Talk:Fingerprint

Finger mark

I am currently watching the Canadian mystery series "Murdoc Mysteries", where the eponymous character refers to "finger marks". Was this term at one time in use, or is this merely artist license to emphasize the time period of the series? Wschart (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Finger mark is commonly used to mean fingerprint in the UK, but fingerprint is by far the preferred term in English worldwide, as can be seen at the website of the world’s oldest and largest forensic science organization, the International Association for Identification (IAI) at https://theiai.org CLPEandFFS (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A serious problem with interwiki links.

There are two groups of interwikis: Q178022 and Q1435618, which is misleading.

For example Polish [daktyloskopia] is forensic science concerned with the study of fingerprints. There is no separate article about a fingerprint in the Polish Wikipedia, so the current article should link there. Unfortunately the Polish article has a different ID. Can't we join these two IDs into one? It will solve the same problem with other interwikis too. 85.193.197.246 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of Fingerprint Examiners

Unbeknownst to some people, finger prints are not actually matched by just throwing them into a computer system and waiting for the system to search through thousands of different finger prints until a match is found. Unlike what is shown on several criminal shows such as CSI, Law and Order and Criminal Minds, finger prints are actually examined by real people, by professional finger print examiners. When finger prints are found at a crime scene they are analyzed by expert examiners until the examiners feel enough marker are found in the print pairs, that they report them as being a match. How do we know how accurate these examiners truly are? How do we know their professional accuracy rate? Have they ever been wrong?

In previous year’s people always assumed, or more importantly, to their knowledge fingerprinting evidence was 100% accurate and reliable (Lawson, 2003). When fingerprinting evidence was brought to court, no questions were asked and no challenges were made to argue against it (Lawson, 2003). If a fingerprint was found at a crime scene and a match was made with the suspect then that was all that was needed to determine their sentencing (Lawson, 2003). However, a study conducted on identifying how accurate fingerprint expertise are and found that they are indeed not 100% accurate, and are instead, 99.32% accurate (Thompson, Tangen, & McCarthy, 2013). Though this is a very high accuracy rate it is still not 100% and thus still leaves room for error. Another study also compared the accuracy and reliability of the decisions made by latent fingerprint examiners’ (Ulery, Hicklin, Buscaglia, & Roberts, 2011). From a sample of 169 latent print examiners, the researchers found that 5 examiners made false positive errors, meaning they incorrectly determined a match when there was no match (Ulery et al., 2011). Where 85% of the examiners made false negative errors, meaning they incorrectly said there was no match when there was (Ulery et al., 2011).

Due to this inconsistency in accuracy of finger print examiners, and due to the amount of power theses examiners hold when making a decision of fingerprint matching. It is clear that the court system should not put all of their trust into this form of evidence when deciding on a person’s future, but instead be more inclined to challenge the evidence and focus on other methods of evidence to ensure the right thing is being done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvw022 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Under "Footprints" heading Remove "When recovered at crime scenes or on items of evidence, sole and toe impressions can be used in the same manner as finger and palm prints to effect identifications. Footprint (toe and sole friction ridge skin) evidence has been admitted in courts in the United States since 1934."

The source has no mention of footprints used as evidence. The reference number is 19. The case refers to the use of footprints for "identifying new-born babies in the obstetrical wards of hospitals". Footprint evidence is not mentioned in court. The use of footprints was to support the use of prints in general through the demonstration of identification of prints in history. The source I used was "https://casetext.com/case/people-v-les" People v. Les, 267 Michigan 648, 255 NW 407. DISKFIGHTER2 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@DISKFIGHTER2: I've edited the article as your requested. I've left the first sentence in as I think it's likely that foot and toe prints can be uniquely identifiable just as palm and fingerprints, but I've added a {{citation needed}} tag. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Daß Wölf 23:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fingerprint. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112224002/http://www.articesbase.com/business-articles/history-of-fingerprinting-for-identification-1328238.html to http://www.articesbase.com/business-articles/history-of-fingerprinting-for-identification-1328238.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120033237/http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/ to http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese site = "domain name for sale". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

"In 1892, after studying Galton's pattern types, Vucetich set up the world's first fingerprint bureau."

"A Fingerprint Bureau was established in Calcutta (Kolkata), India, in 1897 [...] Working in the Calcutta Anthropometric Bureau, before it became the first Fingerprint Bureau in the world, were Azizul Haque and Hem Chandra Bose."

There is a clear discrepancy here. The Argentinian fingerprint bureau established by Vucetich in 1892 would logically be the first fingerprinting bureau in the world, yet the article also cites the Kolkata bureau, established five years later, as the first in the world.

There is another discrepency in regards to world firsts in this article as well that I would like clarified:

"In that same year [1892], Francisca Rojas of Necochea, was found in a house with neck injuries, whilst her two sons were found dead with their throats cut. [...] Inspector Alvarez, a colleague of Vucetich, went to the scene and found a bloody thumb mark on a door. When it was compared with Rojas' prints, it was found to be identical with her right thumb. She then confessed to the murder of her sons."

"The Scheffer case of 1902 is the first case of the identification, arrest and conviction of a murderer based upon fingerprint evidence."

Does the arrest of Rojas not satisfy the three conditions the Scheffer case is noted as being the "first" of? It seems as though the bloody fingerprint identified, and lead to the arrest and conviction of Rojas, though I would understand if it was invalidated due to Rojas' confession being the final source of conviction. Either way, it seems to me to deserve clarification. Tadpoleon (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Fingerprint ID

Electronic ID is so ubiquitous these days it seems strange to have an article just for Apple's Touch ID but have electronic fingerprint recognition as a subset of this page, with no real information on how it works, the different technologies, security issues (as of 2018 rather than 2002). I came looking for such information, so I'm not the one to add it, sadly.

Not unusually, Simple English Wikipedia has a better coverage of the topic: [[1]]. Is there a simple way to copy an entire page over? Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed the new article and have participated to clean it up a bit. It is still an orphan however. I was about to initiate a merge request discussion (to merge it in this article), but now that I am reading this I'll leave it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018

105.112.106.209 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Broken external link

Remove

• Fingerprints and Human Identification

The link is broken Halfwit Genius, The (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate link to bleaching-dental.com, some herbal products company. I think other links in the "External links" section can go too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

In the HISTORY section, next to MODERN ERA is a picture captioned "Fingerprints taken by William Herschel 1859/60" falsely linked to the astronomer William Herschel. Please change it to the 2nd Baronet Sir William James Herschel! 85.212.209.177 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Leading Subheadings

Hi there,

I find some of the subheadings that are used in this Wikipedia article, specifically those pertaining to the forensic uses of fingerprint analysis, to be very leading.

Given the role Wikipedia plays in informing the general public on controversial topics such as the use of fingerprint analysis in criminal cases, there should be more effort made to ensure the information provided on this website is not only objective, but is also presented in an objective way. After reviewing the information on this page about the forensic use of fingerprint analysis, I noticed that although there is information given about the various criticisms of this method, they are presented in a downplayed way, while arguments in favour of its use are emphasized.

To give an example, why exactly is there a "Defense" and a "Track Record" section after the criticisms of fingerprint analysis? Within the preamble that precedes the "Criticism" section, everything relevant from these two sections has already been alluded to. Also, one of the claims made in the "Track Record" section (i.e. about the increasing popularity of the use of this method compared to other forensic methodologies) is not even cited. How did this make it onto the page? I would also argue that the popularity of fingerprint analysis has nothing to do with its "Track Record".

I also believe that the "Errors" section that follows the "Track Record" section is problematic. Dismissing the examples in which fingerprint analysis was proven to be fallible, and put innocent peoples' lives at stake, as errors, is undoubtedly leading. It is even more leading because it follows this "Track Record" section. Why are these "errors" not part of finger print analysis' track record?

I think this page needs to be reorganized in a less biased way. The "Defense" subheading and the information provided in this section should be deleted, and the examples given in the "Errors" section should be included under the "Track Record" subheading instead. Also, the information that is currently included in this section should be properly cited, if not completely reconsidered. The information provided in this section is vague, leading, and has little to do with fingerprint analysis' "Track Record".

Fern1959 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference of Fingerprint in the Holy Quran

Fingerprints are unique to each individual. We all have fingerprints however they are unique. Even identical twins have different fingerprints. However nobody knew this 1400 years ago. But it was mentioned in the Quran that on Resurrection Day Allah will recreate humans with all details even their fingertips. Today we know that those contain fingerprints which are unique to each individual.

Quran: 75.4 Yes indeed; We are Able to reconstruct his fingertips.

Direct link to the verse

On Resurrection Day Allah will reconstruct our bodies to the smallest detail even our unique fingerprints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf.islam.al (talk • contribs) 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

lede

"Human fingerprints are detailed, nearly unique, difficult to alter, and durable over the life of an individual, making them suitable as long-term markers of human identity." the whole of the article deals with fingerprints as a personal identification marker. i think it is a tad one-sided and out of ballance. if the article's aim is to deal with identification by fingertips instead of the fingertip patterns per se, then the article title should probably reflect this.

theres some relevant info on fingerprints not included in this article that i found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Genetic_and_epigenetic_similarity: "the fetuses touch different parts of their environment, giving rise to small variations in their corresponding prints and thus making them unique." -that would be a useful addition to this article.

also the article should explain in more details the "nearly! unique" nature of fingerprints as opposed to common belief that they are completely unique.

on the other hand, the lede saying that fingerprints are detailed seems unnecessary. it is a kind of weasel wording (what is the definition of a detailed object??) if it means that the digital or printed REPRODUCTION of the pattern on the fingertips can be detailed, that would be another thing (but still unnecessary verbouseness, as it epends entirely on the resolution used by the capturing technology and thus is describing the imagery technology as opposed to the fingerprints themselves). actually the article should make a distinction whether it means by fingerprint the physical pattern on the fingers or the printed image left by these on objects.

89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

This article wildly misinforms the public

It states:

Human fingerprints are detailed, nearly unique, difficult to alter, and durable over the life of an individual, making them suitable as long-term markers of human identity.

"Nearly unique" must be like being a little pregnant. "Detailed"? Both "durable" and "difficult to alter"? This is a shameful collection of weasel words and the conclusion simply does not follow and despite being an extraordinary statement remains completely uncited.

But more to the point the lede fails to mention the remarkable fact that supposed uniqueness of fingerprints has NEVER been scientifically proven and that the process of fingerprint identification is an entirely subjective art in which two equally trained experts may have differing findings given the same fingerprints. It also ignores the fact that widespread misconceptions about fingerprints are common in the public and are constantly being spread by police procedural television fiction.

https://clant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Graham_paper.pdf

fingerprint evidence has been afforded a near magical quality in our culture. In essence, we have adopted a cultural assumption that a government representative's assertion that a defendant's fingerprint was found at a crime scene is an infallible fact, and not merely the examiner's opinion. As a consequence, fingerprint evidence is often all that is needed to convict a defendant, even in the absence of any other evidence of guilt. Unfortunately, our societal acceptance of the infallibility of examiners' opinions appears to be misplaced

But don't believe me or the above paper. Believe the American Assocation for the Advancement of Science which has gone to the extraordinary step of releasing a report on latent fingerprint examination.

https://www.aaas.org/resources/latent-fingerprint-examination

https://www.aaas.org/news/fingerprint-source-identity-lacks-scientific-basis-legal-certainty

Courtroom testimony and reports stating or even those implying that fingerprints collected from a crime scene belong to a single person are indefensible and lack scientific foundation, a new AAAS working group report on the quality of latent fingerprint analysis says.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/

Yet it also became clear, over time, that fingerprinting wasn’t as rock solid as boosters would suggest. Police experts would often proclaim in court that “no two people have identical prints”—even though this had never been proven, or even carefully studied. (It’s still not proven.)

The real problem, Cole notes, is that fingerprinting experts have never agreed on “a way of measuring the rarity of an arrangement of friction ridge features in the human population.” How many points of similarity should two prints have before the expert analyst declares they’re the same? Eight? Ten? Twenty? Depending on what city you were tried in, the standards could vary dramatically. And to make matters more complex, when police lift prints from a crime scene, they are often incomplete and unclear, giving authorities scant material to make a match.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8011-how-far-should-fingerprints-be-trusted/

But evidence from qualified fingerprint examiners suggests a higher error rate. These are the results of proficiency tests cited by Cole in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (vol 93, p 985). From these he estimates that false matches occurred at a rate of 0.8 per cent on average, and in one year were as high as 4.4 per cent. Even if the lower figure is correct, this would equate to 1900 mistaken fingerprint matches in the US in 2002 alone.

Fingerprint examiners can be heavily influenced by external factors when making judgements, according to research in which examiners were duped into thinking matching prints actually came from different people.

http://www.criminaljusticenetwork.eu/en/post/the-reliability-of-fingerprint-evidence

The reliability of a method like fingerprinting depends on the skill, experience, and the work done by the examiner. The Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2016 report concluded that while “foundationally valid,” fingerprint analysis should never be presented in court without evidence of its error rates and of the proficiency or reliability of not just the method, but the particular examiner using the method. Fingerprint analysis depends on the experience and skill of the person doing the analysis. For that reason, the factfinder must know how reliable the person’s work is.

https://psmag.com/news/why-fingerprints-arent-proof-47079

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8144044/Fingerprint-identification-evidence-questioned-by-senior-judge.html

A senior judge has raised concerns over fingerprint evidence used in criminal trials, warning that it rests on “assumptions” that have never been scientifically proven.

The validity of forensic fingerprint evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media.

"Academics" do not challenge the validity of fingerprint evidence; the results of their scientific studies do.

Since the 2009 National Research Council report on the scientific failing and lack of objective evidence for much forensic science - with particular regard to fingerprints - the pro-fingerprint community has had a decade to respond with scientific proof of statistical evidence in forensics but has failed to do so and in fact the amount of legitimate findings against fingerprints and the fingerprint expert industry has only increased. The fact that Wikipedia has not updated this article to reflect these changes and the views of the wider scientific community and instead maintains it as pro-fingerprinting propaganda is shameful.

I predict any changes I make to this article will be swiftly reverted, since fingerprint experts rely on a public perception of the infallibility of fingerprint evidence for their income, just as other forensic 'experts' have defended the prestige of the own domains despite a lack of any objective scientific evidence and the thousands of innocent people who have been imprisoned or worse due to their testimony. There's a great deal of money tied up in ensuring that the public perception of forensic science is not put at risk by things like scientific objectivity. As a side note I just corrected the **lede** of the DNA profiling article which falsely equates the (statistically proven) uniqueness of DNA to that of (entirely unproven) fingerprints. A categorically false statement which has never been accepted as true by science whatsoever but has remained in the lede since at least 2016.

This changes that need to be made to this article are so wide-ranging that I am loathe to do it all myself but I hope there are others who want to improve this article so as to reflect the current broader *scientific* consensus regarding fingerprint examination and identification by citing the numerous scientific studies by disinterested practitioners of the scientific method rather than uncritically repeating the opinions of forensic "experts" whose views on the validity of fingerprint analysis are compromised by what can only be described as an _obvious_ - dazzlingly so - conflict of interest.

I think the lede should resemble something more like this rather than it's current state, but of course I'm open to opinion.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00737/full

...fingerprint examiners have testified in court for over one hundred years, but there have been few experiments directly investigating the extent to which experts can correctly match fingerprints to one another, how competent and proficient fingerprint experts are, how examiners make their decisions, or the factors that affect performance (Loftus and Cole, 2004; Saks and Koehler, 2005; Vokey et al., 2009; Spinney, 2010b; Thompson et al., 2013a). Indeed, many examiners have even claimed that fingerprint identification is infallible (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1984). Academics, judges, scientists, and US Senators have reported on the absence of solid scientific practices in the forensic sciences. They highlight the absence of experiments on human expertise in forensic pattern matching, suggesting that faulty analyses may be contributing to wrongful convictions of innocent people (Edwards, 2009; National Research Council, 2009; Campbell, 2011; Carle, 2011; Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis, 2012; Maxmen, 2012), and they lament the lack of a research culture in the forensic sciences (Mnookin et al., 2011). The field of forensics is, however, beginning to acknowledge the central role that fallible humans play in the identification process (Tangen, 2013).

What concerns me most about this article is that - given Wikipedia's influence on the public - it may be responsible for misinforming potential future jurors about the reliability of fingerprint evidence thus resulting in yet more convictions of innocent people. Surely Wikipedia has a responsibility if not to inform at least not to deliberately misinform?

Stemdude (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We should probably differentiate between "fingerprints are probably unique" (which they probably are) and "they can be reliably identified by the methods used by forensic scientists" (which they cannot). – Thjarkur (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Biology lead-in

> A fingerprint is formed on any opaque surface and is the impression of the friction ridges on the finger of a human.[1]

I know I've cleaned fingerprints from windows which are not opaque. It is also quite difficult to get usable fingerprints from a textured surface despite its level of transparency. This statement needs to be corrected or removed. 192.31.209.190 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this is strange, although it is what the cited source says. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

citation sourse for the phrase in "Biology" paragraph

Hi, there is a citation sourse for the phrase in "Biology" paragraph: http://ispub.com/IJBA/2/2/9413 Pio8181 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a predatory open access journal, and as such its use is discouraged. We should be able to find a better source. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

In the Fingerprint Verification section, there are three pictures of different Minutiae patterns. What I suggest is that we substitute those three pictures with one picture that contains all the minutiae patterns mentioned in the article. I've created that picture and it is already submitted to Wikimedia Commons, we would just have to replace the three pictures with this one. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fingerprints_Minutiae_Patterns_Representation.jpg This is the link to the picture (I forgot to attach it in the first request). Inaki Rom (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you Inaki Rom. If you're able to export your drawing to .svg instead of .jpg, that would improve the quality of the picture. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Fingerprint Comparison Eiondale (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Fingerprint Comparison

Eiondale (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

This entire paragrah under the Crime Scene Investigations headings is self-evidently false:

“Another problem for the early twenty-first century is that during crime scene investigations, a decision has to be made at an early stage whether to attempt to retrieve fingerprints through the use of developers or whether to swab surfaces in an attempt to salvage material for DNA profiling. The two processes are mutually incompatible, as fingerprint developers destroy material that could potentially be used for DNA analysis, and swabbing is likely to make fingerprint identification impossible.”

This link here: https://www.guardian-forensics.org/effect-of-fingerprint-processing-on-dna-analysis.html and hundreds like it found with a quick internet search show that DNA collection before fingerprinting likely destroys the fingerprints, but NOT necessarily the other way around. Crime Labs all over the country (including the one I've worked for over the past 12 years) have protocols in place for processing items for fingerprints and then successfully recovering DNA from the item in the exact same areas of the item. Some fingerprint processes can damage or destroy DNA, others may dilute DNA, while still others have shown to have no deleterious effects at all. Saying the two processes are mutually incompatible is a 100% false statement.

I would suggest the following instead:

“Another problem for the early twenty-first century is that during crime scene investigations, attempting to retrieve fingerprints through the use of developers or swabbing surfaces in an attempt to salvage material for DNA profiling can sometimes interfere with each other. Some fingerprint developers have the potential to destroy material that could potentially be used for DNA analysis, and swabbing is likely to make fingerprint identification impossible.” 148.167.148.100 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Your argument seems sound and is supported by The Guardian guardian-forensics.org. Your suggested text looks ok, although the source actually explicitly says: "Fingerprint processing actually helps the DNA analyst, as it tells them where the cells are." There is no reason to doubt your personal claim of working in a crime lab for 12 years, but that's not a WP:RS. I wonder could you offer any other source(s) to bolster The Guardian guardian-forensics.org one? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Martinevans123: The source they give (obvious from the bare url) is not The Guardian (theguardian.com) but some random blog-like website. It looks like WP:SPS and it is not a reliable source since the authors seem like relative nobodies, not like subject-matter experts. The sources the website itself cites could be investigated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for spotting that, RandomCanadian. It must be obvious to most people. I must have assumed the authors were somebodies. I agree those other source might be useful. I suspect the IP's argument is still correct, so I've commented out the disputed text for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Classification systems

The part of this section beginning with "The system used by most experts" is very confusing. There are two mathematical formula, which do not match each other (${\frac {a}{b}}+{\frac {c}{d}}$ does not equal ${\frac {a+c}{b+d}}$) and there's an additional 1 added in the calculation that isn't part of either stated formula. It seems, from Henry Classification System, that the quantity is usually not reduced: you can have the fraction 32/32 and that's not written as 1/1, nor as 1. This part also isn't cited, which makes it hard to determine what was intended. -Apocheir (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request in section "Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries"

The paragraph in section "Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries" ends with "In 1880 Henry Faulds suggested, based on his studies, that fingerprints are unique to a human.[43]".

That is not in the 17th or 18th century. It doesn't belong in that section. The next section is titled "19th century" and Henry Faulds is already mentioned there in more detail, so the reference at the end of the 17th/18th century section should be removed. 200.68.77.103 (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an obvious error. I moved the statement from the 17-18th Century to the following para where it belongs. — RB Ostrum. 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Studies on the use of fingerprints not mentioned in the article

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions, Fingerprint Source Identity Lacks Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty. @RandomCanadian: these interest you. I've tagged Forensic science for NPOV after noticing very little criticism of the methods used. I got here from a Skeptoid article.[2] Doug Weller talk 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: you edit this talk page. I should have mentioned User:Martinevans123 as well. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't blame me. It wasn't my fault. You can't prove it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the final 2017 AAAS report is here. I'd say those were important publications that should be summarised in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

external link Fingerprinting.com has moved to FingerprintZone.com so please change Fingerprinting.com to FingerprintZone.com 2601:645:4301:3CB0:D9A8:5B6D:5433:7512 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just trimmed the whole section down significantly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nameless and unknown (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nameless and unknown (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Math

1234 Myajin jgbxfjor 103.121.173.55 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

english 223.123.108.173 (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

49.148.240.37 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Sensor explanations too vague

An example of what I mean is the following:

Ultrasound fingerprint scanners use high frequency sound waves to penetrate the epidermal (outer) layer of the skin.

This is not a very satisfactory explanation because it doesn't explain much, if at all, and begs a lot of questions: How does penetrating the skin allow it to scan the fingerprint on the surface? What makes this penetration, or ultrasound in general a superior method over other methods? What applications would use these types of sensors over cheaper alternatives and why? What frequencies/ranges/waveforms are typically used and why?

More generally, I also think a comparison of the various methods in terms of cost, resolution/accuracy, viability, strengths and vulnerabilities/exploitable flaws and other factors would be very helpful.

These are just some ideas off the top of my head, mind you. For the sake of brevity, I've omitted the other methods listed in the article, but they all have similar issues with vagueness and are in need of similar considerations to what I brought up.

Unfortunately I don't know very much about fingerprint sensors. I was hoping to learn about them here since Google just told me they work by "scanning your fingerprint." So, if anyone else can add even just a few things I have no doubt it would greatly improve the quality of this section.

Thanks in advance. And really I mean it. I know contributing is a thankless job. VoidHalo (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)