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 174.0.48.147 (talk) at 21:07, 5 February 2022 (→‎RfC re: monument desecration in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Not a soapbox

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

Truck count estimate

ONGOING
New discussion generated below. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The 50,000 estimate was directly from one of the organizers and has never been confirmed. OPP in Kenora stated 200-300 moved through their location on Tuesday night. I cited that in the main article. Matt Austin (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in a few edit summaries, the claims from the organizers are so implausible as to be inappropriate to include even if we gave proper attribution. Their estimate of 50,000 trucks is more than the largest truck convoy ever recorded by a factor of 100. One of the organizers claimed that the convoy is over 70km long and that he measured it from an airplane, which is an obvious fabrication since he claimed that before any of the convoys had actually gathered, and any of the convoys that have been independently observed have been much smaller. I also doubt that you could even see an object the size of a truck 35km out the side of an aircraft at cruise altitude. The only plausible independent estimate I've seen is the Ottawa Police's plan to handle 2,000 protesters over the weekend, but even that is not an estimate of the number of trucks involved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source I provided last night from Thunder Bay News Watch cited the OPP with an estimate of "400 vehicles in the convoy that crossed into Ontario from Manitoba Tuesday night". That seems to be the best estimate currently. Note that it says vehicles and not trucks - from my understanding it's not just trucks in the convoy. This does not include whatever trucks are coming from the maritimes. The other source in the article says police in Ottawa are prepared for 2,000 people to protest on Saturday. But that's just a best guess. [2] CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that estimate. It's a good estimate of the number of trucks coming from the west, but more are coming from the east. I'm looking for a source on that now; CBC PEI reported this morning that 70 vehicles crossed the bridge, but many of them turned around at the visitor centre in New Brunswick and headed right back. No numbers in that article on how many were trucks nor how many carried on to Moncton. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More on this: CBC Nova Scotia reports that "10 to 15" trucks left Enfield this morning around 7am bound for the New Brunswick border. CBC New Brunswick reports that five (5) trucks left Aulac for Ottawa this morning, but didn't give a time. I can't tell if the 10-15 joined with the 5, or if 5 was the total that continued on from both groups, and also can't tell what happened to the PEI group. CBC London is also reporting that two groups from southwestern Ontario are getting together and plan to leave London at noon (in a few minutes, 17:00 UTC) but no estimate of numbers. There was also talk of a Newfoundland group, no idea where they are. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector It looks like the truck number was updated again in the infobox - the Arnprior article has a unconfirmed estimate of 600 trucks going to Arnprior tonight before heading to Ottawa in the morning. Should this be taken down given it's not confirmed? Matt Austin (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but it's a developing situation and new editors are probably going to keep adding other estimates if we keep removing them. What's there now is better sourced, but still not complete. There should be better counts of the actual participation after today and then we can update. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector Matt R Austin that was me on the most recent edit. It kept reappearing but it was wildly overstated. I'm indifferent to it being taken down or left up at the moment. Like Ivanvector said, a truer count will most likely be reported by the media by the end of the day. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, "Figures obtained by CTV News show 104,000 trucks crossed the border into Canada in the last week. That's down about four per cent from the same period in 2019, before the pandemic and before the vaccine mandate." https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-decries-fringe-views-of-some-in-trucker-convoy-as-police-prepare-for-its-arrival-in-ottawa-1.5755674 SystemEff (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snopes says the 50000 figure is false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/freedom-convoy-guinness/ SystemEff (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snopes cites this to be a realistic estimate "David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg. " SystemEff (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kingston Police reported on Twitter at 9:45AM EST on 28Jan2022 the following #'s:[1]
  • full tractor trailers
  • 104 tractors w no trailers
  • 424 passenger vehicles
  • 6 RVs
For the record, an editor is reverting an important figure regarding estimates. See Talk:Freedom_Convoy_2022#Selective_removal_of_timeline_updates and [3]. Specifically,
* "Ottawa Police expect approximately 2,000 vehicles and 5,000 pedestrians in Ottawa on January 29th" SystemEff (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ "Truck Convoy Update". Twitter. Kingston Police @kingstonpolice. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
  2. ^ "Truck Convoy Update". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

That error is my fault. The reference was defined in a different part of the article, which I removed (see above) but didn't restore the code for the source, which led to the cite error you saw. That source does indeed say: "Ontario Provincial Police said there were almost 400 vehicles in the convoy that crossed into Ontario from Manitoba Tuesday night." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on that note - Ivanvector - I noticed you removed the current convoy count from the lede. I understand it’s probably too early to tabulate but I think it is an important piece of the overall article if it is or can ever be somewhat accurately measured or estimated by independent sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed that in the "truck count estimate" section above - basically it was not accurate to call it a "convoy of nnn trucks" based on a source that was quoting one count at one of several locations. It might be useful to add the cited individual counts in the timeline section where chronological details are landing now, but I think we should wait until Saturday or later for a true count from the actual event, and then figure out how to incorporate that into the lede. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of Action4Canada official website?

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

No. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY is the relevant guideline, see bullet #3 in particular. I think it would be okay to use that site for info on where the group plans to travel and meet up, in the short term, but it will be better to replace that with independent sources once there are some. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine passports vs mandates

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

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

Image

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

Here [5] is a video showing the impressive line up of vehicles and trucks. And another. [6] SystemEff (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
images on Wikipedia need to be particular Creative Commons licenses. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoFundMe as source

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

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

Stated Beliefs Section

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

SystemEff You too - the information in that section is already in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "General beliefs" section should stay. It has 3 sources supporting the primary goal of this protest. SystemEff (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information in that section was moved to other parts of the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SystemEff As a new editor I think you need to be made aware of some of the policies in wikipedia. I won't be reverting that again to avoid the WP:3RR rule. Perhaps Ivanvector can comment. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be corrected on my policy understanding. But as far as I understand, a long standing version cannot be deleted en masse with 1 person agreeing, and 2+ people disagreeing, and with no clear consensus in the talk page. Shouldn't we wait for other people to chip in here? SystemEff (talk)
The exact same info, reiterated is in the "background" section. That's why I removed it. It's literally already in the article. I'm not removing anything. So go read it - see that it's essentially the same info, and then I'll be removing it. The section had no substance to it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it, yes - but that is except the "General beliefs" section, along with the 3 sources. Anyway, I've consolidated both sections.[7] Do you agree with this? SystemEff (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great so after all that you essentially just did what I did last night. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, your change had also removed the 3 sources (after the sentence "The protest calls for the end of vaccine mandates in Canada during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic."). SystemEff (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any particular input on this, but I'm not used to seeing a plain section basically republishing the organization's manifesto. Personally I do think it would be better off incorporated into the background section. I don't think any of it should be expunged from the article altogether. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Bauder's personal extremism

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

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

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

Source of "90% are vaccinated"

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

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

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

This claim is repeated across multiple news sources. So we shouldn't remove it. But we can attribute it to whoever said it. SystemEff (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim (aka measurable statistical data) is corroborated by industry groups and the Ministry of Transport. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not doubting those groups, but where is the statistical data itself? This is what ideally we want to be linking to. One of your sources go to a tweet by Omar Alghabra, who doesn't cite any official statistics. The reuters source also qualifies the statement with "Industry officials say" without any other direct reference. All of this could simply be a regurgitation of Trudeau's statement, but we would never know without official statistics. SystemEff (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can do this better. The 90% figure is a quote from Trudeau referring to the CTA's data, but the CTA themselves say 85%. The quotes should be attributed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

120,000 truck drivers?

The numbers are wrong in the lede, and likely elsewhere in the body. There are over 300,000 truck drivers in Canada, not 120,000. More likely the CTA represents 120,000 truckers.[8][9][10] - Floydian τ ¢ 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. A lot of different numbers are being thrown around: 120,000 drivers in Canada, 160,000 cross-border drivers in both countries, 16,000 Canadians affected by the mandate, and so on. The Truck News article is from before the pandemic and I wouldn't count on it. CBC doesn't say where its 300,000 stat comes from, and that is long-haul truckers, not all truckers. I used to drive a cross-border route but was definitely not long-haul. Maybe that number is truckers who drive in Canada, not just Canadian drivers?
The CTA just this week published stats ([11]) that there are 732,800 employees in the Canadian trucking industry but doesn't say how many of those are drivers. StatsCan has 742,497 employees in transportation and warehousing as of 2020 ([12]) but only seems to have more specific stats on drivers as of 2010 ([13]): 128,429 salaried drivers plus 54,086 owner-operators. So where do we go from here? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "sources vary as to the number of truck drivers in Canada, with estimates ranging from 120,000(CTA source) to 300,000.(CBC or archived StatsCan 2015 numbers)"? - Floydian τ ¢ 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding there would also be a difference in independently owned commercial vehicles and drivers who are employees of a larger trucking company. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective removal of timeline updates

Unfortunately User:CaffeinAddict is engaging in yet another edit war. This time their rationale is WP:NOTNEWS which says in particular "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate". CaffeinAddict went for a 2nd revert anyway[14] without explaining why, other than a meaningless "You don't have to add every update." So who gets to choose what to add or exclude and on what basis? The content this editor removed contains important and relevant details like "Ottawa Police expect approximately 2,000 vehicles and 5,000 pedestrians in Ottawa on January 29th". I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on this change. SystemEff (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor now also (uncharitably) asks me to "step back for a while"[15]. All the more reason for other editors to chip in here. SystemEff (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not an edit war - I’m not constantly reverting you. You are dominating edits right now though. I don’t think it needs to be heavily discussed every trivial and unimportant item you add to the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, you consider "Ottawa Police expect approximately 2,000 vehicles and 5,000 pedestrians in Ottawa on January 29th" to be "trivial and unimportant"? What is considered not "trivial and important" to you? Pick any existing estimation from the "Convoy movements" section and let me know. SystemEff (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say both additions by SystemEff are worthy of inclusion at this moment. It's better to compile information in the now and trim it after the fact if it changes or becomes irrelevant to the bigger picture. If we're going to build up with "Police warning people to stay away, prepared to arrest law breakers", we should logically follow with either "which never materialised" or "arrests were made". - Floydian τ ¢ 17:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm between both positions on this. This is an ongoing event and new developments are happening continuously, but at the same time we're not a live blog, and initial news reports are often incorrect on things like this and very careful scrutiny is warranted. However, as long as nothing goes up that's clearly fabricated or goes against WP:BLP, we can let things happen and decide how to deal with it later, probably in a couple days when the protest has concluded and the media narrative stabilizes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn’t seem (in my mind) to need to be said that no unlawful activity has occurred at a protest. Protests happen all the time without incident. Commentary by the police I’m neutral on. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant since so many writers predicted that there would be violence owing to the extremist elements, and at least one of the organizers agitating for it to be a repeat of the January 6 insurrection south of the border. It may be too soon to say that none occurred, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remain neutral on this for the most part, I have remained wary of the article becoming too BREAKING NEWS-like. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does read like an endorsement to the government position

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

I see the concerns about timing from some groups in the CBC article, but where are the scholars you claim are concerned? The Dalhousie rep says truckers aren't a homogenous group, there isn't agreement; that she expects the Opposition to take on the cause; the effectiveness of the convoy is in doubt; that the feds gave truckers a lot of time before imposing the mandate, and haven't flip-flopped. She herself doesn't express concern. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, at present, the lede has seven references to the word "truck" and its derivatives. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the reference to the scholars, yes, I think we are pointing to the same person in the globalnews reference, from the Dalhousie, which, as you stated, makes an argument about the diverse group of protesters and their causes, and the possibility of the government taking some action about them (with the help of the Opposition). And that is my point exactly: not that "protesters are wrong, the government is right", but that there may be some valid concerns at least as the initial cause of everything. And if the right-wing anti-vaxers may have jumped at the opportunity to provoke the disobedience to the COVID measures and other radical actions, that may (have) happen(ed), but this is not how it all started.
I would change the first sentence from "COVID-19 vaccine requirements to re-enter the country by land" to something like "COVID-19 vaccine requirements for truck drivers to enter the country", and also put a corresponding change in the info box.
Also, the Canadian Trucking Alliance did not plainly condemn the protests, as can be seen from the globalnews reference: "Members of the trucking industry who want to publicly express displeasure over government policies can choose to hold an organized, lawful event on Parliament Hill or contact their local MP. What is not acceptable is disrupting the motoring public on highways and commerce at the border.” - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statements by the Canadian Trucking Alliance:
* https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/
* https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-president-on-ottawa-protests/
Emilija Knezevic (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

condemned by trucking industry groups

Neither of the groups sourced to this statement "condemn" the protest. CTA's statement was "The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) does not support and strongly disapproves of any protests on public roadways, highways, and bridges."([16]), while the APTA ranged from "we encourage our drivers not to participate" ([17]) to "doesn't support" ([18]). - Floydian τ ¢ 04:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that sentence expresses strong and inaccurate wording, and can be understood as a biased opinion. It should be reworded or removed. How I understand it, the industry groups do not support the protests, but certainly do not condemn them. The CTA's statement of disapproving the protests on "public roadways, highways, and bridges" is often (in many sources) taken out of context as a disapproval, although it is followed by an approval of a lawful protest on Parliament Hill. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term condemned is fine. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "is not approved by" would be more fitting than "is condemned by" - Floydian τ ¢ 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user Floydian - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CTA has issued two statements about the protests, Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests (Jan 22) and Statement by Canadian Trucking Alliance President on Ottawa Protests (Jan 29). In both, they spoke against protests that interfere with public roads, referred to the vast majority of Canadian truckers that are already vaccinated, and encouraged compliance with the mandate instead of protesting. They suggested that members who wished to protest should hold a lawful rally at Parliament Hill and then leave the city, which was not what happened; they stopped well short of approving such a protest, had there been one (what actually happened was far from it). They issued a third specifically denouncing the defacement of monuments but in that one they didn't talk about the rally as a whole. I read these as active disapproval of the event, not just that they don't support it.
Various reliable sources say:
  • Washington Post: "The Canadian Trucking Alliance said it doesn’t support protests 'on public roadways, highways and bridges.'"
  • BBC: "While the [CTA] does not support the convoy and has said the industry must adapt to the mandate, it is said the measure could remove as many as 16,000 drivers from those routes."
  • CBC: "The convoy does not have the support of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Saskatchewan Trucking Association or other groups."
  • New York Times: "The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement last Saturday that it “strongly disapproves” of the protests on public roadways, highways and bridges."
  • Al Jazeera: "The Canadian Trucking Alliance, a major industry group, has said it “strongly disapproved” of the gathering in Ottawa."
  • National Post: "[The CTA] has strongly denounced any protests on public roadways, highways and bridges and has urged all truckers to get inoculated."
Personally I think that "does not approve" or similar wording is not strong enough to neutrally reflect the CTA's position as described by reliable sources. It would be absolutely ridiculous to say that they support any part of the protest in any way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Seems reasonably relevant since this is a main organizer One of the lead organizers of the convoy, James Bauder, has previously stated support for QAnon, endorsed conspiracy theories around the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and called for the arrest of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for alleged "treason".[1]
  • Is Patrick King actually an organizer? Not listed in infobox. If sufficiently relevant, might be relevant to include some of this, but if not seems too tangential. The Facebook page for the convoy has shared content from and listed as an organizer Wexit co-founder and Yellow Vest Canada organizer Patrick King, who has previously hosted counter-protests to anti-racism rallies, spread COVID-19 misinformation, and spread the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.[2][3][4] Canada Unity, organizer for the convoy, continues to host Patrick King's livestream on its website.[citation needed]
  • The Maverick Party article does not consider the party to be extreme or separatist. Seems inaccurate to imply this here. Maverick Party - Tamara Lich, the protest's fundraiser, is Secretary for the Maverick Party, a western separatist group formerly known as Wexit Canada.[5] Lich was previously the regional co-ordinator for Wexit in southeastern Alberta and board member for Wexit Alberta.[6] The Maverick Party has denied involvement in fundraising for the convoy, issuing a statement on January 24 saying that the party is not involved in the protest.[7]
  • A group associated with a subgroup seems too tangential to warrant this much discussion. Action 4 Canada - associated with the Canada Unity group inside the Freedom Convoy - Islamophobic and anti-LGBTQ conspiracy group with webpages about the dangers of political Islam, health consequences of 5G technology 5G stuff not really far-right or separatist and underreporting of adverse vaccine reactions.[2] Founded by Tanya Gaw who actively supported the Yellow Vests protests of 2019.[8]
  • Not notable that organizers of a anti-vaccine-mandate protest are also anti-lockdown. No More Lockdowns - Jason LaFace, Canada Unity's Ontario organizer for the Freedom Convoy is also a main organizer for No More Lockdowns Canada - An anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine mandate organization primarily associated with expelled Ontario MPP Randy Hillier which holds anti-lockdown rallies across Ontario.[9]
  • Probably relevant, since this is a main organizer, but could be trimmed down and summarized with comments/associations of other organizers. Peoples Party of Canada - Benjamin Dichter who is listed as an organizer on the Freedom Convoy GoFundMe page and who is an organizer of the Freedom Convoy was a speaker at the inaugural 2019 PPC National Convention where he claimed political Islam has infiltrated the Conservative Party and is "rotting away at our society like syphilis".[10] Citation is WP:SYNTH -- article is from several years ago, not about the ongoing events Jason LaFace, Ontario organizer for Canada Unity (who also goes by Jason LaFaci) is the President of the People's Party of Canada Sudbury Electoral District Association with a previous background in anti-Black Lives Matter activities.[11] Also, this citation is a random WordPress blog -- better citation needed.

References

  1. ^ "MPs Told to Hide From Anti-Vaxxer Convoy by Parliament Security Chief". Vice World News. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
  2. ^ a b Reynolds, Christopher; Ibrahim, Erika (January 24, 2022). "Trucker convoy raises millions in funds as vaccine-hesitant supporters flock to cause". The Toronto Star. Toronto Star Newspapers. The Canada Press. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  3. ^ "Wexit co-founder threatens demonstrators ahead of second counter protest". AntiHate.ca. Canadian Anti-Hate Network. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  4. ^ "Video: King dives head first into the Great Replacement/white genocide myth". Twitter. @vestscanada. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  5. ^ "Tamara Lich". Maverick Party. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  6. ^ Climenhaga, David. "Who's Fuelling the Truckers Protesting Vaccine Mandates?". The Tyee. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  7. ^ Ferguson, Dan (January 25, 2022). "Alberta-based Maverick Party denies involvement in fund raising for 'freedom convoy'". Red Deer Advocate. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  8. ^ Smith, Peter; Simons, Elizabet. "M-103 to the pandemic: evolution of Canadian Islamophobic activists shows how hate movements adapt". Antihate.ca. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  9. ^ Taylor, Casey (January 26, 2022). "Truck convoy's message muddies the closer it gets to capital". baytoday.ca. Village Media. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
  10. ^ Boutilier, Alex (August 19, 2019). "FEDERAL ELECTION Bernier tries to walk line between libertarianism and identity politics at People's Party's first national convention". Hamilton Spectator. Metroland Media Group. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
  11. ^ "Soldiers of Odin (SOO) Threaten BLM Mural". antiracistsudbury.com. Retrieved January 27, 2022.

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

The Others section has been compressed over night. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems excessively long because it seems like there's extensive connections to extremist groups. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read this thread or are you just here to push your political agenda? DirkDouse (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC) There are legitimate problems with this section that are enumerated above. DirkDouse (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Political agenda? I'm apolitical. Please don't make personal attacks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you are right, I should not assume an agenda. I believe this section has too much indiscriminate information being added, partially due to WP:RECENT, as well as problems with citation quality and consistency with other content on Wikipedia (also some WP:SYNTH, such as off of the cited tweet). Also, some issues with MOS:LISTBULLET. But if you disagree I am open to hear your opinion. DirkDouse (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't have that strong of an opinion either way. Since this is an ongoing event, these incidents seem like they may be getting a lot of attention today/yesterday due to WP:RECENT. Maybe there is more coverage in Canadian media than what I am seeing in the US; seems kind of borderline in terms of relevance to be in the lead, but I can see your point of view. Also, I agree with previous editors that "desecrated/vandalized" is NPOV and that if the section is readded to the lead it should specify what specifically occurred in those incidents. DirkDouse (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the monument desecration belongs in the body of the article, it is not notable enough on its own to belong as a definitive action of the protest IMO. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of it being in the lead. It's been one of the main headlines in media relating to the convoy. FlalfTalk 18:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the police have opened criminal investigations in this regard. It obviously belongs in the lede. DirkDouse, stop blanking well-referenced content without consensus. Citobun (talk)

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

Also, there's some stuff in there about 5G conspiracy theories, which isn't really far right or separatist either. Re: Maybe makes more sense under a general section about affiliations that can more cleanly include the far-right content with other affiliations in one place. DirkDouse (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The group in particular is both anti-vax and anti-lockdown, and the leader himself has made extremist posts on social media, which I think falls into the category it has right now, however I think expanding the section to conspiracy theories as well would make sense. FlalfTalk 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if those positions are far-right or separatist; seems reasonable to describe as rightwing, but not really a fringe view among conservatives. Ex: https://osf.io/6wcn9/ DirkDouse (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Canadian politicians

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

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

Okay, I'm realizing that just as liberal looks like Liberal, conservative looks like Conservative. PPC is in that section. What about supporting and opposing? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to supporting/opposing seems good. DirkDouse (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having liberal/conservative split is good - supporting or opposing would be the natural reaction... however someone like O'Toole met with truckers and then later condemned them for defacing the statues... CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the section headings as discussed here. Seems like people here are okay with Oppose/Support for that section? DirkDouse (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason CaffeinAddict seems so hellbent on removing all notable Politicians? I added Pierre Polievre as being pro-Convoy and is there any doubt based on his social media platforms that he is not one of (if not the) most vocal supporter of the Convoy? Certainly more relevant than say Erin O'Toole or even Justin Trudeau who have both avoided the protest and more relevant than fringe parties with no members of parliament?Kav2001c (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]
He's not removed, the section was moved from a list to a prose format. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like current phrasing is "Conservative MPs Candice Bergen[102], Pierre Poilievre[103], Andrew Scheer[104], Garnett Genuis[95], Martin Shields[105], Warren Steinley, Jeremy Patzer[106][107] and Michael Cooper[108] all expressed their support for the convoy and truckers' movement," which seems appropriate. Previously, it was a bunch of bullets that each said something like "John Smith [expressed support for convoy]" without much additional commentary besides a general support statement. Seems best to include these as a single sentence with citations after each. DirkDouse (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please provide a source and a suggestion why this point made should be notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both confederate and nazi flags were flown at the rally. FlalfTalk 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware of that - if it's to be put into the article, it should be done so with a reliable source. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the article, and has sources. Was explaining to the IP how the links are founded. FlalfTalk 19:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any type of protest group this large, you're always going to get some bad apples which will get disproportionate reporting. Not to make any type of excuses for this behavior, but the very few instances of swastikas I saw weren't meant to infer the flag-bearers' allegiance to Nazism, but to draw an analogy to the people they oppose as being or acting Nazi-like. I think that's a subtlety that's sometimes lost in the reporting. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^ this seems to be a hard point to get across to people in this day and age of sensationalism. Someone showing up to an event and shaking your hand doesn't mean you have ties to them. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are for us to WP:SYNTH - the article should merely state the obvious: some people showed up with Swastikas CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty classic red herring. Métis and Jewish persons can hold abhorrent views, even views which would seem to be detrimental to their own self-interest, just like white people. There is nothing to be gained from discussing this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find all of these swastikas and confederate flags to be appalling. 139.138.6.30 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"all of these swastikas and confederate flag" You mean all three of them? Out of how many other flags being flown with respect? You are all narrative driving pigs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.108.215 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From CBC which is considered a reliable source - 'worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country,' anti-hate advocate says. "It's not just a few malcontents... This convoy seeded the ground for the worst display of Nazi propaganda ever seen in this country" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50kHdAumXvA 139.138.6.30 (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia supports the media position. That really is the beginning and end of it. WP:NOTTRUTH is an official Wikipedia policy, and we mean it. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That statement could be misread, so to clarity, Wikipedia is dependent on information and views expressed in media coverage. We look for what is verifiable, not what might be considered someone's "truth." -- Zanimum (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re: monument desecration in lead

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

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

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

Incidents like that happen each and every Canada Day, when certain individuals get drunk or high. They are condemnable by all means. However, here they are emphasized in order to villainize the protests that were peaceful by the vast majority of the participants. I would not put that in the lede. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may or may not happen, but they don't receive the SIGCOV that the events of last weekend did. Your frankly abhorrent speculation about why it was reported is just that, speculation, and deserves no attention. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about frankly abhorrent - your reaction to his completely reasonable suggestion is what is abhorrent. As noted below, had a sports jersey been put on the statue during a championship tourney, it would be laughed off, not called "desecration." The hysterical tone of reportage around the placing of a hat and sign on the statue is transparent, to those willing to see it for what it is.174.0.48.147 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should add new section titled: Freedom Convoy in Australia

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

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

No injuries reported

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

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

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

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

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

Just because the protesters did it to themselves doesn't mean it's not an injury related to the protest. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we included intoxications at concert related tragedies, the whole audience would be injured. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m agnostic on this. I added the source due to paramedics claiming they had seen 19 people in the downtown core over the weekend, most due to intoxication. If it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the infobox - let’s remove it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has been changed, thank you, it is to be appreciated when these requests are considered.--CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

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

I also made some edits to the lede after CaffeinAddict had a run at it. Opinions welcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede seems to have ballooned since I was last here. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just letting it happen at this point. There's one editor adding a lot of content in spurts that badly needs copyediting, but each time I try they launch into a new edit spree, and a lot of it is going directly in the lede. I'll come back to it later when things settle. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue currently, besides the length is there is inconsistent numbers between the lede and the infobox about the amount of protesters. The police chief said one thing, the media claimed another. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to have a section in the article that discusses the numbers of protesters, since there are so many sources quoting different figures, or just counting different things altogether. I still think it'll be a while before there's a reliable estimate of involved protesters in the city, versus people/vehicles that are just trapped there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A similar section is in the article Inauguration of Donald Trump#Crowd size. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took another crack at shortening the lede for brevity sake, removing redundancies. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

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

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

Erin O'Toole controversy section

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

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

Okay, different question. I decided to move the info down to Statements and reactions > Canadian Politicians > Opposition, where he was already discussed. But the provided reference doesn't seem to support the statement. Can someone else give the article a go, and see if they feel it does support the statement made? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most information about Erin O'Toole and his leadership and loss of leadership should be on his own page don't we think? It's kind of a consequence of this debacle but this page should focus on the protest itself? CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, O'Toole resigning is of little direct consequence to the protest in any shape or form. We should mention his support as the then leader, followed by a summary or quote from Bergen to indicate the current stance. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truck and protester count estimate - February 3

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

5,000 to 18,000 is an estimate from CBC, according to Ottawa Police... any advice on how to display such a huge range? [19] CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to just list the range estimate as "5,000 to 18,000." Seems doubtful that there will ever be a clear consensus on size. DirkDouse (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a reliable estimate, it's hyperbole from a frustrated public servant who has everyone against him right now, trying to justify their now highly-criticized [lack of] response. In the long run I think it'll be best to rename the "misinformation" section to something like "estimates of convoy size", and then just lay out all the different estimates there. I think DirkDouse is right that there will never be a reliable count at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The media seems to be readily quoting the police chief however their earlier estimates were around 8,000 protesters tops on the Saturday, dwindling to 3,000 Sunday. I agree we should rearrange the misinformation section, include all estimates and it can include the refuted claims from organizers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that rework. There's enough discussion/debate on the actual size of the convoy that a full section discussing this seems warranted. DirkDouse (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the initial change, hopefully it is expanded. As for the infobox... ? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Fork: COVID-19 vaccination mandates in Canada

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

Add section on protests in other cities?

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

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

Lead figures for the government side

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

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

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

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

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

Sourceless claim

“Illegal acts committed by protesters drew widespread condemnation.”

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

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

Jagmeet Singh's brother

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

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

It was newsworthy but it almost doesn’t feel relevant. Obviously a lot of people donated to the GoFundMe… CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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"”[20]
  2. “a huge demonstration,” “the protest”[21]
  3. “the "Freedom Convoy"”[22]
  4. “noisy protests”[23]
  5. “the so-called “freedom convoy” protest”[24]
  6. [other news coverage]
  7. [other news coverage]
  8. “the ongoing demonstration”[25]
  9. “the Freedom Convoy demonstration”[26]
  10. [other news coverage]
  11. “the truck blockade in Ottawa”[27]
  12. “protesters opposed to vaccination mandates who have filled the streets of downtown Ottawa”[28]
  13. “the "Freedom Convoy" demonstration”[29]
  14. [other news coverage]
  15. [other news coverage]
  16. [other news coverage]
  17. “influx of truck convoy protesters into the city”[30]
  18. “the convoy that has taken over the city’s downtown core”[31]
  19. “ongoing, disruptive protests”[32]
  20. “the demonstration in Ottawa”[33]
  21. [other news coverage]
  22. [other news coverage]
  23. [other news coverage]
  24. [other news coverage]
  25. “the "Freedom Convoy" demonstration”[34]
  26. “the "Freedom Convoy" protest”[35]
  27. “the so-called truckers’ protest”[36]
  28. “demonstrations against pandemic restrictions,” “the intractable protests”[37]
  29. “the trucker convoy protest”[38]
  30. [other news coverage]
  31. “throngs of truckers and other demonstrators,” “the demonstrators”[39]

   —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]
    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]

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

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

If there are more specific sections you want to discuss feel free to post or join discussions in other threads. But the article has at least dozens of editors; there's no one person who can just rewrite the whole thing without coming to a consensus with the other people on this talk page. DirkDouse (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct mister. I had a stub here talking about how this movement was becoming international. In the stub, me and two other users had organized a search for sources throughout the weekend to make a case for why this movement was becoming international. This was after we had gone through some preliminary sources suggesting so. And before we could do it, the stub was taken down. Don't worry, you aren't alone; Wikipedia always had a left-wing bias when in came to anything remotely political in America. So don't feel as if you need to make a stand here, because you will always be overwhelmed by the opposition here. W.C Cross (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
W.C Cross Your comments were not removed but archived, you can still find your comments here: Talk:Freedom Convoy 2022/Archive 2#HEADS UP: This Movement May Become International. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia always had a left-wing bias when in came to anything remotely political in America.[citation needed] Most of the news outlets Wikipedia cites are for-profit capitalist news sites and last time I checked, leftists hate capitalism. This protest also isn't in America. X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is inaccurate about the article? Please be more specific. X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest&oldid=1070129164"