Talk:SWAT/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about SWAT. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 15 November 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

SWAT → SWAT team – Nobody calls these units "SWATs". It's always "SWAT teams", so the "team" is an integral part of the name. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, "SWAT team" is much more common than "SWAT squad" or "SWAT unit".—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 *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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 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.

Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen "SWAT" used in my life without the word team or some synonym (although "team" is 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?

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?—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not professional slang at all. Mainstream media includes uses like these [1] and [2], using "SWAT officer" , "SWAT members" and "SWAT operations" , but not "SWAT team"? Or this example: [3]. 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Another good example would be this: [4]. 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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 should be nouns. Hence my feeling that SWAT needs to be combined with something like "team" to work as a title.—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. 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. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@67.70.35.44: Like I said to Niteshift above, ~~I'm pretty sure I've never seen "SWAT" used by itself without "team" or something similar after it~~ this seems like spoken slang that's not used in books and such. Do you know of any counterexamples?—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. [5][6][7][8] ; 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? -- 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. Red Slash 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. 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. -- Calidum 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 should be nouns. So we really need to add something to make it a noun—like "team".—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. 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. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- @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. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]).—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. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- @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.—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. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@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 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?—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. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@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 write exactly that the first time I edited this page. That, at least, is indisputable fact.—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. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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