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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , "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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

January 2023 RfC
Should the phrase "Ashburton House (the church's parish house), which had been damaged by a fire during protests the night before" in the lead include a wikilink to "Church arson"? JimKaatFan (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * No The church was not set on fire. It's not even clear that the fire that started (in a building adjacent to the church) was arson. Linking to Church arson is inaccurate and misleading. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As above, this was not a case of church arson. Changing my opinion to Yes. I see now that the definition of church arson, at our "church arson" article and in related laws, includes setting fire to church property, not just to the church itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. That section of the lead has a lot of links, including this one also feels like too many (MOS:LEADLINK). It does seem that the church itself was set on fire (or at least its basement/nursery), but I agree that there's minimal information from the sources themselves about whether this was arson - the most is the church's priest saying 'a fire was lit in the nursery'. The sources definitely imply it was arson related to the protests, but that doesn't feel like enough evidence. Had a quick look for more recent sources, but could only find a few articles about a reward offered for suspects with similarly vague language. MadameOctavian (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * if you had thoughts. MadameOctavian (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, just to agree with SPECIFICO and Wikmoz's comments: whether or not the fire could technically be described as 'church arson', it feels misleading to use the link or the term 'church arson' because it implies the church was targeted specifically for religious reasons. The article at church arson does list one reason that churches are often targeted as because they're 'soft targets' (easily accessible to the public), but since there were several fires in the area it still doesn't feel accurate to imply the church was targeted because it's a church. MadameOctavian (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The first sentence of Church arson reads: "Church arson is the burning of, or attempting to burn, religious property." St. John's Episcopal Church's property includes its parish house, Ashburton House. The wikilink brackets the words "damaged by a fire". Per 's links which show that rewards for the arsonist have been offered and the media is reporting this event as arson. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The three sources currently used for this sentence in the lede do not make any decision as to whether it was arson or not, however, more recent sources report the ATF labeling it as "arson". See The DC Post and atf.gov. ––FormalDude (talk)  14:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed one of the three sources, the "Today" one, from the article, because it inaccurately claimed that the fire was set inside the church itself, in the church basement. The fire was actually set in the basement of the parish house, as the other sources make clear. The damage to the church itself was mainly graffiti. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No It's an easter egg that confers UNDUE meaning to what happened in this incident. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If an Easter egg is your concern then do you think it would be better written out and not appear as a link ("the subject of a church arson the night before")? Leaving it as a link has offered enough of an explanation in the lead for a long time, and doesn't seem undue or unreasonable (the reason Trump did this photo op, the subject of this article, was to oppose the arson), but if you'd like it to be clearer then maybe consider offering that specific language as an option of this RfC rather than keeping the explanatory link. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is even worse, going from insinuation to outright misrepresentation. The incident was not what our readers think of as "arson". SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia readers don't think purposely setting a church nursery on fire is arson? Why not, if I may ask (am literally not understanding your reasoning). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The impression I get is that church arson falls into the category of a hate crime or religious zealotry. Or at least strongly suggests those motives. In the case of Ashburton House, there's no evidence of an anti-religious motive. More likely, this was just an unoccupied building with a glass window in the wrong place at the wrong time and some idiot saw an opportunity.
 * To recap: On the night of May 31, rioters set fire to a lot of things (bathrooms, cars, stores, etc.) around Lafayette Square without a clear target. One of several street bonfires was set up in front of the church. MSNBC has a live report from the scene. Fox News had a live report from the building just after the fire was set.
 * The graffiti on the church read: “The Devil is across [the] street.” I read that as anti-Trump, not anti-Church. So linking this to church arson would ascribe an anti-religious motive to the person who did this. And we just don't have any evidence of that. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ? A fire was started in the nursery of the church, within the pastor's home, owned by the church. This page is literally about Trump's next-day reaction to a church arson. It would be mind-reading to attribute the motive of the fire to ignorance of location, but since Wikipedia goes with the sources (which report on rewards for the identity of the arsonist who started the church arson in a church's nursery), and this was a fire set on church property which if not seen and put out would have spread, at a minimum the existing link seems topic and page appropriate. Misunderstanding what church arson is and the opposition to a simple link (notice the RfC does not call for direct use of the words 'church arson', nor have they been used on the page) brings up the option of making the concept clearer. The arson, and the reaction to it, are what the page is about. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point as we're literally discussing arson to church grounds. "Church arson" may well mean arson to any church for any reason... regardless of motive or how many other structures were also set on fire at the same time. Or the label could necessitate an anti-religious motive as enumerated in the relevant federal criminal code. Or it could just be a Wikipedia catch-all category. As an example, the hate crime label doesn't apply to any crime of hate. The Wikipedia definition as it stands makes no mention of motive: "Church arson is the burning of, or attempting to burn, religious property." So given the current broad definition of the Wikipedia article, the link would seem fair, especially given that we're just talking about a blue link here. I'll defer to others. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "church arson" bit is exactly what Trump was falsely trying to project with his bible-clinging photo-op, summoning the mighty forces of various overweight white men at his side for rthe march to the Church. This link would just be a validation of that narrative, which is not confirmed by the well-sourced narrative in the text of the article. If there's an inconsistency here, the content at the church arson link should be refined, not misapplied on other pages. -  SPECIFICO talk 10:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, for me at least, the debate centers on the definition of "Church arson," which like "hate crime," may have a narrower meaning than the two words by themselves would suggest. If Wikipedia's definition of "Church arson" is too broad, the link should be removed and that article should be fixed. If it is correct, then the link is harmless. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, the United States has a law against setting its special territorial structures ablaze, and that is probably the more relevant federal statute to mull over here. Certainly the one with the fewer elements. For any willful malicious reason imaginable, whoever. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * wp:or SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's about content, so I suppose you're missing something. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no mainstream narrative that you can cite to support your OR. So it will never go in the article, to spell it out. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out the federal law against arson. I don't need a "mainstream narrative" for that, just a link. And I don't want it in the article, I just want Wikmoz to consider it as perhaps more relevant than the one he linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we're in agreement that this qualifies as arson and a bluelink to Arson would be fine. The question remains: what is the definition of "Church arson"--if a single definition exists. In 1996, Congress passed the Church Arson Prevention Act. That law inserted the relevant language into the U.S. Code that I cited. So that's the reason why I cited that language. The law is referenced in the second paragraph of Church arson. It requires a specific motive, which contradicts the broader definition provided in the first paragraph. This may be worth discussing on the Church arson talk page instead. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, that's understandable. To me, that inserted language just has very little about arson itself. Inclusive of it, sure. But mostly a hate/rape/kidnapping thing, and a bridge we can cross if and when a suspect is ever even presumed to have had any problem with churches, minorities or babies as a group. In the meanwhile, I'm also fine with regular Arson, it's just less specific. But perhaps less offensive, so that's good. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging the lead editors from Church arson who might be able to weigh in. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No It's not even clear that the fire that started (in a building adjacent to the church) was arson. Linking to Church arson is … misleading. per others. The two sources used don't describe it as arson (considerable intentional damage by fire) and certainly not Church arson, which must in order to to meaningful or helpful be intentional damage by fire of a church.  Even if we ignore motive, all 'arson' has to be intentional, this may well have been accidental or possibly reckless.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't see an argument or any RS indicating that this wasn't arson ("the crime of intentionally starting a fire in order to damage or destroy something"). Both sources say that the fire was "set." Amid all of the other intentional fires set that night on that block... to claim this one was an accident strains credulity. A glass window was broken, D.C. Police said the fire was deliberately set, and the ATF circulated photos of a person of interest. For those interested, review the video here. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, church property counts (and without a suspect, presuming a crime occurred is fine). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Not a strong nexus to topic, and not lead-worthy. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's a borderline Easter egg and while it might fit technically, it's a bit beyond what most would say. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - The Washington Post: the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been set on fire Sunday. Some one set in on fire; that is arson. Since it's the arson of a church it's a church arson.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just restating a view that's been rebutted by several thoughtful editors above. If you wish to change the tide of this discussion, I suggest responding to the reasons why editors rejected your view above. Please see this guideline to discussion. Your post appears to be only at the "contradiction" point. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the fire on the church grounds the day before has nothing to do with Trump using tear gas and riot gear to force peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square so he could hold someone's bible upside-down for a photo-op. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
The original poster noted that "damaged by a fire" is linked to Wikipedia's article on Church arson and challenged the accuracy and appropriateness of this link.

The link is helpful in that it correctly clarifies that the fire was a result of arson ("the crime of intentionally starting a fire in order to damage or destroy something"), which is supported by multiple reliable sources that use the word "set," law enforcement's assessment of the fire as deliberate, ATF's circulation of photos of a suspect, and the broken window on a door leading into the basement.

The word "set" was actually included in the initial topic outline and my first draft of this article. It was removed on June 3 2020 with the editor note that "neither reference asserts who set the fire in the church, as police haven't established this yet." The word still appears in the Ashburton House fire section.

So if it is arson and the fire was on church property, what's wrong with "church arson"? The definition of "church arson" provided in that topic is without citation and appears to still be changing. The term connotes an intentional act of protest against a religious organization and hate crime. This is reinforced by the examples provided in the Church arson article as well as the laws cited in the lede of that article. That connotation is further reinforced by the objections of several editors to this link. Like "hate crime", the definition may be narrower than the two words taken separately.

Accordingly, I propose the following edits.


 * 1) Restore the word "set" as follows: "...damaged by a fire set during protests." This clarifies that the fire was intentional, in line with RS.
 * 2) Remove the hyperlink, which is no longer necessary to indicate arson and directs to a term with an ambiguous meaning.
 * 3) In the section,, hyperlink the text, "fires were set," to Wikipedia's article on Arson.

- Wikmoz (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - perfectly reasonable compromise. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We do not know the "intention" related to the fire. This version, like the even worse "church arson" proposal, would only serve to validate non-mainstream views that there was any just cause for Trump's deployment of force against no commensurate threat. It is insignificant whether one person, never found and interrogated or investigated, "set" the fire. We do not know the circumstances. They could have set it by discarding a cigarette, e.g.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "set" already appears in . This doesn't validate the later actions of the administration. If some people choose to see it as validation, so be it. However, it shoudn't change how we document the facts of the event. We don't know how most of the fires in D.C. that night were initially set, including the bonfire near the church, but the reasonable conclusion here is that these weren't accidents. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the other content. I have made some edits to conform to the source and copy edit. "So be it" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. The meaning should be clear and unambiguous. Guardian is in general an OK source, but it's not really among the best available for major events in the US, where we have NYT, WaPo, AP, etc. etc. Bonfires are generally not arson. The Americans love to have bonfires wherever they gather -- 4th of July, at the beach, School football games, etc. Bonfires are not damage to property. They're discrete manageable conflagrations.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The fire in the basement nursery didn't have anything do with Trump using tear gas on peaceful protestors to clear them out of the area so he could have his photo-op. And, we have no idea why or how the fire was set. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is inconsistent with both sourcing and the consensus reasoning in the poll in the RfC. Time to drop the stick on OR misrepresntation of the protesters.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This article deeply buries the lede.
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)
 * 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Your point was clear the first time. RS do not confirm it.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The lede covers the DOI IG report, but USSS + WH aren't under DOI purview.  Feoffer (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes. There's RS consensus on the content of the report. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * There's been quite a bit of discussion, so you will have to make new, convincing arguments to change this part of the article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)