Talk:FBI Index

Citation need for "and not politically conservative"
The Security Index itself was merged with the Agitator Index and the Communist Index. Renamed to the Reserve Index in 1960, this index included a Section A for teachers, doctors, lawyers, entertainers, and other people considered influential and not politically conservative.

I checked the book citation for the following sentence as far as Google Books would allow, and found nothing of this nature.

Somehow the following tab became open in my browser session, and I don't know how and haven't been able to trace it back to a link from within this page (did it link from linked documented I visited and then forgot about?)


 * Full text of "SAC Letter 60-30 on FBI Reserve Index"

The main feature of that document is the wanton use of "subversive" with no specific definition.

The paraphrase above—"not politically conservative"—might be an accurate reflection of Hoover's prevailing ethos, but it is not justified by this source, either. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I also tripped on this phrase, and believe it should be deleted until someone has a source to support it.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation clean-up
This article was actually well-cited, but there were multiple bare URLs (some deadlinks) and one UPPER CASE title that made it look pretty low-rent.

About half the book cites were in a reflist, and I decided to move all the rest of the book cites there, cleaning them up substantially in the process.

The names and categories I added to the Rabble Rouser Index were taken from the lazarfoia collection and then cleaned up to correspond with Wikipedia page names.

This is slightly borrowed work, but I can hardly imagine any serious complaint from Lazar or the Internet Archive. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I got everything right, but my time here is over, and it's at least cleaner than before. Edit at will, I retain no dog here. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are Multiple Indexes, the Lede should state this explicitly and then list them immediately.
Halfway through the Article I had the general idea that there were/may be multiple "indexes", but no sense of what they were, how many there might be, etc... "scope". At some point I realized that these separate indexes might be in process of being enumerated by the Article, but the lede had not prepared me for that. At this point it's a readability issue, IMO. The lede should be explicit in describing the scope of the indexes, at least give the number of how many there are, and if possible list them in advance of those indexes being described in the body of the Article. *EDIT* I also have a problem with the tense of the 1st sentence in the lede: "The FBI Indexes, or Index List, are a system..." Is there one system, or multiple systems? IS there a "system" or ARE there "systems". This sets-up the confusion I just mentioned.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)