Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Add a section for 'American media figures' underneath [politicians]. The section should include people like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Ben Shapiro supporting the Convoy. This content should be covered by this source: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-sean-hannity-business-health-ottawa-6ced8d978d2b2e36d4c1f40261bb0d6a. ― TaltosKieronTalk 15:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done instead of making a new section, I've changed "American politicians" to "American politicians and media figures". >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Wgullyn, I was just about to respond to this. Shapiro and Hannity are covered in the "American influence" section as well, and I had pointed out quite a while back that the section title was inaccurate because of the inclusion of Donald Trump Jr., but I had looked at this a couple times and hadn't quite figured out how best to respond. Your approach is simple and effective. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Suppression of the protests

As there is now an active effort to clear the bridge at Windsor I have added information about that active effort back to it. This section is about suppression efforts which are intended to clear any of the protests and end that protest. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've altered from "suppression", which is POV and not used by the sources, to "dispersal", which is more neutral and is used by the sources. I believe other issues exist, particularly synth, but I will not boldly address them at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thanks for the edit. I’m in favour. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"On February 11, the Ontario Superior Court was granted an injunction to remove protesters from the Ambassador Bridge"

Is it just me or does this statement not make any sense? Shouldn't it be "Ontario Superior Court has granted an injunction" - and to whom anyway? --2A02:8071:B5BF:4200:E912:9C93:1D83:99A9 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I removed "was" from the sentence to make it more correct. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Canada convoy protest per consensus garnered below to move away from the current title and no consensus as to where to move it. (Closure requested at WP:CR <permalink>). See fairly strong agreement below that the current title should be changed. Yet there is only spotty agreement on what that change should be. WP:OTHEROPTIONS helps us choose, and the choices are:

From these options it appears that the best choice for now is Canada convoy protest. OTHEROPTIONS guides us: "the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title." Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Freedom Convoy 2022 → Ottawa convoy protest –  

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

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

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

The survey:

  1. “protests by the so-called "freedom convoy"”[1]
  2. “a huge demonstration,” “the protest”[2]
  3. “the "Freedom Convoy"”[3]
  4. “noisy protests”[4]
  5. “the so-called “freedom convoy” protest”[5]
  6. [other news coverage]
  7. [other news coverage]
  8. “the ongoing demonstration”[6]
  9. “the Freedom Convoy demonstration”[7]
  10. [other news coverage]
  11. “the truck blockade in Ottawa”[8]
  12. “protesters opposed to vaccination mandates who have filled the streets of downtown Ottawa”[9]
  13. “the "Freedom Convoy" demonstration”[10]
  14. [other news coverage]
  15. [other news coverage]
  16. [other news coverage]
  17. “influx of truck convoy protesters into the city”[11]
  18. “the convoy that has taken over the city’s downtown core”[12]
  19. “ongoing, disruptive protests”[13]
  20. “the demonstration in Ottawa”[14]
  21. [other news coverage]
  22. [other news coverage]
  23. [other news coverage]
  24. [other news coverage]
  25. “the "Freedom Convoy" demonstration”[15]
  26. “the "Freedom Convoy" protest”[16]
  27. “the so-called truckers’ protest”[17]
  28. “demonstrations against pandemic restrictions,” “the intractable protests”[18]
  29. “the trucker convoy protest”[19]
  30. [other news coverage]
  31. “throngs of truckers and other demonstrators,” “the demonstrators”[20]

   —Michael Z. 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest the article text follow the prevailing usage, and use quotation marks or descriptors to make it clear that “Freedom Convoy” is the organizers’ name, and not what it is generally called. —Michael Z. 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have edited the lead and infobox to reflect this. —Michael Z. 16:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to undo your edits but shouldn't you wait for some discussion to be generated? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, will respect any reverts or edits. —Michael Z. 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I think infobox should be changed if there's a pagemove, but seems confusing to have infobox and page title contradict. DirkDouse (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Mzajac thank you for the work done on this matter. A couple of points I'll make, now that there is coverage on some numbers involved (albeit with a huge range estimate) it seems most involved were not even part of the convoy(s) so I would argue the name should be 2022 Ottawa protests. Plural because it was over the course of a week so far. The convoy to get to Ottawa is almost a footnote at this point. Secondly I agree this is not the Common name but the name given by organizers and should probably read in the lede: "The 2022 Ottawa protests (also known as Freedom Convoy 2022 by organizers) were..." CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    My proposal is a suggestion, and I’m happy to agree with one of the possible alternatives, if it helps lead to consensus. Certainly makes sense to use plural “protests,” acknowledging the article could mention sympathetic protests in other cities too. (I would prefer to see “Freedom Convoy,” at least in the lead, appear as I’ve written it “so-called "Freedom Convoy",” or similar.) —Michael Z. 17:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    "So-called" has an air of presumption and potentially weasel-y sounding in my opinion. It's much easier to suggest Freedom Convoy 2022 is a name of the movement given by organizers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    Or lead with the neutral description, and move the POV name to a second sentence. We could WP:AVOIDBOLD altogether. (Is there a WP:RS for the organizers’ name including year?) —Michael Z. 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, the use of the year in the name of the GoFundMe is referenced in CBC, CTV, BBC and others. I do like the idea of avoiding bold. -- Zanimum (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    I have reverted those changes. The title of the infobox should line up with the title of the page; if there is consensus to change, then change at the time of the page move. Re: "so-called" seems not WP:NPOV. If the title does change, text in lead should be something more like "New title (referred to as the Freedom Convoy by organizers)..." DirkDouse (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    Also, "Certainly makes sense to use plural “protests,” acknowledging the article could mention sympathetic protests in other cities too" -- I am not opposed to making the article broader with something like "2022 convoy/trucker protests." There have already been some other events discussed in the article; depending on how things go over the next... days? weeks? months? It might be appropriate to rework the article into a broader discussion with a broader name. DirkDouse (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Re: "scare quotes" -- I don't believe that the use of quotes around the name "Freedom Convoy" by media necessarily means that it isn't recognized as the event's common name; seems like it acknowledges the name regardless of quotes or not. However, there is also a section and ongoing discussion on this talk page about other related protests that aren't part of the main Ottowa event. Changing the name seems like it makes things more ambiguous relative to other ongoing convoy/trucker protests (i.e., this specific event by these specific organizers vs. other groups). DirkDouse (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    It indicates the name is WP:POV, and we should not lead with it in Wikipedia’s voice. —Michael Z. 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    It seems like most/many protests/political events have names that are POV, but using them isn't necessarily an endorsement of the event or name. E.g., the name 'March for Life' implies a number of assumptions about abortion policy, but is still acknowledged as the name of the event/group. DirkDouse (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "freedom convoy" is not the common name and it's povy—blindlynx 17:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "Convoy protest" is most often used by media. 162 etc. (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Freedom Convoy 2022" is probably not the right name, but this article is about the nationwide event(s), not just the events in Ottawa. Some prominent sources are starting to shift to calling the Ottawa events an insurrection or an occupation; this question should be revisited when the event is in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • That was my first thought too, as there are other related events (notably the blocking of the border at Coutts); however, the article as it reads today is almost entirely focused on Ottawa. Should protests in other places become more significant, they'll probably end up with their own article anyway. 162 etc. (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed title would mean that these demonstrations are limited to Ottawa. As we speak, related protests are occurring across Ontario and all of Canada. However, I'm not sure what the best title is. --Local hero talk 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    At this time I lean towards waiting until things play out more before making a decision here. Could see this article's scope going a lot of different ways. DirkDouse (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in theory. It seems there is a general consensus that the current name may not be best, but that issues remain with identifying it using Ottawa. I agree that this isn't like, say, Occupy Wall Street, where the "official" protest name is the common one -- "Freedom Convoy 2022" is very much not the common name. What about using Canada instead of Ottawa, something like Canada convoy protest or 2022 Canadian Convoy Protest?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Naming it Ottawa convoy protest would imply the scope of the protest was limited to the cappital city Ottawa, while:
1. The convoy travelled through several routes through all canadian provinces before getting to Ottawa, with the Ottawa demonstrations being just a part of the overall protests (in the article, convoy movements section). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/world/canada/truck-convoy-protests.html
2. There were several demonstrations across the country linked to the convoy, parallel to the Ottawa ones. https://www.nsnews.com/national-news/convoys-against-mandates-in-other-canadian-cities-support-of-ottawa-truck-protest-5008229 Including the protests in the US-Canada border, with one of them having their own section in the article (the Coutts-Montana border wasn't the only one https://www.agweek.com/news/vaccine-mandate-protests-disrupt-truck-traffic-at-us-canada-border)
3. There have been international protests linked to the canadian ones, with the same motivation and goals. Limiting the name to Ottawa would exclude the international scope of the protest. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10458149/Covid-19-Australia-Convoy-Canberra-arrives-protest-vaccine-mandate-cars-crash.html https://nltimes.nl/2022/01/30/convoy-freedom-passes-netherlands-protest-covid-restrictions
Freedom Convoy is a short descriptive name, widely used by reliable media and others to refer to the protests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60202050 For all these reasons, I oppose the change. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the earlier commenter that changing the name as suggested would inaccurately give the impression that this is a strictly local protest, whereas it has clearly evolved into a national (and increasingly international) demonstration. I also believe that it would be better to give some deference to the preferred name chosen by those involved in the demonstration. MrJ567 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The year might be necessary later but for the moment it's OK and won't lead to confusion. I don't agree with critiques of "Ottawa", media consistently use it and it's the overwhelming focus of the article. "Freedom convoy" in the title isn't terrible but it doesn't meet guidelines for common name and NPOV. I support the proposal. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Protests has spread to other parts of Canada including Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Ottawa. Efuture2 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about 2022 COVID-19 protests in Canada, as a reference to the pre-existing article, COVID-19 protests in Canada? -- Zanimum (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Without using WP:CRYSTALBALL here - is this article going to continue to be about the Ottawa protest specifically or the entire movement? It seems to be evolving into something a little more convoluted. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose with no prejudice towards a better name being suggested. I strongly support moving this article to a neutral title (which Freedom Convoy 2022 is most certainly not), however it is clear based on RSs from this weekend that this has evolved well beyond Ottawa. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose with this movement growing nationally and as well as mimic convoy protests around the world it does not make sense to rename this Ottawa Protests. Depending on the direction of the article this could be the starting point of the Convoy movement (Canadian Freedom Convoy, European Convoy, Australian Freedom Convoy), or be a specific page to the Canadian Convoy Movement belonging to a separate Convoy Movement page, of to which started in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.95.245 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC) — 50.98.95.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: I think that the year isn't necessary in the current article, because there aren't any other freedom convoys yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:E43F:9867:CCE3:BFBA:28D6:1180 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support moving somewhere; current title fails WP:POVTITLE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving to "Ottawa convoy protest" as these protests are taking place throughout Canada and are certainly not limited to Ottawa. I don't think the current "Freedom Convoy" title is right based on POV concerns brought up by others, and I would support a move, but not to "Ottawa convoy protest" or similar titles. Frank Anchor 02:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose is clearly a Canadian protest and not merely an Ottawa event. News coverage and extensive media showed local support for the convoy as several sets of trucks and vehicles moved through various parts of Canada as they converged on the seat of the Canadian national government. Moreover, the WP:COMMONNAME clearly is not about Ottawa. N2e (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons already amply described above. Calling this title POV is silly. The name 'Freedom Convoy' is used to describe this event by multiple RS already cited on this page, when I search 'Canadian truckers' on Google at least the first ten results that could be considered RS use the name 'Freedom Convoy,' and 'Freedom Convoy' appears to be the name commonly used by the protesters themselves. I might find a name to be inapt - for example, I don't think there's anything the least bit patriotic about the Patriot Act - but you won't find me trying to get the name of the Patriot Act page changed to something that I think is less POV; that's not helpful to anyone. This is a real no-brainer. Joe (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Based on the seriously flawed survey posted above. It cites CTV News 8 times, Globalnews.ca 3 times, CBC twice, Ottawa.ca twice, The Globe And Mail twice, and three other local papers once. Which is not surprising when searching for "Ottawa", but it does not come close to covering the diversity of sources reporting on this event. You can find no shortage of sources calling it Freedom Convoy in the References section of the article page. Interestingly enough, most of the sources that use 'Freedom Convoy' with single quotes in the article page are also from CTV news. The fact that they also use the same style for 'Occupy Wall Street'[21] leads me to believe that this is merely the internal style guide of CTV News for clarity purposes, and not them passing judgement on the name itself. Databased (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Changing the article name by limiting it to Ottawa lessens the scope of this whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrySpongeYT (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — DrySpongeYT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Generally Support due to what appears to be a breach of WP:POVTITLE. As the initiator mentioned, the term "freedom convoy" is used by media in quotes, which indicates they are not willing to apply that label to the protests themselves. Despite this, I do note that some of the detractors of this move have also made some points and I'd be fully willing to support a neutral and NPOV-compliant third option, if such were to be suggested. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose, because it is not just in Ottawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peking Tom (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Not limited to Ottawa, the movement is now international with truck convoys forming in various cities and countries across the world. The current name of the page is appropriate and accurate. Ralphw (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the suggested new title. Ottawa is the largest but there are smaller protests across Canada. I have no prejudice against moving it to "2022 Trucker Protests" or something else. – Anne drew 19:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Struck my vote. After doing some reading, it's clear that Ottawa the biggest protest and the others are kind of copy-cats. – Anne drew 02:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Move to "January 2022 Ottawa protests", "January 2022 Canada protests" or some other more reasonably attainable name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I would support either of those, with a preference for Ottawa given the current scope of the protests and this article, but as these protests are now in February I believe we should drop "January". BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think the proposed article name or the current one are suitable, as others have mentioned above me. Valkuay (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Ottawa convoy protest" seems lacking in clarity. It should have a year or COVID-19 in the title. It's not the only time a convoy of protesters have approached Ottawa, though not this dramatically -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: As stated above, a plethora of reliable sources refer to this event as such as do the actual organizers of the event. I see no logic in changing the name to what is proposed. However, I don't quite understand "Freedom Convoy 2022." That doesn't appear to be used in any sources and, if we were just using the year to differentiate between some other "Freedom Convoy(s)," doesn't the year typically come first, not last? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Excellent point about the year and its placement. ElleTheBelle 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "freedom convoy" is certainly endonymic, but it's also the name by which even the opposition seems to think is the common name. But we must admit of course that "freedom" is a value laden term, and use caution keeping that influence out of the decision to either keep or change the name. Thadeuss (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As of now, it's being referred to as the "Freedom Convoy". There's no need for a year at this point, any more than in George Floyd protests—and "Freedom Convoy protest" (or "protests") seems the best title for now. Wikipedia's use of a name is not an endorsement of the name's meaning, for example: Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea. And scare-quotes are an obvious violation of WP:NPOV; it suggests that the name is inaccurate or deceptive. Again, see George Floyd protests.
  • Support per commonname. "Freedom Convoy 2022" sounds like an advertisement or something for a poster. A title describing the protests based on the Google News result hits seemed like a good way of surveying. -Kai445 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article also seems to be about these related protests in other parts of Canada, and how some of the convoy headed to Ottawa, other groups protested in Vancouver, at the Alberta-US border, etc. Referring to this as only the "Ottawa" convoy protest is going to be confusing and misleading. If we are going to spin off those sections into articles of their own, perhaps the reference to "Ottawa" is appropriate. If not, the current title is a better term for what is happening across Canada.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. "Freedom Convoy 2022" sounds like this article is promoting this event. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Freedom Convoy 2022" is not a good name by any stretch, but I do believe the term 'Freedom Convoy' should be incorporated into the title as this is the common name used. 2022 Canadian Freedom Convoy Protests perhaps?Yeoutie (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia relies on WP:RS. You stated "common name" but didn't provide references to support your argument. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact, more than fifty of the RS used on this page use the name "Freedom Convoy" in their title alone. More still use the name in the body of their text. In fact, almost all RS use the name Freedom Convoy to describe this event. I believe Somedifferentstuff may have misspoke when saying "No WP:RS I've seen uses "Freedom Protest"" - Freedom Convoy is the name in question. Joe (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support As a common, neutral and descriptive title. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose As others have said, the convoy and protests have not been limited to Ottawa. Note: When searching for this article on WP, I entered Freedom Convoy into the search bar. StonyBrook (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Quite frankly, given the fact that such an overwhelming majority of news sources uses the name "Freedom Convoy" to refer to the protests, I'm hard pressed to see calls for renaming this article due to alleged POV issues as anything other than POV-pushing from the opposite side of the debate. As contributors to a project that strives to present information in a NPOV way, we need to set aside our own personal opinions (especially when it comes to controversial issues) and look at things objectively. And any objective look at this issue concludes that we already have the correct name for the article, perhaps with the exception of the "2022" at the end. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "Freedom Convoy" doesn't strike me as particularly good neutral name for the article. It comes off like a promotion/endorsement instead of the title of an article about the protests. WP:POVNAMING -Euphoria42 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Opppose I am not quite decided on the matter between the proper name "Freedom Convoy" and a descriptive name, but as Yaksar points out in the section below, the proposed title is insufficient. Should have some combination of the year/"Canada"/"COVID-19" in the title for better accuracy and specificity. — Goszei (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the protests have not been limited to just Ottawa. The Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit has been blocked for days by the same group. "2022 Canadian convoy protests" might work, or something to that effect, but the title should not limit this article's scope to just Ottawa. --WilliamTravis (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Look everyone, they are blocking the Vancouver-Seattle Border and the Detroit-Windsor Border, not just protesting in Ottawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as at least an improvement over the current title; the current title is obviously WP:POVNAMING, nor has anyone presented enough sources to justify the claim some people have made above that this passes WP:COMMONAME - the survey above clearly disproves that; and, again, to overcome POVNAMING it is not enough that a name be official (for some definition of official) or that sources exist using it, it has to actually be the name used in the majority of osurces, which is plainly not the case here. The name can be further refined from here but getting it to a non-POV version should take priority. Note that since the proposed name is more neutral it does not have to pass COMMONNAME (which is only a strict requirement for non-neutral names like this one) - the key point is that neither name is the common name but that the proposed one is at least more neutral, satisfying one key criteria. The current one name satisfies none. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The more that reporting comes out on this, the more that it seems like the 10 year test-notable topic is going to be the current wave of anti-vaccination protests lumped together as a whole. I don't think that limiting the article's scope to the protests in Ottawa is prudent. This series of convoy protests are not limited to Ottawa, so "Ottawa Convoy Protest" is not a good descriptive name for the series of protests. The "other protests" section really seems to be about a series of protests that public reporting are indicated are connected in a particular way. The Wall Street Journal lumps the Ottawa protests (which it notes as being under the banner Freedom Convoy 2022) together with protests throughout Canada (for example, the Ambassador Bridge protests). Not all sources do this explicitly: CNN (which refers to the Ottawa protest in its own voice as the Freedom Convoy}) paints the Freedom Convoy as the protest in Ottawa but also characterizes it with all of the other protests going around Canada right now.
    If we don't want to expand the scope of the article, it doesn't look like there's truly a common name for the protests going on in Ottawa right now that RS use in their own voice. But what I am seeing is that the vast majority of sources describe the protests as the "Freedom Convoy"—either in their own voices or as a something akin to the unique name of the protests despite the name being in quotes. Simply put, it's the most recognizable name. It's also the most natural; it's absolutely the case that the title is one that readers are likely to look or search for. If we're going to go with the most commonly recognized title, Freedom Convoy 2022 seems like the most natural way to go—if we're looking at what people will attempt to look up, "Freedom Convoy" is way more used than the phrase "convoy protest" or "Ottawa protest".
All in all, I think no matter which way this gets sliced, the proposed name is inferior to the current name. Since it's also the case that the current name is acceptable and in-line with the article titles policy, I see no policy-based reason to move it at this time. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to add onto my above, I don't think that the current title is any more of a breach of WP:POVTITLE than Holy Roman Empire which, despite being neither Roman nor a proper empire for the vast majority of its existence is most commonly known by that. Even though other names are also infrequently used to refer to the political entity, that doesn't change that the HRE is most recognizable under the non-neutral name that implies acceptance of its legitimate succession from the Roman Empire. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as the name is hated, it is very well known as the Freedom Convoy. Félix An (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, goes far beyond Ottowa and “Freedom Convoy” is far better, although the addition of “2022” makes it less the common name. Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "freedom convoy" is the most well-known name, and includes similar protests that are taking place in other parts of the country. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support change to something else due to what appears to be a breach of WP:POVTITLE. Per nom, "freedom convoy" is used by media in quotes and is not the WP:COMMONNAME. --Cornellier (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd be open to "Canadian convoy protest" or "Canadian trucker protest", but this protest goes beyond Ottawa. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally Support but it should be divorced from locality. As several international convoys have started up, this should be "Trucker Convoy Protests" Spaceanddeath (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support name change. The term "Freedom Convoy" is unacceptable and POV, used in scare quotes in reliable sources and not as an actual term. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Close discussion, start a new proposal?

At this point, I think this discussion is too convoluted to find a separate consensus option. But as far as I can tell, all of the policy-based opposes raise the concern about an unwarranted focus on solely Ottawa. Therefore, I might suggest that this be closed if a consensus is not determined, and instead a separate proposal be made for something like 2022 Canada convoy protests.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I didn't intend for this to be broken out into a separate section, but I'm ok with whoever did. If the closer can determine a consensus here that is great (there are definitely a lot of non policy-based arguments to wade through, so good luck), but my main concern was that any solution that would address the main concern of folks about the Ottawa focus is probably too late now to garner a consensus. I do disagree with the folks claiming there is a clear consensus against moving -- when it comes to policy-based arguments, the arguments in favor of the current title are fairly weak.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there is a consensus against the current title, and so the article should be moved somewhere before this is closed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I disagree. If there is any consensus then it seems to be in favor of keeping the current title. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The current title is fine. I was going to propose just naming it "Freedom Convoy" since that's the event's WP:COMMONNAME, but there are lots of hits for events that were called "freedom convoy" prior to December 31, 2021. For example: Dec 2020, Apr 2021, Apr 2021 again. The search also matches results for the United We Roll convoy from 2019, although that's likely because of "current events" sidebars on news sites. Anyway, this is an indication that we need to disambiguate this event from other events with the same or similar names. Style I think normally dictates that the year come first (2022 Freedom Convoy), but also, WP:AINTBROKE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There is most certainly NOT consensus against the current title but it is clear that many people who oppose the move to “Ottawa Convoy Protest” (including myself) do not necessarily support the current title. I think the best course of action is to close this as no consensus and open a new RM for a better title. Frank Anchor 01:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A clear majority oppose changing the name; more than twice as many editors oppose than support. Some oppose the change because the proposed alternate name is inaccurate. Others, including myself, are opposed to any name change. I'm only reiterating the point made by many others above, but the name 'Freedom Convoy' is used to describe this event by a multitude of RS already cited on this page, when one searches for 'Canadian truckers' on Google at least the first dozen RS results use the name 'Freedom Convoy,' and 'Freedom Convoy' is the name commonly used by the protesters themselves. We may feel that the names chosen for movements are inapt, but as Wikipedia editors, it is not our job to decide how public movements get named, nor to try to change their names, nor to try to obfuscate their names. Joe (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've put in a request for closure. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm with Ivanvector WP:AINTBROKE - as for scope, I created the below discussion as well. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • On another note and I hope it's not too pedantic of me but I thought a good antidote to this was getting rid of the "the" as in Freedom Convoy 2022 is an ongoing protest, not just The Freedom Convoy... CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that it a full correction, but I believe it is a step in the right direction; implemented. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
      • It was previously implemented, however the year 2022 was removed from the lede and it changed back to "The". CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
        • I believe "2022" is disambiguation, rather than part of a name for it, but no objection to you re-adding 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
          • I had removed "2022" from the lede text. My view is that the event is being called [the] "Freedom Convoy", not the "Freedom Convoy 2022". Disambiguation is only a technical solution for article titles (because two pages can't have the same name), we don't need to disambiguate in the article text. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
            • I think my suggestion to remove the "the" from first sentence takes ownership of the word "freedom" from the organizers and protesters and establishes that "Freedom Convoy" is the name, not the actual action. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I mentioned "January 2022 Canada protests" and "January 2022 Ottawa protests", which is something many people would type in to the search box. Why should the discussion be closed before one week has elapsed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    I dislike both of those names - this is unlikely to have been the only protest to have occurred in Ottawa last month and was definitely not limited to Ottawa, while it was definitely not the only protest in all of Canada in January. But if you think those are useful search terms you could create redirects at those titles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    They are just redirects, so that a more common search would redirect to the article. -Redoct87 (Talk to me!) Feb 8 2022@13:07 PST — Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It could just do something like 2022 wave of protests against COVID-19 restrictions in Canada initiated by truckers]] -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DrySpongeYT (Talk/Edits) The name doesn't need a change. Freedom Convoy is generally agreed upon to be it's name. Quotes around it don't matter. — Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Isn't 'Occupy Wall Street' a good precedent? It's not Occupy Wall Street 2011, nor is it New York protests of 2011 – no one would remember that. In the future, it will be easier to look this article up by what it was called – Freedom Convoy – than whatever legalese this Wikibureaucractic exercise is trying to conjure up. 2001:1970:5E5C:9600:4DEA:7C62:FC0E:7E16 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Redirects exist, and "Occupy Wall Street" doesn't have the same NPOV issues that "Freedom Convoy" does. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I thinking you're inventing a POV issue where one doesn't exist. The article is called Kosovo because even those who dispute its right to sovereignty, etc. will still know what you mean when you say "Kosovo". I am afraid to check the talk page of that article, but I hope no one would really be in there suggesting that's an NPOV issue and proposing Disputed territory southwest of Serbia or some other deliberately vague thing. You might take umbrage at the name Freedom Convoy, but that's what everyone is referring to it as and everyone will know what is being discussed when someone says Freedom Convoy. It's an NPOV issue to propose editorializing when your assignment is only to document. --2001:1970:5E5C:9600:4DEA:7C62:FC0E:7E16 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't see how the existence of redirects is relevant to this discussion. We're talking about whether the name of a protest commonly used by both protesters and the media should be used by Wikipedia as the name of the article about that protest, and in this case, using Freedom Convoy is congruent with using Occupy Wall Street. Also, if one thinks there's nothing POV about a movement called Occupy Wall Street, then one is likely unaware of the connotations of the word occupation, particularly in the American context. But the fact that a protest name may be provocative or inapt does not mean that it is POV or that it should not be used in an article's name. I personally think the name of the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea is very inapt, but that doesn't make it POV. Depending on whether one is politically aligned or opposed to the goals and methods of the Freedom Convoy, one likely views the name as either accurate or inaccurate, but that doesn't mean we should not use common names to describe things. Joe (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support closing this discussion, and/or changing this proposal to a title that reflects the national scope of the protests, e.g. "2022 Canadian convoy protests". --WilliamTravis (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment If the discussion is closed then the clear outcome is no consensus for the proposed change of name or any other change of name. A new name change can always be proposed from scratch. Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support close Close this discussion, make a new proposal - the entire discussion is convoluted. CaffeinAddict (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't close the discussion - please remember WP:POVNAMING

I'd like to remind all editors of WP:POVNAMING, particularly,

"In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment."

I'd also like to note that, as of writing this, this page has accumulated more than fifty RS that use the name Freedom Convoy in their title, and nearly every RS on the page which directly refers to this event uses the name Freedom Convoy in the body of their text. No matter what one's feelings on this name are, Freedom Convoy is unquestionably the common name of this event, and should be used in any title chosen for this article per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAMING. Joe (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support, as per Kai455, and as Freedom Convoy 2022 isn't particularly a great name due to other countries such as New Zealand having a similar convoy protest. --Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (I think, but it’s not clear exactly what is proposed.)  Just a reminder, in my survey of the 20 first news items that mentioned the Ottawa protests, only 7 used “Freedom Convoy” and only 1 of them without scare quotes and/or “so-called.” Most used descriptive names. A minority of those sources used the name, and most of those signalled it as non-neutral POV. (Regardless of the article title, the lead should not just use the POV name, but acknowledge its POV.) If one asserts this is the now most common name, can one please show evidence? —Michael Z. 17:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I must admit, I'm well and truly stumped. The current title is clearly not it, simply because there are so many variants, but I can't find much of anything which is concise or precise enough. In any case, there is so much variation and lack of consistency, within the same source (different articles from the same publisher using different names), for ex. "US anti-vaccine mandate campaigners aim to mimic Canadian convoy tactic". Same source also uses "Ottawa protests", "Canadian truckers protest" (although that would be imprecise for an article title); "Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” protest"; "Canada trucker protest"; simply "Trucker protests"; "Ottawa protests"; "Ottawa convoy protest"; "Trucking blockade"; "Convoy protesters"...
  • All in all, it looks like there's no actual "common name". In that case we should look even more strictly at the rest of the WP:TITLE criteria, with concision and precision probably being key factors. My best guess would be 2022 Canadian anti-vaccine mandate protests (or drop the "Canadian" if you so fancy - advance thanks from a non-crazy Canadian)? Or maybe 2022 North American anti-vaccine mandate protests if this expands significantly in the US? Both of these are unambiguous, precise, neutral and descriptive (i.e. the register of language you would expect from an encyclopedia), and more importantly not overly verbose RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I definitely do not see any evidence that "Freedom Convoy" is the common name, no. The highest-quality and most neutral sources generally do not use it. Given the level of coverage it is of course possible to find some sources that use the name; but commonname requires that the majority of the sources do so, which I don't think anyone can credibly assert to be the case here. We can discuss exactly what name to change to, but the current name is plainly unusable due to unequivocally failing to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME while simultaneously violating WP:POVTITLE. Note that the top of the discussion starts with a neutral survey of sources - saying "well I can dig up some that use my preferred term" is not how COMMONNAME arguments work. You need to establish that the majority of high-quality neutral sources use that term, which obviously isn't the case here just looking at the survey above. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mzajac, RandomCanadian, and Aquillion, (all but one) above. As of today the mainstream headlines are mostly "anti-mandate protests", and "bridge blockade" with freedom only ever in scare quotes. From the Globe & Mail, today "Even at the height of the blockade, most of the vehicles in the so-called freedom convoy were passenger vehicles". --Cornellier (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should add 3rd option: 2022 Canadian protests Aca1291 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at recent news reports, RSs seem to be phasing out the term (with or without scare quotes), using variations that include the term "protests" instead, at least in the title or lead. This event will not go down in history as "Freedom Convoy", we may as well make the change now (sure, that's a bit of speculation on my part but for one thing that's not distinctive enough).Robincantin (talk) 15:13, 14 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.

Removing the "The"

NO LONGER APPLICABLE
Now that the page has been moved this thread has become irrelevant. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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 think we've discussed this in passing and relating to other talk sections, but I am certainly adamant that we should not use the "The" at the beginning of the lead sentence. I'm thinking of Occupy Wall Street or other similar movements/protests. The "The" signifies ownership of the word "Freedom" in my opinion. Removing the "The" creates a more neutral space were we signify that "Freedom Convoy" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the protest and not an endorsement of the movement and what the name implies. Happy to drop this if consensus feels I am in the wrong. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say either way is acceptable. 'The Freedom Convoy,' in the sense that it is a literal convoy, requires a 'the,' and 'the Freedom Convoy Protest' requires a 'the,' but, as you say for Occupy Wall Street, 'Freedom Convoy' itself is a separate concept, and it doesn't necessarily require a 'the.' I didn't care for the change at first, but after considering it, I don't have any real objection. Like I said, either way is acceptable. Joe (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I added it back yesterday, it feels awkward to me without an article, and "A Freedom Convoy" is just wrong since this article is about one particular event (or series of closely-related events really). I guess I don't feel strongly either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It is awkward without an article. Common usage should apply here, most people and journalists refer to it as "the freedom convoy". Occupy Wall Street is a bad example because very few people called it "the Occupy Wall Street". 98.113.141.82 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me note as a postscript that a "the" is used thirteen of the sixteen times the phrase is used in a sentence in the body of this article. 143.229.244.70 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It's simply awkward without an article and the claim that The "The" signifies ownership of the word "Freedom" is absurd when the full name is clearly a proper noun. I can't believe we're to the point of polarization that we're arguing over the political implications of "the". There are none. It's grammar. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Update

Tartan357 has established their own consensus on this apparently. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that I'm violating by implementing the change? I'm happy to self-revert if that's the case. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to generate discussion which was the original point of this section on the talk page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, there was discussion, and there can continue to be discussion. The claim that I established [my] own consensus is unnecessarily standoffish and inaccurate. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
"The" has WP:NPOV issues, as it implies "Freedom Convoy" is a not a name but a description. I believe it should be reverted to the previous form. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
It can't be a description when capital letters are used. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest the article name should be changed or the "The" be removed which is an ongoing discussion elsewhere. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The article name is another issue, but should not contain "The" even if that's in the first sentence, per WP:NCTHE. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I believed that the "The" removal was sufficient de-politicization until a consensus was formed on the name of the article. That's why it was done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The name of the article is what it is currently; if it's changed then that's fine, but "Freedom Convoy" (capitalized) is a proper noun and needs to be treated as such grammatically (and there appears to be more support for that here than not). There are no political implications. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
How does that requires us to use "The"? BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Proper nouns that contain a word that implies an organization (such as "Foundation", "Company", or, in this case, "Convoy") should be prefaced with "the": [22]. It simply sounds incorrect without it. Moving the article is the appropriate remedy if there are concerns about the POV of the name. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
It's A convoy. But it's not the arbiter of Freedom. It's not The objective Freedom Convoy nor is it A Freedom Convoy. It's a convoy which happens to be called The Freedom Convoy. Removing the "The" generizes it, suggesting it's a name. Use of an article in wikipedia articles like in "The Red Hot Chili Peppers as one example is widely used so I understand this is complicated. My argument is it easily differentiates the movement from it's suggested sureness. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem with genericizing it as you're suggesting, but grammar would require the word "Convoy" not to be capitalized in that case. If the article was titled "Freedom convoy", there would be nothing wrong with removing the article. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, this would all be irrelevant with an article name change... which at this point I support because the article is no longer just about the protests in Ottawa. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. It probably should be moved. I'm just a stickler for grammar in any case. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:26, 13 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.

Edit request: Peter Sloly out

Hello. I am asking that the article mention how Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly has resigned over his handling of the protests. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7460:13A2:F1A5:9C4F:6CC2:73E6 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)).

Update: I can see that Sloly's resignation has been added to the page. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7460:13A2:F1A5:9C4F:6CC2:73E6 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)).

(edit conflict) I just added a brief point about this to the "criticism of police" section. I'm not putting too much effort into placing things in logical order since I'm sure this is all going to be reorganized at some point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

The CCLA, a major Canadian civil liberties group, has condemned the government's use of the emergency act.

Reliable Sources include: https://globalnews.ca/news/8620547/ccla-emergency-legislation-democracy-civil-liberties/ https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-statement-on-the-emergencies-act/

I would recommend adding "The Canadian Civil Liberties Union condemned the use of the Emergency Act as threatening "our democracy and our civil liberties"" below the existing paragraphs about the act sourced to the two links above

 Not done the responses to using the act are covered more in-depth on the Emergencies_Act#Canada_convoy_protest article. I don't think that there is a need for the same information on this article too. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 02:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

The freedom convoy is a domestic terrorist group that dosent represent Canadian belief 209.52.88.218 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll be able to find WP:Reliable Sources that would back this up other than opinion pieces. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 Not done we can't accept personal opinions, and no specifc request for change has been made. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 20:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

In the section about American political figures, under the sentence about the former ambassador, add "U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar condemned the doxing of people who donated to the convoy, calling it "unconscionable" and saying that journalists involved "need to do better". Sourced to https://www.newsweek.com/ilhan-omar-defends-freedom-convoy-donors-givesendgo-leak-1680116 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanWarlord (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done diff >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 15:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank You!TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split

The "statements and reactions" section is getting quite long, so I propose splitting it into a new article called Reactions to Freedom Convoy 2022. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 18:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I think there's other scope issues that need to be resolved about the entirety of the article first. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CaffeinAddict. --Cornellier (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: @Cornellier: With regards to scope issues, are you referring to spin-off protests? I've been pondering for a while whether 2022 Canadian–United States border crossing blockades might be a possible article. While a spin-off, they do seem unique in that I haven't seen reports about far-right connections, and that they have a larger impact on the economy. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, splitting this proposal into a new section; I Googled Regway, the name of an obscure crossing in Saskatchewan, and indeed there was a protest (albeit not a blockade) there. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, maybe, depending on how many more reactions there are / if someone wants to flesh out some of those lists of people and go into what they said in greater detail. For right now though I'd say not yet. Joe (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support far too long, and so a vaid content split. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is over 200 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The article is long, that's true. It's over-detailed and over-referenced. But that in itself is not a reason to hive content off to another article, which would only be notable in relation to this one. Two years from now nobody's going to want to have to hop between two articles to read the whole story. --Cornellier (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Terry fox statue

Statue was not defaced, this inaccurate 67.70.7.50 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That terminology is used by this source and seems accurate. Do you have a better word to describe it? >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 02:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This was changed and I manually reverted. It was previously discussed here: [23]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@CaffeinAddict: The section you have linked to contains no discussion of the statue at all. The Vancouver Sun source above uses "defacing", and that's the more linguistically appropriate term. "Desecration" applies to things that are sacred, and is sensationalism used in this context. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources refer to the tomb being desecrated, which actually makes sense. CBC does this, but refers to the statue incident separately as "defacement", which appears to be the most common term used by the media: [24], [25], [26], [27]. In the section below the one you linked to, there was some discussion of whether the statue incident should be in the lead, but not what word to use. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Oops - it was in here. [28] - but also - you just need to press Control + F to find words, terms and nouns ;) CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I obviously did find it, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. My point stands. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Your point has been discussed, but here we are discussing it again. The term derives from the actual word used by Ottawa Police in their investigation: [29]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Please show me where we decided on that word. I don't care what the police call it, they're not an independent, reliable source. The sources I provided are. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to do the work for you when you can search the terms in the archive search bar. You seem to be hung up on the religious aspect of the term. Happy to continue to discuss. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You reverted claiming consensus, so it is your responsibility to back that claim up if you want your edit to stand. I have provided sources and reasoning to back my edit, and yes, I think that the meanings of words matter, and we should not allow politicization of language to creep into the encyclopedia. The claim that using the word "the" is a political statement is a great example of this. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Go grab a soda and remember to stay WP:COOL. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm perfectly cool. You're the one who started off by baselessly suggesting I don't know how to search a page. Now, would you like to back up your position, or am I good to change the word back? ― Tartan357 Talk 04:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I was merely trying to be helpful as you perhaps could have been a new editor, trying to figure your way around wikipedia. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate that (and maybe I will go grab a soda), but, for the record, I have made more than twice as many edits as you have, not that it should matter. Now, can we please get back to the issue at hand? I'm perfectly happy to respect consensus if it was reached, but I'll need evidence of that. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm reverting your edit. It is quite clear from #RfC re: monument desecration in lead that there are significant concerns about the neutrality of this language, "defaced" is used by as many—if not more—sources, and no evidence of established consensus has been provided. Always happy to be proven otherwise if there's a discussion I've missed. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like you'd just argue anything to death. CaffeinAddict (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on using inaccurate, politically-loaded language, then yes, you will get some pushback, and I'm clearly not the only one here who takes issue with it. Please dial back your incivility, the go grab a soda was enough, keep it up and you'll get an ANI report. I've been perfectly courteous here, though frankly I agree with the IP in the RfC that calling decorating a statue with a flag "desecration" is hysterical. Even "defaced" goes too far IMO, but it's what the sources use so I'm perfectly fine with it. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I personally think that "defaced" is better than "desecrated" in this situation, but it's definitely not worth having an argument over. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 14:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. @CaffeinAddict and Tartan357: stop reverting each other immediately, or you will both be blocked from the page. Discuss, then edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I have made exactly ONE revert on this issue, after significant discussion. I'd love to know how that even approaches being a violation, and being threatened with a block over it is alarming from an admin. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't make any more, then. This article on a very hot and ongoing political event has been fairly stable because there have not been editors trading reverts, other than removing clear errors and violations. Don't be the one that starts us down this path. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I don't plan to and there's no reason for you to suggest I'd do otherwise. A single revert per editor is not edit warring by either of us. That's a normal part of the editing process. I waited more than two hours after my last post went unanswered before making my revert. I'd like a retraction. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Anyway I'm not touching this topic anymore - I would argue since the Ottawa Police said desecration which was then parroted in the media, we should keep that word. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Instead of "defaced" or "desecrated" how about another word or phrase, perhaps "disrespected"? The media and/or police might be sensationalizing a little. To me, "defaced" seems to mean the statue was physically, permanently damaged, which I don't think is the case. I think we should figure out what happened (e.g. baseball cap and flag placed on it), then use words that unambiguously represent that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: I thought you weren't touching this anymore. "Defiled" is as misleading as "desecrated" and no sources have been presented for it. There really isn't anything wrong with just stating what happened rather than trying to characterize it in wikivoice. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Should we mention the 2 Liberal MPs who broke rank?

Should we mention, under the Liberal section of politician responses, the breaking rank by MPs Joel Lightbound and Yves Robillard last week? Both received quite a bit of press, so it seems worthy to include. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like it's worth mentioning in the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I would not mention them specifically by name as more are sure to follow. PC already in process of new leadership, Libs will follow suit.Kav2001c (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)kav2001c
I think it's OK to either mention them by name or just say 2 liberal MPs; if more follow, we can then delete the names (or leave them in as the first two, and add "and six more" or whatever. The first ones are in the lead, so more significant (probably) than the rest. There's no guarantee that there will ever be any more. Depends on how things play out. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources? I haven't heard anything about this or how it's relevant to this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
See [30], [31] and [32]. Mostly regarding the divisiveness being an inciting factor to these protests. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Floydian notable in that they are skeptical of COVID-19 restrictions/mandates? Or notable that they are not in alignment with their party's overall philosophy? They aren't breaking rank as in they are throwing their support behind the protesters but more questioning why restrictions continue to be in place. If they were explicitly supporting the protests/blockades I think that it would be much easier sum up what they said. All in all, what they really said (and what a lot of us are thinking) is "why are we still doing this?" CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Seems logical to add this to the Liberal Party section under reactions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, especially since the article lists the reactions of individual MPs from other parties, elected officials from other levels of government, and foreign elected officials. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Civil Liberties Association opposes invocation of the Emergency Act

Some note should be added that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association opposes the recent invocation of the Emergency Act.

Primary source [1]

Secondary sources [2][3][4][5][6][7]

The secondary sources repeat the following quotes, which would be good to include in the article

"The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met"

"Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties."

Databased (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-statement-on-the-emergencies-act/
  2. ^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-civil-liberties-association-warns-normalizing-emergency-legislation/
  3. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/8620547/ccla-emergency-legislation-democracy-civil-liberties/
  4. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/media/trudeau-declaration-canada-aviv-truckers
  5. ^ https://www.kelownanow.com/news/news/National_News/Canadian_Civil_Liberties_Association_says_threshold_to_invoke_Emergencies_Act_has_not_been_met
  6. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadian-civil-liberties-groups-respond-to-trudeau-invoking-emergencies-act
  7. ^ https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/emergencies-act-canada-civil-liberties

Goal of the protests and official statement by the organizers

The organizers just published an official statement in an interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8tzXazvyHQ insisting that their goals focus on vaccine mandates and government mandates and tracking, and that they reject the calls for the federal government to be overthrown. This is important; even if some extremists made that calls, I think the goals of the protests should be mentioned and specified according to the organizers (specially in the lede), and not according to some fringe views within some of the protestors. Therefore I request to either 1.Specify the organizers reject the calls for the federal government to be overthrown in the lede or 2.Remove the calls for the federal government to be overthrown from the lede. This statement can also be mentioned, expanded and included later in the convoy goals section. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Total lack of sourcing in opening summary

Why are there no sources sited for some of the statements in the opening summary paragraphs? Cite your sources.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE. Information in the lead is a summary of what is already in the article, so citing twice is redundant. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
" Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. 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." from the page you linked. This is probably a controversial subject, the lead will need such sourcing.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That is usually done in response to vexatious and epeated POV-motivated complaints by drive-by editors who complain that there aren't any cites in the lead paragraph, and who don't care to read the actual cites. What do you see that isn't already cited in the body of the article per the MoS, and why do you think this is controversial? Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I haven't written it, but my "bright line" for this has been any contentious info about living persons, which is required to be sourced inline. I haven't reviewed the lede in a few days now but when I last did a detailed review, nothing there rose to that standard. The list of references is already very large; I would prefer to keep citations out of the lede if we can. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Ivanvector I made a copyedit pass yesterday, all info remained the same, with an attempt at brevity. My only addition was the recently charged men in Alberta for conspiracy to commit murder of RCMP officers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Bahb the Illuminated It would be more useful if you pointed out any content that is contentious and not sourced in the article that you don't believe should appear in the lead. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC re: monument desecration in lead

CLOSED
Discussion no longer applies as point of contention is no longer in the lead due to relevancy. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

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

I'm not certain that should be in the lede but maybe there should be an "incidents" section or some such where these events can be described. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes - This has received SIGCOV, and, despite assertations of IDONTLIKEIT, seems somewhat notable. Dunutubble (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Incidents like that happen each and every Canada Day, when certain individuals get drunk or high. They are condemnable by all means. However, here they are emphasized in order to villainize the protests that were peaceful by the vast majority of the participants. I would not put that in the lede. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
They may or may not happen, but they don't receive the SIGCOV that the events of last weekend did. Your frankly abhorrent speculation about why it was reported is just that, speculation, and deserves no attention. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, the defacing of these monuments has received significant coverage like here and here.--Seggallion (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment the statue desecrations might end up being the most notable thing about this protest. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    They might, and they might not. That is irrelevant speculation that we are not allowed to consider in making editorial decisions, per WP:CRYSTAL. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No, it is certainly relevant for the article but not relevant for the lede TocMan (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes  This has received significant coverage. This article is about protests, and these acts are among protestors’ intentional demonstration activities, so it is relevant to the subject (and unlike some random drunken vandalism). Desecration, defined as treating a sacred place with violent disrepect, is the right term for dancing on a grave or urinating on a monument. Not sure whether the Fox monument was desecrated, or merely violated, defaced, or dishonoured. These acts have nothing in common with a respectful act of celebration, like some given counterexamples, regardless of whether you agree with their sentiments. —Michael Z. 21:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No. This is hardly of real significance to the subject of the article, which is an enormous protest. Just try to imagine similar sentences about a hat and sign being put on a statue in the lead of, say the George Floyd Protests article—protests in which billions of dollars of damage was done and hundreds of statues were destroyed. And "desecration" is wildly hyperbolic and incorrect—in English usage, it's reserved for graves and "sacred" or "holy" sites (even if sometimes not religiously so)—and to use it is not only a patent violation of WP:NPOV, but an embarrassment to an "encyclopedia". ElleTheBelle 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with comments that "desecration" is obvious hyperbole. The term has been used frequently by those opposed to the protests, but is misleading. DirkDouse (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Because these incidents are not what the protest is about or is defining it by any means. As said above, to use the word desecration is an exaggeration, as these monuments are not holy to an overwhelming majority of Canadians. Lappspira (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, with neutral language. Regardless of one's interpretation of the seriousness of the conduct at the monuments, it dominated the media coverage of the protest. One can claim that those actions might not represent the movement's ideals, but those actions did indeed did occur, and were unarguably a focus of media coverage. However, neutral language should be used, or the language of media sources. Emotionally-charged terms such as "desecrated" should not be applied by Wikipedia editors except as used by source material. Bunnycube (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong no. The protests now span several weeks, across the country and with international protests and repercussions. Putting some signs and a flag on a statue, even if controversial and widely covered by media, is of little to no relevance in the overall framework of the protests. It is not a vital piece of information significant enough to be included in the lede, especially when there are (in my opinion) many other topics of the same or greater relevance that are being left out, such as state of emergency being declared in ottawa, the winnipeg hit-and-run incident, international protests, gofundme controversy... I also think the way it is worded ("desecration") does not follow NPOV. And finally, if it is to be included, the fact that the protestors themselves cleaned the statue afterwards has the same relevance and should be included as well.[1] --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • YES. I can see reasons for including it and excluding it but lean towards a short mention and then maybe more details later in the article. The acts were jumped open by media and by opponents and sent the tone or reinforced it for public reception. Protestors then gave the statues special attention afterwards. TLDR: A very brief mention using neutral language, perhaps more detail after Pmmccurdy (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No Incident might have a place further down in the article, but make sure to use neutral wording. The word desecration is clearly misleading and should be removed (even if some news sources parroted it). 138.233.138.234 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Even if this is notable and supported by RS, the lede is supposed to summarize major points and events. it's not a place to catalogue details, which should be placed further down in the article. if these "desecrations" were a significant focus of the protests, then it could be mentioned. but they're not, and the prominent mention comes across as bias & cherry-picking. Xcalibur (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Follow-up to previous comments from this/other threads. This thread was started when the protests had only been going on for a few days and there was not as much content (see WP:RECENT). At this point it seems fairly obvious that this is not sufficiently relevant to be in the lead. This topic was discussed for like 72 hours and at this point is barely memorable. DirkDouse (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Trucker convoy: Protesters clean-up Terry Fox statue in Ottawa following outcry".
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.

Biased that needs to be corrected (re: monuments)

CLOSED
Discussion moot, as the content has been removed from the lede due to decreasing relevance over the long-term. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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 the article related to the freedom truckers there is a sentence that says "protesters were seen defiling the National War Memorial and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and a statue of Terry Fox." i saw the event and the only "defiling" is the removal of a fence, and if imp correct, that on itself isn't any act related to the accusation. Also in relate to the event it has to be known that the CBC shouldn't be cited by itself at least, the reason for that is the fact of who they are being funded which is the Canadian government.

I just wanted to bring this to your attention since I'm new and i don't have the permission required to edit, please consider it I want to see Wikipedia be a reliable, trustworthy source that everyone can use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezagamer1596 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I had raised the concerns about CBC earlier. There was a consensuses that they were reliable. I don't think the situation changed in a way that would affect this reliability.TheAmericanWarlord (talk)
Every left-leaning news outlet in Canada is funded by the Canadian government from their legacy media bailout. First rule of communism. They're still reliable, even if they do cherry pick what to report on. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Media Bias/Fact Check says about CBC News: "Overall, we rate CBC Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that lean slightly left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record." ([33]) There is no entry for CBC at WP:RSP presumably because most discussions about it on Wikipedia tend not to be in good faith, i.e. bad actors attempting to discredit the CBC because they don't like that its factual reporting doesn't align with their own bias. The CBC is a public broadcaster and receives government funding, but it is editorially independent of the government (it is not state media). Their centre-left bias is no cause for concern, as we balance it through use of other reliable sources that lean centre-right, such as the National Post ([34]) and the Globe and Mail ([35]). Sources which lean further away from a centred bias are those that need more attention and careful review; sources like Rebel News ([36]) or Huffington Post ([37]) have near-to-extreme bias ratings and also low ratings for factual accuracy, and probably shouldn't be used as the sole source for any contentious information. Even more extreme are sources like Infowars ([38]) and the Daily Mail (WP:DAILYMAIL, [39]), which are so biased or so poorly rated for fact checking that they can't be used at all.
tl;dr: CBC is a reliable source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NPR is a better source though. Maybe try finding that? Or possibly just use a source from the center-right and use the parts both cites use as multiple sources is always a great idea. TL:DR Use multiple sources from different points of reference. WeezerWeezerIHadASeizure (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to the CBC, the decision to lump three separate things together, attribute them to the same group and call it "defiling" was made by Wikipedia's editorial board. Exclusive original research, 24/7, usually staunchly aligned with contemporary leftist American opinion pieces. The CBC is relatively journalistic, in principles of integrity and matters of fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: The change was made by CaffeinAddict ([40], [41]) after they supposedly dropped the issue at #Terry fox statue. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Nobody's perfect. Who thought we should highlight the statue as if it were outrageous in the first place? As noted Canadian pundits Sum 41 once said, "We're All to Blame". Whole united and spoiled bunch. No bad apples. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I decided to News Google "defiled" to see if the usual talking point outlets were using that word loosely. Nope, just far worse news, mostly incestuous child rape. Well played, Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It should be changed back. Consensus is not with CaffeinAddict on calling it "desecration". "Defiled" is a synonym that is equally misleading and political, and isn't even being used by sources. If these actions by protestors were really so obviously terrible, then the readers can reach that conclusion themselves, without us telling them how to feel about it. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Affirmative, "terminate" loaded language. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Who hates this? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe “damaged” is a better word? Seems more NPOV? Thoughts? Tyrone (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of last summer. Even a couple of queens went down. These monuments are fine, at least physically. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
At worst it was "defiled" or "desecrated", at best it was "decorated". - Floydian τ ¢ 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favour of removing it from the lede, and just leaving the description of what happened in an appropriate section in the article (which now badly needs to be reorganized). It was a significant event when it happened, but so much else has happened since that it's just kind of a footnote to the whole thing now, and if all we can say in the lede is artificially neutral language like "caused some offense" then we might as well not put it there at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Ivanvector - it's becoming more irrelevant compared to the mass arrests and clearance today. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with removal, but deny anything false or fake about my wording. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest/Archive_4&oldid=1143723603"