Talk:2022 alleged plot to kill Coutts RCMP officers

Defendants

Anthony Olienick, Jerry Morin, Chris Carbert and Chris Lysak are primarily known for a single event. Thus per WP:SINGLEEVENT, they should not all have their own permanent stand-alone encyclopedia articles: they would be quite redundant. They should be redirected and described as warranted (with due caution per WP:BLP and WP:NPF) --Animalparty! (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The logic in the proposal doesn't match my reading of the guidance. Even if it was correct that they were "primarily known" for one single event, they would need to be only known for one even for WP:BLP1E to apply. i.e. even if they are just a little bit known for more than one event, still WP:BLP1E would not apply. There are two reasons for that:

1. BLP1E has three criteria. All three must be met. The second is that they are likely to remain a low profile individual. As each of them are involved in one one of the most notable events of 2022 and are going to involved in what will inevitably be a notable court case in 2023, that does not apply. The third essential component of WP:BLP1E us third is that their role is not substantial nor not well documented. For each of them it is both.
2. BLP1E also does not apply because each of them so far is notable for more than 1 event. For all it is the alleged events in Coutts and then it is pre-trial court cases. Both these events attracted separate media attention. See WP:NOTBLP1E for an essay that gives a clear explanation about this.

Also there is sufficient content about each of them to create more than a stub, a good measure about if we should create an article.

More importantly, each of them has WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources, as per WP:GNG which is the benchmark for if we should have an individual article. Each of them has attracted individual media attention, they are not just handled as a group.

Merging them to a article that will inevitably grow will mean dropping details about their backgrounds, which is encyclopaedically relevant and interesting for such high profile events.

And finally, there is consensus to have biographical articles about notable people who are known primarily for being associated with a major terrorist or crime events, we even have categories of such people, check out here and here and here CT55555(talk) 13:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - A quick read of each person's article shows they are notable only for this alleged crime. A merge makes it easier for readers to get the encyclopedic content they are looking for in one place. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BLP1E. Love of Corey (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support redirect here, per WP:BLP1E. None of the biographies contains anything like enough about the individuals to justify separate articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'm clearly the only one opposing this, I'm doing the work to redirect them now. CT55555(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Errors

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coutts_alleged_terrorism_plot

There are no terrorism charges, this title is based on the author opinion.

The reference to the Calgary Herald article…clearly the article states that a person (who was not at the protest) had requested that some shared on social media…the ideal to alter the government. It does not indicate that this was the wish of the protestor them-self. You state that the police suspect this is so, however the article does not state that directly. It states that this was “discussed”. This is the opinion of your author.

Olienick charge of explosives has been stayed. All four have mischief snd weapon of dangerous purpose charges.

“The protest was the start of a convoy of protestors that later proceeded to Ottawa.” -this is untrue. People who left for Ottawa had done so a week prior to the Coutts protest. Ottawa and Coutts started on the same day. You reference The Globe and Mail here “The protest started as a rolling convoy in support of a larger convoy of vehicles that eventually took over downtown Ottawa.” Which does not imply the same thing you are implying.

You write: “Police ended the protest on February 15, 2022, after the arrests” and reference The Globe and Mail. Their article states “Protesters in Coutts dismantled the border blockade Feb. 15, after RCMP charged the four men with conspiracy to commit murder and others with lesser crimes. The broader group said they did not want to be associated with violence and guns.” 207.148.176.188 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism?

We need to call this article something. Is a plot to murder police and change a country's political system terrorism? Some sources that suggest this is a reasonable label:

1. https://calgaryherald.com/news/alberta-border-village-coutts-besieged-by-domestic-terrorists-inquiry-told
2. when discussing the event "exemptions can be given when criminal organizations or terrorism offences are involved" https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-rcmp-emergency-wiretaps-coutts-blockade/

That said, it's not the author's opinion, I am the primary author and I called it "Conspiracy to murder RCMP officers" User:Love of Corey changed it to this title. I think the title is fair. Did you have a better title suggestion?

Altering political system

The article does not say where the person who wanted to change government was locate, just that it was a goal of the organisers of the plot. I don't see anything wrong in the article.

To Ottawa

I'll ignore your WP:OR about when people who went to Ottawa departed. Let's stick to what the sources say. I think the article paraphrases the globe and mail article fairly. I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Police ending

I also think the article fairly represents what is said. Feel free to suggest better wording if you have any. CT55555(talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have flagged this over at the BLP notice board to get wider input. CT55555(talk) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename

I think terrorism is fair, but maybe synthesis. Perhaps Courts alleged police murder plot would be better in context of BLP concerns? @Love of Corey any thoughts? CT55555(talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Which of the sources cited in the article refer to this as alleged 'terrorism'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

When I started this article, I called it "Conspiracy to murder RCMP officers". Another editor changed it to the current name. It was a bolder name that I chose, but I assume their motivation was influenced by this article: https://calgaryherald.com/news/alberta-border-village-coutts-besieged-by-domestic-terrorists-inquiry-told and considering "terrorism" as a fair word to use for people who were allegedly conspiring to murder police, arrested for possessing a pipe bomb, etc. CT55555(talk) 00:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

If that is the only source for describing the events as alleged 'terrorism', it is inadequate. The article is quoting a single individual's opinion - an individual who complains that "no one ever labelled them that". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It's the only source I could find in recent searches that includes the term "Coutts" and "terror" on Google News. Do you think Conspiracy to murder RCMP officers (the title I gave it to begin with) or Courts alleged police murder plot (my suggestion above) are better? Should we move it immediately? CT55555(talk) 00:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The title was WP:BOLDly moved because Conspiracy to murder RCMP officers was WAY too vague of an article title. I've since moved it again to address the WP:BLP concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup: '2022 alleged plot to kill Coutts RCMP officers' seems fine, at least from a WP:BLP perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't able to think of anything else better at the time. Love of Corey (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed suspect names

I was WP:BOLD and removed the names of the suspects from the article, per WP:BLPCRIME, since they haven't been convicted of anything, and there's no evidence they're notable for anything other than this alleged plot. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I waited a day to consider before revering an edit by User:BubbaJoe123456 that removed all names of suspects. WP:BLPCRIME is relevant. It guides us to seriously consider content "not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

I started the article and added their names. I did do this serious consideration, and the factors that influenced me are:

1. - Their names are widely reported in media, multiple times, over a period of months
2. - There are media articles about them specifically, not just trivial mentions
3. - It is encyclopedic information
4. - We mention names of suspects in comparably high profile events such as plots to abduct high profile individuals

Many experienced editors have edited and debated this article and I suspect we are all aware of the guidelines and nobody has until this edit suggested we should censor the names. I therefore have followed the normal WP:BRD approach to editing. CT55555(talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Only question is whether all the detailed bio information on each man is appropriate. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. All the detailed bio information...that is a good question. I am open minded to your thoughts. What do you think is best? CT55555(talk) 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Commentary

Guns, ammunition, and body armour was found stashed in trailers; Olienick was quoted as saying he would "slit their throats" if RCMP used force to disband the protest. You don't use a gun, ammo, or body armour to slit anyone's throat, and yet he's charged with conspiracy to committ murder. Remanded into custody and denied bail because, to release him, weakens public opinion of government agencies. How can public support of elected government officials get any weaker, after this horrendous misapplicstion of "justice"? Carbert is a man of his convictions, and will stand up for them completely. He wont, however, conspire against you, or formulate an extravagant plot to do so. From personal experience, he'll have a direct, logical conversation with you, calmly point out your bullshit, and refuse to engage in what doesn't align with his ideations. He has an iron spine, and he's steadfast. There is no justice, here. There is no reason to deny Chris or Anthony bail, and no solid, irrefutable evidence to prove, before reasonable doubt, that either of these 2 men were conspiring towards any act of violence. It's worth noting as well that neither of these individuals were carrying any sort of firearm, or even a knife, at any point in the blockade. And the direct eye contact they had when the female undercover asked if the expected shipment contained guns...they didnt deny it?? Thats your proof that they were planning a violent shootout wild wild west style? Innocent until proven guilty...they didnt confirm it. Silence and eye contact isnt confirmation last time I checked. Peace, order and goid government. Where? You're Charter bound, and your failures are epic. Release your scapegoats, and admit your conspiracy theories were contrived and self serving. Fuck sakes. 2604:3D09:6283:2200:E8E6:6285:7EF:5315 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)