Jump to content

Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 6

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

216.36.133.19 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

These protests are ongoing … I noticed you have an end date stated? Or did I maybe read it wrong, or is it only referring to when there were vehicles involved. Clarification is much appreciated, thank you!

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is not about all protests related to health measures or border restrictions but about the specific series of vehicle convoy protests operated under the "Freedom Convoy" banner in Canada, which reliable sources describe as having ended when the protesters were cleared from downtown Ottawa. If you're aware of any ongoing Freedom Convoy events, please provide a reliable source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims of US/foreign influence in Freedom Convoy

March 3, 2022. GoFundMe releases information on data analysis of funds raised on the platform in support of freedom convoy protests: testifies before the House of Commons public safety and national security committee that “VAST MAJORITY (88%) of funds were from ordinary Canadians. Further testified NO EVIDENCE of support by terrorist or extremist groups. The Canadian government and government-funded media have tried very hard to divert the truth and steer the narrative towards the continued demonization of a grassroots movement comprised of ordinary Canadians protesting for the restoration of bodily autonomy and civil liberties under Canada’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms for all Canadians. Please do not continue to regurgitate unfounded claims with no basis in actual fact. 74.113.183.28 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The original estimate that 44% of the GoFundMe money came from outside Canada was based on estimates by AP using leaked information. It is a wild guess that AP and people who rely on mainstream news media are lying, when they are more likely just mistaken. In any case, can you point to where this article repeats the original figures? TFD (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It mentions it in the "Donors" section of this article. Here's a source for the numbers the IP was quoting: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/gofundme-head-testifies-over-freedom-convoy-fundraising-says-most-donors-were-canadian-1.5804094 I'll update the article accordingly. Edit: to be clear, the GoFundMe and GiveSendGo fundraisers were separate so the fact that they have different numbers is not contradictory. Endwise (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @74.113.183.28: this page is for discussing improvements to the encyclopedia article on the convoy protests, not for you or anyone else to air your personal opinions and grievances about it. If there is specific information in the article that you want to challenge, say what it is, and bring reliable sources (not obvious hit pieces written on right-wing blogs) supporting your proposed change. The next time you post another diatribe about the "real truth" and whine about "government-funded media", you will be blocked from the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that recent claims that initial media coverage over stated the US influence are credible.

Speaking before the House of Commons public safety and national security committee, Juan Benitez said 88 per cent of donated funds to the movement originated in Canada and 86 per cent of donors were from Canada.

https://twitter.com/antihateca/status/1499436938637553667 A recent Canadaland podcast analyzed that in length, sorry to say that without a link, it would take me more time than I have to dig it up. I think the article does reflect initial reporting that I think (again, have not invested the time to really get into this) is recently corrected by the CTV source I linked. CT55555 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, before this article started, it did not say that large amounts of GoFundMe donors were American. TFD (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I make no claims that anything in the article is incorrect. I'm only saying I have sympathy for the complaint, my perceptions are that the "American influence" section are that while it is correct, it just talks about claims, it does leave the reader without the details above and it would be easy to be left with the impression that it was more US funded than GoFundMe claim. i.e. the article includes the police claim/speculation, but not the GoFundMe refute of it CT55555 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Update to the criminal investigations section

The criminal investigations section mentions several investigations ongoing with potential connections to the convoy protest. One of the prominent investigations mentioned is the one of the building arson.

Police have now made an arrest in that case, and have concluded they could not find any connection to the convoy:

CBC: 'police said Monday they had not uncovered any information that the man charged "was involved in any way with the Convoy protest which was going on when this arson took place."'[1]

Ottawa police statement directly: 'There is no information indicating MCDONALD was involved in any way with the Convoy protest which was going on when this arson took place.' [2]

Though the investigation is still ongoing as a second suspect is still not yet in custody, I believe this should warrant a line describing that investigation so far has established that there is no connection to the convoy. Wild dog94 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How's this, dog? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/apartment-building-lisgar-arson-1.6392406
  2. ^ https://www.ottawapolice.ca/Modules/News/index.aspx?newsId=46eea503-f886-4e7a-9188-edbecabca0a6&lang=en

Requested move 6 March 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title (although there's a broad agreement that status quo is less than ideal). The idea of restoring to "Freedom Convoy" has been flouted (on the basis of common name and POVNAME), but it is controversial and lacks clear consensus as well. No such user (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Canada convoy protest → 2022 Canadian convoy protests – There have been multiple convoy protests in Canada over the many decades of the existence of the nation. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 12:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Freedom convoy is what it is known as and that should be reflected in the name. Masterhatch (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
A news clip from 7 March using 'Freedom Convoy'. Almost all media calls it Freedom Convoy. Makes no sense for Wikipedia to call it anything but. Oddly enough, the lead of this article says, "called the Freedom Convoy (French: Convoi de la liberté) by organizers" which is misleading. Yes, its called 'Freedom Convoy' by the organisers, but there are a lot of others calling it that too (including sources used for this article). Other names have been used, such as Trucker convoy, but Freedom Convoy seems to be the one most are settling on. Just some food for thought. Masterhatch (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - referring into this discussion some points made in several other discussions about this article's title, so those reading here don't have to go looking:
    1. That "Freedom Convoy" is still the name most commonly used by most reliable sources to refer to this event (or these events), at least as of mid-February: [1]. From this edit I'll reiterate that Wikipedia is the top search result for "canada convoy protest", suggesting that this title and variations of it are neologisms invented by Wikipedia, rather than a descriptive title based on reliable sources.
    2. That many other protests involving vehicle convoys have occurred in Canada, with notable events occurring especially since 2000 but as far back as the 1930s: [2]
    3. That natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical or calendar-based disambiguation. (Article title policy)
    4. That titles should reflect what a reader will type as a first guess (emphasis in the policy)
    5. That when a proper name becomes a common name (as it has here) that "generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" (also from the titles policy)
    --Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, and to summarize how the rest of that discussion went, rather than just one side of it: "Freedom Convoy" found no consensus as the WP:COMMONNAME, with several other editors (including myself) feeling strongly that it had not met that criteria, and was instead a WP:POVNAME used mainly from the POV of supporters of the protests. Most reliable sources do not use "Freedom Convoy" outside of when speaking from the supporters POV (i.e. with scare quotes, "so called", etc.), but do use some combination of "convoy", "trucker" and "protest". Rather than listing all the evidence of this again in this discussion, I would encourage others to read the discussion for yourself. However, this current proposed alternative found mostly consensus support, regardless of where editors stood on the WP:COMMONNAME debate as at least an improvement on the status quo. --WilliamTravis (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    I was not attempting to summarize the entire discussion, just repeating points I had made earlier that are relevant to this request. As for the COMMONNAME vs POVNAME debate, I have brought evidence in the form of reliable sources supporting the common name argument, while those on the other side have so far only given their personal opinions on the matter, and the closer of this request ought to note that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    No matter how emphatically or strongly you feel you are correct about this, it's just not the case that only you have come to this discussion with evidence. I would suggest you go back and re-read the previous discussion on this topic for a reminder. I also provided evidence of reliable sources using "Freedom Convoy" only from the POV of protesters in that discussion, and found that to be the case with many of the reliable sources you presented as well. And as I already said to you in the previous discussion, your search engine hits evidence is irrelevant, because we only care about what reliable sources use. It's already been pointed out to you by myself and other editors that the burden to prove WP:COMMONNAME is a lot higher than simply "it appears in reliable sources sometimes". It has to be the name used by reliable sources. We disagree on whether that's the case, and other editors feel just as strongly for/against that. Most importantly, though: It's simply not correct, nor is it very respectful to other editors, to presume only your viewpoint or interpretation of said evidence is valid. --WilliamTravis (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, you demonstrated multiple sources commonly calling the event "Freedom Convoy", and then added your opinion that they did so only when describing the POV of the protesters, when it is just as reasonable to conclude that they did so because that is its name. Calling things by common names that are also their self-assigned titles is not automatically an endorsement of those things, and does not automatically make the title a POVNAME. If it was, then all of our articles on controversial topics would have silly generic titles like 1773 Thirteen Colonies' response to the Stamp Act, 1995 Atlantic fishing dispute, or French migration in 18th century British North America. We don't, of course, we use the names that reliable sources use to describe those events (Boston Tea Party, Turbot War, Acadian Expulsion). The bar for POVNAME is higher, generally when using a given name represents an unacceptable endorsement of a POV embedded in the title. POV self-titles that we don't use are things like German Democratic Republic, because publishing our article under that entity's given name implies accepting its point of view that it was a democratic republic, when in reality it was a communist puppet state of the Soviet Union. "Freedom Convoy" by itself is just a generic self-description of what the organizers intended the protest to be about, their own badly misinformed idea of it anyway. If they called themselves "Freedom Convoy" and drove to Ottawa for some contrary or unrelated purpose, then the title would be a POV issue. Conversely, not using the self-title in this case implies that Wikipedia rejects the POV of the event (because we don't call it by its name), which itself fails NPOV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    You've done an excellent job here of laying out the problem I have with declaring "Freedom Convoy" the WP:COMMONNAME. No one refers to the Boston Tea Party, for example, as the "so called" Boston Tea Party "according to its supporters". It has since achieved WP:COMMONNAME status by not needing such qualifiers or caveats in future discussions. That's what makes it the common name. Yet that's not often how reliable sources use the term "Freedom Convoy", to which there is plenty of evidence in the sources both of us have already presented in the previous discussion. Reliable sources more often use "trucker protest", "convoy", and other neutral descriptors. "Freedom Convoy" most often appears in scare quotes, or with caveats (e.g. "so called"), expressing that "Freedom Convoy" is not an objectively or commonly accepted label for it, because, frankly, it isn't. As has already been covered in the previous discussion: WP:COMMONNAME is not a test of "sometimes appears in reliable sources", especially if it only comes after better, more neutral descriptors and/or with caveats that express doubt about it. We've both provided evidence that the term "freedom convoy" appears in these articles, yes, but as covered by WP:NPOVNAME, that's not enough to qualify as the common name; it must be the commonly accepted name in use, and by more than just its supporters as their self-descriptive name for it. According to the reliable sources I've seen, that is not yet the case, which is why I feel a NPOV title is needed instead. Furthermore, "Freedom Convoy" was not a "generic" self-description, nor is it so clearly the case that the protests were not protesting for "some contrary or unrelated purpose", given that organizers talked openly about overthrowing the government, and spread various conspiracy theories common among the far right-wing. You may feel that "Freedom Convoy" is a "generic" description of the protest. I do not. Many editors have weighed in to be strongly for/against this idea. Regardless of how you or I feel, the fact that this debate has now spilled over into two move requests and a separate discussion meant to head off this debate before the next move request was made should be proof enough there is no consensus for "Freedom Convoy", as of yet, as the WP:COMMONNAME. WilliamTravis (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    As it happens, there is a supplemental guideline on naming conventions for events which covers political events but has no examples on unrest events specifically. Its very first point reads "If there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a "Bloody Sunday"), use that name." (emphasis added) It goes on to say, under "maintaining neutral point of view", that "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." (bold in original, italic added) It then further expands on that with "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." (emphasis in original) The common name, by these definitions, is "Freedom Convoy", per both our analyses of sources in the previous discussion showing that the overwhelming majority refer to it by that title. How can it not be the common name when there aren't any others? I agree 100% that the majority of those sources are also making an effort to point out that it's a controversial self-description, and we have no choice but to follow that POV (and the way we've formulated our first sentence is a good way to do that) but that doesn't mean we can invent our own title for the thing. That's not what the sources have done; if we do then we have inserted our own POV, and that's not okay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    We're just talking past each other and going in circles over a disagreement of facts, so we're at an impasse and merely fighting over the last word. Neither of us can bring anything new to this debate from this point on. There's not much point continuing this unless we can agree to disagree, which I'm happy to do. For you, and from your perspective, reliable sources mainly refer to these protests as "Freedom Convoy" and its established as the name used for these protests by most of the English-speaking world. I simply disagree, wholeheartedly, with that interpretation. As I've repeatedly explained, reliable sources do not mainly use "Freedom Convoy", they as (or more) often use neutral descriptors with the words "convoy", "truckers", or "protest". Unlike you, I don't believe "Freedom Convoy" has (yet) established the same level of recognizability in the English-speaking world as any of the examples you've provided, so much so that it is something most English-speakers use to refer to this event. Furthermore, "Freedom Convoy" is not a neutral name, which is why undeniably establishing its place as the common name in use by most observers is so critical, and the test for achieving that status is so (rightfully) high - much higher than "it sometimes appears in reliable sources". For such a clearly POV title, and one used mainly only by supporters, this is a key test, and the evidence I've seen does not yet show that it has been clearly established as the common name. Ultimately, we have a difference of opinion on how established "Freedom Convoy" is as the name for these protests. You had suggested a RfC and I would welcome it. But, I think the polarization and ferocity of this debate (again) is yet more evidence as to why it's a bad idea to simply declare "Freedom Convoy" the obvious common name and expect that would be the end of it. The only reason I originally got involved on this article's talk page was because I thought it was odd that anyone not connected with the protests would consider "Freedom Convoy" the common name in use for them. It's not what I would have thought to use then if having a natural conversation about it, nor is it now. (I would call them the "convoy" protests, though.) WilliamTravis (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    I thank you to make that the last time you allege that I, or anyone else on this talk page, are "connected with the protests". You kind of hit on why my suggestion was "freedom convoy protests", not "Freedom Convoy" in capital letters, although I'm not sure which way I land on that now. I would say we are in agreement that reliable sources, when they use a title, use "Freedom Convoy", even if couched in softening language like "so-called" or "by organizers". If you've seen sources use a different phrase as a title, rather than one of many arrangements of dictionary words as a description of the events, I haven't, though I acknowledge that several sources (a very small proportion) just describe the event without using a title at all. We disagree on whether that constitutes an acknowledgement of the self-given title (and whether or not that compels Wikipedia to use that title), or if any of the descriptive arrangements constitute alternative titles (which would also compel Wikipedia to use that alternative title), or if the proliferation of generic descriptors is evidence that there is no commonly accepted title (which would compel Wikipedia to use a concise descriptive title). I think we also agree that the current title fails all of these scenarios, and we clearly disagree on whether the proposed title is an improvement under any of those scenarios, and theoretically on whether moving from a bad title to a better-but-still-bad title is productive. I am fine to "agree to disagree" on all of this pending a future RfC, since we're clearly not going to solve it here. I am confused about the POV argument, though: what exactly is POV about the title "Freedom Convoy"? I have not heard a good argument as to why that is, just various opinions. I would agree that freedom is a loaded and propagandistic term, I'm just not sure that its use in this context (to describe a political event organized under that title) rises to the level of unacceptable POV that would compel rejecting it and using a generically descriptive title instead. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on that matter. Or if you prefer, we can leave this just where it is and discuss it separately, i.e. in that future RfC. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, I was not accusing you of being connected to the protests. I was saying that I found it odd when I first entered this discussion that any editor who wasn't would consider it the common name. Clearly, I have since discovered there are editors (like yourself) for whom that isn't the case. But, I maintain that I don't think that it's use is a part of common language about these protests, outside of within circles of supporters/sympathizers and, evidently, this talk page and this discussion. I think the key difference between our positions here is "when they use a title". There are reliable sources that don't use it at all. I consider the frequency of that title's use in reliable sources, and the priority given to it, to be relevant in establishing a non-neutral name as the mainly used name for an event. We disagree on its use, in this sense, in reliable sources and, more importantly, its prevalence in the English-speaking world as the mainly used common name for these protests. For what it's worth, I do think that's evolving, and it may change in the future. But, we can't predict that, which is why a NPOV name for now is better, until that prevalence is established (if ever), at which point a new move request to "Freedom Convoy" would be appropriate. As for why it's a non-neutral name, I've already answered this question earlier. Protests that claim to be for "freedom" imply that they are against some kind of oppression; in this context, that vaccine mandates for easy cross border travel are a form of oppression, which is not an uncontroversial opinion. That, coupled with some of the leading figures behind the protests being known neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other extreme right-wing conspiracy theorists who openly talked about overthrowing the government should they not get their way, should be reason enough reason to give editors a reason to be extra cautious here. WilliamTravis (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as this is would be much needed improvement over the current, very flawed article name. --WilliamTravis (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a compromise solution that will at least solve the problem of the article's current, flawed name. If editors wish to change the name to "Freedom Convoy" after this move has been accomplished, they are free to make a new request and open a new discussion to make their case for it at that point, and I, for one, would be willing to hear out the case for it. However, can we please not rehash the same debate we already had over whether "Freedom Convoy" is the WP:COMMONNAME here? The relevant issue at hand should be whether this name would be an improvement over the current article name, or whether we should keep the current article name. Those are the options in this discussion. This discussion should not be about whether it's everyone's favourite possible option. We had that debate already. Let's not derail another move request with it, please. The only outcome of that will be prolonging how long this article has its current, flawed name.--WilliamTravis (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    Or, we could continue discussing what the proper title should be, instead of "compromising" on a minor incremental change that doesn't solve the most pressing problems and would require starting yet another discussion on the title immediately. Trying to dictate that we can only discuss this proposed title is a stunning example of first-move bias and not at all how consensus works. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    That discussion was already ongoing before this move request, and had stalled, without consensus on whether "Freedom Convoy" was the WP:COMMONNAME or a WP:POVNAME used only from the POV of supporters - with some (like yourself) very passionate advocates for it, and just as many others feeling very strongly against. Rather than rehashing that exact same debate here - which really defeats the purpose of us having had that discussion (I encourage other editors to go back and review it) - I'd rather we find an alternative that, even if not your exact ideal, we can find some kind of consensus on as an improvement on the current name. If you feel that wouldn't be the case, that's fine - duly noted. But frankly, at this point, going in circles on "Freedom Convoy", which has absolutely not found consensus at all, no matter how strongly you feel about it, is getting exhausting. All I'm asking is for you to put your feelings on that issue aside for just a moment and consider a compromise that might at least be an improvement, if not something you enthusiastically agree with. If that's simply a bridge too far for you, then I'm not sure we're ever going to achieve consensus on any possible alternative. --WilliamTravis (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    In my experience, incremental moves to "compromise" titles like the one proposed tend to result in titles that nobody is really happy with being applied somewhat permanently, because once any requested move is completed, any subsequent requests get shouted down with "we just did this" arguments. See the RM history at Talk:Kim Davis, as a bad example. That article was created under an inappropriate title and moved to a "compromise", and even though pretty well everyone who came across the article agreed that that wasn't the right title, it took another almost two full years and six formal discussions to move it from that title, mostly because people weren't really talking about the title any more, they were just opposing on the basis of being fed up with all the move requests. The Yogurt Principle is also relevant here. So, on the basis of "compromise" resulting in poor titles and endless circular discussions, I oppose this move request, and suggest that a formal RFC on the title be conducted instead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    You've perfectly described the problem with the current article name. The current article name is exactly that so-called "compromise" that no one is happy with. Let's remember the context in which it was chosen: It was chosen arbitrarily by an uninvolved editor because there was no consensus in the last move request, which was derailed by multiple alternatives being thrown around by editors opposing the move, many of them arguing over whether to include "Freedom Convoy" or not - for which there was no clear consensus. Hence why the current move request is happening, to at least fix the problem of a "compromise" name everyone can agree is wrong - regardless of where you fall on the "Freedom Convoy is the WP:COMMONNAME" debate, which has proved to be extremely divisive. Why is this an improvement over the status quo? For starters: This wasn't one protest, so "protest" should be plural. Second, there have been multiple other "convoy" protests in Canada, so the date is needed to disambiguate the article. The proposed article name being discussed fixes those problems. If we have consensus that these are problems with the current article name that we need to fix, then we should try to build consensus around a name that would fix those problems. However, there was no consensus on "Freedom Convoy" being the WP:COMMONNAME or WP:POVNAME the last two times we had this debate. Given that, let's at least fix the problems we know exist with the current article name with something we can all agree would be a much needed improvement. Rather than the slippery slope you claim will happen if you don't get your way, unless we're able to build consensus by finding some sort of common ground, we'll never get out of these endless move requests and debates and, exactly as you describe, be stuck with a name we all agree is wrong. --WilliamTravis (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. Let's get the best name now. Masterhatch (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving it to "2022 Canadian convoy protests" because that's not the common name. This article was hastily moved away from Freedom Convoy 2022 in mid-Feb. I support moving it back to Freedom Convoy 2022 as through the passage of time, it has become clear to be the most common name. Masterhatch (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia adding disambiguation such as "2022" and "Canadian" to the name even if current media sources don't find it necessary to do this in their own reporting; Wikipedia has different disambiguation needs. And as someone pointed out earlier, "so-called freedom convoy" would not make a good article title. (That's what CBC radio keeps calling it, as far as I'm aware.) When evaluating this discussion, I would ignore !votes that don't want to move it to that name on the grounds that they'd rather move it to some other name (unless the ones wanting some particular other name outweigh the current proposal). That's not a good reason not to move it at all, IMO. Adding 2022 will help clarify what it's about especially if other protests occur in future years. I don't think it can be called "freedom convoy" because media seem to find it necessary to put "so-called" before that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    "So-called Freedom Convoy" isn't a description of the event at all, but a statement from a reliable source that the event in discussion is commonly named "Freedom Convoy". There's a second definition, sure, but it's inapplicable in this case. Unlike "friend" or "compromise", common nouns with dictionary definitions and centuries of usage, nobody can reasonably say "Freedom Convoy" is the improper or false call for this thing, since this thing is precisely and exclusively to what this phrase refers in an encyclopedia. Same as the so-called WrestleMania; you can certainly argue it's not wrestling or mania as they're taught in school, but you can't deny its promoters billed it as such and it caught on as the common name for a popular thing the majority of the population does not support, condone, appreciate, enjoy or tolerate. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree. If "Freedom Convoy" were acknowledged by the media to be its name, they would at least occasionally use it, but as far as I've heard they never do, but are careful to always say something like "so-called" to make it clear that they themselves are not actually calling it that. Apparently to call it "Freedom Convoy" would be to take a non-neutral position, i.e. to imply that it actually is about freedom -- which it may be but that doesn't mean to say so is NPOV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    There's no "if" about it. "Freedom Convoy" is acknowledged by the media as its name each and every time they explicitly say it's called so. Many use it in their headlines precisely because it's the concise, unambiguous and recognizable term. And yes, it is about certain freedoms for the unvaccinated and maskless. Freedom to work, freedom to travel, freedom to associate. I get that you might personally believe unvaccinated and maskless people don't deserve these freedoms during the pandemic, and you're probably right that the CBC directors feel the same. But gut feelings don't override stated facts, and the fact that this whole shebang is commonly called the Freedom Convoy (for better or worse) is very clearly agreed by RS. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    I oppose naming the article "so-called freedom convoy" even if a count is done and that turns out to be the most often used name in the media. It doesn't sound NPOV to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    Nobody wants to name it that. The real name is Freedom Convoy (two words, capitalized). "So-called" is simply the adjective that points it out as the common name. I can respect your opinion on how the first half of that proper phrase is too similar to the common noun "freedom". But your steadfast insistence on ignoring the actual title most used by sources deeply offends me. I'm not saying that to paint you as an offensive person or suggest you "owe me" anything, just letting you know how I feel about effective logical communication. Global News (though nowhere near as global as other news outlets) also "uses" the common name as a tag; it tagged far fewer stories with "Covid Truckers". I hope you can appreciate that tagging is a form of media usage, and that Covid Truckers is relatively less catchy, but still more in common use than the SYNTH-violating title you support. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    The phrase "Freedom Convoy" sounds to me like it means the convoy of trucks crossing the country; this article is about more than that -- it's mostly about the protests associated with the convoy. This discussion is essentially about whether to add "2022" to the name; whether to add "Freedom" is irrelevant to that decision. If it's established that reliable sources use the name "Freedom Convoy" (without "so-called", quotation marks or other distancing) more often than other names, then I have no problem with putting that in the article title (though also including disambiguation such as the year and country may still be advisable). Within the last few days I heard a CBC journalist managing to raise the topic by simply using the term "the convoy" -- but rough time and place context had already been established. The term "so-called" is not a statement that it's the common name. All it does is imply that it's been called that; it doesn't say by whom or how often. My interpretation is that it's called that by organizers and supporters and doesn't have a widely-recognized common name yet. That's not the only interpretation but I feel it's a very reasonable one. Whether it's the common name or not is not verified. If it were the common name, media would just use it; they wouldn't need to add "so-called". So that suggests to me that it isn't the common name. Also, the use of "so-called" implies that it's not NPOV. To me, their use of "so-called" (especially somewhat repeatedly and consistently) suggests that they don't want to use the name themselves without scare quotes. I didn't say anything about it being too close to the common noun "freedom". There's nothing wrong with the noun "freedom". You may have been reading/listening to different sources than me and have a different impression about what the most commonly used name is; or maybe you just interpret "so-called" in a different way than I do. Whether individual Wikipedians do or do not believe that freedom is ungood or like or dislike the way the media chooses to refer to the protests is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm sorry if differing interpretations of the phrase "so-called" lead to you feeling offended. I recognize that people can feel offended even if the other person intends no harm and has done nothing wrong. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME has priority over WP:NPOVNAME. Occupy Wall Street is also a POV name, but it is the common name of the protest. Félix An (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    I apologize if there was any misunderstanding: I did not mean I was closing the discussion. I meant I was making a comment to be read by whoever eventually closing the discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support this name change as it's plural and neutral. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons given. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and I frankly can't see any basis for the move. The nomination claims that there have been other Canadian convoy protests... are we sure?? Someone citing a few would be stellar. The article is currently placed exactly where it should be. Red Slash 22:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, there are numerous others. It's a pretty common protest tactic in provinces that have freeways near their legislatures, though not many have made it to standalone articles; I proposed creating a set index a while back. It seems to have gotten lost in the sea of comments I've already written about this, but I did compile a list here. This protest wasn't unusual because it was a convoy nor because it was nationwide, and also not for blockading key infrastructure (c.f. 2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests), but I think it was the first to involve an occupation of a major city. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/at-least-three-coutts-protesters-charged-with-conspiracy-to-commit-murder/ar-AATTpEv the guns were not found at the protest and if you go to this article you will find the caption under the photo that they were found “near Coutts”. This was at a private residence and not affiliated with the truckers or the protest. Spiritbear01 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thought you meant a photo caption in the article. OK, it's a caption in the source you gave. I'm not sure what changes you want made. I don't know what private residence you are referring to. Both the article and the source you offered talk about weapons found on protestors' persons, or in trailers associated with the protest. Is there a specific part of the article that you think needs changed? signed, Willondon (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Did this help? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Am I missing something? The caption under the photo reads "Anti-mandate demonstrators gather as a truck convoy blocks the highway at the U.S. border crossing in Coutts, Alta., Monday, Jan. 31, 2022." It says "in Coutts" (emphasis added), and doesn't mention where weapons were found at all. Two of the three sources in the article (one is offline right now) describe the blockade as "near" Coutts (which is odd - the border crossing is "near" Coutts like the Ambassador Bridge is "near" Windsor) while describing the seizures of weapons as having occurred "at" the blockade. I don't think this change is supported by sources. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Take a look at the 2nd photo and caption.--TMCk (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That caption says "a large assortment of weapons and ammunition seized near Coutts". This seems to accompany the text of the article directly above, which says "Mounties said they executed a search warrant early Monday on three trailers associated with the group, finding 13 long guns, handguns, multiple sets of body armour, a machete, a large quantity of ammunition and high capacity magazines." So I'm not clear what the point of the edit request is, or what specifically should be changed. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, it seems my ad blocker hid the "read more" button, I see the caption now. That same photo also appears at the top of [3] with a similar caption, while the article describes the weapons as having been seized "at" the blockade. I don't think there's any disagreement among these sources that the weapons were seized at the blockade, but they're disagreeing on whether the blockade itself is "in" or "near" Coutts. So it seems that InedibleHulk's modification is not supported by RS. The border crossing is within the municipal boundaries of Coutts, but I'm not positive about where the blockade was actually set up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The blockade was definitely at the Coutts border crossing. It's plausible that the three trailers to which several suspects allegedly had access, and where 13 rifles were found, formed part of the blockade itself. It is unlikely the separate search warrant, which led to two more guns seized, would have been for the same location as the trailers covered by the earlier one, wherever that was. So unless we're only talking about 13 guns, not all of them, I think my wording is inclusive and good. I won't fight to keep it, though, if others are confident it all happened at the blockade. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I know we can't cite The Daily Mail, but it has an exclusive interview with the owner of the house where the first raid happened. The Calgary Herald puts this residence within 200 metres of the protest site. That's at Coutts, near the blockade, by my survey. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It also shows at least two of the three "trailers" are RVs rather than transport trailers, lowering the plausibilty that they were ever physical parts of the blockade. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It also has a picture of the warrant, with the street address, probably not forged. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Here is a link to the map of Coutts. One could say that the crossing is near Coutts if it is defined as the 49th parallel which is between the two countries, but not in either. One could also define the border crossing as the land, roads and buildings owned by immigration services, in which case the Canadian part is in Coutts. TFD (talk)
By my understanding of eight-year-old Street View imagery, the property in question appears to not be a government building (though that's what some government buildings want us to think). Blocking it would serve no arguable purpose, as the unassuming gravel driveway simply ends, and damn well north of the 49th. But yes, I generally include border guard posts in "a border crossing" and only the fine line itself as "the border". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: this edit request did not include a "change x to y" suggestion and evidently was not uncontroversial. I've marked it as answered and here's a formal  Not done and everything. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Pre-protest dialogue between organizers / OPS

There was an interesting article on the CBC website today [1], titled "Texts, emails show what Ottawa police told convoy organizers ahead of protest". I haven't taken the time to update the article based on this new reporting. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fraser, David (April 2, 2022). "Texts, emails show what Ottawa police told convoy organizers ahead of protest". CBC News. Retrieved April 2, 2022.

Apartment arson

Ottawa police arrested the second suspect in the attempted arson of an apartment in downtown Ottawa.[4] Since the article mentions this event, it should be made clear that it was not caused by protestors. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I've made that clear, but with straighter news than Rex Murphy's take. Also removed some personal info from your URL. Hope that's OK, and thanks for sharing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

I am requesting and suggesting a few minor edits to article specifically about a single paragraph in the article's initial overview. I have outlined my requests/suggestions below.

1. The statement "The convoy was condemned by trucking industry and labour groups." should I believe be elaborated and a source reference added or it should be removed.

The statement "The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that most protesters had no connection to trucking." Should absolutely have a source reference or be removed as it is referencing a specific organization and reporting on what that organization.

The statement "Near a blockade in Coutts, Alberta, multiple weapons were seized" first off absolutely needs a source Reference and the next sentence stating "and four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers." also needs a source reference and both statements require further clarification as to establish a direct connection to the described events and the trucker convoy. Said clarification should establish a direct correlation between the trucker convoy and the two described events, in addition to providing some clarification as to whether the two described events themselves are connected to each other or not. If no clarification or source references can be provided the statements should be removed.

The statements "Officials raised concerns of some protesters' involvement with far-right extremist groups, including those promoting violence, and that some protesters called for the federal government of Canada to be overthrown." needs source references, and further clarification specifically in regards to which officials raised those concerns which should be named as well as which far-right groups are being referred to which should named. I also think that without and even with the names of the far-right groups the wording "including those promoting violence, and that some protesters called for the federal government of Canada to be overthrown." is at best vague and inflammatory unless very clear connections can be made and cited linking the as yet unnamed "far-right extremist groups" to either actually violence or the promotion of violence itself and a direct link be established to said violence in regard to this sepific event I.e. The Trucker Convey, otherwise the statements should be removed.

I thank you for the opportunity to hopefully add some specific clarity to this paragraph of this article. I hope you agree with my requests/suggestions. Thank you very much...

Sincerely, Justin Woodbury (aka AtarProxy) Atarproxy784 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead does not require referencing, as it is a summary of the sourced body of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thy I didn't know that about the lead not requiring referencing, but I stand by my other requests/suggestions. Atarproxy784 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There were a lot of elements in your post above. I believe I checked most of them to find that they were indeed sourced in the body of the article. Maybe you could isolate just one instance of unsourced material for now, so it's easier to deal with. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Motorcycle convoy: which section?

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/convoy-organizer-warns-of-free-for-all-if-police-ban-protest-from-downtown-ottawa-1.5876211

Would we put it under "Events elsewhere", even though it's the same location? A completely new section? There's no natural location. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question. "Events elsewhere" under "Other Canadian protests", then rename "Events elsewhere" to something more accurate? signed, Willondon (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, Canada convoy protest#Rolling Thunder Ottawa is now in the article, under "Related events." Zanimum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to add image

In a dense crowd of people wearing winter clothing in front of a building, several hold flags bearing the National Flag of Canada. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, the vast majority are not wearing face masks. A large Gadsden flag and a large sign with the words "We are the fringe" are visually prominent.
A large Gadsden flag and a large sign with the words "We are the fringe" are seen in a crowd in Ottawa on February 12, 2022. Justin Trudeau had called the convoy protesters a "fringe minority."

Can someone add this image to the article under the “American influence” section? I do not have permissions to edit the article. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Some sources have called the protests an occupation or a siege."

These are complete weasel words, not a single source is provided and no reasoning is given as to how this is even relevant for the start of the article. Any protest movement in existence is insulted by its opponents, but unless overwhelming expert opinion claims this, the idea of it being an "occupation or siege" should not be in the lead. Bill Williams 18:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the term occupation, but siege implies something like the Siege of Mariupol, where some enemy force invades and takes over the city. Blocking people from moving around the city is not the same as putting it under military attack... Bill Williams 18:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
It does seem over the top. I think 'occupation' applies. As for 'siege', my search in the article led to a statement from Premier of Ontario Doug Ford, so not expert or unbiased. The references which had 'siege' in the title included Politico [1] and the Broadbent Institute [2]; some expert opinion there. Remember, statements in the lede don't need sourcing, as long as they summarize what's in the article body (with sources). signed, Willondon (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I know it doesn't require sourcing in the lead, but "some sources" is extremely vague for such a subjective claim. I agree that occupation has some merit, but siege certainly does not. A siege is by definition a military undertaking. Bill Williams 22:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lum, Zi-Ann (February 4, 2022). "Trump calls Trudeau "far left lunatic" as siege continues in Ottawa". Politico. Retrieved February 9, 2022.
  2. ^ LeBrun, Luke (17 February 2022). "The Convoy is Dividing a Rural Community Being Used as a Staging Ground for the Illegal Siege of Ottawa". PressProgress. Ottawa ON: Institut Broadbent Institute. Retrieved 20 February 2022.

vaccine and transmission references

The article states the following, but references for the dispute should be added or else deleted:

Although repeatedly encouraging vaccination, Moe argued that it would only reduce the chance of severe outcomes, and did not prevent infection or transmission of COVID-19—a statement that was subsequently disputed— [...]

Could someone add the following references confirming the statement above:

Studies have found that antibodies generated by these vaccines don’t recognize their targets as well in heavily mutated variants like Omicron.

[...] observed low antibody levels against Omicron but robust T cell responses.

These T cells won't stop you from getting infected, but in many cases, they are likely to keep you from getting very ill.

A subsequent study, conducted later in the course of the pandemic when the delta variant was dominant, showed vaccines had a less pronounced effect on denting onward transmission, but were still effective. [...]

Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load [...] Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus [...] if you don’t get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can’t spread it. Once you’re infected, you still can [...]

This article is about the protests, not the vaccine, and any sources that don't mention the protest are inadmissible. We cannot carry out our own independent assessment of the protestors' claims. Incidentally, it's spin to rephrase "vaccines prevent most infections" as "vaccines do not prevent infections." TFD (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Elon Musk's mother-in-law"

Hi @Armduino: Sorry about my earlier confusion in the edit summaries, but I still don't understand why the statement "many used false names" has to be prefaced by "Elon Musk's mother-in-law said".

Firstly, this statement originates from the CBC report I cited, so it can pretty much be presented as fact. The author of the Observer option piece (who also happens to be Elon Musk's mother-in-law) also attributes the finding of false names to the CBC report, not herself. Thus, there is no need to attribute this statement to her in the article. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, editorials should only be used when we are presenting the writer's opinion, which is not the case here.

Secondly, I also fail to see why it is necessary to mention this columnist's relationship to Musk at all. Her job as a Canadian columnist was to write about the protest, and she does not mention Elon Musk in her article at all. If you want to write about a "feud" between the two over this event and have reliable sources to back it up, then go ahead, but forcing this by using one of her opinion pieces to back up a fact she didn't even come up with is not the way to go. Yeeno (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Title change and alternative, more fitting titles

I don't think there was a consensus to move the page at all. The fact that many people suggested alternative names does not equal those people prefer the new name "Canada convoy protest" to the previous name "Freedom Convoy 2022" and a move review WP:MVR should be considered.

To expand on the arguments given to keep the "Freedom Convoy 2022" name, WP:COMMONNAME clearly overrides WP:NPOVNAME, as textually stated in WP policies: "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." It is still the most widely used.

I also propose alternative titles: the title "Canada convoy protest" suggests it is a single, isolated, one-day incident protest. Just a plural "Canada convoy protests" would be an improvement. The title "Canada convoy movement" would be more fitting to include a wide series of protests through a longer period of time. But it also suggests the scope of the protests are limited to Canada, while there are similar movements in other countries of the world, including Australia, Netherlands, Finland, New Zealand, USA, France, Belgium, Austria or the UK. Therefore the title "Freedom convoy movement" would be more fitting to include all these protests. I will be adding references to all these statements shortly, even though they are already in the corresponding sections of the article. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I also thought that close was bad, more of a WP:SUPERVOTE than a genuine reading of the discussion. It was a clear no consensus result and I'm going to treat it as though it was. IMO, Freedom convoy protests covers this topic, and I don't think we need to specify Canada in the title at all: this is the original protest movement, the others that are based on it can disambiguate themselves. The year is also not needed in the title, it's not part of the common name and there's no need to disambiguate from events with the same name that happened in other years. But "freedom convoy" must be in the title in some form, per WP:COMMONNAME. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    But I also don't think this should go to move review, it should just be left alone for now. As I've been saying about a lot of things on this article: it's unstable, new stuff happens every day and gets added here in haphazard fashion, and there's no point trying to organize it until it's largely over and done with. I say just leave it alone, and we'll figure out the proper title later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    I endorse the proposed title "Freedom convoy protests", as it it is fitting and accurate, follows WP:COMMONNAME and it does not exclude any aspects of the protests/movement, including those happening in other countries.--CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I think changing it to Canada convoy protests (plural) would be an uncontroversial improvement. – Anne drew 16:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the assessment was ultimately correct, i.e. There was a clear consensus against both "Freedom Convoy 2022" and "Ottawa convoy protests". This was a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. The current title is not meant to be permanent, and its up to the involved editors to find a better alternative - one with more clear, consensus support - before requesting a new move. Already this new discussion is full of new suggestions for the name, each with minute differences. A proposed move now will likely breakdown the same way the previous one did, with each editor weighing in to oppose, in favour of their own pet name for the article. I would suggest we need to focus this discussion before proposing a new move, or requesting a move review. Paine Ellsworth was helpful enough to provide a list of the proposed alternatives from the move discussion when closing it. I would suggest editors should weigh in on this list (or add to it) and state their reasoning for supporting/opposing. That way we can determine which has the most clear support, then request a move to the most preferred alternative. --WilliamTravis (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, CasuarioAlmeriense and Ivanvector are absolutely correct. The name was changed without consensus. I'm sure the Paine Ellsworth was trying to rename the article to something that would make everybody happy, and 'Canada convoy protest' is, no doubt, an improvement over the proposed name change that used 'Ottawa' - but regardless, we should've at least tried to reach a consensus on what to name it first. Joe (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think I buy that Freedom Convoy is the clear common name, particularly over the use of just descriptive titles in general. While the example of Occupy Wall Street has been cited, that unquestionably reached the point where it was commonly used over simple descriptive titles. That doesn't track here -- at the time I'm writing this comment, there are articles on the home pages of the Globe and Mail, BBC and New York Times about the protest in some way -- all of them use descriptive language and not the official name. The final outlet I checked, the Sydney Morning Herald, uses the term Freedom Convoy, but only six paragraphs in, after already describing the protests with other terms, and in quotation marks--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    Given the above, I think "convoy" belongs in the article name, but not "Freedom Convoy".--WilliamTravis (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    I numbered your links for ease of review.
    • 1 through 4 are all the Toronto Star, and all use "Freedom Convoy" throughout, although always in quotes, and usually prefaced by "so-called".
    • 5 through 7 are all the Globe and Mail, which has evidently stopped using "Freedom Convoy" or maybe never did (hard to tell from one day's news).
    • 8, The Guardian, also uses "so-called 'Freedom Convoy'" in its text.
    • 9, CNN, has title metadata which begins with "Freedom Convoy in Canada:" (can be seen as the page title in your browser tab). Uses "Freedom Convoy" in quotes once in the article and again in an image caption.
    Here are some more, mostly articles from the past day although not all international media is covering this daily any more:
    • CBC: hedges "Freedom Convoy" with "so-called" and "the protest the organizers call Freedom Convoy", but isn't using quotes. In other articles they appear to be distancing themselves from the term.
    • CTV: uses "Freedom Convoy" extensively; Ctrl-F gives me 13 results, but some of those are in titles of other articles or in metadata. I counted 3 in the actual article, always in quotes.
    • National Post: doesn't use "Freedom Convoy" at all.
    • Aljazeera: "Freedom Convoy" with quotes in title, and "so-called 'Freedom Convoy' in article.
    • Washington Post: "Freedom Convoy" with quotes in title, "Freedom Convoy" without quotes twice in body. Also refers to the group planning things as "Freedom Convoy 2022" like a proper title.
    • BBC: phrase doesn't appear on the page at all.
    • USA Today: "Freedom Convoy" with quotes in title and twice in body. Also switches between caps and no caps.
    • Wall Street Journal: "Freedom Convoy" without quotes in headline. Article is paywalled.
    • Times of India: doesn't use "Freedom Convoy"; coverage is spotty.
    Of course that's just results in the past day (a couple are 3-5 days). Using search engine hits to determine prominence is not an ideal method, but using Bing.com for results in the past month, I get:
    • freedom convoy: 9.03M results
    • canada protests: 5.79M
    • ottawa protests: 5.79M
    • convoy protest: 4.64M
    • ottawa convoy: 4.63M
    • canada convoy: 4.63M
    • trucker protest: 3.83M
    • convoy protests: 1.83M
    • "Freedom Convoy": 1.80M
    • ottawa occupation: 1.12M
    • canada convoy protest: 0.93M, Wikipedia is top result
    • "Canada convoy protest": 0.25M, Wikipedia is top result
    I used Bing for this because Google uses Wikipedia redirects to funnel searches into a common set of results. Try searching for various terms listed here and see that results come up for "Canada convoy protest" anyway.
    On to my opinions about what the data shows: "Freedom Convoy" is the most common name used by the majority of sources. It doesn't matter that the vast majority are couching the term as a self-description, they're still publishing it as a well-known and easily identifiable name for the events, nearly twice as much as any other descriptive terms, and that easily makes it the WP:COMMONNAME. WP:POVTITLE suggests that we follow the sources and not invent names ourselves; the fact that the current title of the article is the top result for that term is strong evidence that we invented this title, even stronger as it's the lowest-matched among these search terms (suggesting few others are following this usage), and as such we are compelled to change it.
    A more neutral and descriptive common name may develop among sources that describe these events retrospectively in the future, but we cannot predict that, and we certainly can't invent that term ourselves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I respectfully disagree that "Freedom Convoy" is "easily" the WP:COMMONNAME. The onus to determine that is (rightfully) very high, and I don't believe that's been sufficiently achieved. It should be the common name in use, without qualification. This isn't currently the case in all but a few examples in reliable sources.
    I think all the evidence above suggests that reliable sources avoid it in favour of neutral descriptions, e.g. "convoy protests" or "trucker protests", except when describing the protests in the context of the POV of the protesters and their supporters, hence scare quotes and "so called" throughout the articles above. For that reason, "Freedom Convoy" might certainly appear somewhere in reporting on these protests, in the context of describing the protesters' POV, but that's not sufficient to make it the commonly accepted name for the protests by all observers. This may change in the future, but, as you correctly point out, we can't predict that. For now, I feel declaring "Freedom Convoy" as the WP:COMMONNAME over a more appropriate neutral name would be premature.
    Lastly, overall search results aren't really relevant over what reliable sources say.--WilliamTravis (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, one last thing: Your suggestion that this article has influenced reliable sources into avoiding "Freedom Convoy" cuts both ways, since this article up until only a few days ago was "Freedom Convoy 2022". There were many reliable sources using neutral descriptors before the name change, and it's just as likely this article influenced them into using "Freedom Convoy" up until recently. Furthermore, it's not "inventing" a new name to use a neutral description, but "Freedom Convoy" is an invented name and if Wikipedia uses it, it adds to its credibility as the common name for reliable sources in exactly the way you describe. Nevermind, upon rereading I completely misunderstood your point, my apologies. In any case, I agree that the current name is not ideal, but it is not the only alternative to "Freedom Convoy". --WilliamTravis (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter that the vast majority are couching the term as a self-description, they're still publishing it as a well-known and easily identifiable name for the events This is shockingly wrong. WP:COMMONNAME cares about what term the sources use to refer to the topic overall; if a source refers to the topic as eg. the convoy protest in the article voice, but mentions once in passing that they refer to themselves as the "freedom convoy" in quotes, that source is a strong argument against using freedom convoy, since it is directly rejecting that name and specifically refusing to use it for the topic. Again, the point of COMMONNAME is not "what is the official name" (which most sources will mention in passing), but "what do sources use when referring to the topic themselves." --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
      Well, sure, but I don't think So-called 'Freedom Convoy' (the name used repeatedly by all of the sources listed except for three) would make a very good article title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      If there's no common name, then we can just use a neutral descriptive title like usual. --Aquillion (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there was a pretty clear consensus that the previous name didn't satisfy WP:COMMONNAME - in particular the overwhelming balance of sources presented used other names. Remember that COMMONNAME isn't just "some sources exist that use this name" but "the overwhelming majority of sources use this exact name", which just isn't true here. And once that was established, the previous name was clearly unworkable. Also remember that WP:COMMONNAME does not allow us to modify the name in any way - "Freedom Convoy" was not the name; "Freedom Convoy 2022" was the name, so any arguments for the previous name has to hinge on the majority of sources using "Freedom Convoy 2022" specifically; without that we need to shift to a clearly-neutral title until consensus can be demonstrated for another one. We should spend time thinking of alternate names, but I think anything with "freedom" in it is a nonstarter and that the previous RFC clearly rejected that. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed alternatives

I have filed a request at WP:CR to formally close this discussion

I have filed a request here to formally close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have filed a move request for this page

I have filed a move request for this page so that this discussion can be resolved, at least for the foreseeable future. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am considering filing a move review for this page

I am considering filing a move review for this page. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't know how anyone could reasonably accept the changed name as is. Canada convoy protest? Those who support the convoy and those opposed to the convoy / occupation would never search for those terms. Freedom Convoy is correct title however due to political / neutrality issues many people want the term "Freedom" censored incorrectly. Kav2001c (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)kav2001c

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

This wiki page states that a fire in an apartment was started by one of the protest participants. The link to that claim clearly indicates that there was no connection between the arrested arsonist and the trucker convoy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/apartment-building-lisgar-arson-1.6392406 Mfichtl (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see that in the article, I do see On March 21, a 21-year-old Ottawa man unrelated to the protest was charged in connection with the fire.[450] On April 6, a 41-year-old Ottawa man, also unrelated to the protest, was similarly charged.[451] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_convoy_protest/Archive_6&oldid=1119964514"