Jump to content

Talk:Canada convoy protest: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 898: Line 898:


I would recommend adding "The Canadian Civil Liberties Union condemned the use of the Emergency Act as threatening "our democracy and our civil liberties"" below the existing paragraphs about the act sourced to the two links above
I would recommend adding "The Canadian Civil Liberties Union condemned the use of the Emergency Act as threatening "our democracy and our civil liberties"" below the existing paragraphs about the act sourced to the two links above

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Canada convoy protest|answered=no}}
The freedom convoy is a domestic terrorist group that dosent represent Canadian belief [[Special:Contributions/209.52.88.218|209.52.88.218]] ([[User talk:209.52.88.218|talk]]) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:49, 16 February 2022


RfC re: monument desecration in lead

Should there be a mention of the desecrations of the Terry Fox statue and the National War Memorial in the lead section of the article? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that should be in the lede but maybe there should be an "incidents" section or some such where these events can be described. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should be mentioned in the lede as such incidents have gained national notoriety, been covered in international news media, and are subject to police investigation. Citobun (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents like that happen each and every Canada Day, when certain individuals get drunk or high. They are condemnable by all means. However, here they are emphasized in order to villainize the protests that were peaceful by the vast majority of the participants. I would not put that in the lede. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may or may not happen, but they don't receive the SIGCOV that the events of last weekend did. Your frankly abhorrent speculation about why it was reported is just that, speculation, and deserves no attention. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about frankly abhorrent - your reaction to his completely reasonable suggestion is what is abhorrent. As noted below, had a sports jersey been put on the statue during a championship tourney, it would be laughed off, not called "desecration." The hysterical tone of reportage around the placing of a hat and sign on the statue is transparent, to those willing to see it for what it is.174.0.48.147 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the defacing of these monuments has received significant coverage like here and here.--Seggallion (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the statue desecrations might end up being the most notable thing about this protest. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They might, and they might not. That is irrelevant speculation that we are not allowed to consider in making editorial decisions, per WP:CRYSTAL. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is certainly relevant for the article but not relevant for the lede TocMan (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Desecration" is the wrong term. The statue was "defaced" by having a hat and sign placed on/near it. It was not permanently altered or damaged. If an Ottawa Senators jersey had been placed on it during the Stanley Cup playoffs, it would be laughed off and forgotten, not referred to as "desecration".174.0.48.147 (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that really it? If so then "desecration" is entirely the wrong term. There are statues in my city that still have face masks draped or painted onto them, and (rightfully) nobody is calling that desecration. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes  This has received significant coverage. This article is about protests, and these acts are among protestors’ intentional demonstration activities, so it is relevant to the subject (and unlike some random drunken vandalism). Desecration, defined as treating a sacred place with violent disrepect, is the right term for dancing on a grave or urinating on a monument. Not sure whether the Fox monument was desecrated, or merely violated, defaced, or dishonoured. These acts have nothing in common with a respectful act of celebration, like some given counterexamples, regardless of whether you agree with their sentiments. —Michael Z. 21:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is hardly of real significance to the subject of the article, which is an enormous protest. Just try to imagine similar sentences about a hat and sign being put on a statue in the lead of, say the George Floyd Protests article—protests in which billions of dollars of damage was done and hundreds of statues were destroyed. And "desecration" is wildly hyperbolic and incorrect—in English usage, it's reserved for graves and "sacred" or "holy" sites (even if sometimes not religiously so)—and to use it is not only a patent violation of WP:NPOV, but an embarrassment to an "encyclopedia". ElleTheBelle 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember kids, it's only desecration if you don't share the politics of the person decorating the statue. https://preview.redd.it/f3dgey4cdve81.jpg?auto=webp&s=4a77809c175fc8bdf8501f768f06974ba54d7aef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.48.147 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Because these incidents are not what the protest is about or is defining it by any means. As said above, to use the word desecration is an exaggeration, as these monuments are not holy to an overwhelming majority of Canadians. Lappspira (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with neutral language. Regardless of one's interpretation of the seriousness of the conduct at the monuments, it dominated the media coverage of the protest. One can claim that those actions might not represent the movement's ideals, but those actions did indeed did occur, and were unarguably a focus of media coverage. However, neutral language should be used, or the language of media sources. Emotionally-charged terms such as "desecrated" should not be applied by Wikipedia editors except as used by source material. Bunnycube (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong no. The protests now span several weeks, across the country and with international protests and repercussions. Putting some signs and a flag on a statue, even if controversial and widely covered by media, is of little to no relevance in the overall framework of the protests. It is not a vital piece of information significant enough to be included in the lede, especially when there are (in my opinion) many other topics of the same or greater relevance that are being left out, such as state of emergency being declared in ottawa, the winnipeg hit-and-run incident, international protests, gofundme controversy... I also think the way it is worded ("desecration") does not follow NPOV. And finally, if it is to be included, the fact that the protestors themselves cleaned the statue afterwards has the same relevance and should be included as well.[1] --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES. I can see reasons for including it and excluding it but lean towards a short mention and then maybe more details later in the article. The acts were jumped open by media and by opponents and sent the tone or reinforced it for public reception. Protestors then gave the statues special attention afterwards. TLDR: A very brief mention using neutral language, perhaps more detail after Pmmccurdy (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Even if this is notable and supported by RS, the lede is supposed to summarize major points and events. it's not a place to catalogue details, which should be placed further down in the article. if these "desecrations" were a significant focus of the protests, then it could be mentioned. but they're not, and the prominent mention comes across as bias & cherry-picking. Xcalibur (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. Closure requested at WP:CR <permalink>. See fairly strong agreement below that the current title should be changed. Yet there is only spotty agreement on what that change should be. WP:OTHEROPTIONS helps us choose, and the choices are:

From these options it appears that the best choice for now is Canada convoy protest. OTHEROPTIONS guides us: "the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title." Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Convoy 2022 → Ottawa convoy protest –  

The media never refer to this as “Freedom Convoy 2022.” They rarely refer to it as “Freedom Convoy” without scare quotes, indicating that the name does not reflect a WP:NPOV. There is no single WP:COMMONNAME, unless we include scare quotes in the title: "Freedom Convoy". So I am proposing a descriptive name, using the most-used terms “convoy” and “protest,” with a disambiguator “Ottawa.” This serves four of the five WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, and concision.

Below is a survey of Google News top results for Ottawa, the first clear noun reference to the protests, in the writer’s voice, in the body of each article. This includes the first 20 items that mention the protests, some only in passing.

  • 9 called it “protest(s)”
  • 8 called it “demonstration(s)”
  • 7 used “Freedom Convoy,” 6 of them with scare quotes and/or “so-called”; 5 of them with initial caps on the name
  • 5 mentioned trucks or truckers in the name
  • 3 mentioned “convoy,” not “freedom convoy”
  • 3 mentioned “Ottawa” (18 mention Ottawa in the article title)
  • 1 mentioned opposition to vaccination mandate

The survey:

  1. “protests by the so-called "freedom convoy"”[1]
  2. “a huge demonstration,” “the protest”[2]
  3. “the "Freedom Convoy"”[3]
  4. “noisy protests”[4]
  5. “the so-called “freedom convoy” protest”[5]
  6. [other news coverage]
  7. [other news coverage]
  8. “the ongoing demonstration”[6]
  9. “the Freedom Convoy demonstration”[7]
  10. [other news coverage]
  11. “the truck blockade in Ottawa”[8]
  12. “protesters opposed to vaccination mandates who have filled the streets of downtown Ottawa”[9]
  13. “the "Freedom Convoy" demonstration”[10]
  14. [other news coverage]
  15. [other news coverage]
  16. [other news coverage]
  17. “influx of truck convoy protesters into the city”[11]
  18. “the convoy that has taken over the city’s downtown core”[12]
  19. “ongoing, disruptive protests”[13]
  20. “the demonstration in Ottawa”[14]
  21. [other news coverage]
  22. [other news coverage]
  23. [other news coverage]
  24. [other news coverage]
  25. “the "Freedom Convoy" demonstration”[15]
  26. “the "Freedom Convoy" protest”[16]
  27. “the so-called truckers’ protest”[17]
  28. “demonstrations against pandemic restrictions,” “the intractable protests”[18]
  29. “the trucker convoy protest”[19]
  30. [other news coverage]
  31. “throngs of truckers and other demonstrators,” “the demonstrators”[20]

   —Michael Z. 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest the article text follow the prevailing usage, and use quotation marks or descriptors to make it clear that “Freedom Convoy” is the organizers’ name, and not what it is generally called. —Michael Z. 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the lead and infobox to reflect this. —Michael Z. 16:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to undo your edits but shouldn't you wait for some discussion to be generated? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will respect any reverts or edits. —Michael Z. 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think infobox should be changed if there's a pagemove, but seems confusing to have infobox and page title contradict. DirkDouse (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mzajac thank you for the work done on this matter. A couple of points I'll make, now that there is coverage on some numbers involved (albeit with a huge range estimate) it seems most involved were not even part of the convoy(s) so I would argue the name should be 2022 Ottawa protests. Plural because it was over the course of a week so far. The convoy to get to Ottawa is almost a footnote at this point. Secondly I agree this is not the Common name but the name given by organizers and should probably read in the lede: "The 2022 Ottawa protests (also known as Freedom Convoy 2022 by organizers) were..." CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal is a suggestion, and I’m happy to agree with one of the possible alternatives, if it helps lead to consensus. Certainly makes sense to use plural “protests,” acknowledging the article could mention sympathetic protests in other cities too. (I would prefer to see “Freedom Convoy,” at least in the lead, appear as I’ve written it “so-called "Freedom Convoy",” or similar.) —Michael Z. 17:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "So-called" has an air of presumption and potentially weasel-y sounding in my opinion. It's much easier to suggest Freedom Convoy 2022 is a name of the movement given by organizers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or lead with the neutral description, and move the POV name to a second sentence. We could WP:AVOIDBOLD altogether. (Is there a WP:RS for the organizers’ name including year?) —Michael Z. 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the use of the year in the name of the GoFundMe is referenced in CBC, CTV, BBC and others. I do like the idea of avoiding bold. -- Zanimum (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted those changes. The title of the infobox should line up with the title of the page; if there is consensus to change, then change at the time of the page move. Re: "so-called" seems not WP:NPOV. If the title does change, text in lead should be something more like "New title (referred to as the Freedom Convoy by organizers)..." DirkDouse (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "Certainly makes sense to use plural “protests,” acknowledging the article could mention sympathetic protests in other cities too" -- I am not opposed to making the article broader with something like "2022 convoy/trucker protests." There have already been some other events discussed in the article; depending on how things go over the next... days? weeks? months? It might be appropriate to rework the article into a broader discussion with a broader name. DirkDouse (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re: "scare quotes" -- I don't believe that the use of quotes around the name "Freedom Convoy" by media necessarily means that it isn't recognized as the event's common name; seems like it acknowledges the name regardless of quotes or not. However, there is also a section and ongoing discussion on this talk page about other related protests that aren't part of the main Ottowa event. Changing the name seems like it makes things more ambiguous relative to other ongoing convoy/trucker protests (i.e., this specific event by these specific organizers vs. other groups). DirkDouse (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It indicates the name is WP:POV, and we should not lead with it in Wikipedia’s voice. —Michael Z. 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like most/many protests/political events have names that are POV, but using them isn't necessarily an endorsement of the event or name. E.g., the name 'March for Life' implies a number of assumptions about abortion policy, but is still acknowledged as the name of the event/group. DirkDouse (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "freedom convoy" is not the common name and it's povy—blindlynx 17:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Convoy protest" is most often used by media. 162 etc. (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Freedom Convoy 2022" is probably not the right name, but this article is about the nationwide event(s), not just the events in Ottawa. Some prominent sources are starting to shift to calling the Ottawa events an insurrection or an occupation; this question should be revisited when the event is in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my first thought too, as there are other related events (notably the blocking of the border at Coutts); however, the article as it reads today is almost entirely focused on Ottawa. Should protests in other places become more significant, they'll probably end up with their own article anyway. 162 etc. (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title would mean that these demonstrations are limited to Ottawa. As we speak, related protests are occurring across Ontario and all of Canada. However, I'm not sure what the best title is. --Local hero talk 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At this time I lean towards waiting until things play out more before making a decision here. Could see this article's scope going a lot of different ways. DirkDouse (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory. It seems there is a general consensus that the current name may not be best, but that issues remain with identifying it using Ottawa. I agree that this isn't like, say, Occupy Wall Street, where the "official" protest name is the common one -- "Freedom Convoy 2022" is very much not the common name. What about using Canada instead of Ottawa, something like Canada convoy protest or 2022 Canadian Convoy Protest?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Naming it Ottawa convoy protest would imply the scope of the protest was limited to the cappital city Ottawa, while:
1. The convoy travelled through several routes through all canadian provinces before getting to Ottawa, with the Ottawa demonstrations being just a part of the overall protests (in the article, convoy movements section). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/world/canada/truck-convoy-protests.html
2. There were several demonstrations across the country linked to the convoy, parallel to the Ottawa ones. https://www.nsnews.com/national-news/convoys-against-mandates-in-other-canadian-cities-support-of-ottawa-truck-protest-5008229 Including the protests in the US-Canada border, with one of them having their own section in the article (the Coutts-Montana border wasn't the only one https://www.agweek.com/news/vaccine-mandate-protests-disrupt-truck-traffic-at-us-canada-border)
3. There have been international protests linked to the canadian ones, with the same motivation and goals. Limiting the name to Ottawa would exclude the international scope of the protest. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10458149/Covid-19-Australia-Convoy-Canberra-arrives-protest-vaccine-mandate-cars-crash.html https://nltimes.nl/2022/01/30/convoy-freedom-passes-netherlands-protest-covid-restrictions
Freedom Convoy is a short descriptive name, widely used by reliable media and others to refer to the protests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60202050 For all these reasons, I oppose the change. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without using WP:CRYSTALBALL here - is this article going to continue to be about the Ottawa protest specifically or the entire movement? It seems to be evolving into something a little more convoluted. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with this movement growing nationally and as well as mimic convoy protests around the world it does not make sense to rename this Ottawa Protests. Depending on the direction of the article this could be the starting point of the Convoy movement (Canadian Freedom Convoy, European Convoy, Australian Freedom Convoy), or be a specific page to the Canadian Convoy Movement belonging to a separate Convoy Movement page, of to which started in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.95.245 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC) — 50.98.95.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I think that the year isn't necessary in the current article, because there aren't any other freedom convoys yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:E43F:9867:CCE3:BFBA:28D6:1180 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving somewhere; current title fails WP:POVTITLE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving to "Ottawa convoy protest" as these protests are taking place throughout Canada and are certainly not limited to Ottawa. I don't think the current "Freedom Convoy" title is right based on POV concerns brought up by others, and I would support a move, but not to "Ottawa convoy protest" or similar titles. Frank Anchor 02:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose is clearly a Canadian protest and not merely an Ottawa event. News coverage and extensive media showed local support for the convoy as several sets of trucks and vehicles moved through various parts of Canada as they converged on the seat of the Canadian national government. Moreover, the WP:COMMONNAME clearly is not about Ottawa. N2e (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons already amply described above. Calling this title POV is silly. The name 'Freedom Convoy' is used to describe this event by multiple RS already cited on this page, when I search 'Canadian truckers' on Google at least the first ten results that could be considered RS use the name 'Freedom Convoy,' and 'Freedom Convoy' appears to be the name commonly used by the protesters themselves. I might find a name to be inapt - for example, I don't think there's anything the least bit patriotic about the Patriot Act - but you won't find me trying to get the name of the Patriot Act page changed to something that I think is less POV; that's not helpful to anyone. This is a real no-brainer. Joe (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Based on the seriously flawed survey posted above. It cites CTV News 8 times, Globalnews.ca 3 times, CBC twice, Ottawa.ca twice, The Globe And Mail twice, and three other local papers once. Which is not surprising when searching for "Ottawa", but it does not come close to covering the diversity of sources reporting on this event. You can find no shortage of sources calling it Freedom Convoy in the References section of the article page. Interestingly enough, most of the sources that use 'Freedom Convoy' with single quotes in the article page are also from CTV news. The fact that they also use the same style for 'Occupy Wall Street'[21] leads me to believe that this is merely the internal style guide of CTV News for clarity purposes, and not them passing judgement on the name itself. Databased (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Changing the article name by limiting it to Ottawa lessens the scope of this whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrySpongeYT (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — DrySpongeYT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Generally Support due to what appears to be a breach of WP:POVTITLE. As the initiator mentioned, the term "freedom convoy" is used by media in quotes, which indicates they are not willing to apply that label to the protests themselves. Despite this, I do note that some of the detractors of this move have also made some points and I'd be fully willing to support a neutral and NPOV-compliant third option, if such were to be suggested. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose, because it is not just in Ottawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peking Tom (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Not limited to Ottawa, the movement is now international with truck convoys forming in various cities and countries across the world. The current name of the page is appropriate and accurate. Ralphw (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the suggested new title. Ottawa is the largest but there are smaller protests across Canada. I have no prejudice against moving it to "2022 Trucker Protests" or something else. – Anne drew 19:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck my vote. After doing some reading, it's clear that Ottawa the biggest protest and the others are kind of copy-cats. – Anne drew 02:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Move to "January 2022 Ottawa protests", "January 2022 Canada protests" or some other more reasonably attainable name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support either of those, with a preference for Ottawa given the current scope of the protests and this article, but as these protests are now in February I believe we should drop "January". BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think the proposed article name or the current one are suitable, as others have mentioned above me. Valkuay (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Ottawa convoy protest" seems lacking in clarity. It should have a year or COVID-19 in the title. It's not the only time a convoy of protesters have approached Ottawa, though not this dramatically -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: As stated above, a plethora of reliable sources refer to this event as such as do the actual organizers of the event. I see no logic in changing the name to what is proposed. However, I don't quite understand "Freedom Convoy 2022." That doesn't appear to be used in any sources and, if we were just using the year to differentiate between some other "Freedom Convoy(s)," doesn't the year typically come first, not last? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point about the year and its placement. ElleTheBelle 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "freedom convoy" is certainly endonymic, but it's also the name by which even the opposition seems to think is the common name. But we must admit of course that "freedom" is a value laden term, and use caution keeping that influence out of the decision to either keep or change the name. Thadeuss (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As of now, it's being referred to as the "Freedom Convoy". There's no need for a year at this point, any more than in George Floyd protests—and "Freedom Convoy protest" (or "protests") seems the best title for now. Wikipedia's use of a name is not an endorsement of the name's meaning, for example: Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea. And scare-quotes are an obvious violation of WP:NPOV; it suggests that the name is inaccurate or deceptive. Again, see George Floyd protests.
  • Support per commonname. "Freedom Convoy 2022" sounds like an advertisement or something for a poster. A title describing the protests based on the Google News result hits seemed like a good way of surveying. -Kai445 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article also seems to be about these related protests in other parts of Canada, and how some of the convoy headed to Ottawa, other groups protested in Vancouver, at the Alberta-US border, etc. Referring to this as only the "Ottawa" convoy protest is going to be confusing and misleading. If we are going to spin off those sections into articles of their own, perhaps the reference to "Ottawa" is appropriate. If not, the current title is a better term for what is happening across Canada.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Freedom Convoy 2022" sounds like this article is promoting this event. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Freedom Convoy 2022" is not a good name by any stretch, but I do believe the term 'Freedom Convoy' should be incorporated into the title as this is the common name used. 2022 Canadian Freedom Convoy Protests perhaps?Yeoutie (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, more than fifty of the RS used on this page use the name "Freedom Convoy" in their title alone. More still use the name in the body of their text. In fact, almost all RS use the name Freedom Convoy to describe this event. I believe Somedifferentstuff may have misspoke when saying "No WP:RS I've seen uses "Freedom Protest"" - Freedom Convoy is the name in question. Joe (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a common, neutral and descriptive title. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose As others have said, the convoy and protests have not been limited to Ottawa. Note: When searching for this article on WP, I entered Freedom Convoy into the search bar. StonyBrook (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Quite frankly, given the fact that such an overwhelming majority of news sources uses the name "Freedom Convoy" to refer to the protests, I'm hard pressed to see calls for renaming this article due to alleged POV issues as anything other than POV-pushing from the opposite side of the debate. As contributors to a project that strives to present information in a NPOV way, we need to set aside our own personal opinions (especially when it comes to controversial issues) and look at things objectively. And any objective look at this issue concludes that we already have the correct name for the article, perhaps with the exception of the "2022" at the end. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Freedom Convoy" doesn't strike me as particularly good neutral name for the article. It comes off like a promotion/endorsement instead of the title of an article about the protests. WP:POVNAMING -Euphoria42 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose I am not quite decided on the matter between the proper name "Freedom Convoy" and a descriptive name, but as Yaksar points out in the section below, the proposed title is insufficient. Should have some combination of the year/"Canada"/"COVID-19" in the title for better accuracy and specificity. — Goszei (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the protests have not been limited to just Ottawa. The Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit has been blocked for days by the same group. "2022 Canadian convoy protests" might work, or something to that effect, but the title should not limit this article's scope to just Ottawa. --WilliamTravis (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Look everyone, they are blocking the Vancouver-Seattle Border and the Detroit-Windsor Border, not just protesting in Ottawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as at least an improvement over the current title; the current title is obviously WP:POVNAMING, nor has anyone presented enough sources to justify the claim some people have made above that this passes WP:COMMONAME - the survey above clearly disproves that; and, again, to overcome POVNAMING it is not enough that a name be official (for some definition of official) or that sources exist using it, it has to actually be the name used in the majority of osurces, which is plainly not the case here. The name can be further refined from here but getting it to a non-POV version should take priority. Note that since the proposed name is more neutral it does not have to pass COMMONNAME (which is only a strict requirement for non-neutral names like this one) - the key point is that neither name is the common name but that the proposed one is at least more neutral, satisfying one key criteria. The current one name satisfies none. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The more that reporting comes out on this, the more that it seems like the 10 year test-notable topic is going to be the current wave of anti-vaccination protests lumped together as a whole. I don't think that limiting the article's scope to the protests in Ottawa is prudent. This series of convoy protests are not limited to Ottawa, so "Ottawa Convoy Protest" is not a good descriptive name for the series of protests. The "other protests" section really seems to be about a series of protests that public reporting are indicated are connected in a particular way. The Wall Street Journal lumps the Ottawa protests (which it notes as being under the banner Freedom Convoy 2022) together with protests throughout Canada (for example, the Ambassador Bridge protests). Not all sources do this explicitly: CNN (which refers to the Ottawa protest in its own voice as the Freedom Convoy}) paints the Freedom Convoy as the protest in Ottawa but also characterizes it with all of the other protests going around Canada right now.
    If we don't want to expand the scope of the article, it doesn't look like there's truly a common name for the protests going on in Ottawa right now that RS use in their own voice. But what I am seeing is that the vast majority of sources describe the protests as the "Freedom Convoy"—either in their own voices or as a something akin to the unique name of the protests despite the name being in quotes. Simply put, it's the most recognizable name. It's also the most natural; it's absolutely the case that the title is one that readers are likely to look or search for. If we're going to go with the most commonly recognized title, Freedom Convoy 2022 seems like the most natural way to go—if we're looking at what people will attempt to look up, "Freedom Convoy" is way more used than the phrase "convoy protest" or "Ottawa protest".
All in all, I think no matter which way this gets sliced, the proposed name is inferior to the current name. Since it's also the case that the current name is acceptable and in-line with the article titles policy, I see no policy-based reason to move it at this time. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add onto my above, I don't think that the current title is any more of a breach of WP:POVTITLE than Holy Roman Empire which, despite being neither Roman nor a proper empire for the vast majority of its existence is most commonly known by that. Even though other names are also infrequently used to refer to the political entity, that doesn't change that the HRE is most recognizable under the non-neutral name that implies acceptance of its legitimate succession from the Roman Empire. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion, start a new proposal?

At this point, I think this discussion is too convoluted to find a separate consensus option. But as far as I can tell, all of the policy-based opposes raise the concern about an unwarranted focus on solely Ottawa. Therefore, I might suggest that this be closed if a consensus is not determined, and instead a separate proposal be made for something like 2022 Canada convoy protests.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't intend for this to be broken out into a separate section, but I'm ok with whoever did. If the closer can determine a consensus here that is great (there are definitely a lot of non policy-based arguments to wade through, so good luck), but my main concern was that any solution that would address the main concern of folks about the Ottawa focus is probably too late now to garner a consensus. I do disagree with the folks claiming there is a clear consensus against moving -- when it comes to policy-based arguments, the arguments in favor of the current title are fairly weak.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrySpongeYT (Talk/Edits) The name doesn't need a change. Freedom Convoy is generally agreed upon to be it's name. Quotes around it don't matter. — Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Isn't 'Occupy Wall Street' a good precedent? It's not Occupy Wall Street 2011, nor is it New York protests of 2011 – no one would remember that. In the future, it will be easier to look this article up by what it was called – Freedom Convoy – than whatever legalese this Wikibureaucractic exercise is trying to conjure up. 2001:1970:5E5C:9600:4DEA:7C62:FC0E:7E16 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects exist, and "Occupy Wall Street" doesn't have the same NPOV issues that "Freedom Convoy" does. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thinking you're inventing a POV issue where one doesn't exist. The article is called Kosovo because even those who dispute its right to sovereignty, etc. will still know what you mean when you say "Kosovo". I am afraid to check the talk page of that article, but I hope no one would really be in there suggesting that's an NPOV issue and proposing Disputed territory southwest of Serbia or some other deliberately vague thing. You might take umbrage at the name Freedom Convoy, but that's what everyone is referring to it as and everyone will know what is being discussed when someone says Freedom Convoy. It's an NPOV issue to propose editorializing when your assignment is only to document. --2001:1970:5E5C:9600:4DEA:7C62:FC0E:7E16 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how the existence of redirects is relevant to this discussion. We're talking about whether the name of a protest commonly used by both protesters and the media should be used by Wikipedia as the name of the article about that protest, and in this case, using Freedom Convoy is congruent with using Occupy Wall Street. Also, if one thinks there's nothing POV about a movement called Occupy Wall Street, then one is likely unaware of the connotations of the word occupation, particularly in the American context. But the fact that a protest name may be provocative or inapt does not mean that it is POV or that it should not be used in an article's name. I personally think the name of the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea is very inapt, but that doesn't make it POV. Depending on whether one is politically aligned or opposed to the goals and methods of the Freedom Convoy, one likely views the name as either accurate or inaccurate, but that doesn't mean we should not use common names to describe things. Joe (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support closing this discussion, and/or changing this proposal to a title that reflects the national scope of the protests, e.g. "2022 Canadian convoy protests". --WilliamTravis (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the discussion is closed then the clear outcome is no consensus for the proposed change of name or any other change of name. A new name change can always be proposed from scratch. Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support close Close this discussion, make a new proposal - the entire discussion is convoluted. CaffeinAddict (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't close the discussion - please remember WP:POVNAMING

I'd like to remind all editors of WP:POVNAMING, particularly,

"In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment."

I'd also like to note that, as of writing this, this page has accumulated more than fifty RS that use the name Freedom Convoy in their title, and nearly every RS on the page which directly refers to this event uses the name Freedom Convoy in the body of their text. No matter what one's feelings on this name are, Freedom Convoy is unquestionably the common name of this event, and should be used in any title chosen for this article per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAMING. Joe (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as per Kai455, and as Freedom Convoy 2022 isn't particularly a great name due to other countries such as New Zealand having a similar convoy protest. --Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (I think, but it’s not clear exactly what is proposed.)  Just a reminder, in my survey of the 20 first news items that mentioned the Ottawa protests, only 7 used “Freedom Convoy” and only 1 of them without scare quotes and/or “so-called.” Most used descriptive names. A minority of those sources used the name, and most of those signalled it as non-neutral POV. (Regardless of the article title, the lead should not just use the POV name, but acknowledge its POV.) If one asserts this is the now most common name, can one please show evidence? —Michael Z. 17:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit, I'm well and truly stumped. The current title is clearly not it, simply because there are so many variants, but I can't find much of anything which is concise or precise enough. In any case, there is so much variation and lack of consistency, within the same source (different articles from the same publisher using different names), for ex. "US anti-vaccine mandate campaigners aim to mimic Canadian convoy tactic". Same source also uses "Ottawa protests", "Canadian truckers protest" (although that would be imprecise for an article title); "Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” protest"; "Canada trucker protest"; simply "Trucker protests"; "Ottawa protests"; "Ottawa convoy protest"; "Trucking blockade"; "Convoy protesters"...
  • All in all, it looks like there's no actual "common name". In that case we should look even more strictly at the rest of the WP:TITLE criteria, with concision and precision probably being key factors. My best guess would be 2022 Canadian anti-vaccine mandate protests (or drop the "Canadian" if you so fancy - advance thanks from a non-crazy Canadian)? Or maybe 2022 North American anti-vaccine mandate protests if this expands significantly in the US? Both of these are unambiguous, precise, neutral and descriptive (i.e. the register of language you would expect from an encyclopedia), and more importantly not overly verbose RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely do not see any evidence that "Freedom Convoy" is the common name, no. The highest-quality and most neutral sources generally do not use it. Given the level of coverage it is of course possible to find some sources that use the name; but commonname requires that the majority of the sources do so, which I don't think anyone can credibly assert to be the case here. We can discuss exactly what name to change to, but the current name is plainly unusable due to unequivocally failing to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME while simultaneously violating WP:POVTITLE. Note that the top of the discussion starts with a neutral survey of sources - saying "well I can dig up some that use my preferred term" is not how COMMONNAME arguments work. You need to establish that the majority of high-quality neutral sources use that term, which obviously isn't the case here just looking at the survey above. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mzajac, RandomCanadian, and Aquillion, (all but one) above. As of today the mainstream headlines are mostly "anti-mandate protests", and "bridge blockade" with freedom only ever in scare quotes. From the Globe & Mail, today "Even at the height of the blockade, most of the vehicles in the so-called freedom convoy were passenger vehicles". --Cornellier (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add 3rd option: 2022 Canadian protests Aca1291 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at recent news reports, RSs seem to be phasing out the term (with or without scare quotes), using variations that include the term "protests" instead, at least in the title or lead. This event will not go down in history as "Freedom Convoy", we may as well make the change now (sure, that's a bit of speculation on my part but for one thing that's not distinctive enough).Robincantin (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2022 (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.

Remove "fringe"

The first sentence as currently written calls this a fringe protest, while or has international support and has raised over 10m on support. Protests with the same purpose are starting in the US and in Europe. Calling this fringe is disingenuous. 192.182.148.232 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this first sentence, but if it did describe the protest as fringe, then that was the correct wording. Reliable sources called the protesters a fringe minority, and evidence backs it up. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact, you can find a sign saying "We the Fringe" at the protest. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun Fact 2, they even have a theme song, called "We The Fringe" by Godina[2]. The term "fringe" was originally put forth by Justin Trudeau as a way to marginalize the protest. It is no longer even close to being a fringe protest, as according to reliable sources the fringe protest is actually polling higher than the Liberal party of Canada at this time[3].Kav2001c (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]
The literal title of that link is "Large majority in Ottawa oppose Freedom Convoy and think their point has been made and it’s time to leave" (87% according to the post), and the post also indicates that most don't support the convoy (67% opposed or strongly opposed vs. 22% support or strongly support); most support keeping public health restrictions (67%), and most don't support the call to remove all restrictions (66% opposed or strongly opposed). Among the things it doesn't say is anything about the Liberal Party's polling. Please don't misrepresent sources. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cross reference original link with Party Poll here[4]. It is true most people do not support Freedom Convoy but most people also do not support Liberal Party of Canada. Original assertion stands.Kav2001c (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trucker convoy: Protesters clean-up Terry Fox statue in Ottawa following outcry".
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00baMwPQF0Y
  3. ^ https://abacusdata.ca/ottawa-survey-freedom-convoy/
  4. ^ https://abacusdata.ca/canadian-politics-freedom-convoy-february-2022/

Removing the "The"

NO LONGER APPLICABLE
Now that the page has been moved this thread has become irrelevant. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2022 (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.

I think we've discussed this in passing and relating to other talk sections, but I am certainly adamant that we should not use the "The" at the beginning of the lead sentence. I'm thinking of Occupy Wall Street or other similar movements/protests. The "The" signifies ownership of the word "Freedom" in my opinion. Removing the "The" creates a more neutral space were we signify that "Freedom Convoy" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the protest and not an endorsement of the movement and what the name implies. Happy to drop this if consensus feels I am in the wrong. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say either way is acceptable. 'The Freedom Convoy,' in the sense that it is a literal convoy, requires a 'the,' and 'the Freedom Convoy Protest' requires a 'the,' but, as you say for Occupy Wall Street, 'Freedom Convoy' itself is a separate concept, and it doesn't necessarily require a 'the.' I didn't care for the change at first, but after considering it, I don't have any real objection. Like I said, either way is acceptable. Joe (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back yesterday, it feels awkward to me without an article, and "A Freedom Convoy" is just wrong since this article is about one particular event (or series of closely-related events really). I guess I don't feel strongly either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is awkward without an article. Common usage should apply here, most people and journalists refer to it as "the freedom convoy". Occupy Wall Street is a bad example because very few people called it "the Occupy Wall Street". 98.113.141.82 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note as a postscript that a "the" is used thirteen of the sixteen times the phrase is used in a sentence in the body of this article. 143.229.244.70 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply awkward without an article and the claim that The "The" signifies ownership of the word "Freedom" is absurd when the full name is clearly a proper noun. I can't believe we're to the point of polarization that we're arguing over the political implications of "the". There are none. It's grammar. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Tartan357 has established their own consensus on this apparently. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus that I'm violating by implementing the change? I'm happy to self-revert if that's the case. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to generate discussion which was the original point of this section on the talk page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was discussion, and there can continue to be discussion. The claim that I established [my] own consensus is unnecessarily standoffish and inaccurate. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The" has WP:NPOV issues, as it implies "Freedom Convoy" is a not a name but a description. I believe it should be reverted to the previous form. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be a description when capital letters are used. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the article name should be changed or the "The" be removed which is an ongoing discussion elsewhere. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article name is another issue, but should not contain "The" even if that's in the first sentence, per WP:NCTHE. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believed that the "The" removal was sufficient de-politicization until a consensus was formed on the name of the article. That's why it was done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is what it is currently; if it's changed then that's fine, but "Freedom Convoy" (capitalized) is a proper noun and needs to be treated as such grammatically (and there appears to be more support for that here than not). There are no political implications. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does that requires us to use "The"? BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proper nouns that contain a word that implies an organization (such as "Foundation", "Company", or, in this case, "Convoy") should be prefaced with "the": [22]. It simply sounds incorrect without it. Moving the article is the appropriate remedy if there are concerns about the POV of the name. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's A convoy. But it's not the arbiter of Freedom. It's not The objective Freedom Convoy nor is it A Freedom Convoy. It's a convoy which happens to be called The Freedom Convoy. Removing the "The" generizes it, suggesting it's a name. Use of an article in wikipedia articles like in "The Red Hot Chili Peppers as one example is widely used so I understand this is complicated. My argument is it easily differentiates the movement from it's suggested sureness. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with genericizing it as you're suggesting, but grammar would require the word "Convoy" not to be capitalized in that case. If the article was titled "Freedom convoy", there would be nothing wrong with removing the article. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this would all be irrelevant with an article name change... which at this point I support because the article is no longer just about the protests in Ottawa. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It probably should be moved. I'm just a stickler for grammar in any case. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:26, 13 February 2022 (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.

remove Trumpism in Canada

it is completely irrelevant to this subject and is aiding and abetting the propagandists trying to stop this convoy. remove it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.224.151 (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. See the "American influence" section for how this is relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That section mentions Trump, the person. Trumpism, "the political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance, political movement, and set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping control of power associated with Donald Trump and his political base" is utterly irrelevant. These are truckers and other assorted Canadians. Nobody's trying to acquire or keep power, at least not American-style political power. Just wood, petroleum and regular civic people power, like 1960s America, demanding those already running the governments make specific changes to let them get back to their day jobs and business as usual. Clearly intended as a taint, now shown to also be a stretch. I removed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. Canada Unity's goal was specifically to have the Governor-General dissolve government. When they gave up, another spokesman for the protest declared that he would lead the united opposition parties. See the second half of "Protest goals." I'm sure there's a percentage who only want the repeal of mandates, but they've done nothing to disassociate themselves from those who want authoritarian power. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion/insight/analysis is great and all, but none of what you said is likely to occur to someone seeing Trumpism in this See Also. If you can connect these loose dots, using reliable sources, explanation could make sense in the American influence section. Give it a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only part of this article mentioning Canada Unity is in connection to an MoU. It was laughed off on the 3rd and withdrawn on the 8th. Even if your connection was based in reality, today is the 10th. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some of the media coverage referencing Trumpism in the context of the convoy. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"although an infusion of Trumpism makes it hard to figure out what will happen this time." Macleans
"The loss of innocence is making Canadians into mini-Americans in the era of nativism, Trumpism and right-wing uprisings." Ottawa Citizen
"#FreedomConvoy2022 and Canada’s descent into Trumpism" NOW Toronto
"The destination is the ditch of Trumpism, our democratic institutions undercut by paranoid illiberalism." The Tyee
"Anti-vaxxer truck convoy signals insidious spread of Trumpism in Canada" National Observer
"Canada’s ‘freedom convoy’ exposes political missteps — and Donald Trump’s ominous legacy... The Canadian protesters seem to be emulating some of the behaviour of their U.S. counterparts" The Conversation
"So, this is a moment of real political consequence in Canada, and there are convoys planned throughout Europe. And this is the latest thing of global Trumpism." MSNBC
"Let the outliers into the big tent, and watch the Conservatives be excoriated in the media as Canada’s answer to Trumpism" The Washington Post
"Four-in-five (81%) instead believe Canada is just a susceptible to Trumpism as our southern neighbour." Angus Reid Polling
"The truckers’ convoy didn’t bring dreams to Ottawa. They brought Nazi banners, Confederate flags, anger, hatred and other relics of American Trumpism." The Minden Times
"If our Prime Minister wants to prevent this maple-tinged Trumpism from fully infecting our body politic" National Observer
"Like Trumpism and its attack on empirical evidence and the institution of science before it, the screams of misinformation grow ever louder from the darkness, unyielding and without fear of consequence." CHEK-TV
These are all opinion pieces. They could be used to attribute quotes to commentators in pertinent sections, per WP:YESPOV. But See Also is in Wikipedia's voice, and none of this supposed context is even referenced there, much less explained. Sloppy, misleading and inflammatory. Canadian topics don't need this. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The convoy is specifically mentioned as an example in Trumpism in Canada, also:
Days before a convoy of truckers was scheduled to arrive in Ottawa to allegedly protest the January 15, 2022 federal vaccine mandate for truckers, the National Observer reported that the convoy—riled by the misrepresentation of reality, "false information", and "fake controversies"—"key ingredients in the toxic stew of Trumpism", had reached a "dangerous new level".[1] The article said that both Laura Ingraham from Fox News and Donald Trump Jr. had been referring to the Canadian truck convoy while "fanning the same flames" that contributed to the 2021 United States Capitol attack.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Fawcett, Max (January 27, 2022). "Anti-vaxxer truck convoy signals insidious spread of Trumpism in Canada". National Observer. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained there, not just mentioned in blue, follow that example. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has a footnote now. That's very unusual. But slightly more informative than before, cheers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a reference for a see-also is unusual, but better than before. The topic behind this article is still rapidly changing and updating, we'll do better on things like this once all of it is in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was my second edit, after decapitalizing "Canadian Adults", and I'm already feeling spent. American influence from the Antitrumpists is certainly strong here, too, exact same buzzwords and "arbitrarily shortened" selections from favoured columnists. I'll be back for my third contribution after something Trumpier distracts them for a week, at least, have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had to come back early and burn my third on deleting a second identical link. "Sad!" Anyway, someone might want to doublecheck we don't ascribe any act by any one person to multiple people, asking for a foul-mouthed IP I saw "cancelled" here recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Trumpism is clear this is not a strictly US philosophy and movement, and exists in Canada. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The protests are about stopping dumb mandates and restrictions, nothing more or less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:141A:F590:5B46:E677 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been reading up on it and it seems it can apply to virtually any human experience, from any angle, depending on who attempts to define it. As something that vague and abstract, sure, why not? But I still think it smacks of sexism, racism and stupidity when used by the pro-vax, mask and lockdown crowd against the anti, in both countries, and can see why those marginalized relative few so offended the most by the neologism might take it as a sweepingly broad and largely unwarranted insult from "The Man/System". Philosophy is difficult. That's my motto. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the person who wrote most of the Canadian version is the one writing most of this one lately. Hello, Oceanflynn! Bit off-topic, but while you're here, would you please consider describing your continual expansions as something more distinctive and less already obvious than "expanding"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg protest detail

In the Winnipeg Protest section, consider clarifying that the man who drove through protesters was a "radical far-left Antifa member". Relevant because it clarifies that this was a counter protester and a violent response to the protests win Winnipeg. Alternatively you could simply clarify that it was a counter protester without the (maybe more inflammatory) antifa detail.

Example source (though there are many if you search "Dave Zegarac antifa" https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/man-charged-in-freedom-convoy-2022-attack-identified-as-radical-far-left-antifa-member/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.182.148.232 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find that backs this up are far-right media sources. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgullyn: You can read about it in the New york post: https://nypost.com/2022/02/08/canada-trucker-protest-hit-and-run-suspect-is-antifa-punk-rocker-david-zegarac/. But that is probably "far right" as well? Wikipedia showing its extreme left-wing bias as usual. Mårtensås (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mårtensås: Per our sources guideline, New York Post is considered "generally unreliable". "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 21:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Resident - Suggestions / Additions

would suggest “Ottawa Canada Trucker Convoy 2022”; however, the trucks were/are just the weapons that holding Ottawa hostage - the “Freedumb” convoy has pockets of “movements”. 1. Some say: we’re staying here even if mandate are removed: https://twitter.com/acitizenof20201/status/1492181830803599364?s=21 2. Some wanted the Canadian Gov dismantled - many online still call for this (MOU): https://twitter.com/justin_ling/status/1491177044646174721?s=21 (Notice of withdrawal of MOU: https://twitter.com/friesennorm/status/1491215502529921024?s=21) https://twitter.com/noellenarwhal/status/1490366623613698060?s=21 3. Some are just WILD and conspiracy driven: https://twitter.com/acitizenof20201/status/1492059061315059726?s=21 4. Some are there just to party: https://twitter.com/acitizenof20201/status/1491931952961798152?s=21 5. Some are there for NOT good intentions (ie: white supremacy): https://twitter.com/acitizenof20201/status/1491187234007302144?s=21 https://twitter.com/grndylw/status/1489369018700111872?s=21

All they do in Ottawa is party, harass and torture Ottawans!

https://twitter.com/gray_mackenzie/status/1492294259868934149?s=21 https://twitter.com/gray_mackenzie/status/1492291824362393605?s=21 https://twitter.com/nroshak/status/1491206780411858944?s=21 https://twitter.com/gray_mackenzie/status/1492294259868934149?s=21 https://twitter.com/gray_mackenzie/status/1492312342230708225?s=21 https://twitter.com/acitizenof20201/status/1492384343632793602?s=21 https://twitter.com/sfyro/status/1492304995471011842?s=21

See #OttawaOccupied on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyStar1977 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Companies that supported the Convoy that the Ottawa residents have put together:

Ottawa city locals maintain a list of “Businesses identified as being involved in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest and subsequent occupation of Ottawa. 

-> https://convoytraitors.ca/rolodex/

Locals in Ottawa also put together a help-sheet titled “ Canada It’s Time To Get Civil”: -> https://twitter.com/convoytraitor/status/1491809124933410817?s=21

I suggest keeping the “Trump” indicators - as an Ottawa resident, I get bombarded with hateful American’s who use the Trump lines we all know very well. They don’t realize there are some fundamental differences! Ex: CDC blah blah lies lies - FDA blah blah… we have Health Canada! “Well there is no pfizer in Canada.” - yes there is? “Tyrannical government” this is the first time my 40+ years I have ever heard that in CANADA! “Antifa actors” WHAT?!?! “BLM burned down and destroyed businesses and now you’re upset about this?” There were zero riots, deaths, fires and luting re BLM in Canada!!! I can go on… if it’s not Trump “tag-lines” then it’s Republican? AND ANOTHER THING - we have MORE than two political parties - not everyone apposed to the convoy likes Trudeau- it’s absolutely ridiculous! The American overreach is unbelievable!

NDP Leader - Jagmeet Singh “The spread of Trumpism into Canada must be stopped. Foreign actors and money cannot be allowed to sow division in Canada. US interference from the extreme right and millions of dollars via anonymous foreign sources must be shut down.”

https://twitter.com/thejagmeetsingh/status/1491098260039208970?s=21

CSIS Canada “Foreign hostile threat actors use online influence campaigns to attempt to change civil discourse, delegitimize democracy, and intensify existing divides in society. While this is not new, it’s important to stay informed.”

https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1491868349508333568?s=21

Most Who are opposed to this convoy call it: 1. The Karen (K)Convoy 2. Flu Trux Klan 3. Cobra Chicken Convoy (for all the honking and shitting in the streets) https://twitter.com/mabb1g/status/1487992660061298692?s=21 https://twitter.com/michaelstuhler/status/1487912307212570626?s=21 https://twitter.com/brandon08796561/status/1487788263221993472?s=21 4. Clownvoy 5. Conservative Convoy 6. Free dumb convoy

The convoy has a dark-side no one is talking about. Vaccine mandates came into force for crossing Can-US after they started the Go Fund Me. The MOU was the demand - until it was learned that it was “seditious”;

1. “And then Canada Unity, another of the organizers, posted a ludicrous Memorandum of Understanding/Manifesto on its website, which it plans to present to the Governor General of Canada. It essentially calls for the resignation of everyone within the federal government, the formation of a new government comprised of the Governor General, Senate, and members of Canada Unity, and the removal of allCovid-related measures – even those put into place at the provincial level. The trucks will remain until the document is signed, organizers said, dubbing its mission Bearhug.“

https://www.trucknews.com/blogs/the-so-called-freedom-convoy-was-never-about-truckers-or-border-mandates/

2. “It is not incidental that this latest expression of white supremacy is emerging amid a public health crisis.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/02/11/ottawa-trucker-convoy-is-rooted-canadas-settler-colonial-history/

3. New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh

“It is clear that this is not a protest; this is an act to try to overthrow the government, ”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/7/canada-ndp-leader-trucker-convoy-aims-to-overthrow-govt

4. Freedom Convoy' protest: How did we get here?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/freedom-convoy-protest-how-did-we-get-here-1.5772901

“JAN. 14, 2022 A GoFundMe fundraiser is started for the “Freedom Convoy 2022” by organizers Tamara Lich and BJ Dichter

“JAN. 15, 2022 The trucker vaccine mandate comes into force that requires all travellers to be fully vaccinated before crossing the Canada-U.S. border In a statement, convoy organizers say they came to the decision that the government “crossed a line” with the COVID-19 vaccine passport and vaccine mandates, announcing they plan to travel to Ottawa”

I am learning to use Wikipedia. I am an Ottawa Ontario Canada Resident sharing what I an living, and know from being here. I’m tired and frustrated as I am living in a state of emergency with a frightened family - forgive me if my “tone” was off. My company has a large Wikipedia page - it is full of twitter links. Thus, I’m confused. Pls don’t allow twitter links if they are unacceptable or unreliable. The links go to articles, videos - Mayor of Ottawa, Ottawa City and more. I provided to assist - I have no gain in this - do what “you” will with the info provided. As a donor with a company Wikipedia page, I’m now concerned and will reach out to Wikipedia - I’m concerned wrt my companies page if twitter (links) are not reliable. ZiggyStar1977 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC) ZiggyStar1977 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyStar1977 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiggyStar1977: if you want something added/changed in the article, please make a request here with a neutral tone and back it up with reliable sources (Twitter is not reliable). >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If anything even remotely this insulting, soapboxy and directionless came from someone living more in fear of the dystopian government agenda, it'd have been deleted in minutes. Welcome to Wikipedia! You could start by replying under the latest comment, indented by one more colon than prefaces it, and sign your posts by typing four tildes. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please change the archive period to 7 days?

This talk page is over 100 kB. Can we please change the archive period from 36 days to 7 days?

I’ll fix that I thought it was actually set to 3 days. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was set to 3 days, someone changed it to 36 hours. You changed it to 7 hours, I've just corrected it to 7 days (168 hours). Personally I think 3 days was fine but I'll go with consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - thank you Ivanvector sorry about the mix up. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Ivanvector:, I am OK with 3 days, as well as closing the existing move request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually support 3 days as well. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Now that this page is over 200 kB, I support one day archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

The "statements and reactions" section is getting quite long, so I propose splitting it into a new article called Reactions to Freedom Convoy 2022. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaffeinAddict: @Cornellier: With regards to scope issues, are you referring to spin-off protests? I've been pondering for a while whether 2022 Canadian–United States border crossing blockades might be a possible article. While a spin-off, they do seem unique in that I haven't seen reports about far-right connections, and that they have a larger impact on the economy. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, splitting this proposal into a new section; I Googled Regway, the name of an obscure crossing in Saskatchewan, and indeed there was a protest (albeit not a blockade) there. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is long, that's true. It's over-detailed and over-referenced. But that in itself is not a reason to hive content off to another article, which would only be notable in relation to this one. Two years from now nobody's going to want to have to hop between two articles to read the whole story. --Cornellier (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry fox statue

Statue was not defaced, this inaccurate 67.70.7.50 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That terminology is used by this source and seems accurate. Do you have a better word to describe it? >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 02:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was changed and I manually reverted. It was previously discussed here: [23]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CaffeinAddict: The section you have linked to contains no discussion of the statue at all. The Vancouver Sun source above uses "defacing", and that's the more linguistically appropriate term. "Desecration" applies to things that are sacred, and is sensationalism used in this context. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources refer to the tomb being desecrated, which actually makes sense. CBC does this, but refers to the statue incident separately as "defacement", which appears to be the most common term used by the media: [24], [25], [26], [27]. In the section below the one you linked to, there was some discussion of whether the statue incident should be in the lead, but not what word to use. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - it was in here. [28] - but also - you just need to press Control + F to find words, terms and nouns ;) CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously did find it, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. My point stands. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your point has been discussed, but here we are discussing it again. The term derives from the actual word used by Ottawa Police in their investigation: [29]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where we decided on that word. I don't care what the police call it, they're not an independent, reliable source. The sources I provided are. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do the work for you when you can search the terms in the archive search bar. You seem to be hung up on the religious aspect of the term. Happy to continue to discuss. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted claiming consensus, so it is your responsibility to back that claim up if you want your edit to stand. I have provided sources and reasoning to back my edit, and yes, I think that the meanings of words matter, and we should not allow politicization of language to creep into the encyclopedia. The claim that using the word "the" is a political statement is a great example of this. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go grab a soda and remember to stay WP:COOL. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly cool. You're the one who started off by baselessly suggesting I don't know how to search a page. Now, would you like to back up your position, or am I good to change the word back? ― Tartan357 Talk 04:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely trying to be helpful as you perhaps could have been a new editor, trying to figure your way around wikipedia. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that (and maybe I will go grab a soda), but, for the record, I have made more than twice as many edits as you have, not that it should matter. Now, can we please get back to the issue at hand? I'm perfectly happy to respect consensus if it was reached, but I'll need evidence of that. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting your edit. It is quite clear from #RfC re: monument desecration in lead that there are significant concerns about the neutrality of this language, "defaced" is used by as many—if not more—sources, and no evidence of established consensus has been provided. Always happy to be proven otherwise if there's a discussion I've missed. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you'd just argue anything to death. CaffeinAddict (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to insist on using inaccurate, politically-loaded language, then yes, you will get some pushback, and I'm clearly not the only one here who takes issue with it. Please dial back your incivility, the go grab a soda was enough, keep it up and you'll get an ANI report. I've been perfectly courteous here, though frankly I agree with the IP in the RfC that calling decorating a statue with a flag "desecration" is hysterical. Even "defaced" goes too far IMO, but it's what the sources use so I'm perfectly fine with it. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that "defaced" is better than "desecrated" in this situation, but it's definitely not worth having an argument over. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. @CaffeinAddict and Tartan357: stop reverting each other immediately, or you will both be blocked from the page. Discuss, then edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I have made exactly ONE revert on this issue, after significant discussion. I'd love to know how that even approaches being a violation, and being threatened with a block over it is alarming from an admin. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make any more, then. This article on a very hot and ongoing political event has been fairly stable because there have not been editors trading reverts, other than removing clear errors and violations. Don't be the one that starts us down this path. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I don't plan to and there's no reason for you to suggest I'd do otherwise. A single revert per editor is not edit warring by either of us. That's a normal part of the editing process. I waited more than two hours after my last post went unanswered before making my revert. I'd like a retraction. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I'm not touching this topic anymore - I would argue since the Ottawa Police said desecration which was then parroted in the media, we should keep that word. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "defaced" or "desecrated" how about another word or phrase, perhaps "disrespected"? The media and/or police might be sensationalizing a little. To me, "defaced" seems to mean the statue was physically, permanently damaged, which I don't think is the case. I think we should figure out what happened (e.g. baseball cap and flag placed on it), then use words that unambiguously represent that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaffeinAddict: I thought you weren't touching this anymore. "Defiled" is as misleading as "desecrated" and no sources have been presented for it. There really isn't anything wrong with just stating what happened rather than trying to characterize it in wikivoice. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organizer

I am just wondering if there is one person or a group that is the formal orangizer. 2001:569:FB86:9300:3D8F:A63F:DA16:4AEF (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The initial convoy fundraising was started by Tamara Lich and B. J. Dichter, see the "Fundraising" section. At Ottawa itself, it seems moderately de-centralized, with others speaking on behalf of the group. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The protest goals section says that Canada Unity is one of the main organizers, but I don't think that there is one person/group that is doing all of the organizing. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the phrase attempted insurrection

In the introduction section, the last line reads as have been considered an attempted insurrection by media, officials and the public . There are no citations on this sentence that the general public considers this an attempted resurrection. Even the opinion polls mentioned later dont capture this. How can Wikipedia allow such an incendiary comment without any citations? Does it not make it look like Wikipedia is taking sides?

49.205.129.210 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not require citations, per MOS:CITELEAD. This language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources. It is an unfortunate fact that Wikipedia has a bit of a left-wing political tilt, but that is largely the fault of right-wing media playing fast and loose with the truth, meaning those sources can't be considered reliable. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So who is to decide that this language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources? Since there are no citations attached to that sentence, which reliable sources should I use to verify this claim at Wikipedia? I checked the edit that added "public" to the sentence, and neither there was any citation to this sentence before, nor was there afterwards. So let's say, had I edited to be have been considered an attempted insurrection by media, officials but not by the public, would you have defended the edit similarly? Because I would have provided no citation then, as is the case here. And I would have said, as you are saying, that this language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources. Also, this topic is current, complex and controversial, so going by MOS:CITELEAD too, there should have been citations to this claim. Secondly, this claim is not verified by the rest of the text, so you cannot even mention that the rest of the text which this claim is generalizing has enough citations. Basically, even going by MOS:CITELEAD that you cited, this claim should have been accompanied by citations. Otherwise, it is as controversial as saying that it is completely backed by the public and is not WP:NPOV Lastly, the left wing sources play fast and loose with the truth just as much as the right wing ones do, but thanks to the left wing bias amongst Wikipedia editors, they are largely blind to that observation. Anyway, that argument is for a different day. 49.205.129.210 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this from the lede. The phrasing did not accurately reflect what little there is about this in the article, which describes these events as possible staging for an insurrection elsewhere, not that Ottawa is an insurrection. The only source we have which describes someone calling the Canadian protests an insurrection is quoting Diane Deans, Chair of the Ontario Police Services Board, not exactly a prominent commentator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly nothing weasely about acknowledging that all of Canada doesn't use "occupation", either, your next rewording better be good. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Half-decent, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that “insurrection” isn’t quite the right word. It is not being used in RS, only among the most ardent Trudeau loyalists. Some of the 

extreme elements of the convoy are calling it the “Canadian Revolution” or Arab Spring but we shouldn’t use that either.

Looking at a recent event in a Western democracy which is agreed upon to be an insurrection by almost all RS, the 2021 storming of the United States capitol, the differences are as clear as the eye can see. This Convoy is more like Occupy Wall Street in terms of tactics. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was “opposition to Justin Trudeau” removed from infobox?

Many reliable sources agree that a major component of the convoy seeks the resignation of Justin Trudeau, including many cited in the article. It seems to be relatively well established that this is a goal of (at least the Canadian) the protests.

Here are a few sources noting that Opposition to Trudeau is a major cause for the convoy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/10/canada-trucker-freedom-convoy-questions/

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/truck-convoys-message-muddies-the-closer-it-gets-to-capital-4994947

https://www.hilltimes.com/2022/01/29/freedom-convoy-rolls-into-town-jams-parliamentary-precinct-thousands-protest-against-covid-19-mandates/341134

I don’t have editing permissions, so I’ll ask someone who does to add “Resignation of Justin Trudeau” to the goals section of the infobox TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10 was the user who removed that sentence, would you like to share your opinion on the matter? Would you be open to adding "Resignation of Justin Trudeau" instead? >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the framing from the sources, "resignation" would not be an accurate reflection. The protesters (the ones who are getting attention for this anyway) want him to be removed by extralegal means, or by force. Some have called for replacing the entire structure of the Canadian government with an authority of their choosing (c.f. Accelerationism#Far-right accelerationist terrorism), though I don't see this in reliable sources. "Overthrow" is the word I see most commonly thrown around, not anything like "peaceful transition". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If “overthrow” is the word that is being used, then we can certainly use that. I still think that the goal of replacing Trudeau (which has apparently now spiraled into calls to change Canada’s government structure) is relevant enough for the infobox.TheAmericanWarlord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, my mistake, there is some writing in reliable sources on accelerationism in the Freedom Convoy:
I don't think there's anything to add to the article from these, it's too minor of a POV at this point, but worth keeping an eye on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The protesters certainly don’t like Trudeau, that’s for sure. The reason I removed it from the info box was because the general reporting on the goals of the protests was not that general opposition to Trudeau (qua Trudeau) was the goal, but that there were specific goals relating to the abolition of certain public health measures that sparked the protests. If there is substantial reporting that the stated goal of the protests was actually to get Trudeau to leave office, then it should of course be included in the infobox. The reporting just has to be more than covering marginal protesters and using that to describe the goals of the protests writ large. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already cited 3 RS articles which noted opposition to Trudeau as a goal of the protesters. It doesn’t have to be their primary goal, but it is relevant to be mentioned in the infobox. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split, Canadian–United States border crossing blockades

Would there be an appetite for splitting off the various blockades and protests at the Canada-United States border crossings?

  • They seem to be largely focused on pandemic measures, rather than broader goals like overthrow of government,
  • Far right groups seem largely focused on Ottawa, and
  • While the Ottawa protests have a local economic element, the border protests have led to a much broader disruption.

This sort of related protest seems to be the hardest element to cover, in this article; two of the border crossings are covered in Timeline of protests; others are covered in Related protests. This sort of split wouldn't mean that related protests weren't covered in this article, just that they'd be covered in broader strokes. (With Windsor, for example, start and hopefully end dates, that the Windsor one led to Ford declaring a state of a emergency, et cetera, but not the rerouting to Blue Water Bridge, Children's Aid Society, girl struck by car, et cetera.)

This is sparked by me hearing mention of a blockade at Surrey for the first time, realizing that it was covered, but then searching the border crossings at Regway (CBC, CTV), Emerson (CTV) and finding they too have had protests or blockades. (That said, a surprising number of rural ones haven't.)

Is this something that could be considered? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support they are two different protests, and the border blockades are actually affecting the economy (link here) >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and oppose all split proposals at this time. These are all part of the same event, and the event is ongoing. It will be best to focus energy on a single article for now even if it gets long, and then discuss how best to lay out the article or splitting out to several articles when things aren't changing every few hours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (unless border blockades are still mentioned and covered in this article). I think they are not independent, unrelated protests; they are part of the same broader movement that is the Freedom Convoy as a whole, and they are both focused on the same goals: mainly ending vaccine mandates and health restrictions https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/11/americas/canada-covid-protests-outcome-explainer/index.html If the article ends up being too long, a second article could be created to expand on the information and details about the border blockades, but without failing to mention and cover them in the main Freedom Convoy article. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I believe the Freedom Convoy is one movement, and there is not sufficient coverage of any of the related protests to warrant their own article currently. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarification, this is for all border protests/blockades collectively, not individually. There's 743 words, at least, on the border protests. I feel that the reason that there isn't further coverage in this article is simply that people haven't gone about adding more, because it's mainly about Ottawa and the route to it. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think that the article should focus on the set of protests going on across Canada. This is generally how it’s being reported [30] [31] [32], so I think that the article should be collectively on the various protests. Some reporting makes reference to non-Canadian copycat demonstrations, which would be fine for its own section within the article, but I think that the article should cover the related set of protests going on right now. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Take the long view. These are manifestations of the same sentiment. They have more in common than differences. At least for now. --Cornellier (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International protests

There are many international protests that should be added, mentioned or covered a bit more (Austria, Australia, Alaska, Netherlands, etc). This section is one of the only few that is more extensively covered in the Spanish article than the English one, maybe someone can translate or use the references from there. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_de_la_Libertad_de_2022#A_nivel_internacional If it is deemed too extensive for the "original" Freedom Convoy 2022 article, the creation of an "International Freedom Convoy 2022" article or something like that could be considered. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article on the French freedom convoy already, although there isn't much information. If others get articles, we can probably add them to an "international protests" section. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an "international protests" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Convoy_2022#International_protests , which is lacking info at the moment. I don't think "getting an article" should be a prerequisite for mentioning something, especially if the protests are well documented and referenced (and they are, as there are about 20 references in the Spanish version of that section). It doesn't have to be long, just a mention and short description of the protests happening in other countries. That's the purpose of this section after all. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't mean to say they should only be listed here if they have separate articles. They should have significant coverage, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Fox and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

This entry states, "Protesters were seen defacing the statue of Terry Fox, the National War Memorial, and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.". This statement's predicate was very short video footage of a) people around the T Fox statue that had a ball cap in the subject's head (the emblem of which was inconsequential since it wasn't pointed out) as well as a Canadian Flag, that appeared to be partially vertical, partially inverted, as it was draped on the statue. It was draped at the shoulder. The other extremely short video (the length of which is significant, since this was presented by the CBC as it's source material) was of a woman stepping up momentarily onto the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The people around didn't join her, and he stay atop the tomb lasted seconds. A reasonable explanation may have been that she either didn't know the significance of this, or wasn't fully aware of where she climbed up. The CBC stated she danced, when clearly their own footage proved that claim to be false. 2607:FEA8:12A4:7800:7404:D252:2FD8:196C (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reliable sources backing up these claims, for example [33][34][35] >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 16:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We describe things as reliable sources describe them. We are not allowed to add our own interpretation of the events, per WP:OR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is synthesis. Someone here has mixed the reported defacing of the Fox statue with the recorded drinking and dancing on the tomb and memorial, inventing a sighting of multiple people doing the first part and the same people defacing what was never even dressed or decorated. It's triple bullshit, and enough is enough, I'm fixing most. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say we describe things as reliable sources describe them, but when I do exactly that, you revert me and call me a weasel, again. Pointless to try. Later! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling you a weasel, you know better than that. Everything that we write is based on a report; adding "reportedly" just serves to give the impression that what is "reported" is debatable or may not be true or accurate, as it says in the manual of style on words to watch (the "weasel words" subsection, which is what you've been around long enough to know I was referring to, rather than personally attacking you). Adding phrases like "some sources say" serves a similar purpose, but as I think I explained in my edit summary where I restored the wording of your edit (but in a different order, as I understand active voice is preferred but the guideline on it seems to have been deleted) there isn't really a better way to describe a point of view that varies between sources. (WP:WEASEL also covers that).
To everyone else: there is no need to rush to make everything perfect in this article about a widespread political event that is ongoing. Remove things that are demonstrably wrong or that fail the WP:BLP policy, but otherwise, basically everything we've written here is going to change or end up being better presented some other way, that we can't predict in the middle of it. Much of the article so far has been written with a "see what sticks" approach, resulting in duplicated information appearing in different sections (even sometimes in the same section), and some things not given the proper weight or omitted entirely. Please continue to raise these points on the talk page as you find them, but there is no need to start fights about any of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not calling me an actual weasel. But you did suggest I intended the words you reverted as weasel words. I simply used the word sources use. I can't attribute it to specific media, like you attribute "siege" to Doug Ford, because leads are brief summaries. So "reportedly", as in according to one or more reporters, the statue was "defaced". Even if one does take it to mean the term is debatable and/or untrue, so what? You've seen the multiple debates about its accuracy here, same as I have, same as everyone. Anyway, don't take my inedibility as "hostility" or other fighting words, I appreciate how twisted these things get; hate the game, not the players! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no suggestion that you intended them as weasel words. It's just that on Wikipedia, words like "reportedly" are called weasel words. That's all. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 13 lead reflecting evolving situation

The first sentence currently reads :

I suggest we integrate some of the more recent descriptions from main stream media:

  • Day 17, February 13:
    • The Ottawa Citizen: "The “Freedom Convoy” that converged in Ottawa on Jan. 28 began in response to the federal government’s move to require Canadian truck drivers crossing the U.S. border be fully vaccinated to avoid testing and quarantine requirements, but has evolved into a protest of all public health measures aimed at fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizers say they will not end their protest until all measures are dropped."[1]
    • The Globe and Mail: "Protests against COVID-19 restrictions had continued across the country this weekend and several Canada-U.S. border crossings remained closed due to blockades set up by demonstrators demanding that all pandemic measures be lifted immediately. Police said on Sunday they have arrested more protesters opposing COVID-19 restrictions and blocking the key trade at the Ambassador Bridge that links Windsor, Ont., and Detroit, more than 24 hours after authorities moved in to impose a court order."[2]

I will add moreOceanflynn (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would something like "Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions." be acceptable? It seems like the protest has become more than just protesting requirements for entering the country. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 16:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's fine; or how about adjusting your wording to clarify that it's only covid-related public health restrictions, not just any and all public health restrictions. How about "...against vaccine mandates and other COVID-19-related public health restrictions" or "...against vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions related to COVID-19" or "...against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions" or "...against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other covid-related public health restrictions". But your wording is also an improvement to the current wording, as it is. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like "against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions" best, it's shorter and to the point.
So, is everyone in favour of this wording? "Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions." >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support it, it is concise, accurate and a better description of the aim of the protests in general.--CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the change, however I think the lead should explain that the convoy started as a protest against the vaccine requirement for cross-border truckers specifically, and (quickly/eventually) (evolved/expanded/was co-opted) into a broad protest against all COVID-19 measures. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll make those changes. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trucker convoy: Protest enters day 17 in Ottawa; Arrests in Windsor". The Ottawa Citizen. February 13, 2022. Retrieved February 13, 2022.
  2. ^ "In photos: Multiple border crossings remain closed as convoy protests continue over the weekend". The Globe and Mail. February 13, 2022. Retrieved February 13, 2022.

Possible Major players section as of February 13

As more main stream media and other RS provide relevant content, I suggest we add a "Major players" section: Oceanflynn (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • CTV News' February 13 article called them "Leaders and major influencers".[1]

References

  1. ^ Parkhill, Mggie (February 10, 2022). "Trucker protest: Leaders and major influencers". CTV News. Retrieved February 13, 2022.

Clarify this

Clarify this for me. Why are there multiple casualties sections on top? It seems unnecessary and repetitive. Lmharding (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmharding: what do you mean by "casualties sections"? AFAIK there haven't been any casualties from the protests. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lmharding: Do you mean in the coding of the infobox, casualties1 to casualties4? Looking at Template:Infobox civil conflict, it seems they're for dead, wounded, missing, and arrested. Ultimately, it's hidden code. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I meant. Maybe they should be renamed for clarity? Lmharding (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hidden code - unless you're looking at the source - it is listed as "Arrests and Damages" on the page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it and nothing broke. Is that OK? Should I delete injuries and fatalities, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're just unused parameters since this infobox covers events both peaceful and violent. Removing them will maybe discourage some vandalism though. Injuries may pop up though now that the batons are coming out. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another scope question

Now that there are offshoots (some more notable than others), should the infobox reflect stats from different locations? For example, Arrests: 28 (Ottawa), 25-30 (Windsor) etc.

I noticed economic figures have now been culminated in the infobox as well. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canada only has one criminal code (the Criminal Code of Canada), so arrests and potential penalties are likewise similar. Not like America. If any are under the newfangled Ontario emergency orders, maybe specify those. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're quite familiar with Canada, being a Canadian, sorry for explaining! But still. Any reasons to split them? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason being the scope of this article was originally considered focused on the Ottawa protest(s) with others as offshoots. Now it's considered one kind of singular movement. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A singular movement should share the same stats, by my logic, not different. If splinter factions start up, you might have something there. But let's hear the third opinion, shall we? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I asked the masses lol. The scope of the article has obviously changed fairly rapidly. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also an arrest made in Windsor seems a far cry away from one made in Ottawa 8 hours drive away... CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same OPP and RCMP helping out in both cities, though, so who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest putting just totals in the infobox and expanding into details about who was arrested where and when into the article body. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where the arrests occurred is significant information. An arrest in Windsor is likely related to the international bridge closure; an arrest in Ottawa would almost certainly be for other reasons. So it's useful to the reader to provide that information, not clump them all up into one number. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks Coppertwig That's the point I was trying to make. I've put totals in the infobox with footnotes is that a good way of doing it? CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's significant information, but there's only so much space in the infobox. A footnote is okay, or I've seen some infoboxes link directly to an expanded section in the article like a "see also" or "click for details" sort of link. I'll see if I can remember an example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've done what I could for now - feel free to change it/make it present better! :) CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) September 11 attacks has links like that in the infobox (see "Perpetrators") although those are links to other articles. World War II uses "further details" links under casualties, linking to a separate article again. Korean War uses "show" links in the infobox extensively, that might be a better model here. Just spitballing options, footnotes really do the job fine too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersal versus suppression

There is no basis for dispersing a peaceful demonstration. Activities which are illegal or damaging such as blocking critical infrastructure can be suppressed, which is an appropriate term for their dispersal. I'm not sure how that would apply to the Ottawa demonstration; it it were not so large and disruptive it would simply be a legal political demonstration and there would be no excuse for interfering with it. But it is an occupation of public space which prevents normal activities from being conducted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said crowds are suppresed, but largely disperse themselves. I could make it seem like consensual orderly fashion here, too. But I'm not entirely sure you want that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "clearance" is clearer. Only clearing those protestors clearly blocking the way, after all, not sidewalk sign sorts. Of course, Security#Clearance could mean something this is not; "clearing" is less ambiguous, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Clearing the protests"/"Clearing the blockades", or something of that sort? The one-word header "Clearance", placed as it is directly below the criticism of police section, I think could be easily confused for the security meaning of "clearance", as you said, as though the section describes protesters being granted access to higher security areas by the police. The cordoned-off area in downtown Ottawa could be considered such an area, and there have been allegations that police have been letting new protesters enter despite their own roadblocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are shorthanded, and, frankly, get 4,000 people mad and they might do some truly destructive things User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, they have a point and I'm not here to debate it, I'm just saying that this section title could be misconstrued as describing the police giving protesters clearance to pass their checkpoints. The text in the section will set that straight, of course, but it looks odd in the TOC. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, plain old "Clearing" is the best form of something like that. Nobody'll be confused about who's clearing what in this context, if they remain moderately reasonable, even "security clearing" juxtaposed evokes a quiet sense of suppressed dispersal. Beyond that, by my understanding of the new War Measures Act, it is now my official patriotic duty to denounce all former ties to Grammar National Sociality as "unacceptable", stop impeding the free flow of corporate public broadcasting through civil discourse and (as they say in the pro wrestling business) "go home". Good luck in the wars of words to come. Hulk loves you all, Wikipedia, good night! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event Tag

This article should be labelled as a current event in order to inform readers about the fast-changing or speculative nature of the article, as per WP:CET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SepehrSama (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SepehrSama: please note that it is convention on Wikipedia to add new comments at the bottom of talk pages. I have moved your comment, otherwise other editors who are used to looking for new topics at the bottom may not see it.
The tag is not intended to inform readers that the event is ongoing, we should describe it that way in the article (and we do). It's intended to advise readers and editors that the article is being edited at an unusually high rate because of an ongoing event. Someone has apparently decided to run a bot to remove the tag from articles that aren't being edited frequently enough, and this one must not meet whatever arbitrary threshold they set because the bot keeps removing it. However, given the sentiment and because plenty of editors have tried to add it only for the bot to remove it, I will add {{current event editnotice}} as a note to users editing the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks a lot for the detailed information. Sorry for the newbie mistakes! -SepehrSama 17:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section on counter protests?

Mentions of counter protests are dispersed throughout the text, how about merging those into their own section? I'd say section 3 or 4 (just before or after Security). Also, the Communications section (5) and Possible spread of COVID-19 (9) are not getting developed, we should probably find those paragraphs a home in another section. I could do those changes, if editors active on this page think they're worthwhile. Robincantin (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Robincantin:, Good ideas and initiative.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I say go ahead. We're going to have to reorganize this article eventually and deal with duplicated information and events that apply to more than one of the current sections, but it will be helpful to have that material in the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check my work. Robincantin (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size Estimates

Since this is protected page requesting to update police size estimates counts which are severely under reported. Ottawa police have stated multiple times on social media and YouTube there are 418 "hardcore" trucks who have not moved since Day 1. Many have removed tires from their rigs and bled the air brakes making removal far more difficult. In addition to the hardcore protestors there are a number of weekenders who come and go so protestors swell and ebb. Here is a source[1] in writing but multiple audio clips exist as well. Dated Feb 8 2022Kav2001c (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]

Yes, the estimates do need to be updated. There has been discussion on this page (it might have gone to archive already) about the inaccurate guesses, wild estimations, and purposefully inflated numbers from the organizers and protesters, which made it hard to agree on a proper estimate to put in the article. I think the situation is more clear and stable now and it would be worth revisiting. A problem I think is going to be that this is several connected protests which have all attracted different numbers of people, and each has grown and shrunk over time. We may just have to spell all of this out in narrative and then figure out what to put in the infobox from there. It's a good suggestion but it's not a simple edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox itself lists 121-231 trucks though which is far smaller than the actual protest ever was. Their source for said total is an OPP report from a Kingston twitter account, who counted trucks en route, from a single western destination. Kingston ON is hours away from actual protest site and taking their total as accurate ignores official Ottawa Police service counts and estimates. It was never that small. 418 is the number of big trucks being listed in every news story. Here is a second reliable source[2]Kav2001c (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ottawa.citynews.ca/police-beat/children-living-in-nearly-25-of-trucks-in-ottawa-protests-deputy-chief-5041506
  2. ^ https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/police-city-need-creative-solutions-to-offset-refusals-by-tow-companies-to-help-in-protest-zone

emergency act

CBC reported that the prime minister will speak at 4:30 and is expected to be invoking the Emergencies Act, which replaces the War Measures Act. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked since it was passed 34 (?) years ago. CBC reported earlier today that a truck containing 2000 (?) guns had gone missing in Peterborough. No connection with convoy protests was mentioned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph about the caucus meeting today and anticipated announcement earlier today, in the Ottawa section because I didn't think there was a better logical place to put it. The expected announcement has evidently not been made yet, so I removed that from the lede. I also heard about the truck theft in Peterborough but reliable sources haven't made any connection to the protests, so there's no reason (yet?) to add that here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've just officially announced that the Emergencies Act has been invoked. (link) >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 22:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following ref by itself is probably not enough to justify adding mention of the truckload of guns to the article, but here it is anyway: [1] Sorry I'm not 100% sure of the exact wording after "track of". It was a news story about the missing truck, and very briefly mentioned the convoy protest. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nicholson, Katie (15 February 2022), CBC radio news 11:00 AM, Ottawa: CBC, "With tensions frayed over convoy protests, it's not a great time to lose track of" a truckload of guns.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Regarding "military style" vehicle in BC blockade

The cited article actually only says "privately-owned truck painted in military-style", whereas current wording implies a vehicle similar to what is used by the military, which can be misleading 2001:569:FCB6:BD00:8D48:6043:683F:88A6 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done diff here >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protesters demands include the defeat of the government

As the mainstream media narrative summarizes events, eventually the lead and other related sections can reflect the more complex goals of the protesters. I will add other related references here. Again, thanks to editors for keeping up with a fast-paced story as RSs provide content.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The February 14 article in The Star said, "The protesters initially demanded an end to trucker mandates, then escalated demands for an end to all restrictions and the defeat of the government itself."[1]

References

  1. ^ MacCharles, Tonda; Ballingall, Alex (February 14, 2022). "Justin Trudeau invokes Emergencies Act to stop 'Freedom Convoy' protests". The Star. Retrieved February 14, 2022.

Section on Criticism of the Ottawa Police

This section only gives voice to people who say that the Ottawa police was too soft on the protestors, while many organizations (such as this one) and people (including myself and most people I know), feel that the Ottawa police was much too hard on the protestors and contend that they violated the constitutional rights of the protestors by confiscating fuel, lumber, and other personal property. 170.52.93.58 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need press coverage in a reliable source, though. I can find JCCF taking legal action against Seneca College, filing a lawsuit over the vaccine mandate for air travel, setting up a legal hotline for truckers, commenting on the combination of trials for churches with Charter challenges, but absolutely nothing about the topic you're addressing. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To note, even if you do find press coverage (as opposed to just a press release, social media coverage, etc.), that's enough for one of us to consider the request, but not a guarantee the statement would be added. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Please refrain from using the language invented by the organizers of what has clearly and justifiably been labeled by government as illegal action. I'd go for something like "idiocracy insurrection" but I appreciate that will not pass muster. However, given the statements from the organizers own mouths, the title must be changed to reflect the fact that is is not an action by any meaningful portion of the trucking industry, nor is it really about vaccines. It's an attempt to subvert Canadian democracy. Perhaps a more neutral title would be "Illegal blockades of 2022" 2001:56A:F85C:C900:5561:71B5:BE4D:4067 (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. Freedom Convoy 2022 is how it is widely regarded, including by media. It would be a disservice to users searching for the topic to change it to something vague like "Illegal blockades of 2022." RoyalObserver (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been moved to "Canada convoy protest" not long after you commented. That was after a very long discussion in an earlier section of this talk page -- see here: [36] No more discussion is needed (unless someone wants to start up another big move discussion). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed or removal of "the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government"

The article contains the following section:

"If this failed, the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government, and name members of the CU to form a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC), which is beyond the constitutional powers of either the Governor General or the Senate"

If this is the same MoU as mentioned in citation 61: [1], reading that document, it indeed calls for the forming of a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC). However, at least the English text does not appear to mention the purpose and powers of that Committee, nor does the document appear have any mention of dissolving the government.

Is this based on a different version of the MoU? If so, a citation to that version is needed.

If not, this section is simply false. The CU or their leader might very well call for or want the dissolution of government, I'm not familiar with the guy, but the MoU does not appear to call for such. Wild dog94 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look very extensively because I'm short on time today, but it's my recollection that various media outlets interpreted the MoU as calling for the dissolution of government, and we go by what reliable sources interpret rather than forming our own conclusions from source documents. From the Washington Post: "One of the main organizers, Canada Unity, said that it planned to submit a “memorandum of understanding” to the Senate and governor general, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, to compel them to drop the public health measures or dissolve the government, which is beyond their constitutional powers."[2] (emphasis added) If the organizers are now saying that was never part of their proposal, we need a reliable source to say so, and then we'll have to figure out how to handle the change in the story. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)'[reply]
In that case, I'd suggest a citation to and/or quote from such a source. Currently, it reads as a conclusiory statement about the content of the MoU in Wikipedia's voice, which I don't think is appropriate. Also, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY policy 3 (A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.(Emphasis in original)) I'd suggest to add a sentence along the lines of "Though the MoU lacks language discussing dissolution of government[1].", which is a true statement of fact that can be verified. I'd expand on my understanding of the MoU, but that would I believe constitute original research. Wild dog94 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The c. 6 page-long Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPSA) Memorandum of Understanding has been mentioned frequently in the mainstream media.[3][4][5] Previously, on this talk page another editor wrote, “And then Canada Unity, another of the organizers, posted a ludicrous Memorandum of Understanding/Manifesto on its website, which it plans to present to the Governor General of Canada. It essentially calls for the resignation of everyone within the federal government, the formation of a new government comprised of the Governor General, Senate, and members of Canada Unity, and the removal of all Covid-related measures – even those put into place at the provincial level. The trucks will remain until the document is signed, organizers said, dubbing its mission Bearhug.“Oceanflynn (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, “Operation Bear Hug Ottawa” will only end when the Governor General and Senate (SCGGC)—an acronym invented by CU—dissolves the power of the democratically elected officials, share their newly acquired power with Canada United to create a Citizens of Canada Committee (CCC) from names put forward by Canada Unity.

The Pseudolegal language is convoluted but these are the sections from the December 3, 2021 MoU sent to the SCGGC on December 13 and posted on the CU website, and archived on December 21. Internet Archive document that mention that:[1]

    • ARTICLE 3. MANDATE
      • a. CU & SCGGC agree to form a committee, called the Citizens of Canada Committee (CCC).
      • b. SCGGC undertakes and appoints authorized (CCC) representatives.
      • c. CU undertakes and appoints authorized (CCC) representatives.
      • h. Further, SCGGC will effective as of midnight on this ___, day of ___________, 2021, issue a cease-and-desist order to the respected Honorable Members of the Government of Canada with the consequent instructions to further instruct the Premiers of the Provinces and Territories, the Mayors of the respected Municipalities and, the respected Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal Medical Officers to stop all such unlawful activities pursuant to ARTICLE 3.

MANDATE section d. of this “Memorandum.”

      • j. By signing this "Memorandum", CU will immediately stop “Operation Bear Hug Ottawa”, demonstration / convoy and Federal Referendum activities and will strive to work with all groups and entities et al to bring this country together in unity.
      • k. CU & SCGGC agree to have the CCC committee formed within 10 days of acceptance and signing of this "Memorandum".
      • l. CU & SCGGC agree to have a final "signed" and publicly released agreement in place within "no later than 90 days" of acceptance and signing of this "Memorandum".

It would be described as overturn, take over, etc but it all amounts to the same thing—replacing our democratic elected representatives with a fringe group of conspiracy theorists. This was signed by the founder of Canada Unity, James Bauder, who has been frequently mentioned in main stream media as well. In their February 10 article on the convoy's major players, Bauder is described as "the founder of Canada Unity, one of the groups responsible for the initial organization of the convoy to Ottawa. Ahead of the convoy’s arrival in the capital, Canada Unity directed a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) to the Senate and the Governor General, demanding an end to vaccine mandates and the reinstatement of those who lost jobs over COVID-19 vaccinations, or else “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately” (sic). Bauder said in a video posted to social media in January that he hoped the MOU would provide a “referendum” to persuade Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not within the agency’s constitutional powers. As of Feb. 8, Canada Unity had pulled the MOU from their website, writing in a statement signed by Bauder that it had led to “unintended interpretations,” and a message on the homepage also tells visitors the website has moved. Neither explanation nor a link to a new website were provided."[6][7]

None of the sections of the MoU you've cited constitute replacement of officials. It proposes the forming of a new committee, which would handle the lifting of the mandates, essentially acceding to the demands of protestors. In exchange for which the protesters would stop the protest. I'm not disputing that James Bauder personally would want a lot more, including re-elections and/or resignation of officials. I'm not disputing he uses Pseudolegal and convoluted language. I'm not even disputing he personally is a crackpot. But the contents of the MoU do not express a dissolution or replacement of government. Wild dog94 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the paragraph. I suggest we edit it here collaboratively. While I disagree with your statement that the MoU contents "do not express a dissolution or replacement of government," that is my personal interpretation which is of zero importance to Wikipedia. The paragraph can always be improved with more direct references to the references below and others. There may already be even better mainstream media RS on the MoU now that were not available when this was written:Oceanflynn (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some proposed changes to the paragraph. It might be a bit nit picking, but the previous version was a description of the MoU that was worded in a way that does not reflect the actual content. I completely understand how it happened in this case, James Bauder himself and the CU has described the MoU as doing basically that: force the mandates to be rescinded on pain of resignation. But the articles in the MoU just don't bear that out. Dissolution of government does not appear anywhere in the MoU. The closest I found is a statement in the separate introduction that "The Senate of Canada and the Governor General, combined referred to as the Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately". But requirements of such a resignation does not occur in the articles themselves. It mostly seems to be more blustering by the CU. I've omitted a description of the appointment of the CCC. Our reading of the appointment and function of that committee would probably constitute original research, and the articles I've seen so far don't seem to mention it. If there are any articles going more in depth on that, I'd happily add it. And I've restricted the description of the MoU contents lacking the possibility of dissolution to an as accurate and factual description as I can, pursuant to WP:PRIMARY policy 3 on when and how primary sources can be cited/described.Wild dog94 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the main organizers behind the convoy, Canada Unity (CU), acknowledged that they had planned to submit their signed "memorandum of understanding"[1] (MoU) to the Senate of Canada and Governor General Mary Simon,[8][5] described in the MoU as the "SCGGC". The MoU which was signed by James and Sandra Bauder and Martin Brodmann, was posted on the Canada Unity website in mid-December 2021 and publicly available[1] until its February 8 retraction.[9] Bauder, whose name is at the top of a CTV News' list of "major players" in the convoy, is the founder of Canada Unity.[6] CTV cited Bauder saying that he hoped the signed MoU would convince Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not constitutionally possible. In this pseudolegal document, CU called on the "SCGGC" to cease all vaccine mandates, reemploy all employees terminated due to vaccination status, and rescind all fines imposed for non-compliance with public health orders.[10] The MoU was described as forcing the government to either rescind the public health mandates or resign if this failed[11][5]. However, the articles in the MoU itself did not include language discussing dissolution of government, resignation of government officials, or holding new elections.[1]. The original MoU contained no specific mention of cross-border truckers as it had originally been drafted and delivered over a month earlier, but then was reissued for the protest.[9] By February 8, there were 320,089 of the 1,000,000 signatures on the MoU Canada Unity had hoped for.[12] A February 8 article in The Guardian, on how the convoy was the result of an "unrivaled coordination" between QAnon, conspiracy theorists, anti-vax, anti-government organizations", including Bauder's vow that the protesters would remain until all their demands were met. Organizers felt a groundswell of fresh support for the MoU could trigger a new federal election, and investigations into Prime Minister Trudeau.[7] When questioned in a February 3 Power & Politics interview by a CBC reporter, on whether he would negotiate with the core organizers knowing purpose as stated in the MoU, Conservative MP Kevin Waugh dismissed the MoU as "nonsense" saying the organizers are "frustrated like many Canadians in this country".[13]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Introduction to The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)" (PDF). December 3, 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2021. Retrieved February 10, 2022. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; January 22, 2022 suggested (help)
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/07/freedom-convoy-ottawa-canada-vaccine/
  3. ^ Cecco, Leyland (January 28, 2022). "Canada truckers' vaccine protest spirals into calls to repeal all public health rules". The Guardian. Toronto, Ontario. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved February 1, 2022. "[Canada Unity] posted a "Memorandum of Understanding" to its website, saying that members plan to present it to politicians on Parliament Hill. The group claims that the leader of the senate and the governor general will sign the document to create a governing committee, which they claim would work to revoke the vaccine mandate. "This document is largely incomprehensible and is completely divorced from our political reality," said [Jessica Davis, a former intelligence analyst for the Canadian government
  4. ^ Westfall, Sammy (February 8, 2022). "Here's what you need to know about the 'Freedom Convoy' in Canada". Washington Post. Retrieved February 10, 2022. One of the main organizers, Canada Unity, said that it planned to submit a "memorandum of understanding" to the Senate and governor general, Queen Elizabeth II's representative in Canada, to compel them to drop the public health measures or dissolve the government, which is beyond their constitutional powers. The group said Tuesday that it realized the document "does not reflect the spirit and intent of the convoy." It said in a notice posted to its website that it was "immediately withdrawing" the document to avoid "any unintended interpretations." "Canada Unity does not support or encourage any acts which tarnish democratic values held by Canadians," the statement said.
  5. ^ a b c Gilmore, Rachel (January 27, 2022). "'Fringe minority' in truck convoy with 'unacceptable views' don't represent Canadians: Trudeau". Global News. Corus Entertainment. Retrieved January 30, 2022. One of the groups associated with the event, Canada Unity, has produced a pseudo-legalistic "memorandum of understanding" they plan to present to Gov. Gen. Mary Simon and the Senate, which they mistakenly believe would force the government to rescind COVID-19 public health measures, or force the government to resign en masse. Cite error: The named reference "GlobalGilmore01272" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Parkhill, Maggie (February 10, 2022). "Trucker protest: Leaders and major influencers". CTV News. Retrieved February 10, 2022. Ahead of the convoy's arrival in the capital, Canada Unity directed a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) to the Senate and the Governor General, demanding an end to vaccine mandates and the reinstatement of those who lost jobs over COVID-19 vaccinations, or else "RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately" (sic). Cite error: The named reference "Parkhill_20220210" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Ling, Justin (February 8, 2022). "5G and QAnon: how conspiracy theorists steered Canada's anti-vaccine trucker protest". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved February 8, 2022. Cite error: The named reference "Ling_20220208" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ Westfall, Sammy (February 8, 2022). "Here's what you need to know about the 'Freedom Convoy' in Canada". Washington Post. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
  9. ^ a b The Canadian Press (February 8, 2022). "The latest on protests against COVID-19 measures in Ottawa and beyond". St. Albert Gazette. Retrieved February 8, 2022. Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino says Canadians are troubled by anyone who associates themselves with the "extreme statements" that have been made by the leaders of the anti-vaccine mandate convoy. A self-declared spokesman for the protest said Monday that he wanted to form a coalition with the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois, while a memorandum of understanding has called for the Senate and Governor General to force governments to lift COVID-19 restrictions. [Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said] that most Canadians understand there is a difference between being tired of the pandemic and crossing a line into trying to set up a parallel structure of government....Ottawa protest organizer Canada Unity is disavowing a memorandum of understanding that underpinned its fight against COVID-19 measures. The memo once pushed by Canada Unity unlawfully demanded Gov. Gen. Mary Simon and the Senate force federal and provincial governments to lift all COVID-19 restrictions, including vaccine mandates. It did not mention truckers, and was initially sent to the Senate and Simon on Dec. 11. Canada Unity now says it is immediately withdrawing the memo, adding it firmly supports the Constitution and democratic processes.
  10. ^ Ling, Justin. "Justin Ling – Investigative Reporter: Tweet". Twitter. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  11. ^ Westfall, Sammy (February 8, 2022). "Here's what you need to know about the 'Freedom Convoy' in Canada". Washington Post. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
  12. ^ "Memorandum of Understanding as of February 8". Archived from the original on February 8, 2022.
  13. ^ "Ottawa mayor demands apology from Tory politicians for posing in photo at protest convoy". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. February 3, 2022. Retrieved February 8, 2022. 20:35 in video:CBC: "I understand you want to listen to them; I wonder though if you've read the things that they've published, such as the Memorandum of Understanding that the people who are the core organizers of this have published that say they're staying until the government is removed and a committee of them, and the Governor General, and the Senate run things.

Should we mention the 2 Liberal MPs who broke rank?

Should we mention, under the Liberal section of politician responses, the breaking rank by MPs Joel Lightbound and Yves Robillard last week? Both received quite a bit of press, so it seems worthy to include. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's worth mentioning in the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mention them specifically by name as more are sure to follow. PC already in process of new leadership, Libs will follow suit.Kav2001c (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]
I think it's OK to either mention them by name or just say 2 liberal MPs; if more follow, we can then delete the names (or leave them in as the first two, and add "and six more" or whatever. The first ones are in the lead, so more significant (probably) than the rest. There's no guarantee that there will ever be any more. Depends on how things play out. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? I haven't heard anything about this or how it's relevant to this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See [37], [38] and [39]. Mostly regarding the divisiveness being an inciting factor to these protests. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian notable in that they are skeptical of COVID-19 restrictions/mandates? Or notable that they are not in alignment with their party's overall philosophy? They aren't breaking rank as in they are throwing their support behind the protesters but more questioning why restrictions continue to be in place. If they were explicitly supporting the protests/blockades I think that it would be much easier sum up what they said. All in all, what they really said (and what a lot of us are thinking) is "why are we still doing this?" CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. Seems logical to add this to the Liberal Party section under reactions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since the article lists the reactions of individual MPs from other parties, elected officials from other levels of government, and foreign elected officials. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sloly resigns

Ottawa chief of police is resigning, according to CBC news. Will be announced shortly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Peter Sloly out

Hello. I am asking that the article mention how Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly has resigned over his handling of the protests. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7460:13A2:F1A5:9C4F:6CC2:73E6 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)).[reply]

Update: I can see that Sloly's resignation has been added to the page. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7460:13A2:F1A5:9C4F:6CC2:73E6 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)).[reply]

(edit conflict) I just added a brief point about this to the "criticism of police" section. I'm not putting too much effort into placing things in logical order since I'm sure this is all going to be reorganized at some point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs

I've noticed the last two years CBC links especially cannot be processed by RefLinks - if anyone's able to find the cbc articles to convert from bare URLs that'd be awesome. I'll try later if not done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really sucks. A lot of Canada-related topics use CBC as a source, and it's annoying to have to make the refs manually. I don't know if there's any way to automatically fill in the links, but hopefully someone can make a solution to that soon. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 00:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting a reference isn't hard, and I wish editors would stop using the auto-ref tools that don't name the refs properly and don't respect the article's date format. I will have a look for the bare URL refs and see what I can do. Bare URLs are better than nothing, of course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the word "insurrection"

"There is growing evidence that much of the funding and planning behind the protest originated in the United States, leading to speculation that it may be a "dry run" or an attempt to generate momentum for an insurrection within the United States"

The word "insurrection" should be entirely removed from this article. There is nothing about this protest that would make it an insurrection. This is a peaceful protest, and the use of the word "insurrection" implies a violent upheaval, of which this is not. The word is misleading. Ucxb (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only the cited opinion piece calls it a dry run for an American uprising:
With all this in mind, this exercise has the hallmarks of an op, complete with the potential for wire fraud and money laundering, and possibly a dry run for an American uprising.
I agree that sentence should be removed or at least attributed to the National Observer columnist. – Anne drew 01:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources also use the word "insurrection": [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources would allow us to call it an insurrection in wikivoice. Fox News is unreliable for politics, while the WaPo piece is WP:RSOPINION and the remaining three sources attribute that language to officials. The characterization can be attributed to officials and/or the WaPo editorial board. ― Tartan357 Talk 10:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanflynn - when this article is ready I believe it should be linked from this article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaffeinAddict, Some of the content in this mandates article includes your useful contributions in other related articles. I will link it.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Civil Liberties Association opposes invocation of the Emergency Act

Some note should be added that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association opposes the recent invocation of the Emergency Act.

Primary source [1]

Secondary sources [2][3][4][5][6][7]

The secondary sources repeat the following quotes, which would be good to include in the article

"The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met"

"Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties."

Databased (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-statement-on-the-emergencies-act/
  2. ^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-civil-liberties-association-warns-normalizing-emergency-legislation/
  3. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/8620547/ccla-emergency-legislation-democracy-civil-liberties/
  4. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/media/trudeau-declaration-canada-aviv-truckers
  5. ^ https://www.kelownanow.com/news/news/National_News/Canadian_Civil_Liberties_Association_says_threshold_to_invoke_Emergencies_Act_has_not_been_met
  6. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadian-civil-liberties-groups-respond-to-trudeau-invoking-emergencies-act
  7. ^ https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/emergencies-act-canada-civil-liberties

Title change and alternative, more fitting titles

I don't think there was a consensus to move the page at all. The fact that many people suggested alternative names does not equal those people prefer the new name "Canada convoy protest" to the previous name "Freedom Convoy 2022" and a move review WP:MVR should be considered.

To expand on the arguments given to keep the "Freedom Convoy 2022" name, WP:COMMONNAME clearly overrides WP:NPOVNAME, as textually stated in WP policies: "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." It is still the most widely used.

I also propose alternative titles: the title "Canada convoy protest" suggests it is a single, isolated, one-day incident protest. Just a plural "Canada convoy protests" would be an improvement. The title "Canada convoy movement" would be more fitting to include a wide series of protests through a longer period of time. But it also suggests the scope of the protests are limited to Canada, while there are similar movements in other countries of the world, including Australia, Netherlands, Finland, New Zealand, USA, France, Belgium, Austria or the UK. Therefore the title "Freedom convoy movement" would be more fitting to include all these protests. I will be adding references to all these statements shortly, even though they are already in the corresponding sections of the article. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also thought that close was bad, more of a WP:SUPERVOTE than a genuine reading of the discussion. It was a clear no consensus result and I'm going to treat it as though it was. IMO, Freedom convoy protests covers this topic, and I don't think we need to specify Canada in the title at all: this is the original protest movement, the others that are based on it can disambiguate themselves. The year is also not needed in the title, it's not part of the common name and there's no need to disambiguate from events with the same name that happened in other years. But "freedom convoy" must be in the title in some form, per WP:COMMONNAME. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I also don't think this should go to move review, it should just be left alone for now. As I've been saying about a lot of things on this article: it's unstable, new stuff happens every day and gets added here in haphazard fashion, and there's no point trying to organize it until it's largely over and done with. I say just leave it alone, and we'll figure out the proper title later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think changing it to Canada convoy protests (plural) would be an uncontroversial improvement. – Anne drew 16:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assessment was ultimately correct, i.e. There was a clear consensus against both "Freedom Convoy 2022" and "Ottawa convoy protests". This was a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. The current title is not meant to be permanent, and its up to the involved editors to find a better alternative - one with more clear, consensus support - before requesting a new move.
Already this new discussion is full of new suggestions for the name, each with minute differences. A proposed move now will likely breakdown the same way the previous one did, with each editor weighing in to oppose, in favour of their own pet name for the article.
I would suggest we need to focus this discussion before proposing a new move, or requesting a move review. Paine Ellsworth was helpful enough to provide a list of the proposed alternatives from the move discussion when closing it. I would suggest editors should weigh in on this list (or add to it) and state their reasoning for supporting/opposing. That way we can determine which has the most clear support, then request a move to the most preferred alternative. --WilliamTravis (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternatives

Goal of the protests and official statement by the organizers

The organizers just published an official statement in an interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8tzXazvyHQ insisting that their goals focus on vaccine mandates and government mandates and tracking, and that they reject the calls for the federal government to be overthrown. This is important; even if some extremists made that calls, I think the goals of the protests should be mentioned and specified according to the organizers (specially in the lede), and not according to some fringe views within some of the protestors. Therefore I request to either 1.Specify the organizers reject the calls for the federal government to be overthrown in the lede or 2.Remove the calls for the federal government to be overthrown from the lede. This statement can also be mentioned, expanded and included later in the convoy goals section. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The CCLA, a major Canadian civil liberties group, has condemned the government's use of the emergency act.

Reliable Sources include: https://globalnews.ca/news/8620547/ccla-emergency-legislation-democracy-civil-liberties/ https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-statement-on-the-emergencies-act/

I would recommend adding "The Canadian Civil Liberties Union condemned the use of the Emergency Act as threatening "our democracy and our civil liberties"" below the existing paragraphs about the act sourced to the two links above

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

The freedom convoy is a domestic terrorist group that dosent represent Canadian belief 209.52.88.218 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest&oldid=1072263864"