Talk:FBI method of profiling

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: what's  the pirpose  of  criminology?
=== 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)
replies: text: Yea, that sounds right.John Pouliot 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles sorely need rewrites as well.John Pouliot 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I did a little cleanup/clarifying, but the article still doesn't look much different than it did at the time of the last comment of this thread in 2007.  I've removed the rewrite tag for now, but does anyone (particularly you previous commenters, if you're still watching) have any ideas on what in particular needs to be re-written? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally from Talk:Criticism of the FBI Method of Classification of Serial Murderers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last citation question 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yea, that sounds right.John Pouliot 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles sorely need rewrites as well.John Pouliot 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I did a little cleanup/clarifying, but the article still doesn't look much different than it did at the time of the last comment of this thread in 2007.  I've removed the rewrite tag for now, but does anyone (particularly you previous commenters, if you're still watching) have any ideas on what in particular needs to be re-written? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and POV Fork 

message: This article's lead section has extra information that is not included in the body of the article. So I added the Lead extra info clean-up tag.  The lead should introduce and summarize an article, while the details that should be explained in the main body of an article. While I have kept the first sentence, I felt the remainder of the lead was too much detail, so moved it into a new section I called "Development". But the remaining lead sentence still needs to be explained within the article itself. See MOS:LEAD. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section needs clean-up