Talk:Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C.

Protestors in Lafayette Square 6.1.20 and Trump Photo Op

I added... On June 1, 2020, there was a peaceful protest re: Black Lives Matter in Lafayette Square. Right as Pres. Donald Trump gave a speech in the Rose Garden where he said, "I'm an ally to peaceful protestors", the US Park Police and Secret Service under orders from Trump pushed the protesters out of the way with their shields, used teargas, flash-bang shells, and rubber bullets to clear a path for Trump to walk across the street to St. John's Episcopal Church for a 7:04 photo op with him holding up a Bible.<ref]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-the-push-to-tear-gas-protesters-ahead-of-a-trump-photo-op/ar-BB14TO34?ocid=spartandhp </ref] 73.85.202.217 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the section "2020 attack on protesters"

I was interested in information about Lafayette Square in order to "get the lay of the land". That is, I wanted to understand what Lafayette Square is to better understand the situation involved with the situation of June 1, 2020.

I read the article, and at the end, there was a section entitled "2020 attack on protestors". Yes lacking correct capitalization.

The section's initial sentence is "Main article: Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church" followed by a brief very dense Synopsys of what occurred concerning the "photo-op" situation.

The event of June 1 is noteworthy; however, the addition of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Square Wikipedia article is not appropriate.

In lieu of a dedicated section, a reference to this attack on protesters (which is contained in an existing Wikipedia article in detail) should be used to note and provide the explanation of the attack. Most likely a "2020 attack" section, if retained, in order to keep up-to-date, will need to be revised and revised and revised which undoubtedly is not a desirable Wikipedia method (I don't have a reference for this particular situation but I imagine there is one somewhere.)

I looked to the Wikipedia article about Pearl Harbor as a "template" of how a notable historic event that occurred at Pearl Harbor was handled. The "Day of Infamy" attack on Pearl Harbor was not presented in a section of its own, but as follows in a section entitled "See Also".

Pearl Harbor attack

I propose that the Layafette Square article be modified so that the subject "2020 attack on protesters" is handled in the same manner as the "1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor" was handled in the Pearl Harbor article.

This change would be to remove the "2020 attack on protesters" section and replace it with a new "See Also" section containing the following reference link.

See Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church which provides information concerning police and National Guard troops using tear gas to 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 on June 1, 2020.

(Hmmm. Perhaps this long explanatory sentence could be edited into something a bit briefer.)

Normally, before making this edit, I would contact the editor of the original entry of this "2020 attack on protestors" information to obtain a consensus to the best course of action. Unfortunately, the editors ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do "not exist" so no direct communication is possible.

I could make the change I propose but might encounter a undo revert. So I make this Talk Page entry in anticipation that an Editor or Editors would assist in obtaining consensus help in drawing the appropriate action.

Lacking dissent or other comments, at some point, I will return and implement my proposed revision.

Osomite (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

While I understand your reasoning, I would like to mention WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the fact that while there is no section in the Pearl Harbor article, it still mentions the incident. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 Thank you for joining in my dilemma. But somehow I don't think you solved my problem. I want to edit the Lafayette Park page, and we are having a discussion about Pearl Harbor.

Perhaps you did not intend to be vague, but I don't have a clear understanding of what you meant by pointing out "the fact that while there is no section in the Pearl Harbor article, it still mentions the incident." I don't know what you precisely mean by the word "mentions". What exactly is this "mention"? And which "Pearl Harbor article are you referring to?

In the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there are three "Pearl Harbor" pages. There is the Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam page, which I referred to (where the "See Also" section only provides a link (a "mention"?) to the Pearl Harbor attack). There is the Pearl Harbor page. And, then there is the Attack on Pearl Harbor page. OMG!!! Why are there two or three pages about the same thing? Oh, yea, I get it, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

From the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS page:

This page in a nutshell: A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them.

To be clear, I found the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS page to be word salad and not particularly edifying or helpful to this instant situation.

In any case, back to your observation, you fail to either agree or disagree, but offer a bureaucratic evasion which is not helpful.

Osomite (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I seemed not to be clear before, I will try to be more clear this time. I agree that we should shorten the section, but your arguments for the movement of any mention to the see also section are both incorrect and irrelevant. Incorrect because the main article about Pearl Harbor does mention the attacks and irrelevant because according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the specific formatting of another page is most often not relevant when determining the format of another. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh merde. More discussion about Pearl Harbor when the issue is Layafette Square.

Well done Zoozaz1. Thanks for being clear, but you only picked the facts to support your argument (apparent against the use of the "See also" section). I say "apparently" because you have again created a bit of amphiboly in saying "movement of any mention to the 'See also' section is incorrect". The word "any" creates an exclusion that is not what I intend. Yes, it does sounds at lot like AG Bill Barr parsing simple words like "mention" during his confirmation hearing, but I am not trying to be disingenuous as he was.

Your conclusion of incorrect, it is, of course, just your opinion; and, you are entitled to that, but you are wrong with your facts.

Your conclusion of irrelevant decided by simply using the horry word salad cliche of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no support to make such a determination. You can use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to support probably every dispute that occurs on Wikipedia. It seems to be that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was created as a joke and you somehow are taking it seriously. To quote, "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others". This is really great guidance (policy?). You can take this assertion to either support or attack any disputed issue on Wikipedia (OK, I joke, that is just a slight bit of exaggeration). It is sort of like the need to just argue with just opinion. It is a lot like the challenge, "Let's argue the existence of God. You pick a side." Note however, that "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others." Seriously?

Back to your conclusion of incorrect. Of course, the Pearl Harbor article mentions the attack (it actually does a lot more than that) because this page is all about the history of Pearl Harbor. Clearly, Pearl Harbor was actually attacked, it was one of the turning points of world history. Contrariwise, Lafayette Square wasn't really attacked itself during "June 1 attack on protesters" as the vanguard for the Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church. Yes, there was the burning of the restroom in the park, but as an event, it was separate from the tear gas attack on the protesters. It seems that rather than having a section on the Layafette Square page about the "June 1 attack on protesters", it should actually be a section about the "Burning of an Outhouse".

In picking your facts, you neglected the page I chose as a model for my proposed change: the Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam page where the attack was simply referred to in its "See Also" section.

Looking at the Layafette Square edit history, it is an amazing battle of Lafayette Square taking place. There have been a series of edits completely removing the section and then the undoing of the delete replacing the section whole. A lot of energy is being spent to no good effect. The section is no longer neutral nonbiased information, it has become an ideological battleground. To put it bluntly--the on-going edit war is nuts, nuts, nuts. It would be for the best to simplify the situation with a "See Also" so the scrimmage at Layafette Square about the "Attack on Layafette Square" will quell which would then allow for the full-scale joint action to work out on the Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church page.

There has been a lot of effort spent editing the Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church page. It has achieved a B-class rating. That is a "main" article which is pretty good. Note that the title of this page points to the real action being about St. John's Church, not Layafette Square. It seems that a lot of editors see St. John's Church as the important location and not Layafette Square. Layafette Square happened to be simply a sad bit of a sideshow as compared to the St. John's Church "bigtop" show. To repeat myself, with a "See Also" link from Layafette Square to this main article, then the seeking of consensus can occur in a single location on the Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church page. This will allow the Layafette Square page to become a minor footnote it is and allow it to revert to its previous quiet presence.

So what is the result of this wind bagging? You disagree with me and I disagree with you.

What my concern comes down to is about what would be best of Wikipedia? A page fully documenting this situation with a link to it from the Layafette Square page seems most logical. A section on the Layafette Square page that is becoming more and more contentious is not logical.

I hate the "I told you so" argument, but in my first post to this talk page I pointed out:

Most likely a "2020 attack" section, if retained, in order to keep up-to-date, will need to be revised and revised and revised which undoubtedly is not a desirable Wikipedia method (I don't have a reference for this particular situation but I imagine there is one somewhere.)

This nasty revision situation has occurred and it is ongoing. For what purpose?

So what action should be undertaken? What would be logical? What would be the best for Wikipedia? Do nothing and let Wikipedia editing chaos ensue? Will the decision rest with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS non-guidance guidance because we don't want to offend anyone so let's use a bureaucratic no decision rule the issue? Should Wikipedia send in its version of a UN Peace Negotiation Team and seek peace without dishonor?

Hmmm. Maybe the approach would be to wait until the furor about the scrummage of Layafette Square has subsided, then replace the section with the appropriate "See Also".

Osomite (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

How about we put aside this pedantism that you seem to find unhelpful as well "More discussion about Pearl Harbor when the issue is Lafayette Square," and start focusing on actually solving the problem. You mention that you doubt that it is advisable to revise it again and again; I would direct you to WP:NOTFINISHED. More substantially, since you seem to have admiration for the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church article, so how about we just put the first paragraph of the lead of that article (or possibly the second as well) into this one to make the information that by far most people are looking for when they search for this page as accessible as it can be. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Well said Zoozaz1. No more discussion of Pearl Harbor.

I don't really admire the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church article, it just seems that as it is a main article, effort there would be more useful.

You point out WP:NOTFINISHED. You pointed out something that was not immediately obvious to me, but I see it now. Wikipedia is a "work-in-progress" which progresses every day aided by a lot of people doing what they think is necessary and important work. Somethings done may not please everybody.

Interestingly, during the recent Layafette Square edit swarm, quite a bit of new more recent history of happenings in the Square have been added. With these additional events, the "2020 Attack" event doesn't seem out of place as it was when I first saw it.

Since my last missive to you, I have reflected on what is happening in the Wikipedia space, although it isn't as dramatic as what is happening in the real world space, the editing of Layafette Square is part of the protest. It seems that Wikipedia is the first draft of history, and editors want to get all of the important parts of the protest on the record because it is important to them. What happened at Layafette Square is important enough to be noted in more than one place although redundant because EVERYTHINGCANBEANYWHEREANDANYTHINGCANBEEVERYWHERE. I have come to realize that.

I don't know why I was so annoyed by the "appropriateness" of the "2020 Attack" section. it just seemed to touch off my competing neuroses of ACD and "trying to obtain perfection". Overall, the section is a very minor thing and, as such, I need to not let it bother me and just leave it be. So I will wait for a while until it becomes time for Wikipedians to create the next draft of history on this subject area which I will be very interested in seeing it.

Osomite (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The section seems to be a product of recentism, and could probably be shortened to give WP:DUE weight. --17jiangz1 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Forcible removal of priest

A source about this was just removed: "Ahead of Trump Bible photo op, police forcibly expel priest from St. John’s church near White House."

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? -- Valjean (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Lafayette Square vs. Lafayette Park

There seems to be a distinction (at least according to some government agencies) between Lafayette Park and Lafayette Square. Possibly worthy of a mention in this topic but not sure how best to incorporate.

• U.S. General Services Administration: Lafayette Square, Washington, DC: "Lafayette Park and the blocks that surround it, known as Lafayette Square, feature prominently in American history."
• Park, benched: The land in front of the White House is called Lafayette Square: "Today, the National Park Service cares for Lafayette Park, which refers to the green space itself,” wrote the agency’s Katie Liming in an email to Answer Man. "Lafayette Square includes the park and the buildings and streets immediately surrounding the park."

Wikipedia has a separate entry for Lafayette Square Historic District, Washington, D.C., which includes surrounding buildings.

- Wikmoz (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

DoJ Settlement

The protests section should be updated to include the DoJ settlement of civil cases by leading to "Changes to the agency’s [sc. Park Police and Secret Service] policies" that will "include more specific requirements for visible identification of officers, limits on the use of non-lethal force and procedures to facilitate safe crowd dispersal."

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/justice-department-announces-civil-settlement-lafayette-square-cases 143.229.44.177 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)