Talk:COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

April 24

Good morning all.

A significant demo in London on April 24. The formal and informal restrictions on broadcasting and the media mean that most mainstream RS carry little coverage; I assume that sources such as Conservative Woman (a blog) and of course the infamous Daily Mail cannot be used. Do we use Russia Today as a RS? How about TalkRadio? Any hints on covering estimated numbers, since there seems to be little non-POV reporting involved. I'm struggling over due weight here. With respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's not mention capacities

There is no real way to measure the capacities of these events, therefore, I am thinking we just use "demonstration gathered" rather than "thousands" or "hundreds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerbstill (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't fly. User:Zerbstill is referring above to the question of how many people attended the anti-vaccine/covid-19 protest march on 29 May in Parliament Square; in particular, whether they numbered "hundreds" of protesters, or "thousands" of protesters. Zerbstill has reverted numerous times so that the article reads "thousands", or most recently, "tens of thousands", as in this edit of 30 May with the edit summary, Removed lies. Reliable sources are absolutely clear and unanimous on this point:

Numerous reliable sources on the number of protesters at the 29 May protest march

Hundreds join anti-vaccination protest in central London (Shropshire Star) Anti-vaccination protesters storm Westfield shopping centre and clash with police "hundreds" (Evening Standard) Hundreds protest vaccine passports in London (New York Times) Watch: Hundreds join anti-vaccination protest in London (Irish Examiner) Anti-vaccine passport protesters storm Westfield shopping centre as hundreds join Covid demonstration (Independent) London protest: Anti-lockdown and No Vaccine Passport protesters storm Westfield shopping centre "hundreds more gathered in Parliament Square" (ITV) Anti-vaccine passport protesters storm Westfield mall in London "hundreds of marchers" (The Guardian) Londoners march in anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown parade "Hundreds marched" (Reuters)

The correct figure is hundreds of protesters. Please do not insist on changing this, contrary to the overwhelming amount of sourcing on the topic. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

But the article you sourced from the Guardian says there were "hundreds of thousands of people taking part". That can't be right, can it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTS5AYEJWw0 - just watch this video from 6:39 onwards, you can see people way off into the horizon, there is absolutely way more than hundreds of protestors at this event. Please also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxVOLR7k7lU. The media are lying to us.Zerbstill (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The correct figure for the London May 29th anti lockdown protest is far near 250,000 and anyone stating its hundreds is a liar fit to work for the fascist chinese regime. Video evidence outweighs any claims from anyone regarding hundreds or even thousands and that includes ariel footage. Wikipedia are showing their true colours bu locking thsi article and denying the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.120.197 (talk • contribs) 21:46, June 6, 2021 (UTC)

Repair WP:TPO violation: moved unsigned text here, previously interpolated into the middle of my comment above, by User:81.98.120.197, making it appear that I wrote it. I did not, and have added the sig of IP 81 to the text above. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who claims there were hundreds at this event is not a reliable source. Videos of the event are clear and it was 4 miles long at one point. Approx a quarter of a million people attended at its height and it was NOT an anti vaccine protest but an anti lockdown protest but with anti vaxxers and thats a human right entitlement which they wish to keep. Since when did wikipedia oppose the Nuremburg code and the articles of the ECHR. A Conservative journalist was convinced to attend and she wrote its simple there was hundredsof thousands of people in attendence and that the media are lying to the public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.120.197 (talk • contribs) 21:55, June 6, 2021 (UTC)

IP 86.4.148.164 (talk · contribs), you are welcome to talk out your ideas to improve the article here, but you're not welcome to disrupt it with absurdities. There were not "1 million" protesters, as you said here. I've left you a warning on your talk page. By the way, editing when you are logged out, doesn't fool anybody. Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

For context of the claim being added by IPs that "millions of protesters gathered at Parliament Square", Parliament Square simply isn't that big. mapchecking.com estimates a maximum crowd size around 40,000, if it's packed solid. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It has been stated in this article written by Damien Gayle, a journalist working for The Guardian newspaper, that there were "hundreds of thousands of people taking part." Unfortunately, people who have sought to include this information on this page along with the verifiable and reliable source provided above, have found their revision swiftly removed, myself included. In my case I have been told I have provided no source at all.

I fear that there is some confusion and misunderstanding amongst the contributors to this page over the media reporting of this protests. The figure of "hundreds" often refers to an initial gathering of people in Parliament Square early in the day, or the group of protestors who entered Westfield Shopping Centre in west London much later in the day. Therefore, much of the reporting in the sources provided by Mathglot above is not relevant to the main protest that took place in the afternoon of 29 May through central London (Whitehall, Charing Cross Road, Oxford Street). In addition to this, it is important to note that in the English language, stating "hundreds" does not preclude that there were in fact a larger number in attendance; therefore, such figures may simply serve as a lower bound. This is certainly true of the main protest, which was correctly reported by the Guardian as having hundreds of thousands in attendance.

These repetitious revisions and counter-revisions which attempt to downplay the scale of the protest to a mere few hundred appear to be a source of controversy and this I can understand; there were clearly much larger numbers in attendance and the attempts being made to claim otherwise come across as an act of revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@86.24.250.193:, I've read your comments above, but I'm sorry, you are misstating the case. While there were indeed (at least) two protests with different turnouts, unfortunately, your comments don't correspond to what's been going on at the article as carried out by several editors, which was accurately summarized above. In the hours just before your comment, there was additional edit warring going on by at least four IPs (including you, twice) which does not correspond to your narrative, but instead continues the addition of content contrary to fact, as easily verifiable by very numerous reliable sources. Here's a summary of what happened:

• At 08:18, June 9, we have (correctly): "A few hundred protesters gathered at Parliament Square on 29 May to protest against COVID-19 vaccination..."
• At 12:48, 88.105.52.241 (talk · contribs) altered this to: "A millions of protesters gathered at Parliament Square..." (diff), and at 12:49, added, "Millions of protestors marched through central London on 24 April... (diff). This was reverted by Lord Belbury (thanks!).
• At 13:25, 86.12.150.136 (talk · contribs) altered this to: "A few hundred thousand protesters gathered at Parliament Square..." (diff), and was reverted.
• At 13:59/14:00, 3 edits by 146.199.65.82 (talk · contribs) altered section #April 2021 to read, "Hundreds of thousands of protestors marched through central London on 24 April..." (diff) contrary to the the Reuters source ("several thousand"). Reverted by Egsan Bacon (thanks!).
• After edit warring four more times (Special:Diff/1027704675/1027704769/14:01, Special:Diff/1027704975/1027705071/14:03, Special:Diff/1027705797/1027707329/14:20, Special:Diff/1027709015/1027709324‎/14:36, 146.199.65.82 was blocked.
• The disruption was taken up by yourself (86.24.250.193 (talk · contribs)) in this edit at 14:42, changing the 'few hundred' in Parliament Square, to "Hundreds of thousands... [in] Central London on 29 May". Removed by LizardJr8 (thanks!), then reinserted by you again at 14:45, and removed again.
• Taken up next by 92.28.209.168 (talk · contribs) at 15:05 (diff), changing it again to ""A few hundred thousand" instead of "a few hundred", with the false edit summary. After being reverted, IP 92 tried again at 16:22; reverted by Catalyzzt (thanks!) and finally the article was semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather (whew; thanks!)

You'd be well-advised to not contribute further to the edit warring, and to read Wikipedia's policies on WP:Verifiability, and the use of citations to reliable sources. All content that does not stand up to scrutiny may be challenged and removed by any editor. In addition, editors may face suspension of their editing privileges at Wikipedia if they demonstrate a pattern of WP:DISRUPTION. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, I don't think you've listened to anything I've said, and you certainly have not responded to any of my arguments. I made two edits today, adding the fact that there were hundreds of thousands of protestors, which is backed up by Damian Gayle of the Guardian, a reliable and verifiable source. I have done nothing wrong by making these edits, but clearly you want to shut down this discussion. As for the other edits, they have nothing to do with me. Why don't you respond to the arguments I made instead of conflating my points with what other people may have said? You have committed a logical fallacy and are avoiding discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"and to read Wikipedia's policies on WP:Verifiability, and the use of citations to reliable sources" I cited the Guardian, a verifiable and reliable source don't you think? "All content that does not stand up to scrutiny may be challenged" Yes, please challenge the points that I made above instead of playing a game of whataboutery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the IP user is doing a good job of identifying the Guardian quote since it is buried deep in the story about hundreds of protestors at the Westfield Mall [1]. The story says "The Westfield invasion came after a mass march of about 12 miles through London, starting in Parliament Square and reaching as far west as Acton. At its height there appeared to be hundreds of thousands of people taking part."

I personally doubt that this is the case, but it is sourced. I don't have WP:CIR to really add more on whether this is reliable or realistic; I'm not in London or following the protests. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : IP 86.24.250.193: there's an apparently never-ending supply of (dynamic?) IPs editing at this article (or is it just you?) and I've already responded to you above. I'm not going to play whack-a-mole and respond to every new IP that pops up with a comment here. As far as your edits made while using IP 86.24.250.193 are concerned, *I already pointed out to you* what the problem was: go back up to my edit and search for your IP. You added material (here) that is in direct contradiction to a wide variety of impeccable reliable sources, already presented and linked above. When reverted, you added it again (here), and were reverted again. (This was already stated and linked above; why are you making me repeat myself?) There is no requirement for volunteer editors here to respond to every comment made by an editor, especially when they are repetitive, much less when made by someone who is disrupting the article; and I likely won't be responding to any additional attempts here to spin a false narrative. It's all in the history, for anybody to see.

Your precious "impeccable" sources mean nothing when I saw with my own eyes how many people were there that day. You "impeccable" sources are not infallible or irrefutable by any means. Your "impeccable" sources contradict reality, and that's the truth.

Efforts to improve the article in line with policy are always welcome, as is sincere discussion about how to achieve that. However, continued attempts to WP:DISRUPT the article in violation of Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability will be met with warnings on your edit page(s). Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@LizardJr8:, the larger protest notwithstanding, that's not what IP 86's edits at the article were actually about; follow the diffs, where they changed "hundreds" to "hundreds of thousands" at Parliament Square, in clear contradiction to a slew of sources (in the collapse bar). Whatever the rationale of the larger protest, that's not what the history of the article shows IP 86's edits to actually have been. What they are saying here, and what they are doing in the article, are not the same; diffs don't lie. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've read your comment a few times, just to get the full jist of it.

Firstly, you're paranoid if you think I am using different IP addresses or accounts in order to make edits on this site. I almost never make edits on Wikipedia. The last time I made an edit must have been a decade ago! But today I was triggered by the patently false claims on this page the the protests that took place at the end of May consisted of a mere few hundred people. I feel terribly sorry for you if you believe the mainstream news narrative that it was only a few hundred people. I mean you only have to look at some of the images and videos of the event on online media to know that there were far in excess of that number in attendance; indeed there were many, many, many thousands. Also does it not strike you as odd that a Guardian journalist claims hundreds of thousands of people turned up (yes it's hidden away in the article, you need to read the whole thing, not just the headline as most people do) yet the headlines by the Guardian and other news outlets imply only "hundreds" turned up? Perhaps they want to play down the extent of these huge gatherings, as you are also doing with this Wikipedia article?

I have explained how the media have crafted this narrative above so I won't bother making my arguments again. This discussion will remain here and perhaps someone with a more open and rational mind may come across it and be able to move this article further towards the truth. But for now, this article is in a very poor state.

I tried to start a sincere discussion, but you're not having any of it.

"follow the diffs, where they changed "hundreds" to "hundreds of thousands" at Parliament Square"

Sorry, what? I made the same edit twice (which LizardJr8 reversed) to say that there were hundreds of thousands of protesters in CENTRAL LONDON, which is backed up by Damien Gayle from the Guardian. What you've said above is untrue, so yes "diffs don't lie" and I would encourage anyone to look up what was changed. I also can't help but get the impression that you want to hold me responsible for every revision made on this article today. But these are other people, they're not me; that's your paranoia buddy. I would contend that many other people hold a similar opinion to me. After all, there were MANY of us at the protest.

Understood. I don't know the difference between the geographic locations and what they span, and which protests were at each, so I was getting confused even with the diffs. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot once again has misrepresented what I said. Hundreds of thousands in central London. This is what the Guardian article said. This is what I wrote. I didn't mention Parliament Square as this would be a physical impossibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)