Talk:MOSAIC Threat Assessment Systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV?
"There are some serious validity issues here, some reputation-ruining implications."
This ought to be supported with an explanation. Otherwise, we should just say that one professor dislikes de Becker's approach and leave it at that. --Uncle Ed 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not "one professor," an expert from the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. If you have citations where experts praise MOSAIC, please add them. I didn't find any in reliable sources after a cursory search. Jokestress 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I am adding some more commentary and explanation about various responses, especially from right when it rolled out. Jokestress 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Okay, now it has progressed from unbalanced tripe to balanced tripe. The professor says the consultant, is only studying "surface characteristics", and the consultant says "Am not!" I'm still waiting for a serious examination of the validity issues. You've barely scratched the surface here. --Uncle Ed 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hence the stub tag. =) Jokestress 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV or not, the style of this article is totally off: obvious ... Contrary to a popular misconception ... Clearly ... Of course ... Imagine that ... Myths ... There are some people who think ... It reads as if copied from a magazine. In other words, not encyclopedic.--87.162.26.149 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with above in that there is alot of thoose words.
- "De Becker responded, "It is not predictive and doesn't claim to be scientific." So... it's guessing without the actual guessing or :accuracy? *clap clap* Honestly, I know this isn't the right place, but that's the best reply he could come up with?
Annoying username (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)