Talk:COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom

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:


 * 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 09 June 2021 (UTC) (rev. 1027757798) (UTC)

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, 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)


 * , 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, 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  (thanks!).
 * At 13:25, altered this to: "A few hundred thousand protesters gathered at Parliament Square..." (diff), and was reverted.
 * At 13:59/14:00, 3 edits by 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  (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, was blocked.
 * The disruption was taken up by yourself 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  (thanks!), then reinserted by you again at 14:45, and removed again.
 * Taken up next by 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  (thanks!) and finally the article was semi-protected by  (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)

break
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 . 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)


 * : 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.
 * 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 09 June 2021 (UTC) (rev. 1027757798) (UTC)


 * "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. added in rev 1027752653‎ by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk • contribs) 19:58, June 9, 2021 (UTC) and moved (in part), in rev. 1027757798 of 20:37, June 9, 2021


 * 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)


 * Just one last thing before I sign off Mathyglot. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.250.193 (talk • contribs) 20:30, June 9, 2021 (UTC)
 * IP 86.24.250.193, please sign all your comments using 4 tildes at the end of your message, and do not place your comments in the middle of someone else's; you can put them either at the end of the thread, or using the discussion-reply protocol explained at WP:THREAD. Thanks. I've moved this comment of yours of 20:30, June 9, 2021 out of the middle of an earlier comment of mine, to this location. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 86.24.250.193, your edits here manifest a clear misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works, with respect to original research and WP:Verifiability. As this is off-topic for this Talk page, I've responded at User Talk:86.24.250.193. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thousands on 29 May!

 * REUTERS - “Various news reports estimated the number to be in the thousands”


 * THE GUARDIAN - “a mass march that drew many thousands and snaked miles through central and west London...at its height there appeared to be hundreds of thousands of people taking part.”


 * DAILY MAIL - “Thousands gathered to protest against the vaccination rollout across the UK and lockdown restrictions”


 * METRO - “Thousands of people came out in central London before a crowd marched west to Westfields”

Zerbstill previously made multiple (reverted) edits so that the article reads "thousands". The verifiable, reliable sources given above (some might even say impeccable) show to me that this is a fair and accurate description.

I’m just going to copy paste a paragraph I wrote above as it is relevant to my point:


 * I fear that there is some confusion and misunderstanding amongst the contributors to this page over the media reporting of this protest. 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).

I tried to explain that sources such as the Guardian used “hundreds” when referring to the Westfield incident, even though the same article states that there were “many thousands” or even “hundreds of thousands” of protestors in attendance in central London for the anti-lockdown protest that day. Editors, including myself, who have made revisions to this article while citing this Guardian article, have been wrongly accused by other editors of not providing a reliable, verifiable source and subsequently threatened with sanctions. However, certainly in my case, these claims were false. It’s worrying if editors are failing to read beyond the headlines of news articles when checking sources, to sufficiently comprehend the information that is reported, especially any nuances, or to consider new information that challenges a previously reached consensus.

Therefore, given the sources and reasoning provided above by myself, I strongly suggest that the section on 29 May be reworded to reflect that thousands of people gathered/protested/marched in central London on that day. It would be unwise to keep the section as it is, given the obvious disagreement and so-called “edit-warring”. I can only assume that this will restart on 23 June, when the page protections expire, if the current inaccurate description remains. 86.24.250.193 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * IP 86.24.250.193, You're more than welcome to add sourced information to the article, whether its hundreds, millions, or billions of marchers; as long as its sourced properly nobody is going to stop you. I'm afraid you were a bit late to the discussion above, and maybe you missed the part where the discussion started off *not* about the tens of thousands of marchers who were present in London, but rather about the number in Portsmouth Square, where more than one editor tried to inflate the number, from the correct figure ("hundreds"), first to "thousands", then after being reverted, then to "tens of thousands", and then to "millions". Go ahead and add whatever sourced information you want that is policy-compliant, relevant to the article topic, and in due proportion to its importance relative to other information in the article. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased
What a surprise - another biased article on Wikipedia. Why does every march description take pains to describe the fact that some conspiracy theorists attend? Why are the covid denialists given undue weight? One speaker at an event is flat earther - and this is relevant how exactly? (other than to paint the march as a whole as a bunch of loons). Yes you will find such people at these marches - however the vast majority are just people opposed to the lockdowns, and related policies (e.g. vax passports). So glad I quit wasting my time with this site. 2A02:C7F:A0C2:4900:6161:6A6A:46EA:49FD (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to make it "un-biased", in your view, by adding content that is supported by reliable, trustworthy sources. The attendance of fringe theory proponents is notable as it provides a look into the demographics of those who attended the protests. Again, if you can provide evidence of other attendees, please feel free to add them into the article. Thank you. Abillionradios (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * clear attempt to smear by association, to besmirch the protesters, bias, undue weight to minority attendants.. I could go on. I wonder how it would go down if I edited the BLM articles to focus only on antifa’s attendances?
 * All that’ll happen if I attempt to make it less blatantly one sided would be no doubt you and your friends who made this hit piece will edit war until I get tired and go away.
 * No one sensible trusts Wikipedia for anything other than lists of Pokemon characters or other trivia. Thank you for reminding me why I quit this sinking ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.164.130 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can somewhat understand your argument and I can understand you're extremely protective of a protest that means a lot to you. However, it's still relevant to include the demographic makeup of a protest and fringe-believers are relevant because of their extreme beliefs. As for BLM/antifa demographics, you're more than welcome to contribute to those articles, too, as long as you provide reliable sources. I appreciate this dialogue we're having. Abillionradios (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Fringe theories tag
Hiya User:Mathglot - thanks for checking about fringe theories tag. I should have mentioned my reasoning on the talk page. As I said in the edit history, I have added this due to POV issues (already tagged) particularly in the "Between lockdowns" section. I highlighted how "this section parrots long quotes of conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific nonsense. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE and put these into context." Therefore this would fit into WP:FRINGE and so is a content/POV issue in my opinion, as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the conspiracy theories without contextualising them. It's particularly an issue in the section mentioned, but could be improved throughout. Let me know if you have any further thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for adding this. I'll look at this later in more detail, but as a sneak preview, please always use params reason and talk in maintenance templates (whether they are documented on the /doc page of the Template or not, they are accepted). 'Talk' should point to the section on the Talk page where you discuss it in detail (i.e., here), and 'reason' should just be a sentence or brief summary sufficient to define the issue and forestall removal of the template or attempts to mindread why you placed it in the first place. Same thing applies to the POV tag currently in the Between section. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a long post; here's the tl;dr: POV and FRINGE depend on the scope of the topic being discussed. The exact same thing can be POV/FRINGE on one article, and completely acceptable on an article with narrower scope. As this applies here: excessive content and quotations about covid vaccines being harmful or ineffective, are completely FRINGE in an article on Virology, or Coronaviruses because epidemiologists and public health authorities are universally opposed to such bunkum; it's FRINGE in the wider world. Otoh, when discussing anti-lockdown protests in the UK, there are zero epidemiologists or public health authorities giving speeches; in this much smaller population involving no scientists and exclusively people who are against the lockdown for a number of reasons, prominent among which is giving credence to conspiracy theories about vaccines or the non-existence of covid-19, discussion of these speeches and conspiracies is not UNDUE, it's required, because Wikipedia has no choice but to summarize what the majority of reliable sources report about the protesets, and since those conspiracies are prominent in the reports, they *must* be prominently covered in the article, and are not UNDUE or POV just because they are complete bollocks. And now, the gory details: Update: added tl;dr after posting this long comment. Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at this some more, and imho you misunderstand what the Fringe theories template is for. Perhaps the template is poorly named (there's a discussion going on about that now at the template TP) but what it is *not* for, is placing on top of articles about fringe theories. Note, for example, that the articles Flat Earth, Cold fusion, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, and Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories do not have a Fringe theories template on them, nor should they, despite the fact that the majority of those articles talk about fringe theories. What the template is for, is "when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a neutral point of view." But there isn't such an issue in this article, or at least, you haven't demonstrated it.
 * You didn't make the case for lack of balance or POV, but I'm going to try to make your case for you, and then tell you why it is mistaken. This depends on me attempting to mind-read you, which is risky and I could be wrong, so you'll have to let me know. I'm guessing you think something on the order of this:
 * Is that, roughly speaking, your position for why it merits a template? If so, that's a mistaken rationale, and the Fringe theories template does not apply here, and neither does POV. Fringe theories is for identifying an article&mdash;or a section&mdash;that is non-neutral, and has a WP:FALSEBALANCE because they give WP:UNDUE weight to the topic of the section. But that is not the case here, and based on my reading of your view, I think I understand why. If this article were about the causes of covid, then you would be absolutely right. We would have to rewrite that section, spending ten times as much space on the real causes of covid, than on the conspiracies; if we had three sections of conspiracy, we'd need 30 sections on reality, or pretty much the entire article to give a proper balance, since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources by at least ten-to-one consider them utter nonsense. The principles of WP:UNDUE weight being given to conspiracy theories about covid would indicate massive POV and lack of balance. However, that's not what this article is about, it's about protest marches.
 * Per WP:AT policy, "The title indicates what the article is about" and this article is not about the causes of covid (or Bill Gates, or government control, etc.), it is about covid anti-lockdown protests. All indications about POV and UNDUE and FRINGE, therefore, apply to what reliable sources say about covid anti-lockdown protests. In the case of the #Between lockdowns section, POV and UNDUE and FRINGE apply to what reliable sources say about covid anti-lockdown protests that occurred between the lockdowns. Having done some searches and looked into it, pretty much all the sources cover the inaccurate statements by Corbyn and other speakers. It is only natural that the sources do so, because that was what was newsworthy about anti-lockdown protests during that period, along with their size. I tried to find some sources that claimed that "millions" of protesters were present, or conversely, that the crowd never got bigger than a thousand.  I tried to find some sources that never covered the quotations about hoaxes and conspiracy theories about covid and government control that were behind the protests.  I couldn't find any; but if I had, including *them* would be UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE, because compared to every reliable source covering the protests, the speakers frequently spouted nonsense and conspiracies.  Since that is what the reliable sources are reporting, that is what Wikipedia must report; we have no choice.  To do anything else would be UNDUE and POV.  The fact that this reporting is all about conspiracy theories and hoaxes is irrelevant.  Note that the article is careful to place these comments in double-quotes, and always says who said them; this fulfills the requirement of in-text attribution for WP:Verifiability. Therefore, the #Between the lockdowns section is just fine as it is, it provides DUEWEIGHT to what all sources say about the protests between the lockdowns, and is in no way POV.  Therefore, the POV template must go.
 * The point about WP:DUEWEIGHT wrt the article title is crucial. The principles at play here are more like the situation at the article Salem witch trials, or in modern times, the McMartin preschool trial which was part of a moral panic involving allegations of massive pedophilia and other abuse going on in nurseries in the United States in the 1990s. The Salem article goes into great detail about (mostly) women being found guilty of being possessed by the devil or witchcraft, and hanged; the McMartin article covers a decade of accusations about child abuse of pre-school children and satanic rituals that never occurred. That is what those articles are about, due to their titles. These articles cover conspiracies and falsehoods in great detail, but there are no FRINGE or POV templates on them, nor should there be; these are the events as they occurred, and as covered in reliable sources in a balanced fashion. These events which occurred were based entirely on falsehoods; the Wikipedia articles must faithfully summarize what happened as reported by reliable sources, which go into extensive detail about the events. The fact that Wikipedia extensively reports events based on falsehoods isn't POV or FRINGE, it is entirely in keeping with the sources. To do otherwise would be UNDUE.
 * Same thing in this article. A bunch of anti-lockdown protests occurred based on a lot of falsehoods and conspiracies, which are quoted and attributed properly. These are the events that actually occurred, and accurately reported by numerous sources; no significant minority view of what actually happened or what was actually said has been omitted. Quotations contrary to accepted mainstream science are double-quoted and named. That means that this section is properly written and attributed, and in WP:DUE proportion to the sources available. To mark it POV is incorrect. As the template notes in the boxed section at the top says, and you haven't made a case for placing the Fringe theories template,  you should discuss first, and add the tag "only as a last resort". That hasn't happened yet, and per "When to remove" bullet 2, it should be removed.
 * That said, there's nothing stopping you from adding a caveat or disclaimer before or after some conspiracy-based quotation saying something like, "contrary to the mainstream view that the lockdowns were a public health measure supported by epidemiologists", or some such (along with a citation to a source, of course). Go ahead and add that, if you wish. However, as there's nothing POV about the section, nor does the article merit FRINGE status for inaccurate reporting or weighting, I am removing both templates. Please gain consensus before placing these templates on the article. This article no more needs a FRINGE or POV template, than  Salem witch trials does. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC).
 * I've followed up with a See also link to Misinformation about COVID-19 at the top of the #Between the lockdowns, which hopefully will assuage some of your concerns. However, the link is a bit vague just sitting there without explanation, so ideally it should be removed, and replaced by a caveat or disclaimer as mentioned above. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the end of the lead section already has a sentence about this very point (although five references is WP:CITEKILL). That seems to give enough context from which to interpret any of the quotations based on debunked theories later on. If you think it needs restating in the #Between section, go ahead and add it. Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Mathglot. Thanks for this very well thought out and considered response, I appreciate the time you have put into thinking this through. Your interpretation of my use of the tag is correct, and I was not casting doubt about what the article was about. However, I disagree with your later points and still think this article has NPOV issues. The article does a good job of clearly indicating quotes from a small number of protest figures. However, as you say, this article is about protests. A substantial amount of text is dedicated to directly quoting statements made by particular attendees, in particular the fringe theories and pseudoscience. How is this adding to an encyclopaedic entry about the protests, when other information has not been included? The sources used in this page discuss the protests as a result of conspiracy theories and more widely about how the protests were discussed or received by non-conspiracy theorists. This is currently lacking from the article - it only quotes the conspiracy theorists, and is therefore WP:UNDUE. Just take this source for example. The Wiki article could quote the response from the Mayor of London and spokepeople for the Met police, rather than just quoting the fringe theories without context. Another is here. There is also no mention of information like this which discusses the way the misinformation has been propagated. This article still leans far too heavily on these direct quotes from fringe theorists, hence why I added these tags. The sentence in the opener was added by me as a start to try and improve the balance. More caveating (as you suggest) using information already in the sources is severely needed in the article in my opinion. Hence my use of WP:FRINGE and WP:POV. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess for an example of what I mean is something like Plandemic, which is GA-certified. The article is about the film, but it discusses how it was received outside of its proponents a lot more clearly, and puts the film's claims into the mainstream context of its sources, and so would not be under the scope of WP:FRINGE. Welcome your thoughts - hope I am being clear enough here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * More pathetic, biased bs. Around 500,000 people, possibly considerably more, attended the June march, yet you dismiss them all as fringe conspiracists. The mainstream media largely downplayed or ignored the protest (except Talk Radio & GB News - interesting discussion with author Laura Dodsworth about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22pl1VSdsX4&t=628s), despite Richard Tice of the Reform Party hiring a helicopter in order to show the magnitude of the crowd - and you then use this an excuse to have a biased article! It's both pitiful and sad that Wikipedia seems to think it's ok to demonise and smear such an enormous protest just because a minority of attendees hold some extreme opinions, as there will be at any large protest - e.g. the small socialist/communist presence at several BLM protests. Utterly pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A0C2:4900:C0CC:CF9B:1605:DA35 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. Thank you for your suggestions. I also think this article has POV issues. You're also very welcome to contribute and try and improve the article as long as you cite reliable, secondary WP:SOURCEs, which YouTube videos would not be. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the authors of this hit-piece cared about factual reporting, they could refer to this video of June's protest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFn8MzgHWeA) to see the heterogeneity of the crowd and the causes espoused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.164.130 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstand how Wikipedia works lol. Take a look at WP:SR and WP:SOURCE if you actually want to try and be constructive and make improvements here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstand how Wikipedia works lol. Take a look at WP:SR and WP:SOURCE if you actually want to try and be constructive and make improvements here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Freedom Alliance (UK)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Alliance_(UK)&redirect=no Freedom Alliance (UK)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. signed,Rosguill talk 01:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)