Talk:SWAT

United States versus international SWAT police

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

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

Recent edits that I have reverted added China to this article. The English word SWAT is used in China as there is a photo of the word on a Chinese police officer's uniform as shown by an URL added by editor Thehistorianisaac. A 2023 journal article on police tactical units in China stated there were "900 teams with more than 48,000 enlisted officers [created] just within six years" and that "SWAT officers in China are recruited directly from society". Chinese SWAT is very different to SWAT in the US.

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

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

• Melbguy05, I've reverted your revert as irresponsible, since you removed text that was well-sourced, including for instance to this academic journal article on the topic [1]:

Demystifying China’s police tactical units

International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice

Volume 73, June 2023, 100595

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If a police force anywhere in the world uses the term "SWAT" according to reliable sources, as this one (International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 73:100595, 2023) does:

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

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

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

@Swatjester

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Requested move 20 May 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While many participants supported the idea of splitting content on Chinese SWAT units into a new article, there was also substantial support for the idea that U.S. SWAT units are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SWAT", and thus that this article should remain at its current title even if a split occurs. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

---

SWAT → SWAT (United States) – This article has been about SWAT units in the United States. Recent edits have added content on SWAT units in China to the article. There is a need to distinguish SWAT in the United States from SWAT in China, which can be accomplished by spitting (WP:CONTENTSPLIT) this article and creating a separate SWAT (China) article. A 2023 journal article titled "Demystifying China’s police tactical units" in the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice was according to the authors the first study in English language on SWAT in China. According to the authors, the first SWAT team was formed in China in 2005 and by 2010 there "more than 900 teams with more than 48,000 enlisted officers". The role of SWAT in China and the entry into SWAT is different to SWAT in the United States. The large number of teams and officers in China is notable to include in Wikipedia.

References

Melbguy05 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Split, not move per Steel1943 -- as I explained in the above section, SWAT is a U.S. concept that *some* other places in the world have adopted either in mechanics or in nomenclature (and rarely both simultaneously). Users looking for SWAT are overwhelmingly going to be looking for the U.S. concept, (as they'd be much more likely to be searching the specific national name/spelling for the rest of the world), so agree that it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. I'm not convinced that we won't eventually need a pure disambiguation page one day, but I don't think we're there yet; in the short term I think this can be handled with "in other countries" section combined with a hatnote indicating the U.S. focus of the article, and splitting any content that's significantly covered enough to merit its own article (which it sounds like China is probably a contender for.) This is a better solution anyway as it allows for more accurate redirecting and linking with related pages like Special police. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support either split or move per above section Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The decision of whether this page is the primary topic of "SWAT", or if there should be an overarching page, or a disambiguation, has no bearing on the utility of a separate SWAT (China) page. If the existence of such a separate page is not possible due to notability issues, there is no reason to move this page. If the existence of such a separate page is warranted, it should be created, at which point it would be easier to assess the potential impact on this page. (In summary, premature RM, content development should proceed elsewhere.) CMD (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The US term is clearly the primary topic and the short section on Chinese SWAT units can either stay where it is or be split out to SWAT (China). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Agreed with Steel1943's approproach. - Amigao (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources and changes

@Thehistorianisaac many of the changes that you have made [2] relies on questionable sources. If you are unable to provide reliable sources which substantiates them, then they will have to be reverted as required by policy. Nghtcmdr (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

You have not stated which sources are questionable, nor have you provided evidence to which sources are "questionable". In fact, NONE of the sources stated would be questionable in this context. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

All the PSB websites, the Paper, People's Daily, Hunan Daily, China News and the Communist Youth League of China. Since you want these sources and changes kept, it is your responsibility to provide the evidence that all these sources are reliable and can be used here. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It's funny how you consider these sources(particularly the PSB ones) unreliable, when they are very much reliable(in fact, you have failed to provide evidence they are not reliable):

(If you want more evidence of reliabilty or consensus, just go to wikiproject china)

• Public security bureau websites: It's literally a goverment agency, can't get much better than that
• The Paper: a widely used and reliable source and considered one of the more independent chinese sources(literally read the wikipedia article on it)
• People's Daily: Bit less independent, but one of China's largest newspapers(also it's listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject China's resources list) and also chinese gov owned
• Hunan daily: one of Hunan province's largest newspapers
• China News: another really commonly used Chinese source which has overall reliability
• CYL of China: Literally a goverment organization, can't get much more reliable than that

Again, please do not falsely accuse me of using "questionable sources" for sources that are widely considered reliable(in this context) just because you have never heard of them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Your argument that the sources are reliable requires approval from the wider community. Since you are the one restoring them and the related changes, you have the responsibility to start the discussion there; my opinion is that they should be deemed inadmissible since the sources are all state owned publications. However, in the intervening period, as you have yet to establish consensus for the reliability of your sources, that also means you have yet to establish consensus for the verifiability of the things you wrote. So the article needs to go back to the state it was in before you made your changes to it as enjoined by policy. Nghtcmdr (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

See the Chengguan talk page and WP:RSPMISSING

Again, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV) and Wikipedia:WikiProject China's resources list.

There has been consensus for the reliability of most of the above sources in a blanket category of generally reliable, in particular the paper and china news.

In fact, considering the bias you have against chinese sources(even against the literall public security bureau) shows that you have no idea what is a "reliable source" at best and WP:NOTHERE at worst. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The linked discussions do not address the reliability of the sources in question here. That is a claim you simply fabricated.

Are you going to start the discussion on the noticeboard as required by policy or not? Nghtcmdr (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, I did not fabricate those claims, you simply chose not to read properly.

As per the discussion, chinese state affiliated sources would be considered reliable in this context Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your linked noticeboard discussion shows one person who said Chinese state controlled publications could be used as long as "it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda." That is entirely different from the claim which you fabricated, which is that the participants there would have concluded that Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article. Nghtcmdr (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

1. You need to stop falsely accusing people of "fabricating" claims when they say something you do not like. See WP:NOPA.
2. The quote you used completely backed up my statement, as per consensus Chinese state affiliated sources can be used in non controversial contexts(I seriously question how somebody with WP:COMPETENCE can claim that this is controversial), and even in controversial contexts in text attribution could be a suitable replacement.
3. On the contrary, you have failed to provide evidence of my sources being unreliable outside of WP:RSPLIST(See WP:RSPMISSING), and the fact they are government affiliated(and your bias towards chinese sources, even for those who are not state affiliated, such as the chengguan article), which doesn't even mean anything at all in this context. Additionally, claims of this being a "sensitive topic" are completely baseless and don't make sense at all

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Prove it since you are repeatedly appealing to consensus. Show the exact location in your linked noticeboard discussion where the participants arrived at the conclusion where they would have said Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article. Nghtcmdr (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

1. The discussion came to a conclusion that chinese government affiliated sources could be used in non-controversial contexts, and it's basically indisputable that this falls under non-controversial contexts
2. Again, I would recommend WP:DTS. I see you're rather new here, and let me tell you, it is not worth trying to do WP:UPHILL. I would also recommend reading policies like WP:NPA(Don't falsely accuse people of fabricating claims just because you are losing an argument) and WP:RSPNOT, and properly read the things you are citing. It's not worth your time(and honestly, I also question why I'm even doing this), my time, or anybody else's time. Now, I'm also guilty of this, but do avoid edit warring.
3. Properly see what is a "reliable source" and not just from vibes.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked for its exact location, not broad description. Username, quotations, timestamps and the like. Nghtcmdr (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr I seriously don't understand what you are wanting here.

The conclusion, no matter how you interpret it, says that in an non-controversial context, that chinese gov affiliated sources outside of CGTN and global times can be used.

In fact, many of the sources I have used are huge news agencies with good reliability. If you don't trust me, I would suggest maybe asking WP:CHINA to see the opinions of other editors who know tonnes in this sphere. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac I am asking for the exact location on the noticeboard discussion where the participants arrived at the conclusion where they would have said Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article. I am asking for "username, quotations, timestamps and the like" as proof of its location. If you can't provide those details, then just say you can't provide them. Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The previous discussion I showed you [3] already shows that chinese state affiliated sources can generally be considered reliable in non-controversial contexts.

Additionally, on the main page of WP:CHINA, people's daily is listed on the resources list.

In fact, you have yet to provide evidence or any solid reason of the sources being unreliable. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to provide the discussion section, I asked you to provide the exact location (i.e. specific comment) within that section where the participants arrived at that conclusion. It would have to show that they would have agreed with your implied assertion that the topics related this article's subject matter is non-controversial. Nghtcmdr (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, the discussion is about Chinese state-affiliated sources in general.

You have failed to acknowledge the fact that no logical user would find this "controversial", nor have you found a logical reason to back up your claims Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not my burden to bear because I'm not the one appealing to consensus. You can't provide the location because you fabricated the positions of the participants who took part in that discussion. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr See WP:NPA, and stop (ironically) making lies of me "fabricating the claims". I will seek admin intervention if your incivility and lack of WP:AGF continues.

The discussion concluded(long time ago) that chinese state-affiliated sources can be used in contexts where they are likely to be reliable on. Additionally, you fail to acknowledge WP:NEWSORG and the fact that most sources I have used are known to be WP:REPUTABLE. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac It isn't incivility to state the truth. You made a claim, I asked you to provide the evidence and you were unable to. That's how fabrication works. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I provided the evidence and clarified it, you simply decided to reject it and do WP:PA. Even so, you should always adhere to WP:AGF as it is a core policy. I will not respond to any further queries and I am in the process of seeking admin intervention. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I look forward to continuing the dispute with you there. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

These sources listed are not exactly WP:IS. (The guidance at WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA is probably the most applicable here.) While they can still be used with WP:INTEXT attribution for some things, we ought to try to stick with academic WP:BESTSOURCES (or WP:GREL whenever possible) to minimize these types of issues cropping up. - Amigao (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

This ain't some extremely controversial thing and likely won't even need WP:INTEXT. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao I am not clear on what it is that you are recommending. The dispute involves two sets of issues on dueling versions of the article. [4] [5] The 1st has to do with how the section "Use of term in other countries" is written while the 2nd has to do with the usability of PSB websites. It appears that you prefer my version of the "Use..." section since it is drawn from a journal article while the other version uses state-owned publications, but I can't tell what your opinion is on this issue of the usability of PSB websites. Can you clarify your solutions for the two problem sets? Nghtcmdr (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr It is absolutely absurd about what you consider a usable source. Saying the PSB websites are not useable is like saying the LAPD source used is "unreliable" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac You need to let the other user speak for themselves. Nghtcmdr (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm simply giving you the answer. I think the PSB websites aren't even disputable on reliability. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

And once again, I am telling you that you need to give the other user space so they can give their answer. Nghtcmdr (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

you need to give the other user space

See WP:NOTPAPER. Again, no offense, but I really doubt whether you know enough in this field to be deleting well sourced info if you consider the websites of the police departments to be "unreliable". I would also suggest WP:ABOUTSELF. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

PSB websites are mostly fine for purely WP:ABOUTSELF topics. Reliability issues can arise if/when they make factual claims about third-party events, persons, and topics. - Amigao (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that it's mostly a WP:RS in most cases, even outside of WP:ABOUTSELF as a government website Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what "most cases" would even mean here. That said, community consensus for usage of WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA is more germane guidance when dealing with similar state or party media outlets. - Amigao (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you recommending that the websites be removed from the article? Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No, WP:ABOUTSELF means that it is reliable in this contexts. Please read policies correctly Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely would suggest actually reading those policies rather than trying to interpret it in the way you want. Trust me, life is easier if you actually see what the policies are saying. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, you're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm just telling you the objective truth. The other user likely will give you the same answer anyways, and I would suggest actually reading the policy. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As a follow up to my initial complaint, I have found that a lot of the information that you wrote which you sourced from the state-owned publications can also be found in the journal source (International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice), such as the ones relating to naming and equipment. Not only do your changes suffer from sourcing and neutrality problems (they rely on state-owned publications to explain a sensitive topic - in this case, law enforcement - which involves the same state), it also suffers from a redundancy problem. Nghtcmdr (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no Idea what is going on with you, but "police tactical units" is not at all a "sensitive topic" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I said law enforcement, not PTU Nghtcmdr (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Same thing in this context(this isn't law enforcement in general). Law enforcement in general is almost always not considered a sensitive topic, no idea how you managed to spit out neutrality problems Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely is a sensitive topic Nghtcmdr (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

Is anything the source mentioned a "controversial topic"?

In fact, police corruption is barely mentioned in the article(and has nothing to do with the article), and on Chinese media it ain't even that "controversial". You could find tonnes of chinese state affiliated media of corrupt cops getting arrested/fired, so what makes you think this is "controversial"?

Another piece of advice as a more experienced editor, I don't mean to offend you or make fun of you, but if you intend on deleting sourced info or adding more info, I would not suggest doing it to a field you are not familiar with. I often am interested in animal topics, though I don't edit animal related articles since I am not the most familiar with it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac it doesn't matter if the material in the sources are controversial, the point is that the sources themselves and topic under which the material from the sources fall is controversial. Nghtcmdr (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

In that case your argument does not make sense at all. would also suggest checking out Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, which you seem to be trying to do(even though you, frankly, no idea what the policies mean).

Firstly, the topic in the article is not controversial, the fact that China has SWAT has absolutely nothing to do with police brutality or corruption. Secondly, controversial topics does not mean the sources are unreliable, Chinese(and international) state affiliated media have covered incidents of their own police officers committing acts of police brutality, doesn't mean it is unreliable.

The topic(of the article itself, not law enforcement in general) is not controversial, at least in the context of what I've added, and even if it was controversial the unreliability would have to be a case by case basis.

Again, I really think you should read WP:GOI, WP:UPHILL and WP:WINNING - There are much better things you can be doing rather than misunderstanding or ignoring policies you don't like and accusing people of "fabricating claims". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac My argument absolutely makes sense. State-owned publications can't be relied upon to explain sensitive topics - like law enforcement which involves the use of state power - due to the means, motivations and opportunities on the part of the authors to spread disinformation and propaganda. This is something which has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, including, ironically, during the time you took part in the BB/CCTV discussion [6]. Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any proper evidence of the sources I have used being "Propanganda" in this instance, or anything I have added being "Sensitive topics"?

Your argument, again, is completely based of taking things out of context. In fact, most of the sources I have used cannot be considered "disinformation" in this instance. Your personal bias towards Chinese sources should not be used as a basis to remove information that has been properly sourced. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You're attacking a strawman argument. The issue isn't about the usability of a specific source, the issue is about the usability of a type of source. Nghtcmdr (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, the vast majority of sources used, like it or not, would fall under WP:NEWSORG.

On the other hand, you fail to back up you argument with evidence that this is a "controversial topic"(which, anybody can tell you, is not.) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Prove it. Show the part of the criteria that your sources meet. Nghtcmdr (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, see [7]. Additionally, WP:NEWSORG is not a criteria, it is a series of guidelines regarding reputable sources, all of which are met.

All of the news sources(The Paper, People's Daily, Hunan Daily and China News Service) are considered generally WP:REPUTABLE. If you want more proof, I would suggest asking other editors on WP:CHINA, who also know tonnes on Chinese sources. If you don't want to listen to me explain policies correctly, I'm sure more even more experienced editors there would be willing to listen.

Also, I would highly suggest seeing WP:BLUDGEON and WP:FILIBUSTER. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The People's Daily has definitely been discussed on WP:RSN before. If it ever goes through a formal RfC there, one would likely see a similar outcome to that of WP:XINHUA or WP:CHINADAILY. - Amigao (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Community consensus([8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) along with policies(WP:NEWSORG, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:RSPNOT) have all shown that in this case, the sources are likely to be reliable in this context(I still don't know how you managed to reach the conclusion of the contrary), so I would recommend ending the argument. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

China and Notable Incidents sections

@Thehistorianisaac, following the advice given by @Jumpytoo from the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [13] [14], there are two outstanding areas of disagreement created by our dueling versions of the article [15] [16] which needs to be addressed, one coming from the "China" section and the other from the "Notable Incidents" section. For the China-related disagreements, my write up of the section should be preferred since it 1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version 3) uses a better type of source in the form of a peer-reviewed publication 4) as opposed to state-controlled ones and which is 5) in the English language. You disagree, so please explain your reasoning here.

For the Notable Incidents-related disagreements, our comments on the noticeboard make clear we have contrasting views on the section’s sourcing [17] [18], but neither of us have been able to properly explain our positions so this "talk" section should provide us with the opportunity to do that. It is possible that we will not be able to resolve this disagreement on our own, but where I think we can agree as a starting point is that some of the entries cite sources which are already contained in the linked article that explains the incident. I do not think you will find it objectionable that redundant information is removed, so I have taken out those sources. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

What needs to be addressed much more is the discussion on ANI regarding your misconduct. Your personal objection to the content I added can always wait(and has overall gone against general consensus), however your conduct towards other editors and ignorance of policies should be immediately addressed.

Additionally, your write up has blatantly removed properly sourced info from reliable sources 1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version is a rather huge false claim if you actually review the differences. The journal is used either way, but the state affiliated sources I have added are generally considered WP:REPUTABLE and are overall reliable in this context, despite your false claims. For the incidents section, it's generally okay to keep the sources there. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, you saying "Your write up should be prefered" has nothing to do since it goes against consensus. In fact, @Jumpytoo, which you have cited, explicitly stated there are no problems with my current revision. If you proceed with this change, I shall revert it as it goes against consensus(which you tell me to seek, yet you ignore when it goes against what you think the article is) and is blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Debate on the basis of policy, not personality. Pleases state policy-based objections to my proposals. Saying "my sources are reliable because I think they are" or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments. Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

The sources have been confirmed through consensus to be reliable in this context, and for your second quote, "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said", like it or not, there is consensus, and consensus has shown my version has no changes, and it is objective truth that my version has more information.

Again, you have shown blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You have failed to recognize policies, and when you demanded consensus which ended up being against you, you have ignored consensus. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)