Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 13 September 2018 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Federal Bureau of Investigation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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: WOLFchild, 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. 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. FBI records show that J. Edgar Hoover personally communicated these insinuations to President Johnson."

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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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. - WOLFchild 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? - WOLFchild 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)