Talk:Stop Asian Hate

Article title

@Another Believer: I think the rallies are opposing [anti-Asian violence], right? The current article title sounds like they support [anti-Asian violence], or [violence rallies] to support anti-Asian, or anti-[Asian violence]. These all three meanings don't seem to be correct. There should be a better title for this. Sun8908 _Talk 11:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sun8908, I agree! But, I can't think of a better title, especially when many of the sources use "Stop Asian Hate" or "anti-Asian violence". Not all of the rallies specifically used "Stop Asian Hate", though, which is why I didn't start the page as List of Stop Asian Hate rallies. I'm definitely open to suggestions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 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 section.

---

2021 rallies against anti-Asian violence → ? – (altered as the result of the page move described below by editor Paintspot Infez – P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there) I think the article should be moved per above discussion but since there is still not yet a better suggestions, hope someone can give some advice to the title. Sun8908 _Talk 10:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe 2021 Asian American rallies? The only problem is that not all of them occurred in the U.S, some were in Canada. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe 2021 Protests Against Asian Violence? The rallies really are protests and would be consistent with how other events have been titled in the US. Albertaont (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I like the suggestion by Albertaont. I also propose 2021 Stop Asian Hate Movement, as this is the hashtag that many people are using. #BentoTobyRazi (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

They are not against [Asian violence] but against [anti-Asian violence]. Sun8908 _Talk 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Just moved the page from "2021 anti-Asian violence rallies" to a (possibly-temporary) title of "2021 rallies against anti-Asian violence". No matter the result of this discussion, the title needed to be moved, kind of immediately. The previous title 100 PERCENT gave the incorrect impression that the rallies were "FOR anti-Asian violence" instead of the correct "AGAINST anti-Asian violence". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Casual search of both terms "Stop Asian Hate" and "Anti Asian Hate" seemed to show majority of the links as "Stop Asian Hate" which appears to be the dominant term used by CNN and many other media outlets ([1],[2],[3]) Most articles have quotes "Stop Asian Hate" even though I searched other terms.

• Example 1 "They held up signs that read "Stop Asian Hate," "I Am From Here," and "I Am Not a Virus," as they marched through the downtown area and gave speeches."
• Example 2 "Thousands march around Los Angeles as part of ‘Stop Asian Hate’ rallies across the country"

Another suggested title could be Rallies countering Asian and COVID-19 racism or something with COVID-19 as that appears to be the main theme of the protests. It's not just the violence, it's not just the "hate". But COVID-19 seems to be the recurring theme and the root cause (ie "China virus") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.146.180 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Move to Stop Asian Hate. Seems to be a clear title encompassing most of these. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Stop Asian Hate. Seems to be the most common name in news and social media. Albertaont (talk) 20:36, 8 April 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.

Article Suggestions

COMMENTS: Great article! The lead section gives a short but in-depth explanation of what the Stop Asian Hate movement consists of. The lead section sets up targets and the rest of the articles follows that progression and hits everything that was mentioned. Regarding the content, the last rally that occurred according to this article is around late March. I think more information could be included regarding the effects of these rallies and how the climate has changed in the last five months. With vaccines and the new Delta variant, it is interesting to see how this movement has changed. Another thing this article could improve on is the inclusion of the intersectionality between multiple identity groups. The article groups all Asian people together when this issue could be split even further depending on different socioeconomic, financial, and regional identities. The exploration of these different intersections could bring a unique perspective to this movement. This article does a great job of coming in from a neutral point of view. When referencing different perspectives of the same issue, the author clarifies that this certain viewpoint is one of hundreds. In addition, the article focuses most on the initial attack in Atlanta as well as COVID-19 statistics which contributes to a neutral perspective. Regarding the sources, they come from a variety of journals and research centers from all over the world. The writing of the article is very eloquent and concise and there are no grammatical errors. In addition, there is a great assortment of photos to help convey the message.

When looking at the talk page, the main thing that seems to be discussed is the name “Stop Asian Hate” as although this was a big term used during this period, some believe that it doesn’t encapsulate everything the movement was fighting for. However, in the end, many agree that this name is the one people recognize as it appears on most things.

In the end, this article is great and does a wonderful job summarizing the initial stages of the Stop Asian Hate movement. I think that if more recent information was included regarding how things have changed since the peak in late March would be helpful in allowing readers to see the effect of rallies and this movement.

Zachre Andrews (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible changes to article

This topic is of importance in today’s day and age because of the substantial increase in Asian hate crimes and Anti-Asian sentiments. The article is relatively new and underdeveloped; given the breadth of information available on it, it can be expanded. Some of the general language stands to be corrected, and detail can be added regarding the deeper history of this movement and Asian American hate in general. SageSab (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Bureau of Justice Statistics Figure

The addition of the paragraph on how these occurrences is a) not a new occurrence, b) not due to Trump being in office and c) not entirely due to covid originating from China are absolutely necessary as it gives context to these crimes. The BJS is a reliable source and these edits shouldn't be getting removed as they are based on fact 2600:1702:3591:3B50:6884:DA68:836:70AB (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources should come to such conclusion, and give such context. Wikipedia users doing such thing is considered original research, and against policy. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Figures and statistics can't make conclusions. They're numbers and need to be interpreted by the user. I can't believe I'm needing to explain this— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3591:3b50:6884:da68:836:70ab (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case you might have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually you shouldn't resort to personal attacks such as these, you should assume good faith of the editors and try to resolve discussions peacefully. It is really ridiculous how there is a clear political bias at play at some of these hot topics when there shouldn't be any. If you know what a Wikipedia is you should clearly distinguish between politics and neutral standpoints, this whole article is riddled with political propaganda at this point and that needs to be addressed if Wikipedia wishes to retain any credibility. JellyCreeper (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A Quote from Wikipedia's policy on consensus: "Editors who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". And their explanation of stonewalling: "Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view". This is exactly what is happening with this continual removal of factual statistics relevant to this topic. You are stonewalling and pushing a bias on Wikipedia by denying this info to be included. Statistics from the Bureau of Justice are not opinion. Consensus should need to be reached to have this info not be included in the article. UncleToaster (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing the paragraph from the article as there is clear lack of consensus. If the disruption continues I will ask for page protection. JellyCreeper and UncleToaster: please stop wikilawyering and casting aspersions. There was no personal attacks coming from Njd-de. The paragraph is highly opinionated and appears to be WP:OR, while one of the sources is an opinion piece, the other says "When victims were Asian, there were no statistically significant differences between the percentage of incidents in which the offender was perceived as Asian (24%), white (24%), or black (27%)." Isabelle ^🔔 02:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page on consensus states that unanimity is not needed for consensus, and it would seem that user:JellyCreeper, user:UncleToaster and myself are in favor for the addition of this information (from a reliable source that adds context to the page). Meanwhile it seems that user:IsabelleBelato and user:Njd-de are against valid facts being added to an encyclopedia. There is absolutely no reason for this to continually be removed as it cites reliable sources and the paragraph is only being used to give context to the figures. Lastly, while 24% and 27% percent are relatively close, 27% is still higher— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c760:1c50:6884:da68:836:70ab (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved the statistic to this article instead. X-Editor (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User:X-Editor now how do you expect consensus to be made when you're too obstinate to accept the fact that a government statistic on hate crimes is relevant to a page on hate crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C760:1C50:6884:DA68:836:70AB (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a great example of WP:SYNTH and why WP:SECONDARY is important. Editors may not cherry-pick a statistic and try extrapolate it's meaning or to advance a specific narrative (WP:POVPUSH). Myriad data issues aside, the source does not support any of the edit beyond the solitary statistic and the explicit statement of p>0.05 makes it clear this statistic cannot be used for inter-value comparisons on these nominal variables. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's clear to me that at this point that the users User:X-Editor (to a limited extent, as I believe this user to be the most reasonable), user:EvergreenFir and user:Isabelle_Belato are clearly biased from a simple user page review, and I question in good faith whether this is playing a part in their resistance to include factual statistical data without secondary sources, which as far as I am aware is completely allowed on Wikipedia. While I concede the point that infering conclusions from statistical numbers is a pointless exercise unless coming from a secondary source of notable reliability, upon further review of the sources presented in the article it appears the simple inclusion of the statistics runs contrary to some of the premises established from a number of sources of questionable reliability. This just proves the unreliable nature of some of these sources or studies and nothing else. I believe the minor addition of empirical statistics without drawing any conclusions is a more fitting exercise than stonewalling on the basis of political affiliation. Furthermore as to reply to user:Isabelle_Belato, you should really practice what you preach. While I only speak for myself, I haven't cast any aspersions or been guilty of wikilawyering during any of my short interactions here. The only thing that you could remotely associate to those things is my hyperbolic calling of the questionable data as "propaganda" (which if statements run contrary to empirical data is a reasonable assumption, nonetheless I apologize if it sounded childish to call it propaganda). while on the other hand your reply seems a clear case in point case which is accusatory in nature. I assume good faith discussion of course, however it is hard to do so when fingers are being pointed at you for the wrong reasons.JellyCreeper (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As Isabelle points out above, the paragraph is original research and is highly opinionated. One of the sources shows no significant statistic difference between races and the other is data from only one city, which isn't a large enough sample size to merit inclusion in the article. X-Editor (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, and I believe my point stands, call it wikiLawyering if you want but I'm at least attempting discussion, simply removing this content without a path forward, an attempt at compromise, or even acknowledging the arguments of the opposition is an abuse of power. So many individuals wouldn't be advocating for its inclusion if it has no relevance. You don't get to simply decide that this source is not reliable because it contains information that you don't want to be included. UncleToaster (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You can easily say "Anti-Asian crime rates are 27% committed by Africans, and 24% by Whites and Asians, which was considered as having "no statistically significant differences" by the U.S. Department of Justice.". If that stat is included, it would be written more like that, and at that point I'm not sure it's all that useful as a stat. Also, this would more accurately go in Racism in the United States, as this article documents an event that has been ongoing from 2021 to the present, and therefore is not covered by the source which dates from 2018. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Careful language. ""Anti-Asian crime rates in America are 27% committed by African Americans, and 24% by White Americans and Asian Americans". I'd be fine if it was added like that while "...which was considered as having no statistically significant differences" is an opinion piece (which is not neutral) and should be cited from a secondary source. The reason that it is important to add these words is because they are empirical verifiable statistics that inform and not arguments or opinions. These are important because they go against a standing narrative which is verifiably untrue, based on opinions and polls collected from questionable methods. Theses stats are genuine evidence that there is a false narrative going around that needs to be addressed, which is that "racism against Asian Americans related to the COVID-19 pandemic" is factual, when there is evidence either way.JellyCreeper (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@JellyCreeper: to the contrary, these statistics do not "go against a standing narrative which is verifiably untrue" and "empirical verifiable statistics" is a non-sequitur. The data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) are empirical, as are the data and resulting statistics from the "opinions and polls collected from questionable methods". But it would be ignorant to suggest the NCVS (or NIBRS for that matter) are somehow better than other crime data sources because there are no crime data sources that are "opinions and polls"'. Though, NCVS would be the closest as it is a self-report longitudinal data collection assessing the past 6 months in 4 waves with rolling cohorts. Moreover, and most damning, the data are general interpersonal crime data, not hate crime data (which is collected in NIBRS). Even when Steven Crowder edited this article with NIBRS data, he somehow thought that the race known offenders overall (which account for roughly 50% of reported hate crimes) mapped directly to when the victim is Asian. And most erroneous is your statement that "... 'having no statistically significant differences' is an opinion piece" because statistical significance is (wait for it) an empirical verifiable statistic. Either a inferential statistical test is significant (p<0.05) or it's not based on the sample size and standard error.

In short, you don't understand the data/statistics and are trying to make these cherry-picked statistics support a political narrative the data aren't even measuring. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, guys I just want to point out that the user, who made the original edit, Kkeeran is actually Steven Crowder. This link [4] shows Steven along with his sidekick making the edits on this page along with the full episode of them making a bunch of edits throughout here [5]. Crowder, or someone that works for him, is shown to be frequently editing his own page as well. Look at his contributions. And most likely the people who have been reverting are his fans after watching the video. Thinking Wikipedia is biased, and hates facts. Just laying it out there now that we know. Hydro-Molecular Dude (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: EvergreenFir (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I see you reverted my edit. The data added was from the US Department of Justice, published in an annual crime report. Are you saying this data is unreliable? Magnolia677 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: as I responded to JellyCreeper above, these data are not very useful in describing inter-race violence as they are self-report data on victimization and the perceived race of the offender. Importantly, they are not about hate crimes at all so they do not make any sense to include on Racism in the United States, Asian American activism#Background on discrimination and activism, or here. These are cheery picked-statistics about general violence. I further do not see any reason to highlight one table about inter-race offender when Table 12 would be a better summary of crimes against Asian folks overall (though, again, those data are not useful to this article). JellyCreeper (whom I responder to above) made it clear their motive for adding Table 14 data was to highlight some perceived hypocrisy and promote a racist narrative. For any editor, regardless of motive, to suggest that the data in Table 14 are somehow reflective of bias-motivated crimes is both incorrect and attempting WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the source itself says "When victims were Asian, there were no statistically significant differences between the percentage of incidents in which the offender was perceived as Asian (24%), white (24%), or black (27%)" so there's no reason whatsoever to highlight those data even if they were bias-motivated crimes. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The lead sentence doesn't mention "bias-motivated crimes", it mentions "violence targeting Asians and Asian Americans", and the text I added shows the rate of violence targeted against Asians, along with important demographic date about the offender. All the data comes from a single table published in the annual US Department of Justice report on criminal victimization. It would be difficult to find a more neutral and reliable source. Moreover, just because the offender population was evenly spread out is no reason to exclude information about it. The popular vote of some presidential elections have been so close that the differences are not statistically significant, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that the results should not be published for this reason. You mentioned on my talk page, "I find myself emotional about this topic". Friend, your feelings cannot determine the content of this article, and your attempt to discredit data presented in a source as neutral and reliable as this is disappointing. I'd like to avoid taking this one important edit to an RfC, so I'll ask you to please revert your edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is clearly about bias-motivated crimes (FBI speak for hate crimes) and racial discrimination, not general crime stats. There's no reason to have that information here as it's WP:SYNTH to include it as related to the article's topic. I will not revert my edit as this is the D in WP:BRD. Unless you can find an RS (WP:ONUS) saying those stats are somehow related to the topic of the article (hate crimes and racial discrimination), it does not belong here.

I do not have an issue with the BJS or its NCVS per se. I do get my academic jimmies rustled over this in part because I know how these data are collected and what they mean (and don't mean). I'm not trying to discredit them, rather I am demonstrating they are inappropriate to use for this topic. This is where having an advanced degree in a topic can be helpful to this project but frustrating... no fellow criminologist would use those data to suggest anything about hate crimes against Asian-Americans. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

These rallies are no longer ongoing, right?

As far as I can tell there haven't been any Stop Asian Hate rallies recently, so I think it's safe to say this is no longer an ongoing event. What should be put as the end date/timeframe of these rallies? TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

black on asian

are there sources for this? 97.124.254.211 (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradictions, consistency and confusion...

The article lists as ending in 2022 and yet deaths as late as last June are listed on the article directory tab. So, is SAH over or not? Maddox121 ForgotHisPassword (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)