Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Image

I think we need a better image, preferably one with multiple trucks. An example [1]. SystemEff (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here [2] is a video showing the impressive line up of vehicles and trucks. And another. [3] SystemEff (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

images on Wikipedia need to be particular Creative Commons licenses. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

SystemEff You too - the information in that section is already in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

The information in that section was moved to other parts of the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I see it, yes - but that is except the "General beliefs" section, along with the 3 sources. Anyway, I've consolidated both sections.[4] Do you agree with this? SystemEff (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Great so after all that you essentially just did what I did last night. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The claim (aka measurable statistical data) is corroborated by industry groups and the Ministry of Transport. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[5][6][7] - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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 ([8]) 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 ([9]) but only seems to have more specific stats on drivers as of 2010 ([10]): 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)

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)

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)

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[11] 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)

This editor now also (uncharitably) asks me to "step back for a while"[12]. All the more reason for other editors to chip in here. SystemEff (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Links to far-right and separatist groups" excessively long

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)

• 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".
• 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. Canada Unity, organizer for the convoy, continues to host Patrick King's livestream on its website.
• 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. Lich was previously the regional co-ordinator for Wexit in southeastern Alberta and board member for Wexit Alberta. 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.
• 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. Founded by Tanya Gaw who actively supported the Yellow Vests protests of 2019.
• 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.
• 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". 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. Also, this citation is a random WordPress blog -- better citation needed.

References

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)

The Others section has been compressed over night. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems excessively long because it seems like there's extensive connections to extremist groups. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Political agenda? I'm apolitical. Please don't make personal attacks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm in favor of it being in the lead. It's been one of the main headlines in media relating to the convoy. Flalf^Talk 18:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Flalf^Talk 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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? Flalf^Talk 18:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Add Winnipeg vehicle attack on February 5

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

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

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

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

 Done CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Canadian politicians Support Opposition

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

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

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

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

Proposed edits for clarity and grammar

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

I propose:

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

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

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

References

Related protests?

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.

---

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)

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)

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

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.

Canadian politicians

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.

---

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)

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)

Change to supporting/opposing seems good. DirkDouse (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

He's not removed, the section was moved from a list to a prose format. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

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

I think it would be better to remove the "caused by" field from the infobox altogether. For one thing, the current text is a wikilink to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, which is the article which details the Canadian government's response to the pandemic. On the other hand, a very good case can be made that the protesters don't have any idea what they're protesting (they're in the capital of the federal government to protest mandates that are made by the provincial governments, which are all located elsewhere, for example). I'll wait to hear what others think before making any changes here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

When I put together the infobox the overall cause seems to be the pandemic in general. What actually caused independent private citizens to gather is probably varied, and therefore I'd argue the pandemic in general is a very good overall causality of these protests. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've added "vaccine mandates in Canada" and a source from elsewhere in the article to the causes, without removing the "Caused by COVID-19 pandemic in Canada" part. It's not unusual for there to be more than one cause listed in civil dispute infoboxes; see the Occupy Wall Street page for an example. Joe (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Citations for arrests and charged in initial header is misleading, double check the articles cited and count again. 96.44.109.251 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. You are correct, the number is 14 counting two updates from police. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"An attempt was made to set a fire in an apartment building."

The Raw Story is described by Wikipedia as a "clickbait site" and is not a reliable source. This line from the lead should be removed if no reliable source is provided. 2607:FEA8:BF9F:8880:84BF:9FBB:4D37:F1E0 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Updated, replacing it with reference to The Los Angeles Times, CTV News Ottawa, CityNews Ottawa. -- Zanimum (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

General comment, it's curious that this wasn't picked up by the website blacklist. I've see if I can get it added. -- Zanimum (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Typically only blacklisted sources get added to the website blacklist. The Raw Story is rated generally unreliable, which is a couple steps above the blacklist. Shouldn't be used as a reliable source, definitely not on its own. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

The source for the line, "and some have called for the overthrow of the federal government," does not state anywhere that they have called for the overthrow of the government. Either this claim needs to be removed or a real source found. 174.52.23.44 (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the first paragraph of the source "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.". Also see the above discussion Talk:Freedom_Convoy_2022#Opening_paragraph_--_"overthrow_the_government Cannolis (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The National Post, in [13] also covers the MEMORANDUM of UNDERSTANDING posted by Canada Unity and reports that if enacted, "the MOU would represent an unprecedented dissolution of the federal system and put an abrupt end to 155 years of continuous parliamentary rule". Vexations (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2022 (2)

Resignation not overthrow the government. (One is still peaceful and other is a revolution.) 174.90.223.70 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please stop opening edit requests, and instead discuss and seek consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising update

The Fundraising section should be updated regarding the fundraiser being moved from GoFundMe to GiveSendGo.

https://www.newsweek.com/freedom-convoy-raises-2m-givesendgo-after-gofundme-removes-campaign-canada-truckers-1676591

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/canada-freedom-convoy-givesendgo-findraising-millions-gofundme

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/givesendgo-fundraiser-for-freedom-convoy-hits-4-5-million-after-gofundme-shuts-page-down

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/07/canada-protesters-fundraising-platform/

Drwebster93 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Zanimum (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So, are we fixing it? 98.113.141.82 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Toronto Star has reported that, "Bergen’s comments mark the latest shift in the party’s overall response to the protesters, which has evolved since the “Freedom Convoy” went on the move last month. Initially, many Tory MPs — including former leader Erin O’Toole — supported the demonstrators’ call to remove vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers. Bergen herself has posed for photos with demonstrators and leaked emails suggested she didn’t think the party should initially call for an end to the convoy, but needed to figure out a way to make it Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s problem. But as the motivations of the organizers were exposed as including the overthrow of the government, and as some elements within the larger group embraced racist imagery, as well as seemingly non-stop harassment of downtown Ottawa residents that took a court injunction to stop, the Conservative party’s certainty in supporting the movement began to break down." The Washington Post wrote "One of the main organizers, Canada Unity, said that it planned to submit a “memorandum of understanding” to the Senate and governor general, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, to compel them to drop the public health measures or dissolve the government, which is beyond their constitutional powers."Oceanflynn (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Your first article is, once again, asserting this with no explanation or citation, which makes me again suspect the author is passing along information she had read on Wikipedia or in another outlet. Your second one at least is more specific in naming Canada Unity's "memorandum of understanding", but I do not see any reference to overthrowing or dissolving the government in the memorandum, which can be found at https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined-MOU-Dec03.pdf. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Note that this is part of the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Protest victories

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

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Kenney at least was on the radio this morning insisting that the protests have had no influence on the decision to start removing restrictions, and a different Star article reported that "Kenney has insisted he would not make policy decisions based on protests". They're tracking the same health indicators that they've been tracking for the past 2 years, and those indicators are leading the provinces to start backing off restrictions, not the protests. Wikipedia cannot say otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This is chicken or the egg - were the protests the cause of the restrictions loosening or the fact that spread of the virus is slowing naturally? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector All you had to do was add at the end of my sentence, "but Kenney insisted the early ending of the restrictions was not due to the protests." The leaders of Saskatchewan and Quebec have not made such statement and the Toronto Star ref I furnished clearly links the protests to the government actions. We use what the sources say. 152.130.8.201 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the source it says that the protests influenced governments moving towards "living with COVID", that they've been talking about since December? I didn't see it. Don't reactivate answered requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the only province who specifically tied them together was Saskatchewan, given Scott Moe's remarks. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed. All the coverage I've seen this week of Saskatchewan's lightening of restrictions has been about moving up timelines for restrictions that they had already announced (in January) were going to be lifted by the end of this month anyway. The National Post, CBC, Global, and CTV all covered Moe's announcement without mentioning the protests at all, while the Globe and Mail only mentioned protests in the context of Kenney saying they had no impact on his decision.

The protesters are of course going to try to take credit for these decisions which were largely made before they ever got in their trucks in the first place. Unless we have some very good reliable sources saying that the protests directly influenced any of these decisions, Wikipedia cannot publish that POV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Do you have any sources about this? I have been following somewhat closely but I have never seen anything mentioned about any protesters' views on the monarchy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@123.23.22.16: I would say neither.

You may have heard something related to the visit of a conspiracy theorist named Romana Didulo. She calls herself the "Queen of Canada". Didulo is notable for urging her thousands of followers to murder healthcare workers. (For her part, the actual Canadian monarch, Elizabeth II, never takes political stands, but has spoken highly of healthcare workers.)

Some of the protesters want the Governor-General of Canada, the Queen's representative, to remove Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet. They want to be personally installed as the replacement, with the support of the Opposition parties. This is legally impossible, and an autocracy. Modern autocracies don't have monarchs/royals above them. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Counter-Protests and Resistance

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

References

COVID/Omicron infections in lead

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

I agree: it's a well crafted edit, but updates on infection rates are out of scope for this article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector, CaffeinAddict. I respect the work you and others have put into this and the work on the lead has been impeccable—including pruning—and the informative, useful talk page has been constantly monitored. Delete what you deem necessary.

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

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

This is mainly truckers blocking the roads and such

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

Please see the section above, "Requested move 5 February 2022". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Participation by Extremist Groups v Propaganda & False Flag Efforts?

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

Please provide a source. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a Breitbart article which Wikipedia is forbidding me from directly linking to and would probably discourage me from posting with a manipulated URL, but the headline is "Canadian ‘Anti-Hate’ Group Head Used Miami Anti-Semitic Flyer to Smear Truckers." Breitbart is of course an unrelaible source and not worthy for inclusion in the article, but they link to the relevant tweets and statements from politicians and journalists, which could be cited directly. 143.229.244.70 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Social media is only referenced in limited situations, and really should only ever be used in direct support of a reliable source that references them. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Breitbart is blacklisted because they're not just unreliable, they deliberately publish false information. See WP:BREITBART. If you were to somehow get around the blacklist and use Breitbart as a reference, your edit would be removed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I am not proposing it as a reference for the article itself, just as a reference for the editor asking for a source (although finding it was a matter of googling "canadian anti-hate network" "miami", something the editor could have easily done himself). The only other place I see it written in is Infowars, which I imagine is also blacklisted. But neither of those sites is lying about this incident, you can go and look at the tweets yourself. Is it possible to bring such a fact into a Wikipedia article if no reliable source reports on it? 143.229.244.70 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's not how this works. There's a reason both Breitbart and Infowars have been blacklisted. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the logic behind blacklisting them on talk pages. I also don't know what one is supposed to do when one wants to include verifiably true statements in a Wiki article that are only covered in fringe sources. What is the proper course of action? 143.229.244.70 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If they're only covered in fringe sources then we should lean towards not including them, or including them only if we attribute to the source (e.g. "According to Fringe Nonsense Weekly, ..."). If it's only published in Breitbart then I would vote to omit: there are plenty of opinions here already and I don't see the value in adding another one from an American publisher that profits from spreading conspiracy theories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

But the opinion is not from Breitbart. There was an antisemitic flyer which was circulated on social media by various verified accounts and falsely labelled as being from the Freedom Convoy. It's not a conspiracy theory and it isn't fake, you can go and see the tweets yourself. But the only outlets which talk about it are fringe outlets. One can not cite fringe outlets and one is discouraged from directly citing the social media posts, so one is left with no way of adding that information to Wikipedia. Frankly I don't think this an important enough smear to warrant inclusion even if it were referenced in a reliable source, but it's frustrating that a policy (presumably) designed to weed out information is preventing this information from being included as well, even though it is verifiably accurate. 143.229.244.70 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In order to be verifiable, by Wikipedia's standards, any reader must be able to check and confirm that what is published on Wikipedia is supported by a reliable source. If there isn't one, it's not verifiable, and information about living persons must be verifiable before Wikipedia publishes it. If the only sources you have are Infowars and Breitbart, then it's frankly probably not true, or deliberately misreported, and certainly not adequately sourced for the BLP policy.

Anyway, for the sake of argument I did look up the article. Breitbart is claiming that the flyer was actually distributed in Miami, but replies to that post are pointing out that identical flyers have been distributed at multiple antivax rallies all over the continent, and while Farber admitted that the photo he posted was obviously the same as the photo supposedly taken in Miami, he had heard from others that they had seen the same flyer distributed in Ottawa during this event. The problem now with posting this on Wikipedia is that we cannot take either of these involved parties at their word, and there are no independent reliable sources reporting of any of this (that I can find, anyway). Therefore, we cannot include it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I still fail to understand the logic here. If the information is that a particular person made an unfounded accusation on social media, and anybody can go and see the unfounded accusation for themselves, how is that not 100% verifiable already? In this context, to link to these tweets seems to be supported by Rule 3 of Wikipedia's Primary Source policy. But if this is not acceptable, then the citations for Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Mark Meadows, and Donald Trump Jr should be removed, as well as Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn and Steve Scalise if Sean Hannity's website https://hannity.com would not ordinarily be considered a reliable source. Your reference to Farber's follow-up Twitter post is not actually a contradiction, because the claim is not that the CAHN falsely claimed there were antisemitic posters there, the claim is that a picture of a poster from Miami was falsely said to be taken at the Convoy protest. 98.113.141.82 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Trudeau sidebar

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

Yeah I'm for the removal. Sure Trudeau is involved? Yes. Is this the cornerstone of his Premiership as Prime Minister of Canada since 2015? Absolutely not. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed. If we need precedent, none of the other articles under "Major events" uses that template. (For posterity's sake, the box in question last appears on this edit.) -- Zanimum (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support removal. I don't see how he's more relevant to this than other political leaders or even law enforcement officials. – Anne drew 20:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, a sidebar about Conservatism in Canada showed up and I have removed it with similar rationale. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo

• What I think should be changed:

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

• Why it should be changed:

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

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

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

References

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

points needing clarification or expansion

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

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

February 12 changes to the lead to be reviewed

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

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

Fundraising

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

The Politico source cited calls them that:

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

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

remove Trumpism in Canada

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

No. See the "American influence" section for how this is relevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That section mentions Trump, the person. Trumpism, "the political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance, political movement, and set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping control of power associated with Donald Trump and his political base" is utterly irrelevant. These are truckers and other assorted Canadians. Nobody's trying to acquire or keep power, at least not American-style political power. Just wood, petroleum and regular civic people power, like 1960s America, demanding those already running the governments make specific changes to let them get back to their day jobs and business as usual. Clearly intended as a taint, now shown to also be a stretch. I removed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Canada Unity's goal was specifically to have the Governor-General dissolve government. When they gave up, another spokesman for the protest declared that he would lead the united opposition parties. See the second half of "Protest goals." I'm sure there's a percentage who only want the repeal of mandates, but they've done nothing to disassociate themselves from those who want authoritarian power. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion/insight/analysis is great and all, but none of what you said is likely to occur to someone seeing Trumpism in this See Also. If you can connect these loose dots, using reliable sources, explanation could make sense in the American influence section. Give it a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the only part of this article mentioning Canada Unity is in connection to an MoU. It was laughed off on the 3rd and withdrawn on the 8th. Even if your connection was based in reality, today is the 10th. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's some of the media coverage referencing Trumpism in the context of the convoy. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"although an infusion of Trumpism makes it hard to figure out what will happen this time." Macleans

"The loss of innocence is making Canadians into mini-Americans in the era of nativism, Trumpism and right-wing uprisings." Ottawa Citizen

"#FreedomConvoy2022 and Canada’s descent into Trumpism" NOW Toronto

"The destination is the ditch of Trumpism, our democratic institutions undercut by paranoid illiberalism." The Tyee

"Anti-vaxxer truck convoy signals insidious spread of Trumpism in Canada" National Observer

"Canada’s ‘freedom convoy’ exposes political missteps — and Donald Trump’s ominous legacy... The Canadian protesters seem to be emulating some of the behaviour of their U.S. counterparts" The Conversation

"So, this is a moment of real political consequence in Canada, and there are convoys planned throughout Europe. And this is the latest thing of global Trumpism." MSNBC

"Let the outliers into the big tent, and watch the Conservatives be excoriated in the media as Canada’s answer to Trumpism" The Washington Post

"Four-in-five (81%) instead believe Canada is just a susceptible to Trumpism as our southern neighbour." Angus Reid Polling

"The truckers’ convoy didn’t bring dreams to Ottawa. They brought Nazi banners, Confederate flags, anger, hatred and other relics of American Trumpism." The Minden Times

"If our Prime Minister wants to prevent this maple-tinged Trumpism from fully infecting our body politic" National Observer

"Like Trumpism and its attack on empirical evidence and the institution of science before it, the screams of misinformation grow ever louder from the darkness, unyielding and without fear of consequence." CHEK-TV

These are all opinion pieces. They could be used to attribute quotes to commentators in pertinent sections, per WP:YESPOV. But See Also is in Wikipedia's voice, and none of this supposed context is even referenced there, much less explained. Sloppy, misleading and inflammatory. Canadian topics don't need this. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The convoy is specifically mentioned as an example in Trumpism in Canada, also:

Days before a convoy of truckers was scheduled to arrive in Ottawa to allegedly protest the January 15, 2022 federal vaccine mandate for truckers, the National Observer reported that the convoy—riled by the misrepresentation of reality, "false information", and "fake controversies"—"key ingredients in the toxic stew of Trumpism", had reached a "dangerous new level". The article said that both Laura Ingraham from Fox News and Donald Trump Jr. had been referring to the Canadian truck convoy while "fanning the same flames" that contributed to the 2021 United States Capitol attack.

References

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's explained there, not just mentioned in blue, follow that example. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it has a footnote now. That's very unusual. But slightly more informative than before, cheers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a reference for a see-also is unusual, but better than before. The topic behind this article is still rapidly changing and updating, we'll do better on things like this once all of it is in the past. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This was my second edit, after decapitalizing "Canadian Adults", and I'm already feeling spent. American influence from the Antitrumpists is certainly strong here, too, exact same buzzwords and "arbitrarily shortened" selections from favoured columnists. I'll be back for my third contribution after something Trumpier distracts them for a week, at least, have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Had to come back early and burn my third on deleting a second identical link. "Sad!" Anyway, someone might want to doublecheck we don't ascribe any act by any one person to multiple people, asking for a foul-mouthed IP I saw "cancelled" here recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article Trumpism is clear this is not a strictly US philosophy and movement, and exists in Canada. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The protests are about stopping dumb mandates and restrictions, nothing more or less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:141A:F590:5B46:E677 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading up on it and it seems it can apply to virtually any human experience, from any angle, depending on who attempts to define it. As something that vague and abstract, sure, why not? But I still think it smacks of sexism, racism and stupidity when used by the pro-vax, mask and lockdown crowd against the anti, in both countries, and can see why those marginalized relative few so offended the most by the neologism might take it as a sweepingly broad and largely unwarranted insult from "The Man/System". Philosophy is difficult. That's my motto. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the person who wrote most of the Canadian version is the one writing most of this one lately. Hello, Oceanflynn! Bit off-topic, but while you're here, would you please consider describing your continual expansions as something more distinctive and less already obvious than "expanding"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ottawa Resident - Suggestions / Additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If anything even remotely this insulting, soapboxy and directionless came from someone living more in fear of the dystopian government agenda, it'd have been deleted in minutes. Welcome to Wikipedia! You could start by replying under the latest comment, indented by one more colon than prefaces it, and sign your posts by typing four tildes. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove the phrase attempted insurrection

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

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

The lead does not require citations, per MOS:CITELEAD. This language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources. It is an unfortunate fact that Wikipedia has a bit of a left-wing political tilt, but that is largely the fault of right-wing media playing fast and loose with the truth, meaning those sources can't be considered reliable. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So who is to decide that this language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources? Since there are no citations attached to that sentence, which reliable sources should I use to verify this claim at Wikipedia? I checked the edit that added "public" to the sentence, and neither there was any citation to this sentence before, nor was there afterwards. So let's say, had I edited to be have been considered an attempted insurrection by media, officials but not by the public, would you have defended the edit similarly? Because I would have provided no citation then, as is the case here. And I would have said, as you are saying, that this language accurately reflects usage in reliable sources. Also, this topic is current, complex and controversial, so going by MOS:CITELEAD too, there should have been citations to this claim. Secondly, this claim is not verified by the rest of the text, so you cannot even mention that the rest of the text which this claim is generalizing has enough citations. Basically, even going by MOS:CITELEAD that you cited, this claim should have been accompanied by citations. Otherwise, it is as controversial as saying that it is completely backed by the public and is not WP:NPOV Lastly, the left wing sources play fast and loose with the truth just as much as the right wing ones do, but thanks to the left wing bias amongst Wikipedia editors, they are largely blind to that observation. Anyway, that argument is for a different day. 49.205.129.210 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed this from the lede. The phrasing did not accurately reflect what little there is about this in the article, which describes these events as possible staging for an insurrection elsewhere, not that Ottawa is an insurrection. The only source we have which describes someone calling the Canadian protests an insurrection is quoting Diane Deans, Chair of the Ontario Police Services Board, not exactly a prominent commentator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing weasely about acknowledging that all of Canada doesn't use "occupation", either, your next rewording better be good. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-decent, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that “insurrection” isn’t quite the right word. It is not being used in RS, only among the most ardent Trudeau loyalists. Some of the

extreme elements of the convoy are calling it the “Canadian Revolution” or Arab Spring but we shouldn’t use that either.

Looking at a recent event in a Western democracy which is agreed upon to be an insurrection by almost all RS, the 2021 storming of the United States capitol, the differences are as clear as the eye can see. This Convoy is more like Occupy Wall Street in terms of tactics. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mhawk10 was the user who removed that sentence, would you like to share your opinion on the matter? Would you be open to adding "Resignation of Justin Trudeau" instead? >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If I understand the framing from the sources, "resignation" would not be an accurate reflection. The protesters (the ones who are getting attention for this anyway) want him to be removed by extralegal means, or by force. Some have called for replacing the entire structure of the Canadian government with an authority of their choosing (c.f. Accelerationism#Far-right accelerationist terrorism), though I don't see this in reliable sources. "Overthrow" is the word I see most commonly thrown around, not anything like "peaceful transition". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If “overthrow” is the word that is being used, then we can certainly use that. I still think that the goal of replacing Trudeau (which has apparently now spiraled into calls to change Canada’s government structure) is relevant enough for the infobox.TheAmericanWarlord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, my mistake, there is some writing in reliable sources on accelerationism in the Freedom Convoy:

• Panneton, Daniel (February 11, 2022). "The trucker convoy shows how Canadians are being sucked into larger conspiratorial narratives". The Globe and Mail.
• Sanders, Carol (February 8, 2022). "Symbol in snow sign of extremism, experts warn". Winnipeg Free Press.
• Marche, Stephen (February 12, 2022). "When the Rage Came for Me". The Atlantic.

I don't think there's anything to add to the article from these, it's too minor of a POV at this point, but worth keeping an eye on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The protesters certainly don’t like Trudeau, that’s for sure. The reason I removed it from the info box was because the general reporting on the goals of the protests was not that general opposition to Trudeau (qua Trudeau) was the goal, but that there were specific goals relating to the abolition of certain public health measures that sparked the protests. If there is substantial reporting that the stated goal of the protests was actually to get Trudeau to leave office, then it should of course be included in the infobox. The reporting just has to be more than covering marginal protesters and using that to describe the goals of the protests writ large. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I already cited 3 RS articles which noted opposition to Trudeau as a goal of the protesters. It doesn’t have to be their primary goal, but it is relevant to be mentioned in the infobox. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split, Canadian–United States border crossing blockades

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose (unless border blockades are still mentioned and covered in this article). I think they are not independent, unrelated protests; they are part of the same broader movement that is the Freedom Convoy as a whole, and they are both focused on the same goals: mainly ending vaccine mandates and health restrictions https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/11/americas/canada-covid-protests-outcome-explainer/index.html If the article ends up being too long, a second article could be created to expand on the information and details about the border blockades, but without failing to mention and cover them in the main Freedom Convoy article. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I believe the Freedom Convoy is one movement, and there is not sufficient coverage of any of the related protests to warrant their own article currently. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • For clarification, this is for all border protests/blockades collectively, not individually. There's 743 words, at least, on the border protests. I feel that the reason that there isn't further coverage in this article is simply that people haven't gone about adding more, because it's mainly about Ottawa and the route to it. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that the article should focus on the set of protests going on across Canada. This is generally how it’s being reported [14] [15] [16], so I think that the article should be collectively on the various protests. Some reporting makes reference to non-Canadian copycat demonstrations, which would be fine for its own section within the article, but I think that the article should cover the related set of protests going on right now. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Take the long view. These are manifestations of the same sentiment. They have more in common than differences. At least for now. --Cornellier (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

International protests

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

There is a separate article on the French freedom convoy already, although there isn't much information. If others get articles, we can probably add them to an "international protests" section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is already an "international protests" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Convoy_2022#International_protests , which is lacking info at the moment. I don't think "getting an article" should be a prerequisite for mentioning something, especially if the protests are well documented and referenced (and they are, as there are about 20 references in the Spanish version of that section). It doesn't have to be long, just a mention and short description of the protests happening in other countries. That's the purpose of this section after all. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't mean to say they should only be listed here if they have separate articles. They should have significant coverage, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Terry Fox and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

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

There are several reliable sources backing up these claims, for example [17][18][19] >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 16:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We describe things as reliable sources describe them. We are not allowed to add our own interpretation of the events, per WP:OR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The current version is synthesis. Someone here has mixed the reported defacing of the Fox statue with the recorded drinking and dancing on the tomb and memorial, inventing a sighting of multiple people doing the first part and the same people defacing what was never even dressed or decorated. It's triple bullshit, and enough is enough, I'm fixing most. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You say we describe things as reliable sources describe them, but when I do exactly that, you revert me and call me a weasel, again. Pointless to try. Later! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a weasel, you know better than that. Everything that we write is based on a report; adding "reportedly" just serves to give the impression that what is "reported" is debatable or may not be true or accurate, as it says in the manual of style on words to watch (the "weasel words" subsection, which is what you've been around long enough to know I was referring to, rather than personally attacking you). Adding phrases like "some sources say" serves a similar purpose, but as I think I explained in my edit summary where I restored the wording of your edit (but in a different order, as I understand active voice is preferred but the guideline on it seems to have been deleted) there isn't really a better way to describe a point of view that varies between sources. (WP:WEASEL also covers that).

To everyone else: there is no need to rush to make everything perfect in this article about a widespread political event that is ongoing. Remove things that are demonstrably wrong or that fail the WP:BLP policy, but otherwise, basically everything we've written here is going to change or end up being better presented some other way, that we can't predict in the middle of it. Much of the article so far has been written with a "see what sticks" approach, resulting in duplicated information appearing in different sections (even sometimes in the same section), and some things not given the proper weight or omitted entirely. Please continue to raise these points on the talk page as you find them, but there is no need to start fights about any of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I know you're not calling me an actual weasel. But you did suggest I intended the words you reverted as weasel words. I simply used the word sources use. I can't attribute it to specific media, like you attribute "siege" to Doug Ford, because leads are brief summaries. So "reportedly", as in according to one or more reporters, the statue was "defaced". Even if one does take it to mean the term is debatable and/or untrue, so what? You've seen the multiple debates about its accuracy here, same as I have, same as everyone. Anyway, don't take my inedibility as "hostility" or other fighting words, I appreciate how twisted these things get; hate the game, not the players! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, there was no suggestion that you intended them as weasel words. It's just that on Wikipedia, words like "reportedly" are called weasel words. That's all. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

February 13 lead reflecting evolving situation

The first sentence currently reads :

• Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades 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."

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

• Day 17, February 13:
  • The Ottawa Citizen: "The “Freedom Convoy” that converged in Ottawa on Jan. 28 began in response to the federal government’s move to require Canadian truck drivers crossing the U.S. border be fully vaccinated to avoid testing and quarantine requirements, but has evolved into a protest of all public health measures aimed at fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizers say they will not end their protest until all measures are dropped."

• • The Globe and Mail: "Protests against COVID-19 restrictions had continued across the country this weekend and several Canada-U.S. border crossings remained closed due to blockades set up by demonstrators demanding that all pandemic measures be lifted immediately. Police said on Sunday they have arrested more protesters opposing COVID-19 restrictions and blocking the key trade at the Ambassador Bridge that links Windsor, Ont., and Detroit, more than 24 hours after authorities moved in to impose a court order."

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

Would something like "Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions." be acceptable? It seems like the protest has become more than just protesting requirements for entering the country. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 16:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine; or how about adjusting your wording to clarify that it's only covid-related public health restrictions, not just any and all public health restrictions. How about "...against vaccine mandates and other COVID-19-related public health restrictions" or "...against vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions related to COVID-19" or "...against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions" or "...against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other covid-related public health restrictions". But your wording is also an improvement to the current wording, as it is. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I like "against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions" best, it's shorter and to the point.

So, is everyone in favour of this wording? "Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la Liberté) is a series of ongoing protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions." >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I support it, it is concise, accurate and a better description of the aim of the protests in general.--CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the change, however I think the lead should explain that the convoy started as a protest against the vaccine requirement for cross-border truckers specifically, and (quickly/eventually) (evolved/expanded/was co-opted) into a broad protest against all COVID-19 measures. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make those changes. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Possible Major players section as of February 13

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

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

References

Clarify this

Clarify this for me. Why are there multiple casualties sections on top? It seems unnecessary and repetitive. Lmharding (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: what do you mean by "casualties sections"? AFAIK there haven't been any casualties from the protests. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Do you mean in the coding of the infobox, casualties1 to casualties4? Looking at Template:Infobox civil conflict, it seems they're for dead, wounded, missing, and arrested. Ultimately, it's hidden code. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. Maybe they should be renamed for clarity? Lmharding (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's hidden code - unless you're looking at the source - it is listed as "Arrests and Damages" on the page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I deleted it and nothing broke. Is that OK? Should I delete injuries and fatalities, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They're just unused parameters since this infobox covers events both peaceful and violent. Removing them will maybe discourage some vandalism though. Injuries may pop up though now that the batons are coming out. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Another scope question

Now that there are offshoots (some more notable than others), should the infobox reflect stats from different locations? For example, Arrests: 28 (Ottawa), 25-30 (Windsor) etc.

I noticed economic figures have now been culminated in the infobox as well. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Canada only has one criminal code (the Criminal Code of Canada), so arrests and potential penalties are likewise similar. Not like America. If any are under the newfangled Ontario emergency orders, maybe specify those. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I see you're quite familiar with Canada, being a Canadian, sorry for explaining! But still. Any reasons to split them? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason being the scope of this article was originally considered focused on the Ottawa protest(s) with others as offshoots. Now it's considered one kind of singular movement. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A singular movement should share the same stats, by my logic, not different. If splinter factions start up, you might have something there. But let's hear the third opinion, shall we? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is why I asked the masses lol. The scope of the article has obviously changed fairly rapidly. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also an arrest made in Windsor seems a far cry away from one made in Ottawa 8 hours drive away... CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Same OPP and RCMP helping out in both cities, though, so who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting just totals in the infobox and expanding into details about who was arrested where and when into the article body. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Where the arrests occurred is significant information. An arrest in Windsor is likely related to the international bridge closure; an arrest in Ottawa would almost certainly be for other reasons. So it's useful to the reader to provide that information, not clump them all up into one number. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes thanks Coppertwig That's the point I was trying to make. I've put totals in the infobox with footnotes is that a good way of doing it? CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's significant information, but there's only so much space in the infobox. A footnote is okay, or I've seen some infoboxes link directly to an expanded section in the article like a "see also" or "click for details" sort of link. I'll see if I can remember an example. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I've done what I could for now - feel free to change it/make it present better! :) CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) September 11 attacks has links like that in the infobox (see "Perpetrators") although those are links to other articles. World War II uses "further details" links under casualties, linking to a separate article again. Korean War uses "show" links in the infobox extensively, that might be a better model here. Just spitballing options, footnotes really do the job fine too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Dispersal versus suppression

There is no basis for dispersing a peaceful demonstration. Activities which are illegal or damaging such as blocking critical infrastructure can be suppressed, which is an appropriate term for their dispersal. I'm not sure how that would apply to the Ottawa demonstration; it it were not so large and disruptive it would simply be a legal political demonstration and there would be no excuse for interfering with it. But it is an occupation of public space which prevents normal activities from being conducted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been said crowds are suppresed, but largely disperse themselves. I could make it seem like consensual orderly fashion here, too. But I'm not entirely sure you want that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "clearance" is clearer. Only clearing those protestors clearly blocking the way, after all, not sidewalk sign sorts. Of course, Security#Clearance could mean something this is not; "clearing" is less ambiguous, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How about "Clearing the protests"/"Clearing the blockades", or something of that sort? The one-word header "Clearance", placed as it is directly below the criticism of police section, I think could be easily confused for the security meaning of "clearance", as you said, as though the section describes protesters being granted access to higher security areas by the police. The cordoned-off area in downtown Ottawa could be considered such an area, and there have been allegations that police have been letting new protesters enter despite their own roadblocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They are shorthanded, and, frankly, get 4,000 people mad and they might do some truly destructive things User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I know, they have a point and I'm not here to debate it, I'm just saying that this section title could be misconstrued as describing the police giving protesters clearance to pass their checkpoints. The text in the section will set that straight, of course, but it looks odd in the TOC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, plain old "Clearing" is the best form of something like that. Nobody'll be confused about who's clearing what in this context, if they remain moderately reasonable, even "security clearing" juxtaposed evokes a quiet sense of suppressed dispersal. Beyond that, by my understanding of the new War Measures Act, it is now my official patriotic duty to denounce all former ties to Grammar National Sociality as "unacceptable", stop impeding the free flow of corporate public broadcasting through civil discourse and (as they say in the pro wrestling business) "go home". Good luck in the wars of words to come. Hulk loves you all, Wikipedia, good night! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Size Estimates

Since this is protected page requesting to update police size estimates counts which are severely under reported. Ottawa police have stated multiple times on social media and YouTube there are 418 "hardcore" trucks who have not moved since Day 1. Many have removed tires from their rigs and bled the air brakes making removal far more difficult. In addition to the hardcore protestors there are a number of weekenders who come and go so protestors swell and ebb. Here is a source in writing but multiple audio clips exist as well. Dated Feb 8 2022Kav2001c (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

Yes, the estimates do need to be updated. There has been discussion on this page (it might have gone to archive already) about the inaccurate guesses, wild estimations, and purposefully inflated numbers from the organizers and protesters, which made it hard to agree on a proper estimate to put in the article. I think the situation is more clear and stable now and it would be worth revisiting. A problem I think is going to be that this is several connected protests which have all attracted different numbers of people, and each has grown and shrunk over time. We may just have to spell all of this out in narrative and then figure out what to put in the infobox from there. It's a good suggestion but it's not a simple edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The infobox itself lists 121-231 trucks though which is far smaller than the actual protest ever was. Their source for said total is an OPP report from a Kingston twitter account, who counted trucks en route, from a single western destination. Kingston ON is hours away from actual protest site and taking their total as accurate ignores official Ottawa Police service counts and estimates. It was never that small. 418 is the number of big trucks being listed in every news story. Here is a second reliable sourceKav2001c (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

References

emergency act

CBC reported that the prime minister will speak at 4:30 and is expected to be invoking the Emergencies Act, which replaces the War Measures Act. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked since it was passed 34 (?) years ago. CBC reported earlier today that a truck containing 2000 (?) guns had gone missing in Peterborough. No connection with convoy protests was mentioned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the caucus meeting today and anticipated announcement earlier today, in the Ottawa section because I didn't think there was a better logical place to put it. The expected announcement has evidently not been made yet, so I removed that from the lede. I also heard about the truck theft in Peterborough but reliable sources haven't made any connection to the protests, so there's no reason (yet?) to add that here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They've just officially announced that the Emergencies Act has been invoked. (link) >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 22:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The following ref by itself is probably not enough to justify adding mention of the truckload of guns to the article, but here it is anyway: Sorry I'm not 100% sure of the exact wording after "track of". It was a news story about the missing truck, and very briefly mentioned the convoy protest. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Section on Criticism of the Ottawa Police

This section only gives voice to people who say that the Ottawa police was too soft on the protestors, while many organizations (such as this one) and people (including myself and most people I know), feel that the Ottawa police was much too hard on the protestors and contend that they violated the constitutional rights of the protestors by confiscating fuel, lumber, and other personal property. 170.52.93.58 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We need press coverage in a reliable source, though. I can find JCCF taking legal action against Seneca College, filing a lawsuit over the vaccine mandate for air travel, setting up a legal hotline for truckers, commenting on the combination of trials for churches with Charter challenges, but absolutely nothing about the topic you're addressing. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

To note, even if you do find press coverage (as opposed to just a press release, social media coverage, etc.), that's enough for one of us to consider the request, but not a guarantee the statement would be added. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed or removal of "the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government"

The article contains the following section:

"If this failed, the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government, and name members of the CU to form a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC), which is beyond the constitutional powers of either the Governor General or the Senate"

If this is the same MoU as mentioned in citation 61: , reading that document, it indeed calls for the forming of a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC). However, at least the English text does not appear to mention the purpose and powers of that Committee, nor does the document appear have any mention of dissolving the government.

Is this based on a different version of the MoU? If so, a citation to that version is needed.

If not, this section is simply false. The CU or their leader might very well call for or want the dissolution of government, I'm not familiar with the guy, but the MoU does not appear to call for such. Wild dog94 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't look very extensively because I'm short on time today, but it's my recollection that various media outlets interpreted the MoU as calling for the dissolution of government, and we go by what reliable sources interpret rather than forming our own conclusions from source documents. From the Washington Post: "One of the main organizers, Canada Unity, said that it planned to submit a “memorandum of understanding” to the Senate and governor general, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, to compel them to drop the public health measures or dissolve the government, which is beyond their constitutional powers." (emphasis added) If the organizers are now saying that was never part of their proposal, we need a reliable source to say so, and then we'll have to figure out how to handle the change in the story. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)'

In that case, I'd suggest a citation to and/or quote from such a source. Currently, it reads as a conclusiory statement about the content of the MoU in Wikipedia's voice, which I don't think is appropriate. Also, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY policy 3 (A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.(Emphasis in original)) I'd suggest to add a sentence along the lines of "Though the MoU lacks language discussing dissolution of government.", which is a true statement of fact that can be verified. I'd expand on my understanding of the MoU, but that would I believe constitute original research. Wild dog94 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The c. 6 page-long Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPSA) Memorandum of Understanding has been mentioned frequently in the mainstream media. Previously, on this talk page another editor wrote, “And then Canada Unity, another of the organizers, posted a ludicrous Memorandum of Understanding/Manifesto on its website, which it plans to present to the Governor General of Canada. It essentially calls for the resignation of everyone within the federal government, the formation of a new government comprised of the Governor General, Senate, and members of Canada Unity, and the removal of all Covid-related measures – even those put into place at the provincial level. The trucks will remain until the document is signed, organizers said, dubbing its mission Bearhug.“Oceanflynn (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In other words, “Operation Bear Hug Ottawa” will only end when the Governor General and Senate (SCGGC)—an acronym invented by CU—dissolves the power of the democratically elected officials, share their newly acquired power with Canada United to create a Citizens of Canada Committee (CCC) from names put forward by Canada Unity.

The Pseudolegal language is convoluted but these are the sections from the December 3, 2021 MoU sent to the SCGGC on December 13 and posted on the CU website, and archived on December 21. Internet Archive document that mention that:

• • ARTICLE 3. MANDATE
    • a. CU & SCGGC agree to form a committee, called the Citizens of Canada Committee (CCC).
    • b. SCGGC undertakes and appoints authorized (CCC) representatives.
    • c. CU undertakes and appoints authorized (CCC) representatives.
    • h. Further, SCGGC will effective as of midnight on this ___, day of ___________, 2021, issue a cease-and-desist order to the respected Honorable Members of the Government of Canada with the consequent instructions to further instruct the Premiers of the Provinces and Territories, the Mayors of the respected Municipalities and, the respected Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal Medical Officers to stop all such unlawful activities pursuant to ARTICLE 3.

MANDATE section d. of this “Memorandum.”

• • • j. By signing this "Memorandum", CU will immediately stop “Operation Bear Hug Ottawa”, demonstration / convoy and Federal Referendum activities and will strive to work with all groups and entities et al to bring this country together in unity.
    • k. CU & SCGGC agree to have the CCC committee formed within 10 days of acceptance and signing of this "Memorandum".
    • l. CU & SCGGC agree to have a final "signed" and publicly released agreement in place within "no later than 90 days" of acceptance and signing of this "Memorandum".

It would be described as overturn, take over, etc but it all amounts to the same thing—replacing our democratic elected representatives with a fringe group of conspiracy theorists. This was signed by the founder of Canada Unity, James Bauder, who has been frequently mentioned in main stream media as well. In their February 10 article on the convoy's major players, Bauder is described as "the founder of Canada Unity, one of the groups responsible for the initial organization of the convoy to Ottawa. Ahead of the convoy’s arrival in the capital, Canada Unity directed a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) to the Senate and the Governor General, demanding an end to vaccine mandates and the reinstatement of those who lost jobs over COVID-19 vaccinations, or else “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately” (sic). Bauder said in a video posted to social media in January that he hoped the MOU would provide a “referendum” to persuade Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not within the agency’s constitutional powers. As of Feb. 8, Canada Unity had pulled the MOU from their website, writing in a statement signed by Bauder that it had led to “unintended interpretations,” and a message on the homepage also tells visitors the website has moved. Neither explanation nor a link to a new website were provided."

None of the sections of the MoU you've cited constitute replacement of officials. It proposes the forming of a new committee, which would handle the lifting of the mandates, essentially acceding to the demands of protestors. In exchange for which the protesters would stop the protest. I'm not disputing that James Bauder personally would want a lot more, including re-elections and/or resignation of officials. I'm not disputing he uses Pseudolegal and convoluted language. I'm not even disputing he personally is a crackpot. But the contents of the MoU do not express a dissolution or replacement of government. Wild dog94 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the paragraph. I suggest we edit it here collaboratively. While I disagree with your statement that the MoU contents "do not express a dissolution or replacement of government," that is my personal interpretation which is of zero importance to Wikipedia. The paragraph can always be improved with more direct references to the references below and others. There may already be even better mainstream media RS on the MoU now that were not available when this was written:Oceanflynn (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made some proposed changes to the paragraph. It might be a bit nit picking, but the previous version was a description of the MoU that was worded in a way that does not reflect the actual content. I completely understand how it happened in this case, James Bauder himself and the CU has described the MoU as doing basically that: force the mandates to be rescinded on pain of resignation. But the articles in the MoU just don't bear that out. Dissolution of government does not appear anywhere in the MoU. The closest I found is a statement in the separate introduction that "The Senate of Canada and the Governor General, combined referred to as the Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately". But requirements of such a resignation does not occur in the articles themselves. It mostly seems to be more blustering by the CU. I've omitted a description of the appointment of the CCC. Our reading of the appointment and function of that committee would probably constitute original research, and the articles I've seen so far don't seem to mention it. If there are any articles going more in depth on that, I'd happily add it. And I've restricted the description of the MoU contents lacking the possibility of dissolution to an as accurate and factual description as I can, pursuant to WP:PRIMARY policy 3 on when and how primary sources can be cited/described.Wild dog94 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"One of the main organizers behind the convoy, Canada Unity (CU), acknowledged that they had planned to submit their signed "memorandum of understanding" (MoU) to the Senate of Canada and Governor General Mary Simon, described in the MoU as the "SCGGC". The MoU which was signed by James and Sandra Bauder and Martin Brodmann, was posted on the Canada Unity website in mid-December 2021 and publicly available until its February 8 retraction. Bauder, whose name is at the top of a CTV News' list of "major players" in the convoy, is the founder of Canada Unity. CTV cited Bauder saying that he hoped the signed MoU would convince Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not constitutionally possible. In this pseudolegal document, CU called on the "SCGGC" to cease all vaccine mandates, reemploy all employees terminated due to vaccination status, and rescind all fines imposed for non-compliance with public health orders. The MoU was described as forcing the government to either rescind the public health mandates or resign if this failed. However, the articles in the MoU itself did not include language discussing dissolution of government, resignation of government officials, or holding new elections.. The original MoU contained no specific mention of cross-border truckers as it had originally been drafted and delivered over a month earlier, but then was reissued for the protest. By February 8, there were 320,089 of the 1,000,000 signatures on the MoU Canada Unity had hoped for. A February 8 article in The Guardian, on how the convoy was the result of an "unrivaled coordination" between QAnon, conspiracy theorists, anti-vax, anti-government organizations", including Bauder's vow that the protesters would remain until all their demands were met. Organizers felt a groundswell of fresh support for the MoU could trigger a new federal election, and investigations into Prime Minister Trudeau. When questioned in a February 3 Power & Politics interview by a CBC reporter, on whether he would negotiate with the core organizers knowing purpose as stated in the MoU, Conservative MP Kevin Waugh dismissed the MoU as "nonsense" saying the organizers are "frustrated like many Canadians in this country".

References

Peter Sloly resigns

Ottawa chief of police is resigning, according to CBC news. Will be announced shortly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)