Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

FBI database

After reading this [1] bit of news earlier today, it made me think that criticisms of their computer capabilities may be deserved. Thoughts? Comments? I've read, from more than one source, that the search systems are often unable to process more than one word at a time, though I currently have no objective material to support this. Confirmation either way would also be appreciated on this factor. --AWF

If anything... it goes under Criticism. There won't be much since the FBI is usually very hush hush about it. I didn't see any news article on any of the major news sites. Got any links? -- Shane (talk/contrib) 06:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OPR - Office of Professional Responsibility

The OPR is the FBI's version of internal affairs. If anyone is knowledgeable in this area please contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuszero (talk • contribs)

I removed the section. I'll mention it in the history (a line or something) or the "Controveris" section, but it doesn't need it's own section. I don't know to much about this office so any information you can give (or when I do a search for it) would be helpful! :) --Shane (T - C - E) 14:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting Ready for Featured Article Status

In preperation for nominating this article for WP:FA I have cleaned up the talk page. I also have been hard at work expanding the article. It is getting very close to down. I have one more section to do on the history and then expand the lead paragraph and fix the order of the See Also section. I am also going to create a "navagation" box because the FBI has many sub-categories, but this won't be done untill after a possiable FA. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would aim first for Good article status. While the article has improved quite a bit, I don't think the article would pass WP:FA at this stage. There are some things missing from this article, including:
  1. Organizational structure
    1. Quantico is mentioned only in context of training; It's also home to the FBI Crime Laboratory, the Behavioral Sciences Unit, and other specialized functions.
    2. Clarksburg isn't mentioned.
    3. No mention of legal attachés
  2. References
    1. The article needs to be better referenced.
    2. The current selection of references may not reflect WP:NPOV, as six of the nine are the FBI's own website.
These are just two most obvious points that I see, which need to be addressed. (which I'm willing to help with) -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure no problem. Just been hacking away from it, trying to at least expand the page which was very small in fact before I started addiung content. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The "publications" section is also lacking. It doesn't mention the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which really is the only thing I'd consider a "publication". I would consider UCR as part of a section on "Crime statistics", which also needs to discuss the National Incident Based Reporting System. I'll try to address these problems, and we can keep working towards FA. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a red link! There needs to be something about the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which has been published for quite a long time. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My goal was to expand this article as much as possaible, and then break down and create all the other pages including the divions of the FBI, List of FBI divisions. Since most of them are published on the FBI website, I am sure I can find information to list each one of them. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good strategy. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For improvement, suggestions were given at Wikipedia:Peer review/Federal Bureau of Investigation/archive3. Some of them still apply, good work so far! :-) — Wackymacs 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we are saving the WP:LEAD for last so we get content in then we can know what we can refer to from the lead. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Still needs more expansion, see the CIA article. — Wackymacs 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
CIA for sure needs {{cleanup}}. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. — Wackymacs 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

This article needs some images, but does anyone have an ideas on what to use? --Shane (T - C - E) 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed Good Article review due to lack of complete references. I have marked some of the statements in need of citations and have listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA/Nominations, to assist in obtaining the necessary references. Kafziel 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is premature as it's only been a few days and I was getting to your cites. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearance

The ref cited states that all FBI employees have a Top Secret clearance. When I was being recruited for the FBI, the agent who interviewed me did not have an SCI clearance; he made a point of saying that my clearance was higher than his. I don't doubt that many agents are cleared TS/SCI, but not all of them are. Personal experience (original research) on either side is not an acceptable source, so at this point I've edited the statement to say that all FBI employees hold a TS clearance. Kafziel 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When was this? In my recent recruit and process, I been going through a TS/SCI clearance. Check the NSA website, they use the same clearance as the FBI and CIA. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This was in 2002. TS/SCI is specific to the job. If you don't need it, you don't have it. They may even clear you for it, but still not grant it until needed. NSA has more SIGINT jobs, which almost always necessitate an SCI clearance (that's what mine was from). Kafziel 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, all FBI positions require at least a Top Secret Security Clearance.. It doesn't say just TS and that's it. So I am going to change the wording once more. My process is going on right now as of 2006. FBI does the same SIGINT stuff that the NSA does or they would not want translators. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
At least a TS clearance means exactly that - it does not necessarily include SCI. If you don't have a reference other than your own experience, it shouldn't be there. Kafziel 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
SCI is different then TS. All FBI employees are required to have TS. Morphh 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.clearancejobs.com/index.php?action=view_job&jobID=312064 --Shane (T - C - E) 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That position is for an Intel Analyst. Yes, that would require SCI. That's not representative of every job in the FBI. Kafziel 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If I was an agent, and wanted to talk with an Intel Analyst, would they let me? I would hope so. an FBI Top Secert Clearance includes the SCI. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
FBI TS does not include SCI. Kafziel is correct. SCI is position specific. If you were required to talk to an Analyst about data that was SCI then you would have to do it with SCI cleareance in an SCI specific area. Morphh 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the FBI, all employees require a TS. As Morphh says, the SCI is an added level of clearance beyond TS. The FBI hires for numerous non-agent professional positions such as "Automotive Worker" and "Mail and File Clerk" that only get a TS clearance. Anyway, I find the wording of this sentence is unclear and not sure what point your trying to make.

"Because the FBI is the primary focus in the Federal Government..." and "...so it does not interfere with the FBI's investigations."

I suggest just delete it. -Aude (talk contribs) 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many agents also do not get SCI. It is a specific requirement. Morphh 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I will re-word it. This is a very minor technicaility on the FBI website -- I am sure it is an error -- but to discredit the possability that TS/SCI is the default cleareance is just riduculas. I am going through the SSBI process, and haivng to talk to a number of FBI agents myself that are agents, no less, all of them have TS/SCI clearance. what you said about them adding SCI clearance onto someone just so they can get a blurb is rediculous. You would be supprised on what the lowend jobs at the FBI require. I once read a report that the janitor that works at the FBI/NSA/CIA have more access than most people. Kafziel would have more clearance because of his miltary background. I don't have one so again, this is assuming he is right if it is removed. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can tell you with absolute certainty that not everyone has SCI. There is this little thing called "need to know". While it applies to TS, it is very relevant to SCI. If you don't have it, you don't have the need to know. If you require the need to know, you'll get the SCI clearance. Morphh 19:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm also not just taking about low end jobs. Many agents do not have SCI until they need it. Morphh 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded the paragraph, adding the fact that investigations are conducted by the Office_of_Personnel_Management. -Aude (talk contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article passed

Since lack of some pertinent references were all that held it back last time, I'm happy to pass this now that the problems have been fixed. Everything else looks as good as before, and the cites and prose are much improved. Nice job! Kafziel 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

YAY! :) --Shane (T - C - E) 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now it just has to be worked into WP:FA mode. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

history

Question.What was the situation/status whatever , before the FBI?What every state police was on it's whon.

Are you talking about Pre-BOI? (Before 1908?) --Shane (T - C - E) 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)