Jump to content

Talk:Canada convoy protest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.140.91.23 (talk) at 18:56, 6 February 2022 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2022: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 6 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christa Chiu (article contribs).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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."([1]), while the APTA ranged from "we encourage our drivers not to participate" ([2]) to "doesn't support" ([3]). - Floydian τ ¢ 04:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think the term condemned is fine. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "is not approved by" would be more fitting than "is condemned by" - Floydian τ ¢ 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user Floydian - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Change to supporting/opposing seems good. DirkDouse (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
He's not removed, the section was moved from a list to a prose format. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please provide a source and a suggestion why this point made should be notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both confederate and nazi flags were flown at the rally. FlalfTalk 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's already in the article, and has sources. Was explaining to the IP how the links are founded. FlalfTalk 19:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
^ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I find all of these swastikas and confederate flags to be appalling. 139.138.6.30 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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]
  • 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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

>>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)[reply]

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

That has changed. There’s was four injuries on February related to a protest in Winnipeg.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597464/hit-and-run-truck-convoy-manitoba-legisltature/amp/ Efuture2 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The lede seems to have ballooned since I was last here. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A similar section is in the article Inauguration of Donald Trump#Crowd size. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took another crack at shortening the lede for brevity sake, removing redundancies. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

5,000 to 18,000 is an estimate from CBC, according to Ottawa Police... any advice on how to display such a huge range? [4] CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't think that's a reliable estimate, it's hyperbole from a frustrated public servant who has everyone against him right now, trying to justify their now highly-criticized [lack of] response. In the long run I think it'll be best to rename the "misinformation" section to something like "estimates of convoy size", and then just lay out all the different estimates there. I think DirkDouse is right that there will never be a reliable count at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The media seems to be readily quoting the police chief however their earlier estimates were around 8,000 protesters tops on the Saturday, dwindling to 3,000 Sunday. I agree we should rearrange the misinformation section, include all estimates and it can include the refuted claims from organizers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that rework. There's enough discussion/debate on the actual size of the convoy that a full section discussing this seems warranted. DirkDouse (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the initial change, hopefully it is expanded. As for the infobox... ? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In my opinion the current title is warranted by WP:BALANCE. Pretty well every reliable source that has reported on this has highlighted the organizers' history of far-right organizing and links to/current positions within far-right/separatist/extremist groups, as well as the participants' displays of far-right symbols, and Wikipedia should follow that POV by highlighting this in the section title. Some of the organizers (Tamara Lich) have insisted that it's a small fringe of participants, while others (Pat King, James Bauder, Jason LaFace) have claimed that's just PR spin and that the convoy really is about advancing a white nationalist agenda and/or overthrowing the government, by force if necessary. Changing to "organizers" is falsely neutral, but we could discuss compromising somewhere in between. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have is not as much with whether the section title is neutral, but more that there are subpoints that are offtopic, but still relevant to include somewhere in the article. DirkDouse (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fork: COVID-19 vaccination mandates in Canada

Some content from this article may have been temporarily used to create the new article COVID-19 vaccination mandates in Canada. There is a construction template on this new article but editors are strongly encouraged to contribute. It might result in temporary "edit conflicts" which are often minor and helpful copyedits, so please save a duplicate of your edits. Thank you for your contributions.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add section on protests in other cities?

Protests have now spread to Toronto, Winnipeg, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.201.26 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes, particularly the Toronto one which has a counter-protest being organized. These could be added to the "related protests" section. I hadn't heard about Winnipeg, but I also know there was a slow-roll protest planned today in Charlottetown, but has been postponed because of the weather. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead figures for the government side

The article can add Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Police Chief Peter Sloly below Justin Trudeau on the lead figures for the government side of the civil conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.201.26 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's an allegation that these images have been republished from the original source by an intermediary without permission, I have removed them from the article. If they turn out to be free use they can be added back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourceless claim

“Illegal acts committed by protesters drew widespread condemnation.”

Which illegal activities, drew condemnation from whom? 172.58.176.92 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed throughout the article, particularly in the "Ottawa" and "Statements and reactions" sections, as well as the two sources citing the following sentence. We typically don't include references in the lede for information that's sourced in the article, but this article hasn't matured to that point yet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagmeet Singh's brother

I have twice removed the text about Jagmeet Singh's brother's large and supposedly inadvertent donation to the fundraiser, citing our policy which directs to remove information that violates the policy without waiting for discussion. I realize after having done so that that particular section does not apply since that refers to poorly sourced information, I was thinking of WP:NPF which doesn't direct immediate removal, so apologies to the editors who added it back.

However, I think this should be discussed. NPF suggests that we should not include contentious or possibly defamatory information about persons who are not well known, unless the information is directly relevant to that person's notability, and as far as I know Mr. Dhaliwal is not a public figure and is not notable at all (by Wikipedia standards). On the other hand his donation has been well covered, but we don't write about everything. What do other editors think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was newsworthy but it almost doesn’t feel relevant. Obviously a lot of people donated to the GoFundMe… CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CBC News, National Post, The Times of India, Narcity, Global News, Maclean's, The Ottawa Citizen all covered the story. It's not enough to get him his own article on Wikipedia, but then most of the figures here don't have articles.
Yes, there were a lot of donations. But did any individual donation receive media coverage? Did it receive a reply from a national figure? Even at the end, Dhaliwal was near the top of the list in terms of amount, with the last cache by Wayback Machine suggesting he was only surpassed by four other donations.
This isn't Dhaliwal's first newsworthy actions. During the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, there were near constant convoys of cars in the north and east areas of Brampton, Ontario. Dhaliwal left his car on an arterial road to physically attack another man. He was charged with assault causing bodily harm, which received coverage in National Post, a local outlet, and OPIndia (which apparently is on the spam blacklist, though I can't find it on the local or global blacklist).
It's a footnote to the story, but it is part of the story. -- Zanimum (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2022

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

   —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)[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]

This article is inflammatory and rife with inaccuracies. Please remove it or write the truth

Remove the article or have it written objectively. This is pure propaganda meant to discredit the populist peaceful demonstrations of Canadians demanding their freedoms and expressing opposition to the over reach of government. 207.148.176.53 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more specific sections you want to discuss feel free to post or join discussions in other threads. But the article has at least dozens of editors; there's no one person who can just rewrite the whole thing without coming to a consensus with the other people on this talk page. DirkDouse (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct mister. I had a stub here talking about how this movement was becoming international. In the stub, me and two other users had organized a search for sources throughout the weekend to make a case for why this movement was becoming international. This was after we had gone through some preliminary sources suggesting so. And before we could do it, the stub was taken down. Don't worry, you aren't alone; Wikipedia always had a left-wing bias when in came to anything remotely political in America. So don't feel as if you need to make a stand here, because you will always be overwhelmed by the opposition here. W.C Cross (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
W.C Cross Your comments were not removed but archived, you can still find your comments here: Talk:Freedom Convoy 2022/Archive 2#HEADS UP: This Movement May Become International. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia always had a left-wing bias when in came to anything remotely political in America.[citation needed] Most of the news outlets Wikipedia cites are for-profit capitalist news sites and last time I checked, leftists hate capitalism. This protest also isn't in America. X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is inaccurate about the article? Please be more specific. X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to chime in and say that this article does appear to have an anti-protest lens rather than a neutral one like Wikipedia should have. It seems to highlight fringe incidents, loose unfounded connections to alleged extremist movements and diminish the size and scope of the protest (for example, infobar statistics highlight 250 people when Toronto today had tens of thousands, if not over 100,000). I do think this article needs to be reworded a bit to support neutrality.Spilia4 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently only about the Ottawa protests with the Toronto protest as a related one. A new article should be created if it’s notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connections to extremism come from reliable sources. If you have any evidence that the accusations are unfounded, please provide evidence. As for the fringe incidents, they are obviously going to be highlighted because they got a lot of attention. X-Editor (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph -- "overthrow the government"

In the opening paragraph, the final sentence says "The demonstration [...] called for "the overthrow of the federal government". The cited Guardian article does not appear to indicate that the demonstration called for this, though. They say that in their opening paragraph, but they do not have any quotes from demonstrators or even any justification at all for why they wrote this. It should probably be removed. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the article in question reads: "A convoy of truckers and their supporters is set to converge on the Canadian capital in a protest which has spiralled from frustrations over vaccine mandates into calls for the repeal of all public health measures – and even the overthrow of the federal government." CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, as I said, but they do not have anything to back this up or clarify what it means. The quotation marks in our article's paragraph are misleading as well, it gives the impression that this is a quote from a demonstrator or organization instead of a quote from a newspaper article about the demonstration. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we fixing it? 98.113.141.82 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence edit suggestion

Tying in with the suggested page move, any thoughts on tweaking the lead to make it clearer that "Freedom Convoy 2022" is a self-applied name, and not a universally used name? Maybe something like "An ongoing protest in Canada…referred to by participants as Freedom Convoy 2022…" Trivialist (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialist See discussion above. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, I believe it would be best to hold off on making such a change. MrJ567 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Winnipeg vehicle attack on February 5

I would make a suggestion to change two things, number 1, that the Casualties box be updated to add 4 injuries from a vehicle attack in Winnipeg by Anti-Convoy protesters and that a section be added to the wiki.

Sources: https://winnipegsun.com/news/crime/man-charged-in-hit-and-run-during-freedom-convoy-protest-injuring-four

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597464/hit-and-run-truck-convoy-manitoba-legisltature/amp/ Efuture2 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efuture2 I believe that should be a notable enough event to warrant it's own page. But for now, I will add it to related protests. Seems to be the only notable thing about the Winnipeg protests. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit discussed under legal had it's first hearing today, where organizers for the protest stated they would limit the hours of horns being sounded. The court refused to issue an injunction as the justice was concerned with enforceability as they were unsure who to direct the injunction against. [1] I'd try my hand at an edit, but protections prevents me. Sen17 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits for clarity and grammar

The following text could be worded better: Several politicians and media sources raised concerns that organizers and groups associated with the protest have histories of white nationalism, racism, Islamophobia, Q-Anon and other conspiracy theories, and far-right groups, including those who promote violence.[2] Illegal acts committed by protesters drew widespread condemnation. Protesters were seen desecrating the statue of national hero Terry Fox, the National War Memorial, and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and several emergency vehicles were attacked with rocks.[3][4]

I propose:

Several politicians and media sources raised concerns that organizers and groups involved with the protest have had involvement with white nationalism, racism, Islamophobia, the Q-Anon conspiracy theroy, and far-right groups, including those who promote violence.[2] Illegal acts committed by protesters drew widespread condemnation. Protesters were seen desecrating the statue of national hero Terry Fox, the National War Memorial, and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and several emergency vehicles were attacked with rocks.[3][5]

Sen17 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I'm not sure that this edit helped with clarity but I have added it to the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/hearing-into-lawsuit-to-stop-convoy-horns-in-ottawa-adjourned-to-monday-1.5769527
  2. ^ a b Gilmore, Rachel (January 29, 2022). "Some trucker convoy organizers have history of white nationalism, racism". Global News. Retrieved February 2, 2022. updated January 30.
  3. ^ a b Hassan, Jennifer (January 31, 2022). "Police launch criminal investigations into 'illegal' acts at Ottawa anti-vaccine-mandate trucker protests". The Washington Post.
  4. ^ Woods, Michael; Raymond, Ted (January 31, 2022). "'All options are on the table' to end truckers' protest: Ottawa police chief". CTV News. Retrieved February 2, 2022.
  5. ^ Woods, Michael; Raymond, Ted (January 31, 2022). "'All options are on the table' to end truckers' protest: Ottawa police chief". CTV News. Retrieved February 2, 2022.

Canadian politicians Support Opposition

The wording Support Opposition in the Canadian politicians section is ambiguous.

Is it support for freedom convoy or support for Canadian politicians? Is it opposition against freedom convoy or opposition against Canadian politicians?

A different wording could be used such as convoy support and opposition to the convoy opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.105 (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea,  Done. I couldn't quite follow your proposed wording but I've clarified the subheaders. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we update this from protest to terrorism?

Since these "people" do not speak for Candians.... and they have occupied assaulted and damaged lives people and property.... this is not by definition a protest anymore. It's domestic terrorism.

More over this is a handful of truckers handful of Canadians. It's not a movement it's a farce. 30% of Canadians could not elect a PM of any party. Nor could 30% of the house or opposition initiate a non confidence vote federally.

This act of terrorism even if it was not violent untrue and insane also only just barely meets the minimum requirement to out a party leader as we say with o toole this week.

I grew up on free speech.... but when the speech chosen is this.... maybe don't give them a voice as they do not deserve one. 2604:3D08:267C:1600:9CDB:30FB:60FC:3937 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep Freedom Convoy

Messy Thinking (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Also vote to maintain "protest" rather than "update" to "terrorism." Actual terrorism comes with violence, which is not something this wiki normally goes into.[reply]

No, we cannot at this time change to calling this a terrorist incident. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to make that determination for us, and as far as I've seen there are no reliable sources calling this terrorism. Some have just started to shift to calling it an occupation but we're a long way from anything definitive other than "protest" and "convoy" at this point. If you have sources that indicate otherwise, please provide them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other two users who oppose the change here for the reasons they stated. DirkDouse (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Scope

Based on my understanding of WP:TOPIC I would like to request comments on the scope of the article as it stands. Mainly: is this article currently and will continue to be about the Ottawa protests with the related protests occupying the space they currently have, or is this article to include all Canadian protests related to the Freedom Convoy movement, loosely based on the same movement?

Currently, knowing that wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, the other protests are not as notable as the Ottawa protests and continued occupation, and therefore exist in the sectional space that they are in currently. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My two-cents: seeing as how the protests in other cities are direct offshoots of the Ottawa one, I think it makes sense to keep them in a (small) section in this article. --Nsophiay (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads as government propaganda not true representation of events

If the editors are relying on cbc/CTV as a “reliable source”, be mindful that these are government-funded media. Ad any ordinary Canadian with a critical eye can tell you, the “reporting” has had an overwhelmingly heavy bias towards the government position of tryi to undermine and discredit this peaceful protest to regain civil liberties, rights and freedoms. I would suggest watching actual footage of the events, and reconfiguring this article to present a more balanced and truthful article. Wiki originally launched to get the truth out there when mainstream media wouldn’t do it. That is what is happening here. Just ask thousands upon theirs and if orginary Canadians coast to coast. It is NOT about truckers crossing the border!! That concept is purely state-funded propaganda. The imposition of new mandates on truckers may have been the spark, but the scope of the protest is clearly beyond that narrow definition. Thousands of ordinary Canadians protesting coast to coast clearly illustrate a populace weary of government oppression and control, protesting for removal of mandates and restrictions on free movement and the right to work live and play in Canada. It is a country-wide protest for restoration of basic freedoms. Anyone actually following the movement with a critical eye and open mind can see that. 74.113.183.28 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss the reliability of CBC and CTV, please do so at WP:RSN. If you have any reliable sources that could make this article more balanced, feel free to show them. If there is anything specific that could be improved, please specify. X-Editor (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

change "Caused by COVID-19 pandemic in Canada" to "Caused by the government of Canada's response to COVID-19 pandemic" 72.140.91.23 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest&oldid=1070296553"