Talk:Reid technique

Pseudoscience?
There's a discussion of the Reid technique in Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), pp. 141ff, which makes it sound as though there is not only no scientific evidence supporting the technique, but a fair amount of evidence against it. The current page cites Kassin & Fong's study that found that it did not improve detection of deception, but the page doesn't seem to properly take note of this finding. Other critiques of Reid cited by Tavris and Aronson include Deborah Davis and William T. O'Donohue (2004), "The Road to Perdition: 'Extreme Influence' Tactics in the Interrogation Room," in W.T. O'Donohue and E. Levenski (eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology, pp. 897-996, NY: Elsevier Academic Press; Saul Kassin (2005) "On the Psychology of Confessions: Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk?" American Psychologist, 60, pp. 215-228; Saul M. Kassin, Christian A. Messner, and Rebecca J. Norwick (2005) "'I'd know a false confession if I saw one': A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators," Law and Human Behavior, 29, pp. 211-227. I think this page needs to bring these criticisms into greater focus--looks to me like the technique is pseudoscience. Lippard (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Really, nothing new here. Cops have been saying ‘we know you done it’ forever. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no such thing as a "lie detector," what exists are people who believe that a polygraph machine is a "lie detector," that gives the people who advocate the supposition that there is a means of leveraging confessions out of people who believe there is such a thing.
 * Polygraph "results" are not permitted in criminal cases to be used as evidence, and any prosecutor who attempts to introduce such "evidence" will find their attempt thwarted by defense attorneys who understand that aspect of what is permissible and what is not.
 * SCICOP and the Bay Area Skeptics debunked polygraph use decades ago and yet there are still a large percentage of people around the world who believe that it works. SoftwareThing (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Complete listing of 9 steps
I don't know anything more about this subject than I read here and on other webpages (including the links I added). I couldn't resist, however, completing the 9 steps so I was bold and did so. So far no objections so my next step would be to assume that this meets the request to 'improve this page' (can't see any explanation for the request beyond the obvious) and so I should delete that tag. If I don't hear anything in a day or so, I'll delete it. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) -- deleted Tre1234 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper technique

 * A British study has indicated that around 20 percent of people properly interrogated are vulnerable to confess, whether guilty or not.

What does "properly interrogated" mean here?
 * 1) interrogated in accordance the methods prescribed by the "Reid technique"
 * 2) questioned "properly", i.e., in accordance with ethical standards but also in a way which effectively elicits true information.

I think it means the former. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Needs source
Like many interrogation forms, the Reid technique has been accused of inducing subjects to confess to something that he or she did not do. A British study has indicated that around 20 percent of people interrogated this way will confess, whether guilty or not.


 * The Innocence Project in New York found that out of 123 people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, nearly 27 percent had falsely confessed to the crime.


 * But it’s a different story in Britain. There, under pressure from the courts, police won’t use those tactics. What’s more, they’ve determined that one in five people brought in for interrogation may be vulnerable to confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. [ibid]


 * Another good source is "Why Do People Confess to Crimes They Didn't Commit?"&mdash;it's a New York Magazine article that explains how John Reid helped change the way criminal investigations were conducted and replaced the third degree with the Reid technique, but also brings up the question of whether the Reid technique is just the third degree in a different (namely, psychological) guise.--173.51.112.10 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lying is verboten in the Reid Technique?
I'm troubled by the claim that "The use of lies..." is not a sanctioned part of the Reid Technique. Inbau and Reid state that the interrogator must "Avoid creating the impression that you are an investigator seeking a confession or conviction." Instead, the interogator is to appear as a neutral but interested party, someone who just wants to sort this mess out before it gets any worse, and ultimately a father confessor. The interrogator may adopt a sympathetic persona such that the alleged actions of the subject are minimised in their deviation from the norm: "You took the money to buy food for your kids, right? Who could blame you for that?". "What man *wouldn't do something about it if his wife's playing around, right Joe?", etc.

All of this is deeply deceptive, so it seems to me that the claim that lying is not sanctioned is mere sophistry.

>> The links I added don't suggest lying is bad under the technique - the reverse, in fact. The recent Canadian press coverage of the Pickton trial talks about the detective pretending that his own mother died of cancer to match the experience of the accused. This matches my other reading but maybe the Reid Technique as given by the institute forbids lying: I doubt it. So, anyway, I added "is reported to" ahead of the forbid lying. I probably should have deleted the line. If anyone who has had the training or read the book knows then perhaps they can update with the official line. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) >> I added a link to a newspaper report Tre1234 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

>> I removed the "not officially sanctioned" phrase. Lying seems intrinsic to the approach and whether it is officially sanctioned or not seems pretty moot, never mind the absence of evidence. If someone wants to add a section covering the POV of John E Reid & Associates, I'm sure that would be useful.Tre1234 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lying is frequently used and in fact is an integral part of the technique. Suspects are told at the outset of some evidence that is in the process of being gathered or analyzed. For example, video, DNA, ballistics, gun residue, fingerprints or some other scientific evidence that gives the impression on infallibility. Often times no such evidence exists or was not available in the particular circumstances. The claim of not using leniency is also false. It is at this exact point that sometimes the suspect will be offered "a deal", depending on the suspect's demeanor and the investigator's assessment, plead guilty to crime X now, or we will charge X+1 later. To be clear, police lie to suspects all the time and it is considered a permitted investigative techniques by the courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.30.141 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Examples?
could some examples be added to make the theory more clear?

>> the HowStuffWorks link is excellently clear. I included a reference to it but didn't cut-and-paste any of her examples, naturally. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacks clarity
I have several problems understanding this article: -213.219.141.119 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * intro states there are three separate and distinct components, yet The Behavior Analysis Interview describes two of them - are they mixed in some way or is the second paragraph misplaced?
 * The Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation - what are the nine steps? >> Added Tre1234 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What does progresses mean in "interrogator progresses the suspect"? leads? encourages?
 * As asked above, examples would help a lot in the nine steps section >> Refer to HowStuffWorks link Tre1234 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Page is overall fairly subjective.
Particularly the following, which desperately needs a citation:

"Many courts have held that the psychological pressure exerted during a Reid interrogation is profound. Effectively the interrogator, in an unrelenting manner, with the conclusion of guilt resolutely formed in his mind, will grind the suspect down, convince him or her that irrespective of their factual innocence, they are guilty."

76.117.108.168 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That statement did need citation, but it is not subjective. If you read through what the Reid technique consists of, then it's obvious that it only works (and is only applied) when you assume the suspect is guilty. That is why it is different from other interrogation techniques which are intended to extract factual details from the interrogation subject and catch lying subjects when they contradict themselves.

The very purpose of the Reid technique is to "break down the suspect's defenses and rebuild him as a confessor". It's assume that an innocent person wouldn't confess, so there's nothing wrong with assuming guilt and applying the technique to all suspects (who, by definition, the police suspect of being guilty).--173.51.112.10 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The tone continues to be argumentative, particularly the last section beginning with, "To the contrary..." Similarly, the introduction contained the use of "Indeed" to begin a sentence (which I removed). Such phrasing slants the content associated with it which is expected and necessary in a polemic. The reference to U.S. v. Graham (Criminal Action File No. 3:13–cr–11–TCB, 2014; Westlaw - 2014 WL 2922388 (N.D.Ga.);  http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140630B75/U.S.%20v.%20GRAHAM) is both poorly cited and written (parsed from the ruling):

In US v. Graham (June 2014) the US District Court, N.D. Georgia pointer out that "there are a number of cases in which    statements elicited from a defendant in response to police deception were found involuntary… but "these cases all involve significant aggravating circumstances not present here, such as, subjecting the accused to an exhaustingly long interrogation, the application of physical force or the threat to do so, or the making of a promise that induces a confession.”

The criticism section already contains the points in the last section. Indeed, the last section seems to be an argument for the PEACE model. Perhaps a better construction would be to remove the last section to a separate article dedicated to explaining what the PEACE model is with a reference to PEACE being a competing model made in the criticism section.BiosocialPolymath (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)BiosocialPolymath

new article on the problems and pseudoscience.
there was an article in the new yorker about the problems with the Reid technique. i don't have a subscription so i can't read most of it, but thankfully the author, douglas starr, was on Fresh Air about it. the interview is over half an hour long, and really interesting (and depressing). there's also a summary of the interview.

link to Fresh Air radio interview.

link to new yorker article.

one of the most shocking points brought up is that one of the early cases that Reid made his name on (1955, Darrell Parker in Lincoln, Nebraska) turned out to be a false confession that didn't get cleared up until 2012. &asymp;Sensorsweep (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just read that article this afternoon and intend to add some of its alient points during the next few days to this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In "Popular Culture"
Is it possible to add a Popular culture section with a reference to a scene in True Detective (episode 5). In the scene where Cohle interrogates Francis, I believe he is using the Reid technique.
 * Only if you find a reputable verifiable source for it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus is against the proposed move in favor of a rename back to lowercase (in other words, move to Reid technique). (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reid Technique → The Reid Technique – This article has been stable at Reid technique for years, and was recently moved without discussion to Reid Technique by User:Iazyges. This was brought up over at the helpdesk, by User:Guy Macon on the basis of WP:NCCAPS. A discussion took place, and during it, I discovered that the trademarked and commonly used term is "The Reid Technique". However, there is inconsistency, from what I can tell, over the casing of that term. Per WP:THE we only include "The" in the article title if it is always cased when used. The same can be said of the term "Technique". As per WP:TRADEMARK, we don't regard the owner of the trademark who prefers "The Reid Technique" over all other forms, but with such lack of consistency in third party sources, we might actually want to use the owner's preference as the title. While I could have moved this I'm looking for greater input and consensus on this. ( who was part of the HELPDESK discussion) Tiggerjay (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename it back to Reid technique per WP:NCCAPS. Ignore the preference of the copyright holder and all who follow that preference for the same reason we don't use REALTOR® no matter how many third-party sources knuckle under to the legal threats that the National Association of REALTORS® sends out when you call them "Realtors". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename it back to Reid technique as suggested above by User:Guy Macon to revert the undiscussed initial move by User:Iazyges. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Guy Macon's cogent argument and common sense naming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I moved it per a request at technical move requests I found no fault in. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Back to lowercase Reid technique since sources typically treat it that way, not as a trademark. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trademark name

 * REALTORS really is a completely different situation entirely. Because we specifically call that out at MOS:CAMELCASE far better than even WP:NCCAPS does. And while I was initially for reverting the move, to the original Reid technique, with the new found information that the trademark AND common use includes "The", that brings about a new discussion... And if we're going to accept it as "The Reid...", then style would prefer The Reid Technique over The Reid technique. Of course, as you said we could revert it back to the long time stable name of Reid technique but with this discovery that "The" is part of it, we should discuss the merits of both including "The" and the capitalization of "technique".  Tiggerjay (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "The" being part of the name is not a "discovery". It is an opinion being presented as if it were an established fact. Once you take out examples where "The" is capitalized because it is the first word of a sentence or part of A Headline Where Every Word Is Capitalized, examples in reliable sources get scarce.
 * John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. calls it "the Reid Technique". So does The New Yorker and Business Insider.
 * NPR calls it "the Reid technique". So does Psychology Today.
 * The book Essentials Of The Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions calls it "the Reid Technique". (Use the "Search Inside This Book" function.)
 * A report written for the Office of Legislative Research of the Connecticut General Assembly which makes a point of saying "The term 'The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation' is a registered trademark of John E. Reid and Associates, Inc." calls it "the Reid Technique". So does forensicoutreach.com. and Communication Law Review.
 * If Reid and Associates itself calls it "the Reid Technique", where is your "new found information that the trademark includes 'The' "? Do they not know their own trademarks? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice job completely side stepping REALITOR and moving on to another topic. Also to be clear, I am advocating for the best possible title after responding to YOUR post over at the helpdesk. I haven't seen you comment over there, so I'm not sure if you saw that originally my position was that it probably should have been reverted back to "Reid technique".... but as I looked into it further, I discovered that according to the US Patent Office, the correct trademark was "The Reid Technique" --- well actually THE REID TECHNIQUE since the filing is always ALL CAPS. But all of that to say, it was not filed as REID TECHNQUIE but with the article THE as well. This "discovery" was because the article says "Reid Technique" was trademarked, which is in error, and I see that you reverted by edit on the article. I already brought that up on your talk page. However, it is accurate and appropriate to indicate that the trademark is inclusive of the article "the". (Your own statement above support that the trademark includes the article 'the')...
 * Now moving on to your statement - I presume this reference is into the use of the lowercase v"the" -- I would refer you to a few things: (1) the webpage title of  - notice camel case only of The Reid Technique and not the entire title; (2) in the banner image on the website it says ; (3) Their graduate website uses the term "The Reid Technique... and I could go further. Returning back to the trademark, if it was a simple article, it would not be included in the trademark.
 * It is interesting that in your examples shown above more thank half of those support capitalizing the word "Technique" -- so would it be correct that you would now support the current title of Reid Technique since your examples show a preference words that title? Tiggerjay (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit war. Read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD.
 * Whether to use "Reid Technique" or "Reid technique" is already settled by WP:NCCAPS: "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." (emphasis in original)
 * Whether to use "The..." or "the..." is already settled by WP:THE: "the default rule is to not include them unless certain specific conditions are met" (emphasis in original), followed by a list of specific conditions that the Reid technique does not meet.
 * Again, DO NOT EDIT WAR. Follow WP:BRD instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, WP:KETTLE I believe is best suited here... Again you're taking around me and not addressing the items I bring up here (disregarding actual trademark, official use on website, discussion on REALITOR.) Instead you keep WP:POVPUSHing your perspective, without actually engaging in coversation. I'd rather bring this up privately on your talk page, but based on this edit it seems you'd prefer to discuss this on article talk pages. This has already become WP:TLDR for others to contribute. There is no further WP:POINT since you don't actually discuss. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  07:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to personal comments, insults, snide remarks, or other WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and that describes most of what you have written. If you ever decide to discuss article content instead of user behavior, preferably listing sources backing up your assertions, I will be happy to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that we have established the the trademark does indeed have the article "the" in it, can we return to the discussion over casing? Should this be camel cased? Or are we thinking it ought to be The Reid technique? Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  08:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, whether to use "Reid Technique" or "Reid technique" is already settled by WP:NCCAPS, and whether to prepend "The/the" is already settled by WP:THE. Anything other than "Reid technique" in the title violates Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep using the same references to NCCAPS and THE, but do those trump MOS:CAMELCASE? Which specifically says . Thus, a trademark is a proper name, and therefore should be camelcased. Which is why both TIME and by extension THE REID TECHNIQUE should NOT be camelcased all caps - but rather Time and The Reid Technqiue. Would you mind explaining to me how WP:THE and WP:NCCAPS takes precendent over the more specific application of MOS:CAMELCASE? Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: as a result of the consensus regarding trademark below, the trademarked name is "THE REID TECHNIQUE". The US Patent Office does not regard casing (eg the name is not specifically in all caps). However, this is tangential to the question of article titling. The proper article title is not necessarily the "Offical Name", but more often WP:COMMONNAME. The initial trigger for the move discussion was due to an undiscussed move from Reid technique to Reid Technique (note casing), and now the question of the possible inclusion of "the". Guidelines cited so far include WP:THE, WP:NCCAPS, WP:TRADEMARK and WP:CAMELCASE -- which are not precisely clear when you try to apply all of them to this specific titling situation - certainly if you apply specific guidelines, then you end up with a specific result. But in total, the guidelines appear to disagree. Therefore, simply throwing out these guidelines without context or rationale is insufficient for discussion purposes, and finding consensus. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  17:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
 * Discussion regarding the inclusion of "The" in the article title:
 * This one is very difficult actually. Per WP:THE if the then it should be included in the article title. Furthermore, it says, if it is  then it should be included in the article title - and this article is about a published training technique. According to WP:TRADEMARK  and thus should be CamelCased. However, what runs counter to this is this approach is that it is commonly referred to as 'the Reid' versus 'The Reid'. So does WP:COMMONNAME take precedent over WP:THE and WP:TRADEMARK?  Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion regarding the casing of "Technique" in the article title:
 * Per WP:NCCAPS, and WP:TRADEMARK clearly defines a trademark as  Thus, if "THE REID TECHNIQUE" is a trademark, it is a proper name, and thus should be cased in the article title. Additionally, per WP:COMMONNAME we see it frequently cased, for example at: Business Insider, Connecticut General Assembly report, forensicoutreach.com and Communication Law Review - as well as it is the preferred casing of the trademark owner John E. Reid & Associates, Inc.. However there are some uncased instances from reliable sources: NPR, Psychology Today  Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I corrected a factual error on this page that says that the trademark name is "Reid Technique" however it is correctly registered as "The Reid Technquie". This was reverted by user:Guy Macon under the guise that there is a currently ongoing Article Title discussion ongoing. However article titling has nothing to do with correcting factual errors in the article while have a bearing on the article title. Specifically, the article incorrectly ascribes the trademark sans the article "the". However a search of the US Patent Office will show the corret registration. This is not subjective or open for interpretation, nor is their any WP guideline which is justification to alter a proper quoting of the trademark as a fact.

However Guy Macon appears to think there is policy or precedent in this matter. I attempted to address this with him on his talk page, but he wanted it discussed on the article talk page, so here we are... since you didn't want to discuss this on your talk page, would you mind sharing your insights here? Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I corrected the article to use the exact trademark that was registered and added a citation per WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just EDIT this without DISCUSSING? That is clear WP:edit warring... You jump down my pipes about not discussing, and then when I ask to discuss, you simply post and edit.
 * However, I'm glad that you accepted that the article "the'" is part of the trademark, but why did you have to be such a jerk with your reverts earlier? Seriously? But moving forward, do you have experience with trademarks? It was not registered THE REID TECHNIQUE, any more than MICROSOFT or APPLE or IPOD. The trademark office does NOT respect casing -- hence the ALL CAPS. (There are exceptions but those don't apply here) Again, let the official sources prevail on their preference of casing for how they intend the term to be cased. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  08:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Personal comments ignored). I am well aware of copyright trademark law, and if the only issue was you wanting to add "the", I would have made it [ "the Reid technique" is a registered trademark of... ]. The problem with doing that (or [ "The Reid Technique" is a registered trademark of...] ) is that I would be choosing contentious wording that is under discussion on the article talk page -- which is what you did. So I used the exact trademark that was registered as a compromise that favors neither side. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's appropriate for an involved editor, such as yourself, to unilaterally decide what a compromise is outside of the discussion? Also, if I'm not mistaken we're not talking about copyright law, but trademark. And last time I checked there were no 'sides' to this issue? Perhaps you have taken a side here, idk. If you forgot I was the one who continues to initiate the discussion, while you continue to unilaterally act prior to consensus. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  16:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are wasting your time posting accusations against me. That behavior may have worked on others, based upon the normal human desire to defend yourself against baseless accusations, but I don't respond to personal comments, accusations, snide remarks, or other WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.


 * You appear to be confused about when it is OK to edit an article during a content dispute. Here are the rules:


 * "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome."


 * "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary.  BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen.  When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see)."


 * " Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring."


 * " Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of opposing editors' concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't violate the WP:3RR rule."


 * Source: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also see WP:TALKDONTREVERT --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can stop your WP:LAWYERING at any time now... How about saying something new, or addressing issues stated. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am so glad that User:Guy Macon discovered that my initial edit of the trademark was correct in including the article "the" in quotes. But there are still remains two issues:
 * Should the trademark be WP:CAMELCASE or is there some precedent which supersedes this guideline?
 * Furthermore per this the trademark is actually for "Standard character mark Typeset" which is what is used when a term is trademarked - how that trademark is used has nothing to do with the trademark itself, other than for categorization purposes. So the statement of  is incorrect WP:SYNTH. That statement is similiar to saying that Adobe was trade marked for computer software, when infact, the same itself is simply trademarked to protect it's interests from abuse and misuse.  Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Personal comments ignored.) So do you want me to change the page to read "The term "the Reid technique" is a registered trademark of the firm John E. Reid and Associates for referring to materials used in their training courses." and delete the following paragraph about service marks? I am OK with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, upon further reflection, is it appropriate at all for this article to even bring up the treademark? Certainly, there is value in the 'discussion' regarding article titling, as well as perhaps as circumstantial evidence for WP:N, but perhaps we can just strike those two sentences altogether (trademark and serivce mark) - would you agree with that?


 * Otherwise, if you think something needs to be said about the trademark in article, I would suggest either:
 * I prefer the former simply because the later seems too wordy, but you can use either one for the article, or delete it all together.
 * As you probably noticed, I dropped the casing on "technique" -- but exclusively for the purposes of finding consensus for the change, but not in the larger topic of "IF" the term "technique" should be CAMELCASED. Feel free to implement either alternate or make a proposal.
 * Once this change has been implemented, I propose this matter is closed, and further discussion over the proper article title should return to the main "Request Move" discussion above. Agreed? Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the changes you propose above. Go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once this change has been implemented, I propose this matter is closed, and further discussion over the proper article title should return to the main "Request Move" discussion above. Agreed? Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the changes you propose above. Go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

literature tip: Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia
Lisanne Adam, Celine van Golde: Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia:

Abstract

Since the 1960s, the United States developed ‘Reid interrogation technique’, and its variations have been widely usedaround the world. Due to its interrogative and confession-driven nature – and thus the increased risk of false confessions– many countries (including Australia) have since moved away from this model towards the UK-developed PEACE-approach. This article will utilise case studies and forensic psychological research to explain how coercive techniquesused during police interviews increase the risk of false confessions. It will then describe the implementation of inves-tigative interviewing in Australia by presenting an analysis of those state and territory police manuals which are publiclyavailable.

kind regards, Sujalajus (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect date for development of Reid Technique?
Text reads: The psychological system was developed in the United States by John E. Reid in the 1950s, who was a psychologist, polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer.

Per John E. Reid & Associates website: John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. began developing Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation techniques in 1947

Per the Marshall Project: The technique was first introduced in the 1940s and 50s by polygraph expert John Reid, who intended it to be a modern-era reform — replacing the beatings that police frequently used to elicit information.

Change text to: The psychological system was developed in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s by John E. Reid, who was a psychologist, polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer.

I'm a book editor and came across this entry while fact-checking a manuscript. It seems this date should be changed, unless someone has additional information?

Bradanini123 (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bradanini123

Tagged some stuff
Which has then been reverted with a non-sensical response. Saying "also it's not a torture technique" - which is not a claim the edits I made make.
 * "it has been a mainstay of police procedure" - given that next to this it says "particuarly in the US", it implies it's a global statement, the nearest cite says nothing of the sort.
 * "and Reid's technique had been adopted by law enforcement agencies of many different types" - which I tagged as vague, because like it's vague. The cite says nothing about this and certainly doesn't help to make it any less vague. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My revert reverted your edit as well as edits by another anonymous editor before hand if you look at the page history that did indeed add Category:Psychological torture techniques to this article (see diff). So the comments on torture were not directed at you.
 * I think you're misreading that statement - I don't read it as making a global claim myself, but rather saying "this is mostly popular in US policing, but we're not saying it's exclusive to the US and probably has been adopted in some other places." I agree the cite doesn't talk about international usage much although I'm sure it's not unknown or anything (if nothing else from non-American police officers who watched American media and just copied what they saw).  I'm open to a rephrasing that makes this clear to both of us, but I don't think we disagree on the citation.
 * For "many different types", I think it's clear the intent is to mean that it's talking about city police, county police, FBI, coast guard, Park Service, etc. The US has many different overlapping layers of investigative authority, and it's not just one specific police department and others.  That said, looking at the reference, it's...  not great.  0 citations for a paper?  It's also claiming that Reid technique interrogations are inadmissible, not that they should be inadmissible, which...  okay, I get he's making a point, but come on.  SnowFire (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the cat fair enough, didn't notice that, I've removed the CAT as I agree such a claim as implied by the cat would need to be well documented.
 * I really don't see how you can read the statement "it has been a mainstay of police procedure, especially in the United States." being anything other than a claim of pervasive usage, by all means reword it if we can't cite it. To be clear I really don't know elsewhere how broadly it was used, so I can't disagree as such, but that's why I see the citation as missing.
 * For the many different types, it's not really clear to me, and really given your answer I think that is an overlap with the previous point, your answer suggest it's a very US centric view. If these is some clarity that many different US law enforcement bodies, then perhaps I can have little objection - though others may. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)