Talk:Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 1 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: closing stale request with no clear consensus. (non-admin closure) ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – Better get this dispute sorted out properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closed on March 30 2020, or 2 days ago:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another alternative would be to have the main article at:

• Xenophobia in the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic

or

• Discrimination during the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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.

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

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

You report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and that should resolve the conflict. A note though, you seem to believe based on your edit summary [1] that this was your first revert, it wasn’t... It was your third, refrain from reverting again to avoid a WP:Boomerang when you report them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually you might want to hold back on reporting, given [2] it appears you’ve also broken the three revert rule making WP:Boomerang a near certainty. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, it was my second, but thanks for your (now unneeded) input since the edit warring has stopped. (Considering you've gotten into plenty of edit disputes with me before based on similar dubious allegations, one could perhaps conclude that I'd prefer if my post went unanswered.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So, he's broken WP:3RR? Now he's coming to me for advice. I think that he should be given more concrete advice. This is not my domain (after all, a) I am an American who mostly edits technology and CA towns, and b) I am not a arbit mod for anything), so I think we need not WP:BITE and block him, but yeah, he is a newcomer, so he's new. C'mon guys! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} (Note: respond on minha (my) talk page) 18:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Because date formats need to be consistent, Please change writing style format from:

• There were a few thousand incidences of xenophobia and racism against Asian Americans between January 28 and February 24, 2020, according to a tally compiled by Russell Jeung, professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University. An online reporting forum called "Stop AAPI Hate" recorded "650 direct reports of discrimination against primarily Asian Americans" between March 18 and 26, 2020.

To

• There were a few thousand incidences of xenophobia and racism against Asian Americans between 28 January and 24 February 2020, according to a tally compiled by Russell Jeung, professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University. An online reporting forum called "Stop AAPI Hate" recorded "650 direct reports of discrimination against primarily Asian Americans" between 18 and 26 March 2020. 36.77.93.131 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - all dates are now in DMY format. GoingBatty (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. This whole contribution was deleted:

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

Why?

2. You replaced a small part of it here:

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update, I have found another African newspaper that contains the full text of the protest letter here: https://www.zambianobserver.com/protest-letter-of-african-ambassadors-in-beijing/

Billybostickson (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

6. You also deleted:

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

the word “imprisonment”.

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

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

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

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

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

I support Billybostickson's version and arguments. See also here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/business/china-coronavirus-censorship.html so a general note to admins: this article may be subject to 50 Cent Party's POV attempts, as it has become a touchy subject by now, so it may need oversight. No aspersions here, by the way.

Zezen (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Maybe you need to read the policies I linked above. Here's your proposed contribution. The NYTimes source you added here for the beginning statement doesn't in any way mention xenophobia, discrimination, or racism from China. You also said the president of the European Chamber of Commerce in China considered it 'hypocritical', which was not mentioned in the source (he only said, "They have a toolbox that only seems to have a hammer"), so that is already one of the several violations of WP:UNSOURCED here, along with WP:IRRELEVANT. Your citing of the SupChina source (which had a citation error) had nothing to do with what Mexicans thought, it was just an author's opinion piece criticising a Xinhua article by referencing H1N1. Considering anyone can also apply to write for SupChina, I'd say their reliability is questionable for this article. Your use of the Shanghaiist source (which was cited with a faulty link) is also not 'Shanghai media' nor does it consider the travel ban xenophobic, only "the country’s focus switched to containing infections coming in from abroad, leading to a spike in xenophobia online". I put the reliably sourced '90%' statement in the appropriate section.

2. The version before I edited it had equally if not even worse errors (Does "Foreigners are being barred from hotels, supermarkets, and restaurants, as well as visas being cancelled and reentry into China being barred." sound good to you?) It's a minor & easily correctable error, "According to The Telegraph, foreigners in China are being barred from hotels, supermarkets, and restaurants, while others overseas have their visas cancelled and reentry into China barred.” would work. (Btw, if you want to nitpick on my edits, yours over here would certainly appear to surpass mine in the error count.)

3. The source has already been cited at the "recent reports of xenophobia towards foreigners," section, does not mention 'racist abuse' that you added, & most importantly is an expat's account whose experiences ('shouting', 'being barred from bars/restaurants') are already mentioned in more big-name sources that report generally on the matter. If something reportedly happens to a foreigner that is not any of the aforementioned things (like a physical attack for instance), then it'd warrant adding. So WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:DETAIL etc. would apply to its removal here. (It is also very much in line with the other country sections here, contrary to your claim, the only exception to this is probably the US section.)

4. The frontpageafricaonline source you added is clearly categorised in the 'opinion' section, is by an unnamed contributor (WP:RSPSOURCES suggests that contributors tend to be less reliable), & might qualify as WP:PRIMARY. You've provided no evidence that the source is more reliable (or has more weight) than secondary sources like Deutsche Welle, the Daily Telegraph, the NYTimes, France24, & Jakarta Post reprints of Reuters etc., all of which use the summarised wording I paraphrased with. Subjective prose such as whether something is 'clumsy' or 'inelegant' does not matter here (& there were plenty of spacing errors among other things in your revert).

To be fair, I'm actually fine with the frontpageafrica source being included, as the summarised wording I used describes it accurately enough anyway. This is another WP:ONUS/WP:WEIGHT issue. More importantly, you distorted some of what the general sources on the letter say, as you omitted the "threats of" revocation of visas, arrest, detention and deportation of Africans. And your "Most complaints in the official protest letter are related to the singling out and enforced testing of African students without clear justification” is not supported in the letter. The "unwarranted medical examinations" are also not the same as "intrusive" health exams you rephrased it as (if you want to add forced medical exams, it's back to the debate of whether it has due weight) The rest is just redundant & unnecessary wording per WP:WONTWORK

5. The Zambian Observer article you linked also seems to have an unnamed author & search engine results suggest a lower notability than frontpageafricaonline or any other source listed. Anyway, kindly read up on WP:BLP if you haven't already, this is an article obviously covering controversial content.

@Zezen your veiled accusations or references to the 50 cent party, without any links to policies or other evidence relevant to this discussion is duly noted. In fact, I'd welcome any admins to join the dispute, granted they don't so obviously forego NPOV like you did there. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zezen:Thanks for your support, much appreciated. I don' think that Donkey-Hot talk is a wu mao, I mean he could be Welsh or Scottish or Double Dutch and a bit tedious but not malicious, but i suppose that's par for course with Wikipedia editors in general. They seem to love their rule books which is always a bad sign.

@Donkey Hot-day: I have carefully read you response to my questions and thank you for taking the time to answer each one in good faith (I presume).

Wasn't it H. L. Mencken who said that "A professor must have a theory as a dog must have fleas"?

In this case we could agree perhaps that on Wikipedia, "every claim and counter-claim must be answered with further questions as a dog must have fleas".

In light of the above, I have inserted alphabetical letters to identify further questions related to each of the 7 points in the initial request for consensus building, thus: 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, etc, which I am hoping you will find time to answer during the coronavirus lockdown ;)

1.

The NYTimes source was used only for the reference to the president of the European Chamber of Commerce in China which I added after an editor added a “whom?” to the word “hypocritical”. I was just trying to improve the contribution by taking onboard an editor’s suggestion.

Now, if we look at the article in question:

“BEIJING — When the coronavirus epidemic began its relentless march around the world, China’s diplomats reacted harshly toward countries that shut their borders, canceled flights or otherwise restricted travel.

Italy was overreacting when it did so, Qin Gang, a vice minister of foreign affairs, told his counterpart in February. The United States was stoking fear and panic, a spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, said. “True feeling shines through in hardship,” she said back then.

Now China is doing the same, undercutting its own diplomatic efforts to win sympathy and support by imposing travel restrictions that it once called unnecessary. They include 14 days of quarantine for travelers from Italy, Iran, South Korea and Japan. Almost everyone flying into Beijing faces a similar fate, regardless of departure point.

“They have a toolbox that only seems to have a hammer,” said Jörg Wuttke, the president of the European Chamber of Commerce in China, who is now himself in quarantine in his Beijing home”

1.A

Having read the above and pondered on how best to paraphrase the underlying sentiment expressed, surely you would agree that the best and most succinct word is indeed “hypocrisy”.

Of course, Jorg said “they have a toolbox that only seems to have a hammer”.

How would you like to paraphrase that?

1.B

Would you accept that it is a criticism of Chinese policy and supports the accurate summary of “hypocrisy”?

The initial sentence you deleted in its entirety for reasons best known to yourself was:

“As local cases of COVID-19 reportedly fell to zero in March, the Chinese government increased its efforts to prevent new cases emerging from returning travellers from overseas. This led to the recent official prohibition on all foreigners either with or without visas or residency from entering China by air, sea and land”

1.C

If you doubt this is true, please identify which part of it is false.

Are you saying you would like me to input a source for that information?

If so, can we agree that this one is acceptable:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/asia/china-virus-travel-ban.html

or this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52059085

Let me know which you prefer?

1.D

Regarding the word “hypocritical” I can support its use with this source if you prefer:

“In the past week, officials in France, Britain and nearly two dozen African nations have rebuked Chinese government actions. China has been accused of hypocrisy, hubris and obfuscating the virus’s origins.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/world/coronavirus-news.html

or here, and we can add “hubris” as well:

“In the past week officials in France, Britain and nearly two dozen African nations have rebuked actions or statements by the Chinese government. Mr. Xi’s government has now been accused of hypocrisy and hubris, for obfuscating the origins of the coronavirus and for portraying Western governments as ineffectual compared to China’s own response.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/world/asia/coronavirus-china-xi-jinping.html

1.E

For the word “xenophobia” this source could be used:

“As Coronavirus Fades in China, Nationalism and Xenophobia Flare Now that the pandemic is raging outside China’s borders, foreigners are being shunned, barred from public spaces and even evicted.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/asia/coronavirus-china-nationalism.html

Moving on to the supchina source which you seem to be upset about.

You claimed:

“Your citing of the SupChina source (which had a citation error) had nothing to do with what Mexicans thought, it was just an author's opinion piece criticising a Xinhua article by referencing H1N1. Considering anyone can also apply to write for SupChina, I'd say their reliability is questionable for this article”

What you said is patently false (nothing to do with what Mexicans thought), either you failed to read the article or you are engaging in deception by not mentioning the person who was interviewed (just an author's opinion) for the article nor his position or first-hand experience.

I’d say that the reliability of an interview with the Mexican Ambassador is only questionable to someone with ulterior motives.

The source states:

“But an even greater hypocrisy is clearly remembered by Mexican citizens who were in China in 2009 during the outbreak of H1N1 influenza, often called swine flu.”

The above was based on the interview with the former Mexican ambassador to China, Ambassador Jorge Guajardo, which is included in the article.

1.F

Do you doubt the word of the former Ambassador?

Are you suggesting that supchina published a fake interview?

The article in fact publishes the former Mexican Ambassador’s comments: “The Chinese government NEVER explained its actions, it never apologized. It did, however, complain when the president of Mexico accused it of mishandling the SARS crisis. I never, to this day, heard anyone in the Chinese government acknowledge or imply that they may have overreacted, despite being the ONLY country in the world to have adopted these measures. Only now, after seeing how it reacts to other countries imposing travel bans on China, do I come to realize the absolute lack of self-awareness on its end. It cannot fathom it was much harsher on Mexico. By the way, Mexico has NOT imposed a travel ban on China, or Chinese nationals, because of the coronavirus. We have not closed consulates or embassies. We have not issued travel warnings. We are treating China the way we appreciated other countries treating us during H1N1, and the way we had hoped China would.”

I. G

It is quite clear from the above that the Mexican Ambassador is in fact accusing China of hypocrisy, arrogance and “absolute lack of self-awareness”, so I will be happy to add these as well when I restore my edit, after reaching consensus with you and others. Moving onto the Shanghaiist, you say:

“Your use of the Shanghaiist source (which was cited with a faulty link) is also not 'Shanghai media' nor does it consider the travel ban xenophobic, only "the country’s focus switched to containing infections coming in from abroad, leading to a spike in xenophobia online". I put the reliably sourced '90%' statement in the appropriate section.”

1.H

I am inclined to accept that critique, so will be happy to replace it with this source, if you agree:

“As Coronavirus Fades in China, Nationalism and Xenophobia Flare…Now that the pandemic is raging outside China’s borders, foreigners are being shunned, barred from public spaces and even evicted.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/asia/coronavirus-china-nationalism.html

It is my opinion that you did not put “the reliably sourced '90%' statement in the appropriate section.”

Let’ see why:

Your edit is:

“ It has been attributed to fears of a second wave of the coronavirus, although the Chinese vice-foreign minister noted that 90% of imported COVID-19 cases were PRC nationals returning from overseas”

While my original contribution was as follows:

“after the Chinese vice-foreign minister admitted that 90% of the non-local coronavirus cases were in fact ethnic Chinese returning from overseas, many of them students”

The difference is that my original contribution supplied the context for the accusations of hypocrisy and xenophobia (deleted by you for spurious reasons as shown above) while your edit does not.

It merely relegates the important fact to the status of “a note” by the Chinese vice foreign minister, when in fact Chinese media outlets published the number of imported cases without any mention of the fact that 90% were from returning Chinese citizens.

1.I

So, to achieve consensus here I propose adding a new section with an analysis of the provocative attempts by Chinese State Media to stoke xenophobia against foreigners by manipulation of statistics (by publishing the numbers of imported cases without mentioning that 90% were via Chinese citizens).

Can we agree on this proposal?

Now we can focus on the second point:

2. You claim that:

“The version before I edited it had equally if not even worse errors”

This is not an adequate justification for writing incorrect grammar in your contributions.

My contribution which you deleted on the other hand was correct and well written. 

I have no idea who wrote the part you edited incorrectly.

You then say:

“It's a minor & easily correctable error”

Yet it still remains uncorrected on the page.

2.A

Kindly correct it as soon as possible.

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

This is not about nitpicking, as you suggest, but rather about an inaccurate statement, as I explained to you previously:

Your edit:

“foreigners are being barred from hotels, supermarkets, and restaurants, while others have their visas being cancelled and reentry into China barred”

is NOT accurate as it is a complete ban on foreigners not just some foreigners or “others”.

2.B

Please try to understand this so we can move on to point 3:

Kindly confirm that you understand this point

3. The source has already been cited at the "recent reports of xenophobia towards foreigners," section,

Yes, the source was cited in this sentence:

“There have been recent reports of xenophobia towards foreigners,[20]” but that fails to exemplify the xenophobia.

Let’s look at what the poor teacher actually said in the article:

“Sheffield teacher faces xenophobia…. spoken of the discrimination she’s suffered discriminaton Chinese locals speaking Mandarin in a restaurant questioned if the ‘foreigners’ had the disease and another couple questioned if they should move tables. they were making jokes asking if it was safe for them to sit there and if we were infected. we were told that they weren’t letting in ‘outsiders’. “It was really surprising they weren’t letting us in - all the locals were being let through flashing their green cards which shows you’re safe and we were the only ones who were stopped. We all showed our green passes but they wouldn’t even look at it and they screamed at us that we couldn’t go. It was just pure xenophobia.”

In my opinion, this first hand sourced account is worth adding and it seems strange that you should choose to delete it with the justification that it is merely an “ex-pat’s account and relegate the entire weight of this first-hand experience to a numbered citation which may well not be read by anyone.

You also claim that: "(It is also very much in line with the other country sections here, contrary to your claim, the only exception to this is probably the US section.)"

Please actually take the time to read the other sections before claiming something as patently false as that, for example, ,the Germany and UK sections which are replete with quite detailed examples and verbatim quotes of racial taunts.

3.A

So, we could delete the phrase “racist abuse: and replace it with “discrimination, xenophobia and racist jokes” and mention the details of the story.

Can we agree on this?

Now, let’s move on to the more serious question of your attempt to diminish the import of the protest letter from the African Ambassadors by removing detail, misquoting, deleting examples and quibbling over sources.

4. You said:

“The frontpageafricaonline source you added is clearly categorised in the 'opinion' section, is by an unnamed contributor (WP:RSPSOURCES suggests that contributors tend to be less reliable), & might qualify as WP:PRIMARY.

You've provided no evidence that the source is more reliable (or has more weight) than secondary sources like Deutsche Welle, the Daily Telegraph, the NYTimes, France24, & Jakarta Post reprints of Reuters etc., all of which use the summarised wording I paraphrased with”

This is completely wrong.

Again you have failed to respond to the accusation that you deleted a source which contained the complete text of the protest letter from the African Ambassadors.

You have also failed to attempt to achieve consensus on using the only other source for the protest letter which I found in the hope of reaching consensus.

Instead you again choose to perversely question the validity of African news sources:

“5. The Zambian Observer article you linked also seems to have an unnamed author & search engine results suggest a lower notability than frontpageafricaonline or any other source listed”

Can you not accept that both sources that I have mentioned merely publish the full text of the protest letter?

4. A

If you are so desperate to find a non-African source that prints the protest letter in its entirety (not a summary) then kindly let us know.

You claim that “Subjective prose such as whether something is 'clumsy' or 'inelegant' does not matter here’ is as arrogant as pointing out that “grammatical errors” are minor and can be corrected easily, yet failing to do so.

4. B

As we are trying to reach consensus on adding my entire contribution, you are welcome to identify the “plenty of spacing errors among other things in your revert” so that my contribution will be more accurate. I am happy with that help you offer.

“To be fair, I'm actually fine with the frontpageafrica source being included, as the summarised wording I used describes it accurately enough anyway. “

As I clearly pointed out your summarised wording fails to accurately summarise the protest letter, but more seriously it distorts the FACTS:

“and threats of visa revocation, arrest or deportation of Africans particularly in the Guangdong province”

By including the word “threats” at the beginning of the list you are falsely creating the impression that “arrests” and “deportation” were also mere threats. This is not the case as you well know and this will be edited to reflect the facts.

4.C

Can you agree to this without indulging in further quibbling and false claims as in the following:

“ More importantly, you distorted some of what the general sources on the letter say, as you omitted the "threats of" revocation of visas, arrest, detention and deportation of Africans”

in my contribution:

Arrest is listed, see below. “Revocation of visas” is correctly paraphrased as “cancellation of visas” “Deportation” is correctly paraphrased as “enforced departure”

“The diplomats’ protest letter alleges that African citizens were subjected to arrest, imprisonment, enforced departure and cancellation of visas and threats of cancellation, with arbitrary confiscation of identity documents”

4.D

So, please take time to read the contributions of editors before falsely claiming that they distort sources and omit certain words which have been paraphrased accurately.

You go on to say:

“. And your "Most complaints in the official protest letter are related to the singling out and enforced testing of African students without clear justification” is not supported in the letter.”

So, now you are the resident expert on the protest letter which you were not even aware of until my contribution reported it accurately, but which you chose to delete in its entirety?

The protest letter contains 8 points, the majority of which are indeed related to

A. Singling out of Africans and 

B. Enforced testing without justification

4.E

I am happy to delete the word “students” and replace it with “citizens” if by doing that we can agree on re-adding the phrase which you deleted.

Finally, you say that the "unwarranted medical examinations" are also not the same as "intrusive" health exams you rephrased it as”

Covid-19 health exams are intrusive by nature as they involve quite intrusive throat swabs. If this continues to be a sore point for you or stick in your throat, then I could replace it with the phrase “inhuman treatments” which is in the protest letter.

4.F

Can we agree on this?

Are you denying that the tests are intrusive or just nit picking certain words while not answering the more serious question I asked you as to why you deleted the following:,

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

the word “imprisonment”.

“forced to undergo intrusive health exams, testing and subsequent enforced isolation despite testing negative for COVID-19

Bizarrely, you now criticise my contribution for not including the word “detention” while you deleted the word “imprisonment”.

5.A

unless this arrogant response is your idea of a justification:

“The rest is just redundant & unnecessary wording”

How dare you attempt to justify the brutal eviction of African citizens with young children from their family homes as “redundant and unnecessary wording”

5.B

I must admit my anger at your callous disregard for the human rights of Africans in China and would kindly ask you again to refrain from:

1. Engaging in edit wars as you have already broken the 3 revert rule (which I have not reported you for by the way) despite your attempt to report me for breaking the rule which you were told was not a good idea as you would definitely receive a WP:Boomerang (talk page)

2. Quibbling over African sources used as sources for official protest letters from African Ambassadors.

3. Making false claims regarding wording

4. Adding false information after deleting contributions which contained accurate information.

5. Arrogantly suggesting other editors read WP editing pages constantly instead of engaging in honest and forthright consensus building

Thank you

Billybostickson (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend you actually heed (not dismiss) the rules, & avoid pushing opinions in your arguments, along with making dubious & disrespectful allegations.

@Donkey Hot-day:

I am heeding Wikipedia rules while you appear at times to be fond of bending them to suit your purpose.

Any argument is based on opinions so I really can't understand what your point is.

Do you mean arguing that you are NOT a "wu mao" and could be Welsh, English, Dutch or a bit tedious?

I was trying to support you after allegations that you were editing on behalf of the PRC by user: @Zezen.

How on earth is that disrespectful? Have you got something against the Welsh, Dutch or English?

"There's little reason for me to compromise with someone who fails to get that anything he wants added does not mean it'll be added, & who spews unfounded allegations of arrogance & "callous disregard for the human rights of Africans" towards me."

@Donkey Hot-day:

If you don't wish to compromise as you admit now, but rather take refuge in your hurt feelings instead of taking practical steps to building consensus, I am inclined to

"It's also plainly obvious I did 2 reverts while you did just as many if not more, if we count your edit conflicts with Lise Hereford & CaradhrasAiguo which is either within or close to a 24-hour period. But yes, go ahead & report me. I was not planning to report you (so you can cut your strawman accusations), but the result if you do try it would certainly interest, if not amuse me."

@Donkey Hot-day:

This consensus building process is certainly not designed for your own personal "amusement".

You raised the question:

"Pre-edit war with someone who's broken the 3 revert rule....So how does one resolve the conflict with user Billybostickson here"

Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet when you received an answer you did not seem to like informing you of your 3 reverts and were helpfully warned you would receive a WP: Boomerang:

"Actually you might want to hold back on reporting, given [2] it appears you’ve also broken the three revert rule making WP:Boomerang a near certainty. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)"

your reaction was arrogant and rude:

"(Considering you've gotten into plenty of edit disputes with me before based on similar dubious allegations, one could perhaps conclude that I'd prefer if my post went unanswered.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)"

1A-D, H.

" Your understanding of 'paraphrase' is in conflict with some of Wikipedia's rules, but yes, those NYTimes articles can be used but they'll be attributed to the NYTimes unless you find evidence on the contrary. Your proposal of a new section sounds dubious when it could simply be summarised in a sentence, "According to the NYTimes, some Chinese officials play a role in stoking xenophobia by not mentioning that 90% of imported cases are Chinese citizens returning home". If you have several further reports from reliable sources on the details of this, then feel free to go for a new section, otherwise it's implausible & seems to lack due weight."

@Donkey Hot-day: OK, I will go ahead with what you have suggested.

"You have still not given sufficient evidence to support why the Chinese govt's "hypocrisy & hubris" (referenced purely on a political stage) is relevant in a topic on xenophobia & discrimination. If you can find reports directly tying hypocrisy & hubris to xenophobic incidents, then present them, otherwise there are other relevant articles on criticism of the CCP."

@Donkey Hot-day: You seem to be now requesting that all xenophobic incidents that have taken place in China are "tied" to accusations of "hypocrisy and hubris", after I offered a link (as you requested) to a good secondary newspaper source that included "hypocrisy" and "hubris" in its criticism of China's policy during the coronavirus pandemic.

To be quite honest, you seem to be engaging in demanding ever increasing evidence as soon as I provide clear evidence to counter your claims of insufficient evidence.

This is certainly not going to be helpful in our attempt to build consensus.

1E.

"Yes, for the first time, I misread the source which referenced the Mexican ambassador. So how in any way is this relevant to the article? This was dated on Feb. 7 btw, which was before any travel ban from China that you wanted to jam into your statement on hypocrisy. The SupChina piece, aside from questionable reliability, does not even mention 'xenophobia, racism, or discrimination' aside from the Xinhua piece. It's certainly tiresome dealing with someone pushing his irrelevant pieces on criticism of China in the wrong article."

@Donkey Hot-day: Thank you for admitting that you misread the source, I will accept that it was not in bad faith. You seem to be intent on deleting any criticism of China especially regarding clear and documented cases of xenophobia and instead suggest relegating accusations of hypocrisy and xenophobia to completely different articles. I wonder why?

The Mexican Ambassador was quite clear in his accusations and this is indeed relevant to the China section which is as you know about xenophobia and racism. So, first you fail to read the article claiming you "misread it" but instead of accepting your failure and learning from it you now quibble over wording and again questioning the reliability of a published interview with the Mexican Ambassador without any evidence.

A classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees which reveals your self-admitted clear agenda on this page:

"dealing with someone pushing his irrelevant pieces on criticism of China"

It is not me criticising China but rather the former Mexican Ambassador, ex-pats as well as several important news sources.

Are you perhaps contending that nobody has accused China of xenophobia or hypocrisy during the coronavirus pandemic, despite all the evidence I have just supplied to the contrary with sources from newspapers to satisfy you?

@Donkey Hot-day: It seems we will have to seek further opinions on this dispute as I really can't see any way forward.

2. "You are now pushing something completely irrelevant to the main dispute in the first place."

@Donkey Hot-day: No, it is not irrelevant, I am trying to correct your false statement which replaced my initial and accurate contribution concerning the travel ban on foreigners.

"Correct it yourself if you dislike it so much (change 'others' to 'those' or whatever), I gave you the grammatically correct version."

@Donkey Hot-day: OK, thanks, I will when the consensus building is finally achieved. I have no wish to change any edits that you made to the section at the moment, whether because of your poor grammar use or your misleading statements, because we are currently trying to build consensus and WP advice is to avoid editing during this process until consensus is achieved.

Kindly re-read WP advice on WP:CONSBUILD and WP:DRNC

"And yes, it's the very definition of nitpicking & has nothing to do with our conflict (oh, & make sure to correct all the spacing & citation errors you could make in your next edit, as this time I already corrected them)."

@Donkey Hot-day: Again you ignore the import of butchering original and factual contributions and replacing them with misleading statements written with incorrect grammar. This is not "nitpicking" as you seem to think.

"My contribution which you deleted on the other hand was correct and well written." -Lol, no it wasn't, for several reasons you seem to be ignoring. No need for you to play hypocritical now after accusing me of arrogance.

@Donkey Hot-day: You accuse me of "playing" and of being "hypocritical". This is not helpful, so please refrain from personal attacks during the consensus building process. It seems rather strange that you are so quick to accuse other editors of Hypocrisy yet so intent on deleting any mention of the word in the China section of this page.

3.

"Indeed, some locals were making jokes about safety & whether or not foreigners next to them have the virus. Such a worthy addition compared to the assaults & beatings in Germany & the UK."

@Donkey Hot-day: You engage in "whataboutery" here instead of admitting that the inclusion of this first-hand account of xenophobia and racist discrimination has been shown clearly to be in line with both WP:DUE and other sections (Germany, UK and USA) of the article in question as it represents a specific example as can be seen on the other sections (which you initially denied, falsely claiming that only the US section included specific examples).

I would kindly suggest you re-read the following WP advcie on WP:RSUW WP:WEIGHT WP:DUE WP:UNDUE

If you continue to deny the validity of this contribution, perhaps we can ask for a 3rd opinion?

4.

"Looking closer here, it seems the African protest letter sources aren't just a "might qualify as WP:PRIMARY" case. They are a WP:PRIMARY case. Kindly read the policy again (if you read it at all in the first place). But yes, the Deutsche Welle & Daily Telegraph sources, along with the NYTimes, France24, & Jakarta Post reprints of Reuters among others must all be misquoting & distorting the facts too, according to you."

@Donkey Hot-day: Regarding WP:PRIMARY Let's look at the advice and polices so that we can build consensus on using the sources that I contributed:

" The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

@Donkey Hot-day: can you agree that my original contribution was in line with this advised practice?

"Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement."

@Donkey Hot-day: It is clear from the above that the primary sources should be included as well as your secondary ones. So can we agree on this?

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary

@Donkey Hot-day: Again, regarding the African Ambassador's protest letter, in the hope of building consensus, I am willing to include the two sources that provide the letter in its entirety (frontpageafrica and zambian news) and add your secondary sources, so that anyone interested in checking the details can quickly find the original protest letter and thus make up their own mind as to its contents.

@Donkey Hot-day: Can we agree on this?

4D.

"Yes, you've provided no evidence (other than your own opinion) that "Most complaints" in the protest letter are related to enforced testing of African students."

@Donkey Hot-day: What are you talking about?

I provided the evidence which is clear, based as it is on counting the items in the protest letter, while agreeing to replace the word "students" with "citizens" in an attempt to build consensus with you so that the phrase "most or majority of complaints" is valid and agreed by both parties. Instead you WP: STONEWALL again.

"And sure, you can replace it with the phrase “inhuman treatments”, & I'll then change it to "demands the cessation of forceful testing, quarantine and other inhumane treatments meted out to Africans" since it's what the secondary, not primary sources say (something you're disregarding)."

@Donkey Hot-day: That sounds OK, I am happy with that edit, I will do it myself then when consensus is finally achieved.

"Personally, the current sentence here is better & more comprehensive than that."

@Donkey Hot-day: Again, your personal opinion which does not really help us build consensus as by "the current sentence", you of course mean your edit.

":The direction this is going suggests that further exchanges will be meaningless if you don't address the rules. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)"

@Donkey Hot-day: As I pointed out, I am following the rules while you appear to be intent on bending them and quibbling over sources and wording in order to advance your admitted agenda of deleting criticism of the PRC and exposing xenophobia in African countries:

"irrelevant pieces on criticism of China in the wrong article."

"If you can find reports directly tying hypocrisy & hubris to xenophobic incidents, then present them, otherwise there are other relevant articles on criticism of the CCP"

""(It also boggles the mind how Sweden or Turkey (possibly 2 of the most anti-China countries in the world) avoids a section here"

" 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)"

@Donkey Hot-day: It has been noted that Editors may occasionally find themselves at an impasse because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument, which I believe is the current situation based on the overall tone of your deletions, reversions and edits in this section as well as your documented views on China and Africa here on the Talk page:

"(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)"

" 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)"

@Donkey Hot-day: Thus, in light of the above, I am inclined to ask for some helpful input via the dispute resolution noticeboard:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_incidents_of_xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic)

due to your clear WP: SQS (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling) as you have failed to answer certain significant points raised in my previous sincere attempt to reach consensus, namely: 4B, 4C, 4E, 4F, 5A and my request for you to remedy:

5B

3. Making false claims regarding wording

4. Adding false information after deleting contributions which contained accurate information.

Billybostickson (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you completely mangled my April 18th response to your post the day before, an ugly violation of WP:TPO (which is one of several other rules you've either broken or misquoted). Yes, it's high time for this to be taken to a relevant noticeboard, so I don't have to waste further effort dealing with long-winded, illogical or uncivilised replies. (You claimed I had "hurt feelings" when I simply pointed out your uncivil comments were hardly productive, hopefully that's not psychological projection on your part?)

1. Your response here has been increasingly misrepresenting my arguments & pushing strawman fallacies. Yes, apparently to you, hypocrisy & hubris are synonymous with racism or discrimination. And a SupChina article on perceived H1N1 mistreatment deserves a place in coronavirus-related xenophobia.

3. Another distortion of my argument. The Germany & UK sections had mostly referenced isolated incidents that didn't comment on general xenophobic actions, like the barring or scolding of foreigners in China (e.g. the general comment in the UK section: 'some Chinese people in the United Kingdom said they were facing increasing levels of racist abuse'), but ofc if you see gratuitous incidents you're welcome to remove them. I also see you didn't comment on the 2 entry (or sometimes even 2 sentence) sections in Asia (where some sources report noteworthy or even 'larger-scale' incidents than in other countries) or several others on here.

4. Per WP:PRIMARY -"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." (You even repeated that) "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Your original contribution was certainly not in line with this practice, best not to push for it.

So now it seems you're quoting me in irrelevant & out-of-context statements to support your claim that I have a pro-China & anti-African agenda, & could be a wu mao. I could also say your anti-Chinese agenda is patently obvious, & start quoting edits like these, but it'd signify clear disrespect, not to mention irrelevance (the likes of which have not been scarce in your responses). If you really want to forward your edits, then try the various noticeboards, as it'll unlikely be done through the fruitless exchanges here. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day: By mangled, do you mean that I should have created a separate section with my comments rather than inserting them within yours? Sorry, i was just trying to make the discussion clearer, wasn't aware of that particular rule breach. I'm happy to edit my response to remedy that "mangling". Would you like that?

Billybostickson (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day: 4. Per WP:PRIMARY -"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." (You even repeated that) "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Your original contribution was certainly not in line with this practice, best not to push for it.

That's precisely what I am saying that we should build consensus by restoring my original contribution including the "semi-primary" sources (news sources commenting and printing the entire text of the protest letter, not the true primary source which would be a diplomatic source in Ethiopia which I could not find) and adding your secondary sources with an adapted summary which includes the best of both our inputs as discussed before and to keep you happy. What exactly is your problem with this attempt at consensus building?

@Donkey Hot-day: You accuse me of misquoting rules, can you be more specific?

You say the following:

So now it seems you're quoting me in irrelevant & out-of-context statements to support your claim that I have a pro-China & anti-African agenda, & could be a wu mao. I could also say your anti-Chinese agenda is patently obvious, & start quoting edits like these, but it'd signify clear disrespect, not to mention irrelevance (the likes of which have not been scarce in your responses). If you really want to forward your edits, then try the various noticeboards, as it'll unlikely be done through the fruitless exchanges here. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am quoting what you said as it seems to reveal your bias on this topic. It is self admitted, so you can't blame me for noticing it. Are you denying that you wrote that or are you saying that my interpretation is wrong?

@Donkey Hot-day: I have never accused you of being a "wu mao", in fact as is splendidly clear, I denied that you were one. This is clear for all to see so please stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to make outrageous and unfounded accusations. This will certainly NOT help advance consensus building for this article. I request you retract that accusation.

You say my "anti-Chinese agenda is patently obvious, & start quoting edits like these" but if you read what I wrote (one "edit" on the talk page not "edits", you will see that it is a polite request for objective and balanced editing of the China section to reflect reality:

"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."

Does any neutral editor consider that evidence of an "anti-Chinese agenda"? I think you will find that you are quite alone in your delusions.

@Donkey Hot-day: We must focus on the content not the editors while trying to find consensus but I see my sincere attempts to do so have fallen on deaf ears and dare I say, increasingly paranoid ad-hominem attacks, so perhaps we should request a 3rd opinion to ensure the China section is complete, balanced and well sourced, which surely must be our mutual desire?

Billybostickson (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day: We have been asked to "Resume discussion on the article talk page" by volunteer cadre Robert McClenon Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC) who kindly helped on the RFC request which was archived as I didn't check it for 48 hours ;)

So, it seems the way forward would be to ask for a 3rd opinion. As I requested the RFC perhaps you would like to request a neutral third opinion about our dispute? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion Thank you! Billybostickson (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this eligible to be added to the list?

If so, it'd be under Canada > British Columbia.

link to incident

Thanks. 24.80.87.10 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does China get special treatment with positive spin and fluffery?

"Although there has been support from the Chinese public towards those in virus-stricken areas"

Pretty much every country is supporting areas hardest struck by the virus, China is the ONLY country with this as the header for their section. Why?

"In March and April 2020, media outlets reported instances of xenophobia towards foreigners,[21] although The Globe and Mail states that such sentiment "is far from universal" "

No other country has a disclaimer saying that xenophobia isn't universal. Is the implication that China is the ONLY country in which this is not the case? If not, why include this statement?

Look at all the other country's entries. It's done by giving a background of the xenophobic incidents, then the response to such incidents. In most cases, only the negative xenophobic incidents are reported. That's fine, given that this is an article on that subject. But why does China get special treatment in this regard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that "only country" implication is a far-fetched logical stretch. If reliable sources covering incidents in other regions also note the disclaimer in the same article, then other regions' sections may also include the disclaimer. There even is WP:ATTRIBUTION to The Globe and Mail. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree the statement is out of place given that this is an article specifically on xenophobia and racism. It's strange. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia Shadybabs I have now dealt with this problem by deleting a recently added section, for the following reasons:

"Assistant Foreign Minister Chen Xiaodong told the African ambassadors he would ease "health management" measures.[37]"

This article must not parrot the unfulfilled promises of assistant ministers; it is about incidents of xenophobia and racism, not alleged promises to ease “health management” issues.

"On 12 April, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian stated that the Chinese government "has been attaching great importance to the life and health of foreign nationals in China", has "zero tolerance for discrimination", and treats all foreigners equally.[38]"

Again, what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson claims about reality is not relevant. Even if he claims that China is a paradise for foreigners, it should not be included in this section as it is not an incident of xenophobia and racism, is it?

"He also said in a regular press conference on 13 April that China will address the "African friends’ concerns" by adopting a series of measures to avoid racist and discrimination problems, and condemned, "the US had better focus on domestic efforts to contain the spread of the virus. Attempts to use the pandemic to drive a wedge between China and Africa are bound to fail".[39][40]"

A gratuitous insert accusing the US of being responsible in some way for incidents of xenophobia and racism is ridiculous. This is not the place to repeat propaganda statements and conspiracy theories by Chinese politicians. Thank you. Billybostickson (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the religious bias/"Islamophobia" of the "Malaysia" section of the article.

The passage in question: "Islamophobia also occurs since March when social media users insult groups of Tabligh people as the cluster related to Sri Petaling Tabligh gathering cause it to experiencing sudden jump in number of cases in Malaysia.[80]"

The quote above from the "Malaysia" section is using its source in an extremely bias manner and quotes within the article itself does not correlate to the authors insistence of "Islamophobia".

Quote from Source/Reference: “Fifty-nine per cent of the 706 hateful mentions were in relation to the tabligh event or its participants, labelling them dumb, burdening, arrogant and stubborn among others,” it read."

Tabligh is an Islamic fundamentalist missionary movement, and the event held in Sri Petaling, Malaysia is not representative of the association and belief of the majority of Malaysia's practitioners of Islam.

In addition to that, it is fact that the Tabligh gathering/event was the cause of the largest Covid-19 cluster, criticism towards the group of individuals and its organization who continued the event despite warnings from the government is valid. In addition to that, similar religious events had taken the dignity to cancel their events and did not contribute to any further Coronavirus cases.

The widespread criticism of the group who had attended the Tabligh event was their refusal to come forward to be tested for Covid-19 nor admitting that they were in fact a participant in the event.

Criticism of the specific group of individuals who participated in the event is NOT Islamophobia of any kind and is neither anti-Islam nor anti-Malay.

Islam is both the official religion of Malaysia and is the most widely practiced religion in Malaysia.

Criticism and slander of Islam is a crime that warrants jail time in Malaysia and is also widely enforced on internet based activities and dissident. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Malaysia.]

If what the original author of passage of this wikipedia section were true, there would have been arrests made due to the purported strong sentiments of Islamophobia online at the time, but that is not the case at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanaraki (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ontario

The school petition in Ontario was actually signed by many Asians that were concerned about fellow Asians returning from China spreading the virus to their children. This, like many other so called incidents listed here, is not racism but common sense. All restaurants saw a sharp decrease in business, not just Chinese restaurants. True racism would mean that Chinese restaurants never had the business in the first place, which was not the case. Business dropped due to health concerns, not racism. Baxwitch (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated

The majority of incidents listed in this article are unsubstantiated, although there is well documented proof of mounting anger aimed at the Chinese communist party throughout the world. Baxwitch (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Says you with no loss of irony by calling this article 'unsubstantiated'. Wikipedia is not a place for personal political opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49519d863e (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Add to Germany section Lilly Becker on a German TV show making fun of chinese people and their food. 2A00:23C5:B4D0:D400:FD7A:74F0:CEB0:49A3 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Rise in Antiziganism

Here are some sources on COVID related antiziganism: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] Cynthia-Coriníon 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please add these details? I'm not sure I'm eloquent enough for this. Cynthia-Coriníon 02:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Colorado needs to be removed

Inside of here, Colorado is listed with a link to a story. It is a story about an idiot that walked into a store wearing a KKK mask with swastika/peace symbols. There was absolutely NOTHING to connect this with China. The fact that this is listed here really is disturbing in that it shows wiki being about politics and not about facts.

This needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windbourne (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump section on use of term “Kung-flu” doesn’t strike a neutral tone

This article doesn’t strike a neutral tone in regards to Donald Trump’s usage of the term “Kung flu. Bringing up past instances where he used language that is up to interpretation as to whether it is racist, doesn’t strike a neutral tone either. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:7085:3742:4C01:19E7 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Name is very long

Any interest in renaming this to "COVID-19 xenophobia and racism"? Per WP:CONCISE. I've been going through several of the COVID articles and suggesting names that shorten "related to the COVID-19 pandemic" to "COVID-19", and have achieved consensus at several articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a good idea, especially that list-type articles tend to accumulate any isolated incidents (but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CHERRYPICK), when a better approach is documenting the phenomenon using good sources (the background could be larger and possibly the rest a little shorter than it currently is)... Another suggestion would be "Discrimination related to COVID-19" that keeps "related" but is also a step in the same direction. —PaleoNeonate – 08:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I went to go move this today to "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to COVID-19". Seems like an uncontroversial stepping stone name on the way to an eventual very short title. Turns out the article is move protected. Guess we'll have to do a WP:RM. Does anybody else have thoughts on a good, shorter name before I start the WP:RM process? I still think "COVID-19 xenophobia and racism" is an option, but it doesn't seem perfect to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Started or first reported?

I have edited the first sentence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009017819 Wuhan is merely the place where the virus was first officially reported.. it's not necessarily the place where the virus first spread and it is premature to claim that.

The precise origins of the coronavirus pandemic will likely never be known, and Prof Dwyer's remarks echo others who were involved with investigating the origins of the pandemic, who have said China "is by no means necessarily the place where the leap from animals to humans took place".

https://au.news.yahoo.com/australian-who-scientist-doubt-coronavirus-ground-zero-025340350.html

If you got an issue with that edit. Feel free to reply here. Nvtuil (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

---

List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic → COVID-19 xenophobia and racism – Name is too long. WP:CONCISE. Also, this article isn't really a "list" (bulleted list without prose), so having "list" in the title seems unnecessary. I'd also be open to "Xenophobia and racism related to COVID-19" or "Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic" as an alternative. Using RM since this is move protected and not getting much discussion on the talk page. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic instead. ~ HAL333 00:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• What HAL333 said. No such user (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support It just makes sense. Kire1975 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with HAL333. That wording makes the most sense. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:D446:6D3A:F192:1EE3 (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support what Hal333 said. Starzoner (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2021 (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.

Xenophobia and racism? Just racism

I don't think it's best practice to have both of those concepts in the name. Generally, we talk about Category:Racism by country issues, not Category:Xenopobia by country. (On a side note, see xenoracism). I would suggest renaming this article to COVID-19 pandemic and racism.

To be clear, I am not saying xenophobia is not relevant, but so is discrimination, prejudice and others. It's best to be concise. Consider also the titles of numerous academic articles about this (which need to be added here - the current article is way too skewed towards media reports), like Racism and discrimination in COVID-19 responses and others [11]. This search gives us about 35k results. On the other hand, a search for COVID+xenophobia gives us about 7k: [12]. Our current title suggest those terms are equally used, but as the search shows, the term racism is more common in this context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This article needs to use scholarly sources

Dozens of academic studies about racism and xenophobia related to COVID pandemic have been published, but this article still relies on ORish/SYNThish news reporting that 'some newspaper called incident X racist'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://nypost.com/2020/12/24/attackers-beat-maskless-woman-spew-anti-asian-remarks-on-subway/ https://pix11.com/news/local-news/manhattan/man-makes-anti-asian-comments-punches-woman-on-manhattan-street-police/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

All those revisions deleted (understandably) but you didn't block the offending editor? -- Veggies (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Veggies, I had to look over their contribs before blocking- this one would've resulted in a final warning but I found another one on Justin Barrett, so I blocked. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to fork United States content?

The United States section is quote long. Time to fork? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Anti Asian Racism poster NYC October 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021 (2)

add "Korea" under "Asia"

add a header for Korea under "Asia" DreenaKat (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: South Korea is already listed. If you mean North Korea, provide information you wanted added with a source. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

change "Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic" to "Xenophobia and Racism Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic"

correct capitalization in title DreenaKat (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Caps are done correctly as is. See Naming conventions (capitalization) WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not break into their own countries’ articles

The US one, it is long and lagging the whole page. It may need its own page, and maybe it would be better as time based list instead of state (so and so happened in San Francisco on April 2, but that to me is less important. Just think having it broke into one or more separate ones would be easier to read. Cyanidethistles (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Each country no imo, but United states definitely. Someone else also suggested a few days ago. Probably can be boldy done without a discussion, as I don't think there will be any objections. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe continents or certain countries if gets too long. 2600:1010:B01A:A332:BDE4:A527:F0A0:6091 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Splitting makes sense. I would agree that each country would be too much. Each continent seems to not be specific enough. For starters, I would split the US, Canada, and the UK, though maybe consider a couple other European countries. —-Caorongjin (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SARS-CoV-2 without background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ageism

I've just added something about age-based discrimination to the main article ([13]), but I see that is not covered here, at the current title would seem to preclude discussing it here. I don't know whether further material can be added to justify expanding the scope (and improving the title) of this article, though I strongly encourage people who watch this page to do so. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Page size, WP:BIAS and WP:PROSELINE

I have significantly trimmed the sections on New York and California. There's likely much more that needs to be removed, because the article as is reads more as a chronicle of events than a serious encyclopedic effort - see WP:PROSELINE for why this isn't useful (and then compare the example there with the text I removed). Trimming much of the WP:NOTNEWS content would also probably reduce the page down to a more readable size (right now, at about 92 kb of readable prose, it is well too long and would need splitting - if the content were actually encyclopedic, which it isn't). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've left a note at WP:COVID about this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021 - disambiguation of "lallation" link

1) In the Brazil subsection there is a link to a DAB page:

• [[Lallation|mock a Chinese accent]]

To disambiguate, please change to

• [[De-rhotacism|mock a Chinese accent]]

OR, alternatively,

• unlink

The phenomenon referred to - that Brazil's Education Minister was mocking - is usually known as "rhotic speech error" by speech therapists and ESL teachers, and here on WP the article for it, mentioned above, is called De-rhotacism. (There's also quite a good discussion of the problem - i.e. of discerning and producing the /r/ and /l/ phoneme difference - in the Perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers article. It's a much better article than the "de-rhotacism" one, but, of course, you cannot use it here, even though the issue is similar.) Thank you. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Unlinked and added a link to a page on (derogatory) Chinese English. TGHL ↗ 🍁 22:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

2) Also, in the Australia subsection there is a when? maintenance tag:

• According to an online Ipsos MORI poll,[when?] 23% of Australian respondents would consider in the future avoiding people of Chinese origin to protect themselves from coronavirus.

The reference says the IPSOS MORI survey was conducted, world wide, February 7-9, 2020, so this when tag could be replaced with

• According to an online Ipsos MORI poll conducted in February 2020, 23% of Australian respondents would consider ... etc.

Added second request. Thank you again. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done to all mentions of the poll. Thank you. TGHL ↗ 🍁 22:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Potential new page as project for class

I am considering using this page as a parent article for a new article entitled "Anti-Asian hate crimes in the US related to COVID-19 pandemic" for my course at Rice University. I have outlined some of my potential ideas and sources on my user page. Similarly to the "United States" section, the new article would provide an overview of the increase in racist violence due to COVID-19, serve as a record of these incidents, and summarize responses (protests, movements, legislation, etc.). --EJPit (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)