Talk:Offender profiling

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlconte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Does it actually work?
I have changed the text stating that criminal profiling helps investigators to "is intended to help". Until we have some scientific study making it clear that criminal investigation works better with criminal profiling than without it is "intended to help" not "helps". Show me a such a study and I will gladly accept the older choice of words. -Sensemaker

~No it doesn't work, (only works like 1% of the time). It just makes police feel confident in their search. It can also lead you down the wrong path if you base all your conclusions from offender profiling or have some bias towards profiling. In other words, even if you draw "logical conclusions" from offender profiling, it doesn't mean they are the "right conclusions" in criminal profiling. It's because you can be logical but only IF it is true that profiling works, but that premise needs to be supported in order to be true, as you said yourself! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.23.130 (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Isn't "Offender profiling" known more widely simply as profiling? Maybe this page should be a redirect to an article titled profiling. Qaz 13:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Slightly related, the article says "Psychological profiling is not the same as offender profiling and the two should not be confused.", yet "Psychological profiling" redirects to this page. Very confusing. 198.123.41.42 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed it's confusing; is discussed at "Unmerge request" a few sections below. --CliffC (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge request
Would someone please help me merge the two similarly titled articles?
 * Offender Profiling
 * offender profiling

Possibly other contributors were unaware that the Uppercase Title and lowercase title were two pages with precisely the same topic. Elabro 15:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. According to naming convention 1.1, "Offender profiling" is the correct title. -MPD 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done. Other than the link and stub, the entire smaller article was contained within the larger, word for word. Not really a controversial decision. Deadsalmon 02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Another merge request
The Investigative psychology article appears to describe one method of offender profiling. Can somebody with expertise in the area determine if this is the case, and if it is appropriate to merge the content of the Investigative Psychology article into this article? Sagsaw 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Request
I think we should let the investigative psychology stand as an individual article. We can give a "Main Article" link to it. --Cyril Thomas 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) See Beyond Offender Profiling: The Need for an Investigative Psychology by Canter and Youngs 2004

Trivia
Can we have a trivia section and use Sherlock Holmes as an example of someone who used this techniques... 80.255.47.250 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Investigative Psychology is the science of Offender Profiling as I understand that Professor David Canter has developed. I don't think experts in this science use the term Offender Profiling anymore.
 * David Canter can use whatever terms he wants, but most of the experts in the world use offender profiling. DreamGuy (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good New Yorker article on profiling
Remember 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like Gladwell's been reading Wikipedia; I don't see anything in the Brussel/Metesky section I haven't seen elsewhere. --CliffC 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just finished this article and in spite of my above quibble about the first section, it's very interesting. Anyone wanting to read it should do so soon; the New Yorker only keeps its articles online for a few days.  The title is Dangerous Minds: Criminal profiling made easy.  Gladwell pretty much paints profiling as a bogus science.  He talks about the incorrect BTK profiles and several other cases.  About the Metesky case he criticizes Brussel's after-the-fact editing of his predictions and says, "Brussel did not really understand the mind of the Mad Bomber. He seems to have understood only that, if you make a great number of predictions, the ones that were wrong will soon be forgotten, and the ones that turn out to be true will make you famous.... It’s a party trick."  --CliffC 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nine years later, Gladwell's New Yorker article is still online. Khamba Tendal (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Unmerge request
I would like to reverse the redirect which is currently in place from "Psychological Profiling" to here: "Offender Profiling". Even in the first paragraph of this article it states:

Psychological profiling is not the same as Criminal profiling and the two should not be confused

The article is about criminal profiling. No alternative entry exists, because of the merging, and therefore the confusion warned about in the first para is achieved and reinforced.

Also, why is this article within the WikiLaw project rather than the psychology project?

LookingGlass 10:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support your request, the two subjects are not the same. But to unmerge, someone would need to write a "Psychological Profiling" article to replace the current redirection here.  A Google for that phrase suggests there is lots of material available, although many articles, including the one at the top of the list treat the two subjects as the same.  As for 'Offender profiling' being in the Wikilaw project, to me that makes sense.  --CliffC 16:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Britton
Could it be possible to make an article from "Paul Britton" to this section on this article? I lack the skills on how to do so. Thanks. Halfang (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Subtle Vandalism?
''Hitler always walked diagonally from one corner to another when crossing a room, and he whistled a marching tune. He feared syphilis, germs and moonlight, and loved severed heads.''

Are these rather unlikely statements bona-fide contributions from the OSS profile, or has someone tried to sabotage the article? Textor (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And who's to say that he didn't?
 * No, kidding, kidding... Good question; that text seems to have been there since the article was first written (as Offender Profiling, note capital P) on 27 September 2005. The article says these (rather annoying!) Hitler habits and beliefs were part of a "...profile of possible behavioural traits of Hitler, and his possible reactions to the idea of Germany losing World War II".  I do not doubt that all of this is in Langer's report, and it just seems to lend weight to Malcolm Gladwell's above-mentioned opinion that profiling is a bogus science.  Regards, CliffC (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
The article states He feared syphilis, germs and moonlight, and loved severed heads. Having read the whole OSS psychological profile of Adolf Hitler I have issue with the latter part of this claim. No where, unless hidden in a German form of this document, does the writer claim that Adolf Hitler was afraid of Moonlight or that he enjoyed severed human heads... Unless someone can provide the source of these claims I think that it should remain Syphilis and germs only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.162.14 (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Profiler
I was surprised the TV show Profiler wasn't listed, since it's the show that really shined the light on the technique long before Criminal Minds existed. Consequently, I added it to the list. 71.202.238.214 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Site
I've found an interesting site, which itself appears to be a summary of other authoritative sites, with references provided. Most interesting is a couple diagrams, tables and scatter-plot graphs showing how crimes can be categorized as opportunistic, intentional etc. etc.

So if anyone wants to take some the information and incorporate it....

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/crime/offender%20profiling%20definitions.htm

--Pstanton (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That site fails WP:RS standards and cannot be used, but the list of books it names at the top are useful pointers for anyone wanting to read up more on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition of unrelated material
58.165.231.12, please do not add unrelated material to the article. Note that the article starts by explaining "Offender profiling is a behavioral and investigative tool that helps investigators to profile unknown criminal subjects or offenders." You are adding material about how Canadian authorities trick known suspects into making confessions. Your subject may very well deserve its own article somewhere in the Crime or Psychology projects, but it has nothing to do with Offender profiling. --CliffC (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Active Profiling
The article is about Active Profiling. Your inability to make this link is due to the fact that this technique was only created in 1990 and has been kept a secret. The article is not about Canada. It states the origin of this technique and reflect the advantage and disadvantages. This technique has spread to all corners of the globe. It is new information and the definition of offender profiling needs to accommodate for new techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.244.92 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you need to create your own article and let it stand on its own. If the subject of active profiling or whatever you decide to call it is indeed notable and no longer "kept a secret" as you say, you are doing it a disservice by dumping it in the middle of this article where it is unlikely to be seen and appreciated.  Once you have developed the article, it would make sense to have a see-also item in each article pointing to the other.  --CliffC (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll need to find reliable, published sources to support your article. I find no Google News or Google Books hits for "active profiling" in the context you are using the term, perhaps there's a term more widely used for the practice?  Only one of your citations is online, so I'd be guessing at an alternate name.  --CliffC (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Controversy Section
The Controversies section appears to me to be problematic. Maybe this is the point already made about "original research," but many of the statements seem to not be neutral reports of arguments from one direction or another, but rather interpretations and defenses of profiling against its detractors. For instance:

"The cautionary lesson in the Masters case"--this is one cautionary lesson--but who drew it? Did others draw other lessons?

"However, if these criticisms are seen as heuristic, rather than destructive, the Gladwell article suggests otherwise." --not sure what this sentence means, but if it is a response to Turvey, is it Gladwell's? Should it be there?

The last paragraph is the main problem, though: "The modern day media and pop culture negatively shapes one’s perception of the true tasks of FBI profiles or behavioral science agents. Even the most thorough and high profile case does not yield answers overnight. It is a practice that is ever changing and yields the best results when coupled with other law enforcement investigative techniques."

This seems to be a defense against attacks, but is not attributed--nor is there any evidence for it. It reads like a summary of what's come before, which is especially problematic. I'm tentatively removing it, as I think right now it violates NPOV and also seems not to cite others, but to advance claims itself. I'd be interested in feedback on this point, as I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia editing!

Also, I don't think my change is exhaustive, merely the easiest and most obvious change.

Thanks Summortus (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is too US centric - certainly the Controversies section should at least mention things like the Rachel Nickell/Colin Stagg and Jo Yeates/Chris Jefferies cases in Britain? (Where Profilers were totally adamant that they were right but were proved categorically wrong)

I propose two lists in the article;

A. Crime cases where Profilers were vindicated B. Crime cases where Profilers were totally wrong

And didn't a Criminologist lecturer at the University Of Birmingham (UK) recently say that the whole concept was hit and miss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

most of the criticism section seems to serve only to try to convince readers that all those self-identified profilers who pop up on tv after every crime are not 'real' profilers (despite having grades in criminology and psychology, same as the analysts working for the FBI). and that there actually is a brand of profilers out there who DO make valuable contributions to the FBI, providing valuable insight into the behavior of criminals. (which i personally think is nonsense. i applaud gladwell for having the guts to call them out on their BS. the lack of useful new insights they provide to the FBI, the rewriting of old predictions in order to look more successful. i think it's really just a new incarnation of all those new-agey mediums of the '60 and '70. once again the police grabs anyone claiming to be able to help them solve crime. and then gets disappointed once again when the results do not hold up to scrutiny) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.247.12 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 on not understanding "However, if these criticisms are seen as heuristic, rather than destructive, the Gladwell article suggests otherwise." Can someone explain what this means?  tomasz.  21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of profiling
There are 2 types of criminal profiling, inductive and deductive. Inductive would be when you start with a profile of a type of crime in general, while deductive would be starting with what you know about the specific crime. For instance, in the case of a serial bomber, inductive profiling would start with information about bombings and bombers in general, like most being Caucasians, loners, etc. Deductive profiling would start with the facts of the current case or cases and work from there. Anyway, this differentiation should have its own section, and it should also be mentioned under controversies. The controversy is to which one is better, and it is quite a noteworthy debate. Inductive profiling would give more information, but also give more irrelevant information.

This difference is also highlighted in popular media such as in Criminal Minds. Dr. Reed is more of an inductive profiler. He tends to give a lot of trivial information about the crimes and particular classes of criminals in general. Most of the rest of the team is more of the deductive type, as well as the team in the spin-off series, Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior.97.75.133.131 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

removing "additional citations" and "original research" tags?
Briefly looking through this article, it seems like it is relatively well sourced. I could look closer at the sources, but it seems at least that there are enough that it no longer count as "original research". Would anyone object to me taking off those tags? --anamedperson (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Good source
A good review article, including more than 30 citable sources, is Laurence Miller, "Flaw and Order: The Science and Methodology of Criminal Profiling", Skeptical Inquirer, January/February 2015. Unfortunately, it's not yet available in the magazine's online archive; I'd guess it will be there in four months or so. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A text book covering offender profiling theories & its practice, "Foundations of Psychological Profiling" by R. Bloom (2013), would be a nice guide for those who are interested.--Moomoofarm1 (talk)16:33, 8 April 2017(UTC)

New Version
New version completed by WikiEd Project under the supervision of Dr. James Council at North Dakota State University and published. Notable profilers removed for length and clarity, please see separate articles on each for detailed bios> Some work needed to remove redirects and old links (e.g. James Brussel). Paul.mott (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought this article was somewhat useful to someone looking to learn a brief summary of the topic, but i would have liked to see more detail in the beginning sections, describing what different categories there are. Mlconte (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt
Can any experienced editor help to save the much-needed Presumption of guilt article from deletion? Crawiki (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Offender or psychological profiling?
I find it strange that the article on offender profiling only mentions psychological profiling in the theory section. That's obviously only a subset of used profiling. Obvious examples would be gender, race, age, political affiliation, etc. MonsieurD (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science
— Assignment last updated by Sayuum (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)