Talk:SWAT#Requested move 20 May 2025

I see in the talk archives and in recent edits that some editors argue that this article is exclusively about US SWAT police. However, if there are reliable sources describing SWAT police in other countries, there is no reason why those police forces cannot also be described. It would probably be ideal to have a section somewhere in the article on the adoption of similar tactics and even names by international police forces. -Darouet (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Darouet}} There are many sources that use SWAT in other countries besides the US. It is a term commonly used worldwide not only in the US. Often English language movies not centered in the US, and media reporting on events not centered in the US, use the term SWAT. The global police tactical unit article has official names used by Australian/New Zealand police tactical units and European police tactical units and includes the history of the term SWAT. Many European countries, and other non-European countries, created their own full time dedicated police tactical units in response to terrorism using their own tactics and equipment well before the US to combat terrorism.

:Recent edits that I have reverted added China to this article. The English word SWAT is used in China as there is a photo of the word on a Chinese police officer's uniform as shown by an URL added by editor Thehistorianisaac. A 2023 journal article on police tactical units in China stated there were "900 teams with more than 48,000 enlisted officers [created] just within six years" and that "SWAT officers in China are recruited directly from society".{{cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Lu |last2=Chen |first2=Li |title=Demystifying China’s police tactical units |journal=International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice |date=June 2023 |volume=73 |pages=100595 |doi=10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100595 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756061623000216 |access-date=6 May 2025}} Chinese SWAT is very different to SWAT in the US.

:There is a global list of names used by police tactical units: List of police tactical units. Melbguy05 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::It may be the case that SWAT teams in China are highly similar to those in the US, or different. I appreciate your explanation above though I should note it provides no clarity on the similarity or difference. I don't mind your reversion of the edit adding China, as in that case, it's not clear that the source is a reliable one. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Melbguy05, I've reverted your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=1290225973&oldid=1290215987 revert] as irresponsible, since you removed text that was well-sourced, including for instance to this academic journal article on the topic [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756061623000216]:

:Demystifying China’s police tactical units

:International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice

:Volume 73, June 2023, 100595

:The source explains that SWAT teams are also used in China:

:{{talk quote|In China, police tactical units are called ‘Te Jing’ – which translates directly to ‘special police’ as a short form of ‘special weapons and tactics’ (SWAT) police.}}

:Your explanation of your reversion, {{tq|"I said not to add China without discussing on talkpage,"}} suggests a disrespectful attitude towards your colleagues here and strangely declares WP:OWNership of this page, though content here is determined by sources like the one above added by User:Thehistorianisaac.

:Melbguy05, if you want this article to represent only US SWAT teams, we need to rename it, "SWAT (United States)." Of course that's feasible, but we should have a move page RfC in that case. -Darouet (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I also pinged him on his talk page regarding that if it would only be used for US SWAT it would be "SWAT (United States)" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{reply to|Darouet}} I reject your suggestion that I had a disrespectful attitude. You should always assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH which you have not done on this occasion. My intention was to avoid an edit war WP:EDITWAR with Thehistorianisaac as has subsequently happened by them not discussing on the talk page. Thehistorianisaac re-added removed content and added more and did not include an edit summary WP:ES.

:::{{reply to|Thehistorianisaac}} To be clear you posted on my talk page after making the edit. Your suggestion regarding the content in this article or the article's title should have been made on this talk page not on my user talk page.

::: As I said above "Chinese SWAT is very different to SWAT in the US". Liu and Chen in their journal article "Demystifying China’s police tactical units" wrote that entry into SWAT is completely different to the US: "the Chinese system is quite the opposite". Officers are normally recruited from the public and some are even forced into SWAT without ever being a police officer (off the street) based on civil service exams. Some officers interviewed did not want to be SWAT. SWAT are regularly used for crowd control to quell "economic and social grievances" - used as riot police.

::: As suggested by Thehistorianisaac on my user talk page, a separate article called SWAT (China) or SWAT in China should be created. This article could be renamed not "SWAT in the United States" or "SWAT (United States)" as suggested by Thehistorianisaac but "SWAT in North America" as there as similarities between the US and Canadian SWAT units. Melbguy05 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Melbguy05 I agree with your proposal for a seperate article of SWAT in the United states and SWAT in China, with SWAT being a disamibuation page. I do agree that Chinese SWAT is different to US swat, in fact, listening to job descriptions on individual local police departments in China, it seems like even within Chinese local PDs their job varies. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Melbguy05 I can't respond to what you feel in your heart, only to the words that you write here on this site, so your reversion of well-sourced material with the explanation, {{tq|"I said not to add China without discussing on talkpage,"}} is what I was responding to. I agree that Thehistorianisaac and all users need to accompany their edits with edit summaries.

:::::It's not my intention to offend you and I apologize if I have done that.

:::::If a police force anywhere in the world uses the term "SWAT" according to reliable sources, as [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756061623000216 this one] (International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 73:100595, 2023) does:

:::::{{talk quote|In China, police tactical units are called ‘Te Jing’ – which translates directly to ‘special police’ as a short form of ‘special weapons and tactics’ (SWAT) police.}}

:::::then our page for "SWAT" should include that. Sources describing SWAT police in multiple countries demonstrates that there is nothing about the term which is uniquely American or Canadian, obviously, though as far as I know SWAT forces have their origin in the US. Melbguy05, if you have reliable sources that explicitly state the opposite and that SWAT police are a uniquely American or anglophone phenomenon, I'd love to read and then discuss those with you. -Darouet (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Without wading too far into the debate, "special police" and "special weapons and tactics" are not really the same thing. In North America, typically SWAT officers are regular police officers that get either additional duties as needed (smaller departments) or are assigned full-time to SWAT as a department within the main police force. "Special Police" generally refers to law enforcement with different powers than the "main" law enforcement agency, and often a different goal. For instance, frequently, special police in the U.S. may refer to a class of officer with limited or no arrest powers and no authority to carry a firearm. In general for much of the U.S., "special police" ends up really meaning "limited jurisdiction" or "looser hiring requirements" -- such as the Massachusetts State Special Police, or New Jersey Special LEOs. Essentially, in the U.S., it most frequently means "limited purpose police". That's very different than SWAT, which is a capability and form of training that is historically oriented at effecting high-risk arrests by heavily armed officers; or common international uses of "special police" which frequently refer to a national/federal entity tasked with a degree of political reliability (e.g. the Somali special police in Ethiopia). The idea of SWAT as a North American institution really stems from the somewhat uniquely decentralized status of our police forces in the US compared to many other nations with a mostly national/federal police force. We do not have gendarmeries. We do not have a military police entity tasked with domestic law enforcement operations. For most of our national history, including well after the establishment of our modern policing structure, we never had a proper federal law enforcement agency tasked with high-risk or "special" (i.e. requiring special armaments) arrests. SWAT was created to address this gap; other nations typically did not strictly need this because they were able to use their gendarmeries or military for these purposes. Of course, none of the above counts without the appropriate citations to back them up, which I don't have the time or energy to get right now, but I'm simply explaining why the terms don't simply overlap across international bounds. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Swatjester

:::::::"Special police" is a direct translation; In some(or most) Chinese police departments the translation SWAT is used, as seen in quite some photos.

:::::::This is however different to the People's armed police, which often uses "Special operations" to refer to their PTUs. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah there's definitely nuance here in terms of what to call the article, but I'm addressing the more general rule in terms of how they're split, with reference to the point raised above about whether there's something fundamentally American in nature about the "SWAT" terminology other than the place of origin -- my point is that yes there is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{reply to|Darouet}} SWAT in China is not analogous to SWAT in the US. As I said above the authors wrote that entry to "the Chinese system is quite the opposite". In the US you have be a serving police officer and apply to join SWAT and pass a selection course. In China you can be forced into SWAT based on the result of your civil service exam. Some SWAT members interviewed by the authors did not want to be in SWAT. Some did not even want to be a police officer. Their role is different. I could go on, but it is not an open-source journal article.

::::::::: I think that China should have a separate article "SWAT (China)" as is now supported by Thehistorianisaac. On reflection, I would change this article to "SWAT (United States)" as suggested by Thehistorianisaac, not North America as I proposed, as it has no Canadian content and make SWAT a disambiguation page as suggested by Thehistorianisaac. Melbguy05 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Melbguy05 I know, my point is that the original SWAT article is talking about the term itself. I understand the difference between american and Chinese SWAT, and even within China different police departments the system is different(E.g. larger police dpts like Beijing SWAT or Shenzhen's SWAT are more similar to US SWAT, while the said system is more common among smaller departments). To be honest, no point in really arguing anymore, just that we have reached a consesnsus Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

@Melbguy05 and @Thehistorianisaac: I support your suggestion. -Darouet (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

{{requested move/dated|SWAT (United States)}}

:SWAT → {{no redirect|SWAT (United States)}} – This article has been about SWAT units in the United States. Recent edits have added content on SWAT units in China to the article. There is a need to distinguish SWAT in the United States from SWAT in China, which can be accomplished by spitting (WP:CONTENTSPLIT) this article and creating a separate SWAT (China) article. A 2023 journal article titled "Demystifying China’s police tactical units" in the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice was according to the authors the first study in English language on SWAT in China.{{cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Lu |last2=Chen |first2=Li |title=Demystifying China’s police tactical units |journal=International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice |date=June 2023 |volume=73 |pages=100595 |doi=10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100595 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756061623000216 |access-date=6 May 2025}} According to the authors, the first SWAT team was formed in China in 2005 and by 2010 there "more than 900 teams with more than 48,000 enlisted officers". The role of SWAT in China and the entry into SWAT is different to SWAT in the United States. The large number of teams and officers in China is notable to include in Wikipedia.

{{Reflist-talk}} Melbguy05 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. A SWAT unit is not specific to one country, and this page is hence ambiguous. Geordannik (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• I support this proposal by Melbguy05 and I am somewhat embarrassed that, though I edited this article extensively in the past, it never occurred to me that I was misleading readers by only describing SWAT in the US, though police units in other countries sometimes use the same name. Not only are these units in different countries but as Melbguy05 notes, there may be substantial differences between how the units recruit and operate. -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose move, split non-USA content out of article. The USA variant is the most likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this acronym. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose move, neutral on split. I agree with Steel1943 that the US subject is almost certainly the primary topic. If the term is used internationally and coverage is significant but limited, I don't see a problem with maintaining § Use of term in other countries in this article. If editors with more knowledge of the topic agree there's enough to sustain a separate article on SWAT (China) or other countries, or if the section get too long, I have no objection to a split. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Myceteae}} From reading the 2023 journal article, Chinese SWAT units are very different to United States SWAT units. Their roles for example carrying out the Chinese government's political agenda (political repression) is not a role of US SWAT units. The study found this creates moral challenges for some officers. Whereas in the US, serving police officers express in interest in joining a SWAT unit, they apply and have to successfully pass a selection course to be eligible for entry to a SWAT unit. In China, you can end up in a SWAT unit not by choice or even want to be a police officer. Nevertheless, they do share one common attribute of both wearing uniforms with the English word ‘SWAT’ embroidered on their uniforms. Melbguy05 (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Makes sense to split if they are sufficiently different. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Additionally, the SWAT (China) article should also only cover swat of Public security bureaus or maybe railway SWAT(which yes, does exist, though the chinese railway police article does not exsist on english wikipedia yet and is only on chinese wikipedia), not People's armed police Police tactical units, which are more similar to stuff like SOBR or GIGN in nature. PAP PTUs already have a section on the PAP article which likely will also be split Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Split, not move per Steel1943 -- as I explained in the above section, SWAT is a U.S. concept that *some* other places in the world have adopted either in mechanics or in nomenclature (and rarely both simultaneously). Users looking for SWAT are overwhelmingly going to be looking for the U.S. concept, (as they'd be much more likely to be searching the specific national name/spelling for the rest of the world), so agree that it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. I'm not convinced that we won't eventually need a pure disambiguation page one day, but I don't think we're there yet; in the short term I think this can be handled with "in other countries" section combined with a hatnote indicating the U.S. focus of the article, and splitting any content that's significantly covered enough to merit its own article (which it sounds like China is probably a contender for.) This is a better solution anyway as it allows for more accurate redirecting and linking with related pages like Special police. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Support either split or move per above section

:Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)