Talk:Morgan Quitno Press

This is an article about Morgan Quitno. Why is 2/3 of the article dedicated to just one of their reports? --Millbrooky 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

Somewhere on this page, if the section about the Most Dangerous Cities is kept, needs to be a section about criticisms to Morgan Quitno's methodologies. Of particular note is that the FBI recommends agaist comparing cities using the very data Morgan Quitno uses in their crime studies. --Millbrooky 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been done. -- Beland 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I removed the following text because it is unreferenced and seems to present an original analysis. The conclusion reached is also dubious. The differences could easily be due to differences between the cities' core areas and suburbs. -- Beland 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Morgan Quitno's "cities" ranking becomes evident when compared to Morgan Quitno's own most dangerous metro area rankings. Morgan Quitno puts Houston at number 22 out of 344 metro areas, but places St. Louis more than 100 slots lower (safer) at 129, with no explanation for the implausible disparity in the rankings between the two lists, inviting charges of flawed analysis.

I don't disagree with removing the words. But I do believe the criticism is valid. Does anyone really believe that crime in the core of St. Louis is radically higher than crime in the core of Houston? And then, does one really believe that crime in the suburbs of St. Louis is virtually non-existent compared to crime in the suburbs of Houston? It doesn't pass the giggle test. And it is not hard to see why. Morgan Quitno uses a politcal boundary for the cities list which may or may not happen to include normal metro area high or low crime areas. By foolishly ranking cities with suburbs included against cities with suburbs not included, any useful information about one's relative safety in the core of Houston vs. the core of St. Louis, or conversly one's relative safety in the suburbs of either is completely scrambled. How can the city rankings vs. metro area rankings be flipped so radically unless there is something wrong with the science? But the media loves junk science, especially when the shocking news appears to be counter-intuitive to experience. Gary Kreie 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Removed

I believe the following words should be removed from the article:

Chicago would be #52 in "Most Dangerous" rankings if calculated on 5 crimes except rape.

There is no study that supports this statement. Morgan Quitno left Chicago out altogether because it could not reconcile the way data is collected in Illinois with the rest of the data. I have read that there are irreconcilable difference in Illinois data vs. other states, such as -- some states only report the most serious charge in a combination crime, where other states report all charges. So in a breakin, theft, and rape, only rape would be reported. In metro areas that include cities in Illinois, such as St. Louis metro area, Morgan Quitno had to extrapolate data from similar non-Illionois cities. It is too complicated to declare that anyone can rank Chicago anywhere by removing the rape statistic. The FBI warns against this kind of ranking, Morgan Quitno doesn't believe it can rank Chicago at all. We should not accept the statement above in the Morgan Quitno subject area. If the author of that line is an expert himself, the line can be moved to his entry in Wikipedia with his accompanying analysis. Anyone agree?

Gary Kreie 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables need repositioning

The tables should be positioned in relation with the headers, rather than on top of one another - too confusing.--Parkwells (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion --65.182.246.182 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did. Yassie (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I correected the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpeacock (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

at least 60 WP articles use these ratings, on cities, etc. I dont see that as appropriate, esp. as the FBI says this is not a valid use of their own stats. I dont think this company should be considered a reliable source.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Morgan Quitno Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071119021518/http://www.stltoday.com:80/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/41A85C43D2B421E186257396001D38A2?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/41A85C43D2B421E186257396001D38A2?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]