Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Is this dictionary material? (needs proper formatting) SemperBlotto 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It certainly has hits on b.g.c. (~150). I wonder about whether our search engine will help folks find it. Some form names (for example, US IRS "1040") are in widespread common use. In the context of literature (testimony, etc.) about US crime and other subject in which the FBI gets involved, I suppose this is somewhat important. My expereience in reading that kind of document is that those testifying mention things that they assume "everyone" knows, like form names, without explaining them. Those building the record don't always include explanatory definitions, though they seem to try to. DCDuringTALK 10:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it a word in the news, or something? Move to RFD. --Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The b.g.c. usage is over a fairly long period of time. I would be surprised if there were more than a hundred forms worldwide that could meet RfV. Would we exclude congressional testimony because it was not independent? DCDuringTALK 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I came across this term when I was reading dossiers prepared for Guantanamo captivesCombatant Status Review Tribunals, and later published in response to FOIA requests. The DoD has published 179 dossiers of unclassified documents prepared for the Tribunals. About half of these dossiers, in addition to containing unclassified documents, list the classified documents in the corresponding, much longer, classified dossiers. "FBI FD-302" was one of the secret documents with a cryptic name. So was "CITF form 40". So they are just official forms for recording what is learned in an interview or interrogation. That might not seem important. But it was an annoying amount of work to determine that. And I think taking steps to free other readers of this burden is worthwhile.
Is there any way you regulars could avoid using opaque jargon -- like RFD, or b.g.c.?
Nope, sorry; we've tried but it's just not possible. :-) However, we do have a glossary. -- Visviva 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point concerning usability; however this text would remain web-accessible if it was moved to an appendix (Appendix:FBI glossary or some such), which might be the best solution if it is not in common use. -- Visviva 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Asking the regulars to avoid using jargon is asking us to use longer, time-consuming language. Every field and every group develops jargon for the purposes of speeding communication among members. Instead of asking us not to use our communication time-savers, you could ask about what they mean, and learn the jargon yourself. We actually don't have a very large number of internal jargon terms that are used often, and the most common are usually abbreviations of the names of discussion pages. It's much easier to say RFD instead of Requests for Deletion. And the link WT:RFD is much faster to type than Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The question now is what do we do with form names? A glossary for tax forms and one for law enforcement forms? Toss them? - TheDaveRoss 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)