Talk:Xenophobia in the United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The lede is all wrong

The lede simply defines xenophobia, instead of summarizing the article topic. It's weird. I'll have a crack at a rewrite if no one objects. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it. It's what I anticipate a good lede to be, once the article is better. This lede will definitely need revision as that goes along. Some of it refers to sourced content in the article. Some of it needs to be added for it to be truly justified in the lede. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted. Awaiting discussion... 207.236.147.164 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacent use of xenophobia and immigration has POV issues.

Anti-immigration policies need not be xenophobic, and xenophobia need not produce anti-immigration policy preferences. I'm hesitant to put items about anti-immigration policies under the title "xenophobia", especially for much newer and still politically relevant positions. I think there's a line to draw somewhere between the two things. I'm not sure where. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the Trump admin section. I cite WP:Onus if someone is thinking of reverting. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also deleted a lot of editorializing (npov problem) on racism and generic discrimination (off topic) from the current status section. Again, wp:onus 142.115.142.4 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more on how Emergency Quota Act is an instance of American xenophobia, but I'll let wp:commonsense keep me from removing it. I'm certain such RS discussion exists, but it's not cited here. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of xenophobia and the related acts of certain anti-immigration policies to advance said xenophobia go hand in hand and thus the inclusion in the article is relevant. Here's an article by the Washington post using the two terms hand in hand. Raladic (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an op-ed. "Perspective", the WaPo calls it. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't wikivoice opinion. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you go and type "Trump xenophobia anti-immigration" into a search engine, you find a find a flood of articles beyond the one I referenced, which was written by the director of Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota, Erika Lee, someone who most would agree is authoritative of the subject. If you need more sources, here is one from NBC, and here is a published journal articles in the Howard Journal of Communications - Donald Trump’s America: Communicating the Seeds of Racism, Xenophobia, & Persistent Conflict and many more; this was just one minute of search.

So it is very clear that there is a clear and demonstrated link between the policies and xenophobia and thus warrant the inclusion in the article. Raladic (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section should be in the article. Good source choices. You need to find a way to put them in the section then. You know, like, "Trump's immigration policies have been described as xenophobia" or "motivated by xenophobia". I'd skip using the NBC source and depend on the other two. Should be followed up with things like Trump's comments "you have a border you have a country, you don't have a border you don't have a country". I'm sure someone has identified this as nationalism, which xenophobia touches. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd say that the last sentence is pov pushing. Studies found the higher voters' xenophobia was, the higher was their support for political violence. I'd love to actually BRD here, but I guess you'll have to do both the bold edits and the reverts. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you pull up the study that is referenced in the sentence, you'd find that there is no POV pushing happening in the sentence, it is what the text of the [1] study concludes - quote: "...We also find that Trump approvers are motivated by racial animus and mistrust and hatred towards immigrants and foreigners, and that these attitudes, in part, may make them more accepting of political violence..." so this is a neutral summary of the study result.

You may have a different WP:POV, but as shown, the section and the cited references are valid and linked to xenophobia. Raladic (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really think your quote of the source and the WP paraphrase say the same thing, and that there's no pov pushing there? 207.236.147.164 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also WP:primary. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's an onus and off topic issue in the current status section as well. Virtually all of it except the covid-Chinese connection is not apparently connected to xenophobia. Would you like a new section for that? Or do you think you could quickly show it all belongs? 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is a bit biased. Idk. 2601:741:0:1CF0:DDC4:43F9:D549:945A (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese internment

This is probably the most well known example, but it's not here. Wp:sofixit. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]