Talk:United States Marshals Service/Archive 1

Archive 1

assesssment

Good article, covers the bases well, possibly overbalanced with lists perhaps, and there needs to be many more references, and images. Other than that, looks good so far.--SGGH 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not good. The section "Origins" is among the worst-written Wikipedia items I have ever seen. Not even a draft of a high-school essay would fail so badly. No, I'm not going to fix it. I come to read articles and learn something, not edit them. This isn't even a sentence:

"Due to the laws of discovery, Federal Rules of Evidence (Civil) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (Criminal)."

How has something so awful survived this long while other commenters trade back and forth on trivia? JohndanR (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that these two articles should be merged. --swat671 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I Disagree. They're both very long (imagine how long the merged article would be if they were put together) and seem to do plenty fine on their own. Besides, you provide no reason why you think they should be merged.Dr. B 07:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically, because they're about the same subject and the second one should never have been created (and contains content cut and pasted from the official website). Obvious really. -- Necrothesp 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone applying to the Detention Enforcemnt Officer postion, Be WARNED!!!, You are treated as a second class citizen within the usms. There is no union, and they expect you to kiss their a** just so you can hope to get a deputy spot.

how many

can it be written clear how many marshels there are today?

I work for this agency and I don't know an accurate number. I have been told somewhere around 2000 nationwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.121 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Link dead

Following removed from main article after flagging as 404: The Problem We All Live With --cfmdobbie

U.S. Marshals Service – oldest federal law enforcement agency?

Check out the U.S. Postal Inspection Service page and compare its' history with that of the Marshals. The USPIS was started in 1772. The Marshals began in the 1780's. How can the Marshals claim to be the oldest?
– Bearyz (Contribs) 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The United States Marshals Service claims to be the oldest “law enforcement agency”.

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has the following on its history page:

• 1772 – Under the colonial postal system, Postmaster General Benjamin Franklin created the position of “surveyor” because he could no longer single-handedly regulate and audit postal functions.
• 1801 – Title of surveyor changed to Special Agent.
• 1830 – The Office of Instructions and Mail Depredations was established as the investigative branch of the Post Office Department.

So obviously, the United States Marshals Service does not consider the pre-1830 Special Agents to constitute a “law enforcement agency”.
—MJBurrage • TALK • 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Small problem with that is the whole 1772 thing: the United States did not exist until fifteen years later. In 1789, after the ratification of the Constitution, numerous bills passed through Congress including the Judiciary Act (which established the Marshals.) Although the USPIS has roots in the surveyors office, the surveyor's office was a regulatory and audit office and was not authorized law enforcement functions until 1830. This addresses the same argument that Customs was the first LE agency (US Customs was also created during that onslaught of laws, but was also a regulatory and tax collection agency. Enforcement of the law when violations occurred was done by US Marshals on orders of the courts (writs and warrants).

It's not my interpretation, the Marshals Service flat out states that they are the oldest law enforcement agency in their own documents. See the footnote. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that that advertisement by the Marshals shouldn't be taken as fact. The FBI makes many claims that are false. Never believe one's own propoganda. Just look into it to determine which is fact and which is exaduration. I believe the Marshals only recently began bragging about being the oldest when the Customs Service was rolled into DHS... Remember that the Coast Guard was Revenue under Treasury and is now DHS... but it doesn't mitigate their function and thus the Revenue cutters technically still exist in function. I think it all depends on how you WANT to see it.

Ok, "small problem with that is the whole 1772 thing: the United States did not exist until fifteen years later". I am so suing whatever high school whoever said that graduated from. The United States of America was NOT FORMED ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION! The United States of America existed under the Articles of Confederation which is when the USPS was formed (even before then by the Continental Congress), this idea some people have that the Constitution created the United States and it's the only government we've ever had is so stupid and shows the ignorance and laziness in our education system when it comes to teaching students history and politics. The United States has had more than one form of government, you dont create a new state, nation, or country when you ratify a new form of government. In addition it doesnt matter what the Marshals Service says in their own documents, IF they are wrong then THEY ARE WRONG, one can even say there is a conflict of interest in taking their word for it since they have something to gain from saying that and therefore it is not a reliable source for validating that statement. IF there is a USPS source that says outright that their branch was a law enforcement agency then it proves, because they were earlier, that the Marshals are wrong. Being in a source does not make something true, so this BS about the Marshals saying it therefore its ok is ridiculous. Common sense please. If you want to question me bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard.Camelbinky (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing section

I think the portion below, while possibly a valid part of the article does not belong so close to the beginning. It is probably not all that understandable to anyone not familiar with the federal civil service or law enforcement. For example a superficial reading make one think he is talking about people who were deputies in 1811. Overall, I would be inclined to cut it entirely, but would like to discuss
– Peter Reilly 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OPM Classification

Deputy U.S. Marshals are classified as either General Schedule (GS) 1811 (Criminal Investigator Deputy) or 0082 (Deputy). The 1811 Deputies receive an additional 25% LEAP pay on top of their base pay, and may progress to the grade of GS-12. Additionally, 0082 Deputies may only progress to the grade of GS-11. Due to budget cutbacks, the U.S. Marshals Service only hires 0082 Deputy U.S. Marshals. An 0082 Deputy wishing to become an 1811 Deputy must do so by applying internally. In recent years, the Marshals Service has promoted an average of 120 to 140 (GS)1811 Deputies per year. Recent developments at headquarters, coupled with a new director seem to show promise for advancement opportunities for 0082 Deputies.

0082 Deputies do have the same "Federal Law Enforcement Special Agent" powers as 1811 deputies .0082 Deputies primary duties are very similar to that of their counterpart 1811 deputies, yet 0082 deputies may not act as a lead investigator. 1811 deputies perform mostly investigative related duties such as fugitive apprehension, etc.

Possible Error

became a U. S. Marshals Service top 15 fugitive on 2001-03-06 because of more than 280 letters that threatened to contain anthrax, which he mailed with return addresses of the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Secret Service in October 2001.

How can someone be added to a list in March for what they did in October of the same year?

Posse

I removed the citation needed from the posse line since it is asking to prove a negative. As explained in the posse article, this power comes from common law, and therefore exists until it is removed. So it would be possible to prove that this power has been taken away. But absent that proof they do still have said power. The posse article does mention states removing the power from sheriffs, but that would not apply to a Marshal, unless the Federal government removed the powers.

In other words, just like someone is innocent until proven guilty, the Marshals still have this common law power until proven otherwise. —MJBurrage • TALK • 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "marshal"

Hello all- I think the word "Marshal" is incorrectly capitalized in this article in several places, but didn't want to waltz in and edit without consulting editors more invested in the article. I believe that most style guides would recommend that when the word is not part of a title, e.g. "U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Marshal John Doe" it should be lower case: A county sheriff and a U.S. marshal walked into a bar... -Eric ^(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. To leave it lower case would be like saying U.S. marine. Titles such as Marine and Marshal should be capitalized as they denote a specific position or status, even without a name. In these cases the titles themselves are enough to warrant capitalization. If you were to use the terms in an unspecific manner, it would be lower-case. (unsigned)

I see your point about "Marine," I agree about the use of "Marshal" in a title, and am tempted to agree--but not sure--when "marshal" is preceded by "U.S." while not part of a title. The American Heritage Dictionary treats Marineand marshaldifferently. "U.S. Marshal" doesn't jump out at me as being incorrect, especially in an article about them, but there are a few points in the article where the lone word is capitalized in a general context. -Eric ^(talk) 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style 8.112 does lowercase marine: the Marine Corps or the marine corps, but: a marine. For that reason, I think marshal would also be lowercase.

15 Most Wanted list of prominent fugitives

In the 15 Most Wanted List section, it looked like the article would at one point contain numerous names of prominent and/or infamous fugitives. However, for well over a year, it's contained only one name. I'll remove the "list of name" in a few days if nobody objects, for two reasons: one, most of the data presented with the name is off-topic, since it has to do with the fugitive himself (for whom there is already an article) and not the USMS; and two, the decision of which people from the list to include and which not to would undoubtedly become POV, if it isn't already. It should suffice that we already link to the USMS list. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right, so while having no intention of tromping on your toes, I went ahead and deleted it. Hope you don't mind. -- Davidkevin 00:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

US Marshals vs FBI

Reading this article, I couldn't really understand what the difference between the Marshals and the FBI is. Both are federal organizations with nationwide jurisdiction. Both are looking for wanted criminals and deal with federal crimes. If anyone knows, would you please include a short section that can explain the difference between the US Marshals and the FBI. Thank you very much, (Einstein00 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Informally, they have overlapping but separate responsibilities. The Marshals transport prisoners to and from federal courts and are charged with apprehending fugitives from the courts (bail jumpers and so forth), and the other responsibilities listed in the article. The FBI is the prime agency for chasing bank robbers, kidnappers, and those who commit federal crimes not specifically assigned to other agencies (Secret Service, BATF, Postal Inspectors, DEA), and for performing counter-intelligence. (The FBI, Marshals, and DEA are all part of the Justice Department; BATF used to be part of the Treasury Department but is now also part of Justice; the Secret Service used to be part of Treasury, but is now part of the Homeland Security Department.)

That is incorrect. US Marshals do not "apprehend fugitives from the courts..i.e bail jumpers" Those would be free lance (state) bounty hunters. US Marshals do not need Unlawful Flight or cross-state regulations to occur in order to investigate a case (such as the FBI needs UFAP) Marshals have the power of Sheriff in any state, allowing them to conduct State investigations as needed. Most regional Marshal task forces work violent crime criminals (murder rape) who have NOT been arrested nor through the Judicial system because they remain at large until the Marshals apprehend them. FBI retains the right to investigate it's own agency's fugitives, but the US Marshals are the federal governments primary fugitive agency for federal fugitives.

In the mid-'70s while still imprisoned, Dr. Timothy Leary noted that the Marshals were issued different weapons than FBI agents, and that the Marshals he encountered looked down on the FBI. FBI agents were claimed to have looked down on BATF (particularly during the Branch Davidian debacle in Waco), and so forth.

With regard to inter-agency cooperation, if I recall correctly, the Warren Commission criticized the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover for its reluctance to share intelligence with other agencies, particularly the Secret Service. There are claims that if the FBI had shared its files on Lee Harvey Oswald with the Secret Service, attention would have been given to Oswald by the Service, with the possible prevention of the Kennedy Assassination. Clearly, rivalry between the various federal law-enforcement agencies remains a factor between them.

I guess that if I or someone else can look up the appropriate documentation, these differences should be added to the relevant articles to make the distinctions between the agencies more clear. Thanks for bringing up the idea. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Basically the US Marshals do not conduct criminal investigations per se. They do investigations only to the extant that it leads them to their fugitive(s). They do not conduct original criminal investigations, in other words they do not investigate crimes as they happen in order to find the perpetrator like the FBI, USPIS, etc. Their job is just to capture them if they get loose or become wanted in addition of course to the duties listed in the article. The new reality drama Manhunters on A&E does an excellent job of showing this kind of investigation in action. Interestingly, for some historical trivia which Im surprised the article doesn't cover is that among its duties prior to the creation of the Secret Service was the task of investigating counterfeiting money. They had more responsibilities prior to the specialization of law enforcment agencies throughout the 20th century. Now they are mostly bailiffs of the federal courts and fugitive hunters and prisoner custodians. They are the jack of law enforcment trades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. US Marshals DO conduct criminal Investigations. Adam Walsh, for example, is run by the US Marshals which investigates and sets prosecution for sex offenders and on-going repreat crimes.. to name but one of the investigative responsibilities.

I agree that's why I wrote that they "do not conduct criminal investigations per se. They do investigations only to the extant that it leads them to their fugitive(s)." I stand by my comment that they are not a criminal investigatory agency. Ifa crime is committed the Marshals are not the go to folks. They only investigate fugitive cases. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

the marshal service works for the courts, therefore does some fugitive recovery, witness protection, prisoner transport, and protects judges. 05:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) You are correct in regards to their Fugitive responsibilities. This, however, is a portion of the agency responsibilities and they do conduct "crimianl investigations". One example is that the US Marshals Service (USMS) Sex offender Branch (SOIB) investigates and when cause is found, indicts sex offenders; not just fugitives. Since SOIB’s inception, it has developed an implementation strategy, assisted DOJ with legal guidance, assigned personnel to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and trained and designated Sex Offender Investigations Coordinators nationwide.

The USMS also has the Organized Crime Investigation Department (OCDETF) that identifies, investigates and prosecutes high-level money laundering and narcotics organizations division that, working with other agencies, Investigate, charge and dismantle Criminal organizations.

The US Marshals also have threat Criminal Investigators. When, say, a death threat against a judicial member is received, the USMS Threat Investigators analyze and determine the validity. If the threat is determined to be genuine, it is the USMS Investigator who prepares and presents the evidence of their criminal investigation to the US Attorney. The USMS criminal threat investigator is responsible for the investigation, evidence, and charging of the offender. 

The USMS is the premier Fugitive agency for the federal government, but that is not their only investigative responsibility. The USMS does conduct non-fugitive criminal investigations of criminal activity that lead to indictments and the arrests of non-fugitives.

Updated badge and seal

Retrieved from http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon08/media.htm and uploaded to Commons --Chasingsol^(talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Star of David?

Why does it look like the Star of David is used in the USMS seal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.238.72.226 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just a six pointed star on their patch while they carry a five pointed star in a circle as a badge.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

International Recruiting

Is there any possibility to USMS deputize Non-US Law Enforcement agents?If someone have (good) news, just let me know.TKS. {Bryard 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryard (talk • contribs)

Im not certain but I would say that the authority to deputize is an extension of lawful jurisdiction. In other words if the Non-US law enforcement agent was in his/her home country then a federal marshal could not do so obviously. However if he/she was in the US whch I assume is what you are talking about then the question becomes is there statutory authority. Perhaps. The code concerning deputization which is referenced in the article appears outdated since it is no longer found in the code but it did in its wording allow for "other persons designated by the Associate Attorney General" to be deputized. Could these "other persons" include foreign law enforecement agents in this country. Once again maybe. I could see a situation where a fugitive from another country is here and a foreign law enforcement agent (INTERPOL for example) comes by invitation by the USMS in order to help capture the fugitive and in order to avoid jurisdictional red tape is given a special deputy status to operate more effectively. This is just legal speculation. Having said all that, my honest guess would be no. I believe that if a foreigner could receive such commission it would have been made much more explicit than such a vague wording. Good question though and hopefully someone more knowledgable can answer. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

killed in duty

was the marshal who was found dead in juarez killed in the line of duty? article i read about it on cnn said that he was on a modified status at the time. Snoopyloopy (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No he was not. Not only was he not killed in the line of duty he was a fugitive from the law, hence his "modified status". Vincente Bustamante was wanted for not having showed up to a court appareance. He was being charged with stealing governement property. Here's a reliable news link to the story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/5057965/US-marshall-executed-in-lawless-Mexican-town-of-Juarez.html. For this reason I'm going to only move not delete the statement on this person's death to a different section in the main article since it should not be included with in that section. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New section on US Marshals in the news?

There have been several US marshals in the news lately in a negative light. Some have been killed while under indictment or convicted for corruption. I was wondering what others felt about me (or anyone) adding a section on it. I thought I'd just bring it to everyone's attention before I did anything. If no one responds one way or the other Im going to go ahead with it in a week or so and see what others think. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the links for reference notes #20 and 21 do not go directly to those exact parts of the website that give the support for that portion of the statements made in the article. For some reason the website doesnt give the exact root path of the url but only gives the home url. A person going to the links will have to go to the top of the hompeage to "Breaking News" and then go to "Jury".--76.31.242.174 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrest the president?

I've heard that the Marshals are the only people who can arrest the president, is that true? Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any statutory basis for this. It may have originated from the fact that the USMS were for a long time the only law enforcement agency at the federal level and so it stood to reason that they in fact were the only ones who could arrest a federal officer (i.e. President of the United States). If the President commits a crime then there is nothing I currently read in the law that gives the USMS the only power in this regard. If the president commits a crime then any federal agency (F.B.I., DEA, Secret Service)could carry out a federal warrant. However the USMS probably would be the arresting agency in such an event more for symbolic reasons given their long history in this country as being "America's Police" (my term) although Im sure the Secret Service would have a say in that regard perferring to arrest the president themselves. If you heard otherwise please let us know. Its a very interesting question. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure presidents can be arrested the same way as a normal person, because in order to be charged they have to first be impeached, and removed from office. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good point. However my understanding is that a sitting president can be named as a defendant in a criminal case and that he does not hold absolute immunity. That being the case he could have an arrest warrant issued for him (or her). An impeachment and removal proceeding would occur after he was convicted. But you make a good point. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

list of fictional marshals

kinda a big list there. maybe it should be moved? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. I think it qualifies under Wikipedia's policies as an unwieldy coatrack of trivial listcruft. It doesn't really qualify as encyclopedic in any way....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving is preferable to deletion. I did so at List of fictional U.S. Marshals. Such a list is just as encyclopedic as the many such lists already part of Wikipedia. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

POV: "ensure the effective operation of the judicial system. "

"[E]nsure the effective operation of the judicial system"? This is absurd and quite obviously is POV. No body in their right mind believes that the US has an effective judicial system. The idea that US Marshals ensure anything but the continuation the corrupt status quo is ridiculous. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You're free to add those opinions to the article, as long as you have a citation from a reliable source to support them, and can convince other editors of the page that adding such opinions does not give them undue weight. No citation, no consensus, no can add to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

I added the "Criticsim..." section due to the recent OIG report. If anyone wants to polish it up please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Federal Law Enforcement?

The article claims "The U.S. Marshals Service is the oldest law enforcement agency of the federal government in the United States." However, the article on the United_States_Postal_Inspection_Service claims that "The Postal Inspection Service is the oldest federal law enforcement agency in the United States.". Which is correct? One of these articles needs to be changed. 91.105.218.235 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The US Marshals were created in Sep 1789. The US Customs Service was created in july 1789. Customs was indeed a law enforcement agency, in fact DEA was created from yanking 50% of US Customs special agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.21.140 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As covered by a previous talk section—and a detailed footnote in this article—the postal service had individual agents (called Surveyors) first, but those surveyors did not become Special Agents until 1801, and they were not an "agency" until the formation of the United States Postal Inspection Service in 1830.

The United States Marshals were formed in 1789, and hence is considered the "oldest agency" even though the Postal Service has older roots.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding that the Postal Service being the older, should that count as part because it isn't really a law enforcement branch, just in with the executive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.206.167 (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At its founding, the USPIS may not have been a law enforcement agency, but as United States Postal Inspection Service#Postal Police Force points out, it certainly is today: "... (effective 1971), a uniformed police force was added ... They make arrests for crimes committed against the United States Postal Service and felonies committed in their presence. These employees are required to qualify with agency-issued shotguns and their assigned sidearms and are designated as police officers under Title 18, Part 2, Section 3061(c)". RossPatterson (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge siege

Should the ruby ridge siege be added in the criticism's? This was a very high profile case and involved the death of a marshal and the marshals shooting a young boy in the back. --Youngdrake (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Rather than copying and pasting a largely irrelevant section of Ruby Ridge's article, surely a more information: Ruby Ridge link and a summary of the role of the US marshalls in the siege would make more sense. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States Marshals Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150725134410/http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs181011.pdf to http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs181011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150519154403/http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/crime-law-justice/trials/02008000.topic to http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/crime-law-justice/trials/02008000.topic
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ramea7.com/Matthew_Foggs_BIO_WithOut_Photo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Stacia Hylton

Greetings! To those who might not be aware, Director Hylton has made her resignation official (initially it was being dubbed a"retirement") amid a slew of wide-ranging allegations. Here you will find a page with 4-5 sources all giving various details. Is it worthy of inclusion under the controversies tab? I am not so sure, or, at least, not yet anyway. At the very least someone who regularly monitors this page should stay tuned so when a successor is named we can update. Supaflyrobby (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I did update this as David Harlow is now acting director, though no new deputy director (Marshall Harlow's former position). On the website he is listed as both so I am assuming they have yet to appoint a new acting deputy director. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable marshals

I am not sure if this is a reminder to me when I have time, or a prod for someone else... But the Notable_marshals should be sorted by date or alphabet otherwise it's kind of a random mess. Lawrie (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The list is in alphabetical order by surname already, except for Bass Reeves, and your recent addition, which you added at the end. - BilCat (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Notable marshals

This list is long, and most of the people in it are deputies, not US Marshals. Given that any US Marshal can deputise anyone he pleases on his own initiative, I think the section title is misleading. I suggest the section title be changed - perhaps to 'Notable marshals and deputy marshals'; or better still, to 'Notable US Marshals', and then remove all those shifty deputies. The list will then become short, and will stay short (not many full Marshals are notable). MrDemeanour (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Image removal

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: - I don't agree with your removal of the Rockwell painting, "The Problem We All Live With", from this article. It was located in a section that specially mentions; the Marshals involvement with the integration of schools during the Civil Rights Era, their escorting of a young Ruby Bridges to and from school, and the iconic painting that depicts one of those very notable moments in American history (which covers "article-specific use rationale"). The presence of this image does significantly increase the readers' understanding of the article topic, (and has done so for almost four years) and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. NFCC#8 is incredibly vague, (perhaps the vaguest of all the NFCC criteria) and can be used to argue virtually any non-free inclusion. This image should certainly be included in the article about the painting itself as well as the painter (and currently is), but should also be included in the articles of what the painting depicts; Ruby Bridges, being escorted by U.S. Marshals, during the integration of American schools in the Civil Rights Era. (The image is not currently included in those four articles. Three of them are discussions for another time and place.) I have added a photo that should suffice as a visual aid in the meantime, but I would ask that you reconsider your removal of the painting. Thank you - wolf 20:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to refresh your understanding of what a "use rationale" is and the standards set by WP:NFCC. However, I'd also point out that since a free photo of the event depicted in the nonfree painting, the nonfree painting cannot be used to illustrate discussions of the event, prohibited by NFCC#1. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh... #1 can be argued as well. It's unfortunate that you can"t see past the "must remove everything possible" mentality that NFCC seems to breed into some editors. If you could brush up on your understanding of what it means to put the best content possible into this project to make a better encyclopaedia, but... whatever. If you can't see the clear value that image has for this article, and how it enhances the understanding of those events it depicts, (or the difference between that and the photo), then there is no point in debating this further. (There usually isn't with the image grabbers). Nobody wins here, everybody loses. - wolf 05:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion of USMS as a paramilitary organization

I would like clarification on why my edit was reverted. I believe that this organization United States Marshals Service meets the criteria for it's inclusion within Category:Paramilitary organizations based in the United States.

The United States Marshals Service is not considered an armed force of the United States, per U.S. Code 101a(4), a cite included within the article United States Armed Forces.

Organizations which are armed, but which are not armed forces, are defined as paramilitary, which makes no distinction between private and public forces other than those belonging to an armed force.

Other U.S. government organizations are listed as paramilitary organizations, including Special Activities Center, Hostage Rescue Team, and FBI Special Weapons and Tactics Teams. I fail to see why USMS does not merit the same inclusion.

Mark Renier (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. Calidum 04:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Pop culture entry

The edit stays. There are four US Marshall on board that plane. 150.101.89.147 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"The edit stays!"" - that is yet to be determined, but you should know that content is not arbitrarily decided on the demand of a single user. It needs to conform to the policies & guidelines of the project and be supported by reliable sourcing. Beyond that, should there be a dispute over content, then consensus would play a role in any final decision, and if all that can't be satisfied or achieved on the article talk page, then the dispute resolution process would need to be followed.

Now, with your latest revert, you added the summary: "as per MSPOPCULT, the paragraph belongs here". The paragraph reads: "In Turbulence, two dangerous criminals are escorted by four Marshals on a passenger flight; a gunfight ensues with all the Marshals ending up dead.". Perhaps you could point out just which section of MOS:POPCULT supports the inclusion of this entry? Or perhaps even clarify how this entry aids the reader in the understanding of the article's subject? Additionally, could you demonstrate any consensus in support of inclusion? (The WP:ONUS for that falls to the user seeking to include the disputed content). Thanks - wolf 03:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I must say, you also do not get to revert it just because you feel like it.150.101.89.147 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I just posted a comment on your user talk page, following the wp:anew notification. I made a suggestion on how you might possibly negate the violation. I also pointed out some guidelines and practices we typically follow here, and with that pointed out some suggestions regarding the situation we have here. I would encourage you to thoroughly read through everything there, including the guidelines, and give everything due consideration. Then come here and post a reply with your intentions, whether it's withdrawing the entry you added, or expanding it with more relevant detail, sourcing and seeking consensus in support, or if you intend to pursue dispute resolution. Whatever route you take, I am willing to work with you to try and resolve this, so we should keep things civil and avoid any kind of rudeness or insults. Have a nice day - wolf 07:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not rude or uncivil. Thanks.150.101.89.147 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You actually have been quite rude just recently, but besides that, you are not at all cooperative, which is itself uncivil. Posting these rather blunt, single-sentence comments that are the equivalent of "the edit stays 'cuz I say so!" does not lend to a collegial discourse. You have yet to address any of the issues with your edit, and continuing your slow edit war against multiple editors is, as you've now hopefully learned, not the way to handle a content dispute. If, once your block expires, you still somehow feel that that content needs to be re-added, please be prepared to discuss it beforehand, and be ready to address the issues with your edit that have already been raised. Thank you - wolf 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

By putting words in my mouth, you are actually being quite uncivil. Thanks.150.101.89.147 (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for sharing. I will make sure to take your constructive criticism under advisement going forward. Have a nice a day. - wolf 15:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad you agreed. Good to hear. You have a good day too.150.101.89.147 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I didn't "agree with you". But how ironic that you are now "putting words in my mouth"... - wolf 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)