Talk:FBI method of profiling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
 |
FBI method of profiling is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
Article needs to be tidied up and looks like if lifted from a text book or abstract, needs paragraphing and links. Djegan 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Originally from Talk:Criticism of the FBI Method of Classification of Serial Murderers
what's the pirpose of criminology?
[edit] Last citation question
After going through and footnoting all of the sources, there was one that I didn't want to touch. The (Woodworth & Porter, 2002) citation is still in there, because in the original reference (which is now included in the References section), the copyright date is 2001, not 2002, as it says in the parenthetical citation.
Can the author of this article confirm that these two sources are the same? Thanks. John Pouliot 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge and POV Fork
Isn't this article a POV fork of FBI method of profiling? Shouldn't the content just be included in that article instead, and this one deleted? BuddingJournalist 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, that sounds right.John Pouliot 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Both articles sorely need rewrites as well.John Pouliot 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I went ahead and did the merge, and added a prod proposal to this one. All content is now under a "Criticism" section. But you're right, it definitely needs a complete overhaul. Should this talk page be merged too, to preserve its contents? BuddingJournalist 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Both articles sorely need rewrites as well.John Pouliot 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
