Talk:Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clean up and edits

I am working my way through this page making the following edits:

• minor corrections to language and grammar to make it flow better - these will be marked as minor edits as they will not change the meaning of the page
• checking references and removing unsubstantiated or incorrect claims, biased language etc - these will be done on a individual basis so that they can be checked and reversed on a case by case basis if needed

Please enter into discussions here if you feel that any edits should be reversed or if any issues arise instead of reverting. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammar seriously needs to be fixed up, things should be written in past tense, as there's a lot written in current tense that doesn't make sense.

Prejudice and discrimination within China towards people from Wuhan and Hubei

This articles sole reason for existence is due to the novel Coronavirus outbreak that originated in Wuhan. While it has concentrated on negative reactions around the world, there is no section on negative reactions within China itself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/01/asia/coronavirus-wuhan-discrimination-intl-hnk/index.html

I'd like some discussion on how we can incorporate this. The above are two small examples of articles that have started appearing.

This may create two issues: 1/ A change to the title and introduction 2/ That some people believe that this inclusion dilutes highlighting the xenophobia nature of this page.

Would love some feedback before I make any changes. If you find any more articles in a similar vein to the above two, please link them here and I will include them if this goes ahead.

Thanks Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an active contributor to this page at the moment, so I'll leave the judgement on the former to others. It's more discriminatory than xenophobia/racism though, to split the hairs. I'd say the 2020 Hubei lockdowns page is just as appropriate an article location however. The #Reactions in Mainland China page over there is entirely capable of incorporating it. Sleath56 (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Discrimination related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? OceanHok (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Racist denial on Wikipedia

The Vietnamese are reported as the second main targeted ethnic groups around the world by racist and xenophobia harassments during 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak but someone on Wikipedia are trying to deny and remove anything related to the news. That is unfair! Vietnamese people had been harassed for a long time on countless youtube videos like "Vietnamese people eat anything moves", "Viets eat worms", "Vietnamese are dirty", "speaking trees", "ricefarmers". 103.7.43.131 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is being harassed on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Australia

I understand this edit of mine is disputed. The reason behind this is that none of the references mention that there have been physical attacks. It is factually incorrect. As for mentioning the actual contents of a racist comment, the secondary source includes a screenshot of the actual comment but doesn't elaborate on it. Unless the secondary sources has analysed it, it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it. In any case, Wikipedia is supposed to present information summary style and writing the vitriol verbatim on Wikipedia doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia. The exception would be if multiple secondary sources analyse the comments and mention, then it is OK to mention.--DreamLinker (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe this page captures the rise in anti-Asian sentiments due to the novel coronavrius and not necessarily actual physical actions. You do not need yelling, shouting or physical abuse to be xenophobic or racist. Trivializing incidents, even if each may be cited in one source, is ignoring the existence of a dangerous trend and empowering more to occur. Most cases are already not captured on the media. Anecdotes prove the occurrence in daily lives. Sweeping more under the carpet and trivializing does not help. PenulisHantu (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the page describes Xenophobia and discrimination. However, on Wikipedia we have to go by due weight and verifiability, which are core content policies to ensure information is reliable and neutral. As despicable as racism is, Wikipedia only reports incidents from reliable and secondary sources with appropriate weight. As such, including "physical attacks" fails verifiability because none of the sources mention any physical attacks. As for adding the actual comment verbatim, we have to go by due weight and summarise the content. For example if multiple secondary sources mention incidents of comments such as "Asians go back", we can mention it since it is summarised and reported in multiple secondary sources. However cherry picking one single comment is not useful.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I would differ. Proposal of genocide is due weight and sourcing from mainstream media is verifiability. Source cited clearly has the exhibit of "cull the Chinese and burn down China", which is a call for physical attacks from any perspective. Selective denial is not helpful and only embolden and aid the spread. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The sentence says Australian and Asian-Australian communities have been subjected to vitriol and racist slurs, with some amounting to physical attacks. So it means some Asian Australians have been physically attacked. This is incorrect. Also "cull the Chinese and burn down China", which is a call for physical attacks from any perspective sure I agree, however unless a secondary source analyses it as "physical attacks", we are not supposed to make that conclusion.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Italy

Photos of notices in front of bars in Italy that ban Chinese nationals from entering circulate on Wechat. I've been trying to confirm that. So far I have only found this BBC article that mentions a bar in Rome: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51370822There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2020

Moved to Talk:2019 novel coronavirus § Requested move 11 February 2020

 – – Thjarkur (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Too many irrelevant things in 'See also'

In following the guideline for the 'See also' section, I propose that the entries be trimmed to 'Cyber racism', 'Sinophobia', & 'Yellow Peril'. Or maybe just the last two. I definitely feel 'Anti-Korean sentiment' lacks relevance, b/c the corresponding article isn't related to the eating habits or hygiene that is linked to coronavirus xenophobia; it just seems added b/c "oh, Anti-Asian sentiment? Let's just add whatever we can think of based on isolated incidents." The 'Anti-Chinese sentiment in the US' entry is also too specific and irrelevant, we might as well add entries on Anti-Chinese sentiment in whatever X countries based on that. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written

It is full of anecdotal comments from news sources. Like some Chinese barber? Some chef in Tokyo? Instagram comments on a person no one has heard of? How is this relevant to the greater picture? It really isn't. WP:UNDUE. 204.239.251.30 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I will start removing any anecdotal comments from news sources.Mdado unidue (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Contribute and make it better instead of just criticize and complain. Anybody can do that behind an IP. 184.81.59.2 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Behind an IP or not, the writer is completely right. It has become a complaint list where people who feel discriminated because of incidents can vent air. There is no indication of general rise of racism against Asians. If an event takes place on such a world scale it is inevitable that some people will say or write something somewhere. I do not think it is useful to make a list of it and put it on Wikipedia. AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing references to "insults on social media"

As someone pointed out, this article is full of anectodal quotes and comments that happen to be cited by news sources, mostly insults on social media. I agree that if we include these isolated comments, this article will soon be a laundry list of complaints.

So I've decided to remove these references and offer alternatives: only include isolated cases...

• when these incidents impinge on a person's rights to live (e.g., petition to ban Asian children from school, evicting Asian people from their homes etc)
• if a known public figure uses social media to make racist/xenophobic comments (as is the case with the DJ Lex Gaarthuis in the Netherlands and Canadian reporter Peter Akman).
• trending social media conversations with hashtags (implying that the conversation has gained traction)

Mdado unidue (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion has always been to summarise it, while taking into account due weight.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ebola racism

This is the wrong place for this but we are lacking pages detailing racism during the Ebola outbreak, yet we have one for the Coronavirus. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:A0DA:F1E7:B1EF:BDF7:FFFD (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably because it did not happen, or at least not to such extent. Ebola outbreaks happened so far mostly in rural areas in Africa, in countries where only a relatively small minority can even afford international travel. Ebola is also not a new virus. It was discovered in the 1970s. There is no "unknown" factor in it. No one would suddenly think Ebola could turn into a pandemic out of the blue. The same goes for other diseases like measles. It is not unlikely that we'll see more COVID-19 outbreaks in the future and no one will care.There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was also prejudice and racism towards people of African descent during Ebola. I guess it didn't become a big thing in the media, compared to the current outbreak, perhaps because Ebola never managed to reach the shores of a developed country. News media has often ignored discrimination of the least privileged; perhaps Asians tend to be considered more privileged than Africans and hence there is more focus. Or maybe the world has changed and we think racism is not OK any longer. We have this article because many news articles have explored the racism towards Asian people. There is nothing preventing the OP from starting a page about it, if they can find information about Ebola and racism. I might look into it myself.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the point. It is regrettable that a page on any xenophobia/ racism caused by Ebola was never created. Since it happened a while ago, it becomes difficult to trace whether that was due to insufficient media coverage or just the fact that nobody took the initiative to start a page. In any case, it makes improving this page the more important before existing links become obsolete and the event unverifiable. Only time can tell whether this is a page listing complaints or capturing useful anecdotes. But hopefully xenophobia or racism caused by any future epidemic can be fairly documented instead of conveniently waived off as not notable. 205.143.237.13 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A google search of 'Ebola racism' and 'Ebola xenophobia' yields 290,000 to 2 million results with a good deal of reliable sources in sight. It's not as much as this topic, which garners up to 13,800,000 results, but still notable enough. I'm sure you or anyone else are welcome to create the page for it, just as someone did for this one. (A guide here if you're unsure, as I've never done it myself.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I can think of 3 reasons.

The first is that travel wasn't as big of an issue. The second is that there wasn't as much money to be made in the media by complaining about minor events. You have to remember that publicly-traded media corporations legally have to maximize profits and thus they won't talk about something unless it makes them money. A third reason, related to the second, is that the condescending racism exhibited by people who treat non-Europeans as weak children wasn't able to burn as hot.

Chinese immigrants and their recent descendants are more common in Western countries and closet racists are more willing to act offended on their behalf since it makes them feel more socially powerful. At the core of racism is a view that one group is higher up than another and the socially-acceptable way to exercise racism is to act morally outraged on another's behalf. It makes the racist feel superior to the person they see as being weak and helpless. There's a lot of racial tension between European/American racists and Chinese people due to the competition between individuals. Acting outraged about minor incidents that affect individual Chinese people is a means by which the racist can assert dominance. Those who cry about "privilege" are upholding the concept of social/racial hierarchies and are thus perpetrators of countless isms. 2604:2D80:6306:DA00:8C39:2489:F857:9DDC (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh. I thought the talk page should not be a forum? ItalianTourist (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Danish newspaper's flag incident

@Aviartm:: I added the incident of the Danish newspaper insulting the Chinese national flag in this edit, but you removed it. Based on your edit history, you appeared to have removed multiple similar edits by previous editors. Care to explain? Multiple news sources [1] [2] [3] have noted that it constitutes a form of anti-Chinese sentiment or prejudice.

Other editors are free to contribute their opinions. NoNews! 10:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: Firstly, WP:NOR. Secondly, parodying a flag, replacing stars with drawn viruses is not xenophobic or racist. In addition, the vast, vast majority of entries on the article are incidences that are truly xenophobic, racist, etc. Businesses not serving individuals that appear to be of Asian descent, mockery and anger towards individuals of Asian descent, preventing Asian people from going to school, etc. Aviartm (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a valid and sourced addition to me. Everything except for the part on the netizens is in accordance to the Verifiability policy, so if the last part is removed (or attributed to another source) then it's fine. If anything is in violation to WP:NOR, it'd be the viewpoint that parodying a flag is not xenophobic or racist. You'd need to find some sources of sufficient weight to support that...Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Not how WP:NOR is applied at all. Aviartm (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aviartm:I would also like to see a more detailed explanation why that section was removed. Simply referring to Wikipedia NOR policy is not very convincing. It's certainly not original research. As for whether this actually constitutes xenophobia, I don't see how that is relevant. The reaction to the cartoon shows that it was perceived as such. Of course, Jylland-Posten defend their position. That does not mean that any of us have to agree with either position. Or are you saying that we should delete all references to Jylland-Posten's controversies on Wikipedia?There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, where is difference to the headline "2nd China Virus Case in B.C." in section Canada? Both cases are strikingly similar, yet it is still in the article.There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was addressing the original commenter's statement of "Other editors are free to contribute their opinions." with WP:NOR. The Canadian incident is not the same. Article pertains to xenophobia and racism. I believe it would be more appropriate if the article's name is changed to something more comprehensive to general news coverage, etc. Aviartm (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Apart from answering "what's the difference" with "not the same", where do you draw the line? There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

With what is xenophobic/racism and what is not. Aviartm (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aviartm:Can you elaborate? I know that you say there is a difference but you don't say why or how. I don't see any significant difference there that justifies keeping one and deleting the other. In my opinion, a) the deletion should be undone, b) all incidents involving national pride (i.e. China as a nation) should be deleted or c) incidents where discrimination is controversial should be consolidated into their own section. There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The "why" and "how" is what is classified as xenophobia and racist and what is not. Vast majority of article is about incidents of actual xenophobia/racism, not editorial commentary. Aviartm (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The WHO

The World Health Organization should be mentioned in their own section here for renaming the Coronavirus that was originally found in Wuhan but not doing so for the Coronavirus that was originally found in the Middle East transmitted to humans through camels. 2600:1003:B845:3482:F465:33DA:1DB7:2952 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Markets and sales down as xenophobia: original reasearch

I was reverted when removing this:

markets operated by people of Chinese origin have seen their sales plummeting

I have noted that such events in Russia, UK, etc. are considered xenophobia by the editors, citing newspaper editorials.

I posit that these are not WP:RS and such claims are WP:OR for now.

Another quick argument: these markets and places are likely also avoided by Chinese themselves, hence lower sales. Think of the lower sales in China itself. Is it thus xenophobia?

See also the case of Samoa's official "phobia" of Samoans (!): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/13/samoa-turns-away-eight-of-its-own-citizens-over-coronavirus-fears

-> Please comment and reconsider.

Zezen (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The sales decline in response to the coronavirus is supported by the sources given, hence why it was mentioned in the first place. It is also a summation of what was mentioned in the sources, which is not the usual definition of WP:OR. There is on the other hand no source that the sales decline is due solely to other Chinese people avoiding the places. Sockerkorn (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This article sounds racist

This whole article itself seems racist and diminutive of Chinese people and Asians in general by treating minor events and petty bullying as noteworthy events. This article, in turn, seems to portray people from one of the most powerful nations on earth as weak victims. This article also seems to paint actions that were most likely done for nationalistic reasons as racial attacks. Asian countries have long histories and fierce national conflicts and, just because a new excuse has come around, doesn't mean that the source of these minor incidents are racial. There will be, for instance, Vietnamese who will take jabs at Chinese people and use any excuse to justify it. That doesn't make it inherently racial.

Coloring everything as racism is, itself, very condescending and likely racist as well. Much of modern racism was pushed in the past due to the Eugenics movement and the belief in superior/inferior people. That same type of racism is displayed by those who created or contributed to this article when they treat members or descendants of a powerful nation as helpless victims marred by a growing list of incidents - many of which were probably just traditional bullying with racial/ethnic differences used as false justification. If this virus started out in Germany, England, or some other nation who's citizens were, at the height of the Eugenics movement, seen as "superior humans", then there wouldn't be a page dedicated to crying about every minor incident where a German or Brit were being bullied or discriminated against. Let that sink in.

In short, I think this article is poorly sourced and racist. In fact, the main contributors to this article are probably more racist than many of the perpetrators of the incidents mentioned within it. 2604:2D80:6306:DA00:8C39:2489:F857:9DDC (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any of the racism articles on Wikipedia are very good at the moment. For one, nobody seems to agree what racism is, how it differs from xenophobia, prejudice and bigotry. Having a standard for what this means would probably go a long way to improve all of the racism articles. As I see it, the problem really boils down to people simply not knowing what the issue is. Adding to the problems you have already raised, the mere accusation of racism can ruin people's live; especially in Europe and the USA (anecdotal -- don't bother asking me for source; you'll not find any, so please disregard at will). You are welcome to propose a way to improve the article. If you don't do so before the weekend, I might beat you to it. Might have to actually make an account before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you are pushing an opinion without much point, unless you want to nominate article for deletion? ItalianTourist (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You are so right, OP! Besides: most accusations of 'racism' in the 'reliable sources' are not of racism at all - at least not racism according to the definition on this very Wikipedia. Most people are reacting to the fact that 99% of coronavirus sufferers are chinese by shuning or reacting to them. While you may regard this as 'xenophobia' (virophobia would probably be more to the point) it's not racism. Move to mrege artcicle? 213.93.223.201 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this article exists at all reveals the very sad, sad state of affairs within the Wikipedia project. The inmates are running the asylum and the entire board of health at this point.67.167.74.196 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This reeks of fragility from you lot here. There are literally victims being physically attacked and abused in the sources provided on this article and you feel that this article is 'racist'? Absurd. Feinoa (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not know if it is racist, but it is certainly an example of WP:RECENTISM, with lots of minor episodes that do not deserve inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is mostly ORIGINAL RESEARCH

I understand the tension and anxiety of the editors who created this article. However, it seems to be more like a plethora of news reports that portrait certain people being "racist" towards [Mainland] Chinese people, e.g.

• some references are used to support the observation that people stopped visiting Chinese restaurants. But what if non-Chinese restaurants also see a drop in customers? Would that still be racism?
• Can Hong Kong or Singaporean Chinese be racist towards Mainland Chinese? Is that also racism?
• Also, who determines what is racism? What or what not constitutes racism? Is it up to the editors to determine this? In that case isn't that ORIGINAL RESEARCH (and therefore doesn't belong to Wikipedia)?

There are serious troubles with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.200.17.147 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and find a source that says that white-owned restaurants are experiencing a drop in business since the outbreak.Mdado unidue (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess Italian-owned restaurants are experiencing a drop in business since the outbreak, especially in Europe. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So this gives you and excuse to frame a drop in visitors as Racism? By the way, how is this not Origiginal Research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.86.16 (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Why bother explaining anything to you? It's not like you care to have your mind changed about this topic. Mdado unidue (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - those making comments that tend to attack another Wikipedian (whether an IP editor or a named account editor) instead of focussing on arguments and evidence should re-read these guidelines if you haven't already. Boud (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Italians are now facing xenophobia

Italians are now facing xenophobia and this should be addressed in this article. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:951D:EA97:FB95:BAEC (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC))

Concerning travel bans... so far travel bans haven't been equated with xenophobia, or at least not when targeted toward China, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Japan etc. Sockerkorn (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sockerkorn: The article says, "Some Italians abroad are feeling no longer welcome.“I feel utterly humiliated,” Cristiano Giuriato, an Italian waiter in Madrid, said in a Facebook post after a regular customer of the bar where he works brought him a face mask and made him wear it. “I have been stripped of my dignity and bullied for no reason, just because I am Italian.”" (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:951D:EA97:FB95:BAEC (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC))

Non-travel ban related incidents should be addressed in the country-specific sections, or in this case, a single incident toward an individual. In practise, single incidents toward (non-notable) persons generally aren't listed individually in this article when they don't deal with assaults or being denied services, accommodation etc. Sockerkorn (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sockerkorn: Non-notable people? Literally every racist and xenophobic event towards East Asian people and people of East Asian appearance listed in this article has involved non-notable people. Non-notability has absolutely nothing to do with this. I know the rules of Wikipedia. It is a fact that xenophobia has increased towards Italian people. I think I'm going to have to get other users to post their thoughts on this to achieve proper consensus. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:951D:EA97:FB95:BAEC (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC))

To repeat, the practise so far regarding this article is that single incidents toward a non-notable person are generally not listed individually, unless it involves assaults or denial of services, accommodations. This is clear when reading the article. This not to say that the rules specifically bars this. Sockerkorn (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tobby72: I noticed you made a comment about Italian restaurants in the section above this. Xenophobia appears have increased towards Italians. Do you think this information should be included in this article? (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:951D:EA97:FB95:BAEC (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC))

Relevance of the infographic in the Intro section??

I would like to see a photo, or infographic that is more relevant to this article than an infographic depicting the rates of coronavirus cases worldwide. any suggestions?

Lucky dog (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a photo of restaurants or businesses closed down because of the outbreak? Or one of the magazine covers (from Australia, France, Germany etc) accused of inciting xenophobia?Mdado unidue (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobia in South Korea

Added rising xenophobia to the South Korea section. 114.38.70.45 (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Long list of incidents is not helpful

This article really needs to draw more on any sources that discuss the subject as an overall phenomenon, with less emphasis on individual examples. It is of course helpful to have a few examples to illustrate the phenomenon, but the examples are not individually particularly notable (albeit covered in news sources) and there is no need for a huge long list.

Also, I agree with the view expressed above that there is original research involved in the compilation of this list, as the inclusion of incidents in the list amounts to a claim that those incidents were racially motivated, but in most cases the article does not cite any third party reported to have made such a claim. Although I happen to agree that most of them are reasonably obviously racially motivated, it is still not for us to say this ourselves without attributed statements to that effect.

--Dani di Neudo (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Passing mention of this Wikipedia article in press

• https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Denmark

I have removed the mentioning of the cartoon in Jyllandsposten, depicting the Chinese flag, with virus cells instead of stars, as this is not racist, by any reasonable understanding of racism, nor is it an expression of xenophobia. I don't object that mentioning the drawing is relevant, but it is simply not racist or xenophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly that goes for a lot of other complaints I have seen over the last month! Not every satire involving Corona is racism against Chinese people. Or maybe now the Italians? AntonHogervorst (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is racist

Italy is now the epicenter of the virus outbreak and yet you only include cases against East Asian people. There have been many incidents about racism directed towards Italians, some of which I will provide the sauce for below. Because they're white people, you'd leave them out? Sort yourselves out. Oh, and you want "SAUCE"? Here you go: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-dr-christian-jessen-italy-outbreak-embarrassing-bodies-siesta-a9399071.html https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/coronavirus-ciro-immobile-tells-channel-21692521 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11112673/uber-driver-refuses-pick-up-italian-passengers-london-coronavirus/ https://nypost.com/video/no-coronavirus-uber-driver-rejects-italian-passengers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.36.100 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs to address the growing xenophobia and racism towards Italian people. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:859A:89D8:2BE3:5F2D (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

"This article is racist"? Are Italians being physically attacked? There are reported cases of physical attacks in Italy against Asians being done by Italians. Now tell me, who is the racist one here? Quit the victim playing. Feinoa (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil here (see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL). If you think Italians are disproportionately being discriminated against or attacked and find more than a handful articles that support this from reliable sources, go ahead and add it to the article. Complaining about how "racist" this article is and listing "proof" to support your claim on the talk page won't improve the article's quality.Mdado unidue (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Feinoa, you're the racist here. I am a white Irish person, by the way. That was then, now people like the British are being racist towards Italians. Read the sources I dropped there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.36.100 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked for the above. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And how exactly do you being 'white Irish' be anyway related to this pointless discussion? Feinoa (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content. Should xenophobic incident towards Italians be included in this article, why or why not?

Could we please have a proper discussion over two things to achieve consensus?

• Why has "Later, following the rapid rise in cases of COVID-19 in Italy, anti-Italian sentiment rose in parts of Europe." been removed from the article's lede? It needs to be addressed that xenophobia has increased towards Italians in parts of Europe.
• "Asian" does not mean "East Asian". The recorded incidents of racism and xenophobia towards Asians in Africa have only been towards people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent. Most Asians in Africa are of Indian descent with a sizeable proportion being of Malay descent. So far, there haven't been any recorded cases of xenophobia or racism towards Indians, Malays or other South and Southeast Asians in Africa. Likewise, racist and xenophobic incidents (akin to what has happened in North America and Europe) in the Middle East have only been directed at people of East Asian descent. So why has "East Asian" been replaced with "Asian"? (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

They were removed because it was in no way xenophobia or racism and does not fit in the article when compared to the other attacks against Asians. How is the term 'long siesta' in your 'source' racist? Do you even understand the definition of such terms?

In regards to 'Asian', there ARE attacks (some even physical) against non-Chinese Asians, with sources provided of attacks against Vietnamese, Filipinos, Thais, Malaysians, Singaporeans, etc. (eg. the physical attacks in London) The Chinese are not the only ones facing racial attacks. Other Asians are increasingly facing such racist attacks as well. The Italians are experiencing none of this. I don't understand the narrative you're trying to push here that they are comparable.

It also does not help that you've been using multiple different IPs/socks while editing this article. Quit being disruptive. Feinoa (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: Firstly, stop calling me a sockpuppet! I already told you that my IP address changes. You are so rude. If you don't stop this, I'm going to dispute resolution, this is ridiclous. Stop being rude! Secondly, I do understand the meaning of terms. The only reason why I included that source is because people considered it to be a "racist" remark. Thirdly, the Malaysians and Singaporeans facing xenophobia are people of Chinese descent. I am focusing on Africa and the Middle East only, which I stated above, there have only been racist incident towards East Asians in these areas. Since you're focusing on physical attacks only why are incidents involving non-notable people being listed on this article such as the incident in Bolivia or the incident in the US involving two Hmong men (that incident is very similar to the incident involving the Uber and the Italians)? @Mdado unidue:, maybe you can offer some help with this? (101.182.85.113 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC))

I think it's fine to include xenophobia against Italians, if only there were actually enough reliable sources on widespread discrimination, violence etc of Italians. Two articles are not enough to claim that "xenophobia against Italians" is notable enough. Mdado unidue (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mdado unidue: Thank you for being civil with your reply. I understand where you are coming from. (101.182.85.113 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC))

Exactly. Unless Italians are being physically attacked (on multiple different occasions) for their race that's related to the coronavirus, there isn't any notable xenophobia or racism against Italians. Feinoa (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Sensing an upcoming edit war regarding addition of 'especially throughout the West'

Which in accordance to WP:UNSOURCED is not supported by the references listed. In fact, the BusinessInsider one mentions 'larger-scale' incidents happening in some of the Asian countries. So I'd say it warrants removal. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I came to make this exact comment. There are plenty of examples from countries outside of the West and even some from within China (of which I have no reliable sources, so just forget those for now). Even if the article could only produce example from the West, the topic of the article is and should be broader. This comment is in itself a racist comment and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now removed the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest actually checking the sources first. In addition, a majority of these incidents are indeed happening in the West, by a wide margin. There's no need to censor this fact and attempt to avoid adding it in, or call it 'racist' because it affects you personally, that's not how Wikipedia works. I also find it pretty ironic that it's considered racist, have you actually forgotten what this very article is about? Feinoa (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In order for 'especially in the West' to be included, it needs to reflect due weight of the majority of sources available in accordance to Wikipedia's rules on the lede section. Your argument that it is worse or more frequent in the West seems to be original research, and is not supported by the sources listed nor is it likely to be supported by most reliable sources out there. I already mentioned BusinessInsider which contradicts your argument. So your addition is in violation of Wikipedia's policies, and 2 people don't agree with you, so I suggest you to cease re-adding it.

I don't agree that the addition is 'racist', but that's irrelevant to the main point being discussed here. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that my classification of it being 'racist' was wrong; the choice of that particular word was entirely inaccurate; I should have classified it as prejudice. Whether or not I am affected is not relevant and was not part of my consideration when I removed the text; I don't feel particularly targeted by the mentioning, but I still strongly believe that the comment needs to be removed. Even without any sources, the number of non-western countries mentioned in the article should be enough to dismiss it. Any sources that claims that this is a Western problem, should be dismissed immediately as being unreliable; this article itself is justification for doing so. The four articles mentioned are not scholarly works. No research has been done to verify that this is a particular western problem -- using those articles to justify that this is western problem, is dishonest. If this indeed will lead to an increase in xenophobia, racism or similar, that is particularly to the western world, we won't be able to say until the problem has some age to it. That western media talks about racism in the western would does not justify that this is a western problem; the absence of coverage from other media also, does not justify that this is a western problem. You'll have to wait a while to figure out if this is indeed a western problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears we have reached some sort of consensus and since nobody has objected for two days now, I'm going to remove the comment again. If you feel it needs to be added again, please provide some justification for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be there in the sources, so I guess it should be OK to remove.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A new IPSOS survey now has statistics to prove that Western countries are experiencing an uptick in xenophobic behaviors towards the East Asian people or those with similar appearances Mdado unidue (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Mdado unidue I believe you are referring to this survey [4] right? The problem here is that it doesn't support the assertion "especially in the West". I checked the document and it doesn't state anywhere that the problem is "especially in the West (and not in other places)". In case I am wrong, would you point out the place where this is mentioned? That apart, the bigger issue with using this source is that it is a primary source and on Wikipedia we rely on secondary sources to analyse and interpret data. Other sources seem to contradict this fact. For example in this article [5] it says In the weeks since the virus spread around the world, multiple accounts of discrimination against Chinese nationals or anyone who looks East Asian have emerged, including from Asia and Chinese-majority societies. as well as Virus-related vitriol has appeared all over the world, expressed in subtly different ways.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dreamlinker- this is no longer an issue confined to the west, and has become global. There are now as many non-Western instances as there are incidents in the West. As such, the introduction must be worded accordingly. 2607:9880:2148:50:5418:6E31:896C:6680 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixes - Re: Feinoa

These changes were properly explained: - moved UN & US government responses down to public efforts against xenophobia, as they belonged there as governmental responses. - Added second source to Canadian parent petition, and rewrote section for better grammar, removing unnecessary quotation. - Removed instance involving the Chinese consulate in Canada, as it did not involve an individual or group and was a purely consular response. - Reduced initial paragraph, as the issue is global now, and there are several troubling sources for anti-asian xenophobia around the world. I believe that the initial paragraph is outdated due to the fast-changing nature of the disease, and must reflect current issues. 2607:9880:2148:50:5418:6E31:896C:6680 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding undue weight to individual incidents involving non-notable people

To avoid making this article a laundry list of petty incidents of casual racism, here are some guidelines for adding incidents involvng non-notable people that I've noticed as this article matures.

INCLUDE INCIDENTS THAT INVOLVE:

• Denial of basic needs or crucial services (e.g., education, housing, doctor's appointments)
• Denial of livelihood (e.g., business owners experiencing downturn in sales)
• Assault or criminal charges
• Complaints from groups of people collectively experiencing xenophobia/racism (e.g., student groups, viral hashtags)

DO NOT INCLUDE INCIDENTS THAT INVOLVE:

• Individual complaints or accounts of xenophobia/racism from non-notable people that don't lead to the incidents listed above (e.g., insults on social media)

Please feel free to add more suggestions to this list. Mdado unidue (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, and would reduce the list significantly while keeping everything of relevance. --mfb (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The bit about the Alhambra petition

I see that my edit was reverted. I was just reading trough the incidents around the world when this bit about Alhambra petition caught my eye. Upon closer inspection I failed to find anything regarding Chinese nationals or people of Asian descent apart from the fact mention of many Chinese people dying. I fail to see why this is included in this article (or why my edit was reverted) I also had a quite robust change summary. Ataalik (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ataalik: I've deleted the information once again because the user who reverted your edit didn't prove an explanation (yet again) and the information violated the Wikipedia rule of Wikipedia:No original research. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:85F5:BA05:3759:BA0B (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC))

I do not know what classification it would come under, perhaps Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The sentence on it's own is entirely true. However it is an obvious editorial bias to include it here since the news source cited or any other news source I could find attributes it to xenophobia and there isn't a crumb of evidence about it happening because of the amount of Asian-Americans in the city. Again I'm not too fussed about it, I just wanted to do a drive by edit about something I found wrong. If this is how you run things around here I'm done with wikipedia. No wonder this website is free. @Feinoa: Ataalik (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ataalik: Feinoa (talk · contribs) reverted my edits and told me I don't know what "No original research" means. The problem here is that, while the sentence is true, it breaks the rule of Wikipedia:No original research because it's making an allegation that the petition was created on the basis of racism. In other words, whoever wrote that sentence is trying to make it sound like the petition was created because people were racist to the dominant ethnic group that lives in the community which is absolutely incorrect. My advice is don't bother coming back to this page Ataalik, Feinoa is policing this page and they aren't interested in following the rules. The next thing they'll do is threaten to block you which is what they did to me earlier this week after I reverted their edit and told them to provide a source. We can't make any changes to this page because they swoop in and check everything people add to this page. If they don't like it (even if our edits are valid) they revert it. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:85F5:BA05:3759:BA0B (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC))

Why do you refuse to use your real account? How many multiple new accounts are you going to use? Furthermore, if I was 'policing' this article like you claimed, wouldn't that mean reverting every single edit that isn't mine? You're just being disruptive, end of. Feinoa (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: Stop it. I already told you that my IP address constantly changes. So stop accusing me of being a sockpuppet. No it would not. I said you're policing this page because you're reverting every edit you don't agree with (even when it's correct). I made this abundantly clear in my previous comment. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:85F5:BA05:3759:BA0B (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC))

a call to prevent prejudice in academia

please add a reference to an open-access letter calling from proactive involvement of universities to prevent prejudice/xenophobia related to coronavirus: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6484/1313.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.249.175.3 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Presumed racism - spurious examples

E.g. refusal to perform CPR by unqualified persons in the street.

From my comment when removing such a sample case:

Would you perform it (unprotected CPR) now (21 Mar 2020) in the street? No? Why not? 

As we know by now, such bystanders may have saved their health and lives by keeping away already back in January and February 2020.

-> Let us prune such sensible self-protection cases, be they racist, xenophobic or otherwise.

Zezen (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump "Chinese Coronavirus" / "Wuhan Coronavirus" and CCP "American Coronavirus"

"Chinese Coronavirus" and "Wuhan Coronavirus" are both terms that are mainstream and used since January 2020 at least. A 2 minute search for articles between January and February 2020 will bring plenty of sources, such as:

Wired [6] CNN [7] The Guardian [8]

As such, the recent attribution of Trump for this term as "racist" is wrong on both counts, since it neither originated with him, nor was it considered a racist term till recently (late March 2020). Its amusing to see a mainstream term get labelled "racist" and twisted for political usage within a span of weeks. Do we have the memory capacity of a goldfish ?

Its a strong reminder of how pejorative labels like "racist" can quickly be appropriated for political ends. Wikipedia is considered a reliable source of information for many, and I would like to urge editors not to poison this with ideology.

Also, we need a section for the well documented state funded discrimination against the US, by the CCP pushing the "American Coronavirus" propoganda. Combating misinformation is what Wikipedia is for, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtanmay2 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It received criticism from numerous lawmakers on grounds that it was xenophobic, and this controversy is the reason the incident is listed, regardless of whether it was xenophobic or not (the entry only mentioned the controversy, not whether it was justified or not). The sources you list do not suggest that the criticism did not in fact take place. Do offer such a source before deleting the entry.Sockerkorn (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Neutrality is what Wikipedia is for. Feinoa (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump's comments were definitely xenophobic and inciteful. they should be recorded as such in this article and not allowed to disappear into history. Lucky dog (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump never called the coronavirus COVID-19 the "Chinese virus" once prior to March 17 when it became clear the virus was having an immensely negative impact on the US, and his prospects for a re-election. Not only does it scapecope an entire ethnicity, it is also blatant distraction from the situation in his country, and his responsibility for the situation. Why is none of this included? Qiushufang (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

so I reverted an edit by a user jancarcu who changed

original: "U.S. president Donald Trump frequently referred to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", which many consider to be anti-Chinese and racist."

jancarcu's edit in question: to "U.S. president Donald Trump has referred to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", which critics argue could lead to xenophobia."

my edit: "U.S. president Donald Trump frequently referred to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", a term considered to be anti-Chinese and racist."

I was asked to mention this on the talk. OK, so before i blow up, i think my edit (reverting back to the original and clarifying by adding "a term considered" to be clear direct language as many people RIGHT NOW INCLUDING MYSELF HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO RACISM AND BIGOTRY inflammed we feel by donald trump's remark normalizing racism and bigotry. Jancarcu's edit sounds vague, impassive voice "could lead to xenophobia" is vague and wishy-washy.

Lucky dog (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this worth a single article?

Is this worth a single article? 'intitle:Xenophobia' searching, this is the only article that describes the most common prejudice and discrimination in a particular epidemic in a single article.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I did some copy edit and do not think this merits multiple articles about the same subject. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants a separate page. The very fact that its there, indicates that Wikipedia has an option. The page doesn't take sides, and states facts, which is fine for 99% of the pages on Wikipedia, but those that feel threatened would prefer that Wikipedia takes their side, and no side is taken, so it would be better if there was simply a section on one of the other Coronavirus pages, IMHO. Joshannon (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish Flu doesn't have a similar article, and that's even named after a country and had all sorts of xenophobia attached to it. If the Spanish Flu doesn't have it's own article, then maybe neither should this. Most of the mentions are also, frankly, either minor incidents made a a few people once or twice or just people saying that they "feel" that the situation is worse. Granted, some of the reports are genuine, but a cursory overview doesn't indicate that there's a real problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in my view. The main article is far too ongoing that moving the contents of this page to the main would dramatically bog it down in terms of readability and would immediately cast WP:PROPORTION as the editors there appear bloat-adverse enough that most of the sections there have spin-off articles such as this one. I don't see the historicity of previous incidents as a deterministic concern. The RS coverage of this topic is substantial enough, esp. compared to previous cases, that it satisfies notability. Sleath56 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

By the definition of notability, that you link to, I would say that this is definitely *not* notable. There is very little coverage of xenophobia or racism as a result of the virus, and a lot of the cases described in this article are "I feel ..." anecdotes and twitter comments. My comparison with the Spanish Flu is a very good example where racism and xenophobia is notable, but no separate article exists, which is why I brought it up. Take the incidents Australia: one is a headline in an article that mentions the word "pandamonium", which has no racist or xenophobic meaning. Another is a single person experiencing a single incident. A third is a single person being asked to leave a dormitory and the final is an increase in racial slurs being used. The first is by no means appropriate in this article as it is neither racist nor xenophobic (the article is *not* mentioned here -- only the headline). The second and third cases are so minor I wouldn't expect my local news paper to cover the stories and the fourth is on the level of anecdotal evidence. If this is the level of increased racism that justifies an entire article, we could do nothing but create new articles about racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

One, the Spanish flu is historically relevant from an epidemiology, but it is not relevant here. It goes without saying that the concerns and coverage of journalism and RS over one hundred years ago pairs little with any today. Second, you're ascribing more to criterion than Wikipedia policy actually presents. This article directly satisfies WP:NOTABILITY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This far and beyond satisfies that. The article is currently not far developed, but that's due to a lack of content expansion by editors, not from a shortage of material in RS. Sleath56 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reading the Spanish flu article before comparing it to the current situation. The reason it was called the "Spanish" flu was that it had media coverage in Spain while in other countries that were involved in WW I news were censored. In other words, it was called that because it was thought it spread mainly in Spain. Before the 1980s it was also much more common to give various things geographic attribute even though it was entirely unrelated, e.g. Turkish pepper.There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Attention: This article has been now been (incredibly!) mentioned by RS and the coverage of racism during this outbreak praised by international experts:

• "It's not just medical information that’s getting attention: at the beginning of February, an article was opened about “xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak”."
• "Professor Nadav Davidovitch, director of the School of Public Health at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, says ... It also provides good social criticism – discussing how racism has helped fuel the story, like was the case with the SARS virus.”
• https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus

The article through this above and beyond surpasses the majority of articles on Wikipedia in worthiness of notability. Sleath56 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This article does not discuss racism or xenophobia, but the articles on wikipedia centred around the virus outbreak. As such it is _not_ justification for having an article on any topic. Using this article to justify having this article is the same as claiming that having the article means it is justified. It does not not contribute in the slightest towards the criteria on notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, its the nail in the coffin when appended to the basic qualifications of WP:NOTABILITY this already satisfies which I highlighted above and you've still unaddressed. Sleath56 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We clearly disagree on what justifies anything. To me, the mere existence of something, appears to be what justifies something to you. I'm not going to discuss this any more, since we're going no where with it. Anyways(!), my point was not that this article should be deleted, which I think this discussion has started to look quite a lot like (and have looked like for too long). My point is that examples in the article are not noteworthy in themselves and considering that this is a global event, the amount of incidents are at best minor. The article is not even close to being a high quality article and has the feel of being, just a list of incidents, that could be even misinterpreted as being racist or xenophobic. We're clearly not going to agree on this, so I'm just going to stop discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That I agree with actually. The page needs revision, but there is clearly enough notable material to work with in the plethora of RS that have addressed this subject. I'm too busy with the main article right now, but there is certainly room for dedicated editors to further develop this article. Sleath56 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The article as it is now, has too many incidents mentioned. That some people will react in a stupid racist way on an issue that is such a world wide event by now, is inevitable I think. If the general public reaction is racist thát should be mentioned. But to sum up every single incident, sorry I think that such an article is not interesting. It's becoming a sort of 'complaint list'. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda by mass-media?

I think this topics represented by this article include some quantity of "propaganda by mass-media." As the nature of Wikipedia's principles implies, we must always be careful to Wikipedia's vulnerablity to propaganda by mass-media . Propaganda is reproduced cyclicly through mass media, Wikipedia, SNS, news and more. We must always be careful not to let Wikipedia participate in the buzz feed summary on the net. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You are well aware that WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND exists, right? MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No kidding. Wikipedia Kowtows to the media after all since majority of it's editors are radical leftists who dont have jobs. 24.59.0.18 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please follow WP:NPA, please. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You're 100% right, I am giving up on this project. I try to contribute some stuff, to not to be bullied away by the mob, not give them way, but I advise all people not to take Wikipedia seriously any more considering let us say political subjects. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried to contribute in the astronomy section of WP but this is so f-ing ridiculous with thie leftist bovine BS. wikipedia needs to die. use everipedia instead. --24.59.0.18 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Die maybe not, not taking seriously for political subjects.. DEFINITELY!! I think the 'sport section' is still usable. AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Without a doubt. This article is one of the dumber ones in recent memory.174.0.48.147 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In light of the recent tussle between the US and China over naming conventions, this is an issue that must be taken more seriously in this article. There is a serious risk that this article becomes a ways of laundering news and making it seem legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:2148:50:5418:6E31:896C:6680 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Science letter request

Please add to section 7:

On 20th March 2020, Science published a letter from two Polish scientists calling universities to proactively develop measures to prevent prejudice/xenophobia related to COVID-19 in academia.

--Rzymol (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Make article introduction more inclusive

I suggest the following change (boldfaced) to the introduction:

"The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which was first reported in the city of Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019, has led to increased prejudice, xenophobia, discrimination, violence, and racism, in particular against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent and appearance around the world."

The reason is that people of different origins around the world might be subject to xenophobia. There is an explicit example, namely Cameroon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahab5 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've added that in. Feinoa (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: ...and now it's gone. What happened? (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:B1A7:AF03:9C69:D4D9 (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC))

Strong support- The list itself has gone too long to be a list. The page summarize all the incident related to the mentioned situation. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now quoting Instagram comments

Instagram users also commented on a photo of a Chinese restaurant in Toronto, making comments like "No eating bats please! That's how coronavirus started in China!" and "I ain't trine catch no virus."
Is this a joke? Is Wikipedia now a repository of comments on social media? What is this?--Adûnâi (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

When social media stuff gets reported on in mainstream media, it sometimes end up in WP. What's strange about that? Donald Trump on social media is an example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The citations and references are to mainstream news reports and NOT social media. PenulisHantu (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Racism should not be denied. Please share authorised news/incidents to be added in the page. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Alhambra petition

In Alhambra, an Asian American-dominant city, a petition was circulated urging schools to close over coronavirus risks was signed by over 14,000 people.

What does this have to do with the subject of this article? 207.216.153.13 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The way it was written: absolutely nothing. I have removed it. If someone were to tie it to the subject of the page in any way using reliable sources, feel free to reintroduce it.Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: Thank you for doing that. Some of us tried to get it removed last week by removing the information and leaving messages on the talk page explaining our edits but Feinoa (talk · contribs) reverted our edits without any explanation and then went on to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:B1A7:AF03:9C69:D4D9 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Not an accusation, that's pretty much what the definition of sockpuppet means. And there wasn't 'some of us', they were all accounts of yours. I would ping you but by now you're probably using a different account. Feinoa (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: It is an accusation! I already told you weeks ago that I'm not a sockpuppet and you continue to insist that I am one. I am not a sockpuppet so stop being a pest and learn to behave properly on Wikipedia. There were other IP addresses that geolocated to the US and you claim that they are my accounts? What a joke. No wonder so many users have a problem with you. You don't follow the rules! I'm getting so close to the point of opening up an investigation against you. I've been editing Wikipedia as a dynamic IP user for more than 6 years and I've opened up investigations against other misbehaving users (who have subsequently been penalised or blocked) and I'm not scared to do it again. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:4D6B:61C2:5F0B:20AD (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC))

Edit warring

I'm trying to make this article less messy and prevent stuff from getting removed without explanation but this user, Iswearius, keeps reverting everyone else edits and calling others biased. How do I request assistance from someone who could help stop this from happening? It's really putting me off from contributing any further because I'm pretty sure he's just gonna revert them again. Thanks. Thehardtruths (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• We should certainly do our best to avoid edit wars. Iswearius, please don't remove navigation templates or categories. If you see the need to add other relevant templates, do so — but any relevant categories or templates can be included here. And Thehardtruths, I would ask you to consider whether Iswearius could be perceiving discouragement from some of your edits. Moving content from the lede to the last paragraph, where is seemingly doesn't belong isn't necessarily helpful. The header you used discussed efforts to decrease xenophobia, whereas the passage you moved simply documented its occurance. Placing it under appropriate continent headers such as Africa or Asia would possibly have been more useful. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. A split of material defining the general concept may be warranted. BD2412 T 17:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – This needs a full RM 108.53.105.19 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, even the OP said that an RM is needed, so now here it is. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — 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). Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this page is a list of incidents. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is a list and it includes the list of racist events. Abishe (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Why was this moved from the original to "List of ..." in the first place without an RM? Sleath56 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current article is a list. An article about xenophobia and racism related to the coronavirus pandemic might become more appropriate once third party sources begin commenting substantively on the issue as a discrete topic rather than a list of different events. This is without prejudice to a potential future move should a shift in the focus of reliable sources justify a shift in the article's focus, which seems likely given that it's a current event subject to WP:recentism and the individual incidents might not turn out to be all that notable.Jancarcu (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's clearly more than just a list. Feinoa (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Feinoa — Then why not move the "more" and keep the "list" here at the list page?

  We simply don't have articles that include 70 separate headers like this page does:

  It is per definition a WP:LIST.
  The alternative is to throw out 95% of the page, which would be WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:POINTY and WP:NOTHERE.
  It doesn't matter if there is "more than a list" here — as long as there is a list, it doesn't belong in article-space.

  Just move the non-list stuff…

  Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antisemitism?

Iswearius, why are you so hell-bent on adding an 'antisemitism' template where there aren't any notable incidents involving Jews or semitic people involving the virus except for very fringe conspiracy theories that belong in the Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article? You're cheapening the word. This is an article about incidents, no one's specifically attacking Jews or establishing pogroms against them in relation to the coronavirus. If you have sources for that happening, you're more than welcome to provide it. Thehardtruths (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Iswearius, are you actually going to respond or are you going to continue being disruptive and edit war? Thehardtruths (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thehardtruths, antisemitism related to the coronavirus pandemic is already listed in the article. Any relevant categories or templates can be included. This article is not Asian specific. Iswearius (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note: "Thehardtruths" was a sockpuppet of "Feinoa," who was very active in this talk page, and blocked for a previous edit war with Iswearius. I've struck their comments per WP:TPO. Cryptic Canadian 02:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

More press

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/how-will-the-world-emerge-from-the-coronavirus-crisis

 Wikipedia now has a page collating examples from more than 35 countries of “xenophobia and racism related to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic”: they range from taunts to outright assault. 

—Almaty (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anthony Appleyard moved the page just after a RM came to the conclusion that there was "no consensus to move". That was erroneous, pleases see the discussion at Talk:Xenophobia,_discrimination_and_racism_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Requested_move_21_March_2020. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an AN/I thread here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_page_moved_to_article_name_in_violation_of_RM_results. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I later moved it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [9]…

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 [[10]]. 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." [11]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

References

 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)

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)

Why is there a canadian section at all/why does this page exist? I feel as though authors though this would catch on more but than a real crisis occured..... 1. A joke, you could argue it was in bad taste, but I dont care its a joke not a racist incident unless we are going after comedy clubs next (well damn I just gave you guys new ideas) 2. Ratings drop on Restaurants. Seriously this is racism... Oh no someone ratings bombed call the rating company and ask them to fix it. 3. It is a reasonable fear to ask people that have just returned from the area of an viral outbreak to quarantine. If it was racist why did it than become policy? If it was racist why did were advocates pushing for each region that was severely infected (almost disregarding race and worrying about a viral spread....) 4. Dr. Tam comment on "hate crimes" but not actually mentioning any hate crimes (I'm noticing a pattern here) 5. An article written by an left-anarchist (or anarco-communist) that again conflates Criticism of China (the government of china Chinese communist party) with racism for Chinese people, by Hong Kong (Chinese) people. And the racist action these HK people did is apparently spearheading petitions like in number 3. which is not racist. 6. Post is deleted and there is no evidence. Because the prof says it was critical of CCP and journalists tend to buy chinese propaganda I'm inclined to disbelieve this too. 7. No evidence of it being tied to CCP virus 8. As the CTV article states: "Though it is unclear whether the break-and-enter was racially motivated, others in the community are concerned that it may have been." You cannot use this as evidence therefore it is at this time not a hate crime....

Please lets remove this page and deal with real problems.24.212.164.217 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a correct response to the question. This deserves a separate talk section. --ayush (reach out) 18:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)