Talk:Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic

Can acts towards New Yorkers in the US be considered xenophobia or racism?

@Iswearius: Your edit about New Yorkers fleeing to Rhode Island really shouldn't be considered xenophobia considering that this is happening to Americans in the United States (i.e., this is not driven by fear of foreigners), nor is it racism (no races were mentioned). It doesn't belong to an article about "incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" Mdado unidue (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Mdado unidue — The definition of xenophobia doesn't imply that only foreigners can be targeted (depending on your definition of foreigner). There are plenty of historical examples of xenophobia against compatriots, such as within the Ottoman empire, which was divided along religious lines. They all lived in the same location, but there was certainly xenophobia.
"Xenos" is stranger, not non-national. You can look at the definition used on the Wikipedia article:

"[Xenophobia is] based on the perception that the other is foreign to or originates from outside the community or nation."

That definition is from the UN [1]…

Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't be 'xenophobic' against someone within your own nation or ethnicity. The definition that you pointed out and highlighted literally says 'originates from outside the community or nation.", not community and nation or within one. Feinoa (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You literally repeated my point: xenophobia is towards someone outside the community.
Community isn't defined as either nation or ethnicity.
The Hutu and Tutsi were both ethnically similar groups (some argue there was no difference) within the same nation (Rwanda). There was enough xenophobia to amount to genocide — and that's relatively recently, in 1994.
There is a reason why the UN is very clear with its definition.
It also doesn't make sense why we should include xenophobia towards those from Hubei, which was considerable, and blatantly ignore that in the US. (We should simply treat it with proper weight, per WP:DUE.)
Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a red herring, what happened in Rwanda is not comparable. No one is genociding people from New York, which could come from many different races around the world being a cosmopolitan state. They are not a seperate race, ethnicity or a nationality. They are just Americans living in the state of New York, just like another American living in New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Does having an issue with your neighbor or someone across your street also count as xenophobia? Furthermore, the topic on Hubei is due to the fact that China is largely homogeneous, also not comparable to New York. Feinoa (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

None of that changes the definition.
Does having an issue with your neighbor or someone across your street also count as xenophobia?
It certainly could, given the right circumstances.
Community is seldom defined as a single household, but that is exactly what happened in Rwanda: with neighbors and friends being pitted against oneanother along seemingly arbitrary lines.
I'm not saying that what is happening in the US is comparable to genocide, but it isn't a red herring.
Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would actually argue that China is rather heterogenous, not only ethnically but also linguistically, what with all the regional accents and dialects. But that also means because the East Coast of the US lacks this kind of diversity, then the incidents in these two very different places are not comparable. Besides, the incidents listed on this article speak of rather grave offences like violence, denial of services etc. Being pulled over at a checkpoint hardly meets the gravity of what has happened in other places, plus it is not happening en masse (speaking of undue weight), so it really shouldn't be in this page. Another thing to consider (since we're talking about ethnic tensions) is that xenophobic sentiments do not happen overnight. Where in history have you heard of widespread discrimination of New Yorkers in Rhode Island and vice versa? Do stricter state border controls as a response to a pandemic really constitute as xenophobia if this is literally the first time in history that any tension between these two states are being reported on the NYT?Mdado unidue (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly WP:DUE is applicable here, with some line needing to be drawn between what is WP:notable and can be included in the article, and what isn't. Yet it has to be applied consistently. The group of Singaporean tourists who weren't allowed to climb Ella Rock probably isn't important enough to be included here... either.
Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove that contribution if you want. I already attempted to list establish some sort of guidelines for notability here [[2]]. I still don't think that the New York-Rhode Island incident belongs here, since it was reported once in one source, with no other similar incidents reported elsewhere (discrimination towards people from other US states). I still maintain that US state discrimination shouldn't be included in this article because it is not xenophobia/racism, but other than that it is simply not notable enough.Mdado unidue (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The UN definition of Xenophobia

Mdado unidue — There is a UN definition of Xenophobia that makes no distinction for whether it targets members of the same nation or not:

"[Xenophobia is] based on the perception that the other is foreign to or originates from outside the community or nation." [3]

We just can't be having a debate about that. I 100% give you that the above example might not be important enough to be included, but there might also come examples where New Yorkers are targeted with violent acts, and then we just can't allow our prejudices to get in the way of WP:Neutral coverage. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not xenophobia, it cheapens the word to use it in such a way. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng — Please take up such concerns with the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees", linked above. The question must be whether or not it is notable and WP:DUE for encyclopedia coverage — not whether it is xenophobia or not, which simply isn't at issue. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I am not getting into an argument about semantics here. It does not fit, your reading of the definition is wrong. Also if you read the source for that statement it makes no mention of xenophobia or racism so it is outside the scope of this article and original research to label it as such. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You are literally saying that the definition prepared by UNHCR in their report on "International Migration, Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia" is wrong
— because it does not fit with your preconceived notions about what xenophobia is.
I'm actually not at all interested in whether this specific case should be to the list or not, we're pretty clear already that it shouldn't be. Yet, the title of the section is: New Yorkers being "discriminated" against in the US shouldn't be considered xenophobia or racism — so you can't state that you're going to ignore "semantics", when that was the primary aim of the discussion here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No I am saying you clearly do not understand what they are saying. Though it sounds like we are all in agreement that it is not a fit for this article either as out of scope or undue so nothing left to discuss. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The UNHCR is crystal clear — you are simply being disingenuous if you're stating that I've misunderstood it, when I literally quoted it. Here in full:

Xenophobia describes attitudes, prejudices and behavior that reject, exclude and often vilify persons, based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners to the community, society or national identity.

That is from the UN: Declaration on Racism, Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance against Migrants and Trafficked Persons at the Asia-Pacific NGO Meeting for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Teheran, Iran. 18 February 2001.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not interested in bickering with you over your reading comprehension. Let it go. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would bid you not to call into question my competence per WP:CIVIL. The definition I cited you is crystal clear. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF I don't see why we need to take the UN definition of xenophobia as some gold standard of neutrality. There are many definitions out there in the academic world. Besides, you're taking the definition very literally. Just because the definition states "community", doesn't necessarily mean that what happened to the New Yorkers is xenophobia. You have to consider intent, too. Did the Rhode Islanders pull over the New Yorkers BECAUSE those people identify as New Yorkers, i.e., was there something inherent to the New York identity that makes them susceptible to xenophobia? I highly highly doubt that's the case. New York is hit hard by the pandemic, so you can argue that they are being "discriminated" against by people from other states. But that discrimination is not rooted in xenophobic attitudes. Mdado unidue (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mdado unidue — Discussion of whether the UN definition is ideal may be relevant at other venues, but to raise concerns over declarations here is WP:FRINGE.

Xenophobia isn't only attitudes, as you can read in the definition:

Xenophobia describes attitudes, prejudices and behavior

You allude to other academic definitions, but fail to provide such definitions. I might also point out that they wouldn't be directly comparable, as the UN definition is not purely academic, it is a UN declaration and is a decree with signatory of multiple nations. You'd have to present something equivalent, not merely vague assertions that it might not be the "gold standard of neutrality".

The connection to disease is also apt here, because it is a commonly used trope to connect foreigners or strangers with disease, also covered in the UNHCR-document linked above:

Migrants are commonly associated in news media coverage, by politicians and in popular discourse with crime, trafficking, drugs, disease, AIDS and other social ills.

It isn't "not xenophobia" just because disease is involved, or for the reason that there may be a rational fear of disease.

I have been very clear about a need to apply a scale, and strongly agree that the article or example in question was not relevant to this article — yet we have to rely on a definition and can't draw an arbitrary line "this is xenophobia and this isn't" — based on our prejudices or personal understanding of the word.

We have to come to a decision based on a reasoned approach about what is relevant to include — and it is paramount to consider the UN definition (even if we did agree it was imperfect).

You have several examples of xenophobia towards Italians and towards certain regional groups early on in the pandemic, that would be notable for inclusion.

• Italy’s ‘darkest hour’: how coronavirus became a very political problem, The Conversation

There have been examples of outright discrimination towards Italians living in the so-called “infected areas”, who were apparently no longer welcome in other parts of the country.

• CNN anchor Chris Cuomo threatens man who called him Fredo The Independent

The footage, apparently shot on a mobile phone, was uploaded onto YouTube on Monday and shows Cuomo telling the unnamed man that “punk-ass bitches from the right” call him Fredo, which the TV personality says is a racist slur towards Italians.

There are many such fringe cases, the same thing that is happening with New Yorkers was happening in China, where "cars were spotted with Hubei plates", and a local government outside Beijing offered $145 to those who gave tips that may unearth anyone with a "link to Wuhan".

We already include that in the article, and it is widely being called discrimination (LA Times etc.).

Here is a pretty explicit example where exactly what you're discussing is happening; and this 'is included in the article.

• In China’s virus-hit heartland, fear and loathing on the road to Wuhan, Washington Post

Those from Hubei have aired their despair about the fear and loathing they face. A woman told the Chinese newspaper Time Weekly that her housemates locked her out of her Beijing apartment. In the northern city of Shijiazhuang, neighborhood committees offered bounties of $280 to anyone who reported someone who had visited Wuhan. An apartment block in Shenzhen cut off water to force tenants from Hubei to register after returning to the southern city.
In Jiangxi's provincial capital, Nanchang, hotels asked guests to answer surveys asking if they had traveled to Hubei. A receptionist at a major international chain assured a visitor that there were no guests from Hubei in the building. "We've rejected them all," he said.

The Chinese government even point it out:

Some officials, including the Communist Party chief of Wuhan, have taken notice and urged Chinese not to treat their compatriots with scorn. The People's Daily, the party's official mouthpiece, also instructed citizens to "not hold prejudice or treat cold-heartedly" people from Wuhan.
"They wish more than anyone to eliminate the epidemic," the paper wrote. "They want safety, assurance and care."

More:

• Shunned in China, Hubei natives live in isolation Nikkei Asian Review

People from Hubei Province -- and those with even the remotest of connections -- stand a high chance of discrimination in their own country, with some factories turning away all Hubei workers regardless of their health.

• Voices from Hubei: residents welcome liberation after quarantine Financial Times

“There is still some hostility towards people from Hubei,” Mr Li said. “My neighbours keep their distance as they suspect I might be a virus carrier. I don’t blame them.”

All those example include the points you use as excuses not to call it xenophobia — such as relevant and real fears and only targeting citizens of a certain region (by license plate or mobile phone).

Xenophobia isn't about practicing caution against those who may be infected: no; but about dicriminatory treatment — and such treatment can certainly stretch to citizens of any state, including New York. There is literal examples of the same things happening elsewhere and being called xenophobia.

All I'm saying is we could pass a threshold when acts targeting various groups is important enough to include here, and that we shouldn't be dismissing things based on what be believe the definition to be — when we have the definition spelled out. Xenophobia isn't just something that happens "over there", and there is no definition that says "it can't be non-racialized xenophobia if it happened in the United States".
Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Quote by Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University:

• Rhode Island’s Search for New Yorkers Starts in Beach Towns, Bloomberg

"We need to be on the alert for discrimination against outsiders, including not just foreigners but Americans from other states, that isn’t strictly and objectively warranted by the facts,” he said. “As the Supreme Court put it in one famous case, our Constitution was founded on the philosophy that we must sink or swim together.”

Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Cuomo's comments, WP:DUE for inclusion?

There is also this today from the Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo from New York who announced that an agreement had been made with Rhode Island to stop what is being claimed are discriminatory stops:

• ‘We Will Not Let New Yorkers Be Discriminated Against’: Cuomo Says R.I. Will End Coronavirus Police Stops CBS local
• Cuomo: No one is going to treat New York 'unfairly' over coronavirus CNN
• Rhode Island’s Search for New Yorkers Starts in Beach Towns Bloomberg
• Editorial: Hunting down New Yorkers Providence Journal

But thus far, Americans have been calm and cooperating to control the virus. The governor’s approach, heightening fears and xenophobia against fellow citizens, seemed unnecessary if not counterproductive. Simple messaging might work better.

It certainly looks like this is notable enough to include in the list, if only for the allegations that it is discriminatory.
Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Still silly and undue. The only source close is the Providence Journal editorial and a CBS local. The other two do not support the claim or do not fit this article. The Providence and CBS source are just quoting Cuomo with the Providence source even saying that Cuomo shouldn't be doing that. In short, not at this time. PackMecEng (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just being smug: "silly" — I mean really? That isn't even close to a proper rationale.
And I gave you four sources didn't I? That is apart from the ones above, including direct comments about xenophobia from a law professor. I think you're being WP:POINTY.

There's more:

• Rhode Island Cracking Down on New Yorkers Outside the Beltway

"How a governor can single out the citizens of another state for discriminatory treatment is beyond me."

• ACLU objects to giving State Police power to pull over cars with N.Y. plates in response to coronavirus Boston Globe

“Under the Fourth Amendment, having a New York state license plate simply does not, and cannot, constitute ‘probable cause’ to allow police to stop a car and interrogate the driver, no matter how laudable the goal of the stop may be,” he said.

• Vilifying New Yorkers is a mistake Washington Post

"The idea of quarantining New York cast members of our own nation as a ‘foreign’ element infecting the nation. Let us not learn from Trump’s xenophobia but rather from the mistakes of President Benjamin Harrison over a century ago: supporting science not xenophobia will lead us through this crisis."

Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You stopped reading after the first sentence didn't you? Also do you have any non-opinion sources? Because yes there are sources, but the quality is not there. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No PackMecEng — I took into account the full comment, but it just doesn't make sense. Your assertion that only two of the sources are relevant is baseless. You've for example simply ignored the Bloomberg source that I pointed to — that clearly expresses views from prominent parties on the discriminatory nature of acts towards people from a certain location — and after having been shown 7 sources, from some of the most well-known publications in the US: you state "The quality isn't there". Several explicitly use the word xenophobia, and the ones that discuss discrimination are fully acceptable for inclusion here, per all other standards.
It's very hard to see that as anything but WP:NPOV-violation, and WP:POINTY — and reports have been filed and sanctions taken at WP:ANI for far less.
I would advise you to be careful not for your edits to be construed as intentional obstruction. I've been quite clear here that before adding anything I want it in writing that the sources are strong enough. They describe the situation in ways that are within the scope of what the page covers — and undue allegations of "lack of quality" aren't convincing. I listed both editorials and more summary sources, both of which have a place per WP:V and WP:RS. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained several times to you now, most of the sources you present are not strong enough to show due weight for inclusion. They are either vague opinion sources, just quoting Cuomo with nothing added, or do not mention anything related to this subject. The look I presented sources argument does not work if the sources are no good. If you really want to make the argument that people from New York are as much a victim of xenophobia and racism as actual minority groups I would start by finding quality sources that make that argument, which you have largely failed to do. But please, yes take me to ANI over this. I could use a good laugh. PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Iswearius: As per the discussion that I've seen here, It's clear that the situation regarding the New Yorkers does not fit into this article. Please actually use the talk page and respond instead of edit warring. Thehardtruths (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment by blocked WP:SOCKPUPPET

Thank you

CFCF Thank you for your excellent, elegant and masterful presentation and defence of your obviously valid points. In this time of great disruption, we must strive to remain inclusive and unwaveringly objective about well-sourced information concerning human affairs. Here on Wikipedia, as in this case, we must not let the xenophobic and biased interventions of malevolent, dishonourable elements taint any article, even less so an article on that very subject. Iswearius (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Might as well add coughing attacks against police too. Kire1975 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that a previous statement regarding CNN anchors was expunged?

As you can see at this previous revision of the article, the section mentioning Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus" also made mention that CNN anchors criticized his use of the term, despite CNN anchors using the term themselves. These are the references used, that have since been wiped from the article: 1, 2, 3, and 4. The current revision of the article makes no mention of this and I was wondering why it was removed. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"rm undue weight" according to the edit summary. It was not the only edit to that section as a few more were made afterwards. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:CatcherStorm, I apologize for my earlier response. While I quoted the edit summary properly, I erred and gave you the wrong diff before. The proper diff is Special:Diff/947685718 which was made at 17:26 UTC on March 27, 2020 by User:Neutrality. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO the removal makes sense. This is an article on incidents of xenophobia and racism. It's not an article on media bias, media hypocrisy or anything of that sort. Incidents of xenophobia and racism by the media could be covered if there are a lot of sources that mention them but not random kerfuffles of alleged hypocrisy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be added back, if "Chinese virus" is considered racist, then it doesn't matter who said it, Trump or a CNN anchor, it is considered racism. On the other hand if "Chinese virus" isn't considered racist, then remove Trump from the article. (User:Sergeant Davin) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2020

List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – Better get this dispute sorted out properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF, Robvanvee, Voceditenore, and Serial Number 54129: Better discuss this. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Anthony Appleyard—apologies for missing the obvious, but where did you find my name? :) ——SN54129 11:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: By looking through messages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000, Tbhotch, Abishe, Sleath56, Jancarcu, and Feinoa:, involved in previous RM. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. As I stated in the RM with the result:

No consensus to move. A split of material defining the general concept may be warranted. -- BD2412

Closed on March 30 2020, or 2 days ago:

The current page is a list. I am not making a comment as to the validity of the topic as an article — but that the current format is not that of an article. The best way forward is to recreate an article at that name — in an article format (preferably even using some, but not all, of the sources from this page).

That said, I am fully in favor of a move to List of incidents of xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic and a creation of a new article at: Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic.
Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

CFCF — The title "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic", with all due respect, to me, a native English speaker, sounds clumsy and over-extended like a mediocre translation. For this reason I suggest we use "Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" as the title and use "List of incidents by continent and country" in the article itself, as I have already done. Thanks.Iswearius (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Iswearius — I too, being also a native English speaker, find the title to be cumbersome. However, with all due respect, to me, an experienced Wikipedia editor, such is the nature of the page. That is why I have suggested, multiple times, that a non-list article be created. The reason for the name is not that it is a translation, but that it follows the Wikipedia:Manual of style, and the Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists-guideline. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

CFCF — Given this clarification, I completely agree with you. I do believe using "List of incidents of xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" is more representative of the article's scope but, in this format, it is even longer. Iswearius (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am very busy, and since I started working from home I've been using Wikipedia far too much. I can't promise to take on starting the article, but will give it a try (unless someone else beats me to it) in the coming days, or unless this RM comes to another conclusion.

Another alternative would be to have the main article at:

• Xenophobia in the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic

or

• Discrimination during the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic

The benefit of having that type of title would be that 1) it's shorter; and 2) both discrimination and xenophobia include racism.

I believe also that the guidelines WP:Stand-alone lists allow us to title a list page with only "Incidents of…", since it implies that it will be a list. What do you make of that?

Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

CFCF — If we take the page Xenophobia as an example, we notice the structure is very similar to this page; lead, brief history and incidents listed by country, which make up most of the page. Yet, it does not use the "List of..." format. But yes, "Incidents of xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" sounds better. "Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" even more so. As for using 2019-20 vs 2019-2020, we should review other articles related to the coronavirus pandemic to ensure consistency in style.Iswearius (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the guidelines WP:Stand-alone lists, I conclude the current title is, if cumbersome, nonetheless appropriate.Iswearius (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose To avoid more WP:SYNTH, we don't need a page move because it is very possible that some of the incidents related to 'discrimination' are absolutely normal but are marginally related to coronavirus because these days coronavirus is no.1 concern in many countries. We don't need them here. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Please format the bare URL in the Indiana section:

References

Thanks. Capewearer (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Capewearer (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 April 2020

Could someone please change "Asian" to "East Asian and Southeast Asian" please? Somebody kept on removing the original version without any explanation. The only Asians facing discrimination are those with East Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)) Sapah3 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

limited examples of xenophobia and racism towards foreigners in China

This is a very thorough and well-referenced article about the topic in question. It would be greatly improved in terms of perceived bias if it included more information on the many recent cases of xenophobia and racism towards foreigners in China and Thailand.

Apologies as I do not usually edit wikipedia articles, but there are some links here if anyone is open minded enough to pursue this, and if my request for editing the semi-protected page is granted then I will do my best to edit it myself, as I noticed a previous edit had been deleted by someone called "Qiushufeng":

curprev 09:50, 3 April 2020‎ Qiushufang talk contribs‎ 177,671 bytes +550‎ →‎China curprev 09:35, 3 April 2020‎ Qiushufang talk contribs‎ 177,121 bytes -1,101‎ Undid revision 948827363 by 49.48.41.123 (talk)

"Qiushufeng" has been banned on several occasions for engaging in "edit wars":

17:16, 19 July 2018 Ivanvector talk contribs unblocked Qiushufang talk contribs (User has read the edit warring policy and will avoid edit wars in the future.) 14:27, 18 July 2018 Ivanvector talk contribs blocked Qiushufang talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

I would like to add the cases mentioned in the links below to the China section on this page:

China cases:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/29/china-coronavirus-anti-foreigner-feeling-imported-cases 2. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/27/asia/china-coronavirus-foreigners-intl-hnk/index.html 3. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/foreigners-face-discrimination-china-coronavirus-fears-visas/ 4. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-foreigners/foreigners-face-suspicion-in-china-as-coronavirus-worsens-overseas-idUSKBN21E1DU 5. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/05/world/china-not-immigrant-country-draft-law-sparks-online-racism/#.XobeX0AzaUs 6. https://www.ccn.com/chinas-communist-party-shifts-coronavirus-blame-to-outsiders/ 7. https://www.thatsmags.com/china/post/30932/turbulent-times-for-foreign-nationals-in-china 8. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/30/the-coronavirus-crisis-china-capitalises-on-covid-19-by-blaming-foreigners/ 9. https://www.thestar.co.uk/health/chesterfield-teacher-faces-xenophobia-china-over-coronavirus-2516429

Thailand:

10. https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/thai-health-minister-has-a-slash-at-dirty-farang 11. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/travel/article/3076758/thai-health-minister-blames-dirty-western-tourists 12. https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/thailand-increasingly-blaming-caucasians-for-coronavirus-crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.48.41.123 (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2020 (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. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A list of more reports of Anti-Asian harassment to add

https://www.adl.org/blog/reports-of-anti-asian-assaults-harassment-and-hate-crimes-rise-as-coronavirus-spreads

Some incidents are already listed, but there are several more not mentioned on Wiki. I can add some at a time, but it would be great if others can help. Includes articles as well. MagicTricks (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

You can add Jordan: In March 2020, a Korean working in Jordan since 2014 reported to the police that he was beaten and mocked due to his Asian appearance. In another incident, a Jordanian of Korean mother was refused to take a Taxi, for the same reason. 175.197.22.42 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This is an unanswered request that I have unarchived. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Already done by editor M900417 with this edit on April 3, 2020. Pinging @Deacon Vorbis: Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Hello, can anyone add to the list the following : France : -BFMTV anchor Emmanuel Lechypre referring to covid19's victims during Chinese memorial airing on April 5th of 2020 as "Pokemons" by making a racist "joke" -Cochin Hospital : Jean-Paul Mira, cheif of the reanimation services Cochin hospital suggested testing covid19 vaccines in Africa because "they are already not protected anyway" to Camille Locht, head of research at the national Institut of health and medical research, who agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousseffarouktn (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This request was placed out of order at the top of the talk page and got lost in the shuffle. I moved it here to its correct position and correctly formatted the request. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — MRD2014 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

'Does not belong in the lead'

For the edit here according to one editor's opinion. He/she did not specify where it'd belong apparently? Splitting it up for the sections in the US, UK, some other Asian countries, Muslims, Conservationists etc. (where would the last 2 go?) is dubious in relevance for some instances & rather redundant.

I'm also confused how 'East & Southeast Asian descent' is kept in the lede instead of just 'Asian descent'. What about the students of Northeast India? They aren't any of those, just Asian. It also leads to all these dubious entries of 'Anti-Thai sentiment', 'Anti-Japanese sentiment' etc. in the 'See also' where when looking at those incidents, most of them are clearly involving perpetrators mistaking victims as Chinese or grouping all Asians through anti-Chinese attacks. How many sources will you find here saying 'Anti-Japanese sentiment on the rise b/c of coronavirus'? Too bad Wikipedia doesn't even have an article titled 'Anti-Asian sentiment' (just Anti-Asian racism in France which may or may not warrant inclusion). I also brought that up in a previous talk section which of course went completely unanswered.

(It also boggles the mind how Sweden or Turkey (possibly 2 of the most anti-China countries in the world) avoids a section here. There's already one English source freely available for the former (& likely many more in Swedish), and a few Turkish ones from checking 2 months ago. It seems the inclusion/exclusion of some entries here is subject to unreliable bias (e.g. excessive entries on the US & possibly Germany, weak entries on East/Southeast Asia etc.)) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

all opinion based ... load of crap now proven he was correct 2600:8803:E402:BD00:F9FA:30D0:C443:5761 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Alleged high level racism and xenophobia in China now

Embassies involved

https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/news/African-Embassies-to-hold-an-emergency-meeting-amid-forced-/1840340-5518864-lgcev1/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world/asia/china

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/29/china-coronavirus-anti-foreigner-feeling-imported-cases

Let us prune this article of the old "he looked bad at me" cases. They pale in comparison. Let us add these instead. WP:DUE Zezen (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's pretty much the definition of undue weight. Until xenophobia or discrimination in some of the Sub Saharan African countries are given a section (plenty of sources supporting it here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-coronavirus-triggers-xenophobia-in-some-african-countries/ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/10/foreigners-central-african-republic-coronavirus-fears-grow https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/coronavirus-brings-sinophobia-africa https://rfi.fr/en/international/20200319-foreigners-feel-the-heat-of-kenya-s-coronavirus-fears-nairobi-covid-19-xenophobia-european-mzungu https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-fuels-anti-chinese-discrimination-in-africa/av-52428454 https://www.dailysabah.com/world/africa/anti-foreigner-sentiment-on-rise-in-africa-over-virus), then it's unnecessary, considering there's already a section sourced by the Guardian on it.

TheCitizen source you listed also does not look notable (no Wiki page on it), & does not specifically mention 'xenophobia', 'racism' or 'discrimination'. The BBC link doesn't lead to anything, so you would need a better source if you plan on adding it. (Not to mention that among others, there's also no section on Cambodia, despite sources like these on anti-foreign xenophobia in the country: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/30/cambodia-fight-discrimination-amid-pandemic https://theaseanpost.com/article/covid-19-and-cambodias-human-rights-concerns). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let us also add Africa. If many RS say it is xenophobia and actions (sustained persecution) follow the words.

But let is concentrate on important cases. Let us delete low level:

store clerks have been hesitating to serve Japanese customers, ...

... travellers refused to board with 16 others from Wuhan. 

(disclaimer: I would too, back in January. They may have saved their lives.)

1,000 South Korean tourists were instructed to avoid public places and remain in isolation

(many of them turned out to be infected)

on Twitter, Japanese people have called Chinese tourists "dirty", "insensitive", and "bioterrorists"

(cf. this Weibo: https://mobile.twitter.com/craigtse/status/1248389344865345539/photo/1 )

etc.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/china/africans-guangzhou-china-coronavirus-hnk-intl/index.html re such Weibo and more.

Zezen (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, those can be deleted (except the Japanese Twitter statement is supported by the NYTimes & esp. the Lancet source, which are considered reliable, so no on that one). Your linking of Twitter or any other social media not related to a notable source (WP:FACEBOOK) would not be accepted for adding. At the moment, the fact someone already added something similar with an Al Jazeera ref, while some of the African countries mentioned still don't even have their own section on xenophobia indicates an obvious undue weight issue. I'll probably be fixing it in the near future. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Donkey Hot-day for addressing the content and no resorting to ad hominem. I agree.

FYI, I did not want this alleged Weibo to be included as an example in the mainspace, even despite it being mentioned by the CNN; by "cf." I meant an invitation to compare the cases above, so as to arrive at the DUE balance in the mainspace.

Zezen (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ontario as a separate heading

I am not sure why Ontario appears as a heading separate from Canada. Should we not merge its content into Canada's entry? --ayush (reach out) 08:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting revert

It seems new user Sergeant Davin edited an older revision of the article here, wiping out quite some recent content. Could someone revert the damage done? --NFSreloaded (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to revert this change Special:Diff/947685718. User: Sergeant Davin 04:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the Guardian article on recent xenophobia in China was removed recently from the China section. Sorry I can't find the edit in the history page. In fact, the China section seems strangely sparse given the many well documented cases of racism and xenophobia towards foreigners there lately.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Re-adding incidents for Connecticut, Illinois and Minnesota in the United States that were previously removed without explanation probably by accident or a disruptive user.

Connecticut

On April 3, 2020, a Chinese restaurant received racist phone calls blaming the COVID-19 pandemic on people of Chinese descent and threatening to shoot the owners.

Illinois

A 60-year old Chinese-American man was attacked by two women while jogging in Naperville, Illinois. According to his daughter, they allegedly threw a log at him, accused him of having the virus, spat at him, and told him to "go back to China."

Minnesota

In Woodbury, a threatening racist note was left on the home of an Asian-American couple with statements such as "We're watching you" as well as "take the Chinese virus back to China".

In Moorhead, a man was arrested for coughing on two grocery store employees while blaming racial minorities for COVID-19. Lise Hereford (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Lise Hereford: You are now autoconfirmed. — MRD2014 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Pre-edit war with someone who's broken the 3 revert rule

So how does one resolve the conflict with user Billybostickson here who seems to disregard WP:BLP (in accordance to this talk page), WP:LABEL, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:RELEVANCE, & possibly WP:WEIGHT with his reverts, which also remove reliably sourced content added? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and that should resolve the conflict. Two notes though, first WP:BLP is optional not a policy or a guideline and disregarding it may be annoying but its not against the rules in any way. Second, you seem to believe based on your edit summary [4] that this was your first revert, it wasn’t... It was your third, refrain from reverting again to avoid a WP:Boomerang when you report them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually you might want to hold back on reporting, given [5] it appears you’ve also broken the three revert rule making WP:Boomerang a near certainty. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Attempt to build consensus concerning recent deletions of contributions to China Section of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

@Donkey Hot-day: I’ve decided to break down our revert/deletion issue on “List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic” so that we can work out a satisfactory solution instead of just reverting edits ad infinitum.

I have enumerated 7 points below which I would like you to answer so that the China section can be edited to our mutual satisfaction:

1. This whole contribution was deleted:

As local cases of COVID-19 reportedly fell to zero in March, the Chinese government increased its efforts to prevent new cases emerging from returning travellers from overseas. This led to the recent official prohibition on all foreigners either with or without visas or residency from entering China by air, sea and land. This was considered as hypocritical by the President of the European Chamber of Commerce in China [27] given earlier Chinese complaints about discrimination and travel bans during the pandemic. [28] It has also been viewed as xenophobic by both Mexican [29] and Shanghai Media [30] after the Chinese vice-foreign minister admitted that 90% of the non-local coronavirus cases were in fact ethnic Chinese returning from overseas, many of them students. [31] [32]

Why?

2. You replaced a small part of it here:

“According to The Telegraph, foreigners are being barred from hotels, supermarkets, and restaurants, while others have their visas being cancelled and reentry into China barred.”[24]

Apart from being grammatically incorrect (“while others have their visas being cancelled and re-entry into China barred”) This also is false as it is not just “other foreigners being barred from re-entry to China” but rather the complete prohibition of foreigners with or without visas or residence permits from entering China. This is a crucial difference which I mentioned specifically in the contribution which you deleted in its entirety.

So, apart from deleting an important contribution you distorted the facts and made grammatical errors in your contribution.

3. Here you removed a specific example of xenophobia and racism:

The Star Newspaper (UK) published allegations of discrimination by a UK teacher based in Hangzhou who claimed that she and her husband were subjected to racist abuse. She reported being shouted at and denied entry to a popular club, while local Chinese residents were allowed to enter, describing the incident as “”pure xenophobia”. [41]

Why?

Yes, the Star was added as a source to a comment (There have been recent reports of xenophobia towards foreigners,[20] )but failure to explicitly give examples is not in line with other country sections on this page.

4. I contend that my original contribution is a more accurate reflection of the contents of the protest letter, well summarised and paraphrased:

These reported cases of xenophobia and racist discrimination against African citizens were recently summarised in an official protest letter by African diplomats who expressed their outrage at the mistreatment of African citizens throughout China and Guangzhou specifically. The diplomats’ protest letter alleges that African citizens were subjected to arrest, imprisonment, enforced departure and cancellation of visas, with arbitrary confiscation of identity documents. It notes that African citizens had not only been evicted from hotels at night, but also with their children from their family homes. The letter alleges they were forced to undergo intrusive health exams, testing and subsequent enforced isolation despite testing negative for COVID-19. Most complaints in the official protest letter are related to the singling out and enforced testing of African students without clear justification. [49]

Your edit actually diminishes the tone of the protest letter by deleting specific examples and creating a dry, clumsy and inelegant list:

“demanding the cessation of reported ejection from hotels or apartments, forced testing and quarantine, the seizure of passports, and threats of visa revocation, arrest or deportation of Africans”

5. You deleted the following specific examples from the protest letter which was printed in its entirety in “frontpageafrica”. What exactly are you claiming?

That “frontpageafrica” did not publish the entire protest letter or distorted it in some way?

If you like I will try to find the official source for the letter and add it, but I contend that your deletion and questioning of the source is not helpful given that it is merely the source for the protest letter that is being sourced, not the opinion of “frontpageafrica”.

6. You also deleted:

“ eviction of African citizens with young children from their family homes.”

the word “imprisonment”.

“forced to undergo intrusive health exams, testing and subsequent enforced isolation despite testing negative for COVID-19” All three were specifically mentioned in the protest letter, so why did you delete them?

7. You also deleted: “. Most complaints in the official protest letter are related to the singling out and enforced testing of African students without clear justification”

This is factual and based on the protest letter, so again, why did you delete it?

Kindly reply to the above 7 points coherently so that we can edit the page to our mutual satisfaction.

Billybostickson (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Thank you Billybostickson (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)