Talk:Interrogation

message: I added the "about the strength of their case" phrase because the original sentence noted that interrogators are permitted to lie, but they are not permitted to lie about certain things (e.g. that they will let the suspect go home if they confess, that they will lose custody of their children if they do not confess, etc.). I just wanted to make that distinction.Emma Frances (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deception Section

message: Shouldn't we include an overview of the names of some techniques (e.g., the Reid technique, "Mutt and Jeff", "Verify Your Identity", etc.)? I'd think that at least giving an overview of what techniques are available and known might be of interest and use on a page like this. Any opinions on this? --Red Heron 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Techniques

message: Interrogation is a methodolog y employed during the interview of a person, referred to as a "source", to obtain information that the source would not otherwise willingly disclose.
I believe that you can be interrogated without being tricked into giving out information you did not want to. When there is a crime, people who are believed to be innocent are questioned (interrogated) to see if they know of anything useful for the case. WordNet --Midnightcomm 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes deception is a helpful tool. Brian Pearson 02:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Why is the Miranda warning mentioned? Isn't there distinction between capture of enemy combatants from the battlefield of other countries and domestic arrests? I think the miranda part should be taken out unless objective sources indicate that it belongs. Brian Pearson 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been no objection, I've removed the section. Brian Pearson 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this removal was a mistake, and the section should be re-instated.  --  Geo Swan 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, since the word, "interrogation" is a general term. But I would disagree if it is associated with captures of prisoners on the  battlefield. I'll put it back. Brian Pearson 15:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: After re-reading the article, I still have the perception it is oriented towards prisoners of war. I think the article needs to be edited, somehow, maybe so it can reflect the difference between domestic arrests by FBI, and police and arrests by soldiers. Brian Pearson 15:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comment lower on police interrogations TheHammer24 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Protection: Miranda warning 

message: In the article, under "different methods of interrogation," there is a link to criticism of the Reid technique. However, I've carefully read the entire article explaining the technique. The criticism mentioned in that link was for interrogation which did not use the Reid technique. Brian Pearson 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reid Technique 

message: This page is completely lacking in its discussion of police interrogations.  Either a separate page needs to be created, or preferably, the topic needs to be discussed. These differ greatly in goals, motives, techniques, and scope of military interrogations.  I was linked to this page from a police wiki page referencing interrogation, and if I came here and could very easily been under the impression that Police waterboard suspected criminals. TheHammer24 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police Interrogations 

message: I am pretty sure the Spanish inquisition interrogated its victims, as did most likely the Romans, the ancients Egyptians, etc. etc. However the article is only referring to modern US practices. That makes it a highly biased article. Two possible solution, rename (modern US practics of interrogation) or completely rewrite and restructure the article. Without such decision, the value of this article is very limited to almost everyone Arnoutf 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US centric 

message: There are many different sub-categories undere the word "interrogation". This article is far to specific for it's broad title. Perhaps this page should be retitled or be a portal to other, more specific, interrogation pages.
As stated above, there should at least be a differentiation between police interrogations (which is a volumous subject in itself) and other types of interrogations. Huff.jeremy 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title is too broad. (Interrogation) 

message: I remember that there are 3 or 4 things that a soldier can when being interrogated by the enemy, but they do not have to say anything else and it is illegal to try and force any other answer from them.  Something like that.  Can someone please tell me what the 3 or 4 things are?  I remember it was something like:  Rank, name, ID number, unit.  Is that it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.8.66 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things a soldier can say when interrogated 

message: As per the Conventions, you are only entitled to give 4 items of information:  Name, Rank, Service Number, and Date of Birth.  Unit will be something you do not want to give out, as it will give the interrogator information on your activities and therefore, aid his or her interrogation (wich will go against the code of conduct).  I hope this helps, Jerry.mills (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Big Four

message: I added information regarding the constitutional provisions of confessions and how they ensure proper interrogation techniques.  I cited three books:
--Leo, Richard A. (2008). Police Interrogation and American Justice. United States of 
America: First Harvard University Press
--Zulawski, David E., Wicklander, Douglas E. (2002). Practical Aspects of Interview and 
Interrogation. (2nd Ed.) United States of America: CRC Press
--Kanovitz, Jacqueline R. (2010). Interrogations and Confessions. Elisa Roszmann Ebben 
& Michael C. Braswell (12th Ed.), Constitutional Law (pp. 323-369). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.rivera11 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional Provisions

message: Is this a real word? 
I do believe it should be "interrogator", since there doesn't seem to be a definition of "interrorgist" anywhere, and this is the first time I've seen that word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdockh (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interrorgist"? 

message: The torture section seems to have an exceptionally strong focus on the USA and CIA.86.163.199.91 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added npov tag for torture section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interrogation. 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/20131016054329/http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1134061838.85/1206fbitaping.html to http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1134061838.85/1206fbitaping.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Interrogation:
I think the section with the definition of interrogation can be improved. I would have written, "interrogation (also called questioning) is the act of assessing a person's knowledge about a specific event through a series of questions. Interrogations are usually done by law enforcement officers, military personnel, and intelligence agencies with the intention of gathering as much information as possible about the event(s) that took place." I would elaborate further on the techniques that are used in interrogations to introduce the techniques section. I would give an example of ways to build rapport (good cop/bad cop, and maybe 2 others that are going to be mentioned in the techniques section) and the negative techniques there are used. 
Techniques:
In the Techniques section introduction, there's a sentence about the different methods that are used but the order in which they are presented is not in line with the order of the sentence. I think the sections should be organized, whether it's increasing order of pain or most frequenty used to less frequently used. I would extend this introduction section to include when they use certain techniques. I don't mean to go fully in depth about the topic because that information is going to be in the individual sections but I think this section should be a synopsis of the ones to follow. An interesting section to add, perhaps as a conclusion, would be techniques that are illegal and those that are allowed for the most part.
Suggestibility:
I suggest finding citations for this section. There are none listed, but the information is not common knowledge. 
Verbal and non-verbal cues:
Take a look at the formatting of this section. The size of the title is smaller than the others. I see that it is listed as a subsection, as a reader, it looks like it is a mistake rather than a subsection. I would check if there's other subsections to add to this section or remove the bold type-face. Rearranging the order of the sections would help the flow of this article.
The second sentence of line 3 of Verbal and non-verbal cues section starts with, " The paper [4] … " This article/paper needs to be introduced in if you have not mentioned it before in the section.
Reid Technique:
This section and the Verbal and non-verbal section go hand-in-hand. Combining these sections or making both subsections of a section would help the flow of this article. 
Around the World:
The article mentions the interrogation methods used in the UK and the USA in a section but the techniques mentioned before are mainly those used in the US. My advice would be to give a broad overview of the technique in its given section and then in the US mention that its used here in this way. Basically, this is what technique X is in the technique section and this is how the US uses it in the US section.
In summary, the article is good, but there are areas for improvement. One of the strengths of the article is the citations. Mostly everything is cited and the citations are up to date. The biggest opportunity is the order in which the information is presented. The flow of the article would be improved if the technique sections were organized. My suggestion is to reorder the sections of this article, then, read through the article until you find a good flow. Jesscampos (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: In the Techniques heading, under the Torture subheading, the claim that there is debate about interrogation ethics links to a Washington Post article.  A more reliable source would be a book about interrogation ethics: The Ethics of Interrogation: Professional Responsibility in an Age of Terror Xela262 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update References 

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Verschärfte Vernehmung. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 19#Verschärfte Vernehmung until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  (t · c) buidhe 14:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Verschärfte Vernehmung" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Sorry, but "Interrogation may involve a diverse array of techniques, ranging from developing a rapport with the subject to torture" sounds like "Sexual intercourse may be achieved through consent or rape". Shouldn't we add in the preface the information that according to international declarations, it is illegal to use torture during interrogation? Reprarina (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture