View source for Talk:Good cop, bad cop

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{old move|date=4 March 2023|from=Good cop/bad cop|destination=Good cop, bad cop|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1143645679#Requested move 4 March 2023}}

== Morality? ==

''It can border on torture as practiced by thousands of police and prosecution authorities who decide for themselves what the bounds of legality, abuse, torture, sensitivity and sensibility are.''

I'm not an expert on interrogation and torture, so maybe this is the case, but right now it looks like an unsourced moral stance on the issue, instead of a factual report.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.107.135.187|76.107.135.187]] ([[User talk:76.107.135.187|talk]]) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Mutt and Feff should not border on any thing near torture, it should actually not even be aggresive to be effective, just one posative stance and one negative stance to be effective. I am a subject matter expert.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.176.38.252|70.176.38.252]] ([[User talk:70.176.38.252|talk]]) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Rewrite ==

I rewrote the second paragraph to remove the bit that looked like advice, and the reference to the [[Reid technique]] (I'm sure it wasn't intended, but it reads like advertising: "this doesn't work, try our special technique instead"). --[[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] 11:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't read like a wiki article should. For instance, it should say whether this pertains to a common practice, something trained or just to movies and tV shows. [[User:66.41.66.213|66.41.66.213]] 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, does this actually occur in the real world that often?
:The mention of the Reid technique is very strange. Many people know the "good cop bad cop" phrase, but how many know the Reid technique? Who added this link? May be better to FIRST focus on the main phrase, and then based on that explain the CONTEXT to any OTHER technique. This is even more important when no history is available in the article - people may mistake it as if this is somehow intrinsically linked to the Reid technique or any other technique mentioned by any random visitor there. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C|2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C]] ([[User talk:2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C|talk]]) 23:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

== US-centric ==
This is a very US-centric game - other nations prohibit this technique. Even in the US a good lawyer may question the results in court simply because tricked evidence is inherintly weak. [[User:Guidod|Guidod]] 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

::It probably isn't entirely legal in the US, either.  In practice, though, that doesn't stop anyone from using it. Hell, I'm not an interrogation expert and I know what it is.  The technique isn't ubiquitous and widely known because it is never used. - [[User:Plasticbadge|Plasticbadge]] 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not just used by cops, people will accuse others of playing "good cop, bad cop" in other institutional settings and stuff, in the UK, as a metaphor. [[User:Merkinsmum|<b><span style="color:#FF1493;">Merkin's</span></b>]]  [[User talk:Merkinsmum|<b><span style="color:#FF1493;">mum</span></b>]] 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

== Sources ==

I've added a template point

== Psychological Torture? ==

How is this psychological torture?  A trick, maybe, but torture? --[[User:Mr. Vernon|Mr. Vernon]] 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:The threats of the bad cop may very well qualify as that, especially if you consider that it works mostly on misinformed or naive victims, who might take the threats serious no matter how exaggerated or made-up they are. Psyches don't get bruises, thus it can certainly be difficult to decide where pressure ends and torture starts, Lying with the intent to cause fear (beyond getting caught for one's deed) could be considered sufficient. --[[User:217.87.121.39|217.87.121.39]] 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, but I don't see how that counts as torture.  While it does typically work on those who are naive, it has no impact on those who are aware of the tactic, physical or mental.  Many parents use a similar technique but would we say they were torturing their children?  --[[User:Mr. Vernon|Mr. Vernon]] 23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::A lot of us would.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.72.21.221|75.72.21.221]] ([[User talk:75.72.21.221|talk]]) 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Origins ==

What is the first version (in movie) of Good cop/Bad cop? BTW, there's one Monk episode where he tries to help an interrogation, and the interrogated victim asks something like: "what is this? Bad cop, crazy cop?". [[User:Albmont|Albmont]] ([[User talk:Albmont|talk]]) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. We need to add the history here. Most people know this from movies, but movies are not always a good source for the ORIGIN or HISTORY of something, due to directors doing their "creative freedom" stuff. The article needs a history or time table, even if incomplete, where it first may have appeared. Eventually someone can trace it back to the real "final" origin. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C|2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C]] ([[User talk:2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C|talk]]) 23:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

== Whose Line Is It Anyway? Episode # ==

The episode in which in a sketch, Ryan and Colin are dishwasher repairmen whose previous jobs were a good cop, bad cop duo, is Episode 12, Season 3, Production #309  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.151.52.176|209.151.52.176]] ([[User talk:209.151.52.176|talk]]) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Name==
I think this article should be renamed to remove the <nowiki>/</nowiki> symbol from the name. See [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis]] and [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Subpages]].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

:I think there is a good technical reason for not using / as it creates a sub-page. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

::Those two policies just say "page names should avoid beginning with non-alphanumeric characters" and "do not intentionally use slashes to make subpages". Is the "good technical reason" still an issue, in modern Wikipedia? (An article like [[AC/DC]] doesn't appear to have any hacks or warnings on it.) --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Good point, I've asked at [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Slash_in_name]].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

::::Subpages are disabled in the article namespace, so the use of the / character is not a problem.  As long as "Good cop/bad cop" is the [[WP:Most common name]] (as opposed to, say, "Good cop-bad cop", with a hyphen), then there is no reason it should be a problem. (Note: I'm not actually suggesting which one is more common, I'm just using it as an example.) Cheers,--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

== Popular culture section ==

Any thoughts as to whether we can lose this? All the current examples are "in one scene of a film or TV episode, a character references or tries to use the already-described interrogation technique; it works, or fails, or something really funny happens", none of which add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject. If there was a film entirely based around a good-cop/bad-cop interview, it'd be worth mentioning, but I can't see anything salvageable in the current version here. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Should be modified to remove POV ==

This "The technique is easily recognised by those familiar with it, but it remains useful against subjects who are young, frightened, or naïve. Experienced interrogators assess the subject's level of intelligence and experience with the technique prior to its application." is really POV, I think. 

'easily recognised by those familiar with it': by what authority is this statement made? Could it not be effective against even those familiar with it (eg, those in a weakened psychological state)? 

To say the 'technique is...useful' is really advocating for its use. This is not appropriate in a wiki article, especially given that the ethics of the use of this technique are questionable. Added to this, by whose authority is the statement made that it is more effective on 'subjects who are young, frightened, or naïve' in eliciting desired information? The statement is also very vague - what is 'young'? 15? 18? 23? 

Again 'Experienced interrogators assess the subject's level of intelligence and experience with the technique...' implies advocacy of it, which is inappropriate. If this statement is accepted as accurate, then I believe it should be changed to something like: 'Some experienced with this technique believe that the subject's level of intelligence and prior exposure to it should be assessed before its application.' But again, such a statement should only be made if an authority for it can be cited.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.11.72.4|203.11.72.4]] ([[User talk:203.11.72.4|talk]]) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I would also argue that "It can border on torture as practiced by thousands of police and prosecution authorities who decide for themselves what the bounds of legality, abuse, torture, sensitivity and sensibility are." is blatant POV and should be removed on similar grounds. [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 06:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

== original research moved here: ==

There are various countermeasures available that can disrupt the tactic or cause it to backfire:{{or?|date=August 2011}}

* An experienced subject may choose to deliberately bait the "bad cop" with provocative behavior of his own short of violent provocation (such as derogatory remarks about the bad cop or his family; racial, ethnic and gender slurs if applicable; or offensive gestures), hoping that the "bad cop" will lose self-control and react [[Violence|violently]] towards the subject. 
* Severe [[verbal abuse]] or otherwise [[insult]]ing behavior targeted at the "good cop" has also proven highly disruptive on occasion.{{Citation needed|date=December 2012}}

The good cop/bad cop routine is a common dramatic technique in cinema and television, where the bad cop often goes beyond the boundary of legal behavior. A common variant to subvert expectations is to seemingly introduce the "bad cop" first, only to reveal that he is actually the "good cop" despite his harshness and that the real "bad cop" is even worse.
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) </span><!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added <span style="color:red;"><u>''an unspecified datestamp.''</u></span></small><!-- I’m Hey seriously indisposed from tagging this new collective contribution properly; others with less constrained access may better take on completion of the edit--->
:* Are the cops, in  the [[Blue Bloods]] S5E14 ep.,  strategizing, or merely enjoying a well-established traditional black humor]], in the dialog 
:: “Good cop/bad cop?” then “How about “bad cop/worse cop?”?<br>—[[Special:Contributions/2601:199:C201:FD70:11A7:97FF:F10F:72CE|2601:199:C201:FD70:11A7:97FF:F10F:72CE]] ([[User talk:2601:199:C201:FD70:11A7:97FF:F10F:72CE|talk]]) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)<br>

== Why the subject may identify with the bad cop. ==

It's easy to leave out the other half of this tactic because it's rarely explained in detail.  When the subject recognizes the routine, they can begin to side with the "bad cop". Because while the good cop is pretending to be a friend, the subject rejects them believes the bad cop is the  one actually telling them the truth. The interrogators often swap places during this time and the bad cop initiates camaraderie with the subject.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.72.213.187|71.72.213.187]] ([[User talk:71.72.213.187#top|talk]]) 06:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Good cop, bad cop.jpg|Good cop, bad cop.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-02-27T18:07:13.337599 | Good cop, bad cop.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Duncan.Hull|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

== Requested move 4 March 2023 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 13:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
----

[[:Good cop/bad cop]] → {{no redirect|Good cop, bad cop}} – Per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[MOS:SLASH]]. Google Ngrams shows that the proposed title is used around 25% more than the current title (the ngrams API does not support search with commas so to confirm this you will need to [http://storage.googleapis.com/books/ngrams/books/20200217/eng/eng-5-ngrams_exports.html download the dataset]; the relevant two are "Golden _NOUN_ _ADP_ the 12th" and "good _NOUN_ suit _._ _NOUN_"). In addition, per [[MOS:SLASH]] we should try to avoid joining words with a slash, as it suggests that the words are related without explaining how. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The slash is a weird non-standard way of titling it. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 11:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' While [[MOS:SLASH]] does, rightfully, observe that a slash suggests that words are related without explaining how, exactly the same thing can be said about a comma, which serves a variety of purposes. Here, for example, it no more aids than does the slash in illuminating the dynamic involving the two cops. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 11:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
*:That's true; I didn't consider the issues with the comma. My feeling is that commas are generally slightly more illuminating, as they suggest that everything on the right is related to everything on the left, while slashes can alternatively suggest that only the words immediately adjacent to the slash are related, but that is only a feeling and I feel that in this circumstances readers will interpret both as meaning there is a relation between the "good cop" and the "bad cop". 
*:Phrases in frequent use, although less frequent than the current title and the proposed title, are "good cop and bad cop", "good cop to bad cop","good cop versus bad cop", and "good cop or bad cop". I don't believe these are any more illuminating than the current title so perhaps a descriptive title would be more suitable here - I think "Good cop, bad cop tactic", "Good cop-bad cop tactic", "Good cop, bad cop interrogation technique", and "Good cop-bad cop interrogation technique" would all be reasonable choices. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It's not like there's one cop alternating between good and bad, there are two cops, one good, one bad. [[User:JIP|<span style="color: #CC0000;">J</span><span style="color: #00CC00;">I</span><span style="color: #0000CC;">P</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[MOS:/]] alone is reason enough. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 23:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Question''' {{reply to|BilledMammal}} How often is "Good cop bad cop" (with just the space) used in comparison to the other two? [[User:Freedom4U|Freedom4U]] ([[User talk:Freedom4U|talk]]) 03:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
*:That's not even grammatically correct. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 03:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
*:The current title is used around five times more, and the proposed title around 6 times more. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It's two cops, so use a comma.  A dash could also be used, I suppose, but people like to argue more about dashes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[MOS:SLASH]]. - [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for the reasons stated above.  I always thought the slash was a little odd but hadn't bothered to challenge it since, as others have noted,  there seems to be no one standard punctuation for this phrase. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' due to MOS - [[User:Born25121642|Born25121642]] ([[User talk:Born25121642|talk]]) 03:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per general consensus and [[MOS:SLASH]]  - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 17:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>