Jump to content

Talk:SWAT: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m →top: fixing importance parameter in {{WikiProject Law Enforcement}}
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
|currentstatus=FGAN
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
}}
{{Law enforcement|class=B|article-watch=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=b|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|US=y}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|article-watch=yes|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=b|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|US=y|Cold-War=yes|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=}}

}}

{{Annual readership|days=90}}

{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:SWAT|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
==Vote for SWAT being a Police Special Forces Unit==
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:SWAT/Archive|numberstart=2|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}}
{{Archive top|result=Closing as this was brought by a SPA IP and all the supports are from other SPA IPs who are obvious meat or sock puppets. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)}}
{{Archive basics

|archive = Talk:SWAT/Archive %(counter)d
I am initiating a vote to change the first paragraph of the article to say that "SWAT is a Police Special Forces tactical unit" or "SWAT is a Police Special Operations unit" because the fact is that the SWAT is a type of Special Forces unit in the Police force. They use the same tactics and equipment as military SpecOps and in many cases are even trained by the same military Special Forces instructors. Let's change the article now:
|counter = 2

|headerlevel = 2
SUPPORT for SWAT being a Police Special Forces Unit
|maxarchivesize = 120K

|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
[[Special:Contributions/117.90.245.113|117.90.245.113]] ([[User talk:117.90.245.113|talk]]) 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
}}<!-- 06:04 August 13, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->
:*'''Oppose''' per the earlier consensus. This was already decided and that discussion archived. However, editors like you keep linking it to the military definition and it simply doesn't apply. Military SpecOps and law enforcement have some very different parameters and objectives. Additionally, just because some agency uses a term like "special operations" doesn't make them the equivalent to military special operations. As a side note, I do appreciate the attempt to discuss this time rather than edit war like before.[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[police dog#United States|Canine units]]</nowiki> The anchor (United States) [[Special:Diff/1179639002|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"United States","appear":{"revid":588526541,"parentid":586515860,"timestamp":"2013-12-31T14:18:06Z","removed_section_titles":["Continental Europe overview","USSR and successor states (Russia, Ukraine, etc.)","North America","United States Of America"],"added_section_titles":["History","Early history","Modern era","CITEREF1888","Specialized police dogs","Russia","United States"]},"disappear":{"revid":1179639002,"parentid":1179637977,"timestamp":"2023-10-11T13:09:27Z","removed_section_titles":["Australia","Bangladesh","Belgium","Canada","Denmark","Hong Kong","Netherlands","India","Israel","Italy","Japan","Kenya","Nepal","Pakistan","Peru","Russia","Sweden","United Kingdom","United States","Supreme Court cases","CITEREF2016","CITEREF2020","CITEREF2022","CITEREFGovernment of Canada2004","CITEREFSloane1955","CITEREFMacrae2012","CITEREF2008","CITEREFTrome2018","CITEREFInstitucional","CITEREFStrand2014","CITEREF1961","CITEREFEvansHerboldBradshawMoore2007","CITEREF2009","CITEREFWilliams2017","CITEREFBlau2013","CITEREF2015","CITEREFRobinson2006","CITEREF2018","CITEREFPalmer2008"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->
:::::Who are you to judge??? If you don't think SWAT is a Special Operations unit, then prove it with evidence instead of trying to get your gang of wikipedia editor friends to try and force your opinionated and biased point of view on Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/49.84.13.116|49.84.13.116]] ([[User talk:49.84.13.116|talk]]) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
}}

:*'''Support''' for the change. [[Special:Contributions/121.232.251.115|121.232.251.115]] ([[User talk:121.232.251.115|talk]]) 06:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::*How interesting that your IP and edit history parallel the other IP editor. Just FYI, this will not be changed by a mere popular vote.[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:*'''Support''' The previous editors do indeed have a point, as the Swat team is an elite unit within the law enforcement community.And they use the term Special Operations in their units. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.52.131|180.118.52.131]] ([[User talk:180.118.52.131|talk]]) 12:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::*And another editor from the same city and same provider. Amazing coincidence. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::*Being an "elite unit" doesn't mean the same thing as "special forces". Additionally, the term special operations can be applied anywhere. A local agency has a "special operations" section, which includes vice investigations, the auto theft unit and gang unit because the all conduct some sort of specialized operations. I think a notice to those previously involved and the law enforcement project is in order. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:*'''Oppose''' per discussion [[Talk:SWAT/Archive_1#Special_force_or_not|here]]. Reliable sources would be needed to change the existing consensus. Otherwise, the proposed change would be [[Wikipedia:OR]]. [[User:Anir1uph|Anir1uph]] &#124; [[User talk:Anir1uph#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Anir1uph|contrib]] 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::*For those interested, the appearence of socking here has led to a SPI request: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/117.90.245.113]. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:::To those reading this, the above editors [[User:Anir1uph|Anir1uph]] and [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) have engaged in so called "sockpuppet investigations" because they both know that they have virtually NO case to justify their biased opinions that SWAT are not Special Operations. They are police haters, and just so you know you two are the ones claiming that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it against the majority consensus of the whole world that SWAT is indeed a Special Operations Unit.

To show you this, even the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT webpage specifically saids:
In 1983, the Department sent three SWAT supervisors to Europe to evaluate and develop the techniques employed by military groups such as the German GSG-9, French GIGN, and the legendary British 22nd SAS.
The LAPD SWAT did this to learn the Special Forces tactics of GSG-9, GIGN and the British SAS. The LAPD SWAT is also a full time SWAT unit that is in every capability on the same level as any other military SpecOps unit. Are you going to try and claim that the SAS are not Special Forces also??? [[Special:Contributions/49.84.13.116|49.84.13.116]] ([[User talk:49.84.13.116|talk]]) 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*Police haters? You're funny. I guess you haven't read through the archives. Otherwise you'd know how silly that allegation is. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 15:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:*Another sockpuppet. Who they ''train'' with is not a the issue. SWAT is a civilian agency, SAS/GIGN etc are military. Legal issues aside, they have different objectives and operational guidelines. SWAT teams often train with fire departments too, but that doesn't make them fire fighters. They train with EMS, but that doesn't make them paramedics. They absolutely learn from military units, but that doesn't make them the same thing. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:::And [[GSG 9]] is German Federal Police Special Operations unit. The fact that both SWAT and SAS, GIGN and the German POLICE GSG 9 all train in the same tactics to the same level qualifies SWAT as a Special Operations unit. Where is your evidence that SWAT is NOT a Special Operations unit. Find me some sources that say that otherwise your argument is weak and pathetically invalid. [[Special:Contributions/117.90.244.192|117.90.244.192]] ([[User talk:117.90.244.192|talk]]) 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/117.90.244.192|117.90.244.192]] ([[User talk:117.90.244.192|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

* '''Weak oppose''' given that "Special forces, or special operations forces are military units" per [[special forces]] and my understanding of the term. <s>And Niteshif36t, could you not open a [[WP:SPI]] if you've got grounds for suspecting that the IPs are all one person attempting to sway consensus?</s> Ah, you already have. [[User:SGGH|S.G.<sup><small>(GH)</small></sup>]] <sub>[[User_talk:SGGH|ping!]]</sub> 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:*'''SUPPORT''' [[Special:Contributions/117.90.244.192|117.90.244.192]] ([[User talk:117.90.244.192|talk]]) 16:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/117.90.244.192|117.90.244.192]] ([[User talk:117.90.244.192|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::*How many different people do you plan to pretend to be? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Please provide evidence to support your view that SWAT is supposedly not a Special Operations unit. There is no differentiation between so-called military and civilian SpecOps units. The [[Hostage Rescue Team|FBI Hostage Rescue Team]] which if you had actually been an operator for Special Operations units would know that the FBI HRT, which is also a law enforcement unit,is accepted by members of the Special Operations community around the world as one of the best Special Forces units in the world on par with [[Navy SEAL Team Six]]and [[Delta Force]]. Even the [[CIA]] has their branch of Special Operations operators within their [[Special Activities Division]] and they are considered so-called "civilians." [[Special:Contributions/117.90.244.192|117.90.244.192]] ([[User talk:117.90.244.192|talk]]) 21:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/117.90.244.192|117.90.244.192]] ([[User talk:117.90.244.192|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::::::::*There absolutely is a difference between the two. Does a Special Forces team recon by fire routinely? Sure. Can a civilian SWAT team do that? Not a chance. Ever heard of Posse Comitatus? It might not be a big deal in China, but it sure is the law here. FBI HRT does accept members that were SEAL's etc. They also accept members who were never in the military. That proves nothing. The CIA is entirely different from all of this. You can play the "if you'd been...." game all you want sport, I know where I've served. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::*How ignorant you are of the laws regarding law enforcement. Don't you know that the ONLY reason why the Posse Comitatus was enacted by Congress for the sole purpose of limiting the power of the U.S. federal goverment in using military operators to enforce the laws of each of the 50 states. Which means that if there is another terrorist attack on American soil, it's NOT going to be any military SpecOps unit that will respond to a domestic terror attack, not Force Recon, not Navy SEALs, not Delta Force. It is the regional SWAT Teams from various police departments and the FBI SWAT or HRT as well as other Emergency Response Teams, Special Response Teams from the ATF and Secret Service Counter Assault Teams that will respond to this immediately threat. The point being, the Police force, being a civilian paramilitary force, serves the purpose of the military in the absence of a military presence in U.S. cities due to the Posse Comitatus law. We the Police SWAT operators ARE the paramilitary Special Operations operators that deal with all the main threats against the people of the USA. Everything from terror attacks to active shooters, hostile barricaded suspects, hostage scenarios, crime suppression against hostile gangs are all dealt with by SWAT and NOT any other military SpecOps unit. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
You have to explain why you think that only the military can use the term "Special Forces" or "Special Operations" !

[[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::::*No sock puppet, I have nothing to explain to you. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*To Mr. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]], you have "nothing to explain" because you have NOTHING to back up your biased point of view that SWAT is supposedly not a Special Operations unit according to your flawed reasoning. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

:*'''Support''' Having read the arguments for both sides I conclude that SWAT being a Police Special Force Unit simply is the more reasonable choice. In addition, SWAT considers itself as such. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:D.j.schuster|D.j.schuster]] ([[User talk:D.j.schuster|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/D.j.schuster|contribs]]) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:*Based on what? I always find it interesting when an account that has only 6 edits in the past 2.5 years stumbles into a discussion like this. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

::::* To [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]), I find you to be very hypocritical and showing a double standard. You accuse the above editor of "stumbles into a discussion" after "only 6 edits in the past 2.5 years" when you are the one who is constantly stumbling onto this SWAT page, to the point of constantly edit warring and babysitting this page. You claim that SWAT is NOT Special Operations, but yet, all the public sources ranging from Police department websites to even Special Forces websites recognize SWAT as a Special Operations unit. If you want to bring your highschool kid fantasy to this page, you NEED to bring sourced material proving and showing that "SWAT is NOT a Special Operations or Special Forces unit" and until you can provide sources for your view you have no justification in putting your opinion here on this SWAT article and despite all your puny and pathetic efforts to try to get administrators to block editors who oppose you and your vandalistic attempts to edit war this page by having your gang of Wikipedia geeks constantly push your POV edits is not only insanely ridiculous, it is in violation of official Wikipedia guidelines on editing pages and maintaining [[Neutral Point of View]]. You and your Wikipedia geeks need to get a real life and stop hiding behind the computer screen, get yourself a girlfriend, and do something for real. And as for your claims about serving, which unit did you serve you in?
Are you a SWAT operator? [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
I don't think you served in anything except serving yourself breakfast, lunch and dinner. Judging from your ignorance it sounds like the only unit you served in is in your videogames and movies. Obese weekend warriors and couch potatoes like you are NOT qualified to be editing the SWAT page, you should be editing pages about food, eating and obesity as well as the future diseases you will have due to your obese out of shape body, such as diabetes, cardiac infarction, stroke and fatty liver. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

The fact remains that all you do is talk and get your gang of Wikipedia friends to help you edit war and push your POV onto the page but you have not even made the slightest effort to provide proof or reputable sources that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

Unlike you, Wikipedia readers around the world will see the evidence that shows SWAT being a SpecOps unit.
I am providing recognized, reputable sources directly from the Police departments themselves as conclusive proof that SWAT is a Special Operations unit, notice that each of these Police departments specificially state "Special Operations" implying that they are indeed Special Forces. There is no possibility that they are using some "alternate" meaning for Special Operations like you previously erroneously suggested. If you want to make that stupid claim that the meaning Special Operations is different for military and paramilitary forces in the Police, you need to get real and get an education on this topic. There is no difference in the way the military and Police SpecOps units use the term Special Operations, they both imply the same thing that the military SpecOps units of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines and the SpecOps units of the Police and Sheriffs departments, FBI, U.S. Marshall Service and Secret Service are all Special Forces. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

Look below for indisputable evidence from the Special Operations website and Police departments that SWAT is a Special Operations or Special Forces unit:

Here is a list of different Military and Police SWAT Special Forces units listed TOGETHER in the [[American Special Ops]] website under the SAME banner and title of SPECIAL OPERATIONS, showing that there is NO difference in the usage of the term "Special Operations" between military and police SpecOps units. Additionally even the American Special Ops site specifically states "Special Weapons and Tactics teams (SWAT) are special operations units in civilian law enforcement agencies such as County Police Departments, Sheriff Departments, US Marshall service, the FBI etc" For more evidence see here:

1.) http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-weapons-and-tactics/

2.) http://www.americanspecialops.com/

3.) http://www.americanspecialops.com/fbi-swat/

4.) http://www.specialoperations.com/Domestic/SWAT/swatops.html
5.) http://www.nashville.gov/Police-Department/Field-Operations/Special-Operations/SWAT-and-Negotiation/SWAT-Team.aspx

6.) http://www.cityofknoxville.org/kpd/swat.asp

7.) [http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/TexasRangers/specialUnits.htm Texas Rangers Special Operations Group]

Additionally even the military has a military police branch that also includes SWAT, which is virtually identical in function and capability to their "civilian" police SWAT counterpart, none of the "differences" that you are claiming.
Read here: http://www.americanspecialops.com/military-swat/

Quit wasting my time and show me the evidence that supports your views otherwise this SWAT page WILL BE CHANGED whether you like it or not due to you lack of ability to provide sources and proof backing up your false claims! Provide sources to support your personal point of view otherwise you have no case or justification for saying that SWAT is NOT a Special Operations unit. [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::*Listen jack, I don't give a rats furry butt what you think I have or haven't served in. You're another internet troll that tries to hide behind multiple account. As for your "sources", most don't pass RS. The couple that do don't call SWAT "special forces" and they use the term special operations in a completely different context. I considered the idea that maybe you just struggle with comprehending English, but after your last string of personal attacks, I realize it's a much deeper issue. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

::::*I only engaged in personal attack because you were the first to engage in a personal attack against us! An eye for eye a tooth for a tooth, so quit attacking us if you don't want to be attacked back! Now if we are to be civilised again, let's try to reason with each other. You need open your eyes, each of those Police Department websites and the American Special Ops and Special Operations website all specifically states "Special Operations" in their SWAT page, implying Special Forces, no difference, there is absolutely NO way you can deny that! Everyone of the sources we provided is reputable and legitimate, direct from the respective police departments and organizations, you don't have to be an IQ 200 super genius to understand that! Every Wikipedia reader can see for themselves the reputable evidence provided proving that SWAT is a Special Operations unit. Now if you want to make a compromise with me, I am willing to accept the term "Special Operations" instead of "Special Forces" for use in the SWAT article, what do you think??? :)[[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

:*'''Support''' This debate is most very surprise, it is must understand, very clear, Swat Team become very good, it is Special Forces, even in Phillipines we have SWAT and it recognize as Special Forces. [[Special:Contributions/114.229.248.69|114.229.248.69]] ([[User talk:114.229.248.69|talk]]) 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/114.229.248.69|114.229.248.69]] ([[User talk:114.229.248.69|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::*And yet another sock. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:::More personal attacks against me due to Mr. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]])'s inability to provide proof and reputable sources saying that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit. Despite the fact that I have provided numerous sources to back up my position that SWAT is INDEED a Special Operations or Police Special Forces unit. See above! :) [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 19:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
:*What personal attack? Unless you're now confessing that you are the other IP's as well? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:::*Mr.[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] Where is your evidence and proof supporting your false POV that SWAT is NOT a Special Operations unit, stop wasting precious time and show some reputable sources otherwise make a compromise with us on using the term "Police Special Operations" instead of "Police Special Forces" for the SWAT article?[[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC))<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::::*Mr.[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] Again, we have presented to you irrefutable evidence proving that SWAT is a Special Operations or Special Forces unit, however you want to call it, and now the millions of Wikipedia readers reading this page every minute can see that you have provided absolutely NO evidence or reliable sources proving your false reasoning that SWAT is supposedly NOT a Special Operations or Special Forces unit. Prove you viewpoint with other evidence because the whole world, millions of Wikipedia readers, are watching and realizing that you have done nothing except edit war....oh did we mention Gang edit warring with your group of Wikipedia weekend warriors...instead of providing evidence to back up your claim that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit....Show me even just one or two sources that back up what you say!!! [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/180.118.163.207|180.118.163.207]] ([[User talk:180.118.163.207|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

:*'''Support''' [[Special:Contributions/121.232.240.148|121.232.240.148]] ([[User talk:121.232.240.148|talk]]) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/121.232.240.148|121.232.240.148]] ([[User talk:121.232.240.148|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>{{Archive bottom}}

== Rename to [[police paramilitary unit]] ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP: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]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn.''' Obviously, "police paramilitary unit" is not common enough to be the title. I appreciate the thoughtful comments. —[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 22:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

----

[[:SWAT]] → {{no redirect|police paramilitary unit}} – "SWAT team" is by far the most common term for these units in the United States, but it seems odd to apply it to similar units in other countries (like London's [[Specialist Firearms Command]] or Germany's [[GSG 9]]). This article needs a more worldwide scope, so perhaps we should rename this article "police paramilitary unit", which is the preferred scholarly umbrella term (although like many scholarly terms it's not super widely known). For quotes supporting this, see the section below. If this proposal fails, I'll propose a move to "SWAT team" instead. —[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 02:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
===Evidence===
* Widely used in policing textbooks
** "Most large police departments operate or participate as members in a SWAT, tactical, or police paramilitary unit."—[http://books.google.com/books?id=5eM8AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA208&dq=%22police+paramilitary+unit%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HLViVKGFObX7sATW2oHQAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22police%20paramilitary%20unit%22&f=false ''Introduction to Criminal Justice''], Cengage (2011)
** "Most police departments in the United States now have police paramilitary units (PPUs)."—[http://books.google.com/books?id=8EI-AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA247&dq=police+paramilitary+unit&hl=en&sa=X&ei=faNiVNfgDIHCsATDpoCwAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=police%20paramilitary%20unit&f=false ''Policing in America''], Routledge (2014)
** "Police paramilitary unit (PPU) is a term made popular by Peter Kraska and Victor Kapeller in the 1990s to refer to units within a police department that are organized in a more militaristic manner...The term includes units, also referred to as SWAT teams or special response units, that are 'distinguished by the power and number of weapons'".—[http://books.google.com/books?id=9XcWAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA285&dq=%22swat+team%22+paramilitary&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GrRiVM7eKrS1sQSUgIEI&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22swat%20team%22%20paramilitary&f=false ''An Introduction to Policing''], Cengage (2013)
** Police paramilitary unit has two mentions in the index, where SWAT team has only one. (The page itself isn't available on Google Books)—[http://books.google.com/books?id=AJBtXrC3q24C&lpg=PA174&dq=introduction%20to%20policing%20cox&pg=PA457#v=onepage&q=%22paramilitary%22&f=false ''Introduction to Policing''], SAGE (2013)
** SWAT units is the main term, but also uses paramilitary police units.—[http://books.google.com/books?id=adQK6HWNnuwC&pg=PA342&dq=%22paramilitary+police+unit%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7-JiVK7mGfi_sQT9ioKgAg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22paramilitary%20police%20unit%22&f=false ''An Introduction to American Policing''], Jones and Bartlett (2011)
* Other examples
** "This militarization is evidenced by a precipitous rise and mainstreaming of police paramilitary units (PPUs). These police units, referred to most often as SWAT teams or special response teams..."—[http://books.google.com/books?id=7S11AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA283&dq=%22police+paramilitary+unit%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HLViVKGFObX7sATW2oHQAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22police%20paramilitary%20unit%22&f=false ''Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement''], SAGE (2004)
** "...embodied in what the international literature calls police paramilitary units (PPUs). These units are known most commonly in the United States as SWAT or special response teams."—[http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jquart14&collection=journals&page=607 ''Justice Quarterly'' (1997)]
** Google Scholar results for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22police+paramilitary+unit%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,9&as_vis=1 "police paramilitary unit"] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22police+paramilitary+units%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C9 "police paramilitary units"].

===Discussion===
*'''Oppose'''. PPU is made up predominately by Kraska and most of your "evidence" refers back to him. The first 4 things you cite mention the term with Kraska. Can't see the 5th one. And Ghits are evidence of nothing. The fact is, PPU isn't a popular term at all. It's more akin to a neologism that never really caught on and trying to elevate it here is just the sort of puffery that Kraska seeks. SWAT has become a generic term that is used, even when a unit has a different name (SRT, ERT etc), just like "Band-Aid" is used for adhesive bandages not necessarily with that brand name. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 03:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
**It does seem to trace back to Kraska, but I'm impressed with the fact that pretty much all the policing textbooks I could find used the term. That suggests it's now quite common on the scholarly level. I see the argument for "SWAT team", but to me it just doesn't seem to apply outside the American context. I can see it going either way though.
::Anyway, I'm not sure why you put ''evidence'' in [[scare quotes]]. My evidence might be outweighed by things pointing in the other direction, but it's still evidence. :) —[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 04:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:::*1) It's not a common term. And quotation marks are quotation marks. Calling them scare quotes and needlessly wikilinking to the term doesn't change that. Your "evidence" is a single source, repeated in a couple of venues. What you have not shown is the term being commonly used without Kraska being used. Apparently, I'm not the only one who disagrees. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. A scholarly umbrella term that is not super widely known seems to violate both [[WP:NAMINGCRITERIA]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. And as Niteshift36 mentioned, all that evidence cited above refers back to Peter Kraska, which indicates that it may be a neologism. If the goal is trying to find an article title that fits [[WP:COMMONALITY]], it should be something common, not an unfamiliar neologism, to all varieties of English. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' SWAT is one of the common names, the other common name is ''police tactical unit'' or variant thereof, not the proposed title. Tactical team, tactical unit, tactical squad. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.70.35.44|67.70.35.44]] ([[User talk:67.70.35.44|talk]]) 05:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There should certainly be a separate article about worldwide police tactical units (there is already [[List of special police units]]), but this article is actually almost entirely about the American version and should be repurposed to be entirely about American units. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

==Requested move 15 November 2014==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP: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]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''consensus not to move''' the page at this time, per the discussion below. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 22:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

----

[[:SWAT]] → {{no redirect|SWAT team}} – Nobody calls these units "SWATs". It's always "SWAT ''teams''", so the "team" is an integral part of the name. —[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 22:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

* Also, "SWAT team" is [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=SWAT+team%2CSWAT+unit%2CSWAT+squad&year_start=1980&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSWAT%20team%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSWAT%20unit%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSWAT%20squad%3B%2Cc0 much more common] than "SWAT squad" or "SWAT unit".—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 22:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia's policy on article titles]].''

*'''Oppose''': You made a proposal that fell flat. You immediately closed it and started a fresh one that is drastically different than the other one. This looks less like trying to be helpful and more like just wanting to change something. If you need a specific reason, I'll say that your reasoning is flawed. No, nobody calls it "Swats", but that's plural. The singular of "Swat" is frequently used ("call SWAT", "I tried out for SWAT", "SWAT will make the initial entry" etc.). It's not broken, so maybe we shouldn't try fixing it. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:*[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]]: Yep, it's just not my week, is it? I knew the other one might fail (that's why I said I'd propose this as a second option from the start), but I honestly thought this one would be completely uncontroversial. Obviously, I was mistaken! By the by, I also thought that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=633845089&oldid=633616496 my second edit to the lede] (not mentioning "police paramilitary unit" and using fewer links) would satisfy your objections. I had no intention of forcing it through, and I'll start a discussion about it at some point.
::<s>Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen "SWAT" used in my life without the word ''team'' or some synonym (although "team" is [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=SWAT+team%2CSWAT+unit%2CSWAT+squad&year_start=1980&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSWAT%20team%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSWAT%20unit%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSWAT%20squad%3B%2Cc0 by far the most common]). Given that we have to base this decision on use in reliable sources, could you point out some that use "SWAT" by itself?</s>
::Anyway, I see what you're saying about "SWAT" by itself, but it seems kind of like spoken professional slang that isn't really used by books and articles. Given that we have to base this decision on use in reliable sources, could you point out some that use "SWAT" by itself like that?—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::*Not professional slang at all. Mainstream media includes uses like these [http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/On-Duty-San-Gabriel-Police-Officer-Shot-While-Serving-Search-Warrant-280629362.html] and [http://abc7.com/news/swat-officer-shot-while-serving-search-warrant-in-san-gabriel/369176/], using "SWAT officer" , "SWAT members" and "SWAT operations" , but not "SWAT team"? Or this example: [http://www.wdrb.com/story/25487266/lmpd-swat-called-to-assist-hillview-police-serve-warrants-as-precaution]. It says things like "''Hillview police requested SWAT assistance''", "''LMPD SWAT was on scene as a precaution''..." and "...''when Cary realized SWAT was going to come into his home..."''. There are a few uses that showed up on the first page of my google search. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::*Another good example would be this: [http://merrillville.in.gov/departments/police_department/swat.php]. While it uses "Swat team", is also uses SWAT in other uses like "selected for SWAT must pass", "the basic SWAT school", "SWAT’s function is to safely" and "the basic SWAT school". In the end, the acronym is used 6 times in that passage, but only followed by team twice, leaving 4 uses without team. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:::* [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]], thanks for the examples! My point (which I admit I haven't expressed well) is that pretty much all of them use SWAT as an adjective: SWAT team, SWAT unit, SWAT officer, SWAT assistance, SWAT members, SWAT school, and so on. Using it as a noun ("SWAT was on the scene," "SWAT's function") seems like uncommon professional slang, and titles [[WP:NOUN|should be nouns]]. Hence my feeling that SWAT needs to be combined with something like "team" to work as a title.—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 06:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::*SWAT '''is''' a often noun Neil. I just gave you 3 examples of where SWAT was used by itelf. "LMPD SWAT was on the scene..." is certainly used as a noun. Same with the other 2 examples. Who used it? Not "unprofessional slang", but a mainstream news outlet. Bottom line: You based this original notion on what you have or haven't heard and apparently your exposure isn't as broad as you thought it was. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' "SWAT" is used on its own frequently, and the "team" is not always a team, as large police forces have multiple SWAT teams in their SWAT squad. Some even have multiple squads with multiple teams each in their unit. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.70.35.44|67.70.35.44]] ([[User talk:67.70.35.44|talk]]) 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:*{{mention|67.70.35.44}} Like I said to Niteshift above, <s>I'm pretty sure I've never seen "SWAT" used by itself without "team" or something similar after it<s> this seems like spoken slang that's not used in books and such. Do you know of any counterexamples?—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::* You're not looking very hard if you can't find a whole lot of instances of only "SWAT". Just looke at Niteshift's responses. [http://www.google.com/search?q=SWAT+-%22swat+team%22+-%22swat+teams%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+team%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+teams%22+police&btnG=Search&tbm=bks&tbo=1][http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=SWAT+-%22swat+team%22+-%22swat+teams%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+team%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+teams%22+police][http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=SWAT+-%22swat+team%22+-%22swat+teams%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+team%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+teams%22+police&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=][http://www.google.ca/search?q=SWAT+-%22swat+team%22+-%22swat+teams%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+team%22+-%22S.W.A.T.+teams%22+police&hl=en&] ; further, "SWAT unit" is also used in place of "SWAT team", as I stated earlier, if there are multiple teams, the unit isn't going to be called a team, is it? -- [[Special:Contributions/67.70.35.44|67.70.35.44]] ([[User talk:67.70.35.44|talk]]) 05:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' but without much enthusiasm. It really depends on what we talk about--are we having the article be about the teams, or about the concept of SWATtiness? I can't imagine an article on the latter. [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]] 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
:*This article is more about the concept of SWAT. It goes into the history, training, equipment. this article purposely does NOT list teams because it's not about teams. There is a "list of...." elsewhere. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I don't see a compelling reason to move the page. SWAT is both a more concise title and the common name. I don't get what Neil's obsession with moving this page is all about. [[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#002244; font-family:serif">'''-- ''Calidum'''''</span>]] 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I think I've figured out why the current title strikes me as wrong. "SWAT" is pretty much always an adjective (SWAT team, SWAT school, SWAT officer, SWAT operations), but titles [[WP:NOUN|should be nouns]]. So we really need to add something to make it a noun—like "team".—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 06:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
:*Except that your premise is incorrect. I immediately gave you 3 examples of a news report using SWAT as a noun. Also, the government example I gave you has 2 uses. "selected for SWAT must pass..." is a noun usage. "SWAT’s function is to safely..." is a noun. (It's even being used in a possessive form.). this is like the word "football". There can be a football team, but football can still be a noun. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': This isn't an article about "SWATs", it's about the concept of SWAT. That a team of SWAT officers is called a SWAT team is irrelevant. We don't move [[Baseball]] to [[Baseball team]] or [[University]] to [[University faculty]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
** {{mention|SMcCandlish}} I could see that if the lede presented a clear (reliably-sourced) picture of what SWAT is. Baseball is a sport, and a university is an educational institution, and, at least for the moment, the first sentence says it's about about "law enforcement units" rather than a concept of "SWATiness". Also, in my research, the key term encyclopedias and textbooks bold or put in the index is generally not "SWAT" but "SWAT team" (e.g. [http://books.google.com/books?id=7S11AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA447&dq=encyclopedia%20%22SWAT%20team%22&pg=PA447#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20%22SWAT%20team%22&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=p5-Dx4h6obEC&lpg=PP1&dq=criminal%20justice%20introduction&pg=PA737#v=onepage&q&f=true], [http://books.google.com/books?ei=ztBrVK-KJ8epNuT-gcAB&id=CuAPAQAAMAAJ&dq=criminal+justice+%22SWAT+team%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22SWAT+team%22], [http://books.google.com/books?ei=LdFrVI_YBIiegwTH8YGYAg&id=A7EvAQAAIAAJ&dq=criminal+justice+%22SWAT+team%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22SWAT+team%22], [http://books.google.com/books?id=AJBtXrC3q24C&lpg=PA458&dq=introduction%20policing%20%22SWAT%20team%22&pg=PA458#v=onepage&q=%22SWAT%20team%22&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=e3zfpfT-O8sC&lpg=PA782&dq=dictionary%20%22SWAT%20team%22&pg=PA782#v=onepage&q=dictionary%20%22SWAT%20team%22&f=false]).—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
***[[WP:NOT#PAPER]]/[[WP:NOT#BRITANNICA]]. Also, the lead being inadequate is an argument to improve the lead, not rename the article. Ultimately we could easily have two articles, on the on the history of the SWAT concept, its spread to various countries, the influence of others (e.g. Israel and [[krav maga]]), its relationship to increasing [[militarization of police]], etc.; and another on SWAT teams - what their typical membership numbers are, roles played, equipment used, numbers deployed in various major police departments, famous ones, etc. Until that time, it makes more sense to have the article be named for and to focus on the broader concept. That's just kind of how we usually do things here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 13:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
*I guess you have abandoned your "it's not a noun" reasoning, which doesn't surprise me at all. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
** {{mention|Niteshift36}} No, I stand by that argument. I'm just making another line of argument that leads to the same place: that it's not clear to me what exactly it would mean even if we treated it as a noun.—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 01:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
::*Well, since I gave you examples of govt and mainstream media using it as a noun, standing by it just makes me question your true intentions. In any case, I have disproven your claims. first it was "it's never used without team". Disproven. then it was "it's not a noun". Disproven. Oh, don't forget the first failed attempt to change the title to something totally different. BTW, personally I find your invented "SWATiness" word to be a little demeaning. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 01:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
:::* {{mention|Niteshift36}} I didn't intend "SWATiness" to be demeaning (and I don't think Red Shift did either), so I apologize for that.
::::Yes, you've provided a couple examples of SWAT being used as a noun. I didn't realize that use existed at all, so thanks for showing me. But I still say that SWAT is ''almost always'' used as an adjective (say, at least 90% of the time). In response to my last proposal, you said "Ghits are evidence of nothing"—meaning that a couple Google hits prove nothing about how ''common'' a use is. That was a fair point (although I said from the start that "SWAT team is by far the most common term for these units in the United States") and I'll make it back to you right now. A couple webpages and local news reports prove nothing about how common the use is. Take the two pages of the [https://www.google.com/search?q=SWAT&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:2000%2Ccd_max:2099&tbm=bks&q=SWAT+police+-%22wikipedia%22 Google Books results for "SWAT police"]: 18 uses as an adjective, 3 as a noun. It's not the final word, but I certainly think it's suggestive, don't you?
::::My intention here, obviously, is to replace what I think is a mediocre title with a better one. I'm seriously curious: what do ''you'' think it is?—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 02:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
::::*Neil, I've disproven your basic claim. And the secondary claim. And the other proposal. Now you're trying the "more common" angle. Please don't give me this "as I've said from the beginning..." nonsense. You've made many claims, some pretty ridiculous, that you based on your clearly limited exposure to various uses. I don't see a need to continue doing it until you come up with something truly new. Your chameleon reasoning looks more like a desire to win or be right than a genuine concern to improve the title. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::* {{mention|Niteshift36}} The only thing I agree with is that we're not likely to get anywhere new if we keep debating. But I do feel compelled to point out that I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:SWAT&diff=633470098&oldid=572702161 write ''exactly'' that the first time I edited this page]. That, at least, is indisputable fact.—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 03:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::*It's a fact that you said that, [u]in a different proposal[/u]. In THIS proposal, you made the claim "''I don't think I've ever seen "SWAT" used in my life without the word team or some synonym"''. I guess the misunderstanding is because I need to specify which proposal I'm talking about and which line of reasoning you're going with, since there are numerous ones. Maybe if you picked a reason and stuck with it, the discussion would be more clear. BTW, that statement was in regards to the "it's not a noun" reason, which was disproven. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Article must be supported with references from third-party journalistic or academic articles ==

In a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=635991089&oldid=633899450 series of recent edits] I have attempted to improve this article by bringing in third party journalistic sources and expanding the description of what SWAT teams actually do in the United States. These edits have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=635992382&oldid=635991089 reverted] by [[User:Niteshift36]].

This article is in desperate need of sources: many whole paragraphs are currently unsourced and before my editing here, some sections were wholly or almost wholly sourced by links to the [[Los Angeles Police Department]] website. This situation is unnecessary: a tremendous number of academic and journalistic sources discuss SWAT teams and their activities in the United States, especially now that there is a [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joshua-d-filler-time-to-call-in-the-swat-team-reform-crew/2014/10/31/1f8a955a-60fc-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html national conversation] about militarized police forces. According to many sources, most SWAT raids conducted today are used to serve search warrants, many against individuals not suspected of violent crime. Often SWAT teams conduct "administrative searches" without warrants at all: some U.S. counties mandate that otherwise routine searches be conducted by SWAT times.

Perhaps we can begin to collate sources here on the talk page, only remove sources if it is demonstrated that a source is unreliable or unimportant to the subject. For instance the barbershop incident was widely written on throughout the United States, in each case within the context of a discussion regarding SWAT team scope in America. Surely this is therefore relevant?

Lastly, the article lead really needs to describe what a SWAT team actually is and does, and not simply list what kinds of really exciting weapons they carry. Removing the information on how many SWAT raids occur yearly in the United States, and what the vast majority of these raids are meant to do, is equivalent to removing the useful portion of the lead altogether. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 07:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
*A big part of my revert is that you found a single source, the Salon article, and put a ton of stock into it. You used it for several changes, including to the lead. As I specified, there is an issue with the ACLU cherry-picking some stats and then presenting it like it's an indisputable fact. Yes, many SWAT uses are to serve search warrants and the article already says that serving warrants is part of their normal use. The addition of "not for violent crimes" is misleading. The ACLU can spout this out of context, but they fail to recognize that just because the present warrant is for a non-violent crime, there is no assurance that it will stay that way. To illustrate: Say a documented gang member, with 2 armed robbery convictions has a warrant for grand theft. That's a "non-violent crime", yet there is a persistent possibility of violence, especially if the state is a 3 strikes state and that "non-violent" grand theft will be the 3rd strike that puts him in prison for life. If you're going to present the ACLU version, you have to provide the balance from a reliable source. If not, then we don't include the ACLU version of reality, because it creates a distorted view and a NPOV issue. (No, I'm not saying everything has to show both sides, but in this case, the lack of balance is an issue). And it truly won't belong in the lead, then get repeated almost verbatim in a second section. Next, you made a point about "often" being used for administrative searches. That's an issue. First off, the "often" isn't really that often. You talk about the barbershop case and are looking at it incorrectly. The issue is not whether it happened or if it was discussed in multiple sources. The problem is that you take a very isolated incident and lump it in as an example of something that "often" happens. That's false. It doesn't happen "often". And while the article DOES need info on what a team actually does, it needs it from a source that's not making a point (such as the ACLU). Presenting a number and hearing only the voice of someone who is pointedly against SWAT interpret it is not balanced in any way. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::The Salon article is just a summary of what many other sources, including America's leading papers, have been writing. You say that the ACLU has cherry-picked stats, but I've looked online and found no accusations of that kind made against them regarding SWAT teams, and you haven't brought any of those forward. Furthermore, major newspapers cite their statistics and give them credence, so it seems as though the charge that they have messed up their statistics is false. Concerning context, some of the news articles do mention that these are drug search warrants, so that's fine, we should mention that. Some of the news articles I've read mention the availability of statistics on the threat of violence from suspects during these raids, so rather than remove sources that don't give a context you want, you should simply provide those numbers. That will require looking them up. Many articles cover the historical context, which we can do too. As to whether information about barbershop shop raids should be included, that's a matter of [[WP:DUE|due weight policy]] and [[WP:N|notability]]. If many mainstream articles mention barbershop raids when discussing SWAT raids, it shows you that they consider the raids an important aspect of SWAT policing in the United States, and that noting the raids is critical to giving a balanced perspective on SWAT policing in the United States. Lastly, neutrality is something that's established by the tone of the reliable sources we use, and common sense: it's not an exercise in apologizing for, discounting, ignoring, or arguing against what the vast majority of sources say about SWAT teams. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 16:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::*BTW, the "exciting weapons" list you (seemingly sarcastically) mention had to be extensively sourced because some other editor breezed in, challenged everything, and then left. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm not exactly being sarcastic, I'm just amazed that this is the only part of the article that's sourced! -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:P.S. [[User:Niteshift36]] looking through the talk pages I see you've done a lot of great work, and you also know that most SWAT activity is routine - don't you think this should be in the first paragraph of the lead? I very much disagree with your assessment of Kraska though, who is simply documenting what SWAT teams do and how they've evolved. There doesn't have to be anything controversial about that. Furthermore, his discussion of the "militarization" of police is hardly off-base, since this is the point of SWAT teams, and everyone knows that they have grown hugely in number since their inception. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 08:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:Lastly - you say that the ACLU "cherry picking stats out of context isn't helpful," but these stats have been reprinted by news organizations and appear consistent with research by others. Do we have any publications demonstrating that the ACLU has messed up their stats? -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:*It really doesn't matter is you like or dislike Kraska. I've read many of his writings for over a decade and I am very comfortable with everything I say about him. He's not simply documenting anything. Kraska has been a crusader for over a decade and will continue to be one. Just because news outlets have repeated a stat doesn't make it a) correct or b) in context. I won't even dispute the accuracy of the number of SWAT uses (raids is a POV word), but I will repeat that they present no context at all and rely heavily on weasel words like "many" and "often" to make their point (and yes, they're making a point). If SWAT serves a search warrant on a [[Sinola Cartel]] stash house for drugs, it's a "non-violent crime", but there is nothing non-violent about the Sinola Cartel. Again, if you're going to use the POV writings of the ACLU, you need balance to provide context. You can't only tell half the story and call it an improvement. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, we can't simply discount statistics on the basis of context that we could easily provide, but don't. If warrants are being served for drugs, we can just say that. Agree with you on weasel words, except that if we have the stats we can back up "many" or "often" with numbers - only using those might be better. Anyway thanks for your comments; I'll be able to work more on this shortly. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::*The problem is, we can't easily provide the context. Take the example I presented of the "non-violent crime" of drug possession that has a very real element of danger. Where will you find that context? Now, if you want to try to be less specific about a ratio/percentage and then balance with the broader point that it's not always what it seems....that may be workable. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::That's not true: we can provide the context and are doing so. If sources provide context but it's not the one you want, then go find other sources and include them too, but don't delete information because it doesn't say what you want it to. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::*Don't be dismissive with me. It's not a question of the source not saying what I want. You can squelch that noise already. It's the lack of balance. If you can't provide a balanced format, you don't get to include half the story. You have as much of a responsibility to ensure that the info you add is done in a NPOV manner as anyone else does. What you're essentially doing here is demanding that I provide thebalance without even attempting it yourself. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] I'm not dismissing you and I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. I'm spending a lot of time here because it seems to me you are dismissing what all reliable sources are writing about SWAT teams, and removing these sources from the article, because you believe they're leaving out critical information that would provide context to readers. I don't agree: I think that these sources provide plenty of context, and citing them will provide balance that I think is adequate. If you believe that ''other'' information is important and must be included, it's not my job to try and find support for your view in the published literature. Frankly, I don't see it, and that's why we disagree about what is neutral in this case. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Sources and statistics for SWAT teams in the United States ==

I'm compiling sources here, and noting relevant or important information from them, when I can or have time. This way if a source is removed from the article we can quickly access it here. When adding a source, please note if it is a news article, opinion piece or blog, if possible.

Overall these sources paint a very similar picture, cite the same numbers and experts, and provide some political context (war on drugs, militarization of American policing) for the developments in the use of SWAT teams in the states. For this reason I'm confident we can improve this article. If anyone has any objections to any of these sources (e.g. reliability, POV) please note them here in discussion below. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

===Sources===

====Textbooks or academic books====

Policing in America, by Larry K. Gaines & Victor E. Kappeler, published by Routledget 2014 (textbook), [http://books.google.com/books?id=8EI-AwAAQBAJ]:
*"Myth: Police tactical teams or SWAT units are used primarily in high-risk and very dangerous situations where police are responding to violent crime incidents. Reality: The vast majority of police deployments of tactical teams are used for the service of routine search and arrest warrants."


“Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement,” edited by Larry E Sullivan, Marie Simonetti Rosen, Dorothy M Schulz, M. R. Haberfel, SAGE Publications, 2004 [http://books.google.com/books?id=7S11AwAAQBAJ]:
* “To some police observers… the traditional delineations between the military, police, and criminal justice system are blurring. In breaking with a long-standing tenet of democratic governance and a central feature of the modern nation-state, the traditional roles of the military handling threats to our nation’s exernal security though threatening or actually waging war, and the police targeting internal security problems such as crime and illegal drugs, are becoming increasingly intermingled. This blurring began with the military’s heavy involvement in drug law enforcement during the Reagan/Bush drug war and has only broadened and deepened over the past 10 years. It is within this broader sociopolitical context that we can understand the recent and certain trend toward the militarization of a key component of U.S. police.”
* “Militarism… is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that stresses the use of force and violence as the most appropriate and efficacious means to solve problems… Similarly, militarization… is the process of arming, organizing, planning, training for, and sometimes implementing violent conflict. To militarize means adopting and applying the central elements of the military model or an organization or particular situation.”
* Indicators of militarization include culture: “martial language, style (appearance), thinking;” organization: “martial arrangements such as command and control centers, or elite teams of officers patterned after military special operations squads;” operation: “patterns of activity modeled after the military, such as in the areas of intelligence, supervision, or handling of high-risk situations;” material: “martial equipment and technology.”
* Until recently, these units were only a peripheral part of large police departments’ reaction to the rare hostage, barricaded suspect, or civil disturbance incident. As of 1996, 89% of American police departments serving populations of 50,000 people or more had a PPU, almost double what existed in the early 1980s. Their growth in smaller jurisdictions (agencies serving between 25,000 and 50,000 people) has been even more pronounced.
* There has been a more than 1000% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or call-outs, between 1980 and 1997. Today, there are an estimated 40,000 SWAT team deployements a year conducted among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s, there were an average of about 3000.
* These figures would not be as controversial if this increase in deployments was due to an increase in the PPU’s traditional function – a reactive deployment of high-risk specialists for particularly dangerous events already in progress, such as hostage, sniper, or terrorist situations. Instead, more than 80% of these deployments, and hence 80% of the growth of activity, were for proactive drug raids, specifically no-knock or quick-knock dynamic entries into private residences searching for contraband (drugs, guns, money).
*Nearly 20% of departments use their units as least periodically and some cases routinely, as a patrol force in high-crime areas.
* One SWAT commander describes their approach: “We’re into saturation patrols in hot spots. We do a lot of our work with the SWAT unit because we have bigger guns. We send out two, two-to-four men cars, we look for minor violations and do jump-outs, either on people on the street or automobiles. After we jump-out the second car provides over with an ostentatious display of weaponry (quoted from Kraska & Kappeler, 1997)”
* “Of course, a militarized response is sometimes necessary and even unavoidable if done in self-defense or to protect lives in immediate danger… The crisis situation at Columbine High School is a solid example of the necessity of having a professional militarized response to a preexisting crisis… Quick-knock contraband raids and preventative patrol work, however, are examples of proactive violence where civilian police, and political officials who encourage this type of policing, are not forced into these deployments.”
* Social tumult of 1960s including protests, riots, rising violence, other social problems led to police reforms including creation of SWAT teams. The need for such teams was demonstrated by the Whitman sniper shootings in Austin.
* Many police departments of all sizes have developed SWAT teams, often calling them “Special Response Teams,” “Tactical Action Groups,” or “Emergency Response Teams.” Today, SWAT units protect dignitaries, tail criminal suspects, conduct stakeouts, respond to suicidal individuals, serve “search-and-arrest warrants warrants that pose a higher-than-normal risk of injury to officers.”
* Larger police agencies will have full-time SWAT teams, whereas other agencies assign officers to SWAT teams on a part-time basis, or create multi-jurisdictional SWAT teams serving a series of smaller agencies in a geographic region.
* Over time, SWAT team methods and equipment have developed, including in the area of hostage negoatiation.
* Some observers critical of increased use of SWAT teams to serve drug search warrants, arguing that this approach represents the militarization of policing and pointing to mishaps during search warrants as evidence that using SWAT teams for such work is misguided.
* Accidental shooting of 12-year-old in California drug raid led California attorney general to convene fact finding mission with mixed conclusions.


"An Introduction to Policing", by John Dempsey and Linda Forst, Cengage Learning 2013 (textbook, ebook) [http://books.google.com/books?id=9XcWAAAAQBAJ]:
*"SWAT teams were created in many cities during the 1960s, generally in response to riots and similar disturbances. The first SWAT team was the Philadelphia Police Department's 100-officer SWAT squad, which was organized in 1964 in response to the growing number of bank robberies throughout the city."
*"SWAT teams are commonly used around the country but sometimes have other names. Some people believe that the name SWAT sounds a little too aggressive and militaristic, and some cities have chosen variations of the title for the same type of team, such as special response unit (SRU) or special response team (SRT)."
*The number of PPUs has grown tremendously since the 1970s, when fewer than 10 percent of police departments had them; in 1995, 89 percent of departments had such a unit. The use of these units over the years has also changed from handling the occasional dangerous situation call-outs to being involved on a more routine basis in such things serving high-risk search warrants and arrest warrants. Kraska and Kappeler found that 20 percent of the departments they surveyed used PPUs for patrolling urban areas on a somewhat regular basis.
*"Most of these units were created in the 1980s and 1990s, and their use has become more prevalent due to the increased violence in our communities and the use of more lethal weapons by criminals… the effect of these paramilitary units can be particularly relevant when they are seen patrolling the streets with all their militaristic equipment or are present at public gatherings or demonstrations, as in the recent 'occupy' movement around the country."
*"Some critics believe that use of paramilitary units and military-like equipment is becoming more prevalent and is resulting in cases of unnecessary force and intimidation of residents. However, law enforcement would rather overreact in terms of resources than have someone get hurt. In fact, in some cases, police departments have been criticized when they served what should have been perceived as a high-risk warrant without using one of these highly trained teams and it resulted in someone getting hurt or killed."


A. James Fischer book published by ABC-CLIO, 2010 [http://books.google.com/books?id=_JWd7aUHgisC]:
*Cites Kraska and Kappeler statistics and studies, 50,000 raids per year, etc.
*Former NYPD commissioner says "where the suspect might be armed, we would call in a special tactics unit. Over time though, it became common [practice] to always use the tactical unit no matter what or who the warrant was for. The used stun grenades each time and looked at it [the raids] as practice."
*In 2006, police made 2 million drug arrests, resulting in the deaths of 2 police officers, a low number due to the military style of the raids.
*More statistics on deaths of civilians, suspects, police.
*Much more: this book will be helpful.

====News articles====

The Washington Post news article, 26 June 2014 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/]:
* Some SWAT police in Massachusetts are run by "Law Enforcement Councils" (LECs) like the "North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council" (NEMLEC). Some of these LECs, including NEMLEC, have incorporated as 501(3)(c), claiming that they are private corporations and therefore immune from open record requests.
* "…procuring empirical records from police departments and regional SWAT teams in Massachusetts about police militarization was universally difficult and, in most instances, impossible."
* Acquiring data from SWAT teams around the country can be difficult - for instance units can response to requests with claims of exemption - but the Massachusetts LEC SWAT team response is on a different level.
* ACLU is suing NEMLEC, which in 2009 paid "out $200,000 to settle allegations that it made false claims related to the use of Justice Department grant funds.”


The Economist news article, 22 March 2014 [http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers]:
*Article cites Kraska and his numbers extensively.
*Notes cases involving gambling, cockfighting, under-age drinking, gambling, etc.
*"Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back. Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion."
*Article cites ACLU.
*Raids "often" rely on no-knock warrants, "often" at night, accompanied by flash-bang grenades.
*"Others retort that Mr Balko and his allies rely too much on cherry-picked examples of raids gone wrong. Tragic accidents happen and some police departments use their SWAT teams badly, but most use them well, says Lance Eldridge, a former army officer and ex-sheriff’s deputy in Colorado."


The Washington Post news article, 17 February 2014 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/17/shedding-light-on-the-use-of-swat-teams/]:
*Data hard to acquire, but where available in Maryland, 4.5 SWAT raids occur daily.
*90% SWAT raids in Maryland are made to serve search warrants.
*66% SWAT raids use forced entry.
*Half of raids targeted "nonviolent" crime suspects, "vast majority" for drug suspects.
*15% of raids involve no seizure contraband, 30% result in no arrests.
*Article cites Kraska, 50-80,000 raids yearly and growing.


The Wall Street Journal Saturday essay article, 7 August 2013 [http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904]:
*"Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield."
*Article cites Kraska figures on growth of SWAT teams: 80% small cities have SWAT team, 50,000 raids/year, etc.
*In Reagan administration, SWAT-team methods converged with the drug war… "Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem."
*Raids against gambling: "The past decade also has seen an alarming degree of mission creep for U.S. SWAT teams. When the craze for poker kicked into high gear, a number of police departments responded by deploying SWAT teams to raid games in garages, basements and VFW halls where illegal gambling was suspected. According to news reports and conversations with poker organizations, there have been dozens of these raids, in cities such as Baltimore, Charleston, S.C., and Dallas."
*Examples involving raids against suspected gambling, underage drinking, Tibetan buddhist monks overstaying visas.
*Examples of innocent people killed during raids for drugs or gambling.
*Militarized recruitment videos "tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons."


Al Jazeera news episode, 28 February 2014 [http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/Episodes/2014/2/28/deadly-force-armingamericaspolice.html].


New York Times news article, 7 September 2014 [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/the-rise-of-the-swat-team-in-american-policing.html]:
*Begins with discussion Posse comitatus: military forces may not be used as police in the U.S.
*Tracks growth of SWAT teams since inception, originally conceived for dangerous/violent confrontations.
*"To these units’ defenders, the need could not be more fundamental: The world is dangerous. Some drug lords have weaponry that would be the envy of small armies; the police cannot possibly take them on with mere handguns. Terrorism lurks as an ever-present threat. And sudden menace demanding a well-armed police response can arise even in the most tranquil places. Indeed, the roster of place names identified principally with gun horrors has grown long: Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech. On and on. Not surprisingly, critics of militarized policing have a different take."
*Cites D.C. sergeant Connelly, and researcher Kraska.
*"Now, these teams execute routine warrants in “no-knock” drug raids, bursting into homes with a show of force that often far exceeds the threat to them. The number of such raids has exploded from a few thousand a year in the early 1980s to tens of thousands today. Other critics, like the American Civil Liberties Union, note a stark racial disparity, with blacks and Latinos more likely than whites to be targets."
*Cites Reagan assistant defense secretary Korb.
*"After all that happened in Ferguson, a backlash against militarized policing has gained force."


Le Monde (France's most respected paper) piece on America's militarized police, 21 August 2014 [http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/visuel/2014/08/21/ferguson-produit-d-une-longue-histoire-de-brutalites-policieres_4474169_4355770.html]:
*SWAT teams équivalent to GIGN in France.
*Deployed so much more since 1980s that Kraska estimates 80% cities over 25,000 have SWAT teams.
*Cites more Kraska statistics.
*"These units are largely used in low intensity operations, such as the execution of a search warrant. These frightening raids disproportionately target minorities.

====Reports====

ACLU report, June 2014, [https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing].


====Editorials and opinion pieces====

Policeone.com "P1 first person essay", 15 August 2013 [http://www.policeone.com/militarization/articles/6390637-Police-militarization-and-one-cops-humble-opinion/]:


====Children's books====

C. D. Goranson book "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," Rosen Publishing Group "Extreme Careers" series, 2003 [http://books.google.com/books?id=4ddiaXnWMJAC]:
*"Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession."


====Niteshift36 comment====

:*First, notice how much of this all loops back to one source: Kraska and Balko. We're giving a ton of weight to two crusaders.<br/>

Second, just because something gets printed doesn't mean it gets included. For example, the thing about MA teams forming a corporation. That is isolated. In the overall topic, it is a minor thing. [[WP:NOTNEWS]] reminds us that ''"While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, '''most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion'''."'' If Justin Bieber gets a new tattoo, 1000 outlets will publish it, but it doesn't belong in his bio.<br/>
Third, what doesn't loop back to Kraska loops back to the ACLU and I've already addressed why publishing cherry-picked numbers, without context, is a POV issue. <br/>

Fourth, because an incident gets mentioned as an example of the unusual doesn't mean that it is common place enough to be included (ie the barbershop).<br/>

Now I realize this next part is OR, so please don't give me some unnecessary lecture about OR. I'm not submitting it as proof of anything. It's for illustration purposes. I recall an incident where a member of a violent street gang managed a bar and it was suspected that drug dealing was going on there. It was also suspected that there would be weapons on the premises. Because the club controlled who was allowed in, getting an undercover in was difficult, making it tough to get a warrant. State law allows regulatory inspections, without a warrant, on bars. So the Div of Alcoholic Beverage enforcement (a state regulatory and law enforcement agency) conducted a regulatory inspection, with the support of a local SWAT team. Guess what was found? Guns, drugs and documented gang members. Now the ACLU can cite that as "a regulatory inspection", but again, without context, it's misleading. The reality was that they suspected armed felons would be there and found armed felons there. I know you'll reject the example, but it might clarify the issue for others reading. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::Please see my response below. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


===Specific discussion of source reliability===

I strongly recommend that we remove the Goranson book as a reliable source about SWAT teams: his book is meant to advertise SWAT careers to middle schoolers, and there is no evidence that the author has any special knowledge of American policing or contemporary politics. There appears to be no inline sources, and the huge font and big pictures are consistent with the fact that this is a children's book. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 09:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:*I'll use the answer you used: Do we have any publications demonstrating that Goranson has messed up his info? The info it's verifying seems pretty uncontroversial. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes: the information is contradicted by the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and two books, all of which point out that SWAT teams were ''originally'' created to act as Goranson describes, but ''actually'' act far differently, perhaps as much as 80% of the time. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 16:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::*Actually, they don't contradict what he says. Which of those sources dispute ''"which use military-style light weapons and specialized tactics"''? It seems like those sources actually focus on the weapons and tactics, calling them "militarization". Do those sources dispute ''"that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police"''? THAT is what is being sourced by that book. Are you telling me that your sources tell us that 80% of the time, SWAT is NOT using military-style weapons? I think you need to re-examine what the source you are contesting actually tells us and compare it to what you are trying to insert. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::::The sources don't dispute that SWAT teams use military weapons and tactics, they dispute that they deployed "in high-risk operations that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police." This is true sometimes, but most of the time it isn't. Thus, ''Le Monde'' writes that SWAT units are "largely used in low intensity operations, such as the execution of a search warrant." ''The Economist'', citing Balko, notes SWAT "mission creep" such that "some cities use them for routine patrols in high-crime areas," and citing Kraska, "most SWAT deployments are not in response to violent, life-threatening crimes, but to serve drug-related warrants in private homes." According to ''The Washington Post'', 90% of SWAT raids are launched to serve search warrants, and over half against individuals not suspected of violent crimes. ''The New York Times'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' back up these descriptions and add more information of their own, including on raids wholly unrelated to situations that might "fall outside the capabilities of regular, uniformed police." These descriptions are consistent with the NYPD police commissioner cited by J.A. Fischer in his academic book published by ABC-CLIO: "where the suspect might be armed, we would call in a special tactics unit. Over time though, it became common [practice] to always use the tactical unit no matter what or who the warrant was for. The used stun grenades each time and looked at it [the raids] as practice." Using reliable sources and not children's books, an accurate first paragraph would look like the following:

::::{{quotation|'''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics teams are police units in the United States that use military weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for [[riot]] control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams would proliferate widely during the 1980s and 1990s during the [[War on Drugs]], and in the aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]]. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, and most often in the search for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with heavy military hardware available from the [[War in Afghanistan (2001-present)|wars in Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war|in Iraq]], and are trained to deploy against threats of [[Terrorism|terrorism]], for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police. Other countries have developed their own paramilitary police units that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.}}

::::Further lead paragraphs should summarize SWAT team history, note the weaponry/tactics they use, and note widespread criticism of militarized policing, along with police explanations of why they view SWAT operations as necessary.

::::[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]], you should realize that a children's book is never a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] according to Wikipedia's standards, arguably not even for information about itself. The guidelines state, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." According to these guidelines, "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is the reason why Balko and Kraska are so highly cited and respected by major national and international newspapers, and why we should treat them as critical sources as well. The guidelines state concerning newspapers, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." The fact that so many major newspapers are in agreement should suggest to you that these statements are not controversial. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

First, in your comments above, you call Kraska and Balko "crusaders." Do you have any evidence that is true? You also complain that "much of this all loops back" to them, without realizing that major newspapers around the world cite them both, repeatedly, with credence because they are obviously the two most respected researchers in the field. This points to a significance [[WP:POV|difference in perspective]] between your own views and those of established researchers and media, forcing you to consider the most reliable sources as unreliable, and scholars documenting policing trends as "crusaders." I am highly skeptical of the American media and recognize that media or even scholars have biases. However, world public opinion and international news sources, to which I am more sympathetic, may be even more critical of American policing than American news sources.

Second, the deployment of police with military weapons and tactics in situations involving gambling, underage drinking, visa issues, barbershop licenses and ordinary warrant serving isn't equivalent, in gravitas, to the event of Justin Bieber's new tattoo. That's why ''The New York Times'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The Economist'', ''The Wall Street Journal'', etc., don't report Bieber's tattoo, but do report on what they consider the misplaced deployed of SWAT police. We shouldn't misleadingly imply in our article that ''all raids'' are like this, but major papers note them because they are examples of a phenomenon they and this article must document in order to accurately describe SWAT policing.

We've already discussed Kraska, Balko and the ACLU above.

Fourth, I don't discount your story about the regulatory inspection of the bar where guns, drugs and gang members were discovered. Actually I personally think it's a great illustration of how SWAT teams are used, and the dangers or difficulties that could face police in situations that, to outsiders, could be described as milk toast. But I have a few comments about this. One, I simply can't believe that no reliable sources can be discovered that will recount and illustrate this problem. Two, I believe that readers are intelligent enough to assume that raids serving drug warrants could be hazardous, and for this reason I don't think we need to insert special qualifiers before citing statistics about drug warrants, or other search warrants. Three, and this follows from the first two points, your example is not an argument for discounting the information and context provided by reliable sources.

As a last point, there are a number of things that are disputed by nobody: that SWAT police and raid numbers have grown enormously, and that at least some SWAT raids, and perhaps many of them, are being conducted beyond the scope of how SWAT teams were originally conceived. A person could take different conclusions from this. A critic might say that this represents an ''unnecessary'' militarization of ordinary policing, while a defender might call it ''necessary'' for the protection of police in a well-armed world. But citing sources on these statistics doesn't demand such a value judgment. Furthermore, even if judgments ''are'' noted, criticism of heavy-handed policing doesn't represent a moral condemnation of police officers or a stain on their honor. The point is to accurately document what SWAT teams are and what they do, and right now we're failing to do that. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


====Response to third opinion request====
{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] '''Response to [[WP:3O|third opinion request]]''':
|-
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|
::Tricky issue. We are walking a fine line here to try to maintain NPOV, and it's very easy to go too far in being critical of SWAT deployment or ignoring legitimate concerns.

::First, the lede. IMO, the Goranson reference is not RS. At best it might be marginally so, but still not suitable for anything contentious. I also think that it's misleading for the lede to state outright that SWAT does "X" when we have credible sources with concerns that they also do "Y" and "Z". I suggest that this section of the lede be reworded to something like " law enforcement units, which use military-style light weapons and specialized tactics. SWAT teams were created for utilisation in high-risk operations that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police, and this remains their primary role. Criticisms have been raised that SWAT teams are frequently deployed for routine tasks that could be effectively addressed by uniformed police, leading to [increased risk to public, perceptions of police state, whatever the primary concerns are]]". This means we will need to find another reference to replace Goranson about what the primary role of SWAT is, but that should be easily done for such basic information.

::As for the more general discussion, the material critical of SWAT needs to be included. Le Monde, WSJ etc are all reliable sources. Articles printed in them can't be simply ignored. At the moment this article has a balance problem because it ignores these criticisms. I think that we need to add a "Criticisms/Concerns" section to this article, as we have to so many other articles. How big that section should be I'm not qualified to judge. If it gets too large it can and should be challenged as a balance issue, but I can't judge that because I don't know what the relative views of experts are in this issue. However clearly some reliable sources have concerns, therefore they need to be mentioned for balance. A couple of sentences under a "Criticism" heading noting that many reliable sources have concerns about how often SWAT teams are deployed for routine functions is essential.

::FTR, there is no requirement for someone adding material supporting a POV to also add material supporting all the others. For all I know, there may not be any reliable sources supporting the others. Maybe even SWAT commanders agree that their teams are deployed too routinely. If that is the case, then it's not distorted to note that the teams are deployed routinely too often. And if is distorted, then it's up to whoever knows that to bring the issue to the attention of other editors. If an editor believes that there is a balance issue, they can add a dispute tag to the section or the whole article and start a discussion on the talk page. However, they are going to need to bring evidence that there is a diversity of opinion amongst reliable sources. It's not enough to simply claim that other sides should be presented, they will need to demonstrate that reliable sources endorse that other side. We can then reword the article to say that "Group X has criticism Y, which is disputed by group Z because...". But we can't just ignore criticisms referenced to reliable sources. [[User:Mark Marathon|Mark Marathon]] ([[User talk:Mark Marathon|talk]]) 04:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
|}

::::Hi {{U|Mark Marathon}}, and thanks for your comment. I agree with much of what you write. I don't agree however that we should try to squeeze new material into a section called "criticism." This is because the article is largely unsourced right now, and the sources I'm proposing to bring in, which include articles, books and textbooks on SWAT policing, don't purport to criticize SWAT policing: they rather describe it, often with ample use of statistics.
::::For instance, most - almost all - sources state that the primary, contemporary role of SWAT police teams is the serving of search and arrest warrants, usually for drugs, 80% of the time. This isn't a criticism, but rather a description. A number of sources state that 20% of police departments use SWAT police units for regular patrols in "hot spot," low-income areas. This is also description, not criticism.
::::While I agree that it wasn't my task to find other points of view, I have found one source, in a reliable textbook, that presents a POV supporting more widespread use of SWAT policing. Obviously this is a significant view and, while it may be a minority view within the media or academia, should be presented in the article. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 04:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::This is where it starts to get really tricky. Just because a source quotes statistics, doesn't mean that it's not a criticism, and just because 80% of a SWAT team’s work is serving warrants, doesn’t mean that 100% of their work isn’t something that uniformed police can’t do safely. Filling an article with such sources can easily unbalance the article. Finding unbiased material on these subjects can be incredibly difficult, because people don’t generally care to publish job descriptions of groups they feel are doing a good job. Usually if someone talks the time to compile and publish the stats, it’s because they feel the stats tell a story that they also want to tell. At this stage I haven't read the sources thoroughly to get a feel for their intent and scope, so I can’t comment accurately. If you are willing to hold off for 3 or 4 days until I get a chance to read them, I can provide an opinion if you wish. [[User:Mark Marathon|Mark Marathon]] ([[User talk:Mark Marathon|talk]]) 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I will be very happy to have you read these sources when you can! Agree that finding unbiased material can be hard, either because authors intend to criticize the police on the one hand, or are police themselves on the other. Hopefully the available sources (and I've found quite a few above as well) will give you a sense of academic and media views on the subject. If I get the chance I'll make an effort to include more international news coverage too. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 14:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::OK, I‘ve looked through the references, and I’m not seeing anything that really makes me change my opinion. While we have a few different sources, it seems like most of them cite Kraska. While his is a valid opinion and needs to be included, we would clearly be violating [[WP:UNDUE]] if we were to base the main text of an article on the opinions of one man.
:::::::My individual assessment of these references is:
:::::::'''Policing in America'''
:::::::Can’t find the full text. If this is a reputable textbook then it should be fine to include. However the fact that this is a “Myth/Reality list makes me a little nervous. That’s not how textbooks are normally written. It's also interesting that this source doesn't say "serving search warrants" as Kraska does but rather "service of search warrants" which is rather different. More on that below.
:::::::'''Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement'''
:::::::Can’t find the full text. Seems good. However it also seems to contradict the other courses. It says that 80% of operations were drug raids. In contrast your other references claim that the units are mostly used to serve search warrants. Those are two different things, unless the other references are being very misleading when they say “serve search warrants”, and actually mean not just the serving, but the actual room-by-room securing of the building, searching, seizure, arrests etc. I don’t think most people would see it as unreasonable for a SWAT team to be securing the rooms in a crack house or meth lab, for example, which is what a drug raid is or can be. In contrast, breaking down a door, handing the resident a piece of paper and then walking away seems completely unreasonable, and that’s what serving a warrant is. Now maybe by “serving a warrant” those other sources meant “securing the building, doing the search and arresting any suspects” in addition to serving the warrant: ie a drug raid. But if that is what they meant that needs to be spelled out in this article. That sort of misleading phrasing also doesn’t give me much faith in the reliability of the sources. I'm thinking that "drug raid where a warrant was obtained" become "servicing a warrant" which is accurate but ambiguous and then became "serving a warrant" which is misleading and inaccurate. Also references Kraska, and once again we want to avoid undue weight.
:::::::'''An Introduction to Policing'''
:::::::Can’t find the full text. Seems good.
:::::::'''SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police'''
:::::::I can’t find the full text, but it seems like POV work. The use of the word “madness” doesn’t suggest a dispassionate work.
:::::::'''The Washington Post news article, 26 June 2014'''
:::::::Seems clearly RS, but all it’s really saying is that we don’t know anything and can’t find out anything. There’s also no information on whether SWAT units are more likely to be under these LECs than any other police unit, so I’m not sure whether it really says anything we can add to the article.
:::::::'''The Economist news article, 22 March 2014'''
:::::::This seems to be the pick of the bunch: RS, balanced. But essentially still belongs under a criticism section
:::::::'''The Washington Post news article, 17 February 2014''' This is an opinion BLOG, so it is very borderline RS. I don’t know enough about the author or the way the blog is edited, but there are certainly grounds for suspicion. At best it meets [[WP:RSOPINION]], so it needs to be attributed directly to the author rather than stated as fact. Because this is one mans personal criticism, I still think it belongs in a criticism section. Also, we need to take care that our paraphrasing is accurate and fai6hfully represents the source. For example, this article never says that “Half of raids targeted nonviolent crime suspects”. It says that half the raids were for nonviolent crimes. 100% of the suspects could have had convictions for murdering police officer for all we know. There is a big difference between a “non-violent suspects” and a “violent suspect for non-violent crime”. I’m generally unimpressed with this source. Statistics like “a third of the raids resulted in no arrests” isn’t really meaningful. How many raids were intended to result in arrests, rather than seizure of evidence? And how many raids that were intended to result in arrest didn’t because the suspect wasn’t home. The statistic seems be trying to imply that the raids were botched, but is essentially meaningless.
:::::::'''The Wall Street Journal Saturday essay article, 7 August 2013'''
:::::::Another opinion piece by the same author. I say opinion because this is the Saturday Essay, which in the past has run such pieces as “America Should Police the World” and “Competition is for Losers”. While it doesn’t carry an editorial label, it clearly is editorialising. So once again, meets [[WP:RSOPINION]] at best, and since it’s the same author as the above we risk giving undue weight to his opinions is we focus too much on it.
:::::::'''Al Jazeera news episode, 28 February 2014'''
:::::::Hard to determine if this is RS: the material is scattered, and some of it just quotes other sources, including sources listed above. So we’d need to know what we want to add from this before we could make a determination.
:::::::'''New York Times news article, 7 September 2014'''Seems OK, but Kraska again
:::::::'''Le Monde'''. While I read French like a native, unfortunately it is like a native of the New Guinea highlands. I will have to accept that it says what you say. However I suspect that this is yet another opinion piece.
:::::::'''ACLU report'''. I assume we all agree this is a biased source.
:::::::I'm not really seeing anything that changes my mind that most of this belongs in a separate "Criticism" section. I think we should put into the main article something to the effects that most SWAT teams are mostly carrying out pre-planned raids with warrants obtained beforehand rather than spur-of-the-moment responses to violent crimes. That's notable and well-sourced. The material on how much these units have grown is also notable. However the rest seems to be clearly criticism and belongs in a criticism section. Whether SWAT teams are ''needed'' to carry out drug raids, whether they are over-used, whether they use the right tactics, whether there is some sort of cover-up etc. These are all issues of opinion. Several of the sources, and all those based on Kraska, clearly imply or outright state that this is the case, but those are all opinion sources. The sources that are clearly RS never make such claims. [[User:Mark Marathon|Mark Marathon]] ([[User talk:Mark Marathon|talk]]) 07:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}
Hi {{U|Mark Marathon}}, thanks for your comments, and for reading these sources. As a quick note, the 17 February [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/17/shedding-light-on-the-use-of-swat-teams/] and 26 June [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/] ''WashPo'' articles, and the ''Le Monde'' article [http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/visuel/2014/08/21/ferguson-produit-d-une-longue-histoire-de-brutalites-policieres_4474169_4355770.html], are ''news'' articles, not blog or opinion pieces. You may be right that the "Saturday Essay" at the WSJ is opinion: I had thought it might be some kind of long-format journalism, but I could easily be wrong (I'm sure regular WSJ readers will know at [[WP:RSN]]). Also, the book ''SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police'' is published by [[ABC-CLIO]], which makes academic reference works in social sciences. The title probably reflects something of the academic consensus on the issue.

In this case, all but one of the sources above is a news piece or an academic book (with the exception of the children's book of course).

I agree that these sources don't merit any discussion of a cover-up (I don't know if I remember seeing that term in them?), and that we don't need to state that SWAT raids are over-used. I don't agree however that we should take all reliable sources on SWAT policing and place these into a "criticism" section, but leave the rest of the article unsourced. The implication would be that what "we all know" about SWAT policing is so obvious that it doesn't need to be sourced, while sourced information somehow amounts to criticism. This isn't really true. It is more likely that information in reliable sources amounts to criticism only in the eyes of people whose personal views are in conflict with published sources, causing them to view published material as criticism rather than description.

Furthermore, even if we do find criticism, style guides recommend integrating criticism into an article body, per [[WP:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism]].

What is an ideal way of moving forward? Perhaps we can begin deleting portions of the article that are either unsourced or sourced to non-reliable sources? Then adding back material and sourcing it, while discussing additions and added content as we go? - [[User:Darouet|Darouet]] [[User Talk:Darouet|(talk)]] 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

:I'd get the article in order before dealing with the lead; that's avoid the need to cite in the lead and would avoid situations where the leads says something that is not said in the article (i.e. as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&oldid=636378070 this diff] re. Afghanistan/Iraq). The ''Weapons'' section is mired deeply in overcite; contrast the sensible Beretta citing with that for Glock (the less said about the level of H&K MP5 citing, the better!). [[User:Bromley86|Bromley86]] ([[User talk:Bromley86|talk]]) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

::Regarding Mark Marathon's concern that the WSJ piece was opinion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Wall_Street_Journal_.22Saturday_Essay.22 Collect's opinion at RSN] confirms that this is true. Collect recommends that the source can be cited as opinion. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::*Used for what? Specifically for what? And Collect is one editor who gave an opinion. I like him, but let's not act like his opinion is law. You didn't even notify anyone else of the discussion, so all he got was your input and said it's an opinion piece and can be cited as opinion. Nobody disputes that. The dispute is how much weight it is to be given. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 02:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::::[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]], I'm referring to [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904 this article] by Balko in my post above. Collect confirmed this was an opinion piece. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::*Who disputed that it was an opinion piece? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I was the one who thought it might be long format journalism, not an opinion piece. I went to the reliable source noticeboard to inquire. [[User:Collect|Collect]] stated that it was indeed opinion, something that could be inferred for instance by the use of first person writing. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

== Adding a POV tag ==

I'm adding a POV tag to this article because it has a number of major problems, which we are currently working to address. These include:

*The primary description of what SWAT teams are, in the first paragraph of the article, is referenced using a children's book promoting careers with the police
*References providing a more realistic description, including from the New York Times, have been removed.
*Much of the article is unsourced, or sourced to official police websites.
*Almost no information is provided on contemporary uses and abuses of militarized policing in the United States.
*As another editor has pointed out, little context is given to explain how and why these units are used.

We should be able to resolve these problems shortly. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 09:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:*1) Is the primary description incorrect?<br/>
2) More realistic? By what standard? <br/>
3) Add sources that support what is there. Official police sites can be good sources, depending on which use we're talking about.<br/>
4) What you call "contemporary uses" and "abuses" is being presented with undue weight. Further, it's being presented in a manner to make a point and gives a lot of weight to 2 sources (Kraska et al and the ACLU), both of whom have agendas.<br/>
5) then give correct and realistic context, not highlight the minority uses. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:#) As shown above, the description is only supported by a children's book and is contradicted by academic and high-quality sources.
:#) A more realistic description should be judged by the standard of researchers (e.g. Balko, Kraska, Fischer) and high-quality news articles, which I've made available above.
:#) It would be inappropriate and futile to search for support for a statement not supported by available sources: this may be the reason we are currently using a children's book.
:#) If anything, the balance of presentation of sources I've given so far is tilted in the direction of insufficient criticism, since the sources are more critical than I am. Also, you haven't provided any sources giving a critique of Balko, Kraska or the ACLU, and I can't find any. On the contrary, from the way they're universally cited, it seems as though major sources agree with them.
:#) The context I'm providing is given by these articles: I can't just make stuff up. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 21:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
==This is becoming absurd==
You have disussions about the same edits taking place in FOUR separate sections. Much of it is repeating yourself and you've pasted in ridiculous amounts of informations, again much of which is repeating a single source. TL:DR is almost appropriate here. If you ''truly'' want to improve this article, then try discussing one thing at a time. Trying to "solve" it all in 4 separate discussions is not productive. This article has survived years without these edits, it can probably survive a little longer while things are discussed in a coherent manner. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:It's actually a pretty simple situation: the article is unsourced, and you removed sources and content I added in an effort to keep the article as is. We discussed the situation in an initial Talk section, which led to no resolution because you didn't want to accept the use of reliable sources I'd found. So, I created another Talk section specifically to list sources, and discuss any that might be problematic. Lastly, I created a POV tag Talk section because that's standard when POV tagging an article. Delete it if you want: I agree it's redundant.

:Sourced sections of the article can survive, sure, but unsourced portions should be removed. There's no emergency, true, but I'd rather just improve the article and be done, not waste weeks working on something that should be simple. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 22:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::*So, instead of a simplified discussion, you decide to force that stuff back in and act like you had some consensus to do it? Um, no. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Look, you asked for a discussion, but now don't want to participate because the discussion is too long. The "discussion" just consists of your objections to academic or journalistic sources generally, and my responses, and presentation of specific sources. Your only comment on the sources so far is that you wish they said something different, and you consider the most respected and cited researchers to be "crusaders," an allegation you haven't yet cared to support with any facts or references. There's no avoiding the fact that good encyclopedia articles requires ''work'', and if you're not willing, then don't participate. For now all you're doing, though you may mean well, is stonewalling efforts to improve the article. I'm going to keep editing but will be happy to discuss any specific content and sources productively. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 01:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::*No, I asked you to have '''A''' discussion, not 4 discussions simultaneously. Don't give me your condescending nonsense about needing "work". I've done work on this article and I've done it for a long time. Your breezing in here with a couple of sources and a burning need to try to make a point is one thing, but to act like you're the only one doing any "work" is pretty much an insult. And oh, do you know why Kraska et al are "the most cited"? Because they're mainly the only academics saying it. When there it only one well, all the water comes from it. There was a point where I thought you were going to actually discuss and build consensus. Now I see that was false hope. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 02:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
All I've wanted to do is replace the current false description, sourced to a children's book selling SWAT careers for middle schoolers, with a description supported by contemporary academic and media sources. You have been hugely resistant to even this small thing, have not engaged in productive discussion, and for these reasons I also fear we won't be able to work together. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 04:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*That's not all you've tried to do. I've attempted to discuss and you've answered it with ridiculous amounts of cut and pasted material and a refusal to actually discuss the contested material before forcing it back in. I asked for a slow down in the discussion and you've portrayed it as a refusal to discuss and then added a little insulting "you need to work" bullshit to it as well. So please, at least be honest about your actions and stop pretending that you're the poor victim in this. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 05:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::The material isn't just "cut-and-pasted:" for media articles I sometimes quote, but also summarize relevant material, and for the books cited, I had to write out the text, since it couldn't be copied. I've done all this partly for your benefit, and for others, so that we have a resource we can access while working on the article.
::It's true that the first paragraph isn't all I've worked on, but the first paragraph problems are particularly egregious and emblematic of other problems in the article.
::I recommend that we get back to the ''content'' above and move away from discussions of each other's behavior (I'm guilty of this as well here), because as is obvious above, it doesn't help anything. What do you think? -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 17:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:::[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]], as a way of moving forward, what do you think about focusing on the talk page section [[Talk:SWAT#Specific_discussion_of_source_reliability|Specific discussion of source reliability]], and in that place, commenting on sources either you or I have added to the [[Talk:SWAT#Sources|list of sources]]? As a way of beginning this, we could move [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASWAT&diff=636175798&oldid=636149360 your comment here] to that talk section if you liked… -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

== Wicomico County Sheriff's Emergency Response Team (S.E.R.T.) source ==

I strongly expect that this source took some of it's information from WP, including the relatively uncontroversial points I've used it to support (most common weapons & CQC statements). However, they are experts in the field of what they use, and they added carbines to the list (which this article was missing), so that's evidence of review. So fine for those points, but be careful about using it for anything else. [[User:Bromley86|Bromley86]] ([[User talk:Bromley86|talk]]) 13:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

== Jack Hoxie ==

The 1960s section of the article refers to [[Jack Hoxie]] as a participant in a police-involved shootout, but the linked article says nothing about this, the cited source does not mention Hoxie, and Google has no knowledge of such an event. The reference to Hoxie should either be immediately sourced or removed. [[Special:Contributions/71.197.166.72|71.197.166.72]] ([[User talk:71.197.166.72|talk]]) 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed it as there is no link between the 1930s Western actor and the founding of SWAT. There may be someone with a very similar name but it is not the same person. [[User:Paulwharton|Paulwharton]] ([[User talk:Paulwharton|talk]]) 07:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Children's book as source in the lead ==

Niteshift36 has once again returned his preferred source for SWAT policing, a children's book, to the lead. I posted this issue previously at the [[WP:RSN|reliable source noticeboard]], and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Children.27s_book_only_source_to_describe_SWAT_police.3F response] was the following:

:''Juvenile titles are rarely "best sources". Use best source - which means the academic ones here.''

There are a series of academic sources available, including [https://books.google.com/books?id=8EI-AwAAQBAJ&hl=en], [https://books.google.com/books?id=7S11AwAAQBAJ&hl=en], [https://books.google.com/books?id=9XcWAAAAQBAJ&hl=en] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=_JWd7aUHgisC&hl=en]. Those sources describe SWAT teams in the following way:

* "The vast majority of police deployments of tactical teams are used for the service of routine search and arrest warrants." [https://books.google.com/books?id=8EI-AwAAQBAJ&hl=en]
* "Until recently, these units were only a peripheral part of large police departments’ reaction to the rare hostage, barricaded suspect, or civil disturbance incident… There has been a more than 1000% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or call-outs, between 1980 and 1997… more than 80% of these deployments, and hence 80% of the growth of activity, were for proactive drug raids, specifically no-knock or quick-knock dynamic entries into private residences searching for contraband (drugs, guns, money)… Nearly 20% of departments use their units as least periodically and some cases routinely, as a patrol force in high-crime areas." [https://books.google.com/books?id=7S11AwAAQBAJ&hl=en]
* "The use of these units over the years has also changed from handling the occasional dangerous situation call-outs to being involved on a more routine basis in such things serving high-risk search warrants and arrest warrants. Kraska and Kappeler found that 20 percent of the departments they surveyed used PPUs for patrolling urban areas on a somewhat regular basis… Most of these units were created in the 1980s and 1990s, and their use has become more prevalent due to the increased violence in our communities and the use of more lethal weapons by criminals… the effect of these paramilitary units can be particularly relevant when they are seen patrolling the streets with all their militaristic equipment or are present at public gatherings or demonstrations, as in the recent 'occupy' movement around the country." [https://books.google.com/books?id=9XcWAAAAQBAJ&hl=en]

I agree with Bromley86 that this article is best served by focus on the body before the lead, however we must certainly avoid citing children's books there. Academic books are far more helpful. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 02:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Then why are you solely removing a source and not replacing it with something useful? And no, we don't need Kraska quoted again in the article, much less in the lead. You are still ignoring most of what Mark Marathon pointed out. just because the majority of SWAT deployments aren't hostage situations etc, doesn't mean that's a standard part of their purpose. Think of it in other terms: In the vast majority of days, a police officer doesn't shoot someone, but the pistol is still a standard part of his uniform. He will point it at a suspect many, many more times than he will fire, but part of the purpose is to shoot a suspect to defend against death or great bodily harm if necessary. I can give you example after example of agency websites that will say things like "hostage situations" etc. Just because it's (fortunately) not a daily occurence doesn't mean you should exclude it. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::*Or perhaps a simpler example: A cashier may ring up hundreds of sales a day. They close out the register and cash drawers once at the end of their shift. Even though ringing up sales happens far more often, that doesn't mean closing out the register is no longer a job duty. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Hi [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]], thanks for your reply; based on what you write, I think we can definitely find a solution both of us are happy with, and that is consistent with what SWAT teams are, and what sources say about them. I agree with you that dangerous raids and missions remain an important part of SWAT duties. However, serving search warrants, crowd control at demonstrations, and patrolling are also important functions, not analogous to desk duty, and are described as the vast majority of SWAT activities. So, we can't ignore the largest part of active SWAT service. Why don't we describe both normal and also extraordinary functions?

::::This is what I propose for our lead paragraph:

::::'''''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics teams are police units in the United States that use military weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for [[riot]] control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams would proliferate widely during the 1980s and 1990s during the [[War on Drugs]], and in the aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]]. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, and most often in the search for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with heavy military hardware available from the [[War in Afghanistan (2001-present)|wars in Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war|in Iraq]], and are trained to deploy against threats of [[Terrorism|terrorism]], for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police. Other countries have developed their own paramilitary police units that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.''

::::What do you think? -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 13:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Ok, let's do it, but slowly. First thing: "military tactics". that's debateable. In some aspects it's correct, but in some it's not. Military units often train with civilian SWAT to learn some of the room clearing tactics etc because they're different. As an illustration: A squad clearing a room in Iraq may thrown a frag grenade (or two) into a room or even "recon by fire". Obviously a civilian SWAT team won't do that. Or a military tactic of taking out a sentry by means of a sniper before the team approaches a building isn't the norm for a civilian team. I'd be more amenable to "use specialized weapons and tactics". This also takes into account that many civilian SWAT weapons aren't actually used by the military. How do you feel about that? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*As a point of comparison, the National Tactical Officers Association published their national standards. It uses this definition: ''"A Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team is a designated law enforcement team, whose members are recruited, selected, trained, equipped and assigned to resolve critical incidents involving a threat to public safety which would otherwise exceed the capabilities of traditional law enforcement first responders and/or investigative units."''[https://ntoa.org/massemail/swatstandards.pdf] The NTOA is a subject matter expert and the publication lists the experts that produced the document. It was also done in collaboration with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, which handles the national accreditation process for US law enforcement agencies. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*The California Swat Commission, as set up by the Attorney General, uses this one: ''"A SWAT team is a designated unit of law enforcement officers who are specifically trained and equipped to work as a coordinated team to respond to critical incidents, including, but not limited to, hostage taking, barricaded suspects, snipers, terrorist acts and other high-risk incidents. As a matter of agency policy, such a unit may be used to serve high-risk warrants, both search and arrest, where public and officer safety issues compel the use of such a unit."''[http://www.policemag.com/channel/swat/articles/2003/05/point-of-law.aspx] Now this is not a childrens book, produced by a state level governmental oversight commission and reported in a reliable source. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Or how about this agency definition. It even acknowledges the ''"search warrant is more common issue" for you: The St. Charles Parish Sheriff’s Office has developed a Special Response Team (SRT) in recognition of the need to execute high risk search warrants and arrest warrants that require special equipment and/or training beyond what is provided to the regular patrol deputy. The Mission of the Special Response Team is to support the members of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff’s Office with a tactical response to Critical Incidents. Critical Incidents are defined as, but not limited to:
•Armed/Suicidal Subjects
•Barricaded Subjects
•Hostage Situations
•Sniper Situations
•High Risk Apprehensions
•High Risk Warrant Service
•Dignitary/VIP Protection
•Special Assignments''[http://www.stcharlessheriff.org/index.aspx?NID=278][[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Hi Niteshift36, what about using the phrase "specialized or military weaponry and tactics" in order to reflect the fact that sometimes these tactics are military, and sometimes something different? The California SWAT Commission is not an academic, but rather a primary and government source (and 16/26 people on the commission were police or military officials). However, it is really interesting (I'm reading it now), and a good source for what the California SWAT Commission ''recommends'' that a SWAT team be. The commission report states that the commission was established in order to respond to tragedies occurring during SWAT raids that could erode community trust, and was meant to make useful recommendations. Their proposed definition is given in this context: ''"Recommendation – Develop a definition of a SWAT team. Proposed Definition…"'' While this report and the issues surrounding it can receive more treatment in the article body (I think that would be an improvement), in general I think the proposed lead is consistent with the information in the Commission Report. What do you think about the following?

:::'''''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics teams are police units in the United States that use specialized or military weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for [[riot]] control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams would proliferate widely during the 1980s and 1990s during the [[War on Drugs]], and in the aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]]. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, most often for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with heavy military hardware available from the [[War in Afghanistan (2001-present)|wars in Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war|in Iraq]], and are trained to deploy against threats of [[Terrorism|terrorism]], for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police, sometimes deemed "high-risk." Other countries have developed their own [[paramilitary]] police units (PPU)s that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.''

:::As a side note, I've been planning on adding a section called "contemporary use" to the article. The sources you provide are an excellent beginning to another section that would also be helpful, something like "intent." This would all be within the American subsection, I think. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*I'm aware the California Commission isn't an academic source. I did point out that it was set up by the Attorney General and "a state level governmental oversight commission". What is wrong with a government source? You list is as "a primary and government source" as if all government sources are primary sources and less than desireable. This definition is pretty neutrally worded and was designed to fit for one of the largest collections of SWAT teams in the US. It is pretty close to the NTOA definition, which was set up as a national model. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::*The website howstuffworks has been reviewed at RSN. While it's not considered the most in-depth source, as a Discovery Channel property, it is considered generally reliable. They use this: ''"A SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team is an elite unit within a police force, used for exceptional situations that require increased firepower or specialized tactics. The officers in a SWAT unit have undergone special training and have access to an arsenal of weaponry, armor and surveillance devices beyond standard-issue police gear. Much of this gear comes in the form of military surplus. Here are a few situations that typically require a SWAT team call-out:
''•A high-risk warrant - If the police are going to conduct an arrest at a home, and they know the person is likely to be armed, they will call in the SWAT team to perform the arrest.<br/>
•A hostage situation - SWAT team snipers are trained to take out an attacker who is holding a hostage in the event that negotiations break down.<br/>
•A barricade situation - When criminals barricade themselves inside a building, possibly with weapons that are fired out at the police or civilians, a SWAT team can launch a powerful assault to end the stand-off.<br/>
A high-risk person - If someone needs to be transported, and there is a high chance of an assassination attempt on his life, SWAT team armored vehicles can serve as protection.<br/>
•An armed terrorist attack.<br/>
•A riot."''<br/>
So it's a RS, neutral, even mentions the military surplus angle. Not an ideal source, but usable. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*And Slate magazine: ''They get called in when regular police are out of their depth. Since the 1960s, law enforcement agencies have trained small teams of officers for dangerous situations and outfitted them with military equipment. (The letters of SWAT stand for "Special Weapons and Tactics.") Teams are often called in when a gunman barricades himself into a building, especially if he takes hostages. They may also help regular police serve warrants, search for a dangerous criminal, or control large crowds.''[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/01/swat_did_you_say.html] [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Niteshift, I'm really not sure what we're arguing about: we have academic textbooks on this subject, which are obviously the best sources available, and we have academic journal articles too, if we need some kind of back-up. Plus, we're proposing text that seems to be consistent with sources you want us to use, whatever their merit. For instance proposed text includes this statement, '''created in the 1960s for [[riot]] control or violent confrontations with gunmen''', and '''trained to deploy against threats of [[Terrorism|terrorism]], for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police, sometimes deemed "high-risk."''' Maybe, could you mind editing this text box below to let me know what you think should be changed? -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:::{{quotation|'''''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics teams are police units in the United States that use specialized or weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for [[riot]] control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams increased in the 1980s and 1990s during the [[War on Drugs]], and in the aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]]. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, most often for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with military-type hardware and are trained to deploy against threats of [[Terrorism|terrorism]], for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police, sometimes deemed "high-risk." Other countries have developed their own [[paramilitary]] police units (PPU)s that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.''}}
:*There is my edit. I toned down some language and removed the Afghanistan/Iraq part. The main reason for the removal is that it's not really a factor. The [[1033_program#1990-2014|1033]] program has existed since 1990, as a means to transfer military surplus to civilian agencies. In fact, you can even trace Kraska back to pre-9/11 dates complaining about the 1033 program. It ewas first for counter-drug related uses, then in 1997 is was expanded to include counter-terrorism uses. So since the program pre-dates those wars, saying it's related to them isn't actually correct. As for the other question, I'm not sure why you think so-called "academic" sources are superior, but they're not the gold standard. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Hi Niteshift, while I don't agree with all these changes (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan), I think the onus is on me to demonstrate those deserve inclusion, and I haven't done that yet. The only thing I'd ask is that we keep the "military or specialized weaponry and tactics" text for now, since it was a compromise from our previous versions, and I think we can both agree that's true. Is that alright? Then we can continue to discuss the rest of the article, slowly is fine with me too. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Ok with me. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::OK. I also added "the number and usage of" before "SWAT teams increased" because I thought it might be ambiguous, and the change doesn't seem controversial. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 21:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Do we need military in there twice? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 22:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I feel like that's sort of what SWAT is - militarized police for what are supposed to be military-like situations (terrorism, etc). We've been talking about how they're often used outside these situations, but they're equipped and trained for them. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::::*And I feel like it's a specialized part of the police that sometimes employs military (or military styled) weapons. I think if we eliminated the first military and left the second one in, that would be every bit as accurate, but not as much "point making". [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==
Line 571: Line 47:
Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


== Lead section ==
== Uvalde School Shooting ==


Should there be a discussion of the details coming out about the [[Robb Elementary School shooting|Uvalde School shooting]]? Apparently 40% of the local budget was spent on the local police and SWAT force.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a40116626/uvalde-police-department-school-shooter/ |title=There Were Good Guys With Guns and It Didn't Matter |last=Pierce |first=Charles |date=2022-05-26 |quote=Uvalde spent 40 percent of its budget on its police force last year. |access-date=2022-05-27}}</ref>
I just made some edits to the lead-in section for this article, which were reverted by [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]]. Since I don't want to start an edit war (and partly to respond to Niteshift's messages to me), I am going to take my issues here.
The local SWAT team, despite training specifically at local schools<ref name="training">{{cite web |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdwgn/uvalde-swat-team-bragged-about-training-at-schools-on-facebook |title=Uvalde SWAT Team Bragged About Training at Schools on Facebook |last=Gualt |first=Matthew |publisher=Vice News |date=2022-05-26 |access-date=2022-05-27 |quote= The purpose of the visits is to familiarize themselves with layouts of our local schools and businesses. S.W.A.T members will be in full tactical uniforms and we did not want the public to be alarmed when seen }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/mass-shooting-school-security.html |title=Uvalde Had Prepared for School Shootings. It Did Not Stop the Rampage. |date=2022-05-26 |last=Baker |first=Mike |publisher=New York Times |access-date=2022-05-27}}</ref> did not intervene in the shooting.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/media/uvalde-shooting-reliable-sources/index.html |title=Texas newspaper editor says 'urgent questions' about Uvalde massacre have not been answered |last=Stelter |first=Brian |date=2022-05-27 |publisher=CNN |access-date=2022-05-27 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61604652 |title=Uvalde shooting: Texas police change key details as criticism mounts |date=2022-05-27 |last=Evans |first=Gareth |publisher=BBC |access-date=2022-05-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://reason.com/2022/05/26/witnesses-video-suggest-stunning-inaction-from-uvalde-cops-during-school-shooting/ |title=Witnesses, Video Suggest Stunning Inaction From Uvalde Cops During School Shooting |last=Brown |first=Elizabeth |date=2022-05-26 |access-date=2022-05-27 |publisher=Reason |quote=Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour went by between the time Ramos encountered the school security officer and when he was killed by the tactical team that included Border Patrol agents. }}</ref> Local police even inhibited Federal SWAT units from responding.<ref name="Uvalde SWAT">{{cite web |url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/uvalde-police-stopped-border-patrol-203647744.html |title=Uvalde police stopped Border Patrol SWAT team from entering school sooner: report |last=Marcus |first=Josh |date=2022-05-27 |publisher=Indepdendent |access-date=2022-05-27 |quote=Members of the Uvalde Police Department temporarily kept the elite team of Border Patrol commandos who ultimately killed Salvador Ramos from entering Robb Elementary School}}</ref> Overall it appears to be a situation like the [[Columbine High School massacre]] 23 years ago where the SWAT team and their tactics failed respond in a timely manner.


Suspect that I am not alone in seeing this as a watershed event that for the first time really brought to attention the question the actual public safety value of these SWAT teams bring, as seemingly are unable to actually respond when needed. So recommend that this gets added to the page. [[Special:Contributions/98.45.199.13|98.45.199.13]] ([[User talk:98.45.199.13|talk]]) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
First, I want to address the accusation that I'm ignoring consensus or disrespectful. Guilty, to a degree. I reject the notion that I am (or am attempting to be) disrespectful. As far as consensus goes, I admit that I didn't read the entire talk page before editing. But that's not what Wiki is about. I shouldn't--and [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY|don't]]--have to read pages and pages of discussion before jumping in to edit. At some point, I think [[WP:CABAL|cabals]] lead to stagnation under the guise of "consensus."
<references />


And I'll point out that in the '''seven years''' since I last edited this article (and, coincidentally, amazingly, providently, had an argument with none other than Niteshift) this article has not gotten to [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status. So. I don't think re-reading all of the previous discussions before editing necessarily gets us to where we want to go, because I think part of the solution is to [[WP:IAR|ignore]] some of the previous discussion.

Okay, having said that, the lead. What is wrong with it?

* '''Failure to follow [[WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence|manual of style]].''' Each individual letter of SWAT being capitalized in '''S'''pecial '''W'''eapons '''a'''nd '''T'''actics is clearly against Wikipedia MOS, convention, consistency with other articles, and understandability. Writing out the full phrase and bolding both it and SWAT is the correct thing to do, e.g., '''Special Weapons and Tactics''' ('''SWAT''') or similar.

* '''Generally bad writing.''' Why are there scare quotes on "high-risk"? This can be written without quotes. What's up with the phrase "(PPU)s"?

* '''Doesn't provide an [[WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview|accessible overview]].''' The article does not explain in the first two or three sentences the significance of a SWAT team. The article directly goes into the history of a SWAT team and starts giving out statistics. That is not an accessible overview. What IS it? Why do we care about it? What does it DO? I understand that, as humans who look at the news, we all probably know what a SWAT team is. But the article doesn't provide that in a convenient, immediately digestible way. An encyclopedia should write for people as if they were children or intelligent beings who have recently learned English but have little context of what you are talking about.

* '''Content bias.''' This is a hard question to address, and there are many facets to it. I'm sure there'll be points I won't address or things that I haven't thought of, etc., but here are some thoughts. SWAT is a primarily American unit/concept. Other countries have tactical units, but they're called other things or are structured differently. Therefore, we write that SWAT is an American unit right in the lead. Which both the current and my version did. Good. But, having done that, we should talk about American-centric things. And Niteshift apparently thinks that the militarization of police is too American-centric. Well, I completely admit that it's American-centric, because we're ''writing in an article about an American unit.'' The Ferguson riots have brought the militarization of SWAT and the criminal justice system to the forefront of discussion. We can't ignore this and pretend like it isn't happening. The other thing I'll say about bias/non-neutrality is that sentence about PPUs, which is both non-neutral and just jargony bad writing. It should be taken out completely.

* '''Unsourced.''' The entire lead is unsourced. I'll admit that my edits, too, are unsourced, for whatever that's worth. But the difference here, is that my edits were reverted to this amazing, awesome, ''consensus'' version. Which, after a year, is still unsourced.

Look, I'm not saying that my edit was amazing, irrefutable, and the best version of the article ever. What I ''am'' saying is that I feel my edit had some concrete improvements over the previous version, ''and they were wholesale reverted to this'' consensus version ''without any regard at all for the content.'' I believe in consensus, but not to the point where people are paralyzed and have to run everything through "the community." Seven years ago, I gave up the fight for this article. This time, I will fight for it, and fight to make it better. '''[[User:Erc|erc]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Erc|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Erc|contribs]]</sup> 04:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
:*You are correct that you aren't required to check before making an edit. However, when the edit is reverted and the edit summary talks about talk page consensus, you should then take the time to read it and discuss. That's not a cabal, that's consensus.

:*Second, nobody has really tried taking the article to GA status, so saying that it's not at GA status (just like the VAST majority of Wikipedia articles), is really not an indicator of anything. Additionally, what you and I discussed is really not even applicable. We talked about the use of the term "special operations". I supported using it, you opposed it. That term has been removed since then because of....a consensus that was built. Add to that, the version you're looking out now is about 6 months old, not 7 years old.

<br/>Now your specific concerns:
# The use of stylized letters. I truly don't care if the bolding is removed.
# Go ahead and remove the quotation marks. As for PPU's, in some countries, the SWAT function is handled by the military, in some it's by law enforcements etc. And not all of them are the same and some will handle up to a point, then turn it over to others. So the lead recognizes that in all cases, the function won't be the same. Why is including that an issue?
# Perhaps some of the wording can be shifted to come closed to the MOS. I don't have an objection to that. It's worth noting that your edits did much more than that.
# You're off base on your content bias issue. While this article is pretty American focused, it probably shouldn't be. The SWAT concept as we know it originated in the US, but isn't limited to it. So the article should recognize it that way. Your insertion of the Ferguson discussion into the lead is one thing I really objected to. You incorrectly stated that "Partly as a result of the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War". The 1033 program has been around since 1997, long before either war. Before that, the same program was the 1208 program and that one dates back to 1990. The discussion of so-called militarization of the police pre-dates Ferguson etc as well. Peter Kraska has been beating that drum for years. Granted, he's one of the few who has, but even sources used in this article far pre-date Ferguson. Now, I understand that ''you'' may not have become aware of it before than, but your lack of knowledge isn't the criteria. Had you read this article ''and the sources'' before then, you'd have known. Now, add to it the fact that most of the objection to what happened there wasn't actually about actions taken ''by the SWAT team'', but over the so-called militarization of the police, Ferguson becomes less relevant to the lead. Trying to shove Ferguson into the lead is [[WP:RECENTISM]]. Trying to shove BLM into the lead is even more obvious recentism.
# The lead is not unsourced. [[WP:LEADCITE]] tells us "''Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."'' Now, if there is specific material that you think is unsourced elsewhere in the article, point it out. We can either show the source or remove it. But adding more unsourced material, especially material with a bias of your own, doesn't help the problem.
<br/> To summarize, you walked away 7 years ago, came back and made a bunch of unsourced additions, reverted their removal and ignored the fact that the lead was a result of collaboration. Then you made a false connection to the discussion 7 years ago (which was a totally unrelated issue) and bemoaned the fact that the article still wasn't a GA, despite the fact that you'd done nothing to move it that way. Now you're going to "fight" to make it "better" (starting with adding unsourced POV material). Did I miss anything? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

== Militarization of police in the lead? ==

Hey all, I'm wondering if anyone would object to these two sentences added to the bottom of the current lead? They would summarize scholarly views I've encountered on the subject and written into the article body.

"Some observers, including Radley Balko and Peter Kraska, write that increased use of SWAT teams is a part of police militarization, and indicates an adversarial relationship between police and communities where they work. Others, including den Heyer, write that PPUs demonstrate a professionalization of policing, and that police are rational in attempting to lower risks by conducting raids with SWAT forces."

{{reply to|Niteshift36}} I'm happy to see you're still active here. Any thoughts? -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 16:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
:*Why in the lead? It's covered in the article. Everything doesn't have to be in the lead does it? And frankly, I don't like putting Kraska and Balko in the lead. Almost everything making this claim is from them. I think we give the opinions of two people far more weight than it deserves. The fact that there is such a lack of diversity should be telling us something. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
:*Oh wait, I see you put it back in, regardless of this discussion. Why do I even bother trying to discuss it when you are just going to force it in. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Niteshift36}} What? I very certainly ''did not'' put that into the lead: I just re-checked my edits and the diffs [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&type=revision&diff=733869847&oldid=733791739] demonstrate that I did not add the sentences I asked about above.

::Why do you object to the Massachusetts example of SWAT police being operated by companies? I think that's interesting and relevant - police forces being run not by the government but by corporations of various kinds. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
::*No, you just restored the part about uses without bothering to discuss it. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The Mass thing is misleading. First, it's a few departments in a single state. While other complain about the lack of worldview in the article, you want to hyperfocus on a isolated example. Second, it sounds like the SWAT teams are being privatized, as if the officers are from G4S or something. They're all sworn officers from public agencies. They made a structural change so that they team (made up of cooperating public agencies) can apply for grants and administer funds without having to go through a mile of red tape. It streamlines things. This entry gives the false impression that these teams work for a private company. Their authority derives from their agencies and mutual aid agreements. Explaining all would end up giving this isolated example far more space than it merits. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

::::Well we had come to an agreement about the lead after long debate, and I am hesitant to change it without further substantial agreement. I did remove the "80,000" figure because while I'd seen that somewhere, it's not sourced and I don't have the time to look for it now.

::::Concerning the MA example, I understand the concern to keep the article global. Perhaps, eventually, there can be a separate article dedicated to US SWAT police. I don't entirely understand your commentary on the MA corporations but I will re-read the article while keeping your commentary in mind. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
::*And then I realized that the material was never sourced elsewhere in the article. I also toned down the "raid" language. It's POV and not accurate. The commentary isn't hard. The SWAT teams aren't being privatized and aren't being run by the private sector. They were just set up as corporations for fiscal administration purposes. The entry sounds like they're contracting with some company. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

::::Re-reading the original article and your critique, I see that the text I added was imprecise. The following text however would be accurate:

::::''A number of Massachusetts SWAT teams are now operated by the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, which is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) and therefore immune from FOIA requests."

::::Do you object to this language? I don't actually propose adding it unless it is something going on outside MA. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::*1) I think it's too isolated to merit mention. 2) Why is "''and therefore immune from FOIA requests." so important to the encyclopedia topic''? That's a very, very specific factoid about a singular entity. 3) They aren't "operated" by the council, they're administered by them. There is a difference. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Well, to answer point #2, immunity from FOIA would make civilian and journalistic oversight very difficult, something pretty crucial for police forces, and the reason why Balko's comment was published in the Washington Post. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*Again, a handful of agencies in a single state. Why that doesn't seem to matter to you is a bit confusing to me. And it's still misleading. Just because Balko, who exists only to push a POV, has to sell wolf-tickets to keep getting quoted in papers, doesn't make it encyclopedic. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*I hadn't even noticed before, but the last part of the article is an ad for Balko's book. This is starting to look more like an op-ed piece, but he certainly has a vested interest in creating a "crisis". Although the council provides many services (hostage negotiators, motorcycle officers etc), Balko focuses on the single, narrow issue of SWAT because that's the only drum he beats. And it was at least 2 years ago....is any of that still valid? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Balko and/or Kraska are cited in just about every textbook on criminal justice or policing that discusses militarized police. Their ubiquity results from the respect they command in the field, and it's improper for you to repeatedly impugn their research as some kind of personal vendetta or enrichment. The implication is that anyone who documents police militarization or brutality cannot be a valid or impartial source. That's just not true.

:::::::::::::::::I would recommend that we split off that paragraph place it under a new section titled "'''militarization of police.'''" We could include a few more sources on the topic, including some that I found which defend police militarization from various perspectives. That way readers interested in that particular topic - which looms large in academic and journalistic discussions of SWAT policing - would know where to go if they want to consult the topic. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
:*It's not improper for me to have an opinion. They are cited everywhere because they're the only ones that have been beating that drum for years. If there are 3 people that talk about it, there's a pretty good chance you'll see the same names over and over. If the topic were actually widely covered, we would have a diversity of names. Haven't you wondered why there's a lack of diversity? You can find a hundred experts on a fighter plane than only a few countries can afford, but only 2 "experts" on a topic that is in most cities? And when they're writing books (ie making money), making TV appearances that promote their books (ie making money) and trying everything they can to keep their names viable because they are making money, I most certainly will call them on it. I've watched Kraska for well over a decade, Balko for a long time. This topic isn't a passing interest for me. I don't make the implication that you somehow claim. It's just that simple. Before we go splitting anything up, I'd like to nail down what it contains. I thought we were talking about the MA item. Aside from the fact that Balko talked about it, I haven't heard much of a reason for including this narrow item in this article. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[SWAT]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=739377314 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312022924/http://www.itota.net:80/ to http://www.itota.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

== Routine street patrols ==

Until recently this article reported that "20% of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 also use SWAT police for routine street patrols, often funded by community policing grants." The information was sourced to ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=_JWd7aUHgisC SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police]'', published by [[ABC-CLIO]] and authored by James Fisher, former FBI agent and professor of law and forensics.

This information also appears elsewhere. [https://books.google.com/books?id=W4TCBAAAQBAJ An Introduction to policing], published by [[Cengage Learning]], has now been published in its 8th edition. It is authored by John S. Dempsey, former NYPD police captain and professor of criminal justice, and Linda S Forst, a former Florida police captain and professor of criminal justice. These authors write, "The use of these units over the years also has changed from handling the occasional dangerous situation callouts to being involved on a more routine basis in such things as serving high-risk search warrants and arrest warrants. Kraska and Kappeler found that 20 percent of the departments they surveyed used PPUs for patrolling urban areas on a somewhat regular basis."

{{u|Flyte35}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&type=revision&diff=742484432&oldid=740809521 removed] this information with the edit summary "unnecessary." After my revert, {{u|Niteshift36}} again [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&type=revision&diff=742595323&oldid=742583532 removed] the information, explaining, "This 'nice to know' point seems more like making a point and truly lacks context." Niteshift, you should really not revert and instead follow the [[WP:BRD]] cycle, creating a discussion here if the point is important to you. I'm creating that discussion now so you can explain your reasoning.

While I agree with Niteshift that the information was out of place in the paragraph it appeared in, it would have been perfectly situated in the paragraph immediately preceding it. '''There is nothing more relevant to our article, [[SWAT]], than what SWAT teams actually do.''' Niteshift, why is this information about SWAT team usage "nice to know?" Also, why do you feel the information "seems more like making a point?"

Let me know if you both have any objection to placing the information in the article one paragraph earlier. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

: Perhaps including the information about how the use of these units over the years also has changed would be relevant to include, but just saying 20% of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 use SWAT police for routine street patrols does not provide relevant context. [[User:Flyte35|Flyte35]] ([[User talk:Flyte35|talk]]) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

::Thanks {{reply to|Flyte35}} the text appeared in the "[[SWAT#Post-9.2F11_and_the_War_on_Terror|post 9/11]]" subsection of [[SWAT#History]], in general clearly contextualizing it within the arc of SWAT evolution since the 1960s. For instance, the post 9/11 section begins by describing how SWAT policing changed with the [[War on Terror]]. I think if we placed the text into the section paragraph, "By 2005, the number of yearly SWAT deployments...", we would clearly be showing, like sources, that SWAT teams were originally designed for extraordinary situations, but are now used more routinely. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SWAT&type=revision&diff=742614517&oldid=742595323 Here is what I would propose]. What do you think? -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 18:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::*Once again, it comes back to Kraska.....everything does. And please, don't tell me I shouldn't revert. BRD is a suggestion. A different editor removed it, you reverted him. I agreed with him and removed it again. That's just the way it goes sometimes. I'll tell you part of my initial reaction is based on what is, in Wikipedia terms, original research. I concede that up front. Let's look at LAPD for example, since that agency is so prominent in this topic. SWAT belongs to the Metro division. Since they don't spend 24 hours a day on SWAT call outs, they still do other police work. So they're out "patrolling" high crime areas. They have their tactical gear with them, in case they do get called out. Now, is that "routine patrol" by SWAT? Or is it routine patrol by police officers that happen to be SWAT? This is even more common with agencies of a smaller size, where the SWAT members are detective, traffic or what have you until they get called out. The other part is the statement that it's part of a community policing grant, without knowing what the grant was actually for. All community policing grants aren't created equal. One can fund programs with cops playing basketball at midnight, the other can fund warrant round-ups in high crime areas. It implies that there is something improper with a community policing grant being used for that. Without knowing the actual context, it's like saying 56% of Americans who committed suicide learned to swim. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 01:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

::::Yes, that is [[WP:OR]], and I agree with the professors and police officers who authored those highly respected textbooks that when SWAT police officers do routine patrol with their gear, that means that SWAT officers are doing routine patrol. The text as I proposed it describes exactly what you're saying. It also doesn't specify that the community policing grants are being misused - something you're implying the text states. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
::*Except you don't know that they are saying "when SWAT police officers do routine patrol with their gear, that means that SWAT officers are doing routine patrol." They're saying SWAT officers are doing routine patrol. You're assuming that they are saying that. It gives the impression that they're rolling out on every traffic stop with body bunkers and MP-5's. And no, it doesn't say the community policing grants are being used....but the implication is there. In the end, OR or not, I oppose inclusion. Just because it's sourced or because some professor said it in (what you claim is a) "highly respected textbook doesn't mean it gets included. As I said in the beginning, this may be nice to know trivia, but including it appears more to be making a point than improving the article. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

::::It's still unclear what your objection is: the sources are both saying exactly what you're saying. SWAT police do routine patrol, and community policing grants support the creation of SWAT teams.

::::What evidence do you have that this information is "making a point?" And what "point" is that? Information is information. If you believe that the information can be presented with greater context, you can go do research and provide that context. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::::*Let me be clear: Most SWAT members aren't "SWAT police". They are police officers who, usually as a <u>collateral duty</u>, happen to belong to a SWAT team. In the vast majority of cases, SWAT teams aren't staffed by officers who do nothing but SWAT. They are staffed by guys who do their regular police duties all week and, on an occasional basis, get called out for SWAT incidents. An analogy would be a librarian who is a volunteer fire fighter. His day to day job is being a librarian. He trains with the fire dept, perhaps carries his fire gear so that it's available if the fire dept calls him out, but his job is being is librarian. The logic you're employing would have us saying that libraries are being staffed by fire fighters.. I don't need "evidence" that it's making a point. Another editor removed it as unnecessary. I agreed and removed it again. Now you demand that I provide "evidence" of....well, something. I ate a burger today. That's information. Where does it belong in Wikipedia? Information may be information, but not all information belongs in an encyclopedia. The "point" is that you tend to add information that tends to be negative sounding. That's my opinion and, despite your earlier claims, I'm allowed to have those. You're adding something that isn't relevant and gives the impression that community policing grants are somehow being misused. Why don't you try explaining why the information is needed and why the context is correct? (Hint: Just saying it's sourced or that someone who said it is a professor isn't a reason) [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 03:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on [[SWAT]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/817708234|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65jSh25NA?url=http://www.trutv.com/newname.html to http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/soliah/docs/lapdreport.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?%2Fdurable%2F2000%2F05%2F31%2Ffp2s2-csm.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219011438/http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/html/spec_act.html to http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/html/spec_act.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itota.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 02:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


== Section about the special tactics missing ==
== Section about the special tactics missing ==


[[File:Members of the 37th Training Wing's Emergency Services Team at Lackland AFB.jpg|miniatur|100px|right|Lift technique]]
[[File:Members of the 37th Training Wing's Emergency Services Team at Lackland AFB.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Lift technique]]
There is a [[SWAT#Weapons|section on the weapons]] used by SWAT teams, but no section about the special tactics used. For example something about the lift technique that is shown in the article (see picture to the right) would be nice. Greetings, --[[User:Qaswed|Qaswed]] ([[User talk:Qaswed|talk]]) 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a [[SWAT#Weapons|section on the weapons]] used by SWAT teams, but no section about the special tactics used. For example something about the lift technique that is shown in the article (see picture to the right) would be nice. Greetings, --[[User:Qaswed|Qaswed]] ([[User talk:Qaswed|talk]]) 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


== Removing mention of Iraqi prison break ==
== External links modified (January 2018) ==
While interesting, the relevance of the riot is not clearly apparent considering that this is an article exclusively about United States law enforcement. It was not handled by US police but rather local security so unless we are expanding the scope of the article to include gendarmerie in general it seems harmless to remove it for consistency reasons. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JSory|JSory]] ([[User talk:JSory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JSory|contribs]]) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Removed the section on 10/1/2022
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
[[User:GreenBeret1439|GreenBeret1439]] ([[User talk:GreenBeret1439|talk]]) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


== SWAT ==
I have just modified 2 external links on [[SWAT]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/822078461|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324101756/http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207348 to http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207348
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402031236/http://www.berkshireeagle.com/berkshirebusinessoutlook/ci_3609336 to http://www.berkshireeagle.com/berkshirebusinessoutlook/ci_3609336


What does the federal swat do? [[Special:Contributions/2601:203:C100:E9D0:95BD:BB61:EF97:5B9B|2601:203:C100:E9D0:95BD:BB61:EF97:5B9B]] ([[User talk:2601:203:C100:E9D0:95BD:BB61:EF97:5B9B|talk]]) 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


== Rename page ==
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}


As there are other nations with units called SWAT, perhaps rename this SWAT (United States)?
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


[[User:GreenBeret1439|GreenBeret1439]] ([[User talk:GreenBeret1439|talk]]) 23:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018 ==

== Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022 ==


{{edit semi-protected|SWAT|answered=yes}}
{{edit semi-protected|SWAT|answered=yes}}
In "Popular Culture," add video game "Ready or Not" to the list of video games, with hyperlink to the Wikipedia page, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_or_Not_(video_game)" [[User:GuyScience|GuyScience]] ([[User talk:GuyScience|talk]]) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Hponmjl|Hponmjl]] ([[User talk:Hponmjl|talk]]) 06:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
:Done. --[[User:Mvqr|<span style="color: #8f8;background:#85b;border:1px solid #999">Mvqr</span>]] ([[User talk:Mvqr#top|talk]]) 13:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> — [[user:IVORK|<font face="Ariel" color="red" size="3px">'''IVORK'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:IVORK|<font face="Ariel" color="Green" size="1px">'''Discuss'''</font>]]</sub> 07:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I need help with my home it’s so hard the math is 4 - 2 [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:6AC5:4400:1970:72B5:C5EC:320|2A02:C7C:6AC5:4400:1970:72B5:C5EC:320]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:6AC5:4400:1970:72B5:C5EC:320|talk]]) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:52, 16 March 2024

Former good article nomineeSWAT was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on SWAT. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uvalde School Shooting

[edit]

Should there be a discussion of the details coming out about the Uvalde School shooting? Apparently 40% of the local budget was spent on the local police and SWAT force.[1] The local SWAT team, despite training specifically at local schools[2][3] did not intervene in the shooting.[4][5][6] Local police even inhibited Federal SWAT units from responding.[7] Overall it appears to be a situation like the Columbine High School massacre 23 years ago where the SWAT team and their tactics failed respond in a timely manner.

Suspect that I am not alone in seeing this as a watershed event that for the first time really brought to attention the question the actual public safety value of these SWAT teams bring, as seemingly are unable to actually respond when needed. So recommend that this gets added to the page. 98.45.199.13 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Pierce, Charles (2022-05-26). "There Were Good Guys With Guns and It Didn't Matter". Retrieved 2022-05-27. Uvalde spent 40 percent of its budget on its police force last year.
  2. ^ Gualt, Matthew (2022-05-26). "Uvalde SWAT Team Bragged About Training at Schools on Facebook". Vice News. Retrieved 2022-05-27. The purpose of the visits is to familiarize themselves with layouts of our local schools and businesses. S.W.A.T members will be in full tactical uniforms and we did not want the public to be alarmed when seen
  3. ^ Baker, Mike (2022-05-26). "Uvalde Had Prepared for School Shootings. It Did Not Stop the Rampage". New York Times. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  4. ^ Stelter, Brian (2022-05-27). "Texas newspaper editor says 'urgent questions' about Uvalde massacre have not been answered". CNN. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  5. ^ Evans, Gareth (2022-05-27). "Uvalde shooting: Texas police change key details as criticism mounts". BBC. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  6. ^ Brown, Elizabeth (2022-05-26). "Witnesses, Video Suggest Stunning Inaction From Uvalde Cops During School Shooting". Reason. Retrieved 2022-05-27. Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour went by between the time Ramos encountered the school security officer and when he was killed by the tactical team that included Border Patrol agents.
  7. ^ Marcus, Josh (2022-05-27). "Uvalde police stopped Border Patrol SWAT team from entering school sooner: report". Indepdendent. Retrieved 2022-05-27. Members of the Uvalde Police Department temporarily kept the elite team of Border Patrol commandos who ultimately killed Salvador Ramos from entering Robb Elementary School


Section about the special tactics missing

[edit]
Lift technique

There is a section on the weapons used by SWAT teams, but no section about the special tactics used. For example something about the lift technique that is shown in the article (see picture to the right) would be nice. Greetings, --Qaswed (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing mention of Iraqi prison break

[edit]

While interesting, the relevance of the riot is not clearly apparent considering that this is an article exclusively about United States law enforcement. It was not handled by US police but rather local security so unless we are expanding the scope of the article to include gendarmerie in general it seems harmless to remove it for consistency reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSory (talk • contribs) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the section on 10/1/2022 GreenBeret1439 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT

[edit]

What does the federal swat do? 2601:203:C100:E9D0:95BD:BB61:EF97:5B9B (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page

[edit]

As there are other nations with units called SWAT, perhaps rename this SWAT (United States)?

GreenBeret1439 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

[edit]

In "Popular Culture," add video game "Ready or Not" to the list of video games, with hyperlink to the Wikipedia page, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_or_Not_(video_game)" GuyScience (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with my home it’s so hard the math is 4 - 2 2A02:C7C:6AC5:4400:1970:72B5:C5EC:320 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:SWAT&oldid=1213963901"