Talk:Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

There was a disturbing report^[1] that the president used force against church staff in order to clear the venue for his photo op. If this can be confirmed then it belongs in the article.

Seems like consensus this needs a better name. I like Trump St. John's photo Op.Casprings (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I already made a bold move before I saw this. How about '

Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church'? - MrX 🖋

20:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Kind of combines everything.Maybe Donald Trump St. John's Church photo-op or Trump's St. John's Church photo-opas a slight improvement. A little shorter Casprings (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I think we need to keep the title neutral, and it seemed like the consensus in the deletion vote was for Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church or something along those lines.The lorax (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

In what way is the proposed title not a neutral (point of view)? It is an indisputable fact that the visit was a photo-op. Most sources appear to be characterizing it that way. - MrX 🖋 20:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I initially favored some title that refers to the forced dispersal of demonstrators from Lafayette Square, but it seems that demonstrators were also forced out from the street and the churchyard as well. So I'm not sure. I guess MrX's title is the best for now, but I'm not crazy about any one option. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't love "photo-op," since it feels a little jargony and a little informal. That said, I don't have a better suggestion and I've come around, I guess. Looking just now for the most recent sources, I see "photo-op" in a whole lot of headlines. So meh. "Donald Trump controversy at St. John's Church" was the first thing that popped into my head, but, well, it's not all that "controversial." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You may not think it is all that controversial, but Episcopalian clergy don't agree [1] There could be a whole article Denunciation by Religious Leaders of Trump's Photo-Op at St John's Church. Episcopal and other religious leaders have said they were "outraged" "shocked" "horrified", describing what he did as an "abuse" a "desecration" " disgraceful and morally repugnant" "blasphemy". My impulse is to expand that section with more cites to their horror and condemnation but I will hang on for right now.Smeat75 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're making my point. Where's the controversy? I'm yet to see any reliable source publish material that was anything but harshly critical of this event. If they could just get on board with a common name involving "fiasco" or somesuch it would make our jobs easier. Alas, it doesn't seem like good practice to use a word like that without a clear consensus in the sources first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see what you meant. Sorry I thought you were saying "it's not a big deal. " The Episcopal church thinks it is a VERY big deal. Smeat75 (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

For now, I think we should revert back to Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church per the majority vote at the AfD.The lorax (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose that because Trump didn't really visit the church: he made no formal remarks, did not meet clergy or congregants, did not pray, and did not enter the building. It would be accurate to say "appearance in front of" the church rather than "visit to" the church, but that's rather wordy. Neutrality^talk 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, he did not visit the church. He posed for pictures outside it. I think the current title is fine. Smeat75 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies, but the "visit" language is so unlikely to stick that it's probably best to go through a proposal process IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 22:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definitions:

Visit: "to go to see or stay at (a place) for a particular purpose (such as business or sightseeing)" or "to go or come officially to inspect or oversee".

Photo opportunity: "a situation or event that lends itself to and is often arranged expressly for the taking of pictures that give favorable publicity to the individuals photographed"

Clearly, the visit included a photo-op. Indeed, it also appears that the photo op was the clear purpose of the visit. However, the word "visit" would also cover Trump's asserted purpose, "to pay my respects" as well as the walk to and from the church, for which the protesters were cleared. The last part is important not only logistically but with respect to the intent of others involved in the visit, including Esper who stated he was unaware there would be a photo op. All that said, I don't really have a strong opinion outside of the concern that the term "photo-op" has an editorialized sound and suggests we're rejecting Trump's claim that the he was also there to pay his respects. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION seems to suggest using the more precise description of the visit: photo-op. - MrX 🖋

01:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Militarized photo-op. Needs to convey both the agony and the ecstasy. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Militarized visit to a church for a photo-op to prove he wasn't really hiding in a bunker tweeting." ?? too long? BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)|

No, that's perfect! - MrX 🖋 23:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is good new title by MrX, agree. It is neutral and descriptive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support
  Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church' - proposed by MrX. That's what RS[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] call it, and, that's exactly what it is/was - a photo-op. BetsyRMadison (talk
  ) 11:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the article moves during the AFD were well-intentioned, but unhelpful: several people have commented in the AFD "I agree with the new name", but haven't specified which, making most of the posts calling for a rename impossible to understand. Capewearer (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am going to move the article back to "Donald Trump visit to St. John's church," the title it was moved to during the AfD. There is no consensus here to move it to "photo op," and that title is arguably non-neutral. No further moves should be made without a formal Move Request and a formal closure. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Trump bible controversy. You went to a title that has less apparent consensus for no rationale but (perhaps) your own preferences.Casprings (talk
  ) 23:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Casprings speaks the truth. What say you MelanieN? - MrX 🖋 23:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I also spoke the truth (note "the title it was moved to during the AfD"). Yes, it started out as "Trump bible controversy", but a lot of people at the AfD objected to that title. Partway through the discussion it was apparently merged with another draft and became more substantial. It then got more "keep" votes and more suggestions for a name change, with no consensus but quite a few people mentioning "Donald Trump visit to St. John's church". It was changed to "Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church" partway through the discussion and I didn't see any objections. That was the name it had when it emerged from the discussion as "keep". The closer noted "the article has already been moved" and suggested the name be discussed elsewhere. That's what needs to happen now. Without move warring in the meantime. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Unless I'm mistaken, the AfD was closed at 15:02, June 4, 2020 and I moved the page at 20:16, June 3, 2020. About seven hours priot to that, I objected to the "visit" title[8] that was floated. Not that any of this really matters at this point. - MrX 🖋 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It does matter. Quoting

WP:AFD: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts". I'm OK with the current title of "Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church", but that's irrelevant, because moving the article a second time in the middle of an AFD, while the name was being actively discussed, was a bad idea. Capewearer (talk

) 07:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it certainly made the actual action of closing more difficult. The XfDcloser script broke when I tried to apply it to the "target" title, and then put stuff in the wrong place when I applied it to the redirect

Trump bible controversy that was in the AfD name. The script allows for a move, but I think two moves might have been too much for it. This comment doesn't really have anything to do with any title discussion, it's just a plea: please don't move articles during an AfD, especially not more than once. Bishonen | tålk

08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Most sources seem to be referring to it as the church photo-op. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

So you changed the page from what was the apparent consensus on the talk page (see move discussion now) because of a suggested title on an AFD page. Craziness.Casprings (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Photo-Op" is blatantly POV, and unbalanced, and undescriptive. It's like referring to the Gettysburg Address as a "chance for attention", not that I'm comparing the relative significance of those two events. Why not just call it as it happened? Trump traveled to St. John's church and gave an address. "Donald Trump's address at St. John's church". Why dress it up in slang? I would like to point out that the tone of news headlines might not be appropriate for an Encyclopedia. Last I looked, the title of the Wikipedia article on the attack on Pearl Harbor does not include the words "dastardly" or "infamy". Asgrrr (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump gave no address at the church. That is why it's being called photo-op. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the article itself, Trump made comments amounting to two lines. The chapter heading is "Appearance at St. John's Church", this heading does not contain the phrase "photo-op". What is wrong with "Appearance"? Again, why dress it up in slang? The article further states "It was his third visit to the church since being elected President." So it was a visit. Why not call it a visit? Why dress it up in slang? Asgrrr (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Cite any RS for address. RS describe it as a photo-op and described his fidgets and tryouts of alternative poses with the bible and his mugging with a variety of facial exprpessions. So it's clear from the way journalists and commentators have described it that it was a Kodak moment. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Photo-op" is SLANG. It is completely inappropriate for an Encyclopedia title. Asgrrr (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

And, no. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

” The term has acquired a negative connotation” expressly violates

WP:NPOV Anon0098 (talk

) 07:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sugestion: A fairly new contributor, I [
  Tiananmen Square massacre is one of the Redirects. The focus of attention should not be drawn to the propaganda itself, but rather the violation of Constitutionally-protected rights by an increasingly seemingly authoritarian-leaning U.S. federal government. For now, a Redirect from 2020 Lafayette Square assault to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Clearing Lafayette Square would seem appropriate. But ultimately, this article should eventually be restructured to reflect the more important aspect of the police assault on the nonviolent demonstrators and media reporters, with the photo op being a secondary and subsequent event to the assault itself. Please consider this suggestion. --- "TuT" Tutombist (talk
  ) 14:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with that. What has received the most attention and has the most coverage? Is it the photo op or is it the clearly out of protestors? Casprings (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If we go that way, it should be something like 2020 Trump DC photo-op assault to get the relevant terms into a compact title and search engine term. What are likely to be the most searched word combinations? SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That isn't a bad title. Should you get protestors in there too? That s likely searched for too. Maybe, "Trump assault on protestors for photo-op" The might be too long.Casprings (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's wise to pull in relevant searchable terms for a concise title. We can also use the power of the Redirects to draw in the user searches for analogous, relevant searches by other popular word combinations. I think we should find consensus over good page Redirects, as well, to resolve the title adjustment. --- Tutombist (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Support, 2020 Lafayette Square assault is more specific to what happened to protesters/reporters, and naming it that IMHO is more NPOV than our present title.The lorax (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe it seems the news media is finally coming around to more fully appreciate the gravity of the brutality of the assault. --- Tutombist (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder whether most readers and searchers know "Lafayette Square" as a primary title and search term. It seems to me that "Trump" and "protesters" and "assault" are the three must-have elements. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your thoughts there. Additionally, DC's mayor Bowser just renamed the blocks of 16th St. adjacent to the Square as "Black Lives Matter Plaza", which could be conflated with the park space and further add to the confusion of readers searching for the page. I think we should be flexible as these things develop and provide the proper Redirects to link to the main article. Ideas? --- Tutombist (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed title would conform to

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. There were some assaults committed in clearing a path for Trump's photo op, but only three of the sources cited in this article use "assault" in their headlines compared to 29 that use "photo". - MrX 🖋

11:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree the that news media are slow to recognize the importance of the violent violation of First-Amendment rights, but in my own opinion, and probably that of many others, the weight of that aspect of the day's events may ultimately overwhelm the image of the scene surrounding the photo op itself. I think it might be good to consider somehow restructuring the page such that the assault is briefly touched upon in this article, but perhaps the Lafayette Square assault should be branched off to its own page 2020 Lafayette Square assault, linked at the header for the Clearing Lafayette Square section of this article. --- Tutombist (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not support moving the details of the attacks on protesters to another article. That's the core of this historic event. Press and demonstrators were assaulted to clear the way for Trump to pose for photos. Smeat75 (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I certainly can't argue with that. Then perhaps a number of search-inclusive terms for alternate titles could be employed as Redirects to this page, once we settle on a name. --- Tutombist (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we rename this main page 2020 Lafayette Square assault and have the current photo op title Redirect to this article? I encourage everyone to find and study video of this event to make an appropriate judgement. The Telegraph has one camera angle, while CNN has a more dramatic shot. --- Tutombist (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

... And Reuters had live coverage on the day. The assault begins about 28 minutes into the video stream. --- Tutombist (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• In likely the most comprehensive local reporting to date, The Washington Post lays out the situation observed by numerous sources. The video report draws upon a compilation of news media and protest participants accounts, as well as audio records/transcripts from police communications and other governmental records. This shows, without question, an integration of military tactics into the policing of the overwhelmingly peaceful crowds of demonstrators and news observers. As the chemical agents and flash grenades were being deployed against the legal demonstrators, the president expressed the intent to attempt to invoke authority under the Insurrection Act to move civilian and military force against his citizenry exercising legal protest for redress of grievances as enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When the crew for an international news outlet are violently assaulted by law enforcement agents, other video evidence documents this very violence. This one act alone is a naked and manifest affront to the fundamental nature of the American experiment in democracy and self-governance. This article needs to be titled what it sincerely was: an assault upon a legal government petition and legal press observation, at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, by various law enforcement officers at the direction of government officials. It is widely understood that a healthy and peace-seeking democracy should not bear witness to this abuse of power and permit it to stand as normalized and justified. The U.S. has condemned this exact behavior in other countries, including in China. State violence against
  WP:CONSISTENT with the Wikipedia community's treatment of the titling for the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests/massacre. The scope of this article now rightfully transcends one man's pursuit of vanity and a show of strength; it outlines the contours of a moment of national reckoning for the U.S., and its title must reflect the same. This is why I promote 2020 Lafayette Square assault or indeed 2020 Lafayette Square Assault, as it soon may come to be internationally recognized for its importance as an inflection point in the arc of the moral universe. --- Tutombist (talk
  ) 06:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Important to keep in St. John's in title, as clergy were gassed in churchyard for a photo-op. Feoffer (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just gas drifting in; they were also pushed out by the invading troops. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m a bit late to the party but this needs to be said. Hundreds to several thousands were killed in the

WP:NPOV Anon0098 (talk

) 07:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you've studied the video evidence. --- Tutombist (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A prima facie case for assault has three components: 1. A person performs an action; 2. That person intends to cause a victim imminent harmful contact; 3. That person's action causes that victim to receive such contact. Please review the video documentation of that day. --- Tutombist (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I was speaking to the consistency of naming between the two events; no equivalence of content was suggested between them. The similarity that I was pointing to is the directness of naming an event for what it is and what it represents more broadly in human history. This was not a massacre, this was an assault by several law enforcement officials on several protesters and media personnel. This represents, more broadly, the U.S. in its slide to becoming a police state, should our societal norms and laws continue to be violated or ignored by increasingly authoritarian executive arms of our local, state, and federal governments. We should not seek to be hamstrung by conforming to the weak and nondescriptive media portrayal of the day's event. --- Tutombist (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could elaborate and more precisely define your argument for why this new name would constitute a POV issue? --- Tutombist (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The term "slippery slope" doesn't even do the tragedy of this state-sponsored assault any justice in fully representing the scope of its long-lasting implications. To be blind or to blind others to the importance of recognizing a government assault on its own peaceful protesters is to do incalculable damage to your fellow countrymen. To allow one's government to act with seemingly unrestrained force against an overwhelmingly peaceful, lawful display of public speech and media coverage is to concede that we can no longer rely on peaceful means to correct the actions of an overbearing or increasingly lawless governing authority. It is to concede that the public is not fit to speak for itself in its “democracy”. It is to concede that authoritarianism is supreme over self-governance in the United States of America.

What seems to be lost in the reluctance to accept the overwhelming importance of the assault during this event is that the United States of America is purportedly a Constitutional Republic. A Republic, where our government is a body of elected representative leaders who: craft laws and other legislation to protect and serve us, faithfully execute those laws, and nominate and confirm folks to judicial positions where that legislation is interpreted and deemed constitutional or unconstitutional. A Constitution, where a set of our fundamental, founding principles are documented for continual reference throughout the years of its government's/society's existence.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, where the safeguards of individual liberty are stated:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Allow me highlight the important/pertinent bit: a government is prohibited from abridging its citizens' fundamental right to petition that government for redress of grievances; and the government is prohibited from abridging that freedom of speech or the press coverage of that speech.

What happened on the day of the 2020 Lafayette Square Assault is that a lawful and peaceful petition was abridged by way of physical assault by the executive arm of that protest's participants' own elected government. American citizens payed their government to hire "law enforcement officers" who, in turn, deemed the free speech of a subset of their countrymen not worthy of protection, for whatever reason it ultimately may have been, but instead pushed, beat, shot, and gassed the petitioners.

If this is the behavior of a healthy government in the twenty-first century, then our future as a human species is in grave danger.

If you have gotten here, I thank you for your time and consideration. I will continue to push for the appropriate title: 2020 Lafayette Square Assault --- Tutombist (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming the article as suggested. It wasn't an assault on a square, it was an attack on peaceful protesters to clear a way so Trump could pose for pictures holding a Bible outside the church. I think it is essential that "Trump" and "church" remain in the title.Smeat75 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you've studied the video evidence. --- Tutombist (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A prima facie case for assault has three components: 1. A person performs an action; 2. That person intends to cause a victim imminent harmful contact; 3. That person's action causes that victim to receive such contact. Please review the video documentation of that day. --- Tutombist (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The attack you reference was an assault by several law enforcement officials on several protesters and media personnel in Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020. I think consensus can be built around keeping the current title as a Redirect to this page and switch the Redirect of

2020 Lafayette Square assault as the main title. --- Tutombist (talk

) 12:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming the article. Using "assault" in the title is some serious POV. It's not how the incident is referred to in most reliable sources. Current title is fine. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you've studied the video evidence. --- Tutombist (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A prima facie case for assault has three components: 1. A person performs an action; 2. That person intends to cause a victim imminent harmful contact; 3. That person's action causes that victim to receive such contact. Please review the video documentation of that day. --- Tutombist (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We should not seek to be hamstrung by conforming to the weak and nondescriptive media portrayal of the day's event. Please observe the video evidence, and I believe one would rightfully come away with the impression that this was an unlawful use of force, an assault on protesters by law enforcement officers. I agree, the current title is fine as a Redirect to this page. --- Tutombist (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could elaborate and more precisely define your argument for why this new name would constitute a POV issue? --- Tutombist (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is Trump's visit to this memorial not mentioned in this article. That was getting criticised before he went there and IMO does not need a separate article as it is part of the same "controversy". Games of the world (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church#Trump's_visit_to_Catholic_shrine_the_following_day. starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Would any of the following qualify under fair use?

• Seven News: video (1:29 seconds)
• MSNBC: split screen (from this article)
• New York Times: video (5 seconds) (from this article)

- Wikmoz (talk) 23:47, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but our

WP:NFCC standards are more strict. - MrX 🖋

00:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not likely, as we can't use non-free content when a compatibly licensed alternative is available. In this case the compatibly licensed alternative is descriptive prose that we write ourselves.— Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback! Reading up a little more, it does seem like the MSNBC screenshot qualifies under Template:Non-free television screenshot and Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-screenshot as the fact that the speech was displayed on most news networks in split screen described as surreal and a split screen for the ages and incredible is a notable part of this story. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: @Wikmoz: @MrX: : Template:External media can be used where appropriate

—:—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we do not link to a potential copyright violation. - MrX 🖋 11:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump campaign claims that tear gas wasn't used. However, reliable sources cite that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies pepper spray, as used in the pepper balls during this visit, as "riot control agents" and "tear gas":

1. The Washington Post [9]
2. USA Today [10]
3. Al Jazeera [11]
4. Forbes staff [12], not a Forbes contributor
5. Politico [13]
6. Associated Press [14] - which not only quotes the CDC, but also the Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents also uses tear gas as an informal umbrella term for riot-control agents and cites pepper spray as one kind.

In light of these six reputable sources, should we include this information in the article? starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, we should call tear-gas, tear-gas. Here's another source: the Washington Post [15] the C.D.C. says it is tear gas. According to RS, Trump's version, 'it wasn't tear gas' is not the truth. I say we stick with truth [16]: 'Trump used tear-gas against protesters so he could clear the way for a photo-op.' BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, sure. All RS tell that was tear gas because it cased tears and other more serious typical symptoms. Saying that, it would be worth including what exactly variety of the tear gas they used (there are several different compounds). I hope that US government will not keep it secret, as Russian government did after poisoning people in the theater. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a guess as to how that's gonna turn out. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, we should reflect RS. If there is quibbling about the exact kind of agent that was used or terminology, that can be put as a footnote. But we should say in the body of the article that tear gas was used. Neutrality^talk 16:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, we should reflect the facts as they are known. It appears that we now have sufficient evidence given the fact checks cited by Starship.paint. Further, WUSA9 collected both OC and CS cannisters after the protest. Description of both here. Earlier arguments that pepper balls contain irritants similar to tear gas thus make them the same as using tear gas required a creative interpretation of the term and distracted from the actual question of whether police used pepper spray and conventional tear gas. - Wikmoz (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes,
  WP:RS. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk
  ) 17:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and I just changed it in a couple of places, and added a note to the footnote about the CDC, since this discussion seems headed for
  WP:SNOW anyway. JimKaatFan (talk
  ) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• (comment) CBS affiliate WUSA9 reports [17], "Gas canisters collected by WUSA9 crews Monday night indicate that artificial CS tear gas was indeed used by federal law enforcement agents clearing out the protesters next to Lafayette Square. The canisters, newly analyzed by WUSA9, show that not only was natural OC gas used, as previously reported, but that artificial CS gas, or what is more commonly known as tear gas, was used as well." BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Update: Added tear gas to the body earlier but to be extra careful, I've removed "tear gas" from the lead for the moment. Added a
  section summarizing what is known. USPP issued an updated statement on June 4: "USPP officers and other assisting law enforcement partners did not use tear gas or OC Skat Shells to close the area at Lafayette Park." We should give the fact checkers another day or two. - Wikmoz (talk
  ) 06:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are YouTube videos seen by millions of people. Everyone saw the clouds and the reactions by people to the aerosol on these video. This source tells it was PAVA spray aka Nonivamide, a compound acting on the same TRPV1 receptors as all other tear "gases" (aerosols). My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that we're even having this discussion means "tear gas" bears mentioning in the lead. An overwhelming number of sources are clear, often in their headlines and first sentences, about the use of tear gas. Avoiding mention of it to appease people coming at this issue from a particular POV is way out of line and not what Wikipedia is for. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

True. Besides, we have a whole subsection about tear gas on the page. Therefore, it must be included in the lead, exactly as you and some other say. My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the original lead and added the subsection you're referencing. The use of force against peaceful protesters and the violation of First Amendment rights is the headline. While the evidence is overwhelming that tear gas was used and I noted as much in the body, it was a issue of significant contention that I don't believe we needed to take a position in the lead... yet. The edit was intented to be temporary pending additional fact checking work which is ongoing. We're having this discussion in part because it's an issue that as of 12 hours ago had official denials from Trump and multiple law enforcement agencies. Subsequently, it looks like the USPP is now walking back their denial. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that link, Wikmoz, I hadn't seen that article and wasn't aware of that news (great picture too). I also apologize if it seemed like I was criticizing you; that was not my intent, and I completely understand the rationale behind the edit. I had no doubt that you were acting in good faith. Given the sources, though, I felt that was an overabundance of caution that stretched into appeasement of other editors who were not acting in good faith, and pushing a POV that is not supported by the sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an historic event that should be carefully documented. Please continue to assume

WP:GOODFAITH when critiquing individual edits. - Wikmoz (talk

) 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: WUSA9 added an image of a fragment from a Stinger OC Grenade. Representitive Betty McCollum wrote a letter to USPP demanding answers. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

So they used Stinger Ball grenades, those. "The Stinger® OC Grenade is a maximum effect device that delivers four stimuli for psychological and physiological effects: rubber pellets, light, sound, and OC.", "WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including Lead Salts and Hexavalent Chromium, which are known to the State of California to cause cancer, and Lead Salts, which are known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.". OK. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Donald Trump posing with
a Bible at St. John's Church

• ... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants, including
  Donald Trump's visit to St. John's Church? (pictured) Source: factcheck.org
  • ALT1:... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants, including
    Donald Trump's photo-op at St. John's Church? (pictured) Source: factcheck.org
  • ALT2:... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants, including
    pepper balls, to disperse protesters shortly before President Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church? (pictured) Source: factcheck.org

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoltán Peskó

Created by Tinton5 (talk), Wikmoz (talk), Neutrality (talk), Starship.paint (talk), and Mliu92 (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 03:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

• Note: page is under move discussion, thus the different titles in the main hook and ALT1. starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Page has been moved to

Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church. starship.paint (talk

) 03:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just moved again, Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, hence ALT2. starship.paint (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• ready in my opinion, though I'm far from a regular here at DYK. Very important subject, I hope it is officially scheduled asap. Feoffer (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Feoffer! starship.paint (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• five main DYK criteria have been met. An optional Reviewer's Template is located above the edit window. Thank you, Yoninah (talk
  ) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral : Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed : Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Feoffer (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a note - this image is not used in the article, but it is a cropped version of the main image of the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: someone added this note on the talk page of this template:
• The fact they were peaceful should be included. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay Valjean, if the Big Three [18] [19] [20] news agencies say they're peaceful, they were. starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

ALT3:... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants, including pepper balls, to disperse peaceful protesters shortly before President Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church? (pictured) Source for peaceful protesters cleared with chemical agents: Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Presse. Source for everything else: factcheck.org

• Feoffer - ALT3 for your consideration ^ starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me! Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Valjean (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @
  inline cite and close paraphrasing, and then give it a new tick. Thanks, Yoninah (talk
  ) 10:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral : Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed : Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Feoffer: thank you. BTW since you already reviewed the nomination, you just have to review a couple of the criteria for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Something sounds POV to me about calling them "peaceful protestors" instead of "a peaceful protest". I suggest this alt:
• ALT3a: ... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants, including pepper balls, to disperse a peaceful protest shortly before President Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church (pictured)?
• However, this doesn't really indicate what the peaceful protest was for. Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: ALT4 - that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants to disperse peaceful George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., shortly before President Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church? (pictured)? starship.paint (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: thank you. But shouldn't it read: to disperse a peaceful George Floyd protest in Washington, D.C.? There's also a tag in the 8th paragraph under Background. Yoninah (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: - for the tag, unfortunately the source doesn't say by whom, so I can't answer that, but I've tried to reword the sentence to clarify that it was part of the federal response. See below for the hook, thanks for catching that. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

ALT4a ... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants to disperse a peaceful George Floyd protest in Washington, D.C., shortly before President Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church (pictured)? starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Restoring tick for ALT4a per Feoffer's review. Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Could someone promote DYK nomination to prep area?

This nomination of Did you know nominations/Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church is ready for promotion to a prep are, but I can't do it as I'm also the reviewer. Instructions are at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Instructions_on_how_to_promote_a_hook Feoffer (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @
  WP:DYKNA first, I believe the WP:DYK regular editors are quite prompt in doing that, Yoninah's already been around. I think the prep area though, will take more time, there's a backlog dating to March 7, so we should be quite far behind. starship.paint (talk
  ) 05:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The article and its reliable sources reflect the fact that tear gas was used. User Wikmoz reverted a section heading and clarifying the RSes' skepticism toward Park Police's denial.

Wikimoz argues that "given official denials, it's worth giving this another day or two to let the fact checkers dig deeper". I disagree per

1. AP fact check - "There’s evidence they did."
2. Factcheck.org fact check - "some sources consider pepper spray a type of tear gas, while others say both chemicals have the same effect on people."
3. Politifact fact check - "McEnany makes much of the differences in the delivery systems, but the practical effects are similar. We rate her claim Mostly False."
4. CNN fact check- "Arguing that authorities did not use tear gas gives the false impression that irritants weren't used against the crowd, and attempts to draw a technical distinction between two nonlethal compounds that have the same broad effects on people, causing blurry vision, burning in the eyes and nose, and more."

- starship.paint (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored per your excellent sources. Feoffer (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Fact-checkers from the Associated Press, CNN, Factcheck.org, and Politifact have reported on this issue. The specific compound which the Park Police denied using was

U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Scientific American, and the Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents. Thus, the fact-checkers reported that differences between pepper spray and traditional tear gas compounds are only semantics

, because the practical effects were the same. All these compounds are chemical irritants that affect the eyes, throat, and other areas, causing tearing, coughing and other effects. Furthermore, the effects of chemical irritants were clearly reported during this incident.

Based on these sources, this is what I wrote. starship.paint (talk)

To starship - you've done excellent work. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading the fact checkers, they all indicate nuance here in competing definitions of "tear gas" as reflected in the "mostly false" Politifact rating and words of the other reports. I think the paragraph you added reflects this and is great. I suggested keeping "controversy" as a more accurate description pending a walkback of the denial or an agency owning up to dispersing the OC and CS cannisters, which will make the whole pepper ball debate moot. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah!

WP:BLUESKY is the policy I've been searching for lately. I couldn't remember the title. - Wikmoz (talk

) 22:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I'm fine either way with the above section titles, at present. starship.paint (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• And BTW, using tear gas during COVID pandemic is an atrocity [21] because:

1. teargas and other irritants that cause people to choke, hack and rip off their face masks will help the virus proliferate,
2. it’ll cause people to shout and scream, propelling droplets of these fluids – which could be carrying coronavirus – and giving them superpowers, to spread much farther than six feet.”
3. these chemical agents can irritate the nose, mouth and lungs, causing inflammation that could weaken the body’s ability to resist infection.

Basically, this is a combined action of chemical and biological agents that was occasionally debated in the context of civil defense. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the rationale for "chemical irritants, including pepper balls" rather than "tear gas" in the DYK description? - Wikmoz (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: - there is a dispute regarding tear gas, is it not? But there is no dispute about pepper balls, and since pepper balls are chemical irritants, there is no dispute about chemical irritants either. starship.paint (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a

non sequitur; if there is a dispute about, e.g., CS gas, then there is a dispute about chemical irritants, regardless of whether there is a disput about pepper balls. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk

) 11:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chatul: - there is a dispute whether one kind of chemical irritant was used, but there is no dispute over whether chemical irritants (as a whole) were used at all. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Brboyle, in the lead section and in the "Clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square" section, you have tried to remove, or cast doubt upon, the fact that the protest was peaceful. However, this is established by the unanimous or near-unanimous weight of independent reporting:

• WUSA 9: "Our crew also witnessed nothing but peaceful protester behavior, even with our unique 15-foot-high camera position."
• Washington Post: "Police in D.C. make arrests after sweeping peaceful protesters from park with gas, shoving
• CNN: "The peaceful protesters who were forcibly dispersed from a park near the White House on Monday evening..."
• Deadline: "The U.S. Park Police claimed Tuesday that its officers acted to clear protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House because some demonstrators were throwing projectiles at them, but journalists who were on the scene say that they did not see such conduct" (citing CNN and NBC reporters on the scene)
• Wall Street Journal: "The decision to forcibly remove a crowd of peaceful protesters before President Trump walked to a damaged St. John’s Church and posed for photos drew broad criticism while garnering praise from conservative backers."

The claims of the Park Police is recited in the "White House and Trump administration" response section with proper context. However, even the Park Police only claim that "projectiles" were supposedly thrown at "approximately 6:33 p.m."—after the police aggressively moved in to break up the peaceful protest. So this edit is not "giving both sides" — it is muddying the waters. Neutrality^talk 17:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is giving both sides of the story. For God's sake the source we are currently using in the article (Deadline: "The U.S. Park Police claimed Tuesday that its officers acted to clear protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House because some demonstrators were throwing projectiles at them, but journalists who were on the scene say that they did not see such conduct") literally says almost word for word what I put in the article. The Park Police claimed one thing. Nearly all of the journalists and media claimed another. That's what I said in the article and due to the fact that the source we are using creates some dispute about whether or not they are peaceful, the lead should reflect that as well.

Per the info in the article, 6:32/6:33 IS the time when the police began forcibly dispersing the crowd with riot tactics. Before that they were not using riot tactics, simply getting to final position. If the Park Police is claiming they were throwing water bottles at the point they began using riot tactics (which was 6:33), the protesters were not peaceful from their point of view. Therefore, in order to maintain NPOV, this must be reflected in the article and if it is mentioned in the lead we shouldn't use adjectives to describe the protesters that only apply to one POV or the other. We shouldn't use "peaceful protesters" because that is disputed by the Park Police and we shouldn't use "unruly protesters" because that is in favor of the media's POV. A great way to maintain NPOV in this case would be to just simply call them "protesters".Brboyle (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please check
  thousands other misleading claims made by the same administration. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 18:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your reply here just shows you are not interested in NPOV. The Park Police's statement does indeed say the protest was NOT peaceful because their claim that "many of the protesters became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons" is the exact opposite of a peaceful protest. And the fact that one of the sources (the Deadline one I've mentioned many times and the very source used in the instance we are discussing) talks about the Park Police's claims and treats them as an alternative point of view. If the source we are using is actively discussing the two POV's surrounding the incident, the idea that they were "peaceful protesters" isn't an unequivocal fact.
  WP:GEVAL also discusses that for controversial topics and disputes about NPOV, an impartial tone should be used. By not using an adjective to describe the protesters in the lead, this is using an impartial tone. By not using an adjective the lead would not be disputing either the media's "facts" or the administration's claim. The reader could then read the article and weigh the evidence themselves rather than the lead condoning one or the other. Brboyle (talk
  ) 18:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

According to your source (Park Police Claim That Protesters Threw Projectiles At Lafayette Square Park, But Reporters Say They Saw Peaceful Demonstration), all media (all "RS" in WP setting) claim one thing, but the boss of the service Gregory Monahan claims something completely different. This is very definition of the situation when Gregory Monahan represents a small/negligible "minority" view.My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure, Brboyle, as a Wikipedia editor with 7 years of experience, you are familiar with the concept of "reliable secondary sources". The Park Police statement would be an example of a primary source. For reasons that should be obvious to any experienced editor, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. I don't really think any other arguments need to be made outside of that one. It's a solid Wikipedia policy, and you're ignoring it. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The protests were peaceful as was reported by virtually all RS and as we can see with our own eyes in dozens of videos. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, as Neutrality points out, the USPP statement regarding 6:33 unrest being the motivator to move on protesters is contradicted by the visible and substantial movement of officers well prior to that time. It's also challenged by the decision to move the line being made hours earlier... apparently in large part to accomodate a scheduled photo op. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

So, according to this page, "At 6:17 p.m., a large number of officers in Secret Service uniforms climbed or jumped over barriers along H Street and Madison Place (at the edge of Lafayette Square), fired tear gas at protesters..." [ref to NYT]. Is that correct? That was 15 minutes before the official said the protesters started attacking the police. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Per

Thank you. Given the consensus here I have also made the corresponding change to the appropriate section of the body. Neutrality^talk 20:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, the first paragraph of the lede is okay, but does it need to include the title of the page in it?

Amid ongoing protests in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere started by the killing of George Floyd, police and National Guard troops used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets in Washington, D.C., to create a path for President Donald Trump to walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church. Trump held up a Bible and posed for a photo-op in front of Ashburton House, the church's parish house, a part of which had been set on fire during the protests the night before. Trump departed around five minutes later; he did not enter the church.

First cut:

President Donald Trump's photo-op at St. John's Church occurred on June 1, 2020, amid ongoing protests in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere started by the killing of George Floyd. Police and National Guard troops used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets in Washington, D.C., to create a path for Trump to walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church. There, he held up a Bible and posed for a photos alone and with members of his administration in front of Ashburton House, the church's parish house, a part of which had been set on fire during the protests the night before. Trump departed around five minutes later; he did not enter the church.

I'm not crazy about having a possessive in the bold, but can't think of a way to re-word it given the page's title. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to include bold in this kind of article. See

MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Neutrality^talk

20:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Much prefer the current text, which concisely summarizes all key aspects of the event. And as an added benefit, in chronological order. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please move the page to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. Photo op and photo opportunity are not hyphenated. Although I see some recent Google results that use it, dictionaries do not [22][23][24]. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am good with that. But, while we are doing that, could we shorten the title some and come to a consensus on if it should also include the actions against the protestors.Casprings (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: Per above-linked dictionary entries and clear common usage support based on search volume data. I would not combine with any other edits. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: seems non-controversial to me! Feoffer (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. El_C 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Grouping related threads. For the record, the bible was correctly oriented. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Where to mention he's holding the bible upside down?

Hi

In several news sources I've seen it mentioned he's holding the bible upside down and/or back to front, this seems important to include somewhere

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/02/what-do-we-know-about-trumps-love-for-the-bible
• https://theconversation.com/dear-mr-trump-the-bible-has-a-long-history-as-a-symbol-of-protest-so-dont-use-it-as-a-sign-of-repression-140125
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/02/autocrats-idolatry-trump-protests-george-floyd-america/
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/rare-rebuke-trump-evangelical-christian-leader-200603193621613.html
• https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/detroit-religious-leaders-read-scripture-at-demonstration-in-response-to-trumps-bible-photo

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not change the photo caption from "President Donald Trump held a Bible in front of Ashburton House, the parish house of St. John's Episcopal Church." to "President Donald Trump held a Bible upside down in front of Ashburton House, the parish house of St. John's Episcopal Church.", make the same insertion in the lede and cite sources in Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Appearance at St. John's Church. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not favor this. It comes off as a snide SYNTH and UNDUE detail. It's not in the top ten significant details relating to this event, and as a matter of fact, he fiddled around with the book and did hold it right side up much of the time, as seen from the gilded lettering on the spine. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, he is holding it right-side-up. It was in prior versions of the page (one example linked, with references; see the section "Appearance at St. John's Church"), but was dropped because it was not significant. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose violates

WP:DUE. This is almost entirely irrelevantAnon0098 (talk

) 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as well. It sounds like petty, juvenile talk (such as what Trump frequently uses). Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Support I think that it is significant, because it suggests that he didn't care enough about the Bible to determine (or recognize) which way was 'up'. Sometimes he held it upside down, others right side up, and he didn't care. In the context of the intent of the photo-op this is far from insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkonc (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It's incorrect. Trump correctly held the Bible right-side up. Review this photo and this video. I think people were just confused by the ribbon page marker, which is and should be on the bottom. If anything, I'd support a sentence indicating that the Bible was held correctly despite numerous reports to the contrary. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there are now several fact checks on this. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the widely known 'fact' is false, then we should point out that it was, in fact, a false rumour -- One that got as far as Joe Bidon at the (first) presidential debate.Darkonc (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump oriented the bible correctly

This fact was removed. Jimmy Kimmel and others, claim otherwise, also it was refuted by Snopes. Even if you opine that his holding was awkward, the integral bookmarks are attached on the top side and protrude on the bottom side and this can be clearly be seen in the photo. Any thoughts about restoring? —:— T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a single sentence saying something along the lines of “While many claimed Trump was holding the bible improperly, it was found that the Bible was oriented correctly.” Or something like that idk, with a source to Kimmel and the Snopes attached. I can see the argument for

WP:UNDUE but this was such a ubiquitous criticism, so I think one sentence about it is warranted. Even previous talk sections wanted to include that it was oriented wrong. Anon0098 (talk

) 06:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Given the attention this has received and that it's been repeated so many times (most recently by Joe Biden), I'd support adding a single sentence along the lines of: "The bible was oriented correctly. (ref)" somewhere in the Appearance at the church section. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Does this pass the 10-year test? In other words, is this a significant-enough thing that any source will still mention it in 10 years? I doubt it. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I love the idea of the 10-year-test (especially for new topics or article sections). In the case of a 5-word sentence, I'd let it slide. Forgot about this until Biden repeated the claim in the first debate. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to still be an ongoing piece of misinformation. I've added a sentence to the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church § Media clarifying that the Bible was correctly oriented. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Having noticed the iconic image at Donald Trump#Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op, I swapped it here for the top image, and moved that to the detailed section.[25] If that doesn't work for copyright restricting fair use, then please undo these two revisions (but not the previous edit which used a piped link to give necessary clarification of the term parish house) . . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think these are CC friendly? Can anyone confirm and if so, add to Commons for inclusion?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/49967501917/ (to replace current Esper photo)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brettdavis/49969090951/ (to place alongside Former military response)

For context, it would be good to find a photo of the fires set in the street on May 31. Haven't found one yet but still looking. It's important to show as it explains why so many law enforcement officials were present on June 1.

- Wikmoz (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

non-free content policy (which allows, under certain circumstances, images of events to illustrate articles about those events). I'm not sure if the second photo would qualify. I don't have time to add the free one to Commons myself right now, but if you or anyone else is interested, there is a Flickr2Commons tool that makes that very easy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss}

] 22:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance and links! Unfortunate that we can't use CC-BY-NC but makes sense. I found the first photo on Commons and added it to the article. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I know many of you will probably get annoyed by me bringing this up once again but it still doesn't sit with me right that we still use the term "tear gas" in the header even though officials (both the US Park Police and William Barr) deny the usage of tear gas along with the debate surrounding what chemical irritants constitute being called "tear gas." This seems like it violates the NPOV. Given there are two different POV's couldn't we just leave it at "chemical irritants" or simply "many riot control tactics" rather than specifying "tear gas" in the header just so the article doesn't seem to take the side of one account or the other? Same for calling the protesters "peaceful" in the header. There is debate about that later in the article (Barr and the Park Police's comments contradict this) so it seems disingenuous and in violation of a NPOV to take the side against the government officials and call them "peaceful." I could understand when the only source disputing the news reports was the US Park Police's statement but now that Barr (who gave a first hand account of projectiles such as "rocks and bottles" being thrown) and many others in the Trump administration still insist that tear gas wasn't used, shouldn't their side be given a little bit more weight.

Maybe it isn't a case of removing "tear gas" or "peaceful" from the header as much as it is mentioning the debate surrounding both of these things. Given that later in the article both of these facts are debated it should be mentioned in the header that they are up for debate rather than choosing sides. Why shouldn't the header mention the debate about these things, after all their is a whole section devoted to the tear gas debate and a lengthy portion of the "Trump Administration" section of the article discusses the "peacefulness" of the protesters?

Brboyle (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

First, the definition of tear gas is fairly broad and covers pepper spray. Second, I question whether statements from the government involved in the attack can be considered as a RS. Third, some of the containers were labeled CS; if that isn't tear gas then nothing is. Reports from observers with no flesh in the game should be given more weight than reports from participants. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Per Chatul, Park police's claims "strain the credulity of the credulous". NPOV is not 'both sides'. Feoffer (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Both concerns are significant and deserve attention. We should strive to keep this historical account as accurate and apolitical as possible. My thoughts on both follow...

The protests were peaceful as was reported by virtually all RS and as we can see with our own eyes per

WP:WEIGHT. - Wikmoz (talk

) 06:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of

WP:NPOV, I previously removed "tear gas" from the lead. Indeed, "chemical irritants" may still be the safer bet for the lead in the short term... starship.paint opted for this phrase in the DYN hook. I honestly don't have a strong preference as "chemical irritant" covers tear gas, pepper spray, and pepper balls. My feeling is that focusing on "tear gas" in the lead may be unnecessary. In the body of the article, I support "tear gas". The early argument that pepper balls equal tear gas always felt like a stretch. However, canisters labeled OC Skat and CS were collected by WUSA9 and multiple videos show officers wearing gas masks and there's now video of what appears to be a stinger grenade being thrown, which based on the fragment collected by WUSA9, contained OC gas (pepper spray). Delgado's USPP walk back indicated that the initial denial was specific to CS and CN gas. A separate USPP denial more specifically addressed "OC Skat Shells". Putting these statements together, the USPP has not denied using Stinger OC Grenades. If the CS canister was indeed from June 1 (we know they were used on prior nights) then that's the end of the debate, full stop. Given the attention and lawsuits, I think we'll know for sure sooner than later. However, if it was not and only the stinger ball and OC canisters were from June 1 then the only debate is over whose definition of tear gas you use, as explained in the body. - Wikmoz (talk

) 07:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The common name is "tear gas" for gas or aerosol irritants that cause tears, used to disrupt protests. As with article titles, official names can confuse and mislead readers. When the Reverend Gini Gerbasi states that she "was suddenly coughing from the teargas", it's disingenuous to go first to the obscure official names preferred by the current administration. The generic name should feature in the lead, detailed casuistry over refined definitions belong in the body. As for "peaceful", we should indicate the weight of reports that it was peaceful, as well as who's claiming otherwise. . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources use "tear gas". The primary sources you mentioned (US Park Police and William Barr) use terminology that falls under the CDC's definition of "tear gas" anyway. We'd be going into George Orwell territory if we start equivocating about using the term in the lead. It's a no-brainer. As other editors said,

WP:BLUESKY applies here. I can't believe we're even at the point where we have to have this discussion. JimKaatFan (talk

) 13:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Governments and government officials are not

reliable sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss}

] 14:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but would not issue such a blanket statement. What exactly "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" this particular government official has? Barr? This is just a terrible reputation. This park police official? Zero. Someone else might have a good reputation. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if it says "tear gas" or "chemical irritants ", splitting hairs, it's the same thing, but the article must state the protesters were peaceful as numerous RS attest.Smeat75 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the citation proving that the protesters were "peaceful"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilh758 (talk • contribs) 13:56, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

@Ilh758:, all of the reliable sources that describe the event say that. Lemme quote from the seminal source on the events described in this article[26]:

What ensued was a burst of violence unlike any seen in the shadow of the White House in generations. As he prepared for his surprise march to the church, Mr. Trump first went before cameras in the Rose Garden to declare himself “your president of law and order” but also “an ally of all peaceful protesters,” even as peaceful protesters just a block away and clergy members on the church patio were routed by smoke and flash grenades and some form of chemical spray deployed by shield-bearing riot officers and mounted police.

By midafternoon on Monday, protesters had gathered again on H Street at the north side of Lafayette Square, this time peacefully. The Rev. Gini Gerbasi, the rector of St. John’s Church in Georgetown and a former assistant rector at St. John’s, arrived around 4 p.m. with cases of water for the demonstrators. Joining her on the church patio were about 20 clergy members who passed out snacks.

While there were occasionally some aggressive encounters with the police, Ms. Gerbasi said, it was largely calm. “There were a few tense moments,” she said. “But it was peaceful.” – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's also [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. Search the article for the word "peaceful", and look at the reference immediately following. Capewearer (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a decision to be made in how we connect the clearing of Lafayette Square to Trump's walk in the lead.

1. Original draft: "to create a path"', which suggests a purpose for the action.
2. Revised language: "creating a path", which strongly implies but does not make an explicit statement of a purpose.
3. Revised language: "The purpose was to clear a path", which explicitly declares the singular reason for preceding events.

I've reverted the language back to "creating a path", which I think strikes the right balance for a

It's very clear that the photo op drove the timing. However, there were other purposes as well, including expanding the security perimeter and displaying a show of force. It seems RS are careful in how they connect the events... at least in the intros of later, secondary newsroom analysis. Here's how they phrase it...

"Their actions cleared the way for the president, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op." - Washington Post

"Whatever the origin, the result is well-documented: Officers from several agencies closed in on protesters... A few minutes later, Trump walked through... The timeline of events strongly suggests that it was this trip which spurred the crackdown on the assembled crowd." Washington Post

"U.S. and military police drove protesters out of Lafayette Square... shortly before a presidential photo op with a Bible at the church on June 1." USA Today

"U.S. Park Police used smoke bombs, pepper pellets and officers on horseback to violently clear peaceful protesters. Immediately afterward, President Donald Trump staged a brief photo op in front of St. John’s, the historic church that had been damaged in the protests." - New York Times

"...efforts to secure Lafayette Square and clear protesters from the area just prior to President Donald Trump's controversial photo-op at a local church." - CNN

Interested in feedback. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the change was good, but the first run-on sentence is friggin' insane and it offends my sensibilities as a proponent of brevity in Wikipedia articles. I trimmed a few words, but really, it's still a crazy run-on sentence. If anyone else can offer some editing to reduce the amount of run-on, I am eagerly awaiting that edit. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We could move the details of Ashburton House to the second sentence. Tried with this revision. Unfortunately, it pushes the key detail of the fire further down and forces the use of "Trump" instead of "He" in the last sentence. Not sure that last sentence is critical to include. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

just read it. I actually think it's fine. Definitely an improvement. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

An internal document (“Domestic Unrest -- Washington D.C. Overview”) compiled June 4, 2020 for General

• Federal Plan to Control D.C. Protests Taps 7,600 Personnel By Anthony Capaccio (June 4, 2020, 8:59 PM EDT Updated on June 5, 2020, 10:16 AM EDT) - Bloomberg News

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This has to be the worst formatting I've seen in a while. A blockquote around a div col with plenty of line breaks sprinkled in and small text. I object to every single one of those formats for what should be a simple list of people's names and titles. Elizium23 (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed blockquote. Otherwise, it looks clean to me. Easy to scan with the small text and line breaks. The alternative with random line wrapping and inconsistent column heights seems less ideal. On lower resolution destops, a single column view without line breaks may be preferable but I think this layout looks good on most screens. I could be in the minority though. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The early discussion of Trump's "law and order politics" seems like an out-of-place history lesson. Our readers come to this article to learn about a recent policing event -- they don't need a lesson on the politics of the 1960s! If we want to get into politics (past and present), we should do that later in the article only after readers have learned of the actual facts of what occurred on June 1. Feoffer (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I find this argument unconvincing because it's a mischaracterization of what's actually in that paragraph. There's one phrase, out of four paragraphs, that barely mentions Richard Nixon, and that allusion is in 2 solid sources that go into the Nixon connection in detail. We devote a scant few words to it. You removed the entire paragraph, 99% of which is about the Trump presidency, and declared it's because readers "don't need a lesson on the politics of the 1960s". That doesn't wash. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As a reader, I expect the "Background" section to cover the events of 2020, not 1968 or even 2016. That sort of punditry/historical analysis has its place, but that place is AFTER we've told the reader the basic facts of what actually happened. They don't need to be thinking about politics and past elections this early in the article. Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph provides some historical context for June 1 events and Trump's "law and order" declaration in the Rose Garden. The 'Law and order' subheading also worked well to cover text that was previously placed under 'Photo op preparations'. That said, the text: "that mirrored the politically successful policies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan," is an observation that could perhaps be placed somewhere in the response section. Maybe under 'Response: Media', something like "Political analysts and members of the media observed that..." The rest of the paragraph is tougher to move as it ties in tightly with the rest of the content in that section. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay! I get it now! I don't know why I didn't 'get' it before, but something about your explanation made a light bulb go off.

I withdraw my earlier comments and agree the paragraph should stay. I made tweaks so the next reader may get it earlier than I did. :) Feoffer (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I find those tweaks to be positive changes. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha. Sounds good. I removed "rhetoric" as it has some non-neutral alternative meanings ("loud and confused and empty talk" and "high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation"). "Platform" may be preferable here. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article currently links to Grenade#Sting for the rubber-ball grenades used against the protesters. There's also an article blast ball, a crowd-control device which also fits the description. Are they the same thing? If not, then which was used? Were both used? Various words are used in the cited sources to describe the devices, but I can't find the words "blast ball" yet in the sources cited, or elsewhere online. Capewearer (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure there's a definitive answer but I think "sting ball" is the appropriate term and Grenade#Sting is the appropriate entry. I'm not a munitions expert but my understanding is that sting ball grenades always contain rubber pellets and sometimes contain chemical irritants (and/or light or sound stimuli). It sounds like blast balls are made of rubber but don't always include rubber pellets. So perhaps a "sting ball" is a type of "blast ball"? Defense Technology has a STINGER (registered trademark) line of these balls, though it sounds like some people can refer to generic sting balls as "stinger balls". A fragment of a Stinger OC Grenade containing OC gas was recovered by WUSA9. In his testimony, Monahan said "stinger balls". Another generic sting ball (without gas) was recovered by another reporter but I can't find that reference. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: Here's an unexploded one without gas that was found: [34] -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include a sentence about how Trump was condemned by the leaders of the church for the photo op? Since they run the church where this happened, there responses seem relevant to me. And all of the sources are already in this section. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 05:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I support adding a few sentences to the lead neutrally summarizing the responses by the clergy of this church and the denomination that it is affiliated with. Now that 3-1/2 months have passed, it is clear that this was not a trivial passing incident but is instead an iconic and historic event displaying Trump's attitude toward basically peaceful protest movements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The third paragraph starts: "Former military leaders, current religious leaders, and elected officials from both parties condemned Trump for the event..." Maybe just add "Church clergy" to the sentence? Not sure of the best way to way to do it but I'd favor brevity here. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The most important issue related to this event is not even mentioned: was Milley in front of the church or in the pictures taken there or not? I remember reading in WaPo or NYT at the time that he realized at the last moment how inappropriate the situation was and therefore refused to go all the way to the church.

This article talks about Milley apologizing for participating in the photo op without specifying what part of this spectacle is meant. This spectacle included three different places with two different stationary situations and the aggressive walk between them.

More specifically this article doesn't clarify that some news outlets specifically mention that he refused to enter the pictures in front of the church but remain ambivalent whether he was there or went away or didn't go all the way. There is of course also the possibility that he's only missing from the official pictures. Even more important is whether he was in press photos that were never published or whose non-publication or possible removal he possibly demanded.

I've only found this so far: "One Defense Department official noted that once Milley realized what was happening, he quickly attempted to distance himself from the photoshoot. True enough the photos see Trump’s press secretary, defense secretary, national security adviser and attorney general present with Milley later appearing out of sight." --Espoo (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Milley walked with the president (at least as far as the sidewalk across the street from the church) but he did not stand for photos. You can see this in the uncut CSPAN video. He's later seen returning to the White House with the president in this CNBC video. So he had a role in the photo op to the extent that he was one of 17 officials who joined the president on the walk. He was not one of the 5 who joined the president for photos. Maybe there's a better way to word the article to make it clearer. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Since he didn't consider the walk anything except getting from the WH to an improvised and unplanned inspection of the National Guard together with Trump, this info about when he realized he'd been or almost been conned into the actual main photo op in front of the church and how he reacted is the most important info for that moment in time and its later interpretation, and the article says nothing about it.

When do you see him last in the video? --Espoo (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It simply has not been determined that EVERY single person in the crowd was peaceful, not even by Congressional investigations. US Park police reported violent protesters. This is a FACT! Were MANY peaceful protesters CAUGHT UP in it all? Sure, absolutely! It's also worth noting that even people who refused to follow police orders to clear the area were NOT peaceful simply by refusing police orders. PEACEFUL does NOT simply mean NON-VIOLENT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:34, 17 April 2021‎ (talk • contribs) Chris155au (UTC)

Please sign your posts, and provide

verification from reliable sources to support any changes you propose. The article gives due weight to reliable sources showing that law enforcement officers used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters, it makes no claim that every single person was peaceful and we'd need good sources to show that would be relevant. Equally, your attempt to redefine "not peaceful" as [alleged] "refusal to obey police orders" would need very good sources referring specifically to this particular event. . . dave souza, talk

15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It says, "on June 1, 2020, amid the George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., law enforcement officers used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters..." Are you suggesting that this implies that only SOME protesters were peaceful? Also, I find it quite telling that you had nothing to say in response to me saying that "US Park police reported violent protesters." Chris155au (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources? . . dave souza, talk 14:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm Chris155au (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

WELL? 110.142.94.82 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, did you read the entire article including the time-line, read the sources and watch the videos? It's pretty clear that the one primary article does not seem to agree with all the secondary reports. Gandydancer (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Already in the article, shown in context. Note that it says " this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest" but doesn't say anything contradicting the point that on June 1 " law enforcement officers used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets," as confirmed by multiple sources. Whether there were in fact any non-peaceful protestors at that specific event is disputed by good sources, but either way it doesn't affect the validity of the wording. dave souza, talk 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the presence of violent protesters being "disputed by good sources" - How the hell do you expect people in the media to have been able to witness a minority of violent people in a crowd of that size? You seem to think that the media reported that every single person at the protest was peaceful, when in fact all they said was that "peaceful protesters" were cleared, which is wrongly interpreted as every protester was peaceful. The media reporting may also have said something along the lines of, we didn't see any violent protesters, but of course that doesn't mean that there was no violent protesters. 110.142.94.82 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So what? The sentence says officers used "riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters", it does not say there were no violent people in the neighbourhood. It's unknowable if some were hidden away, unseen by the multiple good sources cited stating that the demonstration was peaceful, and would need a very good source to give such speculation any weight in the article. . dave souza, talk 11:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does not say there were no violent people in the neighbourhood, but it logically implies that there were no violent protesters who were CLEARED! Who said anything about "the neighbourhood?" And are you suggesting that the United States Park Police were lying about being attacked? Chris155au (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is also this:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4959657/user-clip-clip

Question: Did the violence that you are referring to happen before 6:35 pm?

Answer: "The violence that we were subjected to was throughout the entire operational period, before and after." Chris155au (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Primary source, which seems entirely in line with the coverage in Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Clearing Lafayette Square and St. John's. The clear majority independent view is that they cleared peaceful protestors. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How the hell is it "entirely in line" if you're saying that there were NO violent protesters? You're disagreeing with the witness in the Congressional hearing! Chris155au (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. To repeat, So what? The sentence says officers used "riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters", it does not say there were no violent people in the neighbourhood. It's unknowable if some were hidden away, unseen by the multiple good sources cited stating that the demonstration was peaceful, and would need a very good source to give such speculation any weight in the article. You're putting forward a primary source, a witness statement by Monohan of the U.S. Park Police, and his statement that the "violence that we were subjected to was throughout the entire operational period, before and after" contradicts the U.S. Park Police statement claiming that "At approximately 6:33 p.m., violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles, and caustic liquids." Which was it? Throughout the entire operational period, or after 6:33 p.m.? That's the question he was asked, and his rather evasive answer is incorrect according to multiple independent sources, as also mentioned in the video, and properly covered in the article. dave souza, talk 10:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Those "multiple independent sources" do not CLAIM to have documented the entire events surrounding that day! From WHAT THEY COULD SEE, the demonstration was peaceful! This means that it was by all means MOSTLY peaceful, with MOSTLY PEACEFUL protesters! And is there even a source which says that the demonstration was peaceful, or do they just talk in terms of peaceful protesters being cleared? Saying that a demonstration of that size was peaceful is certainly a hell of a claim, particularly when contradicted by police, including the Police Chief's testimony under oath. Regarding what Mr. Monohan said in testimony, it did not contradict what the statement said, which specified "violent protestors on H Street NW." In testimony, he wasn't talking specifically about "H Street NW." Are you claiming that he likely lied under oath? Chris155au (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources saw peaceful protesters being forcefully cleared, which is what the article says. You're trying to give undue weight to a later verbal statement by Monahan which is at odds with his original written statement, and appear to be arguing that because there were allegedly some non-peaceful actors which no independent observers witnessed, we should ignore the removal of peaceful protestors. His testimony under oath says throughout the entire operational period, the June 2 Statement from United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan says after 6:33 p.m. and makes no reference I can see to earlier violence. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I have NEVER ONCE argued that "we should ignore the removal of peaceful protestors." I have only ever argued against the implication that all of the protesters were nothing but peaceful little angels, which is contradicted by testimony under oath from the police Chief. And you seem to have completely ignored my rebuttal to your suggestion that his testimony under oath "contradicts the U.S. Park Police statement." Again, his testimony did not contradict what the statement said, which specified "violent protestors on H Street NW." In testimony, he wasn't talking specifically about "H Street NW." Chris155au (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The article gives due weight to indepenent reports of removal of peaceful protesters, and the discrepancy with Monahan's statement is noted in the article. As for "specifically about H Street NW.", his statement paragraph begins "On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm .. ." – so not so specific. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you're basing your argument on a "user-clip-clip" from a hearing, a primary source taken out of context. Here's some of the context.. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4895671/whistleblower-testifies-tear-gas-lafayette-park-protest

Which is also a primary source, what we need for any more discussion is the context shown in reports by reliable secondary sources. . . . dave souza, talk 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

How the hell is that guy a PRIMARY source? National Guard were not assigned to clear the protesters. Chris155au (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event." - Wikmoz (talk

) 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In reply to dave souza - How does that guy's testimony contradict the Police Chief? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris155au (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Chris155au Please sign your talk page posts. Don't know if anyone said the linked testimony contradicted the Police Chief, but as it happens the cited source gives a summary:
Major Adam DeMarco, who is with the D.C. National Guard, testifies under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act about the forcible removal of protesters from Lafayette Park on June 1 and the use of tear gas canisters pepperballs to disperse protesters prior to the arrival of President Trump. He says that he found it "deeply disturbing" and that demonstrators were "behaving peacefully" before being advanced upon by law enforcement.
Which reaffirms the opening sentence of the article. . dave souza, talk 10:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

dave souza And how exactly does this mean that there were no VIOLENT demonstrators like the Police Chief testified? Chris155au (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about use of riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets, not some other demonstrators somewhere else at some other time that only Monahan saw, unreported in reliable third party sources. . . dave souza, talk 06:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

dave souza Again, you're pretending that Monahan is actually talking about "some other demonstrators somewhere else at some other time." He was CLEARLY talking about Lafayette Square! What did he say that made you think that he was talking about "some other demonstrators somewhere else at some other time?" Chris155au (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Peaceful is appropriate. Mainstream RSes conclude the crowd was peaceful. Monahan may state otherwise, but we don't follow primary testimony, we filter through RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer Is something about "primary testimony" mentioned in the Wikipedia policies?Chris155au (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

dave souza I note that you have given up. Chris155au (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you can

drop the stick now. You've already had multiple editors explain this to you. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk

) 08:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Is no one ashamed of the tone of this article? I'm sorry, but if the article can't be written in a neutral tone, perhaps it simply does not belong here. Simicich (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's impossible for the article to NOT have such a biased, left wing tone, when the reporting surrounding it was done by the virtually entirely left wing mainstream media, which Wikipedia relies so heavily on - the so called "reliable sources!" Chris155au (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your

reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, to support any changes you want to make. . . dave souza, talk

11:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is to say the virtually entirely left wing mainstream media. Chris155au (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You may find Conservapedia is more to your taste. . . dave souza, talk 11:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

dave souza I'm not calling Wikipedia 'Liberapedia', I'm simply referring to the mainstream media. If the majority of the mainstream media were actually objective, Wikipedia would be even better. Unfortunately however, the political articles will always be biased to the left because of the mostly TRASH sources which are relied upon. Sad. Chris155au (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOR. . .dave souza, talk

11:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This section is written in the present tense, and likely needs to be overhauled in light of (a) the passage of time since clearly that investigation was in the past, and (b) the release of the IG report as well as the court filings. Neptune1969 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed the tense of the beginning of the entry, and then added clarification sentence that indicates the dates on which the two committees held their hearings. I pulled these out of the reporting and double-checked it. I found that at least one date had been initially placed incorrectly (29th vs. 30th). This should read more accurately now for the long-term.Neptune1969 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The tear gas question has been resolved: the Metropolitan Police Department acknowledged in court filings that they were the ones to have used it. The reporting is WUSA, a local television station which one can see in the original article had reporters on the ground. I think a scrub of the article may be warranted.[see https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/investigations/mpd-admits-it-tear-gassed-protesters-june-2020/65-b91a5d65-b683-4e22-b30a-7a740e9cf61d] Neptune1969 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This should be added, but I see no reason to scrub the article just because of this. starship.paint (exalt) 02:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see my word may have caused confusion, User:Starship.paint. By "scrub" I meant a careful re-read and review of the content, with the purpose of updating the information that is now not accurate. I am not suggesting that by "scrub" we mean any deletion. I hope that clarifies.Neptune1969 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neptune1969: - sure, go ahead. starship.paint (exalt) 15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone ever seen this claim before? It's new to me. -- Valjean (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Barr's decision to install anti-scale fencing has been in the article since July of 2020, but we're learning now that Park Police didn't know Trump would be coming out until hours before the event and that Barr urged them to accelerate the timeline for the clearing. Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to the lead implies the park was cleared to create a path for Trump, now shown to be false by the IG report. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Please cite the words in RS you believe support this unsubstantiated component of the "false by the IG" conpiracy theory. Secondary RS. Not cherry-picked out of context, incomplete snippets from the IG document that conveys, as Time Space has detailed, the precipitation of this event by Barr and Trump. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Check out the just released IG report and associated news stories, such as the NBC Dilanian piece linked in the section above. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we're going to need to be increasingly skeptical about press reports in the future, given how much of a gap is now apparent between the reportings after the event and the revelations here a year later. I'm looking at the Turley piece and he's excoriating the press for their repetition of what are now, in retrospect, simply falsehoods. Neptune1969 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Some people have been suggesting this for a a while. Wikipedia's list of "reliable sources" have been publishing highly politicized slants on events and slavish reliance on these articles means heavy rewrites later on when the hoopla is proven false. I predict there will be lots more to come. In the meanwhile, could I suggest this article be trimmed down? At this point, the apparently false press coverage is of more note than Trump's actions. 67.234.17.108 (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You're free to accept Turley's views. They do not represent the mainstream of informed or expert knowledge and analysis, which is the standard we use on Wikipedia. Frankly, Neptune, many of your edits are POV tilts to uninformed half-truths that do not reflect the full extent of fact and analysis in the mainstream of informed publications. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As the IG report notes, the mainstream of informed and expert knowledge got it mostly wrong here, but let’s not let that stand in the way of building an encyclopedia. Contrary to what the experts wrote for a while there’s no actual evidence the clearing was done to prepare for the photo op, as Turley has been saying for a while. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to get some clarification of what was happening regarding the Park Police, with confirmation of a lot that was in the article. Evidently the clearing for fencing work was intended to follow the curfew and planned dispersal of protestors, but was rushed ahead without adequate warning or preparation in order to hold the dramatic photo op. Looks like the mainstream got it mostly right. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

In an editing atmosphere where MSNBC is accepted as a reputable source, where some will actually be surprised that "the mainstream of informed and expert knowledge got it mostly wrong here", and where Wikipedia's neutrality policy has little sway, I keep away from the fray (except for little things like linking to "church arson" when it really was church arson). Wikipedia has consistently joined the pile-on when it comes to its reporting of the Trump presidency, as Larry Sanger has pointed out from afar, but at least the new IG report makes it possible that this one article's narrative, set-in-stone backwards, can edge just a little more towards neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to support your strawman about MSNBC with a link? I hope you understand the difference between MSNBC and NBC news. If not, please fact check your assumptions. Turley remains borderline-to-fringe these days. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Case in point, why I keep away from these discussions. NBS, MSNBC, too often two sides of the present-day journalistic wooden nickel. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It is discouraging to have to remind SPECIFICO not to make appeal to motive attacks to divert from a legitimate RS question: if the reporting about this has been as problematic as it now appears to have been, we're going to have to be more cautious about our immediate reliance on some of these sources. I specifically put the WUSA channel 9 article in there with my edit because that's a hyper-local source (a local television station in Washington, D.C.) that had been involved with the story from the beginning because their reporters were there reporting it as a local story, unlike the nationally-oriented press (Washington Post, MSNBC) that is more interested in the larger political disagreements for its business model (conflict generates clicks) and in protecting their reputation through protecting the narrative they established. I'm not proposing that we ditch sources that the consensus here has tagged as RS, but that we exercise more caution and dispassion. Neptune1969 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please take your disagreement with established Wikipedia norms and settled sourcing standards to the appropriate noticeboards -- RSN or NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. The IG report isn't all that positive. USPP was informed about Trump's walk too late, didn't have an appropriate dispersal policy, crowd couldn't hear the dispersal warnings, there were weaknesses in communication and coordination resulting in "confusion during the operation and the use of tactics that appeared inconsistent with the incident commander’s operational plan." Result: half an hour before the curfew, peaceful and lawfully assembled protesters were violently driven from the area. Trump's announcement at 6:44 pm (As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property while thumping of munitions and wailing of sirens could be heard in the background WaPo)—total coincidence, for sure. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Neptune1969, is this the Turley piece you are referring to? If it is, then Turley got a couple of facts wrong. much as the same fence perimeter was used last week on Capitol Hill They had "bicycle" fencing and what looked like chicken wire around the Capitol, not the tall nonscalable fencing they put up around Lafayette Park/White House complex late on June 1. The operation to clear the Park began two days before with the plan to install fencing. The IG report says that the preparations hadn't gotten very far by June 1, and Trump's excursion added to the general snafu. I also don't agree with his argument that the demonstration on June 1 wasn't peaceful because there had been violence on the days before June 1—that's like saying it rained today because it rained yesterday even though today was dry. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For clarity, in 1st line of 2nd paragraph, change "The clearing of demonstrators from Lafayette Square was widely condemned as excessive" to "The clearing of demonstrators from Lafayette Square was erroneously[17][18] but widely condemned as excessive"

SumacP (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Decline. (1) No sources provided. (2) Recent report did not review individual use-of-force incidents by USPP. Those may have been excessive. (3) Recent report only investigated USPP, while other agencies also took action, may have been excessive also. starship.paint (exalt) 15:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

How can we make the sentence active tense instead of passive? User:Starship.paint is correct that we're going need sourcing on that, but at the same time User:SumacP makes a point indirectly: widely condemned by whom? What's the size of the audience that "widely" has any meaning? Widely condemned in the press? By religious leaders? By political opponents? Or by people in Auckland? Let's see if we can get an active tense phrase that has more meaning for the longterm utility of this article. Perhaps "The clearing of demonstrators from Lafayette Square drew criticism from different quarters in the days that followed." Would that work?Neptune1969 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The clearing of demonstrators from Lafayette Square drew criticism from different quarters in the days that followed. has no reason to the criticism though - it doesn't explain to the reader what the criticism was about. Perhaps if you append the currently cited reasons excessive and an affront to the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly to the end of your proposed text, but I have not checked the sources on that, so I can't vouch for it myself. starship.paint (exalt) 15:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No. The current language is accurate. Read the report in full as it fills in some gaps and lays out USPP's position in detail. It confirms the claim that USPP planned to clear Lafayette to allow for the installation of fencing--a plan that was set in motion well before USPP was informed of the President's walk and before a large number of protesters gathered in the afternoon. This has been included in this Wikipedia article for a year. The report does not speak to how the operation was carried out by USPP nor whether the President's schedule impacted when and how the operation was carried out by the other agencies involved. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This story has been proven to be false according to an Inspector General's report which states that Lafayette Square was cleared by park police in order to put up new fencing to protect the park. 2601:5CC:8300:7BC0:BC66:C65E:18F0:486E (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 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 reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We already cover the IG’s report in the article. It’s also in the last paragraph of the article lead. Note that the IG does not clear the Secret Service and other agencies. starship.paint (exalt) 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead is misleading. The sources don't say that U.S. Secret Service had "inexplicably" deployed ahead of schedule, only that it wasn't explained which of course is not the same thing.2A02:8308:A189:3100:ACCD:C271:B60:E555 (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Good call, the word "inexplicably" doesn't seem to be in the report. I've changed the lead to "reported that it was not known why U.S. Secret Service had deployed ahead of schedule". . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Toilet is not used in the U.S. or Canada. I edited the legend here and here but I didn't touch that particular term because it didn't strike me as non-English. The New York Times called it a "bathroom structure"; according to ABC, it's a "cement structure on the north side of Lafayette Park with bathrooms and a maintenance office." I believe the rule is AE in articles concerning the U.S., so it should be restroom or bathroom. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks clearer to me. dave souza, talk 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The OIG calls it a "comfo1t station" (copypasta, should be "comfort station"), I think the current piped link from "restroom" works better. . . dave souza, talk 14:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be national park and/or campground speak (although they also use bathroom throughout). I think restroom is more generally used for the public ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Park of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says I haven't had a chance to read this in depth yet, but the IG report from the Interior Dept should be integrated into what we have. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I just added it to the lead, feel free to reference it elsewhere or verify that the phrasing I put is accurate. Jdcomix (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added bits to the IG investigation section, the tear gas section, and lede. Feoffer (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article still contains a number of falsehoods. The first sentence of the article is basically wrong. The IG report is clear that the park was cleared in order to install fencing to protect the park, and had nothing to do with the photo op. The IG states "We did not find evidence that the Park Police officials made that decision in order to permit the president of the United States to visit the park, or for a photo op at the St. John's Church, across the street." That basically changes the tenor of the whole article... Much of the notability for the article comes from the erroneous belief that the park was cleared for the photo op, and will most likely require some serious rewrites. This is somewhat of a tricky situation because of the high levels of coverage for the now debunked cause of the clearing. The report goes on to state the protests were not entirely peaceful and that the decision to clear to park was lawful and consistent with policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the relationship between the events. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Park Police is just one of many agencies involved in June 1. Feoffer (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie:, I echo Feoffer. This investigation was focused on Park Police actions - “It was a fulsome review of everything in our jurisdiction,” Mr. Greenblatt said in an interview. “The unfortunate thing is not everything is in our jurisdiction." [35] There were other involved agencies, such as the Secret Service, whose actions were not fully investigated by the Interior IG. For example, At approximately 6:16 p.m., contrary to the operational plan and before the USPP gave the first dispersal warning, the Secret Service entered H Street from Madison Place - and we know that Secret Service personnel weren't interviewed on their "independent" actions. starship.paint (exalt) 02:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, RE was focused on Park Police actions: it's the IG of the Dept. of the Interior. Secret Service, MPDC, National Guard are not within their jurisdiction. They can't review their actions at all, not just not fully. The sentence should simply read A June 2021 Interior Department Inspector General report, focused on investigating review of U.S. Park Police actions and not those of other involved agencies such as the Secret Service, found that Park Police cleared Lafayette Square as part of a plan to erect fencing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, they could have needlessly slaughtered 1000 pigeons and called it part of the plan, or they could have erected the fencing while the protesters watched from the street, or they could have done any of dozens of other things, notwithstanding the erection of the fence that does not explain the timing of their actions relative to the appearance of Trump, Barr, Milley, and Ivanka. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x - I thought it was clearer the way I wrote it. If you think your phrasing is clearer, you can go ahead. starship.paint (exalt) 15:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the usual "complete and total exoneration," followed by "Mr. Greenblatt said he did not appreciate the comment." :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• From that source, "MSNBC correspondent Garrett Haake — who was on the scene as police began to clear the park — reported that the protests were largely peaceful until police moved in.
  "It was by far the most peaceful day of protest that we've had in D.C. since Friday night," Haake reported. .... Haake added. "All while I was listening to the president of the United States speak about law and order, I was watching people fall down as they ran, I was watching people get pushed aside by police forces."
  The source refers to violence during the protests from May 29 to May 31, but reaffirms that peaceful protesters were cleared ln June 1. . .dave souza, talk 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The IG Report says that it was "mostly peaceful" protesters! Yet the article in the opening sentence STILL says "peaceful protesters!" WHY? Chris155au (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Because this article is about the clearing of peaceful protestors on June 1, and you shouldn't take phrases in the IG report out of context. Quote the whole sentence. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"In the early evening of June 1, acts of violence directed toward law enforcement increased as the crowd size grew, as they had May 29 through 31. According to USPP radio logs, intelligence repo1ts, photographs, and videos, protesters breached the bike-rack fencing and entered the secured area, climbed on top of the burned-out comfo1t station, and threw projectiles like rocks, water bottles, and eggs at law enforcement officers." https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SpecialReview_USPPActionsAtLafayettePark_Public.pdf Chris155au (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

So "mostly peaceful" wasn't a quote and no mention there of clearing. The alleged nearby incidents precede agreement of the "operational plan". You're trying to

synthesise a distraction from the well-documented clearing of peaceful protestors when law enforcement mangled implementation of that "operational plan". . . dave souza, talk

13:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

So those mostly blacked-out photographs at figures 6 and 7 show all that (threw projectiles like rocks, water bottles, and eggs at law enforcement officers)? Figure 6 looks like there is one individual standing behind the bike-rack fence, and just how many people fit onto the right side of the restroom in figure 7? If there was violence on June 1, why don't the Results in Brief mention it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

dave souza, nobody is questioning whether or not peaceful protesters were cleared! OF COURSE many peaceful protesters were cleared, but it's quite clear from the Park Police and the IG Report that some of them were VIOLENT! Chris155au (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Souza is correct. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I don't object to the removal but I don't understand part of your edit summary. Which one of the three sources is the op-ed, and which part of the text is not supported by the sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Forgot to mention the edit Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The Ryan Cooper piece seems to be commentary. "Media revisiting coverage" doesn't really seem to be firmly supported by sources. Neutrality^talk 16:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Rupar's Vox analysis—I omitted the opening bracket so the link was shown as text.^[1] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That source does support the content, but do we really need to include it? The article basically says that the media self-flagellation is wrong. I'd rather we let the IG report speak for itself. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

MANDY, a somewhat self serving essay, is not a valid reason to remove something that is reliably sourced and relevant. The reception of the IG report received a lot of notable coverage and that short sentence you removed should be included. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article reads, and has read for a long time, "On June 1, 2020, amid the George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., law enforcement officers, along with agents of the Secret Service, used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, just before President Donald Trump and senior administration officials walked from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church." Twice now, User:Account9000 has removed the word "peaceful", saying There's no way of knowing the intentions of every single individual protestor. and No. There is video evidence showing some protestors were not peaceful. They are protestors (NPOV), not peaceful, not violent, just protestors. I restored the word peaceful the first time, and User:Feoffer restored it a second time, both of us pointing out that Reliable Sources overwhelmingly describe the protesters as peaceful. That sentence has three references; all three refer to the protests as peaceful. A search of the article finds the word "peaceful" used over and over, with references. Since Account9000 disputes the word, I am bringing it here for discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Account9000: Please point out the video evidence of violent behavior by the demonstrators. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• @
  weight as against the multiple reliable sources showing that peaceful protesters were forcibly removed. . . dave souza, talk
  18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post is using the phrase "mostly peaceful" in its reporting: "When the U.S. Park Police led law enforcement officers into a crowd of mostly peaceful protesters outside Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, including officers equipped..." [36] NPR is reporting the same thing in its coverage of the IG report: "As he did, law enforcement violently cleared what had been mostly peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park." . See here: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004832399/watchdog-report-says-police-did-not-clear-protesters-to-make-way-for-trump-last- I think we're going to have to follow the pattern here and use the phrase "mostly peaceful" rather than removing the word "peaceful" as has been suggested.Neptune1969 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We still have all the articles and eyewitness accounts from last year saying the protesters were peaceful (CNN reporter). The IG only reviewed the USPP's actions (and their chief lied). There's the almost 2-hour Reuters video (as the line of officers starts advancing I see one water bottle being thrown and bursting about 5 feet in front of the officers), Vox analysis Vox_6/2/2020, Vox analysis of IG report Vox/6/11/2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The peacefulness of the protestors almost seems irrelevant since we now know they were cleared to install fencing. Sure it's been widely pointed out and should somehow be incorporated in the article, but we should make more clear that the crowd on the day of the clearing wasn't the reason for the clearing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No. The issue is the violence of the "clearing". Gen'l Milley is not reported to be in the fencing business. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should replace 'peaceful protesters' with 'protesters', as the proported peacefulnes of these protesters remains a contentious issue. Chief Monahan testified in front of congress that the protestors were assaulting his officers with projectiles. Others have claimed the protesters were peaceful (and by implication that Monahan gave a false testemony). If wikipedia is going to take a stance on this question, in favour of the latter group, we might as well rewrite the section on Monahan's congressional testimony as 'Chief Monahan falesly testified that ... ". The more neural stance would be to remove 'peacful' from the opening sentence and then discuss the epistemic status of this description in an appropriate subsection.Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Equivocation and misspelling does not advance the discussion. If there were 6 protesters throwing things and 3000 peacefully milling about, the use of weapons and aircraft on the 3006 would entail violent assault on 3000 peaceful protesters. And that's what RS accounts of the event tell us. So that's what WP will say. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for any misspelling, english is not my primary language. I do not see any equivocation in my post, but please point it out to me if you think there is one. The park police explicitly described refered to them as "violent protestors". Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not the job of other editors to point out specious and equivocal arguments that fail any test vs. RS narratives. You'll need to take on that responsibility yourself. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO Where is the equivocation? You can't make accusations like that without being willing to offer evidence. Please explain yourself. Terjen (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Remember that Monahan is very much a

WP:DUE. - Wikmoz (talk

) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

see this recent revelation regarding Trump's approach to demonstrations. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

When I first read the timeline, I got the impression that the events were set into motion at 4:50 p.m, when the Secret Service informed the USPP that Trump was planning to visit the Park. Only when I read the the section on the inspector generals report did I realize that "the Park Police began to plan the clearing of the area at 10 a.m., trucks with the fencing began arriving at 4 p.m., and at 6 p.m. Park Police started drafting the warning for demonstrators to leave the park (a warning that was ineffective and was largely unheard by the crowd)."

I thus added the two following bullet points to the timeline:

• 10:00 a.m.: The Park Police began to plan the clearing of the area
• 4:00 p.m.: Trucks with the fencing began arriving at (sorry about the superfluous 'at')

A couple of hours later someone had removed these bullet points. Before I add them back in, is there any reason not to include these in the timeline? Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for removing without comment. Please feel free to add back with citations. However, I'd try to stay closer to the source material:

• "At 10 a.m., the USPP incident commander had a conference call with USPP command staff and said the fence might be installed later that day." (p 8)
• "10 a.m.: USPP command staff holds a briefing and notifies officers of possible fence installation later in the day." (p 32)
• "4:00 - 4:30 p.m: Fencing contractor's employees arrive at Lafayette Park; first of three semitrucks with fencing material arrives inside the White House complex" (p 33)
• "The fencing contractor’s project manager told us that all the employees building the fence arrived at the White House complex by approximately 4 p.m. She further stated that the first of three semitrucks with fencing supplies arrived on site between 4 and 4:30 p.m. and was staged on Pennsylvania Avenue near the Blair-Lee House (see Figure 8)." (p 13)

Thus the entries could be summarized as:

• 10 a.m.: USPP command staff holds a briefing and notifies officers of possible fence installation later in the day.
• 4:00 - 4:30 p.m: First truck carrying fencing material arrives at the White House complex.

- Wikmoz (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see your text reflected some existing text in the IG section of this topic. I added the above entries to the timeline section and removed the slightly inaccurate summaries from the IG section. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Park Service actions are only incidental and are not why the event is notable. Should not get UNDUE emphasis. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Didn't consider this. It's a fair point. Since the fencing is the main pretext for the plan to secure H Street, I'd err on the side of including. Obviously, it doesn't explain how the operation was conducted or answer questions raised in the congressional hearings... Why police pushed all the way to I Street if only to install fencing along the south side of H Street. Why the plan wasn't adjusted when a large number of protesters gathered in the afternoon, etc. But it does contribute to our understanding of the day. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Per

WP:ONUS, policy says we should err on the side of not including. It is a Republican talking point, equivocation and deflection. SPECIFICO talk

14:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikmoz, thanks for clarifying the actual wording of the report. I agree about using these formulations instead of the paraphrasings I copied from the IG section. SPECIFICO, the reason I think these earlier events should be included, is that the current timeline can give the impression that events were set into motion by the Trump administration/ Secret Service (I got that impression when I first read it). By informing readers that events were set into motion before the Secret Service got involved, we avoid the risk that other readers get confused. Could you please elaborate on your point about

WP:ONUS? Surely the IG report is a reliable source?Erlend Kvitrud (talk

) 06:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your response shows you have not understood ONUS. Please read it carefully. The notable and notewothy event and detail relates to the militarized violation of 1st Amendment rights, not park service grounds keeping ordinary crowd control or the like. Only the right wing elevates that to significance wrt the photo op. SPECIFICO talk 06:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Specifico! Speaking as a reader who ended up with a false impression about the event after reading the timeline, I don't think we are doing our readers any service by omitting the events preceding the involvement of the Secret Service. Speaking as a socialist, I guess we can consider your hypothesis that "Only the right-wing elevates that to significance wrt the photo op" as falsified :). Speaking as someone who just read

WP:ONUS, I would describe the rule about omitting information that "does not improve an article" as pretty self-evident, and hold that information that gives the reader a fuller understanding of the context in which the event occurred, would indeed improve the article. Erlend Kvitrud (talk

) 11:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I accept your acknowldegement of the disrespect you showed your fellow editors by not havin read ONUS when first indicated. The peaceful park service -- Smokey the Bear, etc. has not been described as the context for military attacks on peaceful demonstrators. Full stop. If you have RS saying the PS is the reason for flyover aircraft buzz and munitions deployed v. demonstrators, you should provide them now. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Although the Park Police (i.e. "The peaceful park service -- Smokey the Bear, etc.") might not have been involved in any "military attacks on peaceful demonstrators" that day, they sure were involved in the police operation against the protesters at Lafayette Square :P. According to the Deadline piece referenced in the opening sentence of the article, there was "widespread criticism that [the Park Police] used flash grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas to clear peaceful demonstrators". The Park Police themselves denied these allegations though, and - at least with regards to the CS gas - the IG seems to conclude in their favour (although, according to the IG section, the report found that the Park Police "may have fired pepper balls into the crowd, contrary to the USPP incident commander's instructions"). I am less sure about the epistemic status of the allegations that the Park Police used flash grenades and rubber bullets. Regardless, the operation was planned and run by the Park Police, most of the police officers present were Park Police, and the decision to advance on the protestors was made by the Park Police (source:IG). As such I think it makes sense to depict their plans and actions as part of the context for the events. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Erlend Kvitrud: - do you have a reliable secondary source pointing out the events of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.? I don't like that we only cite the report, because we're not meant to include everything from the report. We should be including what reliable secondary sources are highlighting about the report. For example, WaPo highlights: We now know, for example, that the plan to install fencing along the square was, in fact, ready to be initiated. There were three trucks with material already on scene by 5:30 p.m. At 5:50 p.m., the report indicates the incident commander for the Park Police “instructed the USPP Horse Mounted Patrol unit and the USPP and ACPD civil disturbance units to prepare for deployment onto H Street,” the street just north of the square and the northern boundary of the secure area. “At 6:04 p.m.,” the report continues, “the USPP incident commander drafted the dispersal warning on his mobile phone.” We can tell that there are three important timings, 5:30, 5:50 and 6:04, but this source does not establish that 10:00 or 4:00 itself is important. It just indicates that the important thing is that by 5:30 three trucks were there. starship.paint (exalt) 08:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Starship:. Thanks for a good question! I guess the only reason why I picked these exact events, was the fact that they were already described in the IG section, and as such, I figured that someone had already deemed them important. For all I know, there might be more important events that should be added (either in addition or instead of these). I suppose the event "First truck carrying fencing material arrives at the White House complex" would be at least as important as some of the events that were already included (e.g., "Second and third trucks holding fencing material arrive at 17th Street"), though this is obviously a weak argument for including it. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Erlend Kvitrud: - just because the events are described in the IG section does not mean that the timing of the events is important. I've re-read the sources which highlight the fencing. ABC News says [37] The review ultimately found park police had been planning to clear the area for days to install anti-scale fencing CNN says [38] The report documents show that on May 30, the Park Police and Secret Service, after assessing recent acts of violence that had occurred amid the ongoing protests, decided "to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park and discussed procuring an antiscale fence." On the morning of June 1, the Park Police and Secret Service began developing a plan for a contractor to install fencing, which would require the park to be cleared. At noon that day, the Secret Service said the fencing contractor could proceed, and the contractor's employees arrived later that afternoon to install the fencing. So these events seem important because the reliable secondary sources have highlighted them. I'm still not seeing the exact times of 10am/4pm being important. starship.paint (exalt) 08:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply! Regarding "just because the events are described in the IG section does not mean that the timing of the events is important". Yea, that was sort of what I was getting at: I thought the timeline should include some of the earlier events/decisions, but I was not sure if these two particular events were the most relevant ones. It was interesting to hear that the Secret Service had been involved from the beginning though, as that seems to weaken the emerging, new narrative in which the plans to clear the crowd were unrelated to the White House. Thanks for digging up that piece of information!

Sir or Madam, you seem to be learning on the job here. Do you realize how much valuable editor time and attention it consumes to teach you what you should have read before diving into a difficult and contentious subject? To repeat -- this article is not about a security fence, which understandably would be erected to protect the president and White House even on a remote possibility of disturbance there. It's about militarized assault on American citizens peacefully demonstrating in a public place. SPECIFICO talk 10:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please keep in mind

WP:NPA. - Wikmoz (talk

) 19:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not applicable. Editor time and attention is our most valuable resource, and we should expect everyone to come to this workplace prepared and able to contribute based on policy and sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Working on an update to the Security perimeter section. I'm trying to reconcile early reporting with the fact set presented in the OIG report. The section currently suggests incorrectly that after violent protests on May 31, "Barr decided to expand the White House's security perimeter to include Lafayette Park". The OIG report and photos show that the park was already closed on May 30 using bike-rack fencing. Accordingly, the accounting needs to be adjusted to clarify that the perimeter was being temporarily expanded beyond the park. The wording might be along the lines of:

Following violent protests in D.C. on May 29, planning began on an expansion of the White House security perimeter. On May 30, the National Park Service closed Lafayette Park and installed bike-rack fencing along the north side of the park. Discussions began between the USPP and Secret Service to establish a more secure perimeter that would include anti-scale fencing.[OIG]

According to a Justice Department spokesman, "Trump directed Barr to 'lead federal law enforcement efforts to assist in the restoration of order to the District of Columbia'." The federal response resulted in all Homeland Security Investigations agents in the area being told just before noon on June 1 to prepare to assist with handling protests. All the federal officers newly stationed to D.C. had volunteered for the opportunity, said the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Following the overnight demonstrations on May 31 that included fires set to the basement of St. John's parish house, the Park Service restroom in Lafayette Park, and the nearby AFL-CIO building, and graffiti on the Treasury Department, the decision was made to move forward with the installation of anti-scale fencing on June 1. Although the decision to extend the perimeter to allow for fence installation had been made that morning, it had not been carried out by the afternoon of June 1, surprising Barr, who had entered Lafayette Square to check on conditions. He then ordered the perimeter expanded. A member of the D.C. National Guard reported he had personally informed Barr that the crowd was peaceful. Officers began clearing the area around 6:30 p.m., ahead of the previously-announced 7 p.m. city curfew.

Thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

For those who don't speak American, a piped link in "Park Service restroom" is useful clarification. . . dave souza, talk 06:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ran with the above changes. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"However, the repeated claim that Barr ordered the clearing of the area for the photo op was never supported and quickly contradicted. The plan to clear the park was set long before there was any discussion of the photo op, and it was based on the threat posed to the White House compound. Barr said he was unaware of any planned photo op when he approved the plan and that the delay in implementing it was due to the late arrival of needed personnel and fencing. Nevertheless, legal experts like University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.” (Vladeck later offered a bizarre rationalization for his peddling the false account).

The false account was debunked by the Inspector General report. The BLM lawsuit against Barr and the federal government was later dismissed — again with relatively little recognition by the reporters and activists who flogged the false story for a year." (JonathaTurley.org)

Nonsense, and exhaustively explained why in previous talk discussions here. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's impermissible for the lede to describe the protests as peaceful when that is a disputed claim. sources for each side (peaceful vs violent) are cited later in the article, which is proper. OckRaz ^talk 21:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You have reinserted your removal after I restored the longstanding consensus version. Per my edit summary, please review the talk page archives and do not edit war. This is not the first time you have attempted to remove this key verified fact about the incident. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

your calling a disputed claim a fact doesn't make it so. there are standards. stop reverting edits that correct the article to proper form. OckRaz ^talk 21:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of making irrelevant personal remarks here, please follow my friendly suggestion you review the previous discussions on the verification of this content. Meanwhile, the status quo should be restored, and as soon as somebody puts it back, I suggest you stop removing it. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

your suggestions have been noted and given the attention they deserve OckRaz ^talk 14:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Peaceful is very well-sourced. Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

no. there are conflicting claims. there's no verification. OckRaz ^talk 14:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The contrast between the peaceful protesters and violent law enforcement response is central to what makes the event notable. So I'd strongly favor including the word in the lede if there's consensus that the protest was indeed peaceful. To that end, have you watched the Reuters video of the protest on H Street? It's one of many videos that present

WP:BLUESKY

evidence of what transpired. I grant you that this wasn't a sit-in or candlelight vigil. There were people shouting and a few threw eggs and empty water bottles.

If there is disagreement (prior discussions here and here), editors look to reliable sources (

WP:RS) for objective assessments. Neutrality

did a great job starting to compile examples of reliable source descriptions of the protests. I'll extend the list a bit...

• WSJ: "peaceful demonstrators" ... "crowd of peaceful protesters"
• CNN: "peaceful protesters"
• CBS WUSA9: "witnessed nothing but peaceful protester behavior"
• WP: "peaceful protesters"
• Reuters: "largely peaceful protesters"
• AP: "largely peaceful crowd"
• AP: "peaceful protesters"
• ABC: "against peaceful protesters"
• NYT: "peaceful protesters"
• USA Today: "protesters were peaceful"
• BBC: "peaceful protesters"
• PBS: "a peaceful demonstration"
• PBS: "cleared peaceful protesters"
• Bloomberg: "use tear gas on peaceful protesters"
• Bloomberg: "dispersal of a peaceful protest"
• Vox: "peaceful protesters"
• Politico: "apparently peaceful protesters"
• Guardian: "the peaceful protesters"
• NBC: "entirely peaceful protest"
• Forbes: "sweep the area of peaceful protesters"
• The Atlantic: "converged on the peaceful protesters"

Always open to debate as new evidence is presented but at least for the moment, I think we're in good company in the way the topic characterizes the protests. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)