Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*Nobdy has come forth with a compelling reason for this content removal or suggested improvements to the wording, so I've restored the passage. –] ] 12:36, 18 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. –] ] 12:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
:Actually, {{u|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. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 15:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
:Actually, {{u|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. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 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. –] ] 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Federal Bureau of Investigation was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Federal Bureau of Investigation is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
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. - WOLFchild02:44, 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)
Not a fan of the censorship
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 "censorshil". 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. - WOLFchild07:27, 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. - WOLFchild07:52, 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. - WOLFchild16:02, 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. - WOLFchild15:19, 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)
.svg)
