This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Just added a cleanup-date template to this. The mention of a TV show on the very first paragraph and the removal of a References section (deemed not belonging to an encyclopaedia) by the main author of this article makes me highly suspicious of its accuracy and reliability.
Being ignorant on the subject myself, I consider smacking a template to be my best course of action towards helping improve this article. Removal of mentions of popular culture sources from the main body of the article and the addition of proper references would help greatly.
Don't know if anyone is still looking at this page, but why wouldn't a forensic document expert and a graphologist be the same? There are quite a few in the U.S. who make their living doing both. This distinction smacks of POV, not actual case studies. Bruxism ( talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Charles Chabot is in the category "Graphology". Given the vast difference between those two fields, I think that they belong in a category of their own. OTOH, I didn't find any of the expected names in wikipedia. :( jonathon ( talk) 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the article as US centric, perhaps US/Canada centric would be more accurate. The arutcle says "ASTM Standard E444-98", I am guessing that is some kind of US standard, certainly the article refers to the US legal and law enforcement system. I have no idea how handwriting analysis works in the rest of the English speaking world. I wonder if "QDE" is used as a term outside North America? Billlion ( talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone rewrite the lead so it actually starts by explaining what the article topic is about? When I tried reading the article, I had to pretty much scroll down to understand what this was supposed to be about. A good idea is not to start the article with a list of alternative terms and then expand on the tasks of a "forensic document examiner" without even explaining what a "forensic document" is, or for that matter a graphologist.
Peter Isotalo 06:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How does this sound?
I wouldn't bother explaining graphology or graphologist as it is linked to another wiki page.
209.87.250.53 ( talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can ( talk)
The image Image:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
By all means include your new image. But the one up there already makes comparisons, and so relates much more directly to the article. Peterlewis ( talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask for more information about why the reversion was made to the entry regarding 'tools of the trade'?
The explanation given was simply "irrelevant data added". I disagree - the information is quite relevant. It consisted of a list of equipment used in the field to examine suspect documents. There is no question that the list was not finished and needed more work; in particular, expansion on how the equipment is used in document examination.
I'm sure there would be a better way to present the information but I think it has value. The 'list' at present is definitely insufficient. In fact, it is terribly misleading because it doesn't begin to show what actually is or can be used in the field.
One of the general problems I have had with this page is the limited information about non-handwriting examination types. There are a lot of examiners who do little more than the most basic examinations (mainly handwriting) and they require minimal equipment. Document examination as a forensic field is much more than just handwriting examination (as mentioned in the scope). But it didn't read that way to me. That was the reason behind the changes to the examination area to include non-handwriting topics.
That logically leads (in my mind) to the need for more information about the equipment used (though maybe it's more a matter of methods used). Granted that most laboratories or examiners do not have access to all of this equipment (our lab is one notable exception) but this equipment is used in the field to address a variety of QD problems. That was also the reason why the title was changed to drop the 'common' adjective.
So, I suppose I have 3 questions:
Brent Ostrum ( talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about two recent additions to the page; specifically the entry "IFO-Forensic Standards and Research private Ltd (India)New Delhi-(IFSR)" under organizations dedicted to QDE and the URL " http://ifo.ifsr.in/handwritingexperts.html" under external links. Both are related, of course. I don't know either of these which isn't surprising as they are in India. But their website suggests to me that 1) it may be a company providing this service (not a professional organization like the others on the list) and 2) they provide services in graphology (which clearly is not appropriate for the QD page). IMO, both of these additions should be removed but I would like some other opinions before proceeding. Thanks. RB Ostrum 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can ( talk • contribs)
Just happened upon this page of the site and would like to comment on a few things mentioned both in this part and others. QDE / FDE are both common terms used within the industry, regardless of who you work for. It is definately NOT a US-centric discipline with some of the best centres of excellence for training being not just in the US or even in universities, but in the rest of the world. Certainly the UK and Holland would be two of the better live examining and training offices. The common tools of the trade are correctly listed. They are used for the analysis of both Travel - any document with which you can travel across borders, ie, Passport, National ID card or Drivers Licence, and supporting documents, ie, documents that you use to support various applications. These would include utility bills, bank statements, birth certificates, marriage / divorce certificates and of course, education certifictates. The list is not exhaustive. The use of standard loupes, stereo microscopes, VSC's, etc, is quite correct. There are other tools but they are specialist and tend to trend in and out depending upon the type of security features being used at that time. Loupes (hand held magnifiers) and stereo microscopes (same as a mono-microscope, but with two viewers) are self explanatory. For those of you who do not know what a VSC is, well, apart from meaning Video Spectral Analyser, what it actually does is this: It is a viewing chamber which can be totally sealed which is necessary because some of the light sources it emits are harmful. (MW and SW UV for example). It generates not just UV light but also IR and can apply various filters to distinguish between the frequency responses of inks, etc. (Please note this is not just for handwriting, it is also for printed inks!). It can also apply oblique and transmitted light used for testing for abrasion, watermarks, turfing, etc. VSC's will also have a microscope feature. Depending upon the make and model of VSC being used, they vary in price from several thousands to several tens of thousands of UK pounds. They are invariably linked to a screen viewer and also to a computer for the purposes of recording and editing images for later submission as exhibits. And finally. I am a Document Examiner. I do not have a science degree, just a lot of experience in the document field with many sucessful prosecutions under my belt. I don't do handwriting, it is a completely different discipline and certainly none of colleagues, either nationally or internationally, speak the two disciplines in the same breath. Hope this is of some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Substrates ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose that
CEDAR-FOX (
CAT:O, November 2010) be added to the list of internal links. (I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of external links to forensic institutes, but Wikipedia is not a repository of external links (see WP:NOTLINK). I will shortly remove most of them, maybe I'll leave only a dmoz link. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in adding a section pertaining to the history of QDE? It could be broken down by geographic regions/countries and include key people, organizations, events/cases and other interesting developments (eg. technology). The list of historical cases presently in the article is fine but doesn't give much in the way of useful information. Comments? — RB Ostrum. 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to move the following entries from the 'Scope' section to the 'Examination' section, possibly to act as a mini-intro for the latter section:
FDEs examine items that form part of a case which may or may not come before a court of law. The many types of possible examinations include the following:
- Handwriting ( cursive / printing) and Signatures
- Typewriters, Photocopiers, Laser printers, Ink Jet Printers, Fax machines
- Chequewriters, Rubber stamps, Price markers, Label makers
- Printing Processes
- Ink, Pencil, Paper
- Alterations, additions, erasures, obliterations
- Indentation detection and/or decipherment
- Sequence of Strokes
- Physical Matching
Please note that I don't have a problem with the list, per se.
I just think it would fit better in the other section of the page. Any comments? — RB Ostrum. 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Content analysis is definitely related to QDE, since it's also about determining the authorship of a document (although it uses the text instead of the means of writing or printing). Thus, it belongs in the "See also" section. Neon Merlin 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I was just reviewing the recent edit by Tumacama regarding the Adolf Beck cases from 1896 and 1904. The entry presently reads "The Adolf Beck cases (1896 and 1904) where handwriting expert Thomas H. Gurrin repeated an erroneous identification". I have only a passing familiarity with the case and know of it more for its role in pointing out issues with eye-witness identification than for the handwriting. Out of curiosity I checked a few references (starting with the wiki page) but I didn't see any support for the claim that there had been a repeated error. Maybe I missed something but it wasn't clear to me that any handwriting expert had been involved in the 1904 matter at all. Anyway, I tagged this as a dubious claim with the hope that a clear reference could be provided one way or the other. — RB Ostrum. 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Questioned document examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about this section of the article. The intent was/is to provide an explanation of the processes used for this work (ACE-V), as presented and explained by the original author who coined the term.
In an effort to clarify that this section presents that point-of-view as-is, I have rewritten it accordingly. That was done to avoid incorrect paraphrasing (or misinterpretation about the intent of these entries). I don't know if the formatting is perfect though — I opted for blockquotes for each entry and that may not be the best choice. — RB Ostrum. 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been thinking that this article should be moved to the new name of "Forensic Document Examination". When I created the article back in 2004, I named it based on many of the references I was reading at the time. The term "Questioned" persists only in the associations' names for historical reasons, but in modern parlance (as it was also in 2004 actually), the term "Forensic" is definitely the accurate descriptor. TimothyPilgrim ( talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia article specifically about analysis for authentication of handwritten signatures?
I see that at least one person was looking for such an article, and was surprised that signature analysis redirects to an unrelated article about (electronic) " analog signature analysis". If there's currently no specific article on the topic of authenticating handwritten signatures, is there even a specific *section* of an article specifically about that topic? I see that a bunch of articles briefly mention examination of handwritten signatures, including graphanalysis (which redirects to a section of this questioned document examination article), authentication, Writer Recognition (which redirects to handwritten biometric recognition), handwriting recognition, optical character recognition, and intelligent word recognition. (I've heard that at least some of the electronic signature collection devices that I "sign" with a stylus somehow use "extra" information about timing, pressure variations, etc. to do a better job confirming that it's really me, vs. than other systems that only analyze a "photo" of a complete handwritten signature). None of the sections in those articles seem to be specifically about analyzing a person's name in the form of a hand-written signature for the purpose of detecting whether it's a forgery by some other person pretending to be some person by writing that person's name. -- DavidCary ( talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Just added a cleanup-date template to this. The mention of a TV show on the very first paragraph and the removal of a References section (deemed not belonging to an encyclopaedia) by the main author of this article makes me highly suspicious of its accuracy and reliability.
Being ignorant on the subject myself, I consider smacking a template to be my best course of action towards helping improve this article. Removal of mentions of popular culture sources from the main body of the article and the addition of proper references would help greatly.
Don't know if anyone is still looking at this page, but why wouldn't a forensic document expert and a graphologist be the same? There are quite a few in the U.S. who make their living doing both. This distinction smacks of POV, not actual case studies. Bruxism ( talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Charles Chabot is in the category "Graphology". Given the vast difference between those two fields, I think that they belong in a category of their own. OTOH, I didn't find any of the expected names in wikipedia. :( jonathon ( talk) 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the article as US centric, perhaps US/Canada centric would be more accurate. The arutcle says "ASTM Standard E444-98", I am guessing that is some kind of US standard, certainly the article refers to the US legal and law enforcement system. I have no idea how handwriting analysis works in the rest of the English speaking world. I wonder if "QDE" is used as a term outside North America? Billlion ( talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone rewrite the lead so it actually starts by explaining what the article topic is about? When I tried reading the article, I had to pretty much scroll down to understand what this was supposed to be about. A good idea is not to start the article with a list of alternative terms and then expand on the tasks of a "forensic document examiner" without even explaining what a "forensic document" is, or for that matter a graphologist.
Peter Isotalo 06:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How does this sound?
I wouldn't bother explaining graphology or graphologist as it is linked to another wiki page.
209.87.250.53 ( talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can ( talk)
The image Image:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
By all means include your new image. But the one up there already makes comparisons, and so relates much more directly to the article. Peterlewis ( talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask for more information about why the reversion was made to the entry regarding 'tools of the trade'?
The explanation given was simply "irrelevant data added". I disagree - the information is quite relevant. It consisted of a list of equipment used in the field to examine suspect documents. There is no question that the list was not finished and needed more work; in particular, expansion on how the equipment is used in document examination.
I'm sure there would be a better way to present the information but I think it has value. The 'list' at present is definitely insufficient. In fact, it is terribly misleading because it doesn't begin to show what actually is or can be used in the field.
One of the general problems I have had with this page is the limited information about non-handwriting examination types. There are a lot of examiners who do little more than the most basic examinations (mainly handwriting) and they require minimal equipment. Document examination as a forensic field is much more than just handwriting examination (as mentioned in the scope). But it didn't read that way to me. That was the reason behind the changes to the examination area to include non-handwriting topics.
That logically leads (in my mind) to the need for more information about the equipment used (though maybe it's more a matter of methods used). Granted that most laboratories or examiners do not have access to all of this equipment (our lab is one notable exception) but this equipment is used in the field to address a variety of QD problems. That was also the reason why the title was changed to drop the 'common' adjective.
So, I suppose I have 3 questions:
Brent Ostrum ( talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about two recent additions to the page; specifically the entry "IFO-Forensic Standards and Research private Ltd (India)New Delhi-(IFSR)" under organizations dedicted to QDE and the URL " http://ifo.ifsr.in/handwritingexperts.html" under external links. Both are related, of course. I don't know either of these which isn't surprising as they are in India. But their website suggests to me that 1) it may be a company providing this service (not a professional organization like the others on the list) and 2) they provide services in graphology (which clearly is not appropriate for the QD page). IMO, both of these additions should be removed but I would like some other opinions before proceeding. Thanks. RB Ostrum 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can ( talk • contribs)
Just happened upon this page of the site and would like to comment on a few things mentioned both in this part and others. QDE / FDE are both common terms used within the industry, regardless of who you work for. It is definately NOT a US-centric discipline with some of the best centres of excellence for training being not just in the US or even in universities, but in the rest of the world. Certainly the UK and Holland would be two of the better live examining and training offices. The common tools of the trade are correctly listed. They are used for the analysis of both Travel - any document with which you can travel across borders, ie, Passport, National ID card or Drivers Licence, and supporting documents, ie, documents that you use to support various applications. These would include utility bills, bank statements, birth certificates, marriage / divorce certificates and of course, education certifictates. The list is not exhaustive. The use of standard loupes, stereo microscopes, VSC's, etc, is quite correct. There are other tools but they are specialist and tend to trend in and out depending upon the type of security features being used at that time. Loupes (hand held magnifiers) and stereo microscopes (same as a mono-microscope, but with two viewers) are self explanatory. For those of you who do not know what a VSC is, well, apart from meaning Video Spectral Analyser, what it actually does is this: It is a viewing chamber which can be totally sealed which is necessary because some of the light sources it emits are harmful. (MW and SW UV for example). It generates not just UV light but also IR and can apply various filters to distinguish between the frequency responses of inks, etc. (Please note this is not just for handwriting, it is also for printed inks!). It can also apply oblique and transmitted light used for testing for abrasion, watermarks, turfing, etc. VSC's will also have a microscope feature. Depending upon the make and model of VSC being used, they vary in price from several thousands to several tens of thousands of UK pounds. They are invariably linked to a screen viewer and also to a computer for the purposes of recording and editing images for later submission as exhibits. And finally. I am a Document Examiner. I do not have a science degree, just a lot of experience in the document field with many sucessful prosecutions under my belt. I don't do handwriting, it is a completely different discipline and certainly none of colleagues, either nationally or internationally, speak the two disciplines in the same breath. Hope this is of some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Substrates ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose that
CEDAR-FOX (
CAT:O, November 2010) be added to the list of internal links. (I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of external links to forensic institutes, but Wikipedia is not a repository of external links (see WP:NOTLINK). I will shortly remove most of them, maybe I'll leave only a dmoz link. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in adding a section pertaining to the history of QDE? It could be broken down by geographic regions/countries and include key people, organizations, events/cases and other interesting developments (eg. technology). The list of historical cases presently in the article is fine but doesn't give much in the way of useful information. Comments? — RB Ostrum. 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to move the following entries from the 'Scope' section to the 'Examination' section, possibly to act as a mini-intro for the latter section:
FDEs examine items that form part of a case which may or may not come before a court of law. The many types of possible examinations include the following:
- Handwriting ( cursive / printing) and Signatures
- Typewriters, Photocopiers, Laser printers, Ink Jet Printers, Fax machines
- Chequewriters, Rubber stamps, Price markers, Label makers
- Printing Processes
- Ink, Pencil, Paper
- Alterations, additions, erasures, obliterations
- Indentation detection and/or decipherment
- Sequence of Strokes
- Physical Matching
Please note that I don't have a problem with the list, per se.
I just think it would fit better in the other section of the page. Any comments? — RB Ostrum. 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Content analysis is definitely related to QDE, since it's also about determining the authorship of a document (although it uses the text instead of the means of writing or printing). Thus, it belongs in the "See also" section. Neon Merlin 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I was just reviewing the recent edit by Tumacama regarding the Adolf Beck cases from 1896 and 1904. The entry presently reads "The Adolf Beck cases (1896 and 1904) where handwriting expert Thomas H. Gurrin repeated an erroneous identification". I have only a passing familiarity with the case and know of it more for its role in pointing out issues with eye-witness identification than for the handwriting. Out of curiosity I checked a few references (starting with the wiki page) but I didn't see any support for the claim that there had been a repeated error. Maybe I missed something but it wasn't clear to me that any handwriting expert had been involved in the 1904 matter at all. Anyway, I tagged this as a dubious claim with the hope that a clear reference could be provided one way or the other. — RB Ostrum. 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Questioned document examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about this section of the article. The intent was/is to provide an explanation of the processes used for this work (ACE-V), as presented and explained by the original author who coined the term.
In an effort to clarify that this section presents that point-of-view as-is, I have rewritten it accordingly. That was done to avoid incorrect paraphrasing (or misinterpretation about the intent of these entries). I don't know if the formatting is perfect though — I opted for blockquotes for each entry and that may not be the best choice. — RB Ostrum. 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been thinking that this article should be moved to the new name of "Forensic Document Examination". When I created the article back in 2004, I named it based on many of the references I was reading at the time. The term "Questioned" persists only in the associations' names for historical reasons, but in modern parlance (as it was also in 2004 actually), the term "Forensic" is definitely the accurate descriptor. TimothyPilgrim ( talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia article specifically about analysis for authentication of handwritten signatures?
I see that at least one person was looking for such an article, and was surprised that signature analysis redirects to an unrelated article about (electronic) " analog signature analysis". If there's currently no specific article on the topic of authenticating handwritten signatures, is there even a specific *section* of an article specifically about that topic? I see that a bunch of articles briefly mention examination of handwritten signatures, including graphanalysis (which redirects to a section of this questioned document examination article), authentication, Writer Recognition (which redirects to handwritten biometric recognition), handwriting recognition, optical character recognition, and intelligent word recognition. (I've heard that at least some of the electronic signature collection devices that I "sign" with a stylus somehow use "extra" information about timing, pressure variations, etc. to do a better job confirming that it's really me, vs. than other systems that only analyze a "photo" of a complete handwritten signature). None of the sections in those articles seem to be specifically about analyzing a person's name in the form of a hand-written signature for the purpose of detecting whether it's a forgery by some other person pretending to be some person by writing that person's name. -- DavidCary ( talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)