Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Protesters demands include to "overthrow the government"

As the mainstream media narrative summarizes events, eventually the lead and other related sections can reflect the more complex goals of the protesters. I will add other related references here. Again, thanks to editors for keeping up with a fast-paced story as RSs provide content.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• January 28 "For example, some people claiming to be affiliated with the convoy have discussed online overthrowing the government and going after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other MPs. One person said that “the only way that this is going to be solved is with bullets,” and it has been suggested that the event on the Hill could turn into Canada’s version of the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol."

• January 28 "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].

• January 31 Omar Alghabra: "The manifesto of the organizers of this protest, calls for the overthrow of an elected government...We do not accept, irrational, extreme points if view that are not going to help our society move forward".

• "February 15" "Protesters' motives for joining the protests vary. Some have been peacefully voicing their concerns about pandemic measures, while others have been calling for the government's overthrow if mandates aren't repealed."

• February 14 "The protesters initially demanded an end to trucker mandates, then escalated demands for an end to all restrictions and the defeat of the government itself."

• February 16 "The protests have become a rallying point for anti-government and anti-authority, anti-vaccination, conspiracy theory and white supremacist groups throughout Canada and other Western countries. The protesters have varying ideological grievances, with demands ranging from an end to all public health restrictions to the overthrow of the elected government."

• February 16 “What is driving this movement is a very small, organized group that is driven by an ideology to overthrow the government,” Marco Mendicino, the public safety minister, said in remarks on Tuesday. “Through whatever means they may wish to use.”

• February 16 "Federal Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino accused extremist groups of helping organize protests in Ottawa and at U.S. border crossings and repeated suggestions that some actors wanted to overthrow the Liberal government."

References

Bare URLs

I've noticed the last two years CBC links especially cannot be processed by RefLinks - if anyone's able to find the cbc articles to convert from bare URLs that'd be awesome. I'll try later if not done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it really sucks. A lot of Canada-related topics use CBC as a source, and it's annoying to have to make the refs manually. I don't know if there's any way to automatically fill in the links, but hopefully someone can make a solution to that soon. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 00:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Formatting a reference isn't hard, and I wish editors would stop using the auto-ref tools that don't name the refs properly and don't respect the article's date format. I will have a look for the bare URL refs and see what I can do. Bare URLs are better than nothing, of course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

^^^THIS!!! :0 is not and never will be a proper reference name. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove the word "insurrection"

"There is growing evidence that much of the funding and planning behind the protest originated in the United States, leading to speculation that it may be a "dry run" or an attempt to generate momentum for an insurrection within the United States"

The word "insurrection" should be entirely removed from this article. There is nothing about this protest that would make it an insurrection. This is a peaceful protest, and the use of the word "insurrection" implies a violent upheaval, of which this is not. The word is misleading. Ucxb (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that only the cited opinion piece calls it a dry run for an American uprising:

With all this in mind, this exercise has the hallmarks of an op, complete with the potential for wire fraud and money laundering, and possibly a dry run for an American uprising.

I agree that sentence should be removed or at least attributed to the National Observer columnist. – Anne drew 01:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The following sources also use the word "insurrection": [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

None of these sources would allow us to call it an insurrection in wikivoice. Fox News is unreliable for politics, while the WaPo piece is WP:RSOPINION and the remaining three sources attribute that language to officials. The characterization can be attributed to officials and/or the WaPo editorial board. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• At present, the word "insurrection" appears in the article twice, both times under the "American influence" section. One of those instances is attributed in text to Mark Carney and is a direct quote, and I think that's fine. The other is cited to a CBC article which describes American conservatives clamouring for a convoy of their own but does not use the word insurrection, and the National Observer article which is written like a hit piece and also doesn't use the word "insurrection" (but does use "uprising", as noted). I'm going to reword this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022 (2)

Add the following image to the Emergencies Act invocation section:

[[File:Declaration of emergency under the Emergencies Act in regards to the 2022 Canada convoy protest, Canada Gazette.png|thumb|right|The first page of the declaration of emergency published in the Canada Gazette on February 15, 2022]]

GKarastergios (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this image meets WP:NFCC#8, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This is an image of the first page of a legal document, which conveys no significant information that we haven't already described in the article text. Furthermore, images of text fail MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:TEXTASIMAGES). If we think it's crucial to enable readers to find the text of the declaration, we can provide an external link to it. I would like to hear what others think. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The goal of the image is to provide a visual artifact of the Act being invoked, such as the images used in the Executive Order 13769 article. However, I understand that the images in the example article I gave are under public domain whereas this one is copyrighted, so the rules are different. Ultimately, whether the image should be added is up to the more senior editors and I won't dispute their decision. If it's decided that the image should not be added, I'll look at having it be repurposed for the Emergencies Act article if possible. GKarastergios (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@GKarastergios: quite a bit has been expanded in the Emergencies Act article about this declaration, the image might fit the NFCC criteria better for that article. I agree it's odd that Canadian government documents are not considered free use. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Far-right commentators"

"Politico reported that American far-right commentators Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro were among those directing support to the Canadian movement's crowdfunding websites."

Although this is attributed, neither of these people are described as far-right on their individual pages or by a majority of reliable sources. I think the characterisation should be removed or at least rephrased to make it clear that this is not Wiki voice (for example, "American commentators Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro, who it describes as far-right") as this is a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issue. TWM03 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The source describes them as far-right commentators, so we describe them as far-right commentators, and other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but Politico is not an impartial source, maybe something like NPR would be easier. That's like citing FOX News or CNN as a source. There is a clear bias. Multiple sources should be used. WeezerWeezerIHadASeizure (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As it happens, MBFC rates Politico and NPR pretty much the same for slight liberal bias: NPR, Politico. I agree that we should use other sources though, and I'm particularly interested in how non-US sources describe these two, since US media has a tendency to dichotomize, and describes everyone right-of-centre as "conservative", no matter how extreme their particular brand of conservatism. (And everyone left-of-centre as "liberal", at the same time). Coincidentally MBFC rates CNN much further to the left; I always thought of them as biased to the right, but I also don't watch cable news (don't have cable).

Also, if you'd like editors to consider other sources, feel free to bring them. A bare URL link is perfectly fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

My question is as much about Wikipedia protocol not just this sentence. It is my understanding that it is not the role of individual Wikipedia editors to decide if a reliable resource is either left or right leaning, or has other biases. The media can and does have biases, with some journalists in an outlet being on opposite sides of an issue. This does not mean they are unreliable. Wikipedia editors cite what the media says as clearly as possible. Other RS can be used to ensure NPOV, but deciding what to use or not cannot be based on how American or any other media analysts situate a mass media outlet. I think at this time, The Economist, for example, one of the most accurate sources for fact-checking etc, is considered to be left-leaning by some analyses.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I keep referring to MBFC's bias ratings basically to check my own bias, based on what I think can be fairly considered to be an objective source. I think that most of the sources we regularly use (not just on this article but on Wikipedia in general) tend to fall in the "centre-left" to "centre-right" spectrum, and those that don't often have caveats that they can't be trusted for objective reporting on certain things. If we're not sure or can't agree then there's the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside opinions, and also a list of perennial sources which lists sources that are frequently discussed. At RSP you will see a summarized consensus of the source's reliability: some are considered generally reliable, some are only authoritative for certain fields, on some there's no consensus and things to watch, and there are a number of sources where it's recommended that they should not be used unless they're backed up by another more reliable source. And then there are the sites like Infowars which are so unreliable that editors are technically prohibited from posting links to them.

In general, NPOV can be assured by using a variety of sources, which can be expected to have slightly different points of view on a subject. When they roughly agree then we can take the published information as fact, and when they don't then we can use in-text attribution (i.e. "CBC says x but CTV says y"), depending on the balance of those viewpoints. In my experience, reliable sources will generally agree on the basic facts of things, even if they spin those facts in somewhat different ways. If we use a variety of high-quality reliable sources we'll get to NPOV (or probably as close as possible), whereas if articles rely largely on a single source, then their POV is suspect. This article has almost 500 sources cited already, I think it's safe to say we're doing okay on variety of sources.

Another thing to consider is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS: basically that Wikipedia editors tend to be white, male, middle-aged, technically literate, and from Western countries. That's a much more academic discussion that's been a thing for many years, with no real solution that we can implement here. I invite you to read up on it if you want, it's a deep dive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

The article says the emergencies act is being used for the first time in Canadian history. This statement is untrue. The emergencies act was created 34 years ago to replace the war measures act which was used several times by the government. The statement should read 'for the first time since it's inception 34 years prior.' 2607:FEA8:C3E0:62F0:681A:6377:A3C:110 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Emergencies Act is an entirely new statute. It has never been used before. This is pretty clearly documented. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this is the first time the act has been used -- it's not the same thing as the War Measures Act. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Hello, I have noticed that for the injuries there is no source listed on the table. I believe this should be added with at least 2 sources beacause it would increase believability and simplicity to find the sources and the reliable information found within it. WeezerWeezerIHadASeizure (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good point. yo|CaffeinAddict}} I think you had a hand in adding these numbers in the infobox and updating the explanatory note, can we also add references to the efn? If you need help with nesting refs in a footnote, let me know. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WeezerWeezerIHadASeizure Ivanvector - on it! CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! For the Windsor source, I had removed it from the article a while ago because it's a report of an incident that happened near the blockade, but didn't seem to be directly caused by it. It just seems to be a collision that occurred nearby. Can we call this an injury from the protest? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a good question - my understanding of it was it was one of the protester's kids, let me dig into that. If unconfirmed, will remove. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector based on the other info I read: [6], [7] the news seems to imply that the hit and run was in and around the protest area but does not make a direct link to it, so I removed it due to an indirect link. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's for the best, it seems like none of the sources covering it are linking it to the protest. I did see another article where the driver was arrested, but that didn't mention the protest at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2022 (2)

Add "On January 17 the CCLA announced it was suing the federal government over the Act's invocation, stating that the Emergencies Act must be reserved for national emergencies, which they argued was a "legal standard that has not been met."" at the end of the paragraph about the CCLA in the "Emergencies Act invocation" section. Endwise (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This should be added, but I think we can find another source. CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is currently a popular news story: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/legal-challenge-against-emergencies-act-planned-by-constitutional-rights-group https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ccla-lawsuit-emergencies-act-1.6355846 Endwise (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Sub-section breaks added to Security

Hi all: as of a few minutes ago, Security began with 1700+ words of prose, before breaking into sub-sections of Investigations, Criticism of Ottawa Police, and Clearance.

I've broken that first portion into two sub-sections "3.1: Under Chief Peter Sloly", and "3.2: Under Interim Chief Steve Bell."

I've also tried to start breaking the account of today's action down into smaller paragraphs, beginning with morning and afternoon. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization

No idea how to properly contribute to wiki but the lack of capitalization on the "convoy" and "protest" seems off. As a major event with international ties, should the first letter of the words be upper case? If I'm wrong please delete this or let me know wikis rules around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:7882:7800:9C52:50D8:C651:53FF (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has conventions for capitalization. They do not include using capital letters to convey importance.--~TPW 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove "fringe"

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

I'm not seeing this first sentence, but if it did describe the protest as fringe, then that was the correct wording. Reliable sources called the protesters a fringe minority, and evidence backs it up. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fun fact, you can find a sign saying "We the Fringe" at the protest. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fun Fact 2, they even have a theme song, called "We The Fringe" by Godina. The term "fringe" was originally put forth by Justin Trudeau as a way to marginalize the protest. It is no longer even close to being a fringe protest, as according to reliable sources the fringe protest is actually polling higher than the Liberal party of Canada at this time.Kav2001c (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

The literal title of that link is "Large majority in Ottawa oppose Freedom Convoy and think their point has been made and it’s time to leave" (87% according to the post), and the post also indicates that most don't support the convoy (67% opposed or strongly opposed vs. 22% support or strongly support); most support keeping public health restrictions (67%), and most don't support the call to remove all restrictions (66% opposed or strongly opposed). Among the things it doesn't say is anything about the Liberal Party's polling. Please don't misrepresent sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Cross reference original link with Party Poll here. It is true most people do not support Freedom Convoy but most people also do not support Liberal Party of Canada. Original assertion stands.Kav2001c (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

Your assertion is synthesis and cannot be used. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's about making up content, not deciding what to relay and how. We definitely can't use Kav's assertion in the article. But there's no rule against considering it as a reason to omit something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Suggestion about wording

"On February 14, for the first time in Canadian history, the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the protests." could be reworded as "On February 14 the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the protests, for the first time since the act was passed in 1988." Currently the wording may imply that Canada has never had a national emergency announced before, which is not the case as previous national emergencies were declared by different acts. 91.108.0.244 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Before making suggested changes, could we ensure that main stream media reliable sources are saying exactly and clearly what the requested change is sayin.. I have only read it so far in the NYT, and they have made some inaccurate descriptions of the demonstration. I have been mainly reading, "the first time". Could you list them here please? Especially coming from an IP address of someone who may just be starting to follow the story.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm also wary of the "first time in history" wording that many of the sources have been using. Yes it's the first time that the Emergencies Act has been invoked, but not at all the first time a national emergency has been declared (it's the 4th or 5th, I'm not sure). We need to be careful to describe this accurately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Three times (1914, 1939, 1970), and yes, I agree, "first" can be deceptive to readers. I'm not sure if the "since the act was passed in 1988" part had been added by the time this thread started? That blunts the wording a bit. I've just added a linked note, that "The Emergencies Act repealed the War Measures Act, which was passed in 1914. The reformed law was designed was to provide more civil right protections and less likelihood for abuse of power than the War Measures Act." -- Zanimum (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically, the Italians were rounded up in 1940, separately from the Japanese in 1942. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline vs Security

Most day-by-day updates regarding Ottawa have been added into the Timeline of protests > Ottawa section. None of today's updates are there.

Those updates are split between Security > Under Interim Chief Steve Bell (originally a 1700 word intro to Security), but also Security > Clearance.

What is the appropriate location for coverage of today's progress? Where should everything be merged to? Can we at least get it down to two locations? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the “security” section should be a broad overview of the way security is being handled at the Convoy. Specific incidents should be in the timeline section. However, the article is built substantially differently, and I think both a strong consensus and answers to current related edit-requests are required before we rearrange things. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with AmericanWarlord. There are parts of the article that read more like a timeline than an actual article, but I think it'll be easier to sort out once it's all over.

CplKlinger (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Waiting until it's over means that different users contribute to different parts of the article. It unnecessarily doubles up work, as people are oblivious to what each other are doing. My question remains, which part of the article should be contribute to? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Zanimum I just added this content. I am not sure in which sections it belongsOceanflynn (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC) "By February 19, at least 76 bank accounts linked to the protests totalling CA$3.2m were frozen under the Emergencies Act.

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

Following the last sentence in the clearance section, add “Videos released to Twitter showed a police horse trampling two people while the police attempted to clear the protesters. As protesters moved to help the people who were trampled, police used batons to push the crowd back. The crowd then proceeded to push back against the officers. The Ottawa Police later denied the incident occurred, say that no one was trampled and one person fell.” sourced to this Newsweek article: https://www.newsweek.com/video-appears-show-police-horses-trampling-canadian-trucker-protesters-1680847

Feel free to make minor changes if you like before adding it. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek is considered an unreliable source and no trustworthy news organizations have reported on this as of now. The sole exception is an AP report which mentions that some protesters shouted "you are trampling us", but it does not confirm whether they were being truthful or not. Nor does it contain any of the other information you have requested to be added. If you see another source reporting on this, please first check to see if the source is on this list. If it is, then please use your judgement about whether it is acceptable here. Generally, when it comes to something being included as fact and not just a "he said/she said" claim, then the source should be considered generally reliable.

Thank you for contributing :)

CplKlinger (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per CplKlinger. Please provide a reliable source and then reopen this edit request. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

wow, I didn’t realize NewsWeek wasn’t considered reliable. That’s quite surprising to me. I’ll wait to see if reliable sources report this and if so open a new edit request. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Me neither, it just made me suspicious so I did some digging! According to the page I linked, they fell under new ownership in the 2010s, who proceeded to basically dismantled its editorial policies and procedures. It's too bad; the last thing we need is another tabloid. CplKlinger (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Twitter doesn't work for me. Is it videos, or one video? And does whatever footage actually show trampling? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This particular video added rock music behind the footage. The people are on the ground before the camera shows them, in this video; a horse steeple-chases over them. Maxime Bernier shared a different video, where text is layered over the impact.

Even a Fox News reporter who claimed that someone "trampled" "died" recanted her response, saying that someone amongst the protesters had a heart attack.

So inconclusive footage, and no reliable sources. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And "Roberta Paulsen" again, that's never good. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's one of a protester using a woman as a human shield and prop for the video he's recording, trying to throw her in front of police horses as they try to manoeuver around her, until police on foot manage to advance them away. This isn't proof of anything, but it's a pretty good demonstration of why we cannot rely on "eyewitness reports", and really shouldn't trust "breaking news" either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, Twitter doesn't work for me. Whatever happened to relying on YouTube for video sharing? Is it even the same woman in this one? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why it wouldn't work for you, I'm looking at it without logging in. I didn't see the Newsweek video, but if that was a video of the elderly woman going down with the male protester who tried to back into the path of the advancing horses, then no, it's a different woman. It's kind of irrelevant anyway, my point is that the videos are not reliable sources, it doesn't matter what platform they're on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It tells me my browser's too old, won't "support" it, as if it serves us. Even text and images refuse. As citations, yeah, clips and stills can "prove" anything ludicrous immediately after routine police suppression. Should be avoided without context, lest an untried living officer is sentenced by public opinion. But as simple evidence in appraising an edit request, they're something to consider. No worries, though, I think you modern browser viewers have this one under control. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone added the claim to the article [8]. I just converted the references from bare urls when I read the talkpage and saw this discussion. Perhaps someone should remove it? AnApple47 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It had been removed before I saw this comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• The Special Investigations Unit is now investigating.[9][10]. --TMCk (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations

There is not a single citation in the second and third paragraphs below the opening paragraph. They are the last two paragraphs before reaching the topic sections. Should the paragraph be removed until citations added, or at least have a citation needed icon after every sentence? 2600:1700:7FC0:7180:FD1E:A9ED:4133:F81D (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's reevaluate this. Content in the lede (the section above the table of contents) is meant to summarize content in the article body, and MOS:CITELEAD instructs that citations are not necessary for information that's referenced in the body (with the exception of the limited information required to be cited inline per WP:MINREF). We didn't really establish consensus for that approach on this article, a bunch of us just decided to do it a couple weeks back. Are editors still generally in agreement that this is the right approach? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I know that it's not necessary, but a large portion of Wikipedia readers don't read much farther than the first few paragraphs. I think that a few well-placed reliable citations would help the lead. There have been a few people asking about this over the past week, so I think it would make the article seem more reliable if there were citations in the lead. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Where we say people said stuff, even if paraphrased, inline attribution could make sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

MINREF requires inline citation for direct quotations, and for contentious info about living persons. I'm not sure how to define "contentious" for a paraphrased quote - is there disagreement that the paraphrase accurately reflects the speaker's intent, or that they said the thing at all? Or is it that editors can't decide on the best way to paraphrase? I'm not sure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm just saying they're like quotes. Somebody might likely want to know the actual words on which these brief summaries are based, dubious or not. If we must start somewhere, that's my suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

While I have no opinion on the matter, 2021 United States Capitol attack has references in the lede, but October Crisis does not. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I would like to include citations in the lead of this article.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

MoU declaration to overthrow parliament import information

The story is incomplete without the original MoU released by Canada Unity demanding the Governor General assist them in overthrowing parliament. It was not retracted until February 8 2022, which means that for well over a week of their occupation they actively sought to take over parliament.

This fact has been under reported.

Conservative party members were demanding Trudeau meet with organizers knowing this was their stated goal.

Jagmeet Singh repeated concern for this in debate several times, to the dismissal of conservatives.

It’s clear that organizers have little understanding of how Canadian democracy works as a take over by an unelected committee is wholly undemocratic.

Organizers released a video February 8 2022, stating a change to the MoU. Statements in the video were clearly an effort at more ‘reasonable demands’. Those statements further illustrate a lack of understanding of the political system of Canada. Canadian democracy allows for minority groups to declare their desire for influence and representation in policy decisions by protest. It does not allow for extortion methods of protest occupation by a minority to pronounce policies that would be put into action. 209.52.88.202 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is covered in the "protest goals" section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@209.52.88.202 I agree with the proposal. The quick info box does not mention the goals stated in the MoU but rather the goal that was gained the most traction in the media. According to the MoU, removal of mandates was only a way that Parliament could avoid takeover by a "Citizens' Committee".

The protesters own stated goals should be that mentioned in the quick info box and should not be found only in the "protest goals" section. 174.116.10.113 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Counter-protests and lawsuits

Is it possible to expand on the Counter-protests and lawsuits section to include the following:

 - the $306 million class action lawsuit  
 - more information on the Bank & Riverside counter-protest, which has now been dubbed as the "Battle of Billings Bridge" (in reference to the Billings Bridge mall located in that area)    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melzed (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC) 

References

Time to think about splitting the article

The article has 93,491 characters of readable prose, which makes it, hum, a little too large. WP:SIZERULE says that articles having 100K+ characters should "almost certainly be split". Your proposals of what to spin off or condense? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So... we should wait until it's over 100K? It's clear to me by the end of the protest we face either doing an edit job or we split something. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

For posterity though, if the article got too big the first thing I would consider splitting off is the timeline similar to the job done here: Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea to start with, but that'd still leave us with 14 sections. Consolidating some more sections like we're talking about below could also help. Once we tackle that stuff, we might need to look at further areas of improving the flow - either by removing irrelevant/unimportant content, reorganizing it a bit, or even just adding more pictures to break up the text. CplKlinger (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I have created an article in my sandbox Canada convoy protests timeline. For now I am copying content verbatim from this article. These will be edited and pruned.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion CaffeinAddict You have had experience with international/national topics with a number of Wikipedia articles being created in tandem, following best practices of the others. I looked closely at the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, which has 8 sections with about 4 to 7 subsections each. Much of that article may have been in hindsight, but I think there is a lot to benefit from. I experimented with their main headings to see how many of our own sections and subsections could fit in that framework. These are a few ideas so far. I will continue to add more here as I work on this. Take what you like and leave the rest.Oceanflynn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If we use some of that as a model, these are some options. Oceanflynn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Existing subsections and sections

Some subsections can be merged into prose.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Background*"

main|Timeline of Canada convoy protest

• • "Goals"
    • Protest goals*
    • Vaccination requirements for US-Canada cross-border travel*
    • Vaccine mandates and passports*
  • "Official predictions and warnings" CSIS, CAHN
  • "Law enforcement preparations" Sloly, etc
  • "Planning" Original MoU?
    • "Funding*"
      • "American influence*"
• "Convoy to Ottawa"
  • • Convoy movements*
• "Ottawa protest and occupation"
  • "Peak size of Parliament Hill demonstration*"
• "Participants and response"
  • "Groups"
    • "Extremist group links*"
  • "Law enforcement response"
    • "Police response*", "Under Chief Peter Sloly"*, "Under Interim Chief Steve Bell"*
      • "Clearance"*
    • "Federal government response"
    • "Liberal Party*"
      • "Emergencies Act invocation"*
    • "Provincial premiers response"
  • "Counter protesters*"
• "Results"
  • "Damages"
    • Noise pollution?
  • "Economic costs and cost of security*"
• "Events elsewhere"
  • "Provincial capitals and cities"
    • "Toronto"*
    • "Winnipeg"*
    • "Fredericton"*
    • "Edmonton"*
  • "Other Canadian protests"
    • "Nova Scotia"*
  • Border crossing obstructions*
    • Alberta–Montana*
    • Ontario–Michigan*
      • "Ambassador Bridge"
    • British Columbia–Washington*
    • Manitoba–North Dakota*
  • "International"
  • "International protests"*
• "Aftermath"
  • "Political, legal, and social repercussions"
    • Lawsuits and injunctions?
    • "Investigations into handling of crisis"
      • "Investigations into police"
        • "Criticism of police*"
    • "Noise complaints and lawsuit"*
  • "Criminal charges"
  • "Domestic reactions"
    • "Conservative Party"*
    • "Other Canadian politicians"
    • "Trucking industry and labour groups"
    • "Opinion polls"
  • "International reactions"
    • • "American politicians and media figures"
• Media reaction?
• "Analysis and terminology"
  • "overthrow the government" "peaceful party" "truckers"

Revision3 Oceanflynn (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Revision 4Oceanflynn (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline and police response redundancy

I think there's an issue with some redundancy of the timeline section and police response and somewhat "clearance" of redundancy of the same issues. I'm wondering if there's an easy way to merge some of these. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. What would be better: If we removed the clearance section and put it under the interim chief section, or thin the interim chief section to be more of a summary about how the approach of OPS changed, and then keep the operational details under the clearance section? I prefer the latter just so that the interim chief section doesn't get too large. CplKlinger (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I created the article Canada convoy protests timeline using content from this article. It has an under construction template but other editors are encouraged to edit it. Most entries need to be reworded, pruned, etc. Oceanflynn (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict I removed the link to the article as it was premature.Oceanflynn (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort! I think maybe we should just flesh it out first :) CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There are some disturbing news that are emerging and should be put in Donors section of the article

It is learnt from several sources such as https://globalnews.ca/news/8625465/ford-government-staffer-fired-over-protest-donation/ that one Marion Isabeau-Ringuette has been fired by her employer Ontario government, Canada for donating $100 to the Canada convoy protest. This incident is of great concern and should be added to the article. The action of the government, however miniscule it may seem, is a disregard to democracy and freedom of expression. As noted by other news agencies, many people are now under investigation by the government agency for donating to the cause.

Thanks for the heads-up. One of Wikipedia's policies is verifiability. Every claim made needs a reliable source, especially a controversial one like the "action of the government ... is a disregard to democracy and freedom of expression". Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and then provide reliable sources. --Cornellier (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The above poster (not myself, for what it's worth) does not seem to be suggesting that the article should say that this action "is a disregard to democracy and freedom of expression", but rather that they think that is why it is important to include a mention of this action in the article. While I may disagree on the exact wording chosen there, I can agree that it's important that we acknowledge reporting related to potentially illegal actions taken by the Canadian government. Additionally, Global News Canada is already cited as a source multiple times in this very article, so the implication that it is not a reliable source would appear to be unfounded. 97.102.30.205 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the source does not suggest that the government's actions were illegal (in fact I can't even find anything in there citing the opposition describing it as illegal.) The only comment on its legality in the entire source is this, unambiguously saying the government had the right to fire her: Duff Conacher with Democracy Watch said the firing within the solicitor-general’s office was justified. “Cabinet staff serve at the pleasure of the minister and can be fired for any reason, including optics like this,” he said. I feel that based on what's in the source it is currently too trivial for the article, though of course that might change as it develops. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a political (or order in council) rather than public service appointment. These people are hired based on their loyalty to the Progressive Conservative Party and are expected to make them look good. Obviously they don't have the right to make their employers look bad. TFD (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Change to category

Considering that the Prime Minister's response to this event has been to declare a state of emergency (something that is meant for an even up to and including the possibility of war and that said response will likely if not definitely have a long-term consequence, I'd like to think that falls under the definition of something a bit stronger than a "Low-importance Canada-related article". Winston von Ripplechip (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That category comes from the fact that the members of Wikiproject Canada determined that this article is of low importance according to the assessment criteria that they use. You can review those criteria at this link, and discuss whether you think classifying this article as having low importance there, too.--~TPW 19:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also point out that the article importance ratings are of little pertinence to the operation of Wikipedia. The OP is just using this to editorialize. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

New sections and subsections

I am going to add a section "Aftermath" with similar subsections as is the case in the American article. I have content on the investigations already underway. There is already content on criminal charges. Following the Table of Contents for 2021 United States Capitol attack, this is an example of potential subsections:Oceanflynn (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Aftermath"
  • "Political, legal, and social repercussions"
    • Lawsuits and injunctions?
    • "Investigations into handling of crisis"
      • "Investigations into police"
        • "Criticism of police*"
    • "Noise complaints and lawsuit"*
  • "Criminal charges"
  • "Domestic reactions"
    • "Conservative Party or Official Opposition?
    • "Other Canadian politicians"
    • "Trucking industry and labour groups"
    • "Opinion polls"
  • "International reactions"
    • • "American politicians and media figures"

My only comment at this time, is should more weight be given to the Alberta and Windsor blockades, or moved up like they previously were? Clearly the occupation was centred in ottawa but most of the economic damage was done by the blockades. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know where to place it. I had wondered about having a short "Overview" section as the first section, with the main points summarized in a bit more detail than the lead allows, including more content about the border blockades? Chronologically the Ambassador Bridge blockade was an offshoot of the Ottawa protest and entrenchment. But in terms of economic costs, and ongoing damage to the supply chain, US-Canada relations, and potentially the automobile industry, is has had more of an impact. There is so much coming out now about the Ambassador bridge blockade. It has not been mentioned in the Bridge's article yet. This CBC article brings out an interesting angle. The six-day blockade on the four-lane 93-year-old privately-owned Ambassador Bridge "exposed a weak U.S.-owned link in Canada's supply chain" as the bridge "spans Canada's busiest trade route, with close to $400 million in commercial goods crossing it daily", adding up to "about 25 per cent of the total trade between the U.S. and Canada in a year". Will there be a separate article?Oceanflynn (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Protest ended

Many sources are reporting that the protestors left Ottawa. The article should probably be edited accordingly. I don't have extended confirmed access so I can't do it.Wikijules29 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been following this and haven't seen any clear-cut answers declaring the protests "over" although it appears to have. It would be helpful if a few reliable sources said it's over, over. Then we can make an end date. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been cleared, but only time will tell if it's over. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, Trudeau's essentially called for martial law over what boils down to a noise complaint and a traffic-jam, so the protest isn't the only thing that's "over"... Winston von Ripplechip (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are not the place for editorializing. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Where these sources largely declare it over (American): [11], [12], these sources suggest it's still ongoing, one with a comment from the Prime Minister: [13], [14]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Via Jurist, a legal publication: I heard the same sentiment Saturday afternoon when I interviewed Convoy media representative Dagny Pawlak for JURIST. “I’d like to reassure people that the movement is not over,” she told me. “It is no shape or way dying. […] We are definitely nowhere near achieving our objectives and we will continue until those objectives have been reached.” -- Zanimum (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to open this up again: are most of the protests now considered over? Would February 21 be considered the end? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Over" is subjective; just say what happened. The blockades were cleared on whatever day that was, and the protest in Ottawa was cleared by February 21. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I’m asking when the article is no longer “ongoing”. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should remove "ongoing" since the rest of the article makes it sound like the protest ended (it did). Wikijules29 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Emphasize non-expertise

I feel it is a worthy addition to this page to include the high probability that none of the participants in the Freedom Convoy are medical doctors, epidemiologists, or other experts in fields about communicable diseases or pandemics. Therefore, each of these people is relying on information or misinformation (from whatever source--ahem--Facebook) and not on their own expertise.

As a side note, imagine someone from Alabama trying to tell someone from Saskatchewan what it is like living on Canada. It would be logical to seek people who are more experienced with the topic or, say, those who have spent their lives studying these phenomenon when a person wants accurate information. Should I trust the buying advice of the kid working at Best Buy, or of the engineer who designed the computer and had competitor brands to compare against?

While the Freedom Convoy may be devout, so were those who infiltrated the Capitol and so were those who worked at Auschwitz. Zeal without knowledge is dangerous. Fools mock, but they shall mourn.

The Golden Rule: "love thy neighbor as thyself". We have people willing to bomb other countries but are unwilling to wear a mask to protect their families and neighbors? Okay. Do your brake lights work? Are they required by law, even though the primary purpose is to protect others?

These people have taken misinformation and gotten so riled up by people who will not be there to suffer alongside them, and are making a stand to die on a hill that doesn't even exist.

Just as you should rightly doubt the 15 yr old kid who insists he knows everything about cars in order to get a job, but then cant find on Google the part numbers for spark plugs for a 2011 Peterbilt diesel truck, we should likewise question when reality stars or truckers give medical advice on a new virus. 2603:900A:1915:9400:74AF:7E6F:C4C:EF4 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Diesel engines don't have spark plugs, so it would be expected that the hypothetical teenager would not be able to look up the part number.
2. We can only go by what reliable sources say about things. If a source felt it relevant to survey the convoy participants for their various fields of expertise and then to report on the results, then we could include it here if it was relevant to the topic. I personally don't think it is - I don't think anyone is mistaking the messaging coming from the protesters as valid medical or scientific advice, and anyone who is won't have their opinion shifted by a Wikipedia article. It's certainly not being reported that way, and if our article is giving the impression that it is, that's something we need to fix.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Make title plural to "Canada convoy protests"?

Seemed appropriate to temporarily make the title plural, as there are multiple convoy protests in Ottawa and blockades in border crossings. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - There is an existing discussion about the page title at Talk:Canada_convoy_protest#Title_change_and_alternative,_more_fitting_titles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Misleading: Does not mention Bigot support

This convoy was organized and supported by Nazis, far right activists, and caused massive property damage as well as assaults, death. 142.114.158.161 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policies is neutral point of view. Every claim made in the article, especially if it is controversial, needs a reliable source. If you have a specific change you want made, please make an edit request here and back up the changes with a source. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 16:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• We do have an entire section labeled extremist group links. Look over it and figure out if it adequately reflects what you think the article should say, and if so, whether it's properly reflected in the lead. (I suspect the latter might be your actual objection, since it's definitely there in the body.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• There has been no death caused by the convoy nor of a member of the convoy. Please do not spread fake news, and apply critical thinking to any gossip you may have heard. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@142.114.158.161 there hasn't been a single case of property damage or death, despite thousands of protesters over 3 weeks. There has been a single case of assault reported (on first day), and claims of "nazis" and far right are very thin, especially given it was led by a Jewish man (Benjamin Dichter) and a métis woman (Tamara Lich). 70.53.203.145 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Although there have been hundreds of cases of hate crimes, I also don’t think calling them bigots is neutral or appropriate. While they probably are, at least the majority, bigoted, that’s not really a fact that should be included in an article. Smurr7 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove elaborate words

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.

---

Please revise all to simple terminology. ie "Launch" investigation Rather "began" investigation "Red zone" remove this - cite actual street or address locations. On and on. This is not a military reporting of citizens peacefully protesting and exercising charter rights. 2600:387:0:902:0:0:0:59 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Launching an investigation is a very common term. Newspapers.com finds 315,977 matches, the earliest being 1852, albeit a speaker "investigating" in their lecture.

The red zone is a large area, a shape, not a specific street.

With time, the wording on the article may simplify, but our primary concern at present is completeness and accuracy.

Finally, "peaceful" is quite subjective. By February 10, more than 400 hate incidents had been reported to Ottawa Police. ("Police negotiators convince some trucks to leave, but most won't budge". CBC News. Toronto ON: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 10 February 2022. Retrieved 23 February 2022.) -- Zanimum (talk) 02:25, 24 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.

Why no mention of the violence from counter protesters?

There has been multiple well documented violent instances by counter protesters, including: -attempted murder using a car to ram protesters at Coutts border crossing -attempted murder using a car to ram protesters at Windsor border crossing -man and his 13 year old daughter victim of theft and assault from a counter protestor in Ottawa -multiple instances of vandalism by counter protesters in Ottawa -multiple instances of assault by counter protesters in Ottawa 70.53.203.145 (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide links to coverage in reliable sources that could be used to verify any such additions to this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed per Cullen328. ram car Coutts only comes up with a farm tractor and a semi-truck attempting to ram a police vehicle. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does this article presuppose vaccine mandates?

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.

---

"In late 2021, both Canada and the US accommodated unvaccinated cross-border truckers exempting them from COVID-19 vaccine requirements"

This statement implies that there had been a general vaccine mandate in effect at that time, which is not the case. Imposing a new and unprecedented vaccine mandate on some groups and activities does not mean that others are exempt or accommodated. Portraying the absence of a mandate as an exemption and an accommodation is pro-vaccine-mandate propaganda. This is not a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.86.181.51 (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes there was a mandate for everyone else on both sides of the US-Canada border. Truckers were exempt so as to not disrupt trade. It’s all in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:00, 23 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 23 February 2022

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.

---

Change deaths from 1, to “1 (indirect)”.

Per the following source, the fatality related to this event was caused by a traffic accident where a protester was killed. It would be inappropriate to imply that this was related to the protest directly.

Source: https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/truck-convoy-a-contributing-factor-in-fatal-chatham-kent-collision-opp-1.5789670 Smurr7 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Smurr7: You can contribute to conversation on this topic at Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 5#Indirect death due to convoy movement in January. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:17, 24 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.

Analysis and terminology

The 2021 United States Capitol attack included this useful subsection under "Aftermath".

There was even a mention of Wikipedia editors discussing the wording: "On the English Wikipedia, there were several disputes among the site's volunteer editors as to what terminology should be used to describe the event.

There have been a number of mainstream media networks using different terms to describe the protests, that could be mentioned here? They are already included in some of the existing RS.Oceanflynn (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I'd be open to a section on the terminology, but have their been articles solely on the topic of "what should this event be classified as?" Or is it just being arguing "it is this," "it isn't this"?

For example, January 6 includes references to "Riot? Insurrection? Words matter in describing Capitol siege". "'Insurrection:' Is That a Word We Really Want to Use?" "From 'Protest' To 'Riot' To 'Insurrection' — How NPR's Language Evolved". While "is that" was published the day of, the others were published in the weeks following. I expect Canada will have the same, now that journalists can get more distance.

It's not a "no," but an "is there enough sources?" -- Zanimum (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It could be a difference in the political and media culture in Canada. If anything, the government is facing accusations of overreaction from the opposition and civil liberties groups, such as the CCLA. TFD (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations required for summary section

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.

---

Claims made in the summary section should link to the relevant citations or subsections so that they can be quickly corroborated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.243.35 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSLEDE thgat's not usually done. It's a summary of the detailed, sourced article body. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 23 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.

A new proposal....may be?

I propose adding the "year" before the title. example, 2021 United States Capitol attack, 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest (Initially 2020 Indian farmers' protest).

Indirect death due to convoy movement in January

OPP now report that the convoy movement through Chatham, Ontario on January 27 was an indirect factor in a fatal highway crash. Before WP:BOLDly adding this to the infobox I'd like opinions. Sources:

References

CaffeinAddict added the above post on 05:04 22 February 2022, then added the OPP statement and made the infobox change. I think it was wrong to put it in the infobox because that lacks context, that the OPP said merely it was a contributing factor. The addition elsewhere might be okay although the phrasing "OPP officers later identified the convoy movement as a contributing factor to the incident." is not good, "identified" makes it sound like it's definite which is contrary to WP:CLAIM, and they didn't blame the convoy movement they pointed to the slowness of the tail end of the convoy, according to an email to CBC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reason I went ahead and added it was it was sourced and didn't have any discussion to the contrary. Do you have a better wording? CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what an appropriate waiting time would have been in this case. Anyway, I believe Death(s) doesn't belong in the infobox and better wording would be nothing, or "The OPP said slowness of convoy vehicles was a contributing factor." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think, given the fact that no deaths have been attributed to the convoy directly, we shouldn't have that in the infobox. I think it is relevant to mention the incident in the article, though. Police wouldn't suggest this connection for no reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan - that's an irrelevant argument, I was editing and attempting to improve the page and willing to engage in discussion. Ivanvector it has already been added to the body of the article, but if there is consensus to remove it from the infobox because it's not a direct cause of the death, I throw my support behind the collective conscious. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I merely made an observation re what you said you'd do. Now, about the next thing you say you'll do "if there is consensus to remove it from the infobox": do you think that consensus to remove it is necessary? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s inclusion in the info box is wholly inappropriate. It pretty much amounts to a false statement. I think it should be removed and added elsewhere. Smurr7 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The convoy itself has caused no deaths. I am not advocating one side or another nor taking a side. I just think having a death listed in the info box implies that the protest was DIRECTLY responsible for a death, which it was not. Please remove it. Smurr7 (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict: You haven't answered my 23 February question, but I suggest a possible answer: no, it would be wrong to claim that a consensus to remove is necessary, if there was no consensus then we should return to the status quo ante (WP:ONUS). Re death(s) in the infobox, I and Ivanvector and Smurr7 have said it should be out. Ivanvector and Smurr7 appear to agree with you that there should be a mention of the incident in the text (I seem to be the only one saying that should be removed too); however, they have not said that the sentence you inserted "OPP officers later identified the convoy movement as a contributing factor to the incident." is okay. I suggested "The OPP said slowness of convoy vehicles was a contributing factor." + CBC cite. Are there other suggestions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Still no reply. I removed death(s) from the infobox, and changed the count of injuries to 6. I still object to the later sentence but there was no support for removing it or changing according to my suggestion, so it remains. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are there 2 "Economic loss and costs"?

Is there a need to have the same exact text twice?

If so, how are the Results different from the Aftermath? Bogdan6222 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking, the two sections are indeed the same definition. Both mention the volume on the Ambassador Bridge, both mention the Rideau Centre, etc.

It seems that 5.2 existed as of this morning, and that 5.1.2 was introduced since. As such, I'm merging things back into 5.2.

I'll leave the Results/Aftermath to someone else. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bogdan6222: Thank you for noticing that, I've actually merged it all. I don't care to look in the history log, but within the last 50 edits to the page, someone decided to move sections about, but instead just ended up duplicating them, nearly word-for-word.

For the record, for anyone wondering, here are the sections I deleted. All of the content still appears in the article, as it was all an exact duplicate. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between an economic loss and a cost? In context, I doubt it, but I don't "do" articles anymore. Mull it over, folks! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I named that section and yes: 1) economic loss due to blockades and 2) costs like policing etc CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So cost is money lost from the present treasury, and economic losses are shortfalls in predicted future earnings? If I'm understanding that much correctly, I think I see what you mean. There might be more accurate financial terms delineating the pain a ledger feels from losing what it had and the damage inflicted when another can't have as much as it expected it should. Sort of like the slight but real gap between envy and jealousy, just much drier? Anyway, think about it and then just do whatever occurs to you needs to be done when the time comes, I'm going to nap in our virtual utility closet (don't wait up!). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hold up, I just read the first sentence again. Says On February 15, The Detroit News reported that economic cost to the automobile industry was approximately US$1.2 billion due to the blockage of the Ambassador Bridge. That doesn't sound like the sort of "cost" I was beginning to know, it sounds like a big "loss" (if the blockage is a blockade). Oh well. Work in progress, people! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how different countries do this, but to put things in a simple form: ΣIncome - ΣCost = Profit(result > 0) or Loss(result < 0). Costs are operations that happen during the fiscal year. A loss is the result. There can be only one result. Bogdan6222 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A cost would be to government at the Federal/Provincial/Municipal level. An economic loss would be a hit to the general economy in the US and Canada due to trade disruption. Those come from two different coffers? Is this really that complicated? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Not relatively, anyway. If I were you, I'd still change that "economic cost" to "economic loss", but no pressure. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Economic costs and loss of wages and retail sales, etc: I am rereading RSs currently used in the article on economic costs and loss of wages and retail sales because some of the estimates were made before the end of the protests/occupation. Mersiha Gadzo's February 12, Al Jazeera article cites a Tweet by Graham Richardson, CTV Ottawa's chief news anchor's February 12 Tweet in which he estimated cost of the "closure of the Rideau Centre mall was $40m cost. On February Canadian economist, Armine Yalnizyan estimated the loss of sales at the Rideau Centre—CA$3 million a day according to the Retail Council of Canada—amounts to a total of CA$72 million for one shopping mall alone. I am going to remove the CA$40 million estimate as it is outdated. Also there is no mention of CA$860 million in this article so I am removing the article from as RS.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Participants section

When the article goes around to talk about participants it immediately jumps to extremist group without actually talking about participants in a general sense. This may give the impression that the article is trying to frame the participants in a certain way. 2A02:3035:C1B:75AF:1:0:709F:C15E (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree we need a section on organizers and influencers.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Pat King, Tamara Lich

 Administrator note: this conversation has been moved to Talk:Pat King (activist) as it is about that article and not about this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Additions to "Trucking industry and labour groups" statement section

Leaving a note here rather than proposing an edit, since I don't meet the threshold for the protected page. Unifor ("the largest private sector union in Canada") released a statement that seems worthy of mention in Canada_convoy_protest#Trucking_industry_and_labour_groups: https://www.unifor.org/news/all-news/unifor-condemns-freedom-convoy-actions --- Shonfeder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shonfeder: welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that it's convention on Wikipedia to add new comments at the bottom of discussions, and to start new threads at the bottom as well. I've moved your comment here since most editors won't look for new comments at the top. It's also customary to sign with four tildes, I think you used three. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for the correction and the pointers! I'll remember these for the future. :) Shonfeder (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Honking and harassment in residential neighborhoods.

I feel like this article needs to better address the issue of the constant honking and impact on the residents of Centretown. I believe the media failed at properly portraying this issue by mainly focusing their attention on Wellington St in front of Parliament and ignoring what was happening on Kent St, Metcalfe St, and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Thousands of residents had semis and other vehicles blaring their horns for weeks on end outside of their homes, all hours of the day and night. Some occupiers had installed train horns on their vehicles. Many residents left their homes due to the noise and harassment. Many others stayed and were subjected to the constant honking, revving engines and harassment on the streets. Pets, children, the disabled and elderly were all affected greatly. 24.212.186.197 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No doubt. There is some mention of it in the article. For a more detailed presence, it would need secondary sources covering it somewhat specifically, and to be inserted into the article in a way that maintains balance. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

Change title to “Freedom Convoy 2022 Canada” Chaderos (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m currently the acting President of Freedom 2022 Human Rights and Freedoms while Tamara has a social media and protest support ban that is being appealed. Chaderos (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There has been extensive discussion about this, including an ongoing discussion immediately above. Cannolis (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

I don't know coding and I don't necessarily want to edit the article myself as I'm not all that familiar with the process. However, as an ontarian, a Canadian and fan of simple truth I must attempt to point out to someone, ANYONE about the astounding bias against the everyday citizens of Canada who just wanted to be heard amidst an ocean of misinformation and encroaching authoritarianism.

This article is extremely left biased and follows the exact narrative provided by the current leftist ruling party in canada. For example there is no mention of the unprecedented media bias that occurred during the freedom convoy or the fact that the firearms seized from a legal firearms owner near the boarder crossing who possesed and stored the firearms legally.

It is obviously prudent to Wikipedia, journalism, and just plain truth, fact and the greater good to present the truest possible dissemination of the events of the protests.

I therefore implore you from the bottom of my heart to at least point out the fact that the events were covered under massive left leaning media bias if not outright incorrect information and lies. Never in my life have I saw events right next door that are important to talk about completely whitewashed as evil by the media.

Please do the right thing in the face misinformation and untruth. I donate to Wikipedia because it's a bastion of truth and fact and I implore you to not allow that to change. We must end the great divide between the left and the right and come together with love and truth and to forge ahead as one world people in solidarity. Together.

Thank you for your time

Geoff Riley, 216.73.162.201 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Dig up some Toronto Sun or maybe National Post articles, they're the only non-left leaning Canadian news sources we accept as reliable (not sure about Spencer Fernando). Unfortunately we have to rely on what reliable sources say about the events, and most of those sources are in the pockets of the Feds right now. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to do coding. Find a published source such as a newspaper article, from a widely-respected author or publisher, that says things you think need to be included in the article. If there's a web link to the text, all you need to do might be to put a link here and others might then edit the article; or you might need to say exactly what words you think need to be added to the article and where. If, for example, it's a newspaper article, then provide as much information as you can such as the name of the newspaper; date; page number; name of section or special feature; name of journalist (often given at the top or bottom of an article); title of article; and maybe put here a quote from the article, as well as what you think this Wikipedia article should say. Others might then be willing to format it. Or, maybe nobody would. You can discuss it here. Alternatively, you might want to get practice editing other Wikipedia articles first; most are not edit-protected. (The most well-known and controversial topics are often edit-protected). While articles contain a lot of complicated symbols to support illustrations and stuff, the actual words of the article are usually just words and can be edited pretty simply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way: I think it might not be unusual at all for someone with firearms to be stopped at the border. Rules about firearms differ from one country to another and might also be different at the border-crossing point. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)