Talk:Freedom Convoy

remove unreliable (Rebel) text?

I noticed the "Incidents and community impact in Ottawa" section includes: sentence that starts with "In contrast, many protesters organized food distribution" with only ONE source (Rebel News, but wikipedia ref text doesn't mention Rebel News), but since Wikipedia page about Rebel News says RN is a far-right website and Rebel News isn't included at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, should that sentence without a reliable source be REMOVED? - EarthFurst (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed it. Rebel News is a right wing conspiracy website that's often compared to Breitbart, and shouldn't be used as a source for factual information for Canadian political topics at all. If the information can be cited to a properly reliable source then we should cite that source instead, and if it isn't supported by another source then it doesn't belong here at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Use of Emergencies Act ruled unreasonable

Please see here ~2026-28117-6 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

We already say it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2026

Capitalize the first letter in the title. E.G convoy-Convoy, protest-Protest. BeeOfCanada (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: not a proper name, does not need to be capitalized DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Typo "wstated" -> "stated"

[background] [protest goals] paragraph 1 sentence 2 word 5 : "wstated" typo should be corrected to "stated" ~2026-27894-08 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2026

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: Moved to Freedom Convoy. There is substantial evidence presented in the discussion that Freedom Convoy is the WP:COMMON NAME. Those who objected to Freedom Convoy cite its lack of neutrality and the fact that some sources place the term in quotation marks. However WP:POVNAME recognises that a common name may contain non-neutral wording and that such wording does not by itself, preclude its use as an article title. The relevant question is whether the term is established as the common name. In this case, the evidence presented in the discussion was considered sufficient to establish that it is. (non-admin closure) NomanPK44 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Canada convoy protest → ? – There are two alternatives: 2022 Canada convoy protest and Freedom Convoy. Back when this happened in 2022 an attempted move resulted in no consensus. Now that the dust has settled on this highly political event, I hope we can get consensus for one of these moves, considering that this is, as far as I know, an incredibly rare example of a WP:NCWWW with a country as the "where" that does not have a year in the title, and I do not think this event is notable enough to warrant that. It should either be at its full NCWWW name, or at "Freedom Convoy" as a WP:POVNAME. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 20:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

To expand on the opening statement a bit: I've been compiling a bunch of RM discussions to assemble some kind of practical framework for applying WP:NOYEAR, and generally speaking any "where" that is larger than a city always has a "when" (not considering articles with undiscussed titles) per it not being "immediately identifiable" enough without it and/or it being a "useful identifier" (quoted terms are WP:NCWWW). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other convoy protests in Canada we have articles on? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Yellow vests movement (Canada) and On-to-Ottawa Trek are hatnoted in the article, although my proposal is not necessarily motivated by disambiguation with other Wikipedia articles as much as it is general immediate identifiability. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

from WP:POVNAME: Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:... 2) Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. The current title is a neutral, encyclopedic, descriptive title that does not need changing. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 19:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

If this page gets moved, then we'd have to move Timeline of the Canada convoy protest too. Masterhatch (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I fully support a name change. The original title was Freedom Convoy 2022 and it was changed without consensus. I support going back to "Freedom Convoy 2022" (or something similar) per WP:COMMONNAME. That's what it was known by then and is still known by now. Typing "Canada convoy protest" into google gets you mostly links to articles that still call it "Freedom Convoy". Only wikipedia (and its mirrors) call it Canada convoy protest. It should never have been moved in the first place. Masterhatch (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It was absolutely not moved without consensus. It was discussed at RM, and upheld at MRV. 162 etc. (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move it to Canada convoy protest. The only agreement was that it should be moved (and not to Ottawa convoy protest). The closer used WP:OTHEROPTIONS to choose Canada convoy protest. Yes it held up to a move review, but that doesn't mean there was consensus for the current name. It is time a name is chosen by consensus — whichever name that may be. Masterhatch (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

As a sidenote, if the closer does a WP:BARTENDER, unless it's completely insane, the right move is always going to be a new RM instead of a MRV. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Support changing the name to include the year. 2022 Canadian Freedom Convoy would be my vote. Nsophiay (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as the only other "examples" cannot be confused with this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

If this page gets moved, then we'd have to move Timeline of the Canada convoy protest too. Masterhatch (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose moving I oppose any title with the non-neutral "freedom" wording per WP:NDESC, and oppose the year as an unneeded disambiguation. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 18:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

"Freedom Convoy" would not fall under WP:NDESC as it is not a descriptive title, it's a POV common name that falls under WP:POVTITLE, and adding a year to the title per WP:NCWWW is not a matter of disambiguation. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that "freedom" is not at all neutral, and therefore fails NDESC because the title right now is already more descriptive, more neutral, and more encyclopedic. Thank you for agreeing with me. Does this mean you will withdraw your RM? ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 21:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@GraveDragon-X: WP:POVNAME specifically says that an article title can be a "common name (that) includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids." The proposed title is valid, per policy. Whether "Freedom Convoy" is the common name or not is the question here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Its a colloquialism with an obviously more encyclopedic alternative. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 22:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Might want to reread my comment, if 162 didn't clear it up already. I agreed that it was not neutral, but I did not agree that it fails NDESC. That's not to say it passes NDESC – it doesn't, because it cannot be evaluated under NDESC to begin with.

Also, if you are unaware, withdrawing isn't an option here as opposition isn't unanimous; see WP:RM#Closing a requested move. I suggest taking a look – knowing how things work tends to be helpful when one endeavours to make clever remarks. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

oppose 'Freedom Convoy' is decidedly POV, that said we should add something be it a year or something like 'Anti-vaccine Canada convoy protest'—blindlynx 16:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Since there was only one convoy protest, adding the year would be confusing. Also, Freedom Convoy is a name protesters used, not the news media or general public. TFD (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose While there have been numerous other attempts at convoy protests, 2022 was the only notable one. The current name is neutral, Freedom Convoy is not. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose "Freedom Convoy." Both "convoy protest(s)" and "Freedom Convoy" are used in the media. However, whenever "Freedom Convoy" is used, it's almost always qualified with quotation marks or some variation of "so-called" or "what organizers are calling." To me, this suggests they're treating "Freedom Convoy" as more of a colloquial/self-applied label rather than an established name. Jiffles1 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jiffles1 and GraveDragon-X. Llammakey (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Unclear how that works considering they didn't have the same opinion. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 12:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  • As in both of their arguments are valid reasons not to move this article. I would also add that Slatersteven and 162 etc. also have incredibly valid points. Your argument boils down to a personal exercise of WP:OR. Llammakey (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

    Right, but my point is not that one of the arguments would be invalid or that you can't cite multiple arguments in favour of the same position, it is that "X per Y" is generally taken to mean that your vote is the same X as Y, but here you said "X per Y and Z" when Y and Z have different X's (GraveDragon was opposed to both options while Jiffles is opposed to Freedom Convoy and neutral towards the year). I was trying to get a clarification.

    As for the other editors, I don't see what that has to do with anything – although as a sidenote, Slatersteven's argument rings a bit hollow to me as it seems to be based on the suggestion to add a year being a disambiguation matter – which it isn't, it's based on WP:NCWWW – and while I agree that 162 etc. has made two valid points, you do realize neither of them supports or opposes a move, right?

    I don't understand what you mean by WP:OR part. I've made no claims about article content. If you mean to argue that me evaluating policies and guidelines and best practices regarding their application is WP:OR, then that's just self-defeating; it would mean you too are doing WP:OR, as you would have to be making an evaluation of the same kind when deciding whether or not I did WP:OR. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

    • I've been compiling a bunch of RM discussions to assemble some kind of practical framework for applying WP:NOYEAR - this is your OR - attempting to use wikilawyering to affect the name/content of the article. I find all four arguments complimentary of the argument "why this page does not need to move". Furthermore, I feel no need to discuss this further with you. I have now explained twice why I support not moving this article as the arguments against the move are imho, better. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

      Furthermore, I feel no need to discuss this further with you. You did not need to "discuss this" with me in the first place, but you are kind of forcing me to respond because you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS in my direction. I'm truly baffled about this whole exchange. I did not ask you to explain why you supported or opposed the move, nor did I argue that your stance was somehow invalid. I pointed out that hey, might want to reread the replies you cited, they have different stances. I did that to give you the opportunity to clarify what you meant so that there's no risk of a misunderstanding.

      Then you replied, seemingly missing the point while bringing up 3 entirely different things, to which I replied clarifying exactly what I meant while also commenting on the things that you decided to bring up to discuss with me, even though they were a side-track and one of the things being the fairly serious accusation that I was using WP:OR to support my arguments.

      Now you double down and add a further baseless accusation, more egregious than the last. Referencing local consensus other editors' have previously formed on a meta issue like guideline application (see also WP:CONSISTENCY) is not WP:OR – it doesn't even have to do with article content. Wikilawyering, which is to subvert the spirit of rules to achieve outcomes you personally prefer, is the opposite of what I'm doing, which is to help myself and others get a better view the community's track record on evaluating a vague guideline. Accusing me of that is an outrageous failure to assume good faith. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Support: I would support changing the name to Freedom Convoy as it is the common name used for this event in Canada; but I would oppose a name change to 2022 Canada Convoy Protests since it would be redundant, unneeded, and this is the only major Canadian Convoy Protest. 2086j (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: per GraveDragon-X, Jiffles1, TFD, G. Timothy Walton. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Ottawa, WikiProject Ontario, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject COVID-19, and WikiProject Alberta have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: At present it appears that there is no consensus for either of the two proposed targets and I'm unsure if one will emerge; however, I'm relisting after notifying relevant WikiProjects to see if we can get more participation. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose adding year as unnecessary and strongly oppose any name that includes "freedom". Using that word for the event is far too contentious. We should show particular care to keep the name neutral and inoffensive, eh? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

And for whom exactly would the word freedom be offensive, I wonder? Should we, in the same vein, rename Torches of Freedom and Freedom fries? The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose 2022 Canada convoy protest . The present title satisfies all relevant considerations better than any proposed alternative. This was indeed a historic event and is well-remembered. The year is not necessary here. It may be unusual to drop the year in these cases but this protest involved truckers from across the country. This speaks to its historic nature and makes the title appropriate. Keeping "Canada" in the title increases recognizability relative to "Freedom". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC) STRUCK AND UPDATED 15:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Switching to only support "Freedom Convoy" or "Freedom Convoy 2022": As many people insisted "Freedom Convoy" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and many others objected against that on the basis of it not being neutral (which would be irrelevant if it was the common name, per WP:POVNAME), I decided to do a source review for recently published (2025 and later) sources on the event, and I have to say that it seems to me that Freedom Convoy/Freedom Convoy protests has become the WP:COMMONNAME. Sources:

News: National Post – CityNews Montreal – New York Times – BBC News – CTV News –Toronto Star – Canada's National Observer – CBC News – Global News – Academic source:

Also of note is that apparently even a parliamentary inquiry refers to it as such:

Whether the convoy was truly for "freedom" is highly questionable, but the name "Freedom Convoy" seems to have stuck. Most of the sources I've found are actually describing it as "trucker protests" if not using any "Freedom Convoy" terminology. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:39, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

=I cannot help but notice it usually seems to be in quotes of some kind (ignoring headlines). So I am unsure they are calling it Freedom Convoy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The way I see it putting quotation marks on something in the body but not the title is often just an acknowledgement that it is not the writer that came up with the name. They're still referring to it by that name, and regardless of if they are quoting someone else or calling it that themselves it serves as reliable source coverage demonstrating the common use of the name. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It's odd that if I do a search for "tesco" or "Republican party" or "the dukes of Hazard" I never see the name in quotation marks. Proper names are put as proper names. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not find that odd at all. There would not be any reason to attribute usage of those longstanding official names to others, but for recent things or events that may be perceived as having non-neutral common colloquial names the decision is often made to put it in quotation marks. The fact they decide to use it in the title anyways shows that they think it it such a widely accepted name that it would just confuse readers to use something else, even if they feel the need to distance themselves from the use of the name by attributing it.

I do not know what "proper names are put as proper names" is really supposed to mean here. Putting a proper name in quotation marks does not mean it is not being put as a proper name, or else it would not be getting capitalized. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:03, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I see this as a way for (some) media organizations to hedge a bit—"we're not calling it that, but everyone else is calling it that, so we sort of have to"—as if to not take responsibility for the name or not be seen as "blessing" it. On one hand, it signals that they see it as what we would call at POVNAME. On the other hand, it shows that sources do refer to it this way, with varying degrees of embellishment. Not all the sources use scare quotes and the international ones do so less often, though it's a small sample size. NPR (US, 2025) leads with calling it Canada trucker protest and variations thereof but Freedom Convoy is used as well. Note that NPR's news tag for the topic is Freedom Convoy. The Lowy Institute (Australia, 2026) . uses Freedom Convoy. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This look at recent sources challenges my initial thought that Freedom Convoy is less recognizable. I may switch my !vote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect views shows that Freedom Convoy 2022 gets by far the most traffic over the last two years (13,876 pageviews; average: 19/day) followed by Freedom Convoy (7,865; 11/day), the plural of the current title Canada convoy protests (2,988; 4/day), then 2022 Freedom Convoy (1,136; 1/day) and it trails off from there. All of the top four redirects are linked from articles and reader searches surely contribute to the views. Usage by readers is not the same as usage in reliable sources but is an indicator of recognizability. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Support renaming to Freedom Convoy or Freedom Convoy 2022: per research by Maltazarian. The fact that even the Canadian government refers to it by the name chosen by the organizers (without quotation marks) should put this debate to rest. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Freedom Convoy per source analysis, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. This appears to also be the WP:COMMONNAME although it is less clear that it meets that threshold. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support Freedom Convoy as the unambiguous, most recognizable, common name of this event. Giving the event its common, unambiguous name, even if it is the name the event chose for itself, doesn't imply agreement with the event's POV. This is similar to Liberation Day tariffs, where keeping the article at that name doesn't imply Wikipedia to believe any actual liberation occured. For a historical example, consider Great Leap Forward. Having that article at its current title does not imply Wikipedia believes that this plan had advanced China's economy by any kind of "great leap". It is simply the common name. The arguments presented here regarding avoidance of NNPOV would be like having Great Leap Forward at 1958–1962 Chinese industrialization campaign to avoid implied endorsement. To me, that seems a bit absurd. Bensci54 (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support Freedom Convoy as it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Given that it is all capitalized, it should not be viewed as contrary to WP:NPOV. It is also much more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Raskuly 🐰 22:39, 12 September 2026 (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.