Talk:Canada convoy protest

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

Just curious what other wiki protest has every negative article ever produced quoted?[edit]

Looking through other examples of major protests on wiki such as the gorge Floyd protests that was literally the most destructive protest in North America history I don’t see 1/4 of the negative news articles quotes compared to the freedom convoy. To won’t even call it by it’s name in the title. It appears the information being given is designed to leave a negative impression rather than neutral facts. There is video evidence of the Ottawa Police chief calling the freedom convoy “extremely peaceful and lawful” while denouncing most of the claims made against them https://x.com/derekkaior/status/1750405107068350834?s=46 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4946:3FDF:A2C5:F90F (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by the weight RS give to a topic. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But video doesn’t lie… 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Videos lie in many ways -- and those ways are rapidly increasing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, the perception of the protest in the article should reflect that in reliable sources. If memory serves, media were far more negative toward this protest than the George Floyd protests. I would point out that the Nuremburg Rally was "extremely peaceful and lawful," but is still perceived in a negative light.
I do not see the relevance of the Emergencies Act decision. The fact that a judge found the invocation of the act was illegal does not mean the protest was lawful. It's just that it did not pose the level of threat required to use the act. A riot for example is unlawful but does not justify invocation of the act. TFD (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think anyone disputes that it wasn’t lawful only that it was peaceful civil disobedience as in the Fairy Creek protest. I agree with the assertion of the negative media coverage, I only ask that the over quotes of negative articles be adjusted to compensate for this or removed entirely. There where obviously acts where single individuals misbehaved, but at the time the terry fox statue was dressed up, monuments all over Canada where being torn down and viewed in a neutral or even positive light.https://montreal.citynews.ca/2022/11/21/montreal-john-a-macdonald-statue-committee/amp/ within minutes of the story being released and it being viewed as offensive protestors removed the images and polished the staue.
I don’t know any other protest or events where things like noise or exhaust fumes are viewed as a assault. it clearly states in the description any people who intentionally did any illegal or offensive acts where removed. And I fell with the length of this article that is not reflected towards the end.
this was obviously a heavily politicized protest and people feel strongly both ways. I’m guilty of it too but I do my best to have it remain in a neutral light. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:807D:79D:E05:36BF (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked 2020 was not 2022. But I agree we should not link to every protest (such as the miner's strike or the anti-Vietnam war demos. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy section is Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." The fact that people feel strongly both ways does not mean both sides have equal validity. The protesters were misinformed about vaccinations and their civil rights regarding vaccines and spread this misinformation to the detriment of the public. At least in the case of George Floyd, there was an actual innocent victim.
The incompetence of the police reaction and the (apparently) illegal reaction of the government do not mitigate the actions of the protesters. (Note: personally I agree with the judge, but until all appeals have run out, we cannot present his opinion as authoritative.) TFD (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want to devolve into debates but there is definitely a right to protest what they did as confirmed by the police only after the weekend and the permit to protest ran out did it become a illegal protest. If you look at the public order emergency commission section 3.2.3 Commanders intent section vi. It states
“Disorderly conduct and criminal behaviour will not be tolerated and will be dealt with in a manner that does not jeopardize officer safety; and
vii. In the event that crowd behaviour deteriorates and public safety is jeopardized the Incident Commander may put measures in place to increase the police presence and deploy specialized resources such as Public Order Units.(also referred to as Public Safety” https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/exhibits/OPP00001847.pdf?t=1668672093
this shows that February 13th police found crowd behaviour did not deteriorate and the public or officer safety was not jeopardized. Only after soly was fired did the narrative change, and I know the behaviour of the protesters didn’t. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:6D16:D28A:1266:BDFA (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The protests remained peaceful until the end. In Windsor police moved in on the protesters linked arms singing O Canada, the protestors in Ottawa where peaceful too https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=ObJ935wgxvox9vxI&v=X-iggpqeL7A&feature https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=O0o5dYwNRHpZKS4r&v=a3lbRWLOqZM&feature https://m.youtube.com/live/hTL8T0MaIN8?si=ZcBWyo7QMj1B-EfD https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=yzV2XwIHlaSvpnZ9&v=fdhahc_fRfw&feature https://x.com/bigwhitehick/status/1749972161664590093?s=46 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D7s8cyQGTzo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BJLokj8T82M
i don’t want to debate about gorge Floyd but the information you gave is disputed, it also caused 19 deaths and thousands of injuries and assault ant that’s definitely not justified 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:6D16:D28A:1266:BDFA (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a selective reading of the report. It also says at the beginning that the demonstrators posed a "serious danger and threat to the safety and security of residents," were parked in unsanctioned areas, impacted traffic flow, disturbed neighbours and were a "public safety hazard." All you can conclude from your quote is that the RCMP believed that they could handle the situation without govt. declaring an emergency. TFD (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen on page 165 of the ruling as seen in a secret document released by the queens privy council the “ PCO is of the view that the examples of evidence collected to date Solicit
Solicitor-Client Priv.
support a determination that the two
criteria required to declare à public order emergency pursuant to the EA
have been met.
Specifically, POC is of the view that while municipal and provincial
authorities have taken decisive action in key affected areas, such as law
enforcement activity at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, considerable
effort was necessary to restore access to the site and will be required to
maintain access. The situation across the country remains concerning,
volatile and unpredictable. While there is no current evidence of
significant implications by extremist groups or international sponsors,
PCO notes that the disturbance and public unrest is being felt across the
country and beyond the Canadian borders, which may provide further
momentum to the movement and lead to irremediable harms - including
to social cohesion, national unity, and Canada's international reputation.
In PO's view, this fits within the statutory parameters defining threats to
the security of Canada, though this conclusion may be vulnerable to
challenge.”
this means that because there was so much support behind it it became a threat to “national unity and social cohesion” which seems like a cop out for a government looking for a excuse to use measures that where eventually ruled unjustified
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. WP:PRIMARY
If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. WP:FORUM Softlem (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t call this a analysis as more a direct quote. The judge states they did not meet section 2 of the CSIS act “threats to the security of Canada means
(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23/section-2.html
the entire reason the police had such a hard time was because they didn’t do anything to have it declared a illegal protest. They even had a court order to not make noise at night. If it was illegal the court order would have said to disperse. They where only banned from obstructing highways, honking, lighting off fireworks, starting open air fires (it was -20) or idling vehicles.
White’s memo significantly noted, that the city cannot direct the actions of the Ottawa Police Service. The injunction, he said, simply supplements “the tools available to law enforcement authorities to address the unlawful conduct of protesters.”
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/no-more-fireworks-judge-grants-city-injunction-against-convoy-protestors/wcm/a40d3666-13cc-459e-82e8-e164d1afdd7d/amp/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t call this a analysis as more a direct quote. Analysis of quote is analysis. You want to quote it in article?
Link gives me error, I dont know what link says Softlem (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So lets see the suggested text for the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the protests did not meet the criteria for invoking the emergency act, does not mean it did not pose a serious danger to the public. Justice Mosley said the protests "reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order." He also concluded there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act."[1] Both can be true at the same time.

The question was whether public order could be restored with the limitations placed on government by its requirement to observe the rights of individuals. In Canadian history, you would have to go back to the invasions of 1775 and 1812-14 and the rebellions of 1837 and in the Northwest. The fact the Convoy protest did not meet this level of risk doesn't mean it was not a risk to public order.

TFD (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desecration of terry fox statue[edit]

It is a well known fact the terry fox staue is “dressed up” during most major protests in downtown Ottawa

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/desecration-of-terry-fox-statue/wcm/c68fa1d1-2d2d-4d7a-822e-ae32ec3335f7/amp/

https://x.com/sheilagunnreid/status/1582368910258868224?s=46

http://redpatchboys.ca/news/page/7/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4946:3FDF:A2C5:F90F (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure these pass rs, don't does not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NP article should pass rs if I am understanding it correctly even if the source is unreliable the image associated with it is real and I feel that should be taken into account 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
both wp:v and wp:undue come into play. do (multiple) wp:rs say this act was linked to these demos? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism of the protesters as reported in this article is that Terry Fox would not have agreed with them, not that his statue was desecrated. Of course we cannot know for sure what his position on today's political issues would have been. Nonetheless, mainstream observers tend to be shocked when national heroes are used by conspiracy theorists and far right extremists, while they don't seem to mind when they are used by adherents of other views. So your complaint seems to be that observers condemned the convoy protesters for using Terry Fox but did not condemn the anti-war protesters. But Wikipedia is not supposed to correct the biases in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that they are far white extremists, in fact it has been disproven https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf (page 163) and that this was just another slander tactic used against them. Wikipedia:Recentism The “vandalism” was a Canadian flag and a sign that said “mandate freedom” this seems like a case of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight as in any other context but a highly politicized one these messages are not offensive at all and there was no actual damage. And the outrage was a case of is again just a case of Wikipedia:Recentism and anger at unvaccinated people. This is the same time news papers where printing articles like this https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6c118291-bc45-45df-91c9-c2897f722a6d_996x1334.jpeg Wikipedia is not a tabloid and is to represent a neutral point of view.2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does recentism have to do with this? Remsense诉 03:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others:
-Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
-Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
this section of the article was subject to it while the news reports produced where designated to show the protest on the most negative light possible. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The events of this article took place in 2022. What would a non-recentist emphasis look like? Remsense诉 05:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that but this entire article was subject to it for the first year it remained locked. There are still some aspects that should be addressed that have yet to be fixed. The articles themselves where written at a very heated time this is from the Rouleau commission
"However, in my view more of an effort should have been made by government leaders at all levels during the protests to acknowledge that the majority of protesters were exercising their fundamental democratic rights."
Rouleau concluded by saying messaging by politicians, public officials and the media should have been more balanced, and "drawn a clearer distinction between those who were protesting peacefully and those who were not."” https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2023/2/17/1_6278913.amp.html 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What more recent events are being privileged? What would a non-recentist emphasis look like? Remsense诉 08:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct I’m quoting the wrong rule it should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Wikipedia:BIASEDSOURCES as those same sources made no mention when it was tressed in another nations flag by a group who has members that support actual terrorist organizations or when it was dressed up to represent the LGBTQ community. It was only called vandalism and against his “personal views” when it was Canadian flags and a sign saying mandate freedom which should be the least controversial. Nobody knows what his opinion would be on the subject and you can speculate either way. The media decided to take a slanderous approach. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works, we don't get to editorialize and synthesize based on what we notice between sources, that would be original research. We write the article in proportion what the body of reliable sources says, and theoretically no more. Neutral point of view is not "no point of view". Remsense诉 09:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I have RS to back up this opinion. It’s not just mine alone https://nationalpost.com/video/c24d3040-7a83-11ee-82a1-46f0802d1445/canadas-selective-outrage-at-desecrating-terry-fox considering it was the largest protest in Canadian history and not a single media outlet had a good thing to say about it because it was deemed to be a “threat to national unity” shows how biased the media was. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing on tomb of unknown soldier[edit]

This is the video of the event in question proving the article to prove false and misleading information that omits details https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=6wNcFLkdzhFZhIBs&v=teK4iQJNzHQ&feature=youtu.be 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4946:3FDF:A2C5:F90F (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that video proves absolutely nothing and, definitely, it doesn't represent a reliable source. --DoebLoggs (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an RS (and read wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what is published in reliable sources, without adding our own analysis. This page is not a forum for discussing your or anyone else's opinions about the event. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but at the same point in time when you can see the description given isn’t accurate to the footage than should it be aloud because it’s a reporters opinion? There is only one version of the video that has circulated so this must have been the basis for the article 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that point is when an RS says it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the video is not the basis for our article. The basis is how reliable sources reported on the event. If you think that the Vancouver Sun, Associated Press, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star, Global News, CTV News, The Independent, CBC News, the Globe and Mail, NBC News, the Ottawa Police Service, Citynews, and The Conversation all reported on the event incorrectly or unfairly, take it up with those publications. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I and other editors have pointed out, policy requires us to summarize the events as they were reported in mainstream media. Your argument seems to be with how mainstream media reported them, not how this article summarizes the reporting. While the media may be biased, it is unproductive to discuss that here. Your argument is with policy, not how it has been applied to this article.
Many editors who complain about articles bring up "neutrality." However, it is important to read the policy because it doesn't mean that we are supposed to correct the biases is rs. Basically,, if rs are biased against a subject, the article will portray it in a negative light. If you don't like that, you need to take your argument to policy discussions. TFD (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:DUE says "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" so the Blacklock's item "Convoy Allegation Disproven" can't be used here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence to suggest these are the views of a “tiny minority” and those statements have been retracted considering it was the largest protest in Canadian history https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2023/2/17/1_6278913.amp.html
"I expect that the Prime Minister was intending to refer to the small number of people who were expressing racist, extremist, or otherwise reprehensible views, rather than to all Freedom Convoy participants," Rouleau wrote.
"However, in my view more of an effort should have been made by government leaders at all levels during the protests to acknowledge that the majority of protesters were exercising their fundamental democratic rights."
Rouleau concluded by saying messaging by politicians, public officials and the media should have been more balanced, and "drawn a clearer distinction between those who were protesting peacefully and those who were not." 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are subject to Recidivism and should be taken with a grain of salt. The news articles about the person where written off of this video https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2022/4/28/1_5880365.amp.html the articles description would fall in under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight
“She was spoken to, showed remorse for her actions and police are confident she will not re-offend”
Most people do not understand the tomb is on the ground in front of the monument. They think the monument is the tomb and step right on it. This is extremely common with people who ave never been to it before 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White[edit]

The text "White" in this article should be capitalized, as when used in reference to the racial group. 

MOS:RACECAPS

AppGoo0011 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is wishy-washy as to whether or not it should be capitalized, but it suggests that capitalizing is more appropriate when used in the presence of other racial descriptors, which is not the case in this article. The article also doesn't really have any instances of "white" referring to the ethno-racial grouping, there are just a couple instances describing the presence of white supremacists at the protests, and we typically don't capitalize ideologies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024[edit]

Please include that two of four men arrested at the couts border were fully aquited of any charges except improperly storing firearms. No conspiracy to murder a peace officer any longer. 207.102.61.194 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The citations at 2022 alleged plot to kill Coutts RCMP officers say the charges were dropped as part of a plea deal, this is very different from an acquittal. Jamedeus (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest&oldid=1220634465"