Talk:Canada convoy protest

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

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

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

http://redpatchboys.ca/news/page/7/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4946:3FDF:A2C5:F90F (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am unsure these pass rs, don't does not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The NP article should pass rs if I am understanding it correctly even if the source is unreliable the image associated with it is real and I feel that should be taken into account 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * both wp:v and wp:undue come into play. do (multiple) wp:rs say this act was linked to these demos? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The criticism of the protesters as reported in this article is that Terry Fox would not have agreed with them, not that his statue was desecrated. Of course we cannot know for sure what his position on today's political issues would have been. Nonetheless, mainstream observers tend to be shocked when national heroes are used by conspiracy theorists and far right extremists, while they don't seem to mind when they are used by adherents of other views. So your complaint seems to be that observers condemned the convoy protesters for using Terry Fox but did not condemn the anti-war protesters. But Wikipedia is not supposed to correct the biases in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that they are far white extremists, in fact it has been disproven https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf (page 163) and that this was just another slander tactic used against them. Recentism The “vandalism” was a Canadian flag and a sign that said “mandate freedom” this seems like a case of Neutral point of view as in any other context but a highly politicized one these messages are not offensive at all and there was no actual damage. And the outrage was a case of is again just a case of Recentism and anger at unvaccinated people. This is the same time news papers where printing articles like this https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6c118291-bc45-45df-91c9-c2897f722a6d_996x1334.jpeg Wikipedia is not a tabloid and is to represent a neutral point of view.2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What on earth does recentism have to do with this? Remsense  诉  03:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others:
 * -Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
 * -Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
 * this section of the article was subject to it while the news reports produced where designated to show the protest on the most negative light possible. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The events of this article took place in 2022. What would a non-recentist emphasis look like? Remsense  诉  05:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that but this entire article was subject to it for the first year it remained locked. There are still some aspects that should be addressed that have yet to be fixed. The articles themselves where written at a very heated time this is from the Rouleau commission
 * "However, in my view more of an effort should have been made by government leaders at all levels during the protests to acknowledge that the majority of protesters were exercising their fundamental democratic rights."
 * Rouleau concluded by saying messaging by politicians, public officials and the media should have been more balanced, and "drawn a clearer distinction between those who were protesting peacefully and those who were not."” https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2023/2/17/1_6278913.amp.html 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What more recent events are being privileged? What would a non-recentist emphasis look like? Remsense  诉  08:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct I’m quoting the wrong rule it should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Wikipedia:BIASEDSOURCES as those same sources made no mention when it was tressed in another nations flag by a group who has members that support actual terrorist organizations or when it was dressed up to represent the LGBTQ community. It was only called vandalism and against his “personal views” when it was Canadian flags and a sign saying mandate freedom which should be the least controversial. Nobody knows what his opinion would be on the subject and you can speculate either way. The media decided to take a slanderous approach. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works, we don't get to editorialize and synthesize based on what we notice between sources, that would be original research. We write the article in proportion what the body of reliable sources says, and theoretically no more. Neutral point of view is not "no point of view". Remsense  诉  09:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean I have RS to back up this opinion. It’s not just mine alone https://nationalpost.com/video/c24d3040-7a83-11ee-82a1-46f0802d1445/canadas-selective-outrage-at-desecrating-terry-fox considering it was the largest protest in Canadian history and not a single media outlet had a good thing to say about it because it was deemed to be a “threat to national unity” shows how biased the media was. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Dancing on tomb of unknown soldier
This is the video of the event in question proving the article to prove false and misleading information that omits details https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=6wNcFLkdzhFZhIBs&v=teK4iQJNzHQ&feature=youtu.be 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4946:3FDF:A2C5:F90F (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that video proves absolutely nothing and, definitely, it doesn't represent a reliable source. --DoebLoggs (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not an RS (and read wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by what is published in reliable sources, without adding our own analysis. This page is not a forum for discussing your or anyone else's opinions about the event. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand but at the same point in time when you can see the description given isn’t accurate to the footage than should it be aloud because it’s a reporters opinion? There is only one version of the video that has circulated so this must have been the basis for the article 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that point is when an RS says it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the video is not the basis for our article. The basis is how reliable sources reported on the event. If you think that the Vancouver Sun, Associated Press, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star, Global News, CTV News, The Independent, CBC News, the Globe and Mail, NBC News, the Ottawa Police Service, Citynews, and The Conversation all reported on the event incorrectly or unfairly, take it up with those publications. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I and other editors have pointed out, policy requires us to summarize the events as they were reported in mainstream media. Your argument seems to be with how mainstream media reported them, not how this article summarizes the reporting. While the media may be biased, it is unproductive to discuss that here. Your argument is with policy, not how it has been applied to this article.
 * Many editors who complain about articles bring up "neutrality." However, it is important to read the policy because it doesn't mean that we are supposed to correct the biases is rs. Basically,, if rs are biased against a subject, the article will portray it in a negative light. If you don't like that, you need to take your argument to policy discussions. TFD (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And WP:DUE says "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" so the Blacklock's item "Convoy Allegation Disproven" can't be used here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to suggest these are the views of a “tiny minority” and those statements have been retracted considering it was the largest protest in Canadian history https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2023/2/17/1_6278913.amp.html
 * "I expect that the Prime Minister was intending to refer to the small number of people who were expressing racist, extremist, or otherwise reprehensible views, rather than to all Freedom Convoy participants," Rouleau wrote.
 * "However, in my view more of an effort should have been made by government leaders at all levels during the protests to acknowledge that the majority of protesters were exercising their fundamental democratic rights."
 * Rouleau concluded by saying messaging by politicians, public officials and the media should have been more balanced, and "drawn a clearer distinction between those who were protesting peacefully and those who were not." 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These articles are subject to Recidivism and should be taken with a grain of salt. The news articles about the person where written off of this video https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2022/4/28/1_5880365.amp.html the articles description would fall in under Neutral point of view
 * “She was spoken to, showed remorse for her actions and police are confident she will not re-offend”
 * Most people do not understand the tomb is on the ground in front of the monument. They think the monument is the tomb and step right on it. This is extremely common with people who ave never been to it before 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

White
The text "White" in this article should be capitalized, as when used in reference to the racial group. MOS:RACECAPS AppGoo0011 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The guideline is wishy-washy as to whether or not it should be capitalized, but it suggests that capitalizing is more appropriate when used in the presence of other racial descriptors, which is not the case in this article. The article also doesn't really have any instances of "white" referring to the ethno-racial grouping, there are just a couple instances describing the presence of white supremacists at the protests, and we typically don't capitalize ideologies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024
Please include that two of four men arrested at the couts border were fully aquited of any charges except improperly storing firearms. No conspiracy to murder a peace officer any longer. 207.102.61.194 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The citations at 2022 alleged plot to kill Coutts RCMP officers say the charges were dropped as part of a plea deal, this is very different from an acquittal. Jamedeus (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Federal Court Ruling
Why dont they go into how the federal court of canada declared the use illegal and a break of our charter rights. Or the fact there was international support? This is such a one sided view its pathetic. Do better. 107.179.238.108 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)