Jump to content

Talk:China–United States trade war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 982: Line 982:
:That question is being resolved in the second round of debate above. [[User:Flaughtin|Flaughtin]] ([[User talk:Flaughtin|talk]]) 07:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:That question is being resolved in the second round of debate above. [[User:Flaughtin|Flaughtin]] ([[User talk:Flaughtin|talk]]) 07:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
::What is the source? The massive "rounds of debate" above are completely opaque to me. If there's no source, I am going to remove the information. -[[User:Thucydides411|Thucydides411]] ([[User talk:Thucydides411|talk]]) 09:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
::What is the source? The massive "rounds of debate" above are completely opaque to me. If there's no source, I am going to remove the information. -[[User:Thucydides411|Thucydides411]] ([[User talk:Thucydides411|talk]]) 09:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:::I have reverted that edit and will continue to do so should you edit war over this. As I said, the question is being resolved in the second round of debate (point 4) above. If those debates are opaque to you, then that really is your problem; [[WP:IDONTLIKETHEM|I can't be bothered to read it]] is not a reason to revert. The debates above were reached and are proceeding after hours of work that the other editor and I put in, and nobody is going to let you just jump the line because you feel entitled to. [[User:Flaughtin|Flaughtin]] ([[User talk:Flaughtin|talk]]) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


== Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section ==
== Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section ==

Revision as of 10:41, 11 August 2020

Rename Article to 2018 Gobal Trade War?

The Canadian tariffs on American goods have gone into effect, making the trade war go beyond the US and China. I don't know if or when the EU's tariffs on US goods will come into effect, but it's obvious this trade war is now a global one. Elishop (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the trade wars involving US and Canada/EU are different from the China-US trade war. We cannot rename 2018 China–United States trade war to cover all these trade wars until enough reliable sources call theses as a global trade war. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oppse,there is no trade war between the us and china.In fact ,the us and china are discussing all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganlihao (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing and contradictory as heck

A 25% tariff on soybeans is mentioned twice, the second time as "additional". Does this mean a 50% total tariff? Or has one tariff gotten mentioned twice?

Also, the lead talks about "intention to impose tariffs of US$50 billion", but later it talks about imposing a 25% tariff on $34b + $16b = $50 billion of goods. That would be a $12.5b tariff. Which is it?

And is that $50b for all time, i.e. the tariff expires after $50b? Or is that (pre-tariff) annual trade in the covered items, which would thus be an annual recurring thing? (But an overestimate as people change to alternate suppliers.)

This really needs untangling. I don't feel like researching it right now, but I definitely appreciate anyone who does. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Chronology of tariff events" should list when tariff rates came into effect, what the rates are, the amount of goods they cover, and possibly the type of goods. The current Chronology appears to be primarily a list of statements, accusations, and counter accusations. This doesn't say much about what the tariffs are. One possibly useful source is https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/05/13/business/13reuters-usa-trade-tariffs-factbox.html. 165.120.163.166 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Moved from User talk:Muboshgu § 2018 China–United States trade dispute
 – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone renamed this page to a trade dispute without discussion when all RS refer to it by the COMMONNAME of trade war. Please revert it back and add page protection until discussion reaches a different consensus. I cannot do it because a redirect is blocking me. Also the talk page still has a capitalized "Dispute"--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was done by an SPA [4] who came in just to do this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I just fixed the location of the talk page. Given the nature of this issue, I am not going to engage in a move war. It was at "dispute" when I posted it. I suggest a discussion on the talk page to decide between "dispute" vs. "war". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your predicament. Can you suggest a solution in the mean? How can we allow an SPA to POV move like this without discussion and block a revert page move like this?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm debating this. I see it was at "war" from June 15 until today. Perhaps I should move it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: After more consideration, the page name was stable for long enough that the move made today should be undone, so I have undone it. A move discussion could be beneficial to codify consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu and Coffeeandcrumbs: IMHO, either is fine. But I worry that "disputes" is a bit milquetoast, especially given the abrupt and unilateral beginning; it falsely implies that there was some meaningful discussion preceding the recourse to tariffs. (As an example of a dispute, softwood lumber has been a longstanding contentious issue between the U.S. and Canada.) Also, it's Trump's own word: "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." 209.209.238.189 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Please move this talk page as well. Thank you!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems MrX did so already. Odd it didn't move with the main page. I guess a side effect of the earlier page moves. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of {{fact}} in the leading sentence

Unknowingly someone has inserted two {{fact}}s into the leading sentence of the article without giving any rationale. Per MOS:LEADCITE, Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.. --123.161.170.212 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

Per the MOS, the correct date format should be m-d-y. And nearly all of the sources are from the U.S. --Light show (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing rationales for the tariffs

Outside of a few sentences in the lead about why the tariffs were imposed, the body really has almost nothing about the rationales behind them. What's given now in the main text are the tariff announcements followed by some market reactions. I suggest we try to fill that gap by citing, with reliable sources, some of the reasons either Trump, the administration, or others, have used to explain them. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose using "dispute" instead of "trade war"

Whether the article title should use a more neutral term like "dispute" instead of "trade war" should be considered. An article in today's South China Morning Post says that officials have instructed China's media to avoid using "trade war" in its headlines. Apparently, since the Chinese media is not as reliant on advertising, which uses sensationalism to attract readers, they can be instructed to tone down the words.

And reviewing statements by many business leaders and government officials, they, if anything, claim there is no trade war, and that it's a "dispute." That includes Trump and Peter Nafarro, who both claim the trade war was lost many years ago, and that there is no trade war. Same for Lighthizer, Mnuchin, Ross, and others mentioned in the article, who have not labeled it a trade war. Recent stories in the BBC, NBC, ABC, Reuters, SCMP, Nasdaq, UPI, CNBC, WSJ, CFR, NPR, and Bloomberg all use "trade dispute" in their headlines. So ---

Should the article title use the term "dispute" instead of "trade war"? Support --Light show (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly in favor of one term over the other, since the MSM obviously uses "trade war" in most headlines. But I'm aware that the MSM, as profit-making enterprises, will sensationalize stories when possible. And since "dispute" is neutral, and was used by all the sources I listed in their recent headlines, I thought the question was worth considering. I also thought that China's instructions to their own media to tone down the "war" aspect was relevant.
A bit off-topic, but I likewise took notice early last year after North Korea started testing missiles, that a number of UK papers (not U.S. papers) immediately began publishing multiple news stories with "World War 3" in their headlines (i.e., Express, The Sun, Daily Star, Mirror, Independent, etc.) So here's the U.S. dealing with NK, and our UK ally is turning it via headlines into a hot war. I mention this because for something as dangerous as international disputes, I really didn't appreciate seeing the media use sensational headlines to sell papers. I therefore think a neutral title is preferred for an encyclopedia. --Light show (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, generally speaking, I don't think that the word "dispute" is more neutral than "war". The two words can be neutrally used in different cases. It is not neutral to use "dispute" when "war" should be used (for example, it's not neutral to call "World War II" as "World Dispute II"). Secondly, IMHO, the scale of this trade conflict (or whatever we call it) makes it correct and appropriate to call it as a "trade war". Exclusively calling it just a "trade dispute" is not neutral and is just deferring to some political concerns. And I strongly disagree that the Chinese government's choice of words is more neutral or advisable than mainstream media's. But I don't want to spend my time on arguing which word is more neutral in this case and whether calling it a "trade war" is "sensationalizing stories" or just describing the fact as I think that the answers to these questions are just POV. What we should follow here is Wikipedia:Common name. "Trade dispute" was just used in all the sources you listed in their recent headlines, and what you listed were just a small part of those media's reports. It is "trade war" that is the common name, and should be used as the title of this article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not strongly leaning toward either term. But when you wrote, "I don't think that the word 'dispute' is more neutral than 'war,' I have to disagree. For instance, the CFR article gave a good summary for a non-MSM publication in their article titled "U.S.-China Trade Dispute." From the first paragraph: "The two largest economies in the world are exchanging threats of retaliatory tariffs, arousing concerns of a trade war and its repercussions... Speakers discuss the recent developments of additional tariffs, the implications of a possible trade war, and the impact on the future of U.S.-China relations." (emphasis added)
The point is that "trade war" is very often used looking ahead, as a future possibility. I see that in about half the articles using "trade war." The BBC's recent article is typical, "How a US-China trade war could hurt us all." Or CNBC: "While there is a concern that the trade dispute between the United States and China could escalate." Many headlines and stories using "trade war" often see it as a risk, not an absolute event, as today's headline in The Hill did: "EU presses China to open up economy, avoid trade war".
I think everyone agrees there is a trade "dispute," but they don't all consider it a "trade war." Even the Smoot–Hawley Tariffs, which imposed tariffs on 20,000 products, lasted for many years and was retaliated against, is not described as having been a "trade war." --Light show (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The CFR article you mentioned was published on June 26, while the tariffs actually started on July 6. So it's understandable that it called the trade war as "possible". The BBC's article that you described as "typical" was published on July 5, also one day before the tariffs began, but it already described the trade war as something that was happening ("US and China are at the beginning of a trade war"), not just a "future possibility". The future possibility that the article talks about is the effect of the trade war, not the trade war itself. And we don't need everyone to agree that this is a trade war. Wikipedia:Common name does not require that the article title should be accepted by everyone. What we need to see is which name is the common name, i.e., used by a significant majority of sources. And we should not presume that those sources using "trade war" agree that the phrase "trade war" they use can be appropriately replaced by "trade dispute". The two phrases are different concepts and, as I put above, can be neutrally used in different cases. It is not neutral to use "trade dispute" when "trade war" should be used. As for Smoot–Hawley Tariffs, the current version of article Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act even does not mention "trade dispute", but "trade war" is at least used by one of its references (McDonald, Judith; O'Brien, Anthony Patrick; Callahan, Colleen (1997), "Trade Wars: Canada's Reaction to the Smoot–Hawley Tariff", Journal of Economic History, 57 (4): 802–26, doi:10.1017/S0022050700019549, JSTOR 2951161). And by the way, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs are also described as having "inspired a trade war" by the BBC's article that you described as "typical" above. In short, it's quite another issue how article Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act should be edited. That article may not be the perfect model that this article should follow.--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The western media frequently calls it trade war all the time so "trade war" is the unofficial popular reference in at least the English-speaking media. Using "dispute" would just confuse nowadays. I have always heard "trade war" used the most. Plus even if it's not by definition a trade war, the popular reference to it is "trade war" and I would recommend keeping that as the title at minimum. Unless the media decides to call it differently. )

  • CommentAlthough "trade war" is more popular with the media, it is a quite an exaggeration. I guess that's how the media gets attention. The tension between the US and China is not yet to the point of "war" as far as I'm considered, given how both parties have put off tariffs and how negotiation have been put into place. I guess nowadays people are just used to these exaggeration. Escalate conflict to war is not really a good habit cause it exaggerate tension and confuse the public of the relation between those two nations. Viztor (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A "trade war" is a term for a distinct economic concept and its usage here is not simply sensationalizing a dispute between two countries. E.g., the first sentence of Wikipedia's own article on trade wars cites [5] and states "A trade war is an economic conflict resulting from extreme protectionism in which states raise or create tariffs or other trade barriers against each other in response to trade barriers created by the other party." Escalating tariffs (or other barriers to free trade) in an attempt to extract concessions from the opposing state(s) and/or protect domestic manufacturing is the literal definition of a trade war. It's not sensationalizing or spinning. It's a neutral, academic, term for a specific macroeconomic occurrence which is wholly applicable to the situation currently unfolding. Dawaegel (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it is because China uses the term "dispute", then keep the title used now since China has changed the name to "war" now. --Mariogoods (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This is a sterling case of a trade war, per the usual definition of the term. — JFG talk 09:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Theft" of intellectual property

The use of the term "theft" of intellectual property is misleading when it is being used by sources that don't show how it is being "stolen" in the first place. If a company signs a deal with China to give up their intellectual property in exchange for market access, how is that "theft" when the company is consensually doing it? No one is forcing them to give it away, they are willingly agreeing to it because they believe they will benefit overall from the deal. I propose that the word “theft” be at least enclosed in quotation marks when there are accusations of situations where no stealing is actually taking place. Hypertall (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article addresses your point: "For instance, the Chinese government likes to claim that it doesn’t “force” technology transfers to local firms; foreign companies do so voluntarily. That’s disingenuous: In certain sectors, such as automobiles, regulation has been designed to leave foreign companies little choice." In my opinion, putting "theft" in quotation marks goes too far in the direction of skepticism. How about "A number of experts have focused on China's alleged theft of intellectual property"? Λυδαcιτγ 06:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "acquisition of intellectual property" or "transfer of intellectual property"? Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there is some actual theft. For example, "One of the most recent high profile examples of theft of US intellectual property happened earlier this year. In January, a Beijing-based wind turbine company was found guilty in the US of stealing trade secrets, using secretly downloaded source code stolen from a Massachusetts company." The article goes on, "Total theft of US trade secrets accounts for anywhere from $180 billion to $540 billion per year, according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property -- as "the world's principal IP infringer," China accounts for the most of that theft." [6] CNBC just reports it as "China's alleged theft of intellectual property", which I think we should follow. Λυδαcιτγ 02:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to trump, trade deficits with china are considered outright theft as China gets the better deal. Theft can be identified in an emotional subjective nature. Is that the case here?? Technically every country engages in Corporate espionage "covertly" and that is theft. But to publicly ask people to sign tech transfers if they wish to do business in china. Is that considered theft?? The companies will still have to weigh the pros and cons, and considering many do sign while being reasonably aware of the costs. Obviously there need be some valuable incentive or postive tradeoff to actually motivate them in signing. The trade war is possibly also motivated by the anxiety of the recent rise of china and possibly overtaking the states. So the unfair or unequal advantage that china "officially" has, is going to be viewed bitterly with heated intolerance. But the world is composed of different laws via different jurisdictions and sovereign states. So the question here is whether tech transfers itself are considered "theft" via objective existing international basic laws. By international criteria, "theft" is usually defined with the absense of the consent of the owner. Similarly Fraud is defined as using deciet and pretense. Those transfers reasonably uses neither and hence they are not "theft", despite not being popular with external heated unilateral povs. However how would you call it? Theft is a coined term defined by hawkish politicians to highlight the unfair nature so if you call it "theft". Name and describe the source of the people regarding it as theft however you can't engage in calling it "theft" yourself as your opinion is not above international basic legal definitions. Stingrayintrasensory (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theft by its definition is non-consensual, and it's obviously an invention by President Trump because he's very very very intelligent person. Such practice may be called unfair or protectionism, but in no case fit in as theft in any dictionary.Viztor (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 China–United States trade war → 2018 China–United States trade dispute – The term "trade war" is possibly inaccurate. This nomination is procedural as there have been several discussions and moves but no WP:RM discussion; I am neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change Trade War to Trade Conflict(Title Change)

I believe that Trade War, should be changed to Trade Conflict,

A ¨War¨ indicates a https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war Armed conflict between countries. A conflict, what this situation is, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conflict?s=t, indicates that this is a conflict of interest between the United States, and China.

Siccsucc (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request correction for incorrectly attributed quote

I am a COI editor requesting a correction.

Under the section "Markets" there is a quote included from Brent Schutte, Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management. The quote originates from a MarketWatch article on 12/4 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-futures-drop-100-points-as-doubts-over-us-china-trade-deal-emerge-2018-12-04Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The first part of the quote is correct: On December 4, 2018, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined a near 600 points, to which some argue is in part due to the trade war.[155] Brent Schutte, the Chief Investment Strategist at Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company, stated, “The market is reassessing if anything tangible happened at the Trump-Xi dinner. The market wants news of concrete steps to lower tariffs, not just pronouncements."[155]

However, the entry then pulls a second quote that is actually from another individual.

Schutte claims that the trade war "underscores growth concerns" for investors, as they remain skeptical whether or not a trade resolution will be reached.

The "underscores growth concerns" should be attributed to Tom Essaye, president of the Sevens Report

"The major underlying story this morning is the yield curve as the 2's-10s spread compressed to new lows overnight (13bp) and the 2's-5's actually inverted," wrote Tom Essaye, president of the Sevens Report, in a Tuesday morning note to clients.

The movement in the bond markets "underscores growth concerns," for equity investors, he wrote. 

This can be seen in the original version of the MarketWatch story that was picked up by Morningstar

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/201812046306/market-snapshot-dow-sinks-200-points-as-us-china-trade-and-falling-10-year-yield-unnerve-investors.aspxCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Kosterberg (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background subsection off topic

The subsection under the Background heading, China as an autocratic market-distorting system, does not belong in this article, is off topic, and is is simply a general critique and comparison between U.S. Capitalism and Chinese Communism. This article is not about that.

The subsection gives no direct attribution to the subject of the article--the trade war--or even about tariffs. And a string of citations, some 7 years old, at the end of statements, essentially supports the problem, that those generalities have no direct connection to the current trade conflict. Which makes the subsection merely a synthesis, and is against guidelines.

I suggest that the entire sub-section be removed. Some of the citations may support some of the trade war issues elsewhere in the article, should anyone take the time to connect them. --Light show (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of trade disputes among countries in history. Why this last long and has different implications? Why State Secretary Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John R. Bolton, and NSC Senior Director for Asian Affairs Matthew Pottinger all participated in the December 1st trade negotiation with China? Why political leaders in the Congress address what you called "off topic" when talk and push for firm and further trade-related actions against China? If you don't know Peter Navarro's views in his works, how can you understand the White House National Trade Council Director's goals in this conflict? How can you understand what are the President and Vice President's intentions if you purposely bypass their important speeches on China amid the conflict? There are only 4 or 5 socialist/communist regimes left now, why Trump wasted several sentences to address this while specified the trade problems China caused in front of world leaders two months ago?
The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. It's obviously misleading if intentionally or unintentionally letting people think subtly that one-party China is functioning as same as democratic market-oriented countries like Mexico, Germany, Japan, Ireland, Italy, India, Canada who contributed much less trade deficit to U.S. The second and third paragraphs quote words of the main figures in this process and U.S official reports to address the problems mentioned in the first paragraph. They are all well-sourced compared with some other content in this article.
This is not a surface but a critical factor why and how China didn't follow the rules for such a long time and why U.S. can't but to take concrete actions now after two decades. Persons who really know the topic and political economy know this is actually the key and real issue. There are somethings the governments do but may not say it in an explict way due to all kinds of concern. But it doesn't mean they are less important or you cannot see them. This is not merely a "trade war" but a competition of two different economic and political systems of democratic market countries and the dictator communist regime while financial, industrial, and military competitions (VP Pence mentions President Ronald Reagan and defense budget in his special-China-focused speech two months ago) among others occur at the same time which we should not ignore. People lost the point from just an isolated perspective. Downgrading the real problems from bigger picture is not a honest way to record and comprehend the issue. It's simply incomplete if overlooks the true dynamics.
--Wildcursive (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations, but it's not your personal job to use an article about tariffs and a trade war to give us a history lesson about Chinese politics, its true dynamics, or its communist system. Doing so, makes the article less readable or useful, since too much of it is irrelevant.
That's obvious from some of your recent comments, like one above: The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. And your additions to the article which generalize about Chinese politics from Trump's UN speech, was not about the tariffs: Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone. In that speech he covered politics around the world. This article is about the tariffs and the current trade war, and shouldn't be used to tell us all the negative aspects about Chinese communism. So my opinion up top still stands, that most of your additions and old citations are off topic. Even if most people don't totally understand Chinese politics, this article is not a forum for an editor to educate us about it.--Light show (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without a direct link and citation of statements, whether true or not, to the current trade war or tariffs, they should be removed. Hopefully by you. Feel free to fix or add them back once the relevance issue is fixed. The long strings of cites added to the end of sections is not the way to cite facts: On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it.--Light show (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let the readers understand the topic with reliable and professional sources certainly contributes useful information for Wikipedia. This pattern/style or "Background" section can be seen in most other articles. I see no reason to cover for a rogue regime or not to reveal all kinds of truth. U.S. punishment/retaliation is not occurring in a vacuum or suddenly occurs this year. So many experts with personal articles on Wikipedia have argued or provided evidences that U.S. trade policy toward China is not only about trade. I am sorry to ask why you think yourself is more important or authoritative than them and can remove all these information which surely fit the article title/topic? The readers of different backgrounds can judge themselves. I will continue to work on this article. --Wildcursive (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a relevant background section, Sources and rationales for the tariffs. Your "background" section is a short essay about the history of China's politics and economics, which is off topic, and belongs in other more relevant articles. --Light show (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, I've refined the section and will continue to work on the article.
In fact, the subtitle "Sources of Conflicts" was what I changed from the original somewhat strange "Trade grievances" for the now "Background" section. It's not difficult to rename or restructure the paragraphs. The key point is why you think you are the only capable or knowledgeable person to define the scope?
There are many shown on the article support the current article structure while you cannot cite/auote any important person or media to support your own way that this trade war is merely about trade. If this is only a trade issue, it should have been solved by USTR alone long time ago and as easy as from NAFTA to USMCA. The democratic-elected Congress play an important role in U.S. side and the one-party dictator regime doesn't have any organization like U.S. Congress, isn't it politics?
"Production" and "Market" are two main issues in economy which interact with politics in different ways in different systems. If you totally ignore factors concerning party control and market distortion, you certainly don't know how economy and trade work in China. The background section tries accurately capturing where the anger and fear came from and explaining American's minset now.
--Wildcursive (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The China as an party-controlled market-distorting system Structure of China's political economy system is off topic, and is soapboxing. It should be removed entirely. STSC (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The section is wholy relevant. it explains the ideological (in other word cultural, political cultural) reason that make this trade "war" totally different than usa trade "war" with canada and mexico AND european union (you may also say japan too). aside from being arguably most important reason for the trade war it is also the section that comes cloossest in ENTIRE article to address the ideological issue. So the basic idea by @Wildcursive: is right. Integration of this material into source and rationale for tariff section does not work caus is does not deal direct with tariff issue. That said i think we can all hav e agreement some of the titles are too peacock and just inflllamatory. I would suggest using more neutral heading like "Ideological reason"or "difference in political culture" or something like that. Just start off by saying "China as an party-controlled market-distorting system" is too much. Waskerton (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per Wildcursive's rationale above, The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. And per Waskerton's rationale, The section is wholly relevant. it explains the ideological (in other word cultural, political cultural) reason that make this trade "war."
But since this article is about a current event, the 2018 Trade War, both of those rationales are opinions about other stuff, such as "China's system," and "ideological, cultural, and political" historical background, which are way off topic. As such they go against the purpose of WP, which should avoid "essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." And the section gets too close to straight propaganda, ie., stating facts "used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception ..." So I agree with User STSC, that since WP should not engage in soapboxing, regardless of the truth of any facts cited, that section doesn't belong. --Light show (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Light show: @Wildcursive:@STSC:
    • User Light show Your reasoning make no sense. So what if the article is about current events it does not mean there cannot be a background section (if that is what you are saying). You will also notice the section is well source by notable people with wiki articles for each of them which means it is not essay-like. if there is statement you think is to peacock then we can take those out but you do not say just take out the whole section. Which is also the same thing that happen for the other background section, but funnily enough you do not make a fusss about them but only choose to focus all your attention on this one section that talks about the ideology, culture or whatever you want to call it. Why the double standard? Finally i have revert your inclusion of the off topic tag. I explained as part of edit summary but you did not read it (maybe you chose not to read it) but for any case I will repeat again: i will ask that you do not include back the tag into article as the priorversion for this article before your edit warring on this did NOT have this tag. I respectfully ask you observe this or i will be force to take you to administrator incide noticeboard if you do a few more of you putting the tag back in. Waskerton (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Waskerton and I obviously and strongly disagree with you. You never answer and may actually unable to answer all the questions I raised above. I believe most readers have different judgement from you. -- Wildcursive (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes. this whole request for deletion actually sound like POV to me try to hide underlying issue for fear of exposing the rational reasons (if they exist) to has for it to happen. I reallly cannot understand why the other background paragraph are EXACTLY like this one but nobody care about it. It is only this one that get people all excited with nonsense talk of "propaganda" and "soapbox". if this is an attempt to suppress another view just because one does not have a good view FOR it, then it is just a terrible tactic. Waskerton (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insult the readers' intelligence, there's outright soapboxing and OR content in that section. STSC (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @STSC: @Wildcursive:
    • Nobody is insult the intelligence of anyone we are saying you must be an idiot to want what you want which is to delete ENTIRE section. I repeat again because it is obvious you did not read what i say if there is OR or soapbox then you delete that content not do a whole mass deletion of the paragraph. I have also undone your massive revert (purge) of the section ([7] and [8]) DISCUSS this first lots of the materiall you removed is well source and actually IN the source. this is not like a video game you eliminate a bunch of things and pretend there are 0 consequences. i have notifiied Wildcursive as he is the user who put most of material you took out and involve him in this convo to see what can be done about consensus over the content. Waskerton (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per above, this section is off-topic and biased. For one, the content belongs in a separate article documenting economic policy. Also, @Waskerton: The background section tries accurately capturing where the anger and fear came from and explaining American's minset now., if we additionally choose to document propaganda, it needs to be WP:NPOV. Wakari07 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment @Wakari07: firstly this t is example of wikhounding as i have clashed with you on other pages and i will report you to ani if you remove any material in concened pharagraph on basis of his votestack attempt. there is no way you would found your way on this vote except for my involvvemnet here when you basicaly everything you do is just edit on portal news. As for your hysterical, fkae "arguments": firstly as has been main point of the paragraph is not economic so your advice of put the material in separate article about economic policy make 0 sense. And as for "propaganda" you should note it was not made by my the material was not writen by me. And in any case they are all attribute with good sourcing to notable figures all with wiki article...pretty much like how every article in wikipedia si written. Waskerton (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Waskerton account was created on 16 August 2018 and it has involved many edit wars. It looks like a sock to me. STSC (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Whether section about China's general politics and economy belong

Does the sub-section under Background, titled Structure of China's political economy system, belong in this article? --Light show (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No: It is an off-topic commentary by one editor. The consensus shown above is against including someone's summary and opinion about a massive subject such as this, even if it fit the topic of the article. And because all of it is simply a multi, over-cited critique about China's policies, it clearly goes against NPOV in any case.--Light show (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of liu he and other photos

@Tobby72: Per your edit wars here and here for the liu he photo i have removed the liu he AND your photos you includ here until an agreeement on this can be occurred. Per brd do not restore ANY of this material till we discuss this or i take you to administrator incident place for edit war on this article and the other ones (Miao Wei, Canada china relations and Wilbur Ross). Waskerton (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted since I see no argument here to remove these relevant and informative additions. Wakari07 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tobby72 hasn't responded and you have not made arguments to KEEP the additions either. discuss here first Waskerton (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Waskerton: I agree with @Wakari07:, no reasonable argument, just your threats and intimidation. My additions are relevant and the CONSENSUS is against you, Waskerton. Also beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No intimidation by me and bad example of consensus here as wakari07 has clashed on other pages before. Making this as result example of vote stacking. Waskerton (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are wikihounding by reverting my edits, Waskerton — diff, diff, diff, diff. On your edit: also read Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:OWNER. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are wikihounding more ([15]). more of that and we go to ani Waskerton (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Waskerton: more threat and still no argument. Wakari07 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable sources

I have added unreliable source tags to the en84.com and xifeizaixian.com which are currently contained in this version of the article. There are other sources that can be used to state the position of the PRC government's position in the relevant places, but these two sources clearly don't apply. Barring any discussion on these sources i will be removing them per Wikipedia:Consensus. Flickotown (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to China–United States trade war?

China–United States trade war is currently a blank page. This should be the first trade war between PRC & USA. Therefore, this can be renamed to China–United States trade war until second trade war happens in the future. --Kowlooner (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - @Kowlooner: The parenthesis "(2018–present)" in the title is unneccessary. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I moved China–United States trade war (2018–present) to China–United States trade war. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so, what the excuses are?

original text: 

== 基本没提到中国的反应。 ==
nearly all of the sources are from the U.S. 如果你们想了解中国民间的反应，here: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018年中美贸易争端 (User talk:观赏植物) 14:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flickotown: you said "removed this as google translate indicates that this is an ethnonationalist qua racialist/borderline racist recommendation. Clear violation of WP:NOTHERE"

literal translation

"基本没提到中国的反应" ≈ "nearly Nothing in China's reaction/statement"

"如果你们想了解中国民间的反应，" ≈ "If you want to know the reaction/statement of China social,"

“2018年中美贸易争端”= This entry（zh.wikipedia version）

Tell me, where the racist was？I am curious.观赏植物 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the 50 cents party link?

Is it even relevant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.64 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Reads like a U.S policy briefing

This article is shockingly biased in that its only purpose seems to be to justify and support the U.S position rather than give a real and impartial insight into what is happening. The entire piece serves to give credence to the U.S position alone even when some of these claims are obviously politically motivated or biased, utilizing sinophobic discourses than actual empirical facts. For example, look how it is even using quotes from Steve Bannon to prop up the piece! It's just one gigantic attack on China's political system and economic structure. There's no middle ground here.--180.233.216.226 (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you expect on Wikipedia? American newspapers are treated as divine (read "reliable sources") here. Most American editors (in the same way as most Americans) have unshakable belief over the reliability of their media. So, just accept that and move on. Don't start an edit war or something. You'll end up wasting your time. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I read through it, it's much much worse than even I initially suspected. Just wow. Grew up in Vietnam. We had propaganda but nobody ever believed it. But the US is like a cult or something. Now, I'm more determined than ever that I won't get involved. It will be 100 times worse than arguing with missionaries that God doesn't exist. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with it, create an account and do it yourself. That’s the beauty of the free encyclopedia. Trillfendi (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it will get reverted in an instant and we'll get bogged down into brutal edit wars, which I presume you mean is the "beauty" of the "free" encyclopedia. 192.68.112.171 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory isn't wrong, realiable source are not only existing in the US. Also, China's state-run media could be used as primary source for exposing China's view per the source policy.--Mariogoods (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

videos to migrate?

Bunch of videos from VOA here on the topic that may be PD: https://www.youtube.com/user/VOAvideo/search?query=trade+war Victor Grigas (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States or Trump administration?

With this edit,[16] Lmatt replaced "the Trump administration" with "the United States" when describing in the lead section this administration's legal justification for imposing tariffs. I believe that "Trump administration" is more accurate, as this part of the text does not discuss trade disputes with China under prior U.S. administrations. Accordingly, I reverted,[17] but Lmatt restored their version without comment.[18] Per WP:BRD, a discussion is required. — JFG talk 00:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an additional edit to replace "the United States" with "the president of the United States, Donald Trump" for greater clarity and accuracy. Lmatt (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda piece for the Trump administration.

I'm really surprised to see how this whole article turn out to be this blatantly one-sided. This reads like a war propaganda piece. No pluralism, no dissenting opinions, no analysis on the technical or economical impacts of the trade war, it's just pure rhetoric and actual directives from the Trump government to the American farmers and consumers about how they should've behaved. It's sad how the editors don't even bother to pretend to be encyclopedic. I'm fairly certain that no side will win in a trade war, but clearly the Trump MAGA nation has won the editing war of this article. --Aceus0shrifter (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify as an attack page? Yes, it's only purpose is to disparage its subject, China. The pro-U.S. bias is way too obvious, to the point that I think this article needs to be chucked and started again from scratch. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article (in the same way you proudly display your POV on your talk page) and we will go from there. It is clear that nobody is stopping you from doing so, or if there is, then you have obviously found a way to get around it. Doing anything else is just a shitty, mediocre attempt at buck passing: this main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so I'm going to complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else will do it. Syopsis (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on restarting article from scratch due to subversion of the neutral point of view (NPOV)

The article's state at the start of the RfC was this. The current state of the article is this.

The consensus is that the state of the article at the start of the RfC was biased towards the pro-tariffs position. There is no consensus to restart the article from scratch, particularly since the current state of the article has changed significantly from the earlier state.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

This is effectively an attack page. Its only purpose is to disparage its subject (China) by presenting the topic with a significant pro-U.S. slant, to the extent that it reads more like sinophobic propaganda rather than neutral encyclopedic content. I have no explicit views on the matter, but this article really wants me to support the Trump administration. That is not what Wikipedia articles are intended to be.

I had cold feet on actually nominating this for speedy deletion as an attack page, but then I realized that might be considered WP:POINTy (since usually a G10 is used for actual libel. I have not seen it applied to any article whose content has reached a point that it is effectively a biased attack against one of its subjects—person, corporate person, nation, or not). I think this article, at this rate, needs to be restarted and rewritten neutrally from the start, so that we can present objective information without bias on this crucial trade dispute. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shut this pseudo-intellectualized, tryhard RFC down with prejudice. Asi said above this RFC is just another iteration of a shitty, mediocre attempt at buck passing: the main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so i am going to take the short cut and rewrite it completely so it fits into my point-of-view/bias. I should also say I find it curious that the writing by the requester is suspiciously similar to the what the IP user 180.233.216.226 wrote in the This Article Reads like a U.S policy briefing section above (key words: sinophobic, attack); perhaps this RFC is part of a larger attempt to garner the impression that there is more opposition than there really is to what's currently in the articles. Notify User:Neo-Jay and User:Wildcursive of this RFC whoo would have direct interest in this as they have made the most contributions to this (talk page) article. Syopsis (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This RFC may be too much, but you should not deny that the majority of this article are composed of views by American, if not Trump-related, politician and/or their associates, it is just way too obvious. BTW, when talking about POV, it's not just about taking all perspectives in the US, especially when this article is talking about United States AND China, not US alone. Viztor (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Syopsis: Actually, no. I just happened to agree with the fact that this article feels like a right-wing puff piece rather than actually being neutral and encyclopedic. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: There is no "right-wing" (or "left-wing") or fact about anything. The issue here is you just don't like that this article doesn't fit your point of view but you can't be bothered to change it the right way, so you initiated this RFC in a desperate attempt to short circuit the whole process. It's pretty simple if you hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article - nobody is stopping you from doing this. But please stop pretending you are the victim here or occupy some kind of moral high ground just because you don't care enough to put in the necessary effort to get the changes you want to see happen on the article. Syopsis (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't a lack of a certain POV, it's that there's too much in this article that appeals to the Trump POV. It just needs to be trimmed down to focus on just facts. Less spin. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: Nobody is stopping you from doing it - just don't be surprised if other people take issue with it. As somebody who has made 50k edits on this encyclopedia this is something you should know by now. By the way you can forget about making changes like this and this - doing that will most likely just get you reported. I would suggest that you discuss your changes here on this talk page first, but of course you are free to ignore it and edit war as you please. Syopsis (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Feedback Request Service legobot sent me. This article is absolutely terrible. The "Reactions" section is almost entirely pro-tariffs, omitting the far more prevalent opposition to them in Congress and among economists, commentators, and those adversely affected by them. I've hardly ever seen any article so blatantly biased and unbalanced. However, having said that, I doubt deletion (speedy or otherwise) is anywhere near as good an alternative as correcting it by including the mainstream point of view, which should not be particularly difficult. I suggest that those concerned with the article's bias work on balancing it instead of deleting it. EllenCT (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Summoned by bot. Indeed this is somewhat biased, in terms of what is highlighted, and even with the chosen phrasing. It was also full of grammar issues and typos but I fixed some of it. I also added a sentence about the ineffectiveness of the tariffs to the lede, to balance things out. I also think it's fixable rather than needing to be blown up. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (invited by the bot) First, an RFC that says "restart the article from scratch" for a large and highly developed article has to be seen as more of a rant than a serious proposal. So, No to the RFC. Now, regarding bias. The general reality is that China is doing a lot of stuff widely considered to be unfair at best, and the trade war is an attempt to change that. So, so some extent, "reality has an anti-China bias" :-) and NPOV coverage is going to reflect that. On the topic of reaction at home in the US, while attempts at balance are clear, it does seem to lean a bit towards picking quotes etc. that make the case for the US & administration's actions tarriffs and to show domestic US support for US actions. In short, a bit biased there. But more to say "just the facts" North8000 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restart with a vengeance, as I agree that the article is so slanted and NPOV, one noble editor trying to unravel the mess is a waste of time. WP:TNT and start from the most reliable bare bones sources. To disclose my own viewpoint, I am a non-partisan American who frequently reads diverse mainstream perspectives on American politics - CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NYT, South China Morning Press, AP, Politico, Reuters, etc., enough to have a global perspective on this, and despite the varied sourcing, this article wwaaaaay prioritizes conservative viewpoints held by American outlets. Also, what are crappy sources like MarketWatch doing on such a delicate international topic? It's embarrassing, frankly. This is a classic example of American bias, likely resulting from the fact that most active editors are American. And such biases have no place in an encyclopedia of repute, so burn this page down, and hopefully a thoughtful and diverse group of interested volunteers can scrutinize all new content carefully for undue weight. For example, there are far too many quotes, giving undue weight to particular politicians' viewpoints. Thousands upon thousands of politicians go on about this topic, so why just those few, and why so much space devoted to them? As is, it seems that editors are cherrypicking quotes in order to use this article as a personal coatrack. 68.129.252.188 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restart (via FRS) - This is too heavily focused on the American perspective and even then, absurdly pro-tariff. Otherwise, I agree with EllenCT. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Reverting to a version POV biased is not ok.

restoring to a version with no substantial arguments besides accusations is not ok. the person make those edits need to take the responsibility of discussion, instead of keep reverting to the version he prefers. Viztor (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing-Request for increased security

Hi there.This page seems to be moving towards a more biased level editing and needs to have extra security to these pages,so that wikipedia remains factual and not with redundant information that potrays a certain point.I request the admin of this page to increase the security measure for this page as soon possible,to prevent any further unconstructive editing that needs constant monitoring.Thank you.
hari147 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The article should not use the war infobox, since it's not a military conflict. Benjamin (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed as per this discussion. An acutal military infobox with words like "commanders" is utterly offtopic. --Loginnigol 15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Article concerns

Even with the recent cuts, the article is still too long. Should we consider splitting off China–United States trade war#Chronology? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Firstly can you please explain why you put in the globalize tag and the the Trump and Xi sidebars and that unverified statement. Those edits just didn't make any sense. Syopsis (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: First, full disclosure: Viztor mentioned this article up on WP:Discord, and that was what brought it to my attention. I think it is only fair that you know that. Secondly, the sidebar is for navigational purposes, but it's fine that you deleted I guess. It's merely cosmetic. However, the tag should stay. It rather clearly portrays a very US-focused view of the situation (not let's say... Mexico nor Japan or any other unrelated country for that matter). Please let another uninvolved editor remove the tag once the concern is sufficiently address. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Since it's a partial revert, I'll let it go. That said, since I obviously disagree with it, I respectfully ask that we try to work this out between us first before we escalate the situation any further. Please explain why you think the tag should stay. Syopsis (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: [Thank you for the ping] It almost doesn't mention any country besides China and the United States (despite the EU and Japan having a rather significant reaction). Almost all the sources are from American media. Other than that, the article puts undue weight towards political considerations in the United States. Finally, there is not a single mention is made in the reaction section from the Chinese side of this dispute. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Then put the tag in the reactions section - why does it need to apply to the whole article? As for your other arguments: why should it even mention other countries? It's a trade war between THE TWO COUNTRIES. The sources are mainly from America - so what? Syopsis (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: In no particular order: It's a dispute between two of the largest economic powers in the world. Other countries have a very vested interest in the outcome of this dispute. Therefore, this article (like all articles on Wikipedia) should take care to put it into a global context and perspective. THe problem with having too many American sources is that it leads to biased coverage (in this case, a pro-USA POV). Finally, I do think the problem extends to the entire article. It entirely focuses too heavily on American political and economic consideration and nothing of the 100+ countries sitting on the sidelines for this dispute (all of whom have their own independent media we can source from). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning, uses bad information and overall just trades on a bad attitude which just leads to all kinds of shitty consequences. It is just a pseudo-intellectual, desperate attempt to rationalize discrimination - it's wrong to devalue a person's opinion based on race or ethnicity but somehow we are supposed to be okay if we start doing it by nationality/geography. Really? I could understand if it went the other way because Mainland China doesn't have a free press, but even then...it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling. And about your specific argument that we should take the views of other countries into account - where is it going to end? Are we going to include the reactions of all the countries on Earth? If we are going to include the EU and Japan's views (as you suggested above), are you going to complain if it leads to more "bias"? I will also make the general remark that ive said above which is that what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing: this main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so I'm going to just take the short route, slap a tag on the article and then complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else will do it. What precisely you are proposing? Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Syopsis and MJL: I agree that the article should have a global perspective, in order to avoid a partisan tone and to reflect what is at stake for the global economy. Particularly because the United States is one of the two major parties to the trade war, it would be inappropriate to rely too heavily on US sources, since this will naturally unbalance the article.

That said, it certainly is possible to represent at least some portion of the Chinese perspective using US sources. Second, it seems to me as though many of the deletions from the lead are unwarranted. At this point, beginning by reading the lead, I have really no idea what this this dispute is about. It shouldn't be so hard to represent both Chinese and American viewpoints in the lead.

One thing that would help, I think, is historical background at the onset of the article. This would help explain China's particular regulations regarding foreign investment and economic partnership. This section could also describe China's rapid economic growth and the prospect that the Chinese economy will surpass the American, something which is obviously contributing strongly to the trade war. -Darouet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: I have to say at the outset that it should be noted you really aren't in any position to be complaining about "partisan tone," natural balance or whatever given your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias as the other person who filed the meaningless RFC request above did. As i said above to MJL I don't buy the whole "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling and really just code for "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." As for your comments/specific suggestions: the lead removals are totally warranted the information that was there either could have went into/was already in the body of the article or just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing, much like what your proposal for about the "historical background" would lead to (which is already kind of there and at any rate has already been tried in the way you want...and ended up as a complete clusterfuck) Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: The removal of stuff from the lead wasn't me. In fact, all of my changes were reverted except for the tag which is what we are currently discussing. This is why I am... confused by Syopsis saying [The arguement behind my tag is]... "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." considering I did make changes that I felt at least helped. The only thing left from edits is the tag, and I sure am not going to start arguing for individual changes to an article when we can't even agree whether or not needs fixing. On a separate note to Syopsis, you should really avoid making the ad hominem personal attacks against Darouet like you just did in the beginning. Further, you never really had consensus to cut the historical background section, so I ask you please note that fact when saying it ended up as a complete [expletive]. Now, can we get back onto track here? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: It's not a personal attack, I was just stating a fact. That person has strong, partisan view on things and edits accordingly; it's pretty obvious if you look at the editing record. If it makes you feel better, I happen to think that applies to every user on Wikipedia - we all edit from a strong point of view. The difference is I am not the one trying to play both sides: talking about avoiding partisanship while editing partisanly. And yes, I stand by what i said about the "historical background" (what ever that even refers/referred to) - it was a complete clusterfuck. You had people cramming in totally irrelevant, blog-type, cherry-picked information in background section, followed by an alphabet soup of point-of-view, worded titles (also littered with blog-type, cherry-picked information, sometimes splattered with large chunks of irrelevant material) and concluded by stand alone paragraphs that had no reason to even be stand alone paragraphs in the first place. Much inferior to the background section in the current version of the article - you can pretty much find all the background info to the trade war there.
But moving on. What exactly is it that you even want to see changed in the article? All you have done is complain about the biasedness of the article with absolutely terrible reasons (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) while giving me zero ideas on what your solution even is. the only (proper) description for that kind of attitude is (you guessed) "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am slap (or restore) a tag and complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." Syopsis (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: [Thank you for the ping] First, I have never subscribed to the WP:STRAIGHT/WP:POLE philosophy that everyone has a POV and compromise somehow brings us closer to neutrality or something. I'm not trying to ascribe words to you that you did not author, but that's why I don't think it's fine to call someone else a partisan nor imply they are a hypocrite because of the fact. Whatever, I guess. I really don't want to argue conduct on a content talk page because that's not what this namespace is for. Let me just put this in perspective. The following editors have said as recently as 27 May 2019 that this article definitely as some' bias towards the US: ViperSnake151, Viztor, EllenCT, Timtempleton, myself, and now Darouet (actually, I am wrong here because in fact there are more editors who have said as such, but I digress). You are quite literally the only one recently defending this ludicrous idea that the article isn't biased. I proposed specific, concrete, changes I would like to have been able to make that you dismissed as silly (ie, that all the major players in line with reliable sourcing be included, that more sourcing come from outside the western hemisphere, and introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative). If that sounds like mindless complaining, I'm sorry. My first gosh dang idea was to split off Chronology section into its own article to cut down on length, but I guess that doesn't matter. I couldn't even tag this article without having to write a paragraph in defense of it (much less make content related edits). I would be more than happy to help make more specific changes if I wasn't spending most of my emotional energy trying to defend that single note which so perplexes you as to warrant this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: It seems you have a hard time reading so I will make it easier. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? You haven't proposed anything speciic, I've asked you three times now, all I have gotten is just non-answers. You started with the sources are all from the US, I challenged you on that so-called argument (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) and you responded by not only refusing to answer, but now you have introduced some more nonsensical arguments - "introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative" (we already have tons of this). Syopsis (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: Okay, we're yelling now. Here on User:MJL/sandbox6 I have bundled every single source that is used to convey the single point that China steals technology in the United States. I counted 23 different sources used to convey this single point where only maybe a few are used to detail it with things like US economic costs or a person reacting to something. What concerns me the most about this list is several are completely unrelated to the trade dispute. I cannot find a single shred of logical reasoning (1) this many sources are need for this one point (2) why a 2010 Bloomberg article by Andy Grove about American job loss to China is super-duper relevant to this international trade dispute, and (3) why we are citing material about unrelated events like this. What WP:RS said that a downed F-117 Nighthawk in Serbia was so relevant to 2019 world politics that it's being included in this gosh forsaken article??? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: 1) Talk to User:Wildcursive, he is the one who added most if not all the material. 2) Actually we still have not solved problem #1 which is the "global" tag that you restored. Why do we even need it? Nothing else matters until we solve that point because (surprise surprise) that is the first thing that we disagreed on. Syopsis (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: It's irrelevant who wrote the article. The discussion here is on article content and gaining consensus on steps forward. The tag does nothing but signify an ongoing discussion on how to improve the article to address these concerns. It should be pretty clear that this isn't some WP:DRIVEBYTAG. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive. That is irrelevant. i am asking why YOU did what you did since YOU restored it. Why do we need the tag? t's a pretty simple question.. I don't know why you are trying so hard to dodge answering it. Syopsis (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: We need a tag to signify that the article can be improved to other editors and our readers. Without a tag, readers might think that this article meets our standards even though it doesn't. I'm really not dodging the question. I don't know how many ways I can repeat that the article does not have a geographically diverse sources and thus skews in a American-centric view of the subject. You are welcome to subjectively disagree with that premise, but don't expect me to change my mind because it isn't a good enough answer for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral", perhaps he is right, there is no neutrality in its strict definition, however, when we are debating neutrality, it is defined the way wikipedia defines it, take proportionally from reliable sources, that is not that hard. Yeah, we would love our articles to be not so heavy-tasted towards one-side. Yeah we are only as neutral as our sources, and all we are trying to do is to make sure it proportionally represent views of reliable sources. That's it, if you don't like it, convince the sources, don't try to convince us, that's not how it works. Saying that is like saying those who try to do what is it right because they like it, of course, but so what? Viztor (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor: statements like these are counterproductive to discussion and article improvement, are inappropriate for an editorial board (which is what talk pages are), and are against Wikipedia policy:

"...your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

and

"He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral"..."

I don't know any of you, I don't believe we've interacted before, and I'm not even 100% sure I know what my "POV" is here. Instead, I've made three concrete proposals for article improvement: that we

  1. increase the background section,
  2. have a lead that describes both Chinese and American government positions, and
  3. that we use international news sources — including American, Chinese, and everything else — as much as possible.

@Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor: Do you agree or disagree with these points, and if you disagree, why? If you agree, do you have suggestions, caveats or concerns for implementation? -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: He keeps repeating the same point to everyone that we can never make it neutral and we're just trying to insert our own POV therefore it better stays the way it is, that's what I would call nihilism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing and I already explained in the same paragraph. #3 is what we've all been saying for quite a long time, of course I would agree.Viztor (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor and Darouet: Let's take that part of the dispute onto my talk page. Darouet, to answer your questions: Yes, yes, and yes. Let's do those things! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Why does it even matter what country the sources are from? How is that not discrimination (and would therefore run afoul of a whole bunch of Wikipedia guidelines?) Syopsis (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: I don't need to have interacted with you before to know that you have strong, partisan view on things and edit accordingly I can do that just by looking at your editing record. The point i made was pretty simple obviously it's your right to make suggestions so that the article fits according to your point-of-view but let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position (as you did above). I don't know why you and that other user are making such a massive controversy out of this, I am just stating facts. As for your specific suggestions: #1 - there is sufficient information in the background already especially when you compare it to what was there before (blog-type, cherry-picked information, sometimes splattered with large chunks of irrelevant material). #2 - it waas tried already and it turned into a complete clusterfuck. I would know because i was the one who removed the trash that was there. #3 - we have already there are lots of international news sources. Syopsis (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In act of good faith, I stroke the aforementioned well-intended comment that suggest we move on and hope consensus could be reached through well-intended conversations, with the interest of building a better encyclopedia in mind. Viztor (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Syopsis: above you write,

"let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position."

What is my partisan position, and why isn't it neutral? -Darouet (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: it's fairly obvious from your edits on the Venezuela-related pages (especially the ones concerning Guaido). And that's just for starters. I am not going to be naming names and get all specific because I really am not interested in wasting my time on a conversation that is going to go nowhere. The point is this, I repeat you have a strong, partisan view on things and you edit accordingly. If it makes you feel better, I happen to think that applies to every user on Wikipedia - myself included. We all edit from a strong point of view. Fine if you do that, just don't expect people to not get irritated when you then start talking romantically about avoiding partisanship and that kind of stuff. I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of this. All i am doing is just stating facts. This isn't me assuming bad faith (aka opposite of WP:AAGF) on your part by the way; you made concrete proposals and i actually gave you my feedback. Please stop dragging this out longer than it should. And on another note, i would ask that you please stop interacting me (per this) until after I sort out my disputes with @MJL:. I really do not have the time to be spending hours responding to comments on Wikipedia...as i am sure is the same with you and the other user. Syopsis (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find the time to accuse another editor of making "partisan" edits, you need to be willing to "get all specific." The OED defines someone who is partisan as "supporting a cause, party zealously..." and who is "one-sided, prejudiced." You have accused me of being a partisan here, but have not explained and (I still have no idea) how you consider my edits or proposals here and on this page to be "partisan." What cause or party am I zealously supporting? What is my specific prejudice, here on this page, that you are referencing? -Darouet (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: This really has become a conduct dispute and is why I have opened up this thread on ANI. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of you summarize this content dispute? Benjamin (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing new, Syopsis believe the globalize tag should be removed, while some others believe this article use too many and cherry-picked US sources. Viztor (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, instead of discussing what seems to be missing from the article in the way of other perspectives, it would be simpler to just find and add the missing material. Since this article is less than 1/3rd the size of the one on Brexit, which is likewise about an international dispute, and unsurprisingly relies mostly on British sources, there's plenty of room to add more details and opinions. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think focusing on US vs other sources is productive. We should instead focus on the content itself. Benjamin (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of reason for recent reneging of trade deal

The recent escalation of the trade war came from China crossing out portions of the already agreed on deal however this detail is completely missing from the article. Is this article being whitewashed with a pro-China perspective?

Ergzay (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ergzay (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renegation is purely a US perspective. For example, responsible news outlets such as PBS News Hour has yet to drop "President Trump alleged" in its reporting. China watchers on the other hand (myself included) would be inclined to think Chinese leadership from the highest level specifically told Chinese trade negotiators to reverse in large strides many earlier suggested points of compromise by China. However, what happens in Zhongnanhai can never be certain to the outside world. Trade negotiations also have a level of confidentiality -- as they should.

If any of you knows of credible articles commenting on the inner workings of China or the on-going trade negotiations, please include them and with appropriate language reflecting the uncertainties. Otherwise, please refrain from getting brainwashed by political rhetoric of your locale.

冷雾 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‘‘Background’ section needs to be modified

The “timeline” doesn’t make much sense and can be classified in the “history” of the next section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwenwen (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC) I don't think the 'background' part doesn't need so much US behavior timeline. This is the wiki, not the US government website. Of course, the reader needs to understand the event dispute point and the two sides' speeches, and the "history" part of the second part can fully absorb this timelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwenwen (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To-do: Trade talk resumption in Shanghai after G20 meeting should be added to chronology

Now that more events are added to the mix. I am marking this in case of omission in the future.

Please feel free to add the item (and relevant references).

冷雾 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating "conflict" info box

Since a trade war is an economic conflict between two nations, it would make sense to put an info box about leaders and results like in diplomatic disputes( see Cuban Missile Crisis and Iran hostage crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkot (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good news?

Try as I might, I can't find much good news for either China or America so far in this trade war. Anybody got some? soibangla (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can recall, I haven't seen much either. There has been good news for Canada, which I added yesterday. I vaguely remember reading that there's been good news for Vietnam (in the form of more manufacturing jobs) and Brazil (more soybean exports), but I don't have a source handy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found this source listing several countries that have benefited from the trade war: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-08-23/these-countries-are-the-winners-of-the-china-us-trade-war —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in the responses section

I believe that the responses section does not do an effective job of detailing both sides of the conflict in a neutral way. This can be observed by noting the specific size of the US responses section, and the Chinese responses section. I'm proposing to add Template:Undue_weight to the section in question, and then aim to improve the neutrality in that section until it's compliant with WP:NPOV Oldosfan (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

America is a loud country, China much less so. Note how Trump has made assertions of Chinese commitments, while the Chinese don't deny them, despite not making the commitments. This may have to do Face (sociological concept), which is kind of a "golden rule" in many Asian countries: don't publicly embarrass me and I won't publicly embarrass you. Trump repeatedly causes the Chinese to "lose face," which is generally not a good way to gain their cooperation. American executives who do business in Asia commonly get tutored in this to enhance their chances of success. This might explain why it's much harder to find Chinese reactions: they just don't talk about it much except behind closed doors. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that more information about reactions in China would be good. That said, Soibangla is right that those are harder to source than reactions in the U.S. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes I completely agree with this and User:Soibangla, and also that more information on China's reaction would be nice to have. However for the time being it would also be prudent to have Template:Undue weight displayed inside that section. Ideas? Oldosfan (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree that a template is a good idea, considering that "Domestic reporting on the trade war is censored", is stated in the Reactions section. --Light show (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, however the fact that no reliable sources exist does not change the fact that the article has undue weight Oldosfan (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A neutrality tag would only bring attention to the censorship issue. The best way to explain the problem within the article, IMO, is to note that there is a lack of verifiable commentary from Chinese sources. Otherwise, a tag would imply that due to America's free press, it makes discussing the trade war unfair. --Light show (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The censorship doesn't mean that no reliable sources exist. Reliable sources do exist, and we should work to add them to the article. It just means the range of perspectives we can source is likely to be more limited.
A related issue is that the "Background" currently focuses way too much on the U.S. government perspective and gives inadequate weight to the Chinese government perspective and outside analysts' characterizations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of an analysis quote

The paragraph quoted below seems to have a hard time finding a relevant location. It's a recent summary statement about the trade war, I assume, but even that is not clear. I suggest some review of this before placing it in the article:

1) What is meant by "a major cause"? Cause of what? The source article title implies it could refer to various subjects. 2) In the first word of the quote, what is meant by "It"? The entire quote covers such a wide spectrum of topics, that even if it referred specifically to only the trade war, it would need much more context to make sense. As is, a brief list of major issues related to all countries seems out of place. --Light show (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong economics professor Lawrence J. Lau argues that a major cause is the growing battle between China and the U.S. for global economic and technological dominance. He argues, "It is also a reflection of the rise of populism, isolationism, nationalism and protectionism almost everywhere in the world, including in the US."

Source: "The China–US Trade War and Future Economic Relations." China and the World (Lau Chor Tak Institute of Global Economics and Finance, 2019): 1-32. quote p. 3 online

Lau's title & article are all about the multiple causes of the current (2018-2019) trade war : so we can say: Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong economics professor Lawrence J. Lau argues that a major cause pf the trade war launched in 2018 is the growing battle between China and the U.S. for global economic and technological dominance. He argues, "It is also a reflection of the rise of populism, isolationism, nationalism and protectionism almost everywhere in the world, including in the US."

Source: "The China–US Trade War and Future Economic Relations." China and the World (Lau Chor Tak Institute of Global Economics and Finance, 2019): 1-32. quote p. 3 online

The quotation is what seems to veer off into other major topics, none of which are covered in the article. But the first sentence you wrote seems reasonable, if there was a place to include it. The only risk, is that by including one expert's opinion about the cause of the trade war, it allows anyone to include any of the millions of other experts' opinions, which would then add a whole section of opinions and projections. As it is, most of the article is based on facts about past and present events, not the future. --Light show (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
there are not millions of experts on the topic--there are a handful of people who have scholarly publications rather than journalistic essays. Lau is a leading specialist in Hong Kong, which is "a front line" position to analyze. The topic is indeed linked to many other issues--that is lau's point. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rjensen. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Remember, in this article, you should use wholly American English spelling despite many non-US source on the article, and this article was different from 2019 Japan–South Korea trade dispute which majority of the article use British English spelling variants such as labour, favour, centre, etc) but many of American spelling also used as well (ize, programs, fulfills) and the date format is DMY. Yayan550 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market section

IMO, the Stock market section, using some up or down figures from daily news, won't work as a section. It could grow to become another news section like the Chronology. For example, I just searched Google for stock market and trade war, and the following are the headline stories for just the last month, in the same order. So it's obvious that a daily news story section will only add clutter without any meaning. However, if we find some general article covering the subject of the trade war and the stock market, that would be better.

  • Stock prices down today as U.S.-China trade war intensifies

Investors on edge as China hikes tariffs on U.S. goods and President Trump vows to hit back.

  • Trade War Eases, Bringing Respite to US Steel Stocks

This month, there has been some de-escalation in the US-China trade war. US steel stocks, which have traded on a negative note for most of the year, are rising ...

  • The three major U.S. indexes were on an upswing Thursday, raising hopes they might break their four-week losing streak.

U.S. stocks jump as trade war rhetoric cools on both sides Days after back-to-back retaliatory tariffs brought the U.S.-China trade war to a boiling point, officials on both sides tamped down the rhetoric Thursday and ...

  • Dow notches 8-day winning streak, nears record on growing optimism around US-China trade

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose on Friday, posting its first eight-day winning streak in more than a year, amid improving sentiment

  • Gold and Treasuries surge as the escalating trade war sends investors fleeing from the stock market

Safe-haven assets from Treasuries to gold surged Friday amid escalating trade tensions between the US and China. Tensions are likely to continue and...

  • Stocks Edge Up, Apple Leads Dow Jones Today; Global Markets Rally On China Trade War Tweet

The Dow Jones today eyed 27000 as stocks struggled in mixed trade, resisting a global rally that followed a China trade war tweet.

  • A new report offers fresh evidence that Trump's trade-war tariffs are hurting the US — even though he say..

President Trump has long said that China is far more affected by the tariffs he's imposed than the US. Industry watchers have voiced disagreement, saying ...

  • The trade war is quiet. Smart money sees a chance to take risks

London (CNN Business) Happy Wednesday. A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business' Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber?

  • Stocks rally after their drop, helped by trade-war optimism

Stocks rose broadly Monday as investors found reason to be cautiously optimistic again about the potential for progress in the U.S.-China Why Apple will be able to thrive despite trade war

  • Apple's stock is helping lead U.S. stocks higher Monday, buoyed by the possibility of reopened trade negotiations with China.
  • Dow Jones Futures Fall Sharply After Trump Tariffs Escalate China Trade War; Can Stock Market Rally?

--Light show (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked through every headline in this list, but the overwhelming pattern in stock market news related to the trade war is that when the trade war has escalated, stock markets have fallen (with "safe haven" investments rising), and when tensions have cooled, markets have rallied. If we can find a reliable source that explicitly notes this pattern, that would be ideal. Failing that, it is still helpful to give several noteworthy and/or representative examples of trade war effects on the stock market. As I said in an edit summary, stock market effects have been a significant component of RS coverage of the trade war, so we've got to cover it in the article somehow. Moreover, the first sentence of the disputed section is not "daily news", but rather a general (if bland and somewhat vague) summary.
I do agree with you that we shouldn't let the section grow to become a day-to-day list of every bit of stock market news, and that a general article noting overall trends would probably be preferable as a source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An even better first sentence could be from another story a few weeks later: Donald Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve for raising those rates, a government shutdown and the continuing trade tensions between the US and China have all rattled investors. Although the source for that one included the headline: "Dow up more than 1,000 points in biggest one-day gain ever."[19] IOW, opening a section to select daily opinions about market fluctuations will only invite cherry pickers. --Light show (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added material from the sentence you quoted. The source doesn't say that the 1,000-point gain was due to trade war news (indeed, it indicates the gain was in spite of continuing trade tensions). That said, there have certainly been cases where markets rallied due to events in the trade war, and I think it might be worth adding one or two major examples. As I said above, it would also be worth rewriting the subsection to focus more on broader trends than individual stock market movements. But removing all mention of the stock market from the "Effects" section is not reasonable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What caught my attention to that small section is the very first example, which states, "it declined nearly 600 points, to which some argue is in part due to the trade war." That kind of statement can be found in countless daily articles as the market goes up or down. So any general article about the subject that avoids daily movements would be more useful. --Light show (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that sources about general trends would be more useful. I will look and see what I can find. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silence on Hong Kong protests

"Trump promised Xi US silence on Hong Kong democracy protests as trade talks stalled" – should this be mentioned in the article? Maybe in the chronology section? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "as" is seen in many headlines, especially related to stock prices, but seems to be used primarily to create or suggest a connection between two events, when none may exist. IMO, it often implies an erroneous cause and effect, but without much substance. So I'd keep it off unless there's a real connection, not a possible coincidence. And it might be worth considering moving the chronology section to a separate article, or even trimming it substantially, since WP is not a newspaper.--Light show (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very one-sided

This article is mostly one sided and posits that the “trade war” (and associated trade tariffs) are against the best interest of the American people and foreigners. Think about it: No matter what your political persuasion, why would a current Administration take steps which: “ has brought struggles for farmers and manufacturers and higher prices for consumers. In other countries it has also caused economic damage, though some countries have benefited from increased manufacturing to fill the gaps. It has also led to stock market instability. The governments of several countries, including China and the United States, have taken steps to address some of the damage. The trade war has been criticized internationally; in the U.S., businesses and agricultural organizations have also been critical, though most farmers continued to support Trump. The following statements sum up the political leanings of the person who wrote them: “Among U.S. politicians the response has been mixed. The trade war has caused a significant deterioration in China–United States relations as the countries exchanged tit-for-tat tariffs for over a year, with Trump threatening more to come and no resolution in sight.“

Here’s a thought: maybe the Trump administration was trying to right years of unfair trade practices and tariffs which only benefited the Chinese... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxedwell2 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Trump administration was trying to right years of unfair trade practices may be true, but many trade experts warned the Navarro/Trump approach would have adverse consequences, and evidence to date bears that out. soibangla (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Soibangla is right. Trump has a history of lashing out at his opponents at home and abroad, but not many experts in foreign trade policy support him on this issue....He had denounced many other countries as well. Being very angry does win votes at home but in my reading of history it does not often lead to wise decisions in complex matters. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Light show Shouldn't there be an infobox to summarize the events? This is called a trade "war" after all. The Chinese Wikipedia article has an infobox as well. KasimMejia (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In trade and economics issues, the word "war" is just a metaphor. Those kinds of sensationalist words are needed by our media to attract readers and tv watchers. "If it bleeds, it leads," is the idea there. Without that metaphor, they'd be stuck having to rely on informative but boring terms like "trade barriers," "economic conflict," or "tariffs." So I think the lead is probably good enough. --Light show (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the danger of having an infobox? It could summarize things like, how much both side has lost financially. Etc. KasimMejia (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template for a tariff conflict? You can try putting something together and putting it on the talk page for opinions. But note that there are more than just two countries that are affected financially. --Light show (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested infobox What do you think of an infobox like this? KasimMejia (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a proper use of Template:Infobox_military_conflict.--Light show (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers won't even know whether this is a military conflict infobox or a trade war infobox. I think it will summarize the trade war pretty well. Whenever I'm trying to read the updates on the trade war, the first things I want to see is whether the tariffs have been increased and how much its costing the countries, the infobox is the perfect summary that can show these at the top of the page. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested infobox below is not appropriate—the terminology used, especially "belligerents", is suggestive of a military conflict, which this is not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright here I've adjusted the infobox into a trade war infobox. Now this should be appropriate. If you can find a better name than sides you can edit it here. KasimMejia (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would obviously not be suitable. Way too simplistic, relying on a few new recent sources, and too localized, since the article and the proposed box say it's worldwide and ongoing. In fact the one source you used even states the tariffs "expected to increase in the coming months." The article explains that many other countries are affected, that there are too many causes and effects, here and abroad. So trying to post an info scoreboard would do more harm than good, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of changing "Tariffs imposed" to "Economic measures" that will include tariffs, as well as others measures such as ban of Huawei, moving companies to US, block of android, etc. Could include arrest of Huawei CFO too perhaps. KasimMejia (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once you start actually adding things to the body of the article, a very long and detailed one, you'll probably agree that this kind of ongoing, worldwide and ever-changing event is not one that can be put into a box. --Light show (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improvement, but I still have to say no. The "Economic losses" are not what they claim to be—the source gives $34 billion as the figure for how much Americans have paid in tariffs and doesn't take into account lost business. Dates would need to be attached to these figures, and it would be challenging to keep them up to date. The date listed in the infobox is controversial—sources disagree about when the trade war actually began.
I'm usually a fan of infoboxes, but maybe this is a case where a box is not terribly useful. For this situation it seems to be hard to give fast facts without oversimplifying. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New suggested infobox

Template:Infobox trade war

Clearly biased article

I read the article and I noticed that everything the USA did or say is based on claims. And everything that the PRC did or say is based on facts. Getting suspicious, I checked out the person who wrote the article and sure enough the guy's first language is simplified chinese and he contributed to pages about PRC railway stations. I am annoyed because I expect to read facts on wikipedia and not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.136.49 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as representation of Trump, overall, relative to other pages on this site, this one is one of the more even-handed.

Use of the term "superpowers"

The leading sentence describes China as a "superpower" alongside the United States. This is highly questionable based on demographic, diplomatic, economic, and military limitations that afflict China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielTeitelbaum (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording accordingly. Lead it off by saying it's affected both countries without all the other puffery language. Flaughtin (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

First round of debate

While some of the recent edits to this article included good additions, others removed relevant, sourced information, rewrote summaries in non-neutral ways, or got rid of established consensus summaries. I've left in most of the changes while reverting most of the problems, in particular restoring some of the information that was removed.

If anyone thinks some of the new edits should be reinstated, I invite you to discuss here per WP:BRD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is a reason why we don't do mass purges of edits as you did here. Substantively it leads to nonsensical and deceptive claims about how you restored balance and the relevant information (as I'll show below) and stylistically it makes it nearly impossible to identify what has to be debated when you lump the reverts together like that. For the sake of clarity I am going to use my original edits as the basis for identifying the vast majority of the areas of contention.
2) [20] - you changed the header of this section to "obama era". This will be the first of many examples of how you haven't bothered to read the material that you are reverting - in this case, most of the content in that section doesn't even have anything to do with Obama. If they do they don't remotely spell out how they are even connected to what Obama did. Putting a vague, overarching header like the one you used as if that is supposed to give the reader the impression that the complaints are just beef on the part a U.S. administration - yeah that isn't going to fly.
3) [21]- your addition of a citation needed tag is pov pushing. It's clear based on your other edits that you've went through each and every one of the sources on which I've made my changes and instead of just simply reciting the Reuters source you instead chose to make the pointy edit of putting a citation needed tag. This is bad form.
4) [22] - more evidence that of how you haven't bothered to read the material that you are reverting. What you restored is not only not in the article, it's the total opposite of what is reported. The aide(s) the article explicitly mentioned didn't even discuss the legality of the order and the analysts they cited who discussed the legality of his statement gave varying views on whether his statement has legal authority: one is unsure, one agrees and the last one (on the face of it anyway) disagrees. Even if what those analysts and aides said was true it the Wikipedia summary of the NYT article would still be problematic because it lacks balance as it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force.
5) [23] - this partial revert of yours is POV pushing. Instead of leaving the first sentence in the original edit as is you tried to give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war by highlighting how the trade war has specifically damaged the US economy while keeping the summary of the impact of the trade war to China vague and generic.
6) [24] - your reversion of the first sentence is misleading and nonsensical. Misleading because the international section shows that the reaction isn't just critical as your revert implies (the third paragraph shows the opposite) and the criticism (the first sentence) is limited to just one aspect of Trump's trade war (tariffs) and nonsensical because US business and agricultural organizations are direct parties to the trade war (and so not an international view).
7 [25] - this is editorializing and your restoration of it is POV pushing. Readers can make up their own minds as to how hard farmers in the United States have been impacted by China's retaliatory measures which the paragraph makes clear is an argument that can go both ways.
8 [26] - As I said in the edit summary the material about wheat and farming machinery is redundant as all of it has already been covered in the immediately preceding paragraph, and your attempt to give reader's the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war by restoring it without a counterbalancing response is just tendentious editing on your part. Again this is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting.
9 [27] - this material has already been covered the chronology section. Again, restoring this POV material (we need a better source for the claim about China than Business INsider, which per RSN is of dubious reliability, and the claim about the US is not even in the Guardian source) is bad form.
10 [28] - As I said in the edit summary this material has already been covered the chronology section and in any case is too vague for inclusion.
11 [29] - the rattled part is editorializing and undue because the Guardian source is using that description in a specific context. Again, yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting.
12 [30] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. The Republican senators are all saying the same thing as the senators who are classified as criticizing Trump's trade war [31] so it is nonsensical to say those Republican senators offered "measured" statements while saying senators from both parties have "criticized Trump for the trade war" when those senators are saying the same thing as the Republican senators.
13 [32] - your restoration of this edit is misleading. They are divided on the tactics, but united on the strategy. Using the word approach is problematic because it cn mean either tactic, strategy or both. (hence my self-revert)
14 [33] - the first and second sentence is original research and at any rate isn't even in the article. The third sentence is redundant and violates WP:SAY
15 [34] - your restoration of this edit is nonsensical. We can't use VOA for anything other than the views of the government of the United States per PUS
16 [35] - this isn't a reliable source and even if it was we need secondary sources for inclusion (WP:DUE). You don't just put in random sources (that presumably have been google mined) all because it advances a view that you agree with. The fact that you restored this is more evidence of POV pushing.
17 [36] - same as above
18 [37] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. Paul isn't disagreeing with Trump's trade war (an impression which the material is meant to convey) he was disagreeing with the trade talks (which is obviously different as the NYT article makes clear) and in any case the second sentence isn't even grammatical.
19 [38] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing. As i said US domestic reaction should come first given the preponderance of the content in the sub section. If you think otherwise then you must explain.
20 [39] - no reason why this can't go together when they are completely connected. I understand again that this is part of your POV push because you want to leave criticism of the trade war unchallenged and thereby give people the impression that the United States suffers comparatively more from the trade war, but that really isn't a reason to make reverts like this.
21 [40] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. The WaPo link is just a database and whether it is about trade is something you have to manually do (hence WP:OR)
22 [41] - As i said in the edit summary I reworded this so it reflected what was written in the source verbatim; the previous version was misleading because it shifted the semantic focus away from support for confrontation and your restoration of this edit is just POV pushing.
23 [42] - your edit summary is nonsensical. The quote I provided is entirely about the trade war. Just because the article isn't explicitly about the trade war doesn't mean it can't be included. Certainly there are more grounds to include it than these two pieces of information that you restored ([43] and [44]).
24 [45] - your edit summary is nonsensical as is your removal of the source. The quote I provided explicitly ties the trade war with the coronavirus pandemic. Just because the article isn't explicitly about the trade war doesn't mean it can't be included. Certainly there are more grounds to include it than these two pieces of information that you restored ([46] and [47]).
25 [48] - no reason for this rearrangement aside from trying to (literally) bury criticism of the trade industry because you want to give readers the overall impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war. It entirely belongs in the industry section because Lewis is talking exactly about that (extending reciprocal treatment to...U.S. companies in China.). If you must, it belongs in the business section and the at very least it doesn't belong (at the end) of the others section.
26 [49] - see point 4.
Given the amount of work and time I have put into my response, I will expect a response from you and if you fail to do so then I will revert all of your changes.Flaughtin (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flaughtin, thanks for this reply. Please assume good faith, as I am doing. With the goal of encouraging a collegial discussion, in my responses below I'll ignore your unfounded accusations of bias or "not reading the material", and I will focus on content rather than the contributor. I ask you to do the same. I'll respond to your numbered points.
1. Your edits introduced a number of NPOV issues and other problems, so I reverted. I did my best to avoid reverting the unobjectionable parts of the edits.
2. "China's trade issues, Obama administration's complaints and decline in US manufacturing" is not a neutral section header. The header "Obama era" neutrally identifies a time period. If you have a suggestion for a different neutrally worded section header, I'm open to discussing it.
3. I added a citation needed tag because the claim you added didn't have a citation.
4. The source says "In fact, aides said, no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. For the moment, they said Mr. Trump was signaling American businesses to begin to disentangle from China on their own." It is important to clarify that the tweet was in fact not a legal order but rather a piece of nonbinding rhetoric.
5. I was not trying to "give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively", but rather keep the long-standing and accurate summary. We should also include a summary of how the trade war has affected the Chinese economy.
6. The longstanding consensus version of the summary is accurate. The edit you linked omits the fact that the trade war has been criticized internationally and focuses solely on the U.S. reaction.
7. The sentence you removed is an accurate summary of what reliable sources say.
8. This information about the effects on Canada is sourced and relevant.
9. Sourced, relevant information. The Guardian source says "US economic growth has also slowed on the back of the dispute".
10. Sourced, relevant information, and it is not "too vague for inclusion".
11. This is needed to indicate how and why the trade war caused turbulence in the stock market.
12. I don't fully understand what you're trying to argue here, but the source does not say that those senators supported the trade war. For example, Cornyn is quoted as saying "There’s a lot of concern...If this is what it takes to get a good deal, I think people will hang in there, but at some point we’ve got to get it resolved...If this goes on for a long time, everybody realizes it’s playing with a live hand grenade." McConnell is quoted as saying "One thing I think we all agree on is that nobody wins a trade war."
13. The edit you linked seems fine; we can remove the phrase "reaction to Trump's approach has been divided".
14. You're right that the material isn't supported by the source.
15. This is a piece of media being included, not a source being cited. It's reasonable to include VOA videos in this article. If there's a similar video created by Chinese state media, it would be great to include that too.
16. On what basis are you saying that this is an unreliable source?
17. On what basis are you saying that this is an unreliable source?
18. It is important to include this for balance and completeness. The sentence clearly states that Paul is criticizing the talks, which accurately reflects the source (the source gives him as an example of a "critical" commentator).
19. You say "US domestic reaction should come first given the preponderance of the content in the sub section". That is a textbook NPOV violation. The established order of these two sections is alphabetical order (China followed by US). The fact that we currently have more information about the US is a sign that we ought to add more information about China for balance, not a sign that we should reorder the sections to give even more prominence to the US point of view.
20. It's worth indicating the details of what the WSJ said, not just the vague statement that the action "drew criticism".
21. The "database" point is fair; I'm okay with removing this.
22. It's not acceptable to copy a source's wording verbatim without indicating that it's a quotation. It is clearer and more accurate to give the percentages as indicated clearly in the source. Please read the source beyond the first paragraph—the summary with the percents seems to be accurate.
23. You say "The quote I provided is entirely about the trade war." That is not correct—the quote discusses several topics, including COVID-19, criticism of globalization, and others, but it makes at best an ambiguous allusion to the trade war.
24. The quote, which was published long after the trade war began, is making a broad foreign policy recommendation without seeming to mention what specific countries should implement that recommendation. I don't see any reason to think it's referring to this trade war in particular.
25. Based on our article about James Andrew Lewis, he seems to be a public policy expert rather than an industry representative.
26. See point 4 - as indicated in the NYT source, the tweet was a piece of nonbinding rhetoric rather than a legally binding order.
Phew! What a lot of points to respond to. Hopefully that was all clear—let me know if anything I said doesn't make sense to you, or if I mixed up any of the responses (easy to do when there are so many...). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) My accusations aren't unfounded when they are just statements of fact. You are editing from a position of bias (as am I) and it's obvious based on your arguments that you haven't read (or carefully read) the material that you are reverting. They're not meant to be insulting - as I said, they're just meant to be statements of fact.
2) See this is what I mean when I say you aren't reading. The header "Obama era" is nonsensical because as I pointed out in my original argument, most of the content in that section doesn't even have anything to do with Obama. And if they do they don't remotely spell out how they are even connected to what Obama did. If my header isn't a neutral section header, then you have to explain why it isn't (as I, on the contrary, did - you just want to give the reader the impression that the complaints are just beef on the part a U.S. administration instead of complaints that are grounded in more encompassing concerns)
3) That's not the point. The point is your edit was bad form. Please don't act like it wasn't.
4) Just because (the article said) the aides said no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be doesn't mean that what Trump's order was without legal force (much less your assertion that it was not a legal order but rather a piece of nonbinding rhetoric.) I mean this is pretty simple stuff: we document things that the source say, not what you imagined them to say. Fine if you do that on you personal blog where you can imagine anything you like, but obviously that's not going to work here. All that the aides said was that no order was drawn up nor was it likely that one would be drawn up. That's it. ANything else (for example about its legality) is just original synthesis.
5) Well no no you are trying to give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively. That's your bias and that's just a fact. Again it's not meant to be insulting because that's just what it is. If you didn't you would have left the first sentence in the original edit as is instead of highlighting how the trade war has specifically damaged the US economy while keeping the summary of the impact of the trade war to China vague and generic. In any case I've rectified this.
6) Consensus can change as is the case now with the debate over this point. My edit didn't omit the fact that the trade war has been criticized internationally because I wrote that the trade war drew mixed reaction (which, perforce, presupposes criticism). Yet another example of how you haven't read/properly read the material that you are reverting. You on the other hand don't like it because you want to suppress any mention of international support for the tradee war. That's your problem and of course that's your argument to make.
7) Prove it. The sources make clear that's not a fact, that's an argument and it's one that can go both ways. The fact that farmers were initially hit hard doesn't mean that that's declaratively the case. (Trump's measures may have meant the farmers are no longer hit hard)
8) I've rectified this
9) I've rectified this
10) Prove it. As I said the mateiral is already covered in chronology section and in any case too vague in any case to merit inclusion. In any case, it's not clear why they can't be integrated into the timeline.
11) You're not reading what I am saying. The rattled part is undue because the Guardian source is using that description in a specific context. You can't use it in a generic context. If you can't find a source that uses the word "rattled" in an overarching context, then this has to go.
12) The issue is that you have to account for the double standards in the characterization of the reactions. The Republican senators are all saying the same thing as the senators who are classified as criticizing Trump's trade war so it is nonsensical to say those Republican senators offered "measured" statements while saying senators from both parties have "criticized Trump for the trade war" when those senators are saying the same thing as the Republican senators. If you can't account for the inconsistency in the description, then you must revert back to my original edit.
15) We can't use VOA for anything other than the views of the government of the United States per PUS. The videos are not documenting the views of the government of the United States, but rather the views of ordinary US citizens for which we will need independent, reliable sources. These videos have to go if you can't find them.
16) Burden is on you establish it's reliability. It's a self published source for which there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims and measure its due weight. The paragraph has to go if you can't find them.
17) Same as above
18) Paul is criticizing the talks, but not the trade war and so it's undue to run the sentences together. Yet another example of how you haven't read/carefully read the material that you are reverting.
19) That's not really a NPOV violation. Promenance is given to the preponderance of the content in the section. There is no "established" anything because consensus on these things can change. if there you don't like the disproportionality of the content, then that's up to you to rectify it.
20) Prove it. Why can't they go together when they are completely connected? There are multiple items in the timeline that features this type of content amalgamation (description of the event that made the day noteworthy along with an opinion on it)
22) Then I will rectify for this by quoting the headline of the article verbatim. It's superior to your version which is to shift the semantic focus away from support by the public for the trade war.
23) You aren't reading what I am saying. The quotes I am providing are entirely about the trade war. I never said they are only about the trade war. The quote that I provided from the Japan Today article which you purged (In fact, the pandemic has made the world arrive at its moment of truth: It must break China’s stranglehold on vital supply chains, including by incentivizing foreign manufacturers to move out of China, or else risk a situation in which Beijing weaponizes its leverage.) could not be clearer in explicating the connection between the trade war and the coronavirus pandemic.
24) I have rectified for this
25) It's irrelevant whether Lewis is an industry rep or not. The point is the (nature of the) argument he is making, which is entirely about the industrial impact of the trade war. (extending reciprocal treatment to...U.S. companies in China.) If we go by your logic, then we would have to remove the karabell quote as well because he is (described as) an economist, not an industry representative.
26) See point 4 Flaughtin (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I again ask you to focus on content. To make this discussion easier to follow, I'm putting the point-by-point responses in this box:
Point-by-point responses
2. We need a neutrally worded header. Starting the header with "China's trade issues" is not neutral. How about "Conflicts after joining the WTO" as an alternative?
3. It's normal on Wikipedia to add a "citation needed" tag to an uncited claim.
4. It is essential that we clarify the fact that, as reported by the source, the tweet was not a legal order even though it contained the phrase "hereby ordered".
6. The "International" section clearly indicates international criticism; it does not seem to indicate international support for the trade war.
7. I added a source for this statement from the Wall Street Journal, which you removed today.
10. It's cited to the Wall Street Journal. I think this material is better in the "Effects" section than the timeline, because it didn't happen on a specific date, but I'm okay with moving it to the timeline as a compromise.
11. We need to indicate how/why the trade war affected the stock market. The quote indicates that, as reported by reliable sources, investors had an unfavorable reaction to the trade war, and this is why the trade war has affected the stock market. I would also be okay with mentioning "anxiety" per the USA Today source or "unease" per the CNN source instead, if you'd prefer that.
12. If you'd like to propose a clearer way to convey the information from the sources, I'm open to that. But the claim that those senators "supported Trump's actions" is simply not an accurate representation of the source.
15. VOA isn't being cited as a source for any claim. The videos are being used to illustrate the article.
16. I can't find much information on Logisym one way or another, so I'm neutral—if you want to remove it, that's fine with me.
17. I checked, and AVWeb seems to be cited in more than 500 English Wikipedia articles. Are you arguing that it's not a reliable source? If so, I think that should be a broader discussion at WP:RSN or WP:AVIATION.
18. The sentence in question clearly states that Paul is criticizing the talks. If you have a suggestion for a clearer way to phrase it, I'm open to discussing that.
19. You say "Promenance is given to the preponderance of the content in the section." In other words, because the article currently gives excessive prominence to a United States point of view, we should edit it to give even stronger prominence to that point of view? That's not appropriate. Let's stick with alphabetical order.
20. I'm okay with moving this content to the timeline as a compromise, but we should keep the details of what the WSJ said, not just a vague summary.
22. We should rely on the information given in the body of a source, not the headline. Headlines are often simplified and sensational; see the essay WP:HEADLINE for more.
23. That Japan Times quote seems to be making a general foreign policy recommendation, not specific to the United States or to this trade war.
25. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the Karabell quote—that shouldn't be in the "Industry" section either. In fact, I suggest we get rid of the "Industry" section altogether and move the paragraphs to other sections—after all, manufacturing is a part of industry, so the current section divisions don't make much sense.
Your edit today (reverting to a version with some of your recent objectionable additions, not the stable version) reintroduced some serious problems, including a non-neutral summary of the manufacturing industry's response and the inaccurate claim that "Official figures from China showed it's second quarter GDP falling amid the trade war to a 27 year low." (Instead, the cited source says that the rate of growth fell to a 27-year low, a very different statement.) You also removed updates from May and June of this year and information about how internet users in China evade trade war censorship—why? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a couple of days with no further responses, so I'll go ahead and fix those issues and restore the updates and information about censorship. I'll also implement the compromise I suggested for the "Background" section and restore some other related fixes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand my response is belated but i had real life issues to attend to and that explains the delay in response.
1) I am focusing on the content. Your conduct is just getting in the way.
2) I will settle with "Conflicts after China joins the WTO". That title better reflects what is in the section, which is that China is te root cause of many of the problems (as spelled out in that section of the article) and in any case your proposed header "Conflicts after joining the WTO" isn't even grammatical.
3) You aren't understanding this so I will make my point clearer. You could have prevented this chickenshit, time-wasting back-and-forth between us if you had just put the Reuters citation that I inadvertently left out. Please do not make that kind of edit again as I really just am not interested in having to deal with these low grade art of war tactics.
4) Then prove it. Burden is on you. Quote me verbatim from the NYT article where it says that the tweet was not a legal order.
6) The international section indicates support for the trade war. (See the first and third paragraphs)
7) I can't verify this as there is a paywall. In any case that sentence (even if cited) has to be counterbalanced, namely with a response about what Trump is doing to help the farmers. It can't be a standalone sentence.
11) You aren't reading what I am saying. It's undue to say investors were rattled by the conflict because the Guardian source makes clear that the investors were rattled by the conflict at that particular time (as delineated by the article). If you want to use that word in a generic context, then that's your job. I don't know the USA TOday or CNN source you are referring to, so that is something you will have to provide.
12) But before I do that, I need you to confirm this point. You agree that your characterization of the reaction of the senators are inconsistent, correct? It doesn't make sense for you (or anyone) to say that if the Republican senators are all saying the same thing as other senators who are also criticizing Trump's trade war, then it is nonsensical to say those Republican senators offered "measured" statements while saying the other senators have "criticized Trump for the trade war" when those two groups of senators are saying the same thing. Correct?
15) But the section for which the videos are supposed to be representative of the corresponding content does not document the views of the government of the United States. Hence, the videos must go, per PUS.
17) That's your job. Burden is on you to prove that it is a reliable source as you are the one who wants to use the source. You don't prove the reliability of a source by noting how many times it's been cited in other Wikipedia articles. Even if you can establish its reliability, that still does not mean the source can be included as there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims and measure its due weight. The paragraph has to go if you can't find them.
18) That burden is on you as you are the one who wants to include the unverifiable material back in the article. Again, to be clear, Paul is criticizing the talks, but not the trade war and so it's undue to run the sentences together.
19) Your criterion doesn't apply as the reactions section is not structured in alphabetical order. (The international reaction section is below the US reaction section) Again, if you don't like the disproportionality of the content, then that's up to you to rectify it.
22) Wikipedia:HEADLINE is an essay (i.e not policy) so I am not going to bother reading it. Your arguments that we shouldn't use the headline and instead rely on the information given in the body of a source is: 1) absurd as the headline gives the most accurate summary of what's in the article and 2) irrelevant/not applicable as the source itself is reliable per RSP.
23) Your argument is nonsensical (it doesn't matter how general the recommendation is because it perforce applies to the United States and trade war - afterall, he is talking about what the world should do and using metonymies like supply chains and decoupling), but since we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, I will propose this article (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/backlash-against-china-trade-policy-debt-traps-by-brahma-chellaney-2018-09) as a substitute and, barring your objections, will be putting it into the article.
24) As for this batch of questions, I have my reasons for reverting your content, but the explanation will have to wait until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits that you did here. We are going to do this sequentially and, to be clear, you aren't going to get first dibs on this just because you want to. This will take time but that's typically what happens when you make edits like this. Flaughtin (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've restored the stable version of the article (the form that has roughly been in place for about a month up to today). It's not acceptable for an editor to come back to this article after being absent for weeks and revert wholesale all the updates and corrections that have been made since then. We can't hold off indefinitely on updating and cleaning up the article while waiting weeks to see if you'll respond.
Anyway, let's continue the discussion. I've collapsed the point-by-point responses.
Point-by-point responses
2. I'm okay with "Conflicts after China joins the WTO".
4. The source says "In fact, aides said, no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. For the moment, they said Mr. Trump was signaling American businesses to begin to disentangle from China on their own." If you'd like to find a different way to summarize this essential clarification, I'm open to discussing that.
6. The first and third paragraphs of that section discuss complaints about China's trade policies, but they do not indicate support for the trade war as a method for resolving those complaints.
7. The paragraph already discusses the Trump administration's aid to farmers. We can add more details about that if you'd like.
11. I'm talking about the two other sources cited in that sentence.[50] [51] Would you prefer to quote "anxiety" from the USA Today instead of "rattled" from the Guardian?
12. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. Is your point that instead of characterizing these senators' responses as "measured", we should say that they were critical/negative?
15. If I understand correctly, we can resolve your concern by moving the videos to a different section of the article. Is that right? If so, I can live with that, though I don't think it's necessary. Again, these videos are not being cited as sources.
17. I suggest starting a discussion about the source at WT:AVIATION or WT:RSN.
18. It isn't "unverifiable material". It's reliably sourced to the New York Times.
19. The existing order places the two countries in alphabetical order, and international responses below. I think that's a reasonable order. If you want to argue for a different order, feel free to do so, but the idea that we should change the order in order to give one country's views extra prominence over the other's is inconsistent with WP:NPOV.
22. I'd appreciate it if you'd read WP:HEADLINE and consider its points instead of dismissing it sight unseen. To try to move forward on this issue, how about this as an alternative phrasing? "An August 2019 Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll found that 67% of registered voters wanted the U.S. to confront Beijing over its trade policies despite the fact that 74% said American consumers were shouldering most of the burden of tariffs."
23. Including something from the Brahma Chellaney source sounds good to me.
24. "I have my reasons" is not an adequate justification for reverting a month's worth of updates and corrections.
—Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's not how it works. WP:SILENCE doesn't give a time frame for when interloecutors must respond and, to be clear, I had made no edits to other articles in the intervening period between my two most recent comprehensive reversions to the article (here and here.) I should also add: 1) that my absence really wasn't that long; 2) that not everybody (very few people) has the amount of time to spend on Wikipediaa as you do and 3) that your insinuation that the article now stands in an unrecognizable form through my wholesale reversions is misleading as there really weren't that many edits which were made in the intervening period. As we now disagree on which version of the article should be the established one, it is clear from WP:BRD that we must go back to the one which was left intact while we were debating on the talk page (i.e. the one that I have been continually reverted to.) I have reverted accordingly and will continue to do should you edit war over this.
4) That is correct. Notice how that proves my point and disproves yours. Just because it said the aides said no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be doesn't mean that what Trump's order was without legal force (much less your assertion that it was not a legal order but rather a piece of nonbinding rhetoric.) In order for your version of this specific edit to go through, I need you quote verbatim from the article where it says Trump's order was without legal force
6) You aren't not reading it properly. They aren't disagreeing with the trade war per se, they are disagreeing with (per the article) with the means of the trade war (tariffs). The first and third paragraphs show the Europeans agreeing with Trump about the causes of the trade war. (which is why I have been saying The trade war has drawn mixed reaction.)
7) I have rectified this
11) You aren't reading what I am saying. It's still undue to say investors were made anxious by the conflict because the USA Today source makes it clear that the investors were made anxious by the conflict at that particular time (for reasons that are delineated by the article). If you want to use that word in a generic context, then it's your job to find a source which uses that word in that way.
12) I can settle on the characterization of the response of the Republican senators as "divided" (this makes the most sense as the sources show that they agree with Trump's overall strategy but disagree with his tactics.) Now I need you to answer my question. You agree that your characterization of the reaction of the senators are inconsistent, correct?
15) You misunderstand. It's not about moving the videos to another section. it's about the videos reflecting what's in the section. If that corresponding section does not document the views of the government of the United States, then the videos have to go.
17) That's your job. Burden is on you to prove (among other things, e.g. dueness) that it is a reliable source as you are the one who wants to use the source. If you aren't going to do it then that paragraph has to go.
18) Prove it. Burden is on you as you are the one who wants to include the material back in the article.
19) No but this isn't an explanation. Why is that double standard ok? Why is it reasonable for your structuring criterion to be applied in some places but not others? I've already given the reasons for my structuring criterion so I will expect you to do the same. If you can't, then you must revert back to my original edit.
22) This can work provided that we include the statement by Mark Penn which makes clearest the main finding of the survey. I have went ahead and restored with my recommendation given the high level of consensus on this point.
24) No the justification is adequate. You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why. Not my problem if you can't. Flaughtin (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Point-by-point responses are collapsed, a more urgent point is below.
Point-by-point responses
4. Why don't we just quote what the New York Times says ("In fact, aides said, no order [had] been drawn up"). Would that resolve this issue?
6. "The first and third paragraphs show the Europeans agreeing with Trump about the causes of the trade war." That is true to some extent, but it is not the same as saying that they supported the trade war.
11. The source says "Anxiety and fear over the U.S.-China trade war continues to hover over the market" – that is sufficient to support the claim that the trade war has led to anxiety. Is there another way to phrase the information that would resolve your concerns? What if we indicate that the "rattled" quote came from December 2018 and the "anxiety" quote came from August 2019?
12. I do not think that my "characterization of the reaction of the senators are inconsistent", no. I'll edit the section to replace "measured" with "divided", which I can live with as a compromise.
15. "If that corresponding section does not document the views of the government of the United States, then the videos have to go." As far as I can tell, this claim isn't supported by Wikipedia policies. I think the videos are relevant to their current sections, but I am okay with moving them to other sections that more directly cover the US government's statements.
17. I'll start a discussion at WT:AVIATION.
18. Okay, here is the source: [52]
19. The existing order of the sections is alphabetical, which is the usual default order used on Wikipedia when there isn't a good reason to order things differently. Your argument that we should put the United States first, because "Promenance is given to the preponderance of the content in the section", is not supported by any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of. We should not reorder the sections for the purpose of giving greater prominence to one country's views over the other.
With today's edits you have again reverted several of the updates and corrections made to the article in the past month or so. You reinstated inaccurate summaries of American manufacturers' reactions and the effects on the Chinese economy, removed updates from May and June of this year, and removed details about censorship in China. Your edit summaries say "WP:BRD", but so far you have refused to discuss these changes. I again ask you to please follow the "D" in "BRD" and explain why you've reverted these updates and corrections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good news—we have confirmation that AVweb is a reliable source. I look forward to your response about the edits yesterday. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no response and still no explanation or justification for the reverts from a few days ago, I'll restore the updates and corrections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4) That would not resolve the issue because it violates NPOV by leaving out the opposing view to your interepretation of the events (for example it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force). There are also issues with the wording, such as the editorializing use of the word "in fact".
6) Again you aren't not reading it properly. The international section indicates support for the trade war because the views there indicate support for the causes of the trade war. To be clear I never said the section indicates categorical support for the trade war (the Europeans show disagreement over the means of the trade war - that is why I have been saying the trade war has drawn mixed reaction.) My interpretation and description of the material is superior to yours which misleading;y portrays the international reaction to the trade war as categorically negative.
11) Again you not reading what I am saying. It's undue to say investors were made anxious by the conflict because the USA Today source makes it clear that the investors were made anxious by the conflict AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME (for reasons that are delineated by the article). If you want to use that word in a generic context, then it's your job to find a source which uses that word in that way. My solution is to remove those meaningless, editorializing descriptors which do nothing but furthers your overall strategy to give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war.
15) It is when you read WP:PUS, WP:RSP and WP:V. I am aware that the PUS is an essay like the WP:HEADLINE one you cited to me before, but some essays are more relevant and applicable than others.
17) The source still can't be included as there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims and measure its due weight. The paragraph has to go if you can't find them.
18) I didn't ask you to give me the source. I asked you to quote me verbatim the part where Paul is criticizing the trade war, not just the trade talks. To recap since it's obvious you don't know what is going on: Paul isn't disagreeing with Trump's trade war (an impression which your preferred material is meant to convey) he was disagreeing with the trade talks (which is obviously different as the NYT article makes clear) and in any case your preferred text isn't even grammatical.
19) Your argument is nonsensicl because the reactions section is not structured in alphabetical order. (The international reaction section is below the US reaction section) So my question still stands: Why is it reasonable for your structuring criterion to be applied in some places but not others? I've already given the reasons for my structuring criterion so I will expect you to do the same. If you can't, then you must revert back to my original edit.
24) You'll have to wait for my explanation for the reasonsI've stated above and it's not my problem if you can't. I won't be wasting my time telling you this again. Flaughtin (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point-by-point responses are collapsed.

Point-by-point responses
4. Regarding the coverage of Trump's tweet, you said "it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force". Could you please provide a reliable source for the claim that this is Trump's opinion about that tweet? If true, I think that is worth mentioning in the article.
6. You said "The international section indicates support for the trade war because the views there indicate support for the causes of the trade war." This seems to be original research on your part. We cannot take a source that says one thing (that the European Union has some of the same complaints as Trump about China) and use it to claim something different (that the European Union supports the trade war).
11. I'm not trying to "give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war". I'm trying to indicate why the trade war has led to stock market turbulence. How about this as an alternative phrasing, to clarify that the "rattled" quote came from a particular point in time?
Uncertainty due to the trade war has caused turbulence in the stock market; in December 2018 The Guardian reported that trade tensions had "rattled" investors.
15. As far as I can tell, you still have not given a policy-based reason to remove the videos. Could you explain what part of WP:V you believe prohibits including these videos?
17. First you said that this wasn't a reliable source. Now you're saying that even though it's a reliable source, we still shouldn't include it in the article because "there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims". But AVweb is a reliable secondary source, and the content is relevant to the article, so I don't see why we would remove it.
18. I think the current text ("After US-China trade talks ended in July 2019 with no resolution in sight, Paul said the talks were 'failing American workers,' ...") indicates Paul's position clearly. Since you evidently think it's ambiguous or misleading, could you please suggest an alternative phrasing to cover his views from the NYT article?
19. The "International" section is effectively an "other" section, so it makes sense to put it last. With respect to the two countries involved in the trade war, we should put them in alphabetical order to stay neutral. This is the same reason why the countries are in alphabetical order in the title of the article.

Since you are still refusing to discuss your repeated reverts (of corrections about manufacturing reactions and economic effects in China, information about Chinese censorship, updates from this summer, etc.), I'm going to bring this to WP:ANI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4) You're not making any sense. The source is the NYT article, it's all there when it reports on Trump's opinion about the legal order in both the first and third grammatical person. If you haven't read what the article says or if you have lost track of what's going on wrt this point of contention, then just say you haven't read the article or you don't know what is going on. It's a complete waste of time of my time to go back-and-forth with you like this.
6) Your accusation of original research is nonsensical and yet another example of how you aren't reading what I am saying. My position (and what I actually wrote in my original edit) is that the Europeans have a mixed reaction to the trade war. I never said the Europeans support the trade war and just left it at that. If I am engaging in original research by your criteria, then you would be engaging in even more original research because your interpretation and description of the material in that section is even more misleading and inaccurate than mine.
11) The phrasing still doesn't work because of undue weight. Firstly there is the undue weight of the article itself - why does it matter if one article published by one partisan outlet at a particular point in time reported an event in a particular way? (that trade tensions had "rattled" investors) Second, there is undue weight in your summary of the article - you are making an argument about the negative instability in the stock market when the article itself is in the main (per the headline) about how the stock market has made record gains (i.e. positive instability). This is cherry picking at its finest.
15) No I already have. You just haven't read it/refuse to it/didn't read it carefully. Read in particular WP:PUS and WP:RSP (for analogous cases, such as the state run outlets in Iran, PRC and Russia). To reiterate: we can't use VOA for anything other than the views of the government of the United States and if the content does not document the views of the government of the United States, then the videos must go.
17) That's the argument I have been making all along. Even if the source is reliable that still doesn't mean the material that relies on the source can be included. Please don't pretend otherwsie and make it look like I am shifting the goalposts.
18) That's not good enough. Burden is on you to explain how that ungrammatical sentence accurately portrays Paul's position. My position is to remove the quote entirely.
19) No but this isn't an explanation. Why is it reasonable for some parts in the section to be ordered alphabetically but not others? Neutrality can't apply here because you are not applying your structuring criterion neutrally. If you can't explain your double standards, then you must revert back to my original edit. Flaughtin (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point-by-point responses are collapsed.
Extended content
4. I think I see what's causing the problem. The NYT source mentions more than one tweet, and the passage in our article is discussing the tweet that includes the phrase "hereby ordered". (Our article doesn't seem to discuss the "Emergency Economic Powers Act" tweet, which is about a legal issue but also is not itself a legal order.) Regarding the "hereby ordered" tweet, the NYT source clearly states "In fact, aides said, no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. For the moment, they said Mr. Trump was signaling American businesses to begin to disentangle from China on their own." As far as I can tell, there is no indication that Trump contradicted that statement.
6. The section indicates international opposition to the trade war, and it does not indicate international support for the trade war. (Do we agree on this point now?) So saying that the reaction was "mixed" is not an accurate summary of the section.
11. As I pointed out above, it is not just one source that reported negative sentiment about the trade war among investors. In addition to The Guardian, the USA Today mentioned "anxiety" and CNN mentioned "unease". I'm good with mentioning any of those in the article, as long as we give some indication of why the trade war caused stock market instability.
15. WP:RSP (a guideline) doesn't seem to cover VOA, and WP:PUS is only an essay, but regardless, neither of those pages is directly relevant, because Voice of America isn't being cited as a source in the article.
17. Your original justification for removing this source was the edit summary "not a reliable source and WP:OR". I'm glad we now agree it's a reliable source. The material is about the effects of the trade war on US manufacturing, so it's directly relevant to this article.
18. The sentence mostly consists of direct quotes from the source, and it puts those quotes in context clearly and accurately. Removing the sentence would lead to an incomplete and therefore misleading impression of Paul's views.
19. There is no double standard—all I'm saying is that the countries involved should be ordered alphabetically. This is how sections are ordered in a wide variety of Wikipedia articles. It isn't usually controversial.
I am still waiting for an explanation for your repeated reverts. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4) It's irrelevant whether Trump did or did not contradict what the aides said because that's not the issue. The issue is one of weight/NPOV which your version of the text would violate as it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force. There are also issues with the wording, such as the editorializing use of the word "in fact".
6) The section indicates international support to the trade war (the ends) as much as it is indicates international opposition opposition to the trade war (the means). Why do you pretend otherwise?
11) None of those sources are using your loaded, editorializing descriptors in a generic context so they are inadmissible for the material that you are writing. But more than that, they are unnecessary because it would be sufficient enough to say that the uncertainty caused by the trade war has led to stock market instability. Why does it matter to get all selective and point out how the investors affected by the trade war?
15) Your argument is nonsensical. Firstly VOA is cited as a source in the article because it is cited as a source for the relevant videos which are in the article. More than that, the section for which the videos are supposed to be representative of the corresponding content does not document the views of the government of the United States. Hence, the videos must go, per RSP and PUS. As we cannot come to a resolution on this point of contention, it will have to go to WP:3O.
17) Actually this is what I've been writing all along: This isn't a reliable source and even if it was we need secondary sources for inclusion (WP:DUE). You don't just put in random sources (that presumably have been google mined) all because it advances a view that you agree with. The fact that you restored this is more evidence of POV pushing. (emphasis added) PLease do not try to be cute and misrepresent what my position on this point of contention has consistently been.
18) This is not an explanation, but a description of your problem material. I repeat: your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. Paul isn't disagreeing with Trump's trade war (an impression which the material is meant to convey) he was disagreeing with the trade talks (which is obviously different as the NYT article makes clear), so running the sentences together will give readers the impression that Paul is disagreeing with both the trade talks AND the trade war. At any rate the second sentence isn't even grammatical. If we cannot come to a resolution on this point of contention, then it will have to go to WP:3O.
19) As we cannot come to a resolution on this point of contention, it will have to go to WP:3O. Flaughtin (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point-by-point responses are collapsed.
Extended content
4. You say "it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force". Could you please provide a reliable source for the claim that this is Trump's opinion about the "hereby ordered" tweet? His aides' clarification seems to indicate that this is not Trump's opinion about that tweet.
6. You say "The section indicates international support to the trade war". That is simply not true, and I can only advise you to go back and reread the section more carefully. The section indicates concerns about Chinese trade practices but does not indicate support for the decision to start a trade war.
11. It's helpful to indicate investors' reactions, because that clarifies why the trade war affected the stock market. Here are two additional sources (for a total of five) describing investors' reactions.[53][54] Will it resolve the issue if we use one of these, instead of or in addition to CNN, The Guardian, and USA Today?
17. AVweb is a reliable secondary source, so it sounds like we're good on this.
On the other three points I will start a 3O request. I notice that you still have not explained your reverts, even though two other editors at ANI have confirmed that you need to do so. This stonewalling is disruptive and needs to stop. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4) Since you aren't reading what I am saying, I will propose the following workaround text: Trump tweeted that he "hereby ordered" American companies to "immediately start looking for an alternative to China". According to an article in the New York Times, Trump's aides said that no order had been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. In a tweet on the following day, Trump said that he had the authority to make good on his threat, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. This satisfies your demand that to include the opinion of the aides while it also: 1) satisfies my demand that Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force. and 2) properly represents the main point of the article, which is (per the headline) about Trump's assertion that he can force US companies to leave China. I will include this material into the article if I do not see any concerns or response from you.
6) No you need to read the section more carefully (or just read the section). The fourth paragraph for example explicitly indicates international support for the trade war (European diplomats and officials acknowledged support for Trump’s goals, even if they disagreed with his tactics.) Why do you pretend that the international reaction to the trade war is categorically negative?
11) As a compromise, I propose the following text: Investor uncertainty due to the trade war has caused turbulence in the stock market. This satisfies your demand to include investor reactions while satisfying my demand to leave out the editorializing descriptors. I will include this material into the article if I do not see any concerns or response from you.
17) Your failure to provide secondary sources to substantiate what is written in the AVWeb means that the material is inadmissible. Flaughtin (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. That proposed text looks fine to me.
6. That sentence indicates support for the broader goal of changing China's trade policies, not support for the decision to use a trade war to do that. The source says "Malmstrom says that while the U.S. and EU 'agree on the diagnosis,' they differ on tactics, and she argues for a more multilateral approach, citing the EU’s work with the United States and Japan to address the issues through reform of World Trade Organization rules." How about this as an alternative phrasing, to incorporate the point I think you're trying to make: "The trade war has been criticized internationally, though some U.S. allies agree with Trump's goal of pushing for China to reform its policies."
11. I can live with that as a compromise, though I think it's less informative than the current version.
17. AVweb is a secondary source. Maybe it would help to read the explanation at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
At this point I may sound like a broken record, but you need to stop stonewalling and discuss this revert. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6) That doesn't work. If you are going to be specific about the support then you also have to be specific about the criticism.
17) You'll need more than one (Google-mined?) source to established the due weight of that event. Wikipedia isn't an an indiscriminate collection of information and not everything that is verifiable needs to be included. If you can't find more secondary sources that established the importance of that event (that should be easy if it's as important as you are making it out to be), then the material has to go. Flaughtin (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. How about this: "The trade war has been criticized internationally as economically damaging, though some U.S. allies agree with Trump's goal of pushing for China to reform its policies."
17. You seem to be shifting the goalposts. First you said AVweb wasn't a reliable source. Then you said it wasn't a reliable source and we needed secondary sources. Now that we agree AVweb is a reliable secondary source, you're saying we need more sources. But I don't see a policy-based reason for that. You said that "not everything that is verifiable needs to be included", which is correct—but this information should be included because it's reliably sourced and directly relevant to the article, as it discusses effects of the trade war on U.S. manufacturing. (By the way, I don't know why you keep calling the source "Google-mined". I wasn't the editor who originally added this source to the article, so I don't know how that editor found it.)
Since you still have not explained or discussed these reverts [55][56][57] despite my repeated requests, I'm going to restore the recent updates and corrections. If you have an objection to them, please explain it, as you were advised at ANI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6) That still doesn't work because the criticism is not specific enough. Again if you are going to be specific about the support then you also have to be specific about the criticism. As a compromise I propose the following: Internationally, Trump's trade war has drawn support for its end goal of trying to change China's trade policies while it has also drawn criticism for the means by which his administration has used to fight the war. (the support should come first given the preponderance of that material in that section - 3 paragraphs are about supporting the ends of the trade war vs 1 paragraph which criticizes the means by which the trade war is being fought. If you object to the support/criticism word pairing, then I propose that the agreement/concern word pairing be used instead) This satisfies my demand to have the text mention international support for the trade war while it also satisfies your demand to have the text mention international criticism of the trade war.
17) I'm not shifting the goalposts. The problem is that you just aren't reading what I am saying. I have always said from the beginning that you need more than one source per DUE to substantiate what is written in the AVWeb article (Note the plural secondary sources) I hate to be uncivil about this, but for me to have to keep telling you this really is a total waste of fucking time. If you can't find more secondary sources that establishes the importance of that event (that should be easy if it's as important as you are making it out to be), then either the material has to go or to 3O we go. It is that simple. Flaughtin (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your revert and will continue to do so should you edit war over this. As I have already explicitly said (to you) per point 24 above, I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate). Flaughtin (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. That version is misleading and doesn't give due weight. The section has two paragraphs focusing on criticism of the trade war, two paragraphs focusing on support for the shared goals, and no paragraphs indicating support for the trade war. Overall, reliable sources discussing the trade war focus more on the criticism than on support for the end goals. And they don't indicate support for Trump's decision to start a trade war, just support for the shared goal of changing China's trade policies. How about this as a compromise, using the order you suggested: "While some U.S. allies support Trump's end goal of trying to change China's trade policies, they have also criticized the trade war for its use of tariffs and damaging economic impact."
17. I don't see any reason why this information would need multiple sources. Its relevance is clear, as it indicates the effects of the trade war on the manufacturing industry. You say "you need more than one source per DUE", but we don't seem to be giving undue weight to the manufacturing industry, as there are many sources discussing the trade war in terms of its effects on manufacturing. It feels like you're trying to impose an arbitrary standard here.
And your continued refusal to discuss reverts like this one is not consistent with the collaborative nature of editing Wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6) Firstly you are misrepresenting what is in that section. Where is your evidence that the section has "two paragraphs focusing on criticism of the trade war" and that there are "two paragraphs focusing on support for the shared goals"? There are 3 paragraphs that are about supporting the end goals of the trade war (1, 2 and 4) and only 1 paragraph focusing on criticism of the means of the trade war (5). The rest are neutral.
Secondly you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said they agreed with the Trump admin's decision to start a trade war I said they agreed with the Trump admin's end goals of the trade war. Aside from the fact that that is the case and it is verifiable that that is the case, the end goals have to be specified within the context of the actual trade war because the trade war: 1) is what made those articles noteworthy in the first place and 2) is what establishes the due weight of those articles into this Wikipedia article. If that contextual specification is missing (Trump admin's end goals vs the Trump admin's end goals of the trade war; or if you have to be more specific about it: Trump admin's end goals of the trade war vs the Trump admin's end goals of the trade war within the context of the actual trade war) then there wouldn't be any grounds to the material in the first place as they would just be run-of-the-mill criticism.
As a compromise, I propose the following: Internationally, Trump's European allies have supported the end goal of his administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies while they has also criticized the means (tariffs) by which his administration has used to fight the war.
17) It's not a matter of relevance, it's a matter of establishing significance (due weight). Events (or more specifically the type of event - disruptions to manufacturing activity because of a lack of investment due to the trade war) like the one you are vouching for are dime a dozen, so if there's anything unique about this case, then that is your job per BURDEN to prove it . By way of illustration, you will note that the extant material (excluding the material that you are trying to include) in the manufacturing section document the views of representatives of the manufacturing industry.
I reverted your latest revert and will continue to do so should you edit war over that . As I have already explicitly said (to you) per point 24 above, I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate). Flaughtin (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. The sixth paragraph also discusses criticism of the trade war. The second paragraph discusses other pushback against Chinese policies (the source is mainly focused on the Belt and Road Initiative, which the US is not a part of; it also briefly mentions EU concerns, but those are covered in other parts of the section). Your latest suggestion is better, but it incorrectly implies that international criticism is only coming from Europe. Criticism from Chile is mentioned in the article, and here's a source[58] for criticism from the International Monetary Fund as well. Also, criticism has been about the economic impact of the trade war, not just about the decision to use tariffs. And it is misleading to call these EU officials (some of whom are harsh critics of Trump) "Trump's European allies". How about this compromise: "Internationally, US allies in Europe have supported the end goal of the Trump administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies, while officials have also criticized the use of tariffs and the trade war's negative economic impact." I think it's overly wordy, but I can live with it if it will resolve this.

17. I haven't said there's anything particularly unique about this case. If you're right that these effects on manufacturers are common in this trade war, then it is all the more important that we include an example.

I'm not going to edit war, but I am at a loss for what to do given that you refuse to discuss these reverts. I hope that the ANI discussion will help us find a path forward. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6) It's strange to apply two different descriptors (U.S. allies in Europe and officials) to the same people who are both supporting and criticizing Trump's trade war. I propose the following: Internationally, European officials have supported the end goal of the Trump administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies, while they have also criticized the use of tariffs and the trade war's negative economic impact.
17) You aren't reading what I am saying. If the kind of event you are citing is a common occurrence (which it is), then it fails due weight for inclusion. You will note that all of the other material in that section is material that is representative of the manufacturing industry in the USA. (representative because they are the views of key representatives of major US manufacturing orgs or associations) Flaughtin (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. It's not just the same people, though. We have criticism from a broader group than just European officials, including a Chilean official and the IMF.
17. It's true that this isn't the best section for the information, because it's an effect rather than a reaction. I suggest we move the paragraph to the "Effects" section. Will that solve the problem?
Could you please comment in the WP:ANI discussion to resolve the issue of your unexplained reverts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6) In that case we have to factor in support from non European officials as well. (India, Japan) As compromise I propose the following text: Internationally, there has been support for the end goal of the Trump administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies, while there has also been criticism of the use of tariffs and the trade war's negative economic impact. The wording is ambiguous enough to allow for both of our divergent understandings of the scope conditions.
17) That still wouldn't solve te problem because DUE (and BURDEN) applies and you will also note that this is an example of you shifting the goalposts (your position all along prior to your latest response on this point of contention was that the material belonged to the manufacturing section. If you thought otherwise, you should have made that clear right at the beginning, not now when you are sensing defeat) Please do not think that it will be easier to include the material in the effects section because you think there is more lattitude as to what kind of content counts as representative in that section.
I don't see what more I have to say at the ANI noticeboard because I have already said what needs to be said. I will start the second round of edits which you purged as soon as we are finished with this first round of debate, which I am expediting to the best of my ability (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate). If my revert of your edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then that your prior revert of my edits (for which you provided no full explanation) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. I can live with that wording as a compromise.
17. Until the other day, we were talking about whether the source was reliable, and I didn't notice that the paragraph was in the "Reactions" section. Now that I've noticed, I think the most appropriate section is the "Effects" section rather than the "Reactions" section. But I can live with keeping it in the "Reactions" section if you'd prefer. My point is that the information is reliably sourced and relevant to the article, so it should be covered in the article.
I have responded to every point you've made about my revert. And I've been trying to discuss your reverts of separate material for weeks, but you still haven't explained or justified them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17) Are you going to find other secondary sources for this or will this have to go to 3o? Flaughtin (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will address my revert of your edits after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits that you did here. We are going to do this sequentially and, to be clear, you aren't going to get first dibs on this just because you want to. This will take time but that's typically what happens when you make edits like this. If my revert of your edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then your prior revert of my edits (for which you provided no full explanation) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17. One reliable secondary source is sufficient for this claim. It doesn't need additional sources. Feel free to start another 3O request, or I can start one if you'd prefer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request old

The following three points need input. Prior discussion is above, and input would also be appreciated on the other issues under discussion.
a. (issue 15 above) Should the videos from Voice of America be included in the article?
b. (issue 18 above) Should the article include Scott Paul's views as covered in both of these two sources [59][60], or should it only include his views covered in the first source?
c. (issue 19 above) Should the country subsections in the "Reactions" section be ordered in alphabetical order ("China" then "United States") or in the opposite order ("United States" then "China").
Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prospective contributors should ignore this 3O request for three reasons: 1) the 3O list is incomplete as the above round of dispute is yet unresolved so there will be more questions that will require a 3O; 2) the questions are leading (the opposing user's position on the respective points of contention are ordered first while mine are ordered last); and 3) I and not the opposing editor should have been the one to file this request as I am the original author of the points/list of contentions in question and original proponent for a 3O request. Flaughtin (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this, and while I can't spend the time to disentangle this long and complicated argument, if I may, let me try an end one part of your dispute. VOA is not a reliable source except in extremely narrow contexts, and these videos aren't it. VOA is a state run media agency that publishes out and out propaganda, and are explicitly listed(as has been noted) a PUS. Furthermore, the idea that videos don't count as "sources" is frankly absurd. Such a loophole, if it existed, would make Wikipedia unusable. I think Wikipedia should have a an explicit policy about this(I am unable to find one), but the videos are content in an encyclopedia, and that means they should be encyclopedic and follow the same rules for inclusion that any other source does. Grung0r (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's a specific policy on this either, but in practice verifiability standards are applied to media files differently from text. Otherwise, most user-created media would be disallowed as original research. I've never encountered a prohibition on using media files from Voice of America and other state media. But I'm willing to let this go for the sake of moving forward. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request

A third opinion is requested in relation to the following three points of contention (the corresponding debate is above) and your input on this would be helpful. PLease ignore the third opinion request above as that has been superceeded by this one:

1) Point 17 - disagreement over the sufficiency of the weight/sourcing of the material in question
2) Point 18 - disagreement over how representative the current text is of Scott Paul's views
3) Poitn 19 - disagreement over how the reactions section should be ordered Flaughtin (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second round of debate

The following points of contention are listed below in relation to your second mass purge of my edits here and for the sake of clarity I am going to use my original edits as the basis for identifying them.

1) [61] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

2) [62] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

3) [63] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

4) [64] - your reversion of this edit is nonsensical as, per the summary, that material is corroborated by information throughout the article (e.g. August 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020in the chronology section).

5) [65] - prior consensus for the wording for the first sentence of this has already been achieved via the first round of debate. As for the rest of the paragraph, barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

6) [66] - this either has been or is being resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

7) [67] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

8) [68] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

9) [69] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

10) [70] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

11) [71] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

12) [72] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

13) [73] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

14) [74] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

15) [75] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

16) [76] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

17) [77] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

18) [78] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

19) [79] - I am ok with having this edit being overridden by the existing material.

20) [80] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

21) [81] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

22) [82] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

23) [83] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

24) [84] - as compromise, i am ok with the inclusion of the part about Canadian wheat provided that you can provide other secondary sources to substantiate that claim. If you cannot, then that material must go.

25) [85] - this material must go if you cannot find a better source for this.

26) [86] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

27) [87] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

28) [88] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

29) [89] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

30) [90] - this material must go if you cannot find a better source for this. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

31) [91] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

32) [92] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this Flaughtin (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source for claim about effects of trade war on China?

The lede currently states, "In China, it has led to record decreases in economic growth and manufacturing activity." What's the source for this claim? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That question is being resolved in the second round of debate above. Flaughtin (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source? The massive "rounds of debate" above are completely opaque to me. If there's no source, I am going to remove the information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted that edit and will continue to do so should you edit war over this. As I said, the question is being resolved in the second round of debate (point 4) above. If those debates are opaque to you, then that really is your problem; I can't be bothered to read it is not a reason to revert. The debates above were reached and are proceeding after hours of work that the other editor and I put in, and nobody is going to let you just jump the line because you feel entitled to. Flaughtin (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section

I reworked the section titled, "Conflicts after China joins the WTO": [93]. The section was written as a litany of complaints against China, and overall gave a very unrealistic picture of the impacts of China's accession to the WTO. This egregious passage was typical of the tone of the section:

As a new member, China agreed to rapidly lower import tariffs and open its markets, although many trade officials doubted it would stand by those promises. China did cut tariffs after it joined the WTO, but it nonetheless continued to steal U.S. intellectual property (IP) and forced American companies to transfer technology to access the Chinese market, which were violations of WTO rules.

These sentences were sourced to a 2005 NY Times article: "Accession has brought change to China and WTO". The tone of the article is nearly completely opposite to the tone of the above passage. The article discusses the rapid increase of China's imports and exports (the latter faster than the former) in the wake of WTO accession, and cites various experts who say that China is largely meeting its obligations, and that the business environment has greatly improved. Yet whoever wrote the "Conflicts after China joints the WTO" section pulled a few out-of-context details out to paint an entirely different picture.

My edits have no been completely reversed, and I sense there's an ownership issue at work here. I think the section, as I wrote it, is a much more neutral description of the effects of China's WTO accession, and of the various disputes the US and China have had at the WTO since. I think this is a much better basis to work from than what is presently in the section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China–United_States_trade_war&oldid=972307734"