watchpages of those editors who have this page on their watchlist. Also, once you've written out all the changes you wish to make, you can propose them on the talk page. If another editor finds your changes are in conflict with any of the guidelines here, they can all be reverted, which means you may have done all that work for nothing. I see you're you only joined a few weeks ago, so you will learn this kind of stuff as you go along. - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I learn as I go! RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's also called "disrupting as you go" and "creating work for others as you go". This isn't playtime. You don't practice your editing on active articles, especially high-profile, long-term and well established articles such as this one. I warned you that all your efforts might be for nothing and it turns out I was right, all your changes were reverted. So, I'll say again, you should copy and paste whatever sections of this article you want to work on over to your sandbox. Work on it there. Then propose your changes here on the talk page. That way you're not wasting your time and that of others as well. If you're editing becomes too disruptive, it can lead to you being blocked from editing. - ^theWOLFchild 02:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Potential Corruption in Russia Probe"

Ummm, no. The title of section is obviously POV (and not based on the sources). Out of the three subsections only perhaps the Nunes Memo actually meets requirement of WP:WEIGHT and even there I think it's too early to say. Given that the info contained in it is pretty much nothing new it might not be important enough. Of course if Republicans and WH decide to run with it and do something else then it might be important to include as a controversy - as long as it's written neutrally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Nunes memo has enough weight, although it may be too early to add in the section given the amount of bias in the media. Media outlets in the Washington Post and Fox News are citing different bias and conclusions, so the conclusions would have to be made based on what the memo itself says. RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@RedGreenBanana: please see my reply above. - ^theWOLFchild 02:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nunes Memo in "Controversies" Section?

The Nunes memo has its own article space. It details allegations of DOJ and FBI corruption by POTUS, Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee, and particular members of Congress. I wrote a section on it, however, user reverted due to me not adding summaries in my edits. RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

At this point if we include it it should just be a short mention. Can you propose some text here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a section using details from both political sides. Check it out RedGreenBanana (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Can you propose some text here?" - that is exactly what I suggested be done as well. This "throw mass changes at an article and see what sticks" is no way to edit. I also suggest that further changes be made in the sandbox and then propsed here. - ^theWOLFchild 02:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you object from the section in the main article? Also, new media reports today from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal say that the DOJ did in fact tell the FISA court the Steele dossier was created by a political entity, but did not disclose it was the DNC. Here are the sources: [1] [2] ^theWOLFchild, should we add this in the section for clarity? RedGreenBanana (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me, or my personal preferences or objections. (You did notice it was someone else that undid all your other changes, right?) I'm just trying to give you some useful advice. If you want to make some changes, and they are either going to involve dozens and dozens of consecutive edits, or make large or significant changes to the article, then I suggest you use your User:RedGreenBanana/sandbox. Copy, paste, make your changes there, add your refs, then post a link here asking others to review it, like VM requested above. After that, if there's no issues, you should be able to add your new version to the article, with a single edit. I see you haven't activated your sandbox yet, so I did it for you. We all have one (or more), go check it out. - ^theWOLFchild 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FBI in foreign countries

the first (acknowledged) serial killer in Russia wasn't caught until after the KGB agent in charge of the investigation spoke with FBI about serial killers. sorry i don't remember where i "heard" this but possibly on a YouTube documentary.... definitely real if someone has time to search and edit the article --Qazwiz (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like Citizen X, although I think they caught the killer before contact with the FBI in the film. Not sure though. Cheers, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We need a few reliable, independent sources to prove its notable for a section in the main article space. If there aren't any, then it's not worthy of inclusion. RedGreenBanana (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section

The way it's going, this section will soon be longer than the rest of the article combined. I have trimmed down two of the longest sections, "Clinton email controversy" and "The Nunes Memo". Both of these sections are linked to main articles. There is no need to have lengthy, detailed descriptions, or daily additions for every new update. All that is needed is a brief description as readers can go to the main article for the full story. I think these two sections are still too long, and should be trimmed even further. We have to try and maintain a balance for the entire page, and a massive, ever-growing controversy section is counter to that need. - ^theWOLFchild 22:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! I think the Nunes memo controversy has died now and aftermath coverage is nothing more than right-wing propaganda. RedGreenBanana (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Andrew McCabe dismissal & investigation

This is a fairly lengthy sub-section. Is there enough material here for it's own article? If so, then this content could be reduced. - ^theWOLFchild 02:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be reduced if the section gets its own article space. The section does appear to be amplified quite a bit, perhaps there should be a summarization of it all? Also, I think the information needs to be reviewed by more users to see if all allegations are appropriate for this section. There need to be more eyes on this page to help structure and improve it with reliable sources only. YNOS900 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made some edits to shorten the "OIG Investigation" part. I tried to make my reasoning as clear as possible in my edit summaries. I think we should also consider changing the "Sexual Discrimination" part as those allegations are not as widely reported and WP:BLP applies, as well as WP:PROPORTION. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

BananaCarrot152 Thank you for your contribution, the section looks a lot better and cleaner! Should the construction tag be left in case other users also want to contribute? YNOS900 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the tag because no construction is going on right now. I think looking forwards we should consider the relative importance of these events compared to the other controversies listed. I don't have a way to assess that at the moment but I think we should be careful that the article doesn't become a list of every instance someone in the news says something critical about the FBI. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Viola Liuzzo

I added "In one particularly controversial 1965 incident, white civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo was murdered by Ku Klux Klansmen, who gave chase and fired shots into her car after noticing that her passenger was a young black man; one of the Klansmen was Gary Thomas Rowe, an acknowledged FBI informant.[32][33] The FBI spread rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and had abandoned her children to have sexual relationships with African Americans involved in the civil rights movement.[34][35] FBI records show that J. Edgar Hoover personally communicated these insinuations to President Johnson.[36][37]"

This is something that did happen and needs to be on this page. Since it was removed from the Civil rights section, which I feel where it belongs, can someone please help as where this should go? Also, I'm not a fan of some of the previous talks going on about how this article is becoming critical of the FBI and that it's anti-fbi propaganda. People want information, not political bias. This is something that many people over the Internet are starting to think of websites like wikiepdia. That certain articles have become politicalized and certain interest run the pages. If this does indeed become the norm, then I do hope a alternative to wikipedia appears someday. Kahtar22 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

First, let's be clear; this is not "censorship". Your edit was simply reverted. As it is, It's somewhat lengthy, the writing needs improvement and it should probably go to the "controversy" section (if it's to be re-added). I'm not necessarily against re-adding, but I haven't read through all the attached sources yet. I will do that shortly, and perhaps add some suggestions. But this is a high-profile, high traffic page, so I wouldn't be surprised if others have some comments and suggestions to add as well. Give it a day, there's no harm in that. Talk soon. - ^theWOLFchild 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, there's not a word about Viola on this entire page. My addition was not "lengthy." It's literally 3 lines, that's it. Look at what the FBI did to her. It needs it's place on this page. She died during the civil rights movement, and the FBI smeared the crap out of her after her death. Kahtar22 (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey 'sport', if you are referring to this edit, it's a little more than three lines. This article is already too long, and we have take the length of everything into consideration. But there's also the writing, sourcing and location to consider. I'm sure this incident and this person are worthy of inclusion, let's just work on the best way to go about it. Another thing is you removed the MLK 'suicide letter' image for a different image. This is another item that should be discussed. Like I said, give it a day, it'll get worked out. - ^theWOLFchild 07:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise it into the controlversy section. Where do you think it would go if it does get added to that section? Kahtar22 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Woah guys, no need for the drama. It really sucks when you make a good edit and someone reverts it and simply points to some abstruse WP rule somewhere as the reason why, and then calls you "sport" when you start a discussion about it. That said, there's already a good deal on the COINTELPRO controversies in both the History section under Hoover and in the Controversies section. I think a single sentence linking to the main article(s) would be more appropriate than a new paragraph. The FBIs involvement in the deaths of civil rights leaders and participants is heinous, no one is questioning that, and warrants AT LEAST a sentence or two. Would be nice if we could have a whole paragraph. Sure does seem more worthy than the space given to Nunes and McCabe and the recent stuff. Mannydantyla (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Whoa" yourself, Manny. There is no drama here, except what you bring. And, what do you find sooo "abstruse" about wp:brd? I agree that, if the sourcing is sufficient, this person/event merits a note in the article. But as you say, it should be brief, a single sentence, with link(s) to parent article(s) and should go into the "controversy" section. The "sport" comment was nothing offensive, nor intended to be, it was a toungue-in-cheek response to being called "dude" (seems you missed that). I agree that some of the other sections are too long and overly detailed, as is the entire article. If you check the history, you'll see I reduced some of the content already and have suggested splitting off more. This is but one of the several reasons I provided when I reverted, which was done to initiate a discussion to work on improving this edit. Thanks for stopping by. - ^theWOLFchild 16:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nobdy has come forth with a compelling reason for this content removal or suggested improvements to the wording, so I've restored the passage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Kahtar22 advised they were willing to add a reduced, or "compromised", version, which is needed, to the controversy section, where is belongs. So let's give them a chance to do that, or at least comment here further. As it is now, that content is in the wrong place and is somewhat long, in an already overly long article. I'm sure you understand, thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 15:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I added it to the History section between two paragraphs of fairly similar length and style, there's no need to move it to Controversy. The overall length of the article is no reason to omit content. Perhaps we need to consider a split if it becomes excessively long. If you see an issue with this paragraph, please suggest a change instead of simply removing it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not an outright "omission", no one is saying the content doesn't belong. It needs to be trimmed and moved. It belongs in the controversy section, I believe that was already agreed to. Additions in the controversy area should be be kept brief, especially if they have a parent article about the event itself or other related articles to link to. Agree that a split for this article should be considered, I believe that has already been suggested (I think by me actually). This article is already too long and will only be getting longer. If you as to start working on a split proposal, go for it. If you need any help, let me know, I'd be happy to pitch in. - ^theWOLFchild 15:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Normally in this situation the content would be kept in place while improvements are discussed. –dlthewave ☎ 15:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: To me, the paragraph reads as a very brief description of the events. What do you suggest we trim? –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this seems to be an urgent matter, or why the sudden interest in an article you've never once edited, but I pinged the editor who originally added it and suggested we give them a chance to respond. But if you feel the need to re-add it right away, then go ahead. I still think it should go into the controversy section, imho. - ^theWOLFchild 18:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I will add it to the Controversy section. –dlthewave ☎ 19:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

...and it's now been removed again, this time by the OP. But this wasn't a total loss, right? - ^theWOLFchild 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added it. No reason was given for this removal of content. –dlthewave ☎ 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Hi, would the alleged FBI informant/confidential human source accusations of the Trump campaign be an appropriate fit for the controversy section? Thought I should ask before making any edits in the main article space since the section is big enough as it is and I don't want to clog it up and not leave room for more important, future incidents. ABY 124431132 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

192.42.92.99 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

100 precinct ,michelle breenen and mike gaston ,on Americas most wanted hide in florida .sheriffs home ,2018 -086580866-usmc id,

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Article size

This page is now a hefty 177 kB. Per WP:TOOBIG;

articles > 100 kB - Almost certainly should be divided.

Perhaps we could consider splitting off the "Controversies" section to it's own page? That section alone is currently 76 kB, and is only going to grow larger as time goes by. Along with that, perhaps some of the controversial entries in the "History" section, such as "Japanese American internment", "Sex deviates program" & "Faulty bullet analysis", could also be moved to the "Controversies" section? (combined and added would bring the section to ≈84 kB). Thoughts? - wolf 02:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done - it's been over a week, no objections. - wolf 18:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: the entries in the history section that were also suggested for inclusion in the controversies section were not included in the initial move. - wolf 18:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC — Controversies

Regarding this change: Should the tag be removed? What else do you recommend to improve this article? The discussions don't seem to be reaching a conclusion so I have opened this RfC. A previous discussion on this has comments from just three editors. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tobby72 - So now you're re-adding this RfC tag? Why are you not providing full disclosure? Such as the fact that you have refused to respond to any attempts at discussion, for over a week now? The only thing needed is a simple, basic summary. Not a point-y, POV-ish, overlinked agenda with a selective "summary", specifically detailing some issues but not others. All you need to do is discuss. Someone makes a suggestion. Someone else makes another one. After a few more, you meet in the middle, agree on final wording and it's done. But again... you need to discuss. Not do... whatever this is. This is bizarre. (pinging Snowded) - wolf 20:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - may be time for an ANI report -----Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: Hopefully this can be resolved here without an ani. It is ultimately a content dispute which they won't deal with at ani anyway. We just need a couple of so editors fo either put forward some suggested summaries, a couple of which we can agree on, or we just need all the editors or so to agree that the the current summaries and hatnotes are acceptable and to leave the pages as is. That's my take, what do you think? Cheers - wolf 06:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

More of a behavioural issue - if you check it out you will see a lot of reverts of this editors material. They clearly don't understand the RfC process and also policy on splitting - you summarise the subsiduary article rather than just cherry picking examples from it. I'm OK with trying to put a non-list summary together and putting it in place but I suspect sooner or later (without some radical change) Tobby72 may end up at ANI -----Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

I don't see why we shouldn't include a few links and a brief summary per WP:SUMMARY — diff, diff, diff. @Thewolfchild:, frankly, you should be the one starting the talk page discussion, since you're removing sourced content. I just don't like it is not an argument. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is an odd comment to make when you know full well that I already started a discussion. It's on your talk page and you've already participated in it! So what is the purpose, (the real purpose), of this post? You made an edit, you were reverted, you don't like the revert, so it gets discussed. You didn't start a discussion, you just keep repeatedly making the same edit, as your diffs above clearly show (thanks for that). This involved nearly identical edits, to identical sections on identical US federal agency articles (FBI & CIA). I started the discussion on your page so there would be a central location. You responded, but then immediately went and made the edits again. (which is not how discussions work). The pages should remain at QUO. We discuss it and see if we can come to a resolution. If that includes adding a summary, then we should agree on what summary will be. Yet you just keep trying to cram your edit in there with an "I'm right you're wrong, go away" attitude. Please leave the articles at QUO and continue the discussion we've already started. I'm sure we can work something out. I will go post something there now. Thanks - wolf 18:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I started the discussion on your page. — Such discussion belongs on an article talk page, not a user page.
• you just keep repeatedly making the same edit. — Not true.
• I'm sure we can work something out. — I still don't see why we shouldn't include a few links and a brief summary per WP:CORRECTSPLIT: "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic." -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, I just briefly summed up several relevant, notable controversies from the article List of FBI controversies — diff — per WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Why do you see this as a problem? It seems like "I just don't like it" issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, please don't remove template messages — diff. We have WP:CORRECTSPLIT rule (your Article Split was incomplete — diff). So, what's your proposal? Ignore the Wikipedia rules and just keep reverting? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we have this debate in one place please - CIA or FBI I don't mind whitch. Otherwise there isn't a need for a proposal - if you are not happy with the current position then raise a RfC -----Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have been trying for a central location as well. I've repeatedly suggested a project talk page. I've replied to this latest comment at User talk:Tobby72#Controveries, where almost all the discussion has been so far. - wolf 12:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already made suggestions — diff, diff. I've also invited other users to discuss and edit this article. — diff, diff. What are your specific suggestions? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tobby - I've just replied to you, but you already know that. - wolf 23:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild — Please discuss on this article's talk page. ... You wrote; "My suggestions are on each page. I used the summary written by another editor forupl the lead for the "FBI list of..." article as a template for the lead of the "CIA list of..." article. Then I copied those to the "controversies" sections l of their respective main pages as summaries. ... I along with the other editors involved so far have not supprted your previous edits.". ... This is your suggestion — diff, completely ignoring WP:CORRECTSPLIT. It seems that we can't reach consensus, so let's wait for other users to add in their opinions. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild — You wrote; "We just need a couple of so editors fo either put forward some suggested summaries, a couple of which we can agree on...". Finally something we can agree on. That was the main reason for this tag, which was removed by Snowded. You also wrote; "Hopefully others will join and this issue will be dealt with quickly and collaboratively.". I have no problem with that.

@Snowded, I just read your threats, please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG, please also read WP:HARASS. Thanks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take that one up - I suggest however you pay attention to what is being said. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

New sidearm designation.

The “M” designation on the newer 9mm sidearms issued to FBI Agents also means they are not for sale to the general public new from Glock. Personally owned “M” designated firearms purchased by Agents as a back-up or secondary weapons can later be sold to the public by an Agent, but they cannot be purchased directly from Glock. Agstseco (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Section "Media Portrayal"

"The 1991 movie Point Break is based on the true story of an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated a gang of bank robbers."

This should get a source, or a {{fact}} tag. 91.10.30.231 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased it to only contain information that can be found in the linked article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This claim is not true. Agstseco (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

change "Unlikle" to "unlike" User125484841648464345 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 14:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No mention of FBI Police?

Perhaps it should be included under Additional links in the See also section? —184.207.120.177 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Firearms section needs to be updated

New FBI agents are issued the Glock 19M pistol and are trained with the Remington 870P shotgun and a Colt Pattern Carbine. Currently, the Firearms section of the FBI Wikipedia page does not reflect this information.

References

[3] WP:SECONDARY source. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing it, the section already says Glock 19M is issued and is the standard handgun. That they are trained on a particular shotgun and a particular long gun seems excessive detail. Lots of sources mention that US government agencies have gone over to the 19M, but only sites for gun enthusiasts go into the other weaponry. Since this is not a gun enthusiast site, we should not include it. Also, the citations only say what they are trained on for qualification. What they stock in the armory may vary. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

im identifying as badge number 8675309890 * yall have to fix the math to legal *IDENTIFYING* A.D.A.M.zeen (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

FBI repressive tactics justified as "domestic terrorism" responses

How is it that the FBI Wikipedia page does not address the history of FBI repressing free speech, notably their aggressive actions against Martin Luther King or Jean Seberg in the 1970s, their brutal tactics in their formative years, and their similar tactics in recent years.

This page views like a PR page for the FBI. It's supposed to be a factual article. BlueSapphires (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AGREE. It has unsourced statements, errors, needs a thorough review and inclusion of post-9/11 activities. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

FBI war on MLK is mentioned, but RS offers more. Jean Seberg needs inclusion, as do Malcolm X, American Indian Movement wars and Leonard Peltier, Anna Mae Aquash, COINTELPRO, Fred Hampton, and a list would continue to today's Joint Terrorism Task Force (a modern COINTELPRO). It would be lengthy. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the Church Committee findings should also be mentioned here in some detail, not just cited.Fleetinbeing (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extra eyes please

A significant amount of content was added and changes made today by an editor with only 18 edits worth of experience. (The previous 17 edits were problematic, including copyvios.) I'm not knocking this user's inexperience, as we were all new once, just asking for some extra attention to these changes. I've already found some problems and made changes, but some additional review would be helpful. Thank you - wolf 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

See also list

It needs more addings. There are many things it can be linked with.

Such as:

• Mass surveillance, It speaks for itself.
• Panopticon, An architectural construction that allows to look at a prisonner for a guard without the prisonner knowing, but under metaphoric it came to refer to mass surveillance.
• Fear mongering (pertaining to the line "FBI created the perception that anarchists were the main treat to united states")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

CIA

I think this in the lead could be better expressed:

Unlike the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which has no law enforcement authority and is focused on intelligence collection abroad, the FBI is primarily a domestic agency, maintaining 56 field offices in major cities throughout the United States, and more than 400 resident agencies in smaller cities and areas across the nation.

Really, the FBI is nothing like the CIA.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it not be "nothing like"? Is there a more accurate number?

"United-States" is more neutral than across the "nation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Where are secondary sources?/Introduction

The introduction quotes 5-6 times gov sources, and one article from New York Times is that enough?

It also says "it does not conduct foreign operations unilaterally" FBI did many times. It's better to reword as "FBI is officially only working domestically, however it did conduct several times foreign operations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

Also it says "A leading U.S. counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization" lacks neutrality. What means "leading"? Efficient? Superior in juridiction?

"It is a huge U.S. counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization" is a better rephrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

Also it says "A leading U.S. counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization" lacks neutrality. What means "leading"? Efficient? Superior in juridiction?

"It is a huge U.S. counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization" is a better rephrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal Attaché

Legal Attache a such link is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Attaché? - wolf 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you sir. That was it. --DZAAAAZ (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate

The link for Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate in section 3.1.1 points to the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" rather than the "FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate" page. Setheli216 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed - wolf 01:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Vetted partners

Guardian tool is shared with "Vetted partners". Can anyone add about it? Who are they? What makes them vetted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:F5DB:DCA0:6768:3790 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's one of those generic companies' answer. But used by a public organisation. Basically one'd better write: Guardian tool is shared with "Vetted partners" however FBI does not precise who are the vetted partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joujyuze (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Change CTB into STB

Hi. In Organization --> Organizational structure --> FBI Headquarters Washington D.C. there's written: Science and Technology Branch (CTB)

I think it should be changed into: Science and Technology Branch (STB)

Reason: I think the first letter is an ‘S’, despite the fact that also the letter ‘C’ can be read ‘s’ in that position. Apolis (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done - wolf 01:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

delete "senior special agent" that is not an actual rank in the FBI but only in other federal agencies add "Assistant Director-in-Charge" under the field office heading since 3 field offices have one (NYC, LA, DC) add "Police Officer" to the actual field ranks since the FBI has it's own police department Barry317 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Do have any reliable sources to support these changes? - wolf 02:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maxmattaaa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Maxmattaaa (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

Add a hyperlink in the "Creation of BOI" section. Link "Attorney General Bonaparte" to Charles Joseph Bonaparte. Sparish7204 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The name is already linked earlier in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Rename the article page so that the Agency starts with the prefix U.S.

As more and more countries' are having their national agencies added, it is becoming more necessary to have pages set up for a global audience. For example the Immigration Customs and Enforcement's page is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This makes it clear to anybody that sees the link in other pages that it's a U.S. organization.

This has become particularly necessary for WP articles that discuss multinational projects, military operations and law enforcement operations to say the least. Many pages that are about the agency also take their name directly from it, for example To see how necessary this will become as more articles are added in English about other countries, see Category:Law enforcement operations by country and drill down into each country. Some of the countries such as the UK and Brazil have a prefix or suffix that indicates the country.

• Category:Drug Enforcement Administration takes its name from Drug Enforcement Administration

similarly

• the Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation operations which takes it's name from Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In both instances, the complimentary pages for other countries starts with a Country prefix.

The U.S. prefix named articles already exist, but redirect to the main article. However, the contention is that none of the articles that derive their name from the main article are willing to utilize the prefix until the main article is using the prefix. eximo (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)