Talk:2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States/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.

Archive 1

Connections to Lafayette Square/ St. Johns Church photo op

There should be some mention of the previous federal policing of Lafayette Square in DC to provide context. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Reactions

Politico: "Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler urged the Trump administration Sunday to call off its intervention in the city, accusing the federal forces of “sharply escalating the situation” and employing tactics that are “abhorrent” and “completely unconstitutional.”
Washington Examiner: "The federal government cannot put troops or military personnel or police on the streets without the invitation of the governor or the legislature of the state. That is not only federal law, that is in the Constitution. And as horrific as it is for people who believe in the sanctity of the person and of private property to watch this destruction, there is very little that the feds can do about it," the Fox News commentator said Monday...What happened in Portland over the weekend was not only unlawful and unconstitutional, it was just plain wrong."
The Nation: "“It’s like stop and frisk meets Guantanamo Bay,” attorney Juan Chavez told OPB. He added that these detentions were not following any rules of probable cause. “It sounds more like abduction. It sounds like they’re kidnapping people off the streets."
Congressmen Merkley, Wyden, Blumenauer, and Bonamici: “DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic,” Merkley said. “First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification. Both of these acts are profound offenses against Americans....“Oregonians’ demand for answers about this occupying army and its paramilitary assaults in Portland at the direction of Donald Trump and Chad Wolf cannot be stonewalled,” Wyden said. “That’s not how it works in a democracy. It’s painfully clear this administration is focused purely on escalating violence without answering my repeated requests for why this expeditionary force is in Portland and under what constitutional authority... “The jarring reports of federal law enforcement officers grabbing peaceful protestors off the street should alarm every single American. This is not the way a government operates in a functioning democracy,” Blumenauer said. “We are demanding an immediate Inspector General investigation into these incidents to get answers from the Trump administration and ensure these disturbing abuses of power stop immediately.”...“The overly aggressive conduct of federal officers in Portland is alarming and unconstitutional. Oregonians must be able to exercise their First Amendment rights safely, without being picked up and detained by unidentified federal officers,” Bonamici said. “The President is intentionally provoking unrest and discord, and our community will not stand for it. He purports to be a law and order President, but his Administration’s actions are political bluster and are making our city and our country less safe. We will not rest until we get answers on behalf of Oregonians.”
ACLU: "This is a fight to save our democracy,” said Kelly Simon, interim legal director with the ACLU of Oregon. “Under the direction of the Trump administration, federal agents are terrorizing the community, risking lives, and brutally attacking protesters demonstrating against police brutality. This is police escalation on top of police escalation. These federal agents must be stopped and removed from our city."
NPR: "“What is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the United States. Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street we call it kidnapping. The actions of the militarized federal officers are flat-out unconstitutional."
NBC: "Trump and his acting secretary of homeland security, Chad Wolf, have now unleashed these agents like an occupying army — complete with fatigues, military-style equipment and tactics that are utterly unacceptable in an American city."
Axios: "Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that he "absolutely" believes the Trump administration is violating the Constitution by deploying unidentified federal agents to arrest protesters in the city."
Newsweek: ""The American people will not tolerate a dictator," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) tweeted."
US News: "[Governor] Brown's spokesman, Charles Boyle, said Friday that arresting people without probable cause is “extraordinarily concerning and a violation of their civil liberties and constitutional rights.”
KCRW: "KCRW speaks with Yale professor Jason Stanley, whose new book is titled “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.” He says, “Are there fascist forces in America today that are ascendant and threatening our status as a democracy? Is Trumpism a fascist, social, and political movement? I think it is.”
Independent: "‘The tactics of a dictator’: Portland leaders demand removal of masked federal agents sent by Trump admin following spate of arbitrary arrests"
Washington Post: "“Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping,” Carson said. “Protesters in Portland have been shot in the head, swept away in unmarked cars, and repeatedly tear-gassed by uninvited and unwelcome federal agents."
BBC: "Senior Democrat Nancy Pelosi said "unidentified Stormtroopers" were "kidnapping protesters". Another Democrat Ro Khanna described those involved as "secret federal agents".
Lawfare: "There’s definitely reason to be alarmed about what’s going on in Portland. And even if the federal officers are technically complying with the relevant statutes, there’s something more than just unseemly about camouflaged officers who refuse to identify themselves or their employer purporting to conduct arrests on the streets of American cities. Whether these officers are in fact abusing their authorities or not remains to be seen, but either answer would be deeply troubling."
PBS: "“The idea that there’s a threat to a federal courthouse and the federal authorities are going to swoop in and do whatever they want to do without any cooperation and coordination with state and local authorities is extraordinary outside the context of a civil war,” said Michael Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Cornell University."
Fox News: "“They certainly can't do what they have been doing in Oregon, which is arresting people without a warrant and without probable cause, holding them for a few hours and then letting them go,” he went on to explain. “So they have to be restrained and they have to confine their activity to the federal property.”"
The Nation: "In Portland, Ore., heavily armed federal agents in full military camo are now roaming the streets. Some, wearing no identification, picked up protesters and bundled them off in unmarked vans. These federal officers are, apparently, from a range of agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and the US Marshals Service. Their mandate is officially limited to protecting federal property, and they’ve used Trump’s executive order about protecting monuments as justification—but in practice, they seem to be treating Portland’s streets as legitimate stomping grounds."
Newsday: "While protesters in Portland, Oregon, go on staging an extended rebellion, President Donald Trump poses as the Great Suppressor, bringer of order. Trump likes to show off the use of force. Whether it has any impact, or is constitutionally legitimate, may be an afterthought. He strives to look and sound tough. He wants to humiliate critics and haters."
Vice: ""The federal troops came in, they used their unconstitutional tactics, they injured nonviolent demonstrators, and the whole thing blew up again like a powder keg.”"
CNN:"Trump's 'law and order' is starting to look like martial law"
AP News: "“What they were doing was unconstitutional,” David said. ”Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing...There was no talking. The federal officers, in full tactical gear, came charging out of the federal building.They came out in this phalanx, running, and then they plowed into a bunch of protesters in the intersection of the street and knocked them over. They came out to fight,” David said. One officer pointed a semi-automatic weapon at David’s chest, he said, and video shows another shoving him backwards as he tried to talk with the officers."
NY Mag: "In the past few weeks, federal agents in military fatigues have been deployed in Portland to protect federal property, garnering national attention by grabbing demonstrators off the street, detaining them in unmarked cars, and attacking peaceful protestors. For those concerned about the authoritarian nature of the actions, their anxieties were not dispelled."
Newsweek: "Lincoln Project Rebukes Trump for Sending 'Paramilitary' in 'Unmarked Vans' to Portland: 'This Is How It Starts'"
The Hill: "“You have a lot of peaceful demonstrators,” Napolitano argued. “The complaint filed by the attorney general of Oregon against the Department of Homeland Security recounts horror stories of peaceful people being kidnapped, held blindfold, handcuffed, and incommunicado for just two hours and then let go. There is no reason to disturb those people. The people they should stop are the ones with the baseball bats...The federal government can’t do what it doesn’t have the authority to do,” he added. “And it shouldn’t do anything without the coordination of the locals.”
Congressman Rand Paul: "“We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will,” Paul tweeted Monday."
Boston Globe: "“It is a standard move of authoritarians to use the pretext of quelling violence to bring in force, thereby prompting a violent response and then bootstrapping the initial use of force in the first place,” Dorf said."
NY Times: "“This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether it’s Franco’s Spain or whether it’s the Russian Empire,” said Snyder. “The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.”" Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for collecting these sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Name?

Name may be suboptimal, any suggestions for improvements? "Federal local law enforcement in 2020" or something similar? The real crux of this is federal agents being used over local and state official's objections. Feoffer (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Also, "Anonymous policing in 2020"?

I agree that the current title is not quite right. As I've said at Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#URGENT: Bringing attention to reports of "secret police" abductions, much of the news coverage seems to have emphasised that it's been unclear what agency or agencies the officers in Portland belong to. I'd prefer a title like 2020 deployment of federal law enforcement officers in Portland, Oregon, though less wordy suggestions are welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a confirmation that the identified actions are those of the "Protecting American Communities Task Force"? If not, then I would support renaming to clarify that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My instinct was to resist localizing it to Portland, because reliable sources link into past actions in D.C. and propoosed future actions nationwide.

I'm thinking something like Anonymous policing by Department of Homeland Security that's more focused on the novel behavior, rather than the geography? Feoffer (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly linked in the sources, but I'm not sure it's presented as part of the same phenomenon, exactly. There's also, as I'm sure you know, a different legal background in D.C., where federal involvement is (de jure if not de facto) less remarkable. I'm not seeing the discussion in the sources of "proposed future actions" though; could you clarify? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Police abductions" would be a start, but I prefer "secret police abductions" myselfUnibrow69420 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, BarrelProof: With the news of deployments in Chicago (but not mentioning PACT explicitly) I do think it's time to change the name of this article to something that can encompass the use of force in multiple cities the President has threatened. I think "2020 Deployment of Federal Forces in the United States" might be a good heading. Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Support the name change as there is very limited coverage of these events using either the full name or acronym of PACT. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy to see a decision made on this, and concur that a Portland-specific title is no longer appropriate, though I still prefer the more specific and encyclopaedic "law enforcement officers" over the vaguer, more headline-ish, "forces" or "troops". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, more on this: Politico today describes how "federal law enforcement officers were being confused with troops", i.e. specifically identifies DHS agents as not troops, and otherwise uses "troops" only to refer to military personnel who haven't been present. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciate the move! Feoffer (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

'Troops' in title

Arms & Hearts argues above that we should not refer to these agents as "troops", since they are not military. This distinction is probably a very important one.

What would would we think about 2020 deployment of federal paramilitary forces in the United States? Feoffer (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Our article currently states that on June 1, 2020, amid the George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., District of Columbia National Guard troops used tear gas and other riot control tactics to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets. (Emphasis added.) Wikipedia separately describes the United States National Guard as a military reserve force. (Again, emphasis added.) The National Guard is not a paramilitary organization. NedFausa (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent observation; How about simply "2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States"? Feoffer (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Employees of the Bureau of Prisons were involved in the Washington, DC action; DHS employees are the ones in action in Portland. Neither agency employs federal "troops". And note that the lead sentence of the article (currently) says "federal forces".

The article title really needs to be changed - "federal forces" may not be perfect (what is?), but it's far better than "federal troops". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I support 2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States because it covers both police forces and military forces. NedFausa (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Support change to 2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States Cedar777 (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Feoffer (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Activities in Kansas

We need to create a section on "Operation Legend" which started in Kansas in July. Here are some sources:

Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, could you help me in drafting this section? (and thanks for your edits!) Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but I decline. My 27 edits to 2020 deployment of federal troops in the United States are almost all minor (punctuation, wikilinks, etc.). That's because I am new to this subject and am editing tentatively until I better understand it. Also, in contributing to a section on "Operation Legend," I'd be tempted to quote U.S. government officials such as AG Barr, DHS head Wolf, and possibly even (God forbid!) President Trump. I learned recently at George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon that there's no future in that. Wikipedia's left-wing editorial bias firmly controls these and related pages. As a conservative, I'm odd man out. I'll just continue to tinker from the sidelines and keep a low profile. NedFausa (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi NedFausa, I appreciate your Conservative and also conservative take on editing. Would you, however, please incorporate U.S. government justifications for their operations? I think this would be done best by adding a ===Government justifications=== header under each city in which you quote from relevant officials (before the ===legal=== sections). Keep in mind that while there are many cities, mayors, governors, NGOs, and scholars, there is only one executive branch. That branch shouldn't get equal coverage as everything else, but it should be covered. It's critical that people with your point of view help represent all sides of an issue. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, I'll just second what Ocaasi says; We definitely need statements from those individuals you mention; given sufficient time, I'll construct such a Government Justifications section myself, but you would probably write a better one than me! Feoffer (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, BarrelProof: Could either of you take a stab at drafting the basics? I'm a much better improver than summarizer :) Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Added preliminary info only, with the hope that others can pick up where I left off as my intension is to stay focused my own city of Seattle and neighboring Portland. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Great start Cedar777! Thanks... That is exactly the kind of summation we needed (and I'm not good at). Ocaasi^{t | c} 00:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm _cautiously_ hopefully Kansas City may not, in fact, be connected to Portland, Seattle, and DC, where we've seen unidentified agents in camouflage? Time will tell? Feoffer (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Juan Chavez

In response to this edit summary by @NedFausa: Juan Chavez is, per The Oregonian, Northwest vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and, per the Washington Post, also an attorney for the Oregon Justice Resource Center which, though we don't have an article on it, seems to be the sort of organisation whose views on this sort of thing are relevant. Both Chavez and the OJRC received a degree of attention for initiating a partially-successful lawsuit to prevent Portland police from using tear gas. Chavez is also frequently quoted in reliable sources, including national publications, on related topics: see, aside from the above, The Columbian, Wilamette Week, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Daily Beast, Rolling Stone. So, to conclude, I think his perspective merits inclusion; any objections to my restoring it? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you restore it, please expand his description to something more than just "attorney." NedFausa (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a better descriptor! (Sorry about that). As the person who added it the first time, I of course think it should go back, too. Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Restored with some clarification on who Chavez is and what precisely he was commenting on. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Section order chronologic or alphabetical

The article is organized chronologically in the order in which events occurred. At this time, alphabetizing it is creating confusion. Please discuss first before reverting. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

EFF letter

45 signatories condemning federal actions:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/eff-and-45-human-rights-and-civil-liberties-groups-condemn-federal-law-enforcement

Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Separate Operation Legend article

Just FYI, editors here are likely also interested in the separate Operation Legend article. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed context for D.C. section

RopeTricks, why isn't this important context for Trump's motivations?

Just before visiting the church, Trump delivered a speech urging the governors of U.S. states to quell violent protests by using the National Guard to "dominate the streets", or he would otherwise "deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem".

It seems like a pretty on point part to me. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Why are you asking me, specfically? I never removed that sentence, if that's what you're implying. It's still there, as I never removed it. RopeTricks (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RopeTricks, my apologies. I must have misread the diff preview from the history. Nevermind! Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Guardian coverage

Don't know if editors have seen these:
Trump is using federal agents as his 'goon squad', says Ice's ex-acting head | US news | The Guardian
'These are his people': inside the elite border patrol unit Trump sent to Portland | US news | The Guardian
Regards, . dave souza, talk 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Usage of the term "troops" in the article

I personally think the term "troops" should not be used in this article when referring to federal law enforcement agents. Various federal agencies have a law enforcement (i.e. armed) branch or element, but that does not mean they are soldiers, so as a potential rule of thumb for this specific article for any editor that reads this, the casual, non-quoted usage of the term "troops" should be avoided regardless of RS verbiage. Thank you. RopeTricks (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This article mentions the National Guard four times, albeit without referring to them as troops. However, we should reserve the right to call them that, since they are after all a military organization composed of soldiers. NedFausa (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I checked the article, and it never says "troops" in Wikipedia's voice. The four reference to troops are found in quotes. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

CBP support to local LE, including use of drones and aircraft

A heads up and a question about a recent article from Ken Klippenstein in The Nation, The Federal Response to Protests Extends Far Beyond Portland: "CBP’s support to local law enforcement has extended far beyond its controversial Portland deployment, and includes not just thousands of personnel but also drones and dozens of other aircraft, according to a CBP document obtained exclusively by The Nation. ... An index lists requests from various metropolitan police departments, including the NYPD, Chicago PD, Miami PD, Philadelphia PD, San Diego PD, and DC’s Metropolitan PD. ... CBP aerial assets have been deployed to a variety of states including Illinois, New York, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, California, Florida, and Minnesota." I'm still reading the leaked document. I think there's info in this article and the document that we should incorporate into the WP article, but I'm not sure where, as it doesn't fit well in the current structure, in part because it's requested by local police and quite widespread rather than imposed by DHS without a request in only a few cities so far. Perhaps introduce a new heading along the lines of "DHS actions" and make the "Founding of PACT" a sub-section of that and introduce another sub-section on this CBP surveillance? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, What about making a separate ==Section== for ==Federal surveillance==. I think it's a weird fit in the DHS/PACT section, because that was primarily about the "protect monuments" rationale. This is broader, and there's a good deal of coverage about it. Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

Ocaasi, I wasn't suggesting that it be placed as a subsection the PACT section, but that there be a parent section title about DHS actions, where the PACT founding is one sub-section, and there would be a different subsection about this surveillance, as CBP also falls under DHS. But it's fine with me to just have a separate section on federal surveillance, and ultimately that may make more sense, if it turns out that some of the surveillance wasn't carried out by DHS. We'll need to bound it properly; my impression is that the federal government normally does some surveillance nationally (e.g., for federal crimes), and the article should be clear about whether/how this surveillance is different. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion. Either way, I trust you. Try it out and see how it looks. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ocaasi, OK, I've started a new section. I ended up placing it first for chronological reasons, as the surveillance precedes Trump's EO and the formation of PACT. So far, I've only added info from the NYT article and a couple of letters from members of Congress. The 6/9 letter cites a number of additional references, so I'm going to link to it here too, [1], as a resource for anyone else who wants to work on this section. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, looks good to me :) Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

It's unclear how people are choosing which events to list (or not) in the Timeline section. What should be listed there? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wolf's role in family separation

Wolf was an architect of the family separation policy, and reliable sources connect Wolf's role in the family separation policy to his deployment of CBP to Portland. Writes Slate:

Wolf is perhaps the perfect person to lead this particular dystopian innovation of the Trump presidency, having previously authored an infamous memo advocating for a short-lived but horrific policy of “separating family units” to deter undocumented immigration. Wolf has graduated from advocating kidnapping children from their parents at the border to kidnapping grown adults in American streets.

Wolf's background provides us important context for the deployment in Portland, but mention of his history has removed. Feoffer (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I believe it should be mentioned in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and personally do not consider Slate a high-enough quality cited "RS" to use as any authority on this specific issue, nor does the quote you cited seem remotely academic or encyclopedic (it reads more like an opinionated Tweet or a blog post than a proper journalistic, neutral piece on Wolf's background) to the point of convincing, but you seem fervent on mentioning the immigration policy for some reason, so have at it. RopeTricks (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Department abbreviations

There are a lot of federal department names that are used repeatedly (e.g., Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol, Department of Justice). How do we want to handle abbreviations? Some are introduced in the lead and others aren't, as some agencies aren't mentioned in the lead. We can introduce the abbreviations the first time each agency's name occurs on the page, but right now there isn't any consistency in when people have chosen to spell out a name vs. use the abbreviation. My inclination is that at a minimum, an agency's name should be spelled out the first time it's used in a given section. Perhaps we should also create an infobox that includes all of the relevant agencies/programs and their abbreviations? Under other circumstances, I'd just say to spell the names out each time, but that seems cumbersome here. I'm open to changing my mind though. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Spelling the names out for each is very cumbersome, just introduce the abbreviations the first time the agency's name occures. RopeTricks (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo removed as WP:NFC is originally from a Twitter video

I see that a bot removed a photo titled “Federal agents in Portland, in body armour and camouflage, detained a protestor without identifying themselves, and placed him in an unmarked van,” in this edit per WP:NFC. If someone wants to pursue this to reinsert the image, it originally came from the video in this tweet and presumably isn't covered by the copyright in the NY Magazine article that was cited. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The bot removed the image solely because the rationale was still pointing at this article's old name, Protecting American Communities Task Force. That wasn't a problem so long as that still redirected here, but now it's been turned into an article in its own right. —Cryptic 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still a newish editor, and this is something I didn't understand enough to fix. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)