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 24.150.136.254 (talk) at 02:47, 9 February 2022 (→‎Requested move 5 February 2022). 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).

RfC re: monument desecration in lead

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

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

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

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

No injuries reported

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like we should try to get some kind of consensus here one way or another. I would support changing to Organizers for the reasons stated previously--section is confusing, and some of the content under that section is not far right or separatist (e.g., 5G, anti-lockdown, etc), and would be better covered under a different section heading. DirkDouse (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[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]
@Ivanvector: If LeFace, or any of the other organisers, is on record stating that the goal is to advance a white nationalist agenda, why doesn't that appear in the article? 46.97.170.225 (talk) 15:54, 7 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]

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]
There's been no discussion on either of these images over at commons. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourceless claim

“Illegal acts committed by protesters drew widespread condemnation.”

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

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

Jagmeet Singh's brother

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

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

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

Requested move 5 February 2022

Freedom Convoy 2022 → Ottawa convoy protest –  

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

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

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

The survey:

  1. “protests by the so-called "freedom convoy"”[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) — CasuarioAlmeriense (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]


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]

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)

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.[1] Most of the news outlets Wikipedia cites are for-profit capitalist news sites and last time I checked, leftists hate capitalism. This protest also isn't in America. X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is inaccurate about the article? Please be more specific. X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to chime in and say that this article does appear to have an anti-protest lens rather than a neutral one like Wikipedia should have. It seems to highlight fringe incidents, loose unfounded connections to alleged extremist movements and diminish the size and scope of the protest (for example, infobar statistics highlight 250 people when Toronto today had tens of thousands, if not over 100,000). I do think this article needs to be reworded a bit to support neutrality.Spilia4 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently only about the Ottawa protests with the Toronto protest as a related one. A new article should be created if it’s notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connections to extremism come from reliable sources. If you have any evidence that the accusations are unfounded, please provide evidence. As for the fringe incidents, they are obviously going to be highlighted because they got a lot of attention. X-Editor (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (September 2018). "Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia". MIS Quarterly. 42 (3): 945–959. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2018/14084.

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]

Lead sentence edit suggestion

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

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

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

Progress on lawsuit discussed in legal

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

References

  1. ^ https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/hearing-into-lawsuit-to-stop-convoy-horns-in-ottawa-adjourned-to-monday-1.5769527

Can we update this from protest to terrorism?

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

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

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

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

Vote to keep Freedom Convoy

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

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

I disgusted by this person request to change the title from convoy to terrorism. Number one is the fact that most of the violences has been by counter-protesters/Anti-Freedom Convoy protesters especially the fact that five people were arrested in Vancouver. Cite: https://vpd.ca/news/2022/02/05/vancouver-police-arrest-five-during-day-long-protests/

One driver was arrested for plowing into 4 protesters in Winnipeg on February 5.

A majority of Canadians want the restrictions to be dropped and end according to a new poll released in early February 2022. Efuture2 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is too early to call it that. Though I'm confident that reliable sources will eventually lable it what it is. More and more reports are coming in of violence, vandalism and attempted arson, and the deflection to antifa is all too familiar from January 6. I'm confident that it's not a matter of if, but when this will be calld domestic terrorism. We just need to wait for further developments. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose: You talk about 30% not being able to elect any party however in the previous election the minority governing liberals got around 32.6% of the popular vote. This is actually the same amount of people that currently strongly support the convoy https://abacusdata.ca/freedom-convoy-public-reaction-february-2022/, and also 54% separately support the idea of dropping all mandates https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/01/31/majority-of-canadians-want-covid19-restrictions-to-end/. It has also never been referred to as a terrorism event nor comes even close to that scope. This proposal is demeaning to the term terrorism and would set a terrible precedent. Currently the support for the protest is higher than the current governing party. Your proposal is rife with inaccuracies.https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/more-of-the-same-messaging-from-liberals-affecting-ballot-support-nanos-1.5748025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.95.245 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Really? A bunch of truckers block roads and you want to call that "terrorism"? Oh boy... Winston von Ripplechip (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this as well, do you have any proof/evidence of any official outlet or any government agency calling this “domestic terrorism”, this is an encyclopedia whose material comes from reliable sources that must be cited. If you find anything else that supports your claim, bring it up in a new discussion and be sure to show your evidence. -Toast (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Scope

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

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

My two-cents: seeing as how the protests in other cities are direct offshoots of the Ottawa one, I think it makes sense to keep them in a (small) section in this article. --Nsophiay (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the protest convoy which originated nationwide and converged on Ottawa. Offshoot and related protests are being covered appropriately and in my opinion with due weight. A change of scope is not warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:58, 6 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]

Neutrality of this page

I believe this article violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The article quotes several people who oppose the protest, but very few people who support it. The article also implies that the protest is associated with Trumpism by listing the "Trumpism in Canada" article under "See more." Furthermore, the first sentence accuses the protestors of being "right-wing, fringe, anti-union." As a participant in the protest, I find this article to be discriminatory, hateful, and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestbrink1105 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting the convoy lists 14 politicians whose support received significant press coverage. Opposing includes seven. We then go on to list fourteen more American politicians supporting it, and one former US Ambassador to Canada opposing it. Others has General Wayne Eyre commenting on one aspect, followed by four random people's opposition.
So that's 32 to 8 quoted. If neutrality is a number, as you imply, then we should be adding 24 more opposing viewpoints. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But every opposing viewpoint is described with a quote or a rationale, whereas the supporting people are simply listed. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and caution

Thanks to the editors who have been working so hard keeping up with a constantly changing story. I suggest that going forward, all major additions to the lead could be done on the talk page first. The article has attracted half a million viewers in the past 30 days and over 40,000 today. The first sentence of the lead does no longer seems to reflect the article or the reality of the demonstration but calling all the protesters right-wing, etc goes too far. "The Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is an ongoing protest in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine requirements for truckers to re-enter the country by land introduced by the Government of Canada on January 15, 2022.]Oceanflynn (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential addition to the lead: I am planning on adding the sentence "Teamsters Canada, representing 55,000 professional truckers including 15,000 long-haul truckers—90% of which are vaccinated, said that the so-called "freedom convoy" not only "delegitimizes truckers real concerns", their "despicable display of hate...does not reflect the values of Teamsters Canada."[1] in the paragraph in the lead that begins with "The convoy has been condemned by trucking industry groups,[2][3] I have already added similar content to the list of organizers who oppose the convoy. Any comments CaffeinAddict, X-Editor, Ivanvector, Zanimum, Somedifferentstuff, Jfhutson, Oceanflynn (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Teamsters_20220208 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ibrahim, Erika (January 23, 2022). "Canadian Trucking Alliance condemns trucker protests". CTV News. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
  3. ^ MacInnis, Jonathan (January 25, 2022). "Atlantic trucking association speaks out against vaccine mandate protests". CTV News Atlantic. Retrieved January 26, 2022.

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]

Ottawa convoy protest against federal government concerning provincial and local mandates

The article seems lacking in discerning that some of the demands of the people in the Ottawa protest are about mandates implemented by provincial and local governments, but is demanding the federal government remove them (or overthrow the feds, and have the Senate remove provincial/local mandates). There should be something about the demand that the feds breach their constitutional jurisdiction to dictate to provinces about their purview in health matters. Some politicians also seem to have ambiguously voiced support for the feds removing provincial restrictions (seemingly federalizing health care, removing it fromo the provinces) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

Joe Warmington incorrectly titled “editor in chief” of Toronto Sun. Joe is a columnist and contributor.

Adrienne Batra is the EiC re: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrienne_Batra 65.95.179.71 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citation Feb 08 22

“Protesters have stated that they will not leave until all COVID-19 restrictions and mandates have been repealed, and some have called for the federal government to be overthrown“ These are two different statements, and each should be cited, even if it’s from the same outlet, we should still have two opinions to increase credibility. -Toast (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest&oldid=1070749692"