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

Article size

Per WP:TOOBIG, this article should be divided. The timeline and responses may benefit from being in separate articles, and extraneous detail in the main article (Investigations and hearings) can likely be cut out. RajanD100 15:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need to be divided. Prose size is 68kb and the timeline doesn't count towards it as a bulleted list. A trim could be worthwhile, but not a split. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, the article is f***ing huge. 260k for a photo-op thing that doesn't even have a proper name. Can't we at least give it a name? Drmies (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, "readable prose size" right now is 71kB and wiki text is 254kB, but WP:TOOBIG refers only to the former. Lots of writers have written about the "photo-op thing that doesn't even have a proper name". I could come up with some new names for the event if you like, but I don't think they'd be very WP:CIVIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, I love you like a brother, but this article is inflated--that lots of writers have inflated it also is another matter. But please do come up with something, and keep in mind that CIVIL points at behavior towards other editors ("editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect"), so call it what you will! You know I'll always be civil to you, no matter how poorly I think of your life choices. Hey, I'd like to know why all these baseball reels are showing up on my Insta. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Insta knows what you really like. Like I said 10 months ago, we can try to trim this article, but I don't think I contributed much to it and don't know that much of what's even in it. I recommend getting other editors opinions on how. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate name for it should be "The Lafayette Park Police Riot". This is one of the most apparent and clear examples of a police riot in modern history. The police were ordered to attack innocent, non-violent protesters, third parties including international journalists, EMTs and bystanders including clergy. This is by very definition a police riot. 76.20.186.149 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article deeply buries the lede.

The complaint having repeatedly been made by OP and amply rebutted, this thread is hereby closed. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The opening paragraph (and overall structure of the article) begins by talking about law enforcement removing protestors with gas, Trump then having his photo taken at the church, then goes on to describe condemnations, lawsuits, apologies, and various other innuendo suggesting general malice or wrongdoing on the part of Trump, and then at last mentions that virtually all of the actions taken by law enforcement were totally unrelated to Trump's visit, but instead had to do with erecting a fence. The article should be structured so that relevant facts about the event in question are presented first, and heavily biased and/or uninformed reactions come later. Sysiphis (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The gassing etc. was not necessary for the fence, and the narratives about the park service being responsible for the extreme measures is regarded by RS as false Republican talking points. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. "The gassing etc. was not necessary for the fence" - your opinion about what was/was not necessary is irrelevant.
2. "the narratives about the park service being responsible for the extreme measures is regarded by RS as false Republican talking points" - False. The article already contradicts you, backed up by many RS:
A June 2021 Interior Department Inspector General review of U.S. Park Police actions found that Park Police cleared Lafayette Square as part of a plan to erect fencing.
I'm saying that since the facts show that the park was not cleared for Trump to hold a photo op, despite this false belief being what the controversy was mainly about, the article should make this abundantly clear and not bury it. Sysiphis (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point was clear the first time. RS do not confirm it. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article and the RS. They do confirm. Here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-clear-lafayette-park-area-trump-hold-bible/story?id=78171712
U.S. Park Police did not clear Lafayette Park and the nearby area of protesters on June 1, 2020, so President Donald Trump could walk from the White House over to St. John’s Church, but learned of his interest in surveying the site hours after they already had begun planning to clear the area to put up new fencing, according to a new watchdog report.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/protestors-cleared-outside-white-house-for-fence-not-trump-photo-op.html
The Interior Department’s watchdog claimed in a new report Wednesday that police violently cleared protesters from a park outside the White House last June to allow a contractor to install security fencing, not to enable then-President Donald Trump to stage a widely criticized photo op while wielding a Bible.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/police-did-not-clear-d-c-s-lafayette-park-protestors-n1270126
When federal police officers violently cleared protesters from the city's Lafayette Square in June 2020, they did it so a contractor could install fencing — not to let President Donald Trump hold a photo opportunity at a nearby church, an investigation by the Interior Department's inspector general has found.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-photo-op-lafayette-park-protesters-report/
The Interior Department's inspector general said in a report released Wednesday that evidence it obtained "did not support a finding" that federal authorities forcibly cleared protesters from Lafayette Park last year so then-President Trump could walk from the White House and pose for a photo outside the historic St. John's Church.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004832399/watchdog-report-says-police-did-not-clear-protesters-to-make-way-for-trump-last-
The U.S. Park Police did not clear protesters from a park outside the White House so then-President Donald Trump could take a photo-op at a nearby church, an Interior Department inspector general's report found.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/09/park-police-lafayette-square/
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 with chemical irritants and officers on horseback, they did so as part of a plan made days earlier to build a fence around the park to protect officers, not to facilitate the visit minutes later by President Donald Trump to a nearby church, an inspector general’s report released Wednesday concluded. Sysiphis (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede covers the DOI IG report, but USSS + WH aren't under DOI purview. Feoffer (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Countless RS say that the park was NOT cleared for Trump's photo op, but for the construction of a fence. That is what matters, and it is highly relevant for this story, of central importance really. You can take up your issue with who had jurisdiction over whom with the various RS, but that is what they say. Sysiphis (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Countless RS do not say this. Countless reliable sources say that the DOI IG said this. They're all quoting the same source. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that many RS have reviewed the same source and come to the same conclusion in their interpretation of its contents? In that case we have RS consensus on this point. Sysiphis (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's RS consensus on the content of the report. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This entire scandal centered around Trump's ego and how he cleared protestors with tear gas just to get a photo op. But detailed official reports directly contradict this central claim. Obviously whether Trump's visit had anything to do with the removal has far more importance than reactions which assume he did and innuendo suggesting a motive. How much evidence will be needed before we temper the suggestive sentence "law enforcement officers used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, creating a path for President Donald Trump and senior administration officials to walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church." ? We have many RS which do not dispute the finding that the clearing of a path was incidental. Sysiphis (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the actions taken by law enforcement were totally unrelated to Trump's visit This contradicted by many reliable sources. Secret Service, not USPP, began the clearing. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. Reliable sources confirm it. The story has evolved over time. The overwhelming consensus now is that there is no evidence the operation had anything to do with Trump's visit. This article needs to reflect that clearly.
"We did not find evidence that a potential presidential visit to the park or the St John's Church influenced the park police's decision making, or their deployment, you know, in their operation to clear out the park. So that's the big, the big finding of our report is, is the is the clear evidence of why they decided to do so and when they made the decision, and on the flip side, the lack of evidence related to the President's potential visit influencing that decision," [Interior Department Inspector General Mark Greenblatt] said on ABC News Live. Sysiphis (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greenblatt's report is discussed in the lede, but the report explicitly does not cover USSS who initiated the clearing ahead of the presidential visit. Feoffer (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned only in the 4th paragraph, and in a way that does not clearly indicate that Trump's visit had nothing to do with the operation. There are many many RS citations stating exactly this. You talking about whether the Secret Service initiated it or not is irrelevant, because the opening paragraph does not distinguish departments, it uses the term "law enforcement". This needs to be rewritten in the name of accuracy, clarity, and honesty. Sysiphis (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The DOI report was limited to USPP plans and plan execution. It did not review the actions of the DOJ, MPD, BOP, Secret Service, or administration officials. While the report found that there was a pre-exisiting plan to install fencing, it made no judgement on the timing of the plan's execution or the degree of force used in the implementation. It did not explain the urgency to implement before the 7pm city curfew despite MPD asking USPP to delay or why the Secret Service rushed their side of the effort. It does indicate that someone of importance asked USPP to move up their timeline but those details are redacted. Further, it did not explain why the plan to clear H Street for fence installation (on the south side of the street) ended with USPP and ACPD moving a block north, up Connecticut Ave and 16th Street. We really need to wait for the DOJ IG report for the full picture. The lede is not buried. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are injecting your personal suspicions about the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the report into this discussion. RS review has been clear about what the report indicates, namely that the park was cleared primarily due to USPP's efforts to erect a fence, and that there was no evidence that the decision was influenced by a photo op.
We did not find evidence that a potential presidential visit to the park or the St John's Church influenced the park police's decision making, or their deployment, you know, in their operation to clear out the park. So that's the big, the big finding of our report is, is the is the clear evidence of why they decided to do so and when they made the decision, and on the flip side, the lack of evidence related to the President's potential visit influencing that decision
This is straight from the horse's mouth and he really could not be clearer. Sysiphis (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The limitations of the report's scope are stated on the opening page of the report. The report provided a great deal of insight into the day's events and the article was updated to reflect the facts introduced in the report. The report makes no judgement on the actions or motivations of the Secret Service, MPD, DCNG, and other involved agencies. Keep in mind that the DOI IG is not the sole arbiter of truth. Looking at the totality of available facts, the article accurately describes the events of the day. I think we'll get a lot more clarity on the day's events when the DOJ issues its report. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment of what is important from the report is largely irrelevant. When a larger number of RS's report your interpretation of the report rather than the interpretation they are currently reporting with, then your argument will have merit. Until then, it seems like you're trying to do original research. Sysiphis (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Erecting a fence

The IG determined this happened to erect a fence. Stop reverting the edits. 108.11.11.23 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been quite a bit of discussion, so you will have to make new, convincing arguments to change this part of the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An inspector general report is not satisfactory for Wikipedia??? Fortunately the truth always shines brightest. Best of luck on your job search come November! 108.25.16.54 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All current reliable sourcing on the matter clearly states there is no connection between the clearing of the park and the "photo op". The plans to clear the park were hatched before the officials knew of POTUS' plan to walk to the church.
This page is nothing but an attack article, and you all are defending it, burying your heads in the sand to ignore evidence that dismantles your preferred narrative. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump's Legacy" section in 2003 International Institute for Strategic Studies book

When thinking about the lasting significance of these events, I found a summary of them in the section on "Donald Trump's Legacy" by Dana H. Allin in the 2003 International Institute for Strategic Studies book, Survival December 2020–January 2021: A World After Trump. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. 2023-04-21. ISBN 978-1-000-94754-0. which summarises these actions, and says "n the midst of overlapping crises caused by a global pandemic; consequent economic collapse; racial wounds emerging from four centuries of slavery, civil war and injustice; and bitter political divisions animated by deeply contested visions of American identity, the president had fomented a full-blown crisis of civil-military relations." . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church