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

Issues of accuracy and relevancy to article subject

Two of my edits were reverted, here and here, by an editor who mistakenly claims my "edit summary did not appear to describe the change" I made, which it did. He/she then goes on to accuse me of "deliberate misinformation"—and proceeds to misquote me in an attempt to show I misquoted Fauci—which I did not. I wrote that Fauci had "referred to events a 'long, long time' in the past that affected blacks"—which he had. The reverting editor, claiming this was "deliberate misinformation", wrote that Fauci "says 'For a long time', not 'a long time ago'", thus managing, in less than 10 words, to misquote both Fauci and me. I'll look forward to the editor providing an example of a past event that took place "for a long, long time"but somehow didn't also occur a "long, long time" in the past—can something take place for a "long, long time" in the recent past? Or even the present? In the meantime, I'll address reality:

1. As for my edit to the paragraph about the Olympians: neither the article nor either alleged victim refers to the incidents they experienced as a "crime". The editor who reverted me apparently believes that his/her own independent opinion that "harassment is a crime" forms a solid basis from which to conclude crimes were committed—but of course, it does not. The same editor removed the descriptions of the incidents, which I based entirely on their self-reports, something obviously helpful in understanding the nature of their claims—I can imagine no reason for excluding them. In short: my edit was factually accurate, and specified the nature of the episodes. Someone has reverted my edit in the hopes of making it less accurate and specific. It seems a potential BLP violation to insinuate that public figures claimed they were victims of "hate crimes" when they did not; one made it a point to emphasize that what she'd experienced was fairly trivial—the other had a woman shout at him in traffic. And, setting aside the reverting editor's mistaken insistence that "crimes" were allegedly committed, per WP:REVONLY there was no need to for him/her to also remove the accurate and specific nature of the incidents (while giving no reason for doing so in his/her reversion summary, no less).
2. Fauci's thesis was that "institutional racism", which he claimed had occurred over a "very, very long time" prior to the pandemic, may have contributed to blacks having been less likely to have white-collar jobs and more likely to have underlying comordbidities, both of which he believed had contributed to their worse outcomes, as compared to whites, during the first wave of COVID. It's immaterial whether he's correct, because nothing in our article is concerned with past discrimination's possible contributions to health outcomes of COVID. Instead, our article is very clearly concerned with how the "origins of the virus" having purportedly led to "Sinophobia, as well as prejudice, xenophobia, discrimination, violence, and racism against people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent and appearance" and against those from pandemic "hotspots in Asia, Europe, and the Americas". Nothing else in the article is about the possibility that centuries of past discrimination may have contributed to racial disparities in COVID disease burden. I thought that was bloody obvious before, and doubly so after my edit summary, but since it seems not everyone is able to grasp the distinction, I will happily spell it out: our article is about bigotry resulting from the pandemic—and not how past bigotry might have contributed to different health outcomes during the pandemic.
3. I was no more engaged in WP:ADVOCACY or on a WP:SOAPBOX than I was sowing "deliberate misinformation" when I pointed out that our article mentions that 45% of US blacks apparently believe anti-black discrimination increased as a result of COVID—but we have no mention of whether it did or didn't. I assume all editors are interested in our encyclopedia's excellence—and I question whether it adds to our article to include such a factoid, or whether, especially since it's never addressed or resolved, whether it would be better to omit it. I think I'm in the latter camp, but it occurred to me that I frankly don't know why someone thought it worthy of inclusion. In short: I'm open-minded would love to hear the thoughts of others on the matter.

I believe that the potential WP:BLP violation requires that my edit on the Olympians be restored immediately. As to the Fauci quote about past "institutional racism" affecting COVID infection rates: it's hard for me to believe that anyone who's read the article can't immediately grasp why it's obviously off-topic—but I will patiently wait in the hopes that the reverting editor will acknowledge their obvious error and undo their reversion. And a sincere apology for an unfounded and wildly inaccurate accusation of "deliberate misinformation" that obviously violated WP:AGF would be nice, too—but I'm a cockeyed optimist! Thanks in advance for any thoughtful and respectful input, ElleTheBelle 23:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of attacks have come from African-Americans

The vast majority of attacks have come from African-Americans. Why that is, and the history behind it, should be mentioned. 71.26.103.157 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

African-Americans do not represent every person in the world and America isn't the only country in this planet. This covers incidents worldwide. Even in East Asia, there has been anti-Chinese sentiment during the pandemic. Though other groups have been reportedly targeted during the pandemic and are noted throughout the article.

If you can find reliable sources supporting that claim, then you're welcome to update the United States subsection. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story

There is a new article in NYT, here is just one quote from there with a link: “I think there’s a major political agenda that is impacting the science,” said Edward Holmes, a University of Sydney biologist who was part of the group that analyzed the sequences containing raccoon dog DNA. Soon after the group alerted Chinese researchers to their findings, the genetic sequences temporarily disappeared from a global database. “It’s just pathetic that we’re in this stage where we’re having cloak-and-dagger conversations about deleted data,” Dr. Holmes said. [1] DUKE (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

At what point? What about other xenophobic viruses?

Is this article truly necessary? At one point should we create articles about such so-called xenophobic articles? The Chinese virus is called the Chinese virus because it started in China. In fact, many African immigrants to China were discriminated, physically attacked on the streets by the Chinese, refused to be served in supermarkets, wrongly evicted from their homes despite paying their rent, and denied entry into public transports because they are Black. This was when the Chinese tried to blame the Africans for the virus they themselves had inflicted upon the world. Further, I did not see anyone claiming that names like African swine flu, Ebola virus etc., were racist or xenophobic towards Africans. Therefore, why now and what is so special about the Chinese/Asian? It came from them, so why the double standards? 2A00:23EE:2570:14D:C1A6:CB07:328A:3791 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see some of the points you're trying to make. I thought it was odd that many sources call dubbing this the "Chinese Virus" problematic, yet the African swine flu, Ebola virus and Spanish flu are widely used terms; the latter likely didn't even come from Spain, and the Spaniards themselves believe it might've come from France. BUT, if you read the opening section, there has been push to stop naming diseases after geographical locations to avoid stigma since the mid-2010s.

The term "China flu" or "Chinese flu" have been used overwhelmingly pejoratively, and thus, is a term to avoid using in English. Though there's a source stating that a majority of Indians surveyed do not find it wrong to use terms like "Chinese flu", but this does change the general opinions in some Western countries.

Incidents of Chinese racism against Africans have been noted in the Mainland China section, and they've also been noted in the Racism in China page and other related ones.

I think the page overall is fine, and keeps things generally neutral and well-sourced. It could've been easy to name this page "Anti-Asian hate", as some American articles are calling this "anti-Asian" hate, but in reality, it's been mainly targeting people of East Asian appearance, and this has been noted in the opening section. Note how "Chinese-looking" Northeast Indians were subject to racism and harassment in their native India during the pandemic, and similarly, people of East Asian origin or appearance were targeted in various countries. Even in East Asia, other East Asians did not take kindly to the Chinese. There's one source here which notes that at least in America, the media wasn't talking about darker-skinned South Asians or South Asian Americans when they discuss "Asian" hate.[2]

Overall, there are points about various people being discriminated against during the pandemic, and this event affected people all across the globe. The first section discusses other peoples being affected, including Muslims in India and other groups. I don't think whatever discrimination against African communities during the ordeal with the Ebola virus are anything comparable to this. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"the Spaniards themselves believe it might've come from France" That is unlikely. As noted in the main article, the first 523 patients on the Spanish flu worldwide were all soldiers at Camp Funston in Kansas. It is thought that the American Expeditionary Forces introduced the virus to Europe. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)