Talk:Symbols of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

FBI/Wikipedia row

The seal is sad now

Remove the seal you pretentious bastards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.209.36 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What did the seal ever do to you? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, "Remove the seal you pretentious bastards" is not a particularly persuasive argument. If the anonymous user would care to join the relevant discussion, it's at Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation#Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He should have said, "Remove the seal you pretentious bastards, please." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.15.204 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) removed the text about this little dispute, saying that it was "far too self-referential and recentist" and was "taking up far too much weight in the article". I agree that the previous text went into too much detail, but I think that a brief mention is appropriate. That also seems to be the consensus in the discussion at Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation — that it doesn't merit mention in that article, but that it's appropriate for this one. So I've restored a briefer (two-sentence) version of the text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if that is entirely necessary (if it were any other big site, such as Facebook or the NYT, I doubt we would mention this much), but I'm not going to press the issue; the two sentences in the article are fine with me. NW (Talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree; this creates a balance problem. The intro says that the FBI "actively polices the use of its seal and has taken action against commercial vendors using it without authorization." (without a source) If it actively does this, we need more examples, and we should focus on examples where the matter is resolved one way or the other. The recent FBI/WMF exchange is probably not resolved, so it is a bad example, yet it is the only example on the article. In order for it to be appropriate to mention the recent events, context is needed. Also, if we are going to cover current events, wasnt the Encyclopedia Britannica also asked to take it down, and didn't they comply? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we generally don't source lead statements that are repeated in the contents. Perhaps you should read the "Usage of the FBI seal" section again, because I think you mist the first 3 paragraphs of it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Those three paragraphs mostly talk about usage with permission. The only example of usage without permission of this seal is "a New York toy manufacturer used the FBI seal on a toy water pistol", with no indication of what happened. Page 40 of the source says nothing more about the toys, but does say that there are many cases that have fallen into the 'Illegal Wearing of Uniform' classification. I'm concerned about our sourcing for 'active policing', esp. of the seal rather than the FBI policing all sorts of use of federal symbols where intent to defraud was the reason for their involvement. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. No time atm, but news articles before 2010 on FBI and seal. Might be worth perusing for more sources. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found one unconfirmed. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

typo

"...accompanied by a text warning of the illegality..."

Please change this to "...accompanied by text warning of the illegality...". In this context, "text" is not used as a singular noun. It is a collective noun, which is not preceded by the article "a". It can also be an adjective, e.g. "text message". But "a text" is incorrect.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.129.57 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with that grammatical interpretation. It's possible that "text" here is an adjective modifying the gerund "warning", in which case the article ("a") is correct ("a warning", specifically a warning in text). It's also possible that "text" is a noun, as you suggest (and "warning" an adjectival participle), but I don't think it needs to be considered a mass noun (which I assume is what you meant instead of "collective noun", a slightly different thing). "A text" can mean a set of words presented as a unit, and I think that's grammatical, at least in American English. (It's possible that this is one of those differences between U.S. and British English, like saying "My bank charges too much" vs. "My bank charge too much".) Anybody else have an opinion on "text" vs. "a text"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not British, but NZ English is pretty close to it, and I don't think anybody would ever say 'My bank charge too much' unless they were using pidgin. That said, maybe 'a textual (message?) warning', though I'd use 'a text' over 'text'. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"A text" implies a body/unit of work, usually requiring considerable effort of the writer. It doesn't make sense to apply that to a boilerplate warning. We should be sticking close to what the source says, which explains that "it will be up to individual companies to decide whether they want to imprint the warning label on a disc or digitize it into text format".[1] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Letter

Would it be inappropriate to link directly to the letter? I realize it's an original source (republished), but it's also an insightful illustration. Besides, it's a work of art. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's no problem. As long as it is used in support of the other sources. A primary source only lacks value where it has not been interpreted and evaluated. That has clearly already happened here. Though we should be careful not to make this section too large, without also spending more attention to other similar cases. Question of navelstaring. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Winners Don't Use Drugs

This article should probably also include something on Winners Don't Use Drugs, but it needs sources. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Authorization

I had a bit of trouble tracking down the other law that the FBI quoted in its letter. But I found it Title 41 (Public Contracts and Property Management), Subtitle C ( Federal Property Management Regulations System), Chapter 128 (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE), 1.5007 Reproduction of departmental and bureau seals.

(a) Requests for permission to reproduce the Departmental seal for commercial, educational, ornamental or other purposes by other government agencies or private entities shall be referred to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration for decision.

(b) Requests for permission to reproduce the seals of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Prison Industries, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Board of Parole, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service for such purposes by other government agencies or private entities shall be referred to the head of the respective Departmental organization for decision.

(c) The decision whether to grant such a request shall be made on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of any relevant factors, which may include the benefit or cost to the government of granting the request; the unintended appearance of endorsement or authentication by the Department; the potential for misuse; the effect upon Departmental security; the reputability of the use; the extent of control by the Department over the ultimate use; and the extent of control by the Department over distribution of any products or publications bearing a Departmental seal.

Note that this specifies the procedures for authorization, unlike 18 U.S.C. 701, 709, 712, which specify in which cases a usage might be criminal. So although a request for authorization of educational usage of a seal should be directed to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, there is apparently nothing, that makes the educational usage, without authorization, of such a seal illegal. Well, in our educational usage example of course. Something else if you produce "educational FBI identification cards". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TLDR That reads almost like a law book. Maybe educational memory-aid enhancing identification cards would fly. Marcus Qwertyus 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Duh, because it is !! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

History of the seal and badges

This is more to do with the history of the badges than the seal, but there is an image on this page (images can be seen at the web archive page here) that shows the appearance of the FBI badges over time, with badges from 1908, 1927, 1934, 1935 and "present". The badge is quite different in appearance to the seal, but I'm leaving the details here in case anyone wants to take this further and look into the history here, and how the history of the badge relates to the history of the seal. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of "remove seal" request

This article does not state the result of the "remove the seal" request from the FBI. Something like "no further action taken" or "court papers filed" or something similar would be nice. As it stands now, the article leaves the reader hanging in the air. Any and all input is greatly appreciated. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be difficult to find a reliable source for reference, since as far as I know no further action has been taken, hence nothing more has been written about it in the press. If you're very interested for your own curiosity, you might ask the FBI about the status of the matter. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think I'll pass. :) -      Hydroxonium (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

National Collectors' Mint

Just saw an ad from National Collector's Mint on AMC, advertising a commemorative 9/11 coin-ish thing with WTC silver battleships and the FBI logo struck on back. I wonder if they have permission.... ;) Wnt (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, when I found their site, they had a different obverse on the same coin.[2] I wonder if the G-Men got to them. Wnt (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: 1 May 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 09:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation → Symbols of the Federal Bureau of Investigation – New name per article changes. Article also includes the FBI flag as well as the seal. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a move to Symbols of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a broader title, which would not require further moves if any new symbols were added in the future (looking forward to "Anthem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation"!). Green Giant (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Update: Changed to "Symbols" per user input. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support a move to Symbols of the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for FBI, so it's usually present as "FBI" in derivative articles. Browse Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation and see for yourself. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The ones with "FBI" in the title appear to have it at the start, not the end. For example, the director's article has the full name. Does the order of precedence matter in this case? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that "FBI" is used for the first word of the title only. If it is at the end of the title, the full name is used. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symbols of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/page/2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)