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 Ingenuity (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 13 February 2022 (→February 13 lead reflecting evolving situation: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


RfC re: monument desecration in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close discussion, start a new proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]
The lack of definition is largely a result of the lack of definition by the protesters themselves. Canada Unity has a "memorandum of understanding," by which they expect the Governor General and Senate to seize power, on the false assumption that she has the power to do that, which she does not. We rely on reliable sources. So long as reliable sources are repeating the vague, muddled demands, that's what goes. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the text and have cited a newer article from the same source, which more clearly states what the demands of the protesters are. Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 03:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've partially restored the previous text; this intent can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, including CBC ("The parliamentarians also cited links between protesters and extremist organizations — and the fact that some of them have stated their objective is to overthrow the federal government. Some of the protest organizers have publicly denounced those views") and Al Jazeera ("The protest organisers, who are from the extreme right wing of Canadian politics, are demanding the overthrow of the government") BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, a movement that is overthrowing a government is "erect[ing] portable saunas and bouncy castles for kids"? No. As both The Guardian and the Associated press have stated, they're calling for the removal of government officials. There are legal means to remove the current government. There are no legal ways to overthrow it.
Secondly, even if a non-insignificant number of them were calling for an overthrow of the government; not including the second source, AND not including the text that says that some of them are in fact against an overthrow of the current government, does not follow WP:NPOV. WP:Verifiability: "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight". Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they can't doesn't mean it's not a stated goal. There are reliable sources saying as such and therefore it should stay. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gamebuster, the Governor General cannot remove the Prime Minister, unless the opposition parties band together for a vote of non-confidence, after which they form a coalition government. That's not going to happen, and thus there are no legal means of removing the current government. Unless you can find a reliable source agreeing that there is a legal means, your point is moot. (Saunas and bouncy castles are just warmth and a PR stunt, not that it matters.) -- Zanimum (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. You just described one legal way to remove the government. 2. A mass resignation is also possible, and not illegal. Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 02:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are obligated to only include claims from reliable sources; however we are under no obligation to include every claim from every reliable source. None of the other two sources you linked to justifies goal of "overthrowing the government" either. Like the Guardian article, they just state it, with no citation or direct quote from a protestor. One wonders if some of these journalists write this in their piece simply because they read it in The Guardian, or even on Wikipedia. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Star has reported that, "Bergen’s comments mark the latest shift in the party’s overall response to the protesters, which has evolved since the “Freedom Convoy” went on the move last month. Initially, many Tory MPs — including former leader Erin O’Toole — supported the demonstrators’ call to remove vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers. Bergen herself has posed for photos with demonstrators and leaked emails suggested she didn’t think the party should initially call for an end to the convoy, but needed to figure out a way to make it Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s problem. But as the motivations of the organizers were exposed as including the overthrow of the government, and as some elements within the larger group embraced racist imagery, as well as seemingly non-stop harassment of downtown Ottawa residents that took a court injunction to stop, the Conservative party’s certainty in supporting the movement began to break down."[2] The Washington Post wrote "One of the main organizers, Canada Unity, said that it planned to submit a “memorandum of understanding” to the Senate and governor general, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, to compel them to drop the public health measures or dissolve the government, which is beyond their constitutional powers."[3]Oceanflynn (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trucker convoy: Protesters clean-up Terry Fox statue in Ottawa following outcry".
  2. ^ Levitz, Stephanie (February 10, 2022). "Conservatives tell Ottawa protesters to go home". The Toronto Star. ISSN 0319-0781. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
  3. ^ Westfall, Sammy (February 8, 2022). "Here's what you need to know about the 'Freedom Convoy' in Canada". Washington Post. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
Your first article is, once again, asserting this with no explanation or citation, which makes me again suspect the author is passing along information she had read on Wikipedia or in another outlet. Your second one at least is more specific in naming Canada Unity's "memorandum of understanding", but I do not see any reference to overthrowing or dissolving the government in the memorandum, which can be found at https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined-MOU-Dec03.pdf. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "fringe"

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

I'm not seeing this first sentence, but if it did describe the protest as fringe, then that was the correct wording. Reliable sources called the protesters a fringe minority, and evidence backs it up. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact, you can find a sign saying "We the Fringe" at the protest. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update fundraising (again)

After GuFundMe removed teh freedom convoy campaign, they have (in addition to the GoSendGo mentioned in the article) started using TallyCoin to gather donations using bitcoin. As of february 8, 12.4 bitcoins have been gathered - which is roughly $500 000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.233.138.234 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is part of the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I posted comment here at 10:57. Article is updated at by you (Zanimum) at 14:26 with the info stated in my comment. "Done, article is updated with this info" or maybe "This is NOW part of the article" would have given a more accurate and objective description of that series of events in my view. And wikipedia is all about accuracy and objectivity, isnt it? 138.233.138.234 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now I note that one of the movements primary channels for donations is not part of the article any more. As of today they have received 1 million USD in bitcoins. I also note that someone could not resist smearing the fuindraising section with allegations about the movement being right-wing and white supremacist. As is done with most other sections of the article - no matter what the title of the section is. It is a disgrace to wikipedia that you cant do better. I am quite convinced that wikipedia will feel the fallout and loose much of the credibility it has garnered over the years if things keep moving in the direction it currently is. 138.233.138.234 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protest victories

The protests have successfully influenced the governments of Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Alberta to begin rolling-back the COVID restrictions and mandates. The following refs specifically link the rollbacks to the protests. The Toronto Star is a major newspaper in Canada. Please note these developments in the article with the following text:

As of February 9, 2022, the protests are credited, at least in part, with a lifting of COVID restrictions and mandates in Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, including mask requirements, vaccination passport mandates, and legal restrictions on gatherings.https://en.mercopress.com/2022/02/09/saskatchewan-to-lift-all-covid-19-restrictions-following-protests

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Kenney at least was on the radio this morning insisting that the protests have had no influence on the decision to start removing restrictions, and a different Star article reported that "Kenney has insisted he would not make policy decisions based on protests". They're tracking the same health indicators that they've been tracking for the past 2 years, and those indicators are leading the provinces to start backing off restrictions, not the protests. Wikipedia cannot say otherwise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is chicken or the egg - were the protests the cause of the restrictions loosening or the fact that spread of the virus is slowing naturally? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector All you had to do was add at the end of my sentence, "but Kenney insisted the early ending of the restrictions was not due to the protests." The leaders of Saskatchewan and Quebec have not made such statement and the Toronto Star ref I furnished clearly links the protests to the government actions. We use what the sources say. 152.130.8.201 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where in the source it says that the protests influenced governments moving towards "living with COVID", that they've been talking about since December? I didn't see it. Don't reactivate answered requests. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the only province who specifically tied them together was Saskatchewan, given Scott Moe's remarks. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. All the coverage I've seen this week of Saskatchewan's lightening of restrictions has been about moving up timelines for restrictions that they had already announced (in January) were going to be lifted by the end of this month anyway. The National Post, CBC, Global, and CTV all covered Moe's announcement without mentioning the protests at all, while the Globe and Mail only mentioned protests in the context of Kenney saying they had no impact on his decision.
The protesters are of course going to try to take credit for these decisions which were largely made before they ever got in their trucks in the first place. Unless we have some very good reliable sources saying that the protests directly influenced any of these decisions, Wikipedia cannot publish that POV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the stances of the "Freedom Convoy" about the monarchy

Is the "Freedom Convoy 2022" really monarchist or royalist?
123.23.22.16 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources about this? I have been following somewhat closely but I have never seen anything mentioned about any protesters' views on the monarchy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@123.23.22.16: I would say neither.
You may have heard something related to the visit of a conspiracy theorist named Romana Didulo. She calls herself the "Queen of Canada". Didulo is notable for urging her thousands of followers to murder healthcare workers. (For her part, the actual Canadian monarch, Elizabeth II, never takes political stands, but has spoken highly of healthcare workers.)
Some of the protesters want the Governor-General of Canada, the Queen's representative, to remove Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet. They want to be personally installed as the replacement, with the support of the Opposition parties. This is legally impossible, and an autocracy. Modern autocracies don't have monarchs/royals above them. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "The"

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

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

Update

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

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

remove Trumpism in Canada

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

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

References

  1. ^ a b Fawcett, Max (January 27, 2022). "Anti-vaxxer truck convoy signals insidious spread of Trumpism in Canada". National Observer. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained there, not just mentioned in blue, follow that example. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has a footnote now. That's very unusual. But slightly more informative than before, cheers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a reference for a see-also is unusual, but better than before. The topic behind this article is still rapidly changing and updating, we'll do better on things like this once all of it is in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was my second edit, after decapitalizing "Canadian Adults", and I'm already feeling spent. American influence from the Antitrumpists is certainly strong here, too, exact same buzzwords and "arbitrarily shortened" selections from favoured columnists. I'll be back for my third contribution after something Trumpier distracts them for a week, at least, have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had to come back early and burn my third on deleting a second identical link. "Sad!" Anyway, someone might want to doublecheck we don't ascribe any act by any one person to multiple people, asking for a foul-mouthed IP I saw "cancelled" here recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Trumpism is clear this is not a strictly US philosophy and movement, and exists in Canada. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been reading up on it and it seems it can apply to virtually any human experience, from any angle, depending on who attempts to define it. As something that vague and abstract, sure, why not? But I still think it smacks of sexism, racism and stupidity when used by the pro-vax, mask and lockdown crowd against the anti, in both countries, and can see why those marginalized relative few so offended the most by the neologism might take it as a sweepingly broad and largely unwarranted insult from "The Man/System". Philosophy is difficult. That's my motto. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Participation by Extremist Groups v Propaganda & False Flag Efforts?

I see there's been quite a lot of effort trying to draw links between the Freedom Convoy and assorted 'extremist groups'. Shouldn't efforts to smear the protests be given comparable treatment? For instance the Canadian Anti-Hate Network claimed an anti-Semitic poster actually from Miami, was seen in Ottawa. The CAHN post was then used as proof of the Freedom Convoy's anti-Semitism including by members of parliament and the media. If lies are the basis for claims of extremism ... 人族 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Breitbart article which Wikipedia is forbidding me from directly linking to and would probably discourage me from posting with a manipulated URL, but the headline is "Canadian ‘Anti-Hate’ Group Head Used Miami Anti-Semitic Flyer to Smear Truckers." Breitbart is of course an unrelaible source and not worthy for inclusion in the article, but they link to the relevant tweets and statements from politicians and journalists, which could be cited directly. 143.229.244.70 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Social media is only referenced in limited situations, and really should only ever be used in direct support of a reliable source that references them. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart is blacklisted because they're not just unreliable, they deliberately publish false information. See WP:BREITBART. If you were to somehow get around the blacklist and use Breitbart as a reference, your edit would be removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why I am not proposing it as a reference for the article itself, just as a reference for the editor asking for a source (although finding it was a matter of googling "canadian anti-hate network" "miami", something the editor could have easily done himself). The only other place I see it written in is Infowars, which I imagine is also blacklisted. But neither of those sites is lying about this incident, you can go and look at the tweets yourself. Is it possible to bring such a fact into a Wikipedia article if no reliable source reports on it? 143.229.244.70 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's not how this works. There's a reason both Breitbart and Infowars have been blacklisted. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the logic behind blacklisting them on talk pages. I also don't know what one is supposed to do when one wants to include verifiably true statements in a Wiki article that are only covered in fringe sources. What is the proper course of action? 143.229.244.70 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they're only covered in fringe sources then we should lean towards not including them, or including them only if we attribute to the source (e.g. "According to Fringe Nonsense Weekly, ..."). If it's only published in Breitbart then I would vote to omit: there are plenty of opinions here already and I don't see the value in adding another one from an American publisher that profits from spreading conspiracy theories. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the opinion is not from Breitbart. There was an antisemitic flyer which was circulated on social media by various verified accounts and falsely labelled as being from the Freedom Convoy. It's not a conspiracy theory and it isn't fake, you can go and see the tweets yourself. But the only outlets which talk about it are fringe outlets. One can not cite fringe outlets and one is discouraged from directly citing the social media posts, so one is left with no way of adding that information to Wikipedia. Frankly I don't think this an important enough smear to warrant inclusion even if it were referenced in a reliable source, but it's frustrating that a policy (presumably) designed to weed out information is preventing this information from being included as well, even though it is verifiably accurate. 143.229.244.70 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be verifiable, by Wikipedia's standards, any reader must be able to check and confirm that what is published on Wikipedia is supported by a reliable source. If there isn't one, it's not verifiable, and information about living persons must be verifiable before Wikipedia publishes it. If the only sources you have are Infowars and Breitbart, then it's frankly probably not true, or deliberately misreported, and certainly not adequately sourced for the BLP policy.
Anyway, for the sake of argument I did look up the article. Breitbart is claiming that the flyer was actually distributed in Miami, but replies to that post are pointing out that identical flyers have been distributed at multiple antivax rallies all over the continent, and while Farber admitted that the photo he posted was obviously the same as the photo supposedly taken in Miami, he had heard from others that they had seen the same flyer distributed in Ottawa during this event. The problem now with posting this on Wikipedia is that we cannot take either of these involved parties at their word, and there are no independent reliable sources reporting of any of this (that I can find, anyway). Therefore, we cannot include it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to understand the logic here. If the information is that a particular person made an unfounded accusation on social media, and anybody can go and see the unfounded accusation for themselves, how is that not 100% verifiable already? In this context, to link to these tweets seems to be supported by Rule 3 of Wikipedia's Primary Source policy. But if this is not acceptable, then the citations for Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Mark Meadows, and Donald Trump Jr should be removed, as well as Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn and Steve Scalise if Sean Hannity's website https://hannity.com would not ordinarily be considered a reliable source. Your reference to Farber's follow-up Twitter post is not actually a contradiction, because the claim is not that the CAHN falsely claimed there were antisemitic posters there, the claim is that a picture of a poster from Miami was falsely said to be taken at the Convoy protest. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there was some mention of this poster or antisemitism in the article already, I could see how a blacklisted source could be referenced on Talk, simply to illustrate to others why the claim is bullshit and should be removed or altered. But there isn't. Better to leave it unsaid than add it just to debunk it, especially if no whitelisted coverage exists of either side of the supposed controversy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Protests and Resistance

There should be a section added on counter-protests and related activities such as the loose network of the Ram Ranch Resistance [1], groups/websites such as 5 Convoy Traitors [2] which named and shamed companies, or Occasionally Occupied Transport (though I haven't found an news article about them). Pmmccurdy (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/anti-vax-trucker-convoy-porno-metal-ram-ranch-1297926/
  2. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/truck-drivers-companies-ottawa-convoy-protest-1.634370

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Add a section for 'American media figures' underneath [politicians]. The section should include people like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Ben Shapiro supporting the Convoy. This content should be covered by this source: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-sean-hannity-business-health-ottawa-6ced8d978d2b2e36d4c1f40261bb0d6a. ― TaltosKieronTalk 15:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done instead of making a new section, I've changed "American politicians" to "American politicians and media figures". >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wgullyn, I was just about to respond to this. Shapiro and Hannity are covered in the "American influence" section as well, and I had pointed out quite a while back that the section title was inaccurate because of the inclusion of Donald Trump Jr., but I had looked at this a couple times and hadn't quite figured out how best to respond. Your approach is simple and effective. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trudeau sidebar

The addition of this sidebar may have been a good faith edit by a veteran user who had made no other edits to the article. I strongly disagree with including it. I removed it. Any comments? CaffeinAddict, X-Editor, Ivanvector, Zanimum, Somedifferentstuff, Jfhutson. I add these editors because of the amount of work they have invested but of course anyone can respond.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm for the removal. Sure Trudeau is involved? Yes. Is this the cornerstone of his Premiership as Prime Minister of Canada since 2015? Absolutely not. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. If we need precedent, none of the other articles under "Major events" uses that template. (For posterity's sake, the box in question last appears on this edit.) -- Zanimum (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. I don't see how he's more relevant to this than other political leaders or even law enforcement officials. – Anne drew 20:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, a sidebar about Conservatism in Canada showed up and I have removed it with similar rationale. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID/Omicron infections in lead

Oceanflynn since you had a caveat about this in your edit summary... even though this is at it's core a COVID-19 related article - I don't know if the current infection rates in the country are that relevant to this particular article... or at least in the lead? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it's a well crafted edit, but updates on infection rates are out of scope for this article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, CaffeinAddict. I respect the work you and others have put into this and the work on the lead has been impeccable—including pruning—and the informative, useful talk page has been constantly monitored. Delete what you deem necessary.

I think I will place an under construction template on that "Background" section while I am working on it. At this time, in the "real world", the convoy organizers are having a closed press conference with their "scientific advisors" Roger Hodkinson and Dr. Paul Alexander, who claim that the virus is the flu, the virus does not exist, etc. Of course, none of this will have RSs so will not be used here. As it stands, the article does not yet sufficiently describe the actual data behind the implementation/lifting of the mandates, which are allegedly the reason for the protest. The doubling in 2 days, for example, hospitals and ICUs (70% in Toronto) filled with the 13% unvaccinated minority, preventing hundreds of thousands of non-COVID-related surgeries and stretching medical staff, for example. There are very few RS that summarize the overall background picture yet. I would like to somehow succinctly describe how omicron and the fifth wave is different, and specifically why lockdowns and mandates were imposed, for example.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably fine, but we can't invent conclusions that aren't plainly stated by reliable sources. As far as I know, no sources have so far referred to incidence or infection rates as a cause of the protests. The cause was originally the expiration of the exclusion for truckers from the requirement for unvaccinated travellers to self-isolate when returning to Canada, and later grew to protesters demanding that all restrictions be lifted immediately. The actual status of COVID-19 in Canada seems to have had no bearing whatsoever on the protesters' demands and actions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is mainly truckers blocking the roads and such

The current title is just stupid, to be frank. How about the 2022 Canadian truckers protest against Covid restrictions ---- Straight and to the point, this is an encyclopedia after all. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section above, "Requested move 5 February 2022". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo


  • What I think should be changed:

Spelling of a word in a sentence in one of the beginning paragraphs in the article: “The Omnicron variant which dominated the fifth wave of the global COVID-19 pandemic, doubled in less than two days, resulting in an extremely high number of patients…”

  • Why it should be changed:

There is a misspelling in the sentence. The word “Omnicron” is spelled incorrectly. It should be spelled “Omicron.”

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Akassam1002 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Convoy_2022&diff=prev&oldid=1071306651 Cannolis (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of the protests

As there is now an active effort to clear the bridge at Windsor I have added information about that active effort back to it. This section is about suppression efforts which are intended to clear any of the protests and end that protest. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered from "suppression", which is POV and not used by the sources, to "dispersal", which is more neutral and is used by the sources. I believe other issues exist, particularly synth, but I will not boldly address them at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the edit. I’m in favour. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg protest detail

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

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

All I can find that backs this up are far-right media sources. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

points needing clarification or expansion

needs clarification or expansion on 1) the vaccine requirement - unvaccinated canadian truckers can still work in canada unless their individual employer requires vaccination; 2) canadian vaccination requirement applies to those entering canada; 3) a reciprocal vaccination requirement is in place - usa requires truckers entering to be vaccinated; 4) although this started as a protest by a small minority of truckers, agree the naming needs discussion. it's a misnomer to continue calling the current or future versions as either truckers' or protest: it's evolved significantly past those labels and a single geographic location; 5) it would be appropriate to include a summary of (links to) jurisdictional mandates and authority - as it sits, the impression is that all mandates being objected to are federally set 2604:3D08:487E:9800:9418:4821:AC4C:7CFE (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User talk:2604:3D08:487E:9800:9418:4821:AC4C:7CFE. In response to your comment, I have worked on the "Background section" and attemtped to find RSs and add relevant content. Based on reading new RSs and rereading older ones for this, I think there should be changes to the lead.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
February 12 changes to the lead to be reviewed

I would like to add some of these additions to the lead but would like some feedback from other editors. I can add them here first and wait for some response or make the changes and invite others to delete them. Any comments? CaffeinAddict, X-Editor, Ivanvector, Zanimum, Somedifferentstuff, Jfhutson.

1. To start, I changed this sentence in the lead "An estimated 85 per cent of Canadian truck drivers are already vaccinated against COVID-19. Mandates could potentially affect 26,000 US and Canadian drivers who regularly cross the border." to this "Of the 120,000 Canadian licensed truck drivers who regularly serve cross-border routes, approximately 85 per cent were already vaccinated against COVID-19 by January. An estimated 12,000 to 16,000 of these Canadian truckers who are unvaccinated, will not be able to work cross-border routes but they can continue to run routes within Canada, as these new mandates do not impact domestic trucking."Oceanflynn (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Resident - Suggestions / Additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ZiggyStar1977: if you want something added/changed in the article, please make a request here with a neutral tone and back it up with reliable sources (Twitter is not reliable). >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please change the archive period to 7 days?

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

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

Proposed split

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

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

Actually, splitting this proposal into a new section; I Googled Regway, the name of an obscure crossing in Saskatchewan, and indeed there was a protest (albeit not a blockade) there. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"On February 11, the Ontario Superior Court was granted an injunction to remove protesters from the Ambassador Bridge"

Is it just me or does this statement not make any sense? Shouldn't it be "Ontario Superior Court has granted an injunction" - and to whom anyway? --2A02:8071:B5BF:4200:E912:9C93:1D83:99A9 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed "was" from the sentence to make it more correct. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry fox statue

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

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

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

Don't make any more, then. This article on a very hot and ongoing political event has been fairly stable because there have not been editors trading reverts, other than removing clear errors and violations. Don't be the one that starts us down this path. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I don't plan to and there's no reason for you to suggest I'd do otherwise. A single revert per editor is not edit warring by either of us. That's a normal part of the editing process. I waited more than two hours after my last post went unanswered before making my revert. I'd like a retraction. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I'm not touching this topic anymore - I would argue since the Ottawa Police said desecration which was then parroted in the media, we should keep that word. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organizer

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

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

Remove the phrase attempted insurrection

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

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

The lead does not require citations, per MOS:CITELEAD. This language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources. It is an unfortunate fact that Wikipedia has a bit of a left-wing political tilt, but that is largely the fault of right-wing media playing fast and loose with the truth, meaning those sources can't be considered reliable. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So who is to decide that this language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources? Since there are no citations attached to that sentence, which reliable sources should I use to verify this claim at Wikipedia? I checked the edit that added "public" to the sentence, and neither there was any citation to this sentence before, nor was there afterwards. So let's say, had I edited to be have been considered an attempted insurrection by media, officials but not by the public, would you have defended the edit similarly? Because I would have provided no citation then, as is the case here. And I would have said, as you are saying, that this language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources. Also, this topic is current, complex and controversial, so going by MOS:CITELEAD too, there should have been citations to this claim. Secondly, this claim is not verified by the rest of the text, so you cannot even mention that the rest of the text which this claim is generalizing has enough citations. Basically, even going by MOS:CITELEAD that you cited, this claim should have been accompanied by citations. Otherwise, it is as controversial as saying that it is completely backed by the public and is not WP:NPOV Lastly, the left wing sources play fast and loose with the truth just as much as the right wing ones do, but thanks to the left wing bias amongst Wikipedia editors, they are largely blind to that observation. Anyway, that argument is for a different day. 49.205.129.210 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this from the lede. The phrasing did not accurately reflect what little there is about this in the article, which describes these events as possible staging for an insurrection elsewhere, not that Ottawa is an insurrection. The only source we have which describes someone calling the Canadian protests an insurrection is quoting Diane Deans, Chair of the Ontario Police Services Board, not exactly a prominent commentator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising

In the currently last paragraph, Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro are reported by Politico as being "far-right commentators", although their Wikipedia pages they are described as "conservative". How does that work? 92.80.76.115 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico source cited calls them that:

On multiple crowdfunding platforms, people from around the globe — often directed to the cause by American far-right influencers like Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro

Wikipedia articles mostly are unaffected by the content of other articles. There may be legitimate differences in sourcing, or there may just be an editorial difference; Wikipedia articles are governed by local consensus on talk pages. Politico may have decided that it's important to label them as far-right in this context, but there may not be sufficient sourcing to make that a primary descriptor of their whole careers. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mhawk10 was the user who removed that sentence, would you like to share your opinion on the matter? Would you be open to adding "Resignation of Justin Trudeau" instead? >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the framing from the sources, "resignation" would not be an accurate reflection. The protesters (the ones who are getting attention for this anyway) want him to be removed by extralegal means, or by force. Some have called for replacing the entire structure of the Canadian government with an authority of their choosing (c.f. Accelerationism#Far-right accelerationist terrorism), though I don't see this in reliable sources. "Overthrow" is the word I see most commonly thrown around, not anything like "peaceful transition". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If “overthrow” is the word that is being used, then we can certainly use that. I still think that the goal of replacing Trudeau (which has apparently now spiraled into calls to change Canada’s government structure) is relevant enough for the infobox.TheAmericanWarlord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, my mistake, there is some writing in reliable sources on accelerationism in the Freedom Convoy:
I don't think there's anything to add to the article from these, it's too minor of a POV at this point, but worth keeping an eye on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split, Canadian–United States border crossing blockades

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support they are two different protests, and the border blockades are actually affecting the economy (link here) >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and oppose all split proposals at this time. These are all part of the same event, and the event is ongoing. It will be best to focus energy on a single article for now even if it gets long, and then discuss how best to lay out the article or splitting out to several articles when things aren't changing every few hours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International protests

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

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

Terry Fox and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

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

There are several reliable sources backing up these claims, for example [30][31][32] >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 16:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 13 lead reflecting evolving situation

The first sentence currently reads :

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

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

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

Would something like "Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions." be acceptable? It seems like the protest has become more than just protesting requirements for entering the country. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 16:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's fine; or how about adjusting your wording to clarify that it's only covid-related public health restrictions, not just any and all public health restrictions. How about "...against vaccine mandates and other COVID-19-related public health restrictions" or "...against vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions related to COVID-19" or "...against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions" or "...against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other covid-related public health restrictions". But your wording is also an improvement to the current wording, as it is. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like "against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions" best, it's shorter and to the point.
So, is everyone in favour of this wording? "Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions." >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Possible Major players section as of February 13

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

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

References

  1. ^ Parkhill, Mggie (February 10, 2022). "Trucker protest: Leaders and major influencers". CTV News. Retrieved February 13, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest&oldid=1071650911"