Talk:Canada convoy protest

Not a soapbox

This page is for discussing improvements to this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; any further personal attacks or off-topic discussions about editors' opinions of the topic will result in editors being blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Truck count estimate

Per [1], "There are estimates the Canadian convoy could comprise 50,000 trucks from the West, East, and even from the United States.". Do we have better source on the total count of trucks? I wonder if they added an extra 0 by mistake, because 5000 is plausible, but 50000 seems unrealistic. SystemEff (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The 50,000 estimate was directly from one of the organizers and has never been confirmed. OPP in Kenora stated 200-300 moved through their location on Tuesday night. I cited that in the main article. Matt Austin (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in a few edit summaries, the claims from the organizers are so implausible as to be inappropriate to include even if we gave proper attribution. Their estimate of 50,000 trucks is more than the largest truck convoy ever recorded by a factor of 100. One of the organizers claimed that the convoy is over 70km long and that he measured it from an airplane, which is an obvious fabrication since he claimed that before any of the convoys had actually gathered, and any of the convoys that have been independently observed have been much smaller. I also doubt that you could even see an object the size of a truck 35km out the side of an aircraft at cruise altitude. The only plausible independent estimate I've seen is the Ottawa Police's plan to handle 2,000 protesters over the weekend, but even that is not an estimate of the number of trucks involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The source I provided last night from Thunder Bay News Watch cited the OPP with an estimate of "400 vehicles in the convoy that crossed into Ontario from Manitoba Tuesday night". That seems to be the best estimate currently. Note that it says vehicles and not trucks - from my understanding it's not just trucks in the convoy. This does not include whatever trucks are coming from the maritimes. The other source in the article says police in Ottawa are prepared for 2,000 people to protest on Saturday. But that's just a best guess. [2] CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed that estimate. It's a good estimate of the number of trucks coming from the west, but more are coming from the east. I'm looking for a source on that now; CBC PEI reported this morning that 70 vehicles crossed the bridge, but many of them turned around at the visitor centre in New Brunswick and headed right back. No numbers in that article on how many were trucks nor how many carried on to Moncton. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

More on this: CBC Nova Scotia reports that "10 to 15" trucks left Enfield this morning around 7am bound for the New Brunswick border. CBC New Brunswick reports that five (5) trucks left Aulac for Ottawa this morning, but didn't give a time. I can't tell if the 10-15 joined with the 5, or if 5 was the total that continued on from both groups, and also can't tell what happened to the PEI group. CBC London is also reporting that two groups from southwestern Ontario are getting together and plan to leave London at noon (in a few minutes, 17:00 UTC) but no estimate of numbers. There was also talk of a Newfoundland group, no idea where they are. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector It looks like the truck number was updated again in the infobox - the Arnprior article has a unconfirmed estimate of 600 trucks going to Arnprior tonight before heading to Ottawa in the morning. Should this be taken down given it's not confirmed? Matt Austin (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably, but it's a developing situation and new editors are probably going to keep adding other estimates if we keep removing them. What's there now is better sourced, but still not complete. There should be better counts of the actual participation after today and then we can update. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector Matt R Austin that was me on the most recent edit. It kept reappearing but it was wildly overstated. I'm indifferent to it being taken down or left up at the moment. Like Ivanvector said, a truer count will most likely be reported by the media by the end of the day. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, "Figures obtained by CTV News show 104,000 trucks crossed the border into Canada in the last week. That's down about four per cent from the same period in 2019, before the pandemic and before the vaccine mandate." https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-decries-fringe-views-of-some-in-trucker-convoy-as-police-prepare-for-its-arrival-in-ottawa-1.5755674 SystemEff (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Snopes says the 50000 figure is false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/freedom-convoy-guinness/ SystemEff (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Snopes cites this to be a realistic estimate "David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg. " SystemEff (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingston Police reported on Twitter at 9:45AM EST on 28Jan2022 the following #'s:

• full tractor trailers
• 104 tractors w no trailers
• 424 passenger vehicles
• 6 RVs

For the record, an editor is reverting an important figure regarding estimates. See Talk:Freedom_Convoy_2022#Selective_removal_of_timeline_updates and [3]. Specifically,

* "Ottawa Police expect approximately 2,000 vehicles and 5,000 pedestrians in Ottawa on January 29th" SystemEff (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ottawa police now estimate up to 18,000 participants and 2,000-3,000 heavy trucks.

References

Unsourced line likely caused by confusion between highway and number of vehicles

The claim "Ontario Provincial Police estimated approximately 400 vehicles had entered Ontario from the Manitoba border as part of the eastbound convoy" is unsourced as source 17 reads as "[1]." Upon searching for a possible source, it is may be possible that the number was confused for Ontario Highway 400, with which the OPP have made statements about being part of the route (https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/drivers-warned-of-significant-traffic-delays-on-highways-as-trucker-convoy-enters-ontario-1.5755535 and https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/opp-truckers-convoy-gta-traffic-disruptions-1.6329308). If there is no conflict, I will be removing the aforementioned line. --ZachT1234 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That error is my fault. The reference was defined in a different part of the article, which I removed (see above) but didn't restore the code for the source, which led to the cite error you saw. That source does indeed say: "Ontario Provincial Police said there were almost 400 vehicles in the convoy that crossed into Ontario from Manitoba Tuesday night." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

on that note - Ivanvector - I noticed you removed the current convoy count from the lede. I understand it’s probably too early to tabulate but I think it is an important piece of the overall article if it is or can ever be somewhat accurately measured or estimated by independent sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I addressed that in the "truck count estimate" section above - basically it was not accurate to call it a "convoy of nnn trucks" based on a source that was quoting one count at one of several locations. It might be useful to add the cited individual counts in the timeline section where chronological details are landing now, but I think we should wait until Saturday or later for a true count from the actual event, and then figure out how to incorporate that into the lede. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Validity of Action4Canada official website?

Would the official website of Action4Canada be a valid source for information regarding routes and other factual information? I understand that the opinion and call-to-action element is not valid for Wikipedia, bit I feel as though some elements could be used as a source, especially regarding a possible future routes section. --ZachT1234 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is the relevant guideline, see bullet #3 in particular. I think it would be okay to use that site for info on where the group plans to travel and meet up, in the short term, but it will be better to replace that with independent sources once there are some. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine passports vs mandates

I noticed the term mandates has been wikilinked to the Vaccine Passports article (coincidentally a page I contributed to heavily) - isn't there a difference? I guess the mandate to come into the states is a passport I guess. The passport article mainly focused on it's use internally in a jurisdiction not a way to get into a country. This page exists - COVID-19 vaccination mandates in the United States but it's mainly focused on the US. Sorry if I'm being pedantic but appreciate some thoughts on this. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally think there should be a dedicated COVID-19 vaccination mandates article, and then we link to it. SystemEff (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

I think we need a better image, preferably one with multiple trucks. An example [4]. SystemEff (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here [5] is a video showing the impressive line up of vehicles and trucks. And another. [6] SystemEff (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

images on Wikipedia need to be particular Creative Commons licenses. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mandates not introduced by the "Government of Canada"

The "Government of Canada" is Parliament. The mandates on vaccination for truckers, aviation, and marine vessels was not a bill passed in parliament, which would be voted on by all members and become a Government of Canada legislation. Instead, these mandates are made by Order-in-Council, which is a decree by Liberal Party of Canada ministers and do not involve the government/parliament (which includes all elected parties). The article should state that the measures were introduced by Orders-in-Council made by members of Liberal Party of Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's direction. Cdnshipsnote (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Source: https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=41406&lang=en Cdnshipsnote (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point.--Tallard (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

HEADS UP: This Movement May Become International

I have recently come across this advertisement of a "European Freedom Convoy" that was posted today: https://thelibertyclub.ca/event/european-freedom-convoy-lets-get-organized-join-us-on-telegram/2022-01-27/

It also includes an American Convoy. Says that more details ought to be released about these other convoys at some later time. I ought to leave out speculation and await to see how seriously these other convoys are taken. W.C Cross (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I had just spoken with one of the organizers of the American Convoy and she had just told me that they are planning out the routes and are taking this seriously. It seems that this international movement may very well be legitimate. Time will tell if these other convoys manifest themselves. W.C Cross (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It already started happening in a few places,

- Italy[7].

- Brazil[8]

SystemEff (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Already is, there is a great news piece and sympathy protest in Australia. Also many smaller countries have joined in now. Not just Trump and the Americans cheering them on. Kav2001c (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

Judging from the pacing of events that the above two users have pointed out, I'd reckon we are in the early stages of a national movement becoming international. My opinion on the matter is so: Let's wait till the weekend and begin compiling an argument for why we'd ought to consider this 'Freedom Convoy 2022' movement to now be an international movement. W.C Cross (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

GoFundMe as source

Should we use gofundme /f/taking-back-our-freedom-convoy-2022 as the source for the fund numbers? Seems more accurate than any other source to me. SystemEff (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Not unless we can also cite an independent source, of which there are plenty. The problem is that Gofundme doesn't necessarily show the accurate total at any time, what you see is an approximation based on recent activity. Each time you reload the page you'll probably see a different number, and if you do it long enough you'll notice that the number doesn't always increase, which is what you'd expect from a fundraiser. It being a different number each time you reload is also problematic as a reliable source: if I say that the total as of this edit is $7,239,510, then by the time you check, my edit will fail verification. It's basically the same reason we don't use YouTube or Instagram or TikTok as primary sources for follower counts, for example. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Stated Beliefs Section

Matt R Austin Before reverting me again - there was very little in that section that wasn't already laid out in the article. The one paragraph about Canada Unity has been placed in a different section. Come back to it if there's better sourcing than just Justin Ling on twitter. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

SystemEff You too - the information in that section is already in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The "General beliefs" section should stay. It has 3 sources supporting the primary goal of this protest. SystemEff (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The information in that section was moved to other parts of the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

SystemEff As a new editor I think you need to be made aware of some of the policies in wikipedia. I won't be reverting that again to avoid the WP:3RR rule. Perhaps Ivanvector can comment. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected on my policy understanding. But as far as I understand, a long standing version cannot be deleted en masse with 1 person agreeing, and 2+ people disagreeing, and with no clear consensus in the talk page. Shouldn't we wait for other people to chip in here? SystemEff (talk)

The exact same info, reiterated is in the "background" section. That's why I removed it. It's literally already in the article. I'm not removing anything. So go read it - see that it's essentially the same info, and then I'll be removing it. The section had no substance to it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I see it, yes - but that is except the "General beliefs" section, along with the 3 sources. Anyway, I've consolidated both sections.[9] Do you agree with this? SystemEff (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Great so after all that you essentially just did what I did last night. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No, your change had also removed the 3 sources (after the sentence "The protest calls for the end of vaccine mandates in Canada during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic."). SystemEff (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any particular input on this, but I'm not used to seeing a plain section basically republishing the organization's manifesto. Personally I do think it would be better off incorporated into the background section. I don't think any of it should be expunged from the article altogether. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Trudeau in isolation

On January 27, Justin Trudeau said he is isolating after exposure to COVID-19 and tested negative for the virus..

This was reverted.[10] I believe it is relevant, and should be mentioned because Trudeau will not be available during the weekend protest. SystemEff (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@SystemEff: we have a strict policy forbidding publishing harmful material about living persons unless it is directly relevant and very well sourced, which you violated by piping your link to "Justine Trudeau". A few years ago there was a browser script which automatically changed "Trump" to "Drumpf" which also substituted in the Wikipedia editor, and led to a number of innocent blocks of people who weren't intending to publish the error. If you are using something like that, I strongly suggest you turn it off. If this was an inadvertent mistake then I apologize, however if you do it again you will be blocked from editing to enforce the policy.

I am wary of including this, the source does not say he will not meet with the convoy because of his self-isolation, and otherwise it's not relevant to the protest. I believe there have been other sources that have said he was already not planning to meet the protesters for more relevant reasons, which we should include, but based on current sourcing I think it's WP:SYNTH for us to imply that he's not going because he's self-isolating. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't even know what you are talking about regarding "Justine Trudeau" (with an "e"). Which change in particular are you referring to? SystemEff (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh this [11]. That must be an auto-complete mistake. The way you phrased "you violated by" suggests intention on my part. Please don't assume malice without evidence. SystemEff (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, "if you do it again you will be blocked from editing to enforce the policy." - this is the most stupidest threat I have received. What are you talking about? If I make another auto-completion error, you will block me? What in the fuck? SystemEff (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector is a wikipedia administrator. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

In regards to your second paragraph, why not state the fact without suggesting "because of"? Something along the lines of, "Trudeau, who is isolating due to COVID-19 exposure, will not be available at the capital for the next 4 days". It is quite relevant that the leader of the country will be missing. SystemEff (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Trudeau's isolation has nothing to do with Covid as his isolation is in direct violation of Ottawa Public Health rules. His disappearance is now being claimed for his safety after he was outed as using Covid as a fake excuse. Kav2001c (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

Trudeau just tested positive for COVID-19 and it's not illegal to voluntarily self-isolate. This still remains irrelevant. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

James Bauder's personal extremism

A new article appeared today outlining Bauder's own support for QAnon, arresting Justin Trudeau for "treason", and misinformation surrounding the 2020 US election: Vice article

Also relevant: a 2015 article on Benjamin Dichter's Islamophobia and racism: True North Times article Doogie2K (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

We have to be careful about publishing negative information about people who are not notable (see WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy and WP:LOWPROFILE). I think the link about Bauder is relevant, as it is written so as to directly relate to the topic of this article. I'm not as sure about the 2015 article about Dichter; he's involved, but that article is seven years old. True North Times is also not a sufficiently reliable source for this, as it describes itself as "everything funny in Canadian politics", and regularly posts memes instead of news. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Official Site Link?

Is there one official site for this? If so, it would be good to add at the end of an article. Most Wikipedia articles link to an official page. https://freedomfighternation.org/freedom-convoy comes up searching, but I can't find a clear confirmation of this. This site has some pretty extreme stuff on other pages so I would not think it fair to link it if not official. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 20:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Most articles about protests and protest movements do not in fact have a central authority so there are not links to anything of the like. For example Black Lives Matter protests in New York City or 2021 United States Capitol attack. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There have been several websites set up claiming to be the "official" website, none of them authoritative, and in that case it's probably best not to include any of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Canada Unity is the de facto organizer of the protest. They have a website where they have organized people and a forum which has some very peculiar topics and discussions. Link: Canada Unity Matt Austin (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, CaffeinAddict, I am not so familiar with protest articles: this has not been the focus of my editing. I was speaking more generally as most other Wikipedia pages link to the organization or official website of the person in question, even for highly controversial stuff like hate groups, and Wikipedia is usually helpful for determining which is the official site. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 02:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - well I don't think there is any "official" site because it's not a very clearly put together movement for obvious reasons. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Source of "90% are vaccinated"

Trudeau's comment in an impromptu talk with press representatives does not constitute a "reliable source." Unless some kind of report from a credible agency can be cited to support the claim, I am inclined to remove it from the lede, perhaps deeper into the article, and to clearly state that it is Trudeau's as-yet UNVERIFIED claim. Without that, claiming that their vaccination rate is higher than the general public is a rather extraordinary claim. It requires more than Trudeau's word, invented as he scuttled out of the capital.

Similarly, implying that all of the protesters come from the remaining 10% "fringe" is likewise misleading, as a significant portion of those attending ARE vaccinated.

This article needs serious work, as it cutrently reads as an endorsement of the government's position. It clearly is not NPOV. Wilford Nusser (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This claim is repeated across multiple news sources. So we shouldn't remove it. But we can attribute it to whoever said it. SystemEff (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The claim (aka measurable statistical data) is corroborated by industry groups and the Ministry of Transport. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not doubting those groups, but where is the statistical data itself? This is what ideally we want to be linking to. One of your sources go to a tweet by Omar Alghabra, who doesn't cite any official statistics. The reuters source also qualifies the statement with "Industry officials say" without any other direct reference. All of this could simply be a regurgitation of Trudeau's statement, but we would never know without official statistics. SystemEff (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we can do this better. The 90% figure is a quote from Trudeau referring to the CTA's data, but the CTA themselves say 85%. The quotes should be attributed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

120,000 truck drivers?

The numbers are wrong in the lede, and likely elsewhere in the body. There are over 300,000 truck drivers in Canada, not 120,000. More likely the CTA represents 120,000 truckers.[12][13][14] - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. A lot of different numbers are being thrown around: 120,000 drivers in Canada, 160,000 cross-border drivers in both countries, 16,000 Canadians affected by the mandate, and so on. The Truck News article is from before the pandemic and I wouldn't count on it. CBC doesn't say where its 300,000 stat comes from, and that is long-haul truckers, not all truckers. I used to drive a cross-border route but was definitely not long-haul. Maybe that number is truckers who drive in Canada, not just Canadian drivers?

The CTA just this week published stats ([15]) that there are 732,800 employees in the Canadian trucking industry but doesn't say how many of those are drivers. StatsCan has 742,497 employees in transportation and warehousing as of 2020 ([16]) but only seems to have more specific stats on drivers as of 2010 ([17]): 128,429 salaried drivers plus 54,086 owner-operators. So where do we go from here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "sources vary as to the number of truck drivers in Canada, with estimates ranging from 120,000(CTA source) to 300,000.(CBC or archived StatsCan 2015 numbers)"? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

From my understanding there would also be a difference in independently owned commercial vehicles and drivers who are employees of a larger trucking company. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Selective removal of timeline updates

Unfortunately User:CaffeinAddict is engaging in yet another edit war. This time their rationale is WP:NOTNEWS which says in particular "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate". CaffeinAddict went for a 2nd revert anyway[18] without explaining why, other than a meaningless "You don't have to add every update." So who gets to choose what to add or exclude and on what basis? The content this editor removed contains important and relevant details like "Ottawa Police expect approximately 2,000 vehicles and 5,000 pedestrians in Ottawa on January 29th". I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on this change. SystemEff (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This editor now also (uncharitably) asks me to "step back for a while"[19]. All the more reason for other editors to chip in here. SystemEff (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not an edit war - I’m not constantly reverting you. You are dominating edits right now though. I don’t think it needs to be heavily discussed every trivial and unimportant item you add to the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, you consider "Ottawa Police expect approximately 2,000 vehicles and 5,000 pedestrians in Ottawa on January 29th" to be "trivial and unimportant"? What is considered not "trivial and important" to you? Pick any existing estimation from the "Convoy movements" section and let me know. SystemEff (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd say both additions by SystemEff are worthy of inclusion at this moment. It's better to compile information in the now and trim it after the fact if it changes or becomes irrelevant to the bigger picture. If we're going to build up with "Police warning people to stay away, prepared to arrest law breakers", we should logically follow with either "which never materialised" or "arrests were made". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm between both positions on this. This is an ongoing event and new developments are happening continuously, but at the same time we're not a live blog, and initial news reports are often incorrect on things like this and very careful scrutiny is warranted. However, as long as nothing goes up that's clearly fabricated or goes against WP:BLP, we can let things happen and decide how to deal with it later, probably in a couple days when the protest has concluded and the media narrative stabilizes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

it doesn’t seem (in my mind) to need to be said that no unlawful activity has occurred at a protest. Protests happen all the time without incident. Commentary by the police I’m neutral on. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's relevant since so many writers predicted that there would be violence owing to the extremist elements, and at least one of the organizers agitating for it to be a repeat of the January 6 insurrection south of the border. It may be too soon to say that none occurred, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I remain neutral on this for the most part, I have remained wary of the article becoming too BREAKING NEWS-like. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoters

Maybe include Pat King, who was one of the largest supporters of this and include (Personal attack removed) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ C3porice (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of WP:BLP-violating attack that will be met with blocks if they continue. Negative information about living persons must be cited inline where it appears on any page on this website, including talk pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The article does read like an endorsement to the government position

I agree with the user above stating that there is no NPOV in this article. For example, it is not mentioned in the lede nor info box nor anywhere that the cause for the protest was the vaccination mandate for the truckers (not the general public) and that there are concerns by business associations and scholars about those mandates.
References:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vaccine-mandate-double-down-convoy-1.6326821
https://globalnews.ca/news/8532559/bc-truck-convoy-vaccine-mandate/
Emilija Knezevic (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I see the concerns about timing from some groups in the CBC article, but where are the scholars you claim are concerned? The Dalhousie rep says truckers aren't a homogenous group, there isn't agreement; that she expects the Opposition to take on the cause; the effectiveness of the convoy is in doubt; that the feds gave truckers a lot of time before imposing the mandate, and haven't flip-flopped. She herself doesn't express concern. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I will note, at present, the lede has seven references to the word "truck" and its derivatives. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the reference to the scholars, yes, I think we are pointing to the same person in the globalnews reference, from the Dalhousie, which, as you stated, makes an argument about the diverse group of protesters and their causes, and the possibility of the government taking some action about them (with the help of the Opposition). And that is my point exactly: not that "protesters are wrong, the government is right", but that there may be some valid concerns at least as the initial cause of everything. And if the right-wing anti-vaxers may have jumped at the opportunity to provoke the disobedience to the COVID measures and other radical actions, that may (have) happen(ed), but this is not how it all started.

I would change the first sentence from "COVID-19 vaccine requirements to re-enter the country by land" to something like "COVID-19 vaccine requirements for truck drivers to enter the country", and also put a corresponding change in the info box.

Also, the Canadian Trucking Alliance did not plainly condemn the protests, as can be seen from the globalnews reference: "Members of the trucking industry who want to publicly express displeasure over government policies can choose to hold an organized, lawful event on Parliament Hill or contact their local MP. What is not acceptable is disrupting the motoring public on highways and commerce at the border.” - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Statements by the Canadian Trucking Alliance:

* https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/

* https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-president-on-ottawa-protests/

Emilija Knezevic (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Related protests?

Perhaps this article should be widened, to cover the other disruptions? For example, there's a vehicle blockade at the Sweatgrass, Montana-Coutts, Alberta border crossing. This is a main trade route. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it would be relevant to have a section discussing the impact in other areas. Possibly also mentions of other offshoot protests/events. E.g., I believe there is something similar that is either happening or planned in Australia inspired by the Canadian protests. One article -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10458149/Covid-19-Australia-Convoy-Canberra-arrives-protest-vaccine-mandate-cars-crash.html DirkDouse (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as these are all associated with the same movement/protest.Humberland (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

condemned by trucking industry groups

Neither of the groups sourced to this statement "condemn" the protest. CTA's statement was "The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) does not support and strongly disapproves of any protests on public roadways, highways, and bridges."([20]), while the APTA ranged from "we encourage our drivers not to participate" ([21]) to "doesn't support" ([22]). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, that sentence expresses strong and inaccurate wording, and can be understood as a biased opinion. It should be reworded or removed. How I understand it, the industry groups do not support the protests, but certainly do not condemn them. The CTA's statement of disapproving the protests on "public roadways, highways, and bridges" is often (in many sources) taken out of context as a disapproval, although it is followed by an approval of a lawful protest on Parliament Hill. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the term condemned is fine. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think "is not approved by" would be more fitting than "is condemned by" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with user Floydian - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The CTA has issued two statements about the protests, Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests (Jan 22) and Statement by Canadian Trucking Alliance President on Ottawa Protests (Jan 29). In both, they spoke against protests that interfere with public roads, referred to the vast majority of Canadian truckers that are already vaccinated, and encouraged compliance with the mandate instead of protesting. They suggested that members who wished to protest should hold a lawful rally at Parliament Hill and then leave the city, which was not what happened; they stopped well short of approving such a protest, had there been one (what actually happened was far from it). They issued a third specifically denouncing the defacement of monuments but in that one they didn't talk about the rally as a whole. I read these as active disapproval of the event, not just that they don't support it.

Various reliable sources say:

• Washington Post: "The Canadian Trucking Alliance said it doesn’t support protests 'on public roadways, highways and bridges.'"
• BBC: "While the [CTA] does not support the convoy and has said the industry must adapt to the mandate, it is said the measure could remove as many as 16,000 drivers from those routes."
• CBC: "The convoy does not have the support of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Saskatchewan Trucking Association or other groups."
• New York Times: "The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement last Saturday that it “strongly disapproves” of the protests on public roadways, highways and bridges."
• Al Jazeera: "The Canadian Trucking Alliance, a major industry group, has said it “strongly disapproved” of the gathering in Ottawa."
• National Post: "[The CTA] has strongly denounced any protests on public roadways, highways and bridges and has urged all truckers to get inoculated."

Personally I think that "does not approve" or similar wording is not strong enough to neutrally reflect the CTA's position as described by reliable sources. It would be absolutely ridiculous to say that they support any part of the protest in any way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"Links to far-right and separatist groups" excessively long

Seems like editing this section might be contentious, so creating a talk page section first. See comments on the individual bullets below. Some of this seems like it should be removed entirely; comments from main organizers should be cleaned up into something more cohesive. Maybe take the relevant parts, create a subsection under "Background and goals" called "Organizers" and talk about associations in a more general capacity? Seems like that would be easier to follow. Any other suggestions on cleaning up this section? DirkDouse (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Seems reasonably relevant since this is a main organizer One of the lead organizers of the convoy, James Bauder, has previously stated support for QAnon, endorsed conspiracy theories around the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and called for the arrest of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for alleged "treason".
• Is Patrick King actually an organizer? Not listed in infobox. If sufficiently relevant, might be relevant to include some of this, but if not seems too tangential. The Facebook page for the convoy has shared content from and listed as an organizer Wexit co-founder and Yellow Vest Canada organizer Patrick King, who has previously hosted counter-protests to anti-racism rallies, spread COVID-19 misinformation, and spread the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Canada Unity, organizer for the convoy, continues to host Patrick King's livestream on its website.
• The Maverick Party article does not consider the party to be extreme or separatist. Seems inaccurate to imply this here. Maverick Party - Tamara Lich, the protest's fundraiser, is Secretary for the Maverick Party, a western separatist group formerly known as Wexit Canada. Lich was previously the regional co-ordinator for Wexit in southeastern Alberta and board member for Wexit Alberta. The Maverick Party has denied involvement in fundraising for the convoy, issuing a statement on January 24 saying that the party is not involved in the protest.
• A group associated with a subgroup seems too tangential to warrant this much discussion. Action 4 Canada - associated with the Canada Unity group inside the Freedom Convoy - Islamophobic and anti-LGBTQ conspiracy group with webpages about the dangers of political Islam, health consequences of 5G technology 5G stuff not really far-right or separatist and underreporting of adverse vaccine reactions. Founded by Tanya Gaw who actively supported the Yellow Vests protests of 2019.
• Not notable that organizers of a anti-vaccine-mandate protest are also anti-lockdown. No More Lockdowns - Jason LaFace, Canada Unity's Ontario organizer for the Freedom Convoy is also a main organizer for No More Lockdowns Canada - An anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine mandate organization primarily associated with expelled Ontario MPP Randy Hillier which holds anti-lockdown rallies across Ontario.
• Probably relevant, since this is a main organizer, but could be trimmed down and summarized with comments/associations of other organizers. Peoples Party of Canada - Benjamin Dichter who is listed as an organizer on the Freedom Convoy GoFundMe page and who is an organizer of the Freedom Convoy was a speaker at the inaugural 2019 PPC National Convention where he claimed political Islam has infiltrated the Conservative Party and is "rotting away at our society like syphilis". Citation is WP:SYNTH -- article is from several years ago, not about the ongoing events Jason LaFace, Ontario organizer for Canada Unity (who also goes by Jason LaFaci) is the President of the People's Party of Canada Sudbury Electoral District Association with a previous background in anti-Black Lives Matter activities. Also, this citation is a random WordPress blog -- better citation needed.

References

Also, maybe there is some dispute over edits that were made to the "Others" section under "statements and reactions"? @Citobun: Seems unnecessary to list every person who said that they support the protests in some vague capacity, as the section would easily grow to hundreds of bullet points. I believe that the edit made trimming down that section is necessary, but if you/others disagree feel free to comment. DirkDouse (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC) And if this issue is related to the Wikipedia style guide, see MOS:LISTBULLET. Articles should not have extensive lists of arbitrary celebrities commenting with no context; should be rewritten to paragraph form. DirkDouse (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Also see WP:INDISCRIMINATE--a vague quote from a political commentator/sports figure/other being verifiable and cited does not inherently make it notable or relevant for inclusion. DirkDouse (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The Others section has been compressed over night. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems excessively long because it seems like there's extensive connections to extremist groups. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you even read this thread or are you just here to push your political agenda? DirkDouse (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC) There are legitimate problems with this section that are enumerated above. DirkDouse (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Political agenda? I'm apolitical. Please don't make personal attacks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, you are right, I should not assume an agenda. I believe this section has too much indiscriminate information being added, partially due to WP:RECENT, as well as problems with citation quality and consistency with other content on Wikipedia (also some WP:SYNTH, such as off of the cited tweet). Also, some issues with MOS:LISTBULLET. But if you disagree I am open to hear your opinion. DirkDouse (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

DirkDouse, I disagree with the removal of the Terry Fox statue/Tomb of the Unknown Soldier desecration mention from the lead; these acts have been widely covered in Canadian media now and are highly relevant to the events of the protest. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have that strong of an opinion either way. Since this is an ongoing event, these incidents seem like they may be getting a lot of attention today/yesterday due to WP:RECENT. Maybe there is more coverage in Canadian media than what I am seeing in the US; seems kind of borderline in terms of relevance to be in the lead, but I can see your point of view. Also, I agree with previous editors that "desecrated/vandalized" is NPOV and that if the section is readded to the lead it should specify what specifically occurred in those incidents. DirkDouse (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

the monument desecration belongs in the body of the article, it is not notable enough on its own to belong as a definitive action of the protest IMO. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it being in the lead. It's been one of the main headlines in media relating to the convoy. Flalf^Talk 18:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

And the police have opened criminal investigations in this regard. It obviously belongs in the lede. DirkDouse, stop blanking well-referenced content without consensus. Citobun (talk)

@Flalf and Emesik: Tagging some users who were recently editing under this area. I agree that the bullet point in contention is offtopic/tangential for the section. Previous suggestion at the start of this thread was to move some of this to a subsection under "Background and goals" called "Organizers" that itemizes affiliations for the main organizers. That way would not be under a confusing subsection. DirkDouse (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, there's some stuff in there about 5G conspiracy theories, which isn't really far right or separatist either. Re: Maybe makes more sense under a general section about affiliations that can more cleanly include the far-right content with other affiliations in one place. DirkDouse (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The group in particular is both anti-vax and anti-lockdown, and the leader himself has made extremist posts on social media, which I think falls into the category it has right now, however I think expanding the section to conspiracy theories as well would make sense. Flalf^Talk 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if those positions are far-right or separatist; seems reasonable to describe as rightwing, but not really a fringe view among conservatives. Ex: https://osf.io/6wcn9/ DirkDouse (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@DirkDouse: I don't think we need to list out all of the groups- however I think it would be relevant to list groups affiliated with organizers. Alternatively, instead of listing maybe just merge into the rest of the extremism section? Flalf^Talk 18:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it could be merged into that section if it were clearer what the scope is--either adjusting section headings/subheadings or changing the phrasing around some. DirkDouse (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Canadian politicians

I've removed the Liberal section heading from under Canadian politicians, as Jagmeet Singh is NDP (albeit a liberal party), West worked for an NDPer, and McKenney and political affiliation aren't easily findable. Moreover, is it relevant?

I've also moved Wayne Eyre down to Others, as Eyre is a federal employee, not an elected official. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm realizing that just as liberal looks like Liberal, conservative looks like Conservative. PPC is in that section. What about supporting and opposing? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to supporting/opposing seems good. DirkDouse (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think having liberal/conservative split is good - supporting or opposing would be the natural reaction... however someone like O'Toole met with truckers and then later condemned them for defacing the statues... CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the section headings as discussed here. Seems like people here are okay with Oppose/Support for that section? DirkDouse (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Any reason CaffeinAddict seems so hellbent on removing all notable Politicians? I added Pierre Polievre as being pro-Convoy and is there any doubt based on his social media platforms that he is not one of (if not the) most vocal supporter of the Convoy? Certainly more relevant than say Erin O'Toole or even Justin Trudeau who have both avoided the protest and more relevant than fringe parties with no members of parliament?Kav2001c (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

He's not removed, the section was moved from a list to a prose format. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like current phrasing is "Conservative MPs Candice Bergen[102], Pierre Poilievre[103], Andrew Scheer[104], Garnett Genuis[95], Martin Shields[105], Warren Steinley, Jeremy Patzer[106][107] and Michael Cooper[108] all expressed their support for the convoy and truckers' movement," which seems appropriate. Previously, it was a bunch of bullets that each said something like "John Smith [expressed support for convoy]" without much additional commentary besides a general support statement. Seems best to include these as a single sentence with citations after each. DirkDouse (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Canada has a parliamentary system so terms like Liberal or Conservative Government are appropriate and aren't intended as a slur as this would be in a place like the US. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the two largest parties are the Liberals and Conservatives. But we also have liberal parties like the NDP, and conservative parties like the PPC. The clearest option is as it is currently. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Organizers of the convoy Tamra, is indigenous and Ben is Jewish. So how are these claims of white nationalism and neo-nazi ties founded?

Organizers of the convoy Tamra, is indigenous and Ben is Jewish. So how are these claims of white nationalism and neo-nazi ties founded? 142.127.190.230 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source and a suggestion why this point made should be notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Both confederate and nazi flags were flown at the rally. Flalf^Talk 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that - if it's to be put into the article, it should be done so with a reliable source. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article, and has sources. Was explaining to the IP how the links are founded. Flalf^Talk 19:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

In any type of protest group this large, you're always going to get some bad apples which will get disproportionate reporting. Not to make any type of excuses for this behavior, but the very few instances of swastikas I saw weren't meant to infer the flag-bearers' allegiance to Nazism, but to draw an analogy to the people they oppose as being or acting Nazi-like. I think that's a subtlety that's sometimes lost in the reporting. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

^ this seems to be a hard point to get across to people in this day and age of sensationalism. Someone showing up to an event and shaking your hand doesn't mean you have ties to them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither are for us to WP:SYNTH - the article should merely state the obvious: some people showed up with Swastikas CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty classic red herring. Métis and Jewish persons can hold abhorrent views, even views which would seem to be detrimental to their own self-interest, just like white people. There is nothing to be gained from discussing this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I find all of these swastikas and confederate flags to be appalling. 139.138.6.30 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"all of these swastikas and confederate flag" You mean all three of them? Out of how many other flags being flown with respect? You are all narrative driving pigs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.108.215 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

From CBC which is considered a reliable source - 'worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country,' anti-hate advocate says. "It's not just a few malcontents... This convoy seeded the ground for the worst display of Nazi propaganda ever seen in this country" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50kHdAumXvA 139.138.6.30 (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia supports the media position. That really is the beginning and end of it. WP:NOTTRUTH is an official Wikipedia policy, and we mean it. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That statement could be misread, so to clarity, Wikipedia is dependent on information and views expressed in media coverage. We look for what is verifiable, not what might be considered someone's "truth." -- Zanimum (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Yes, the defacing of these monuments has received significant coverage like here and here.--Seggallion (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the statue desecrations might end up being the most notable thing about this protest. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, it is certainly relevant for the article but not relevant for the lede TocMan (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

CBC news: Reliable in context of antigovernment protests

One statement early in the article, “the mandates would impact 26,000 of the 160,000 drivers in both countries who regularly cross the border”, is sourced to Only by CBC news. There might be others with only this source, I haven’t checked. As far as I know, the CBC is state media.

Considering that removing PM Trudeau has become a main goal for many protesters, I’m not sure state owned media would be considered a problematic conflict of interest. If so, we should probably look for other sources, or remove, information sourced only from this source.

This isn’t concern-trolling or Agenda pushing, I am American and legitimately don’t know how well CBC can separate its conflict of interest from reporting on anti-government events.TheAmericanWarlord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

CBC is a public broadcaster, not a state newspaper. It receives government funding, but the government does not have any sort of editorial control over the broadcaster. It is independent, it is reliable in general, and it is reliable for its coverage of Canadian politics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector thank you for the clarification. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Ivanvector.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly - CBC is a publicly funded broadcaster who is equally critical of all in the political spectrum. They are not state-run media, Canada is not a communist dictatorship. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Should add new section titled: Freedom Convoy in Australia

Content: 'Convoy to Canberra'- Inspired by the 'Freedom Convoy' staged in Canada, hundreds of drivers travelled to Canberra to protest the vaccine mandates. Dailymail report on Convoy to Canberra. A.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We can't use the Daily Mail as a source, but if there are other protests that gain media attention for being related to the Canadian one then we probably should include something about it here. A separate section on "related convoys" or something like that, probably near the end. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This post is inaccurate

"Freedom Convoy 2022 (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is an ongoing protest conducted by truck drivers in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine requirements to re-enter the country by land introduced by the Government of Canada on January 15, 2022"

This post should read a "conducted by a small percentage of truck drivers and then joined by other non-truck drivers. It was initally organized by Tamara Lich who is not a truck driver."

Sources: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry-not-all-truckers-support-the-freedom-convoy-1.5757952; https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2370972 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:A67D:1B00:407C:954D:1248:D110 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The source you cite above, [23] does not mention Tamara Lich, so we cannot use that source to support the claim that the convoy was "organized by Tamara Lich". Vexations (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No injuries reported

In the infobox it states 19 injured. But when checking the source: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/trucker-convoy-traffic-disruption-continue-downtown-as-mayor-urges-protesters-to-leave the paramedics actually said they assisted 19 people downtown over the weekend, but as part of their everyday activity (intoxications, etc) and they never claim these injuries are associated to the protests. Most other sources report no injuries at all:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/trucker-convoy-more-trucks-expected-on-saturday-traffic-impacts-expected-to-worsen https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20220130-hundreds-of-truckers-block-ottawa-in-freedom-convoy-to-protest-vaccine-mandates https://www.northernnews.ca/news/national/freedom-convoy-2022-police-report-no-injuries-no-incidents-of-violence-after-first-day-of-protest

Therefore I think this should be changed, as most references indicate there are not 19 injured people because of the protests. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the paramedics were specifically talking about the protests. I'm sure there were more than 19 EMS calls over the weekend for a city of just under 1 million... CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

>>the exact quote is “Marciano said paramedics assessed 19 patients in the downtown core over the weekend, mostly for minor issues or intoxication.” Regardless of wether it is specifically referring to the protest, I don’t believe intoxication should be counted as an “injury” in a civil conflict infobox.TheAmericanWarlord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because the protesters did it to themselves doesn't mean it's not an injury related to the protest. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

If we included intoxications at concert related tragedies, the whole audience would be injured. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• As of yesterday, Ottawa Police were reporting that there were no injuries related to the protest. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m agnostic on this. I added the source due to paramedics claiming they had seen 19 people in the downtown core over the weekend, most due to intoxication. If it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the infobox - let’s remove it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it has been changed, thank you, it is to be appreciated when these requests are considered.--CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Goals and demands -- lacking coverage

The goals and demands is lacking. The convoy has expanded by fellow travellers with more expansive demands. The expansion of the goals covered on many news outlets [24][25][26][27], concerning removing all masking and vaccination and passport requirements should be covered, as well as the fact that most of these are not federal government issues, also covered by many news outlets, as they are provincial in nature.[28][29]

And the spin-off other convoys outside of Ottawa [30][31][32]

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Lede

I've attempted to shorten the lede in my two most recent edits. Any other ideas? CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I also made some edits to the lede after CaffeinAddict had a run at it. Opinions welcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The lede seems to have ballooned since I was last here. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm just letting it happen at this point. There's one editor adding a lot of content in spurts that badly needs copyediting, but each time I try they launch into a new edit spree, and a lot of it is going directly in the lede. I'll come back to it later when things settle. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My issue currently, besides the length is there is inconsistent numbers between the lede and the infobox about the amount of protesters. The police chief said one thing, the media claimed another. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to have a section in the article that discusses the numbers of protesters, since there are so many sources quoting different figures, or just counting different things altogether. I still think it'll be a while before there's a reliable estimate of involved protesters in the city, versus people/vehicles that are just trapped there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A similar section is in the article Inauguration of Donald Trump#Crowd size. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I took another crack at shortening the lede for brevity sake, removing redundancies. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox needs redesign/change

The current Infobox is designed in a very strange way that makes it look less like a protest and more like a battle. Firstly, why is there a "casualties" section? Most other protests do not have this, instead, they have "Deaths, arrests and damages" (George Floyd Protests) or "Deaths, injuries and arrests" (Hong Kong 2019-2020 Protests). Secondly, why are the "Lead Figures" and "Number" sections split into two parts? This isn't a battle and thus, there isn't an official opposition to these protests. The police haven't done much of anything either, so you can't really argue to put those in there. As a result, both of these sections have their entire right sides blank. Not only does this give the wrong impression of there being a significant conflict with sides, but it also just looks bizarre to have vast empty sections in the box. Finally, in the Infobox, it says that these protests were caused by the "COVID-19 pandemic in Canada." This is a vast oversimplification. To be more specific, it is about the Canadian and Provincial Government's RESPONSE to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The truckers tend to oppose vaccine mandates. The Infobox needs to be fixed. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Civil Conflict is a pre-formatted infobox for all sorts of ... well, civil conflicts. A protest is a civil conflict. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

Edit request: Below the first paragraph of "Links to far right and separatist groups" add "Some protesters on the ground expressed frustration at the apparent extremist views of organizers, with one saying "Whatever their agendas are, that’s not what we’re here for" and "They need to go home. We don’t need them. We don’t need their numbers." cited to this global news article - https://globalnews.ca/news/8543281/covid-trucker-convoy-organizers-hate/

I believe the apparent divide between the organizers and the protesters on the ground is relevant due to being covered in a RS Global News about organizer extremism. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view - biased towards the government position

I don't think there is a neutral point of view in this article. It covers extensevely the presumed links to far-right, islamophobia and minor controversies such as the Terry Fox statue "desecration". First, I don't think a loose link to groups associated to far-right or islamophobia is enough to associate the main frame of the protest with racism, etc. In fact, the truckers themselves called out and told to leave a man who was carrying a confederate flag. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/man-with-confederate-flag-told-to-leave-by-ottawa-truckers-we-called-him-out Then, it mentions in the header how Terry Fox statue was "desecrated" but it does not mention how it was cleaned afterwards by the same protesters. https://globalnews.ca/video/8582676/trucker-convoy-protesters-clean-up-terry-fox-statue-in-ottawa-following-outcry/

In the misinformation section, the sole fact that they did not apply for a guinness world record does not affect the claim that they might or might not be the longest convoy ever, these are independent facts. I know comparison to other articles is not a valid argument, but the BLM protests article, which had associated with it riots and destruction of statues, does not mention any of it in the header. I also think there is a cherry picking of sources to focus on certain aspects. The examples I put are just some of the many subtleties that I think bias heavily the article. I wholeheartedly agree with the wikipedian that said this reads as an endorsment to the government position. While you may or may not agree with this view, the weigh and focus on certain aspects of the protests should be reconsidered. Mentioning what I said in the first paragraph, with the sources, in the same place as the criticism, would be a good start. Attentively, --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven't proposed any specific change you want to make to this article. 139.138.6.30 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe my suggestion wasn't clear enough; I propose:

1. Either mention in the header "Terry Fox statue was cleaned afterwards by the protesters themselves" after the sentence "protesters were seen desecrating the statue of national hero Terry Fox"; or do not mention the Terry Fox incident at all in the header.

2. Either mention in the header "Protestors rejected the presence of members with extremist simbols" after the sentence "organizers and groups associated with the protest have histories of white nationalism, racism, Islamophobia, Q-Anon and other conspiracy theories"; or do not mention the presence of members linked to hate at all in the header.--CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide citations to reliable sources. Your two citations are circular in that they link to this very article you're discussing. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be clicking the wrong links. Global News and The Washington Examiner are very much reliable sources. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I think you did not click on the proper links, as I linked what I believe to be reliable sources.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/man-with-confederate-flag-told-to-leave-by-ottawa-truckers-we-called-him-out

https://globalnews.ca/video/8582676/trucker-convoy-protesters-clean-up-terry-fox-statue-in-ottawa-following-outcry/ --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Erin O'Toole controversy section

O'Toole's ouster is of note. But I'm not sure that a paragraph deserves its own section.

Should it be mentioned chronologically based on the date of his meeting the truckers, or based on the date of his removal? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, different question. I decided to move the info down to Statements and reactions > Canadian Politicians > Opposition, where he was already discussed. But the provided reference doesn't seem to support the statement. Can someone else give the article a go, and see if they feel it does support the statement made? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe most information about Erin O'Toole and his leadership and loss of leadership should be on his own page don't we think? It's kind of a consequence of this debacle but this page should focus on the protest itself? CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, O'Toole resigning is of little direct consequence to the protest in any shape or form. We should mention his support as the then leader, followed by a summary or quote from Bergen to indicate the current stance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Truck and protester count estimate - February 3

Now that we have more information - we have wildly differing estimates on how many protesters and trucks were involved in the main protest/convoy. Let's lay out our sources here and come up with a consensus on how to best display these in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

5,000 to 18,000 is an estimate from CBC, according to Ottawa Police... any advice on how to display such a huge range? [33] CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine to just list the range estimate as "5,000 to 18,000." Seems doubtful that there will ever be a clear consensus on size. DirkDouse (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing edits related to "Organizers" and "Links to far-right and separatist groups" sections

I believe @Oceanflynn: implemented the rework from "Links to far-right and separatist groups" to "Organizers," but section was reverted back by (I think (?)) @CaffeinAddict: at some point.

Left some comments on this topic under "Links to far-right and separatist groups" excessively long previously. Seems to be some dispute over whether organizer associations are best covered under that section or under what it was reworked into at some point to "Organizers."

Seems like we should try to get some kind of consensus here one way or another. I would support changing to Organizers for the reasons stated previously--section is confusing, and some of the content under that section is not far right or separatist (e.g., 5G, anti-lockdown, etc), and would be better covered under a different section heading. DirkDouse (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)