Talk:China–United States trade war

This is confusing and contradictory as hell

“ On 2 April, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs on 128 U.S. products including aluminium scraps, airplanes, automobiles, pork products, and soybeans (which have a 25% tariff), as well as fruits, nuts, and steel piping (15%).^[3][4] The next day, the USTR published a list of over 1,300 categories of Chinese imports worth $50 billion on which it planned to impose levies, including aircraft parts, batteries, flat-panel televisions, medical devices, satellites, and weapons.^[5][6][7] In retaliation for that announcement, China imposed an additional 25% tariffs on airplanes, automobiles, and soybeans, which are the top U.S. agricultural export to China.^[4][8] ” — Special:PermanentLink/849254847

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) [1] - 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) [2]- 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) [3] - 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) [4] - 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) [5] - 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 [6] - 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 [7] - 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 [8] - 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 [9] - 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 [10] - 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 [11] - 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 [12] 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 [13] - 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 [14] - 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 [15] - 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 [16] - 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 [17] - same as above

18 [18] - 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 [19] - 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 [20] - 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 [21] - 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 [22] - 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 [23] - 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 ([24] and [25]).

24 [26] - 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 ([27] and [28]).

25 [29] - 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 [30] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[31] [32] 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)

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)

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: [33] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[34][35] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [36][37][38] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[39] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [40][41], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Response to third opinion request:

17: The source seems fine and the trade war is a main topic but I can't find any other coverage (except this, which doesn't explicitly link the two) and cutting down is probably good in article this size. You could condense it a bit but I'm leaning towards just taking it out. 18: The statements represent as much coverage, and are as due as the ones referenced in the previous line. Highlighting either seems a little unwarranted, looking at the sources. The first is the single positive reaction among half a dozen negative ones; it would be better to give an overall summary of the source (e.g. "After retaliatory tariffs from China in July 2019, industry leaders and local politicians in the U.S. expressed dismay about the impact of the trade war on soybean farmers, pork producers, and farm equipment manufacturers, among others.". I've can't really find anywhere else to use the other source since it deals with one of a series of trade talks that didn't go anywhere, and part of it covers background which is only related indirectly. I'd just take it out. 19: It intuitively makes sense to me that China's reaction to tariffs imposed on them comes first. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Special:Contributions/ReconditeRodent - can you please clarify your response to point 18 as there are some things I'm not clear about. We already have your proposed summary elsewhere in the article (the effects section) and the request/material is focusing exclusively on Paul's views. Paul is an important representative of the manufacturing industry, his views on the tariffs are pretty unambiguous and just gutting his views entirely would (seem to me anyway) to be undue. Here are some more sources which establishes the notability of his organization, incontrovertibility of his support for the tariffs, and may perhaps clear up any confusion on your end which I didn't address in my remarks to you. [42], [43]

As for the other two points, I agree with with your solution on point 17 to take out the material and will accept your input on point 19 even though it's not the outcome that I had hoped for. Flaughtin (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The summary shows of the reactions of industry leaders, and so is more appropriate for the Reactions section than Effects, which, as far as I can tell, deals with observed effects and academic research. As for Scott Paul, nothing suggests he's so self-evidently notable that we should prioritise his views over the several other people given equal or greater weight in the AP source, and who have also received coverage elsewhere (e.g. ). Likewise, if we used Politifact, why would we highlight the paragraph mentioning his views over the subsequent one which contrasts them with those of "Most mainstream economists" or the one after that from an NYU Economics Professor? It's cherry-picking. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding with regard to Paul. We aren't comparing (much less prioritizing) his views to anyone else and there's no need to do that anyway; his opinion is classified under the manufacturing subsection of the reactions section, so all we are interested is just his reaction as a manufacturing rep to the trade war - it's not relevant what anyone else thinks. Remember: the reactions section is segmented, it's not a giant, generic section. Now if his views were classified under a different section of the article (e.g. effects) then I woulda gree with you that considerations like weight and NPOV would apply because the views of third parties would come into. But that's not the case here. Flaughtin (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd about be okay with a line or two on Paul if we go through the other responses in the sources and make sure everyone else whose opinions are given similar weight and have received a similar amount of coverage elsewhere also gets a mention in the relevant section. I can do that if you'd like. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me (though I wonder if it would be better to reorganize the section so it isn't split up by industry). My main concern is that if we mention Paul's views from the AP source, we should also mention his views from the NYT source. If we covered one but not the other, it would give an incomplete and misleading impression of his views. (I'm also fine with omitting Paul's views altogether.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent - you want me to write the proposed wording or do you want to take the lead? I think it'sbetter if you do because you are the one providing the 3O and I was a participant in the dispute that led directly to this 3O request. Flaughtin (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ReconditeRodent & User talk:Mx. Granger: In light of the above, I propose the following text: Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, is a proponent of the increased U.S. tariffs [44] and has been critical of anti-tariff groups and US-China trade talks. [45], [46] I will put this version of the material into the article barring any objection from either of you. Flaughtin (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. Here's what I'd propose to give a balanced representation of the reactions of people quoted in the sources:

• [After the bit on the United Steelworkers Union] Scott Paul, president of the associated Alliance for American Manufacturing, has also supported tariffs,[47][48] and opposed proposals to reverse them in light of the Coronavirus pandemic.[49] In 2019, he criticised the stagnation of trade talks saying "Trump would have ripped any Democrat for that outcome".[50]
• [In Agriculture] Iowa soybean farmer and president of the American Soybean Association John Heisdorffer called the use of tariffs a "scorched-earth approach", warning that U.S. industries could permanently lose global market share as a result.[51][52]
• [In Business] Hun Quach, vice president of international trade for the Retail Industry Leaders Association has claimed that the tariffs will impact American family budgets by raising the prices of everyday items.[53][54][55]
• [In a new Academic/Economists section] Most economists argue that "consumers are the primary victims of tariffs" and that they carry "more risks than benefits". [56] [57] NYU Economics Professor Lawrence J. White has said that import tariffs are equivalent to a tax, and contribute to a higher cost of living. Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center argued that the impact of the trade war would eliminate "most or all" of the benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for low- and middle-income households.[58][59]
• After the first phase of a trade deal was agreed upon in December 2019, Mary E. Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and professor at Syracuse University said the ceasefire was "good news" for the American economy while expressing optimism that the talks would help address China's "unfair" intellectual property practices.[60][61]

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: These summaries look good to me. Thanks for putting them together! My only concern is that I don't see a source for the sentence about Lawrence J. White. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Same as the previous two sources, but I agree we could replicate them for clarity. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent I disagree with the second sentence of your wording of Paul's views. The article makes it clear he isn't just critical of the trade talks, he is criical of China's pledge to purchase more agricultural products. That has to be included or else it makes it look like Paul is just criticizing Trump. Flaughtin (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

He is just criticising Trump; the "regurgitated" pledge is there because it demonstrates a lack of progress which he sees as (ultimately) Trump's fault. I guess the quote sounds a little weird without that context though so we could just have something like In 2019, he criticised Trump over the stagnation of trade talks. [62] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 09:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No but that's improper synthesis on your part. Paul's is not just criticizing Trump - in fact it's not clear that he is even criticizing Trump at all for the regurgitated pledge (you'll note the ellipsis in the twitter message which the article cites). All he is saying is that Trump would have ripped any Democrat for the outcomes which the White House statement announced - he never says who or what he thinks is at fault (ultimately or otherwise) for that outcome. For all we know Paul could be blaming (or ultimately blaming) the PRC for the breakdown in the talks. And this confusion of yours is just about the regurgitated pledge - there's a separate set of issues about your oher improper synthesis when you ascribe blame for the lack of progress of the trade talks to Trump. In light of that ambiguity, I propose that we leave the wording at: In 2019, he criticized (American spelling as it's an American page) the stagnation of US-China trade talks, saying they were failing American workers. That way it avoids all this speculation about blame. Flaughtin (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: To me, that's a misunderstanding of how language works. We could just say he criticised the stagnation of trade talks but I still prefer my version as both more specific and more concise, and so have listed the issue for a fourth opinion. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"We could just say he criticised the stagnation of trade talks " I endorse this wording as an interim solution and have modified the content accordingly. (The entire wording now reads: [After the bit on the United Steelworkers Union] Scott Paul, president of the associated Alliance for American Manufacturing, has also supported tariffs, and opposed proposals to reverse them in light of the Coronavirus pandemic. In 2019, he criticized the stagnation of trade talks.) This does not mean I concede to your objection as I still stand by the arguments in my immediately preceeding arguments to you. Flaughtin (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think ReconditeRodent's original proposal (timestamped 12:48, 26 August 2020) is clearer and more informative. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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) [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.

2) [64] - 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) [65] - 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) [66] - 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) [67] - 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) [68] - 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) [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.

8) [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.

9) [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.

10) [72] - 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) [73] - 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) [74] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

13) [75] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

14) [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.

15) [77] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

16) [78] - 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) [79] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

18) [80] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

19) [81] - I am ok with having this edit being overridden by the existing material.

20) [82] - 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) [83] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

22) [84] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

23) [85] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

24) [86] - 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) [87] - this material must go if you cannot find a better source for this.

26) [88] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

27) [89] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

28) [90] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

29) [91] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

30) [92] - 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) [93] - 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) [94] - 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)

It seems to me that most of these issues have already been resolved. A few are being discussed below. With respect to point 24, the New York Times (a secondary source) combined with the numbers from the USDA report (the primary source cited by the NYT article) seems to be sufficient for that claim. With respect to point 25, I would assume that Business Insider is a reliable source for a summary of the Capital Economics analysis, but I'd welcome other users' thoughts on that. With respect to point 30, I agree that Mediaite doesn't look like a very good source, and I'll try to find a better one.

I want to suggest that moving forward we avoid making long lists of issues like this. Let's use separate sections for separate issues, so that the discussions will be easier for other editors to follow and participate in. If you want to continue discussing points 24 or 25, let's do so in separate sections below. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

24) User:Mx. Granger Upon further review I am ok with the inclusion of this material and have modified the text accordingly.

25) WP:RSP states that BI is a source with no consensus over its reliability, so the BURDEN is on you to get a better source for this. If you cannot then the material must go. Flaughtin (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll start a new section about the Business Insider source below, to make the discussion easier to follow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

That question is being resolved in the second round of debate above. 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. -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; I don't want 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)

You're pointing me vaguely to pages of text, saying the issue is under discussion. I've tried looking through those pages and pages, but I haven't found the answer. There's a problem with your approach here - reverting, refusing to provide a source and directing me to a massive wall of text that supposedly contains the answer to my question buried deep within it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious you haven't been reading what I have been saying. It's not vague when I have already told you where to look. (second round of debate, point four) Not once, but twice. If you followed my instructions, you would have seen what the supporting information is for the sentence whose corroboration you are disputing. (August 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020 items in the chronology section) Flaughtin (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop telling me to look at the walls of text above, and just cite the source here. If the sources exist, it won't take you more than a few minutes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already told you where the sources are. August 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020 items in the chronology section. The first item says Official figures from China showed its industrial output growth falling amid the trade war to a 17-year low [95] while the second item says Official figures from China showed its 2019 economic growth rate falling amid the trade war to a 30-year low.[96] [97] I don't want to read it is not a reason to revert and I will revert your original edit above and continue to do so should you edit war over it. Flaughtin (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

China's growth rate has been decreasing for years. Every year is a "new X-year low." It's different to say that growth has declined to a 30-year low, and that it has faced record decreases. The latter is a statement about the rate of decline - a statement which happens to be wrong. For example, the drop in growth from 2007 to 2008 was much more severe than the decreases seen during the trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Right—there's a big difference between a decrease in manufacturing and a decrease in the rate of growth of manufacturing. The Reuters source says that industrial output growth fell, not that the level of industrial output fell (the latter continued to rise, just at a slower rate). I suggest rephrasing as follows: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in many years." —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated it to read, "Through the end of 2019, the Financial Times found that the trade war had damaged both American and Chinese manufacturers, and driven the American manufacturing sector into contraction." (diff). This is based on this FT article, titled, "US manufacturers hit harder than China's in trade war". China's overall growth rate hasn't actually fallen that much since the trade war began - from about 6.8% in 2017 to 6.0% in 2019. Coronavirus had a much more dramatic effect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't read the FT article (paywall), but assuming that's an accurate summary of the source, it seems fine to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That user's proposed edit omits the part about the slowdown in economic growth so I will assume when you said the FT article is an accurate summary that that only applies to the part about manufacturing and not economic growth. As for the phrasing I propose the following: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in decades." The use of the word decades reflects verbatim what is in the source. I will put this into the article if I don't see an objection from you. The current version of the article has this sentence in the lead (In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial difficulties for farmers.) without any counterbalancing statement, and this is a violation of NPOV.Flaughtin (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As I don't see any objection from you, I will assume consensus has been stablished for this and put the phrase in the article accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop doing this. There's no consensus for what you're proposing. You can't propose something, and then declare that you've established consensus a few hours later because you haven't heard an objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No but there is consensus for a variation of what I am proposing - it's what the other user wrote. His/her words, not mine: I suggest rephrasing as follows: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in many years. Flaughtin (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Mx. Granger I endorse your rephrasing as an interim solution, but propose the following as a superior version: In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in decades. The use of the word decades reflects verbatim what is in the source. Your input on this would be helpful as it'd be the fastes way to break to the impasse on this point of contention between myself and the opposing editor. Flaughtin (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411 makes a good point below, though, that China's growth was already slowing before the trade war started. We shouldn't give readers the incorrect impression that the slowdown was caused entirely by the trade war. I'm not sure the best way to cover this information, but I think the current version of the paragraph doesn't give quite enough information about the economic impact in China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Mx. Granger But your objection doiesn't make sense. The whole "decreasing for years" argument advanced by the other editor is just original research - how big of a role that factor has played in the PRC's contemporary econoic profile has to be substantiated by secondary sources, not just made up on the spot. The articles all show that the trade war has had a dramatic effect on growth rates in China and, for the record, anyone who would deny that is just insane (their headlines, not mine: China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years.) As a compromise, i propose the following: In China, the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth that had not been seen in many decades. This satisfies your demand to make it clear there are other factors besides the trade war at play while it also satisfies my demand that the relationship between the trade war and negative effects on the growth rates have to be included. Flaughtin (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: the current version of the article has this sentence in the lead (In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial difficulties for farmers.) without any counterbalancing statement, and this is a violation of NPOV. Flaughtin (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I object to your inclusion of this material into the lede as it is undue. That material can go into other sections of the article (chronology, effects, manufacturing) but not the lead section; the manufacturing dimension is only one aspect of the trade war and to put it into the lead section particularly as a basis of comparison between the two countries gives it exaggerated importance relative to what is written about it in the article. The content in these three sources ([98], [99] and [100]) is much more appropriate for inclusion into the lead section as they compare the effects of the trade war on both countries across multiple domains. Flaughtin (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added the three sources in my immediately preceding comment(this should be uncontroversial) into the lead and will move your financial times material into the body of the article if I don't see an objection from you. Flaughtin (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in decades" is highly misleading. China's growth rate has been slowing for years. Your proposed text makes it sound like the trade war has had a dramatic effect on growth rates in China, but that's not the case. The Financial Times is a high-quality source for analysis of economic trends, and it states that manufacturing has been affected in both countries. I think that's worthy of inclusion in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

All of this is just soapboxing. It's not what I am making it sound like, it's what the sources are saying. The sources themselves are saying that the trade war has had a dramatic effect on growth rates in China. Their headlines, not mine: China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years. I'm just reporting what they are saying. If you have an issue with that, then you can take it up with those outlets. As you would say: They're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided. Flaughtin (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fortune.com ... what do you expect? We shouldn't be using over-the-top headlines to make misleading claims - unless we don't care about accuracy. The Reuters headline is much more accurate: industrial growth has slowed, just as the FT also reports. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Of course there are others which reports the same (e.g.China's economic growth hits 30-year low...the country has faced weak domestic demand and the impact of the bitter trade war with the US.) but i doubt you'd care to read them. But, to be clear, again, if you have an issue with what's written in the sources, then you can take it up with those outlets. As you would say: They're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided. Flaughtin (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What if we add something like, "In China, economic and industrial growth has slowed."? That seems to be well supported and I think avoids the risk of misleading. (By the way, interestingly enough, the BBC source you linked also includes the analysis that "The trade war may have actually helped the Chinese economy".) —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Mx. Granger I endorse this as an interim solution to balance out the NPOV in the lede section, but not a final solution as your proposed material has now introduced more problems. Because now you are contradciting what you previously wrote: I suggest rephrasing as follows: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in many years. You current proposal has now removed the timescale part ("in many years") and you've collapsed the distinction between growth and growth rate which you've been banging on about for the longest time. As for the sufficiency of the sourcing, here's more which unambiguously prove my point about the trade war having an effect on China's economic growth/growth rate: [101], [102] Flaughtin (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been trying to distinguish "between growth and growth rate" (not sure what that would mean) but rather between the overall amount and the growth rate (in calculus terms, this is the distinction between a function and its derivative). The current sentence accomplishes that.

Previously I did suggest "in many years", but Thucydides411 made a good point that that may be misleading. The long-term slowdown was caused by multiple factors (the BBC article you linked discusses a few of them), and we shouldn't give readers the impression that it was caused entirely by the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

But your objection doiesn't make sense. As I said, the whole "decreasing for years" argument advanced by the other editor is just original research - that argument needs citation and how big of a role that factor has played in the PRC's contemporary econoic and industrial profile has to be substantiated by secondary sources, not just made up on the spot. What is not original research is that the trade war has played a newsworthy factor in the China's current economic and industrial situation; the articles I've cited to you all say that the trade war has led to decreases in China's economic and industrial growth rates not seen in decades - anyone who would deny that is just insane because that is straight from their headlines, not mine: China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years. Once again, I restate my compromise wording: In China, the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth that had not been seen in many decades. This satisfies your demand to make it clear the slowdown is not caused entirely by the trade war as it acknowledges that there other factors besides the trade war at play (key word here is contributed) while it also satisfies my demand that the relationship between the trade war and negative effects on the growth rates have to be included. Flaughtin (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

But the slowdown had already started, so it's not quite right to say "a slowdown...that had not been seen" (and not "in many decades"! I assume that was a mistake). If you want to say "In China, the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in economic and industrial growth.", that would work for me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The decrease in the rate of growth has been small (6.8% to 6.0%). The absolute rate of growth is lower than it has been in decades. That was also true before the trade war began. In 2014, China's growth rate (7.3%) was lower than it had been in decades. In 2015, China's growth rate (6.9%) was again lower than it had been in decades. In 2016, China's growth rate (6.7%) was lower than it had been in decades. The only year it wasn't true was 2017, when China's growth rate ticked up ever so slightly (to 6.8%). The wording, "the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth that had not been seen in many decades" implies that the decrease in the rate of growth is unprecedented. That's incorrect. It's a continuation of a long-term trend, and the decrease from 2017-2019 was not spectacular in any sense. Granger's wording, "the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in economic and industrial growth" is much more accurate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Mx. Granger No but the point is that the timescale has to be mentioned as that is what made the information newsworthy in the first place. I propose the following wording: In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on decades-long declines. The last part of the proposed wording should satisfy your demand to make it clear that the slowdown had already started before the trade war. I will put this into the article if I do not see any objections from you. Flaughtin (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As I haven't seen any objections from you and have also seen that you've edited other articles (e.g. [103]) even though I notified you of my immediately preceeding comment, I will assume you have agreed to my proposed wording and will put it into the article accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the new phrasing is a little confusing, but I can live with it. Let's see what User:Thucydides411 thinks, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What's confusing about the wording? It reads perfectly fine to me and satisfies all your demands. Flaughtin (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The length of the existing slowdown strikes me as not directly relevant and therefore possibly confusing. But like I said, I can live with it. If Thucydides411 doesn't object either, we can consider the matter resolved. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say just to remove the last clause, "which had already been on decades-long declines." It's unnecessary, and also not really accurate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No but the last part is necessary and accurate because the timescale component is what made the data newsworthy. It's in the (their) headline for God's sake, just read it China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years. Nobody would care if it just read China's economy worsens in in July, industrial growth at a low as trade war escalates or The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth. Why do you pretend otherwise? Please don't object just for the sake of objecting, you need to make substantive arguments and a one-liner isn't going to do it. Flaughtin (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Headlines are often the least reliable part of a news article, because they're usually not written by the authors of the piece and are often chosen to grab attention. I'm not objecting for the sake of objecting. I'm objecting because the clause ("which had already been on decades-long declines") is inaccurate. China's GDP growth rate has been generally decreasing since the Great Recession (just over one decade ago, not decades ago), with some upturns along the way. It's best just to leave out the clause entirely. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside your other nonsensical arguments (e.g. the headlines for the articles I cited to you are reliable because, as you would say, they're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided), you haven't explained how the clause is unnecessary. Flaughtin (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to read WP:HEADLINE. Rereading this discussion and the sources, I just noticed that the phrase isn't actually supported by the sources—if GDP growth reached its lowest rate in the past 30 years, that suggests the rate of growth 30 years ago was less than the peak rate of growth in the past 30 years. So growth has not been slowing for the entire 30-year period. (The source doesn't seem to say when the peak growth rate was.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Annual GDP growth of China

Here's a graph to illustrate. 1990 was a low point, not a peak. This is consistent with what the source says. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Mx. Granger WP:HEADLINE is an essay so I didn't read it; similarly, I disregarded the graph you are using because the figures aren't up-to-date (it terminates at 2015) and relies on information from a finance, blog-type website.

As for your specific arguments, I don't know who you are addressing when you bring up the 30 years figure (what about the 17 year figure in industrial growth?) as I never said the growth was slowing for the entire 30 years. But if you are going to insist on quibbling with the numbers, then I propose the following wording: In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. The wording is ambiguous enough that it satisfies your demand that the imprecise statistical interpretation (whatever that may be) is taken out while it also satisfies my demand that the timescale component be kept in as reflected by the sources. Flaughtin (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that wording is all right, but I think it's overly wordy and a little hard to follow. How about: "In China, the trade war contributed to an existing slowdown in economic and industrial growth." —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what the issue is. All your proposed wording eliminates what I am requesting, which is that the timescale component be included. How is the last clause (which had already been on a decline) still too wordy and hard to follow? Flaughtin (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggested including the word "existing" as a more concise summary of "which had already been on a decline". If you think that's unclear, I'm okay with including "which had already been on a decline". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've modified the content accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I reworked the section titled, "Conflicts after China joins the WTO": [104]. 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)

A lot of issues with your arguments. Prior consensus for that header has already been established which you would have known had you read (or more accurately, cared to read) the debate on the talk page first. You opinions about what you personally think the tone of the article is is your business, but that's irrelevant in determining what from that article should be put into this one and redundant in any case because we are all editing from a position of bias. To be clear I didn't write the original verion of the section, but I will say for the record that your proposed version is equally as terrible as the version you are criticizing as it suffers from the same issues: POV, lack of attribution, misrepresentation of the sources, manual of style violations.

As for your risible and operatic insinuation of my ownership of this article, that really wasn't worth the bandwith you took to write that nonsense. There is plenty in this article which aligns with your pro China position and I wouldn't have taken the time to engage in the extensive debates above with the other editor if I was paranoid about trying to own this article. If I was trying to own this article I would have immediately reverted these edits ([105] and [106]). Maybe that's the way you do things, but not me. I don't revert any edits - I just revert bad edits. If anything your ownership complaint is a ploy to try to get me article-banned or topic-banned so that you yourself can own the article. That isn't going to fly and I will be prepared to fight that ludicrous allegation if you bring that to the ANI noticeboard. It's either we debate your concerns on the talk page or you continue to edit war. Choice is yours. Flaughtin (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Where was prior consensus established for the text in question?

My "pro China position"? I haven't expressed any pro-China views or put any in the article. I accurately summarized what the sources said, which was quite different from the sentences they were being used to source.

continue to edit war: I haven't edit warred at all here. I haven't even reverted a single time. I made various edits to the article, almost all of which you have reverted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

1) First round of debate, point 6. As I have already told you.

2) Your position is pro China and that is clear from the material you are writing. Of course I am not concerned with that as we all edit from a position of bias (myself included), but the real issue is that the material itself is as terrible as the material that you are trying to replace. POV issues, lack of attribution, misrepresentation of the sources, manual of style violations as was said to you already. By way of example this edit of yours is just awful: for starters, where's the attribution? It's true that the previous version (which again, for the record, I didn't write) didn't have attribution, but that doesn't mean your version now suddenly gets a license to do the same thing. If you think your edits are superior to mine, then that's your job to prove. As i said, it's either we debate your concerns on the talk page or you continue to edit war. Choice is yours. Flaughtin (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What you're calling "pro-China" is simply the same neutral description of the effects of China's accession to the WTO, as described in reliable sources. Those effects include a massive expansion of Chinese imports and exports, quick reductions in import tariffs, improvements in business environment for foreign companies operating in China, as well as various disputes adjudicated at the WTO, disputes over what constitutes state aid, etc. I tried to cover this all pretty neutrally. The version you've reverted back to doesn't give this broad overview, but instead focuses entirely on various complaints against China.

"By way of example this edit of yours is just awful: for starters, where's the attribution?" Every sentence in that edit is sourced to the 2005 NY Times article. Factual statements don't need attribution (opinions do), but they need citation. I provided a citation.

The "rounds of debate" that you're engaging in are not standard practice on Wikipedia. It reminds me of "nothing is decided until everything is decided," which is a recipe for getting nothing done. Each issue should be discussed separately - not everything at once. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sentences like "Upon joining the WTO, China agreed to some of the quickest reductions in tariffs ever undertaken by a new member." and Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. are biased statements and require attribution. I can't help it if you think otherwise. Just because a reliable source says something (which you like) doesn't mean that attribution requirements suddenly go out the window. If there are specific complaints you have about my reverts of your edits, then that is your job per BURDEN to defend them. Flaughtin (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

They're not biased statements. They're factual statements made by the NY Times, and they accord with what I've read elsewhere about China's WTO accession. Questions like, "Which new WTO member agreed to the largest tariff reductions?" are quantitative and objectively answerable. If a reliable source gives the answer (as in this case), we don't need to attribute it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your illegal revert and will file a request for administrative action if you do a ridiculous revert like that again. Don't unilaterally reinstate your disputed version of the material while we are in the middleof debating it here as that goes against all sorts of editing policies and guidelines (e.g BRD and AGF). If there are specific complaints you have about my reverts of your edits, then that is your job per BURDEN to defend them. If you aren't going to follow the rules and be prepared to do that, then don't waste my time. Flaughtin (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411 is right that the paragraph quoted above is misleading. It doesn't reflect the source in tone or emphasis, and it should be rewritten. The main focus of the source is that China made significant progress in reforms after joining the WTO; the paragraph summarizing the source should reflect that. I haven't looked closely at the rest of the section yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To be clear I didn't write that; this is my version of the material. That said, that user's proposed version was as terrible as the version that was replaced. If we focus on just the first paragraph in opposing user's proposed version, the material is lacking in attribution (first for the first sentence), violates POV (there is a significant minority focus in the source which documents US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO that isn't in the paragraph. From the source: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors.), contains undue, irrelevant information (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s. This doesn't mention anything about either the US or China) and suppresses other relevant information (e.g: China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States, which has seen its trade deficit with China almost double to $175.8 billion last year from $90.2 billion in 2001.) Of course, there are other issues which would come up if you compared the opposing user's version of the material with mine (for example the overreliance of the paragraph on just one source, which my version of the material rectifies) but for the sake of clarity, I have decided to focus on the problems of the user's proposed version on solely its own (malformed) terms. Flaughtin (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As it's been some time since work has been done on this section, I have taken the initiative to make some changes to it given the amount of attention it is attracting. I have not modified the first and third paragraphs of the most recent version of the section as there is controversy surrounding that but I have made changes to other parts of the section which I am confident will not be controversial. Below are the changes I have made:

1) Change the last paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous material wasn't clear enough in spelling out how the industrial job losses was linked to China's WTO accession, so I have rectified that by providing a more accurate summary with attribution and higher-quality sources.

2) Change the 7th paragraph of the original version starting with the meetup between Obama and Jintao from this to this. The previous version was problematic because: a) the officials referred to in the first and second sentence of the article are not the same ones which are found in the source; b) the sources for the third and fourth sentences do not even mention the meeting between the two Presidents.My version rectifies for this by quoting verbatim what the officials in the Washington Post article said and eliminates the third and fourth sentences entirely.

3) Change the 4-6th paragraph of the original version starting with the actions that the Obama administration took in 2010 from this to this. The previous version wasn't clear enough in spelling out why and how the complaint of the USW was important (i.e. didn't establish due weight) so I rectified that by combining the materials in the three paragraphs which shows the due weight of the complaint (i.e. a petition which USW filed with the USTR and subsequent response by the USTR and uninvolved third parties) and further substantiate the importance of the event with other sources.

4) Change the 2nd paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous version was problematic because it left out key information (e.g. the other WTO cases which the US won and the PRC lost) and didn't clearly establish how the cases related to a) the background conflicts of the trade war and b) the bipartisan nature of the support. My version of the material rectifies this by providing all the relevant information.

I will assume consensus has been established for these changes if I don't see any objections from you. Flaughtin (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with your objections to my rewrite.

• "the material is lacking in attribution (first for the first sentence)": It's cited. It's not attributed ("The NY Times claims that ...") because it's a factual statement. Facts don't need attribution. Opinions do.
• "violates POV (there is a significant minority focus in the source which documents US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO that isn't in the paragraph." It would be possible to discuss the shakeups that occurred in various markets (such as textiles) after China joined the WTO, but I thought that was too much detail. But this isn't a POV problem - it's just additional detail that you'd like to be included (and it might be too much detail).
• "contains undue, irrelevant information (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s. This doesn't mention anything about either the US or China)": This is extremely due and relevant information. This was one of the most important demands made on China as a condition for WTO membership, and it was hugely important to the US business community.
• "suppresses other relevant information (e.g: China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States, which has seen its trade deficit with China almost double to $175.8 billion last year from $90.2 billion in 2001.)": My rewrite discusses the fact that the US trade imbalance with China has widened. This information is not, in any way, "suppressed."
• "overreliance of the paragraph on just one source": That "one source" gives an excellent overview of the effects of China's WTO accession. It would be possible to cite other sources as well, but it's not necessary - the basic facts are already covered in the NY Times article.

The real question is what the point of this section is. Is it meant to make Trump's case against China, or is it meant to give an objective overview of the US-China trade relationship after China's WTO accession? I want the former, which is why I rewrote the section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

a) Again, I have a different view on that and explained why; the sentences aren't binary propositions, they admit of degrees and I can't help it if you think otherwise. But even if you were right that they were statements of fact and not opinion, the opening sentence in your proposed version would still would not work because it leaves out the opposing statements of facts which index the (significant) minority focus of the source on the US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO. The article itself says as much: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors. Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. If you are going to do a summary of the article, then you must include both the minority AND the main points of the article. Not this cherrypicked version where the minority focus is purged from the summary.

b) the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s. This is extremely due and relevant information. This was one of the most important demands made on China as a condition for WTO membership, and it was hugely important to the US business community. - irrelevant as that's your opinion. If that's true, then quote me verbatim in the source where it says that. If you can't then it has to go

c) "suppresses other relevant information (e.g: China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States, which has seen its trade deficit with China almost double to $175.8 billion last year from $90.2 billion in 2001.)": My rewrite discusses the fact that the US trade imbalance with China has widened. This information is not, in any way, "suppressed." - well no no you did suppress information because your version left out the description in the article which says that China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States. This part is important as it reflects the minority focus in the article and your suppression of it just isn't going to fly.

d) "overreliance of the paragraph on just one source": That "one source" gives an excellent overview of the effects of China's WTO accession. It would be possible to cite other sources as well, but it's not necessary - the basic facts are already covered in the NY Times article. - Nope. One source reflecting one view (the one you like) isn't sufficient to cover almost a generation's worth of developments which have had have global implications. At the very least you need two with counterbalancing views: one which reflects a pro PRC view and another one which opposes it. This is to satisfy basic policy requirements like NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored and, of course, you for the record don't own the article.

Now that I have responded to your concerns, you can now answer mine. What are the objections that you have to the 4 changes below which I had made but you reverted?

1) Change the last paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous material wasn't clear enough in spelling out how the industrial job losses was linked to China's WTO accession, so I have rectified that by providing a more accurate summary with attribution and higher-quality sources.

2) Change the 7th paragraph of the original version starting with the meetup between Obama and Jintao from this to this. The previous version was problematic because: a) the officials referred to in the first and second sentence of the article are not the same ones which are found in the source; b) the sources for the third and fourth sentences do not even mention the meeting between the two Presidents.My version rectifies for this by quoting verbatim what the officials in the Washington Post article said and eliminates the third and fourth sentences entirely.

3) Change the 4-6th paragraph of the original version starting with the actions that the Obama administration took in 2010 from this to this. The previous version wasn't clear enough in spelling out why and how the complaint of the USW was important (i.e. didn't establish due weight) so I rectified that by combining the materials in the three paragraphs which shows the due weight of the complaint (i.e. a petition which USW filed with the USTR and subsequent response by the USTR and uninvolved third parties) and further substantiate the importance of the event with other sources.

4) Change the 2nd paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous version was problematic because it left out key information (e.g. the other WTO cases which the US won and the PRC lost) and didn't clearly establish how the cases related to a) the background conflicts of the trade war and b) the bipartisan nature of the support. My version of the material rectifies this by providing all the relevant information. Flaughtin (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: Look, this is not acceptable writing:

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.[33] 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.[33]

You call this NPOV? This is Wikipedia, and there are certain standards of neutrality. Please stop forcing this sort of material into the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really not an acceptable summary of the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: Please make your comments more concise. You're largely repeating yourself above, making the same (erroneous) points over and over again (for example, claiming I'm "suppressing information" about the US-China bilateral trade deficit, when I actually included it; another example: claiming I left out information about WTO cases that China lost - I included descriptions of two, one of which had been seriously mischaracterized in the previous text). @Mx. Granger: I think my rewrite of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" (which I renamed "Effects of China's WTO Accession") is a much more neutral text to work from. Here it is, for reference: [107]. What do you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin and Mx. Granger: See above. I forgot to sign the first time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My comments are concise and accurate enough, the problem is that you just aren't reading it. Flaughtin (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And why are you trying to circumvent the debate process by turning it into a vote??? You can't just override all the above questions I have posed to you simply because you may or may not get another person to agree to your preferred version of the material. This is not how you build consensus. If this is how you are going to proceed, then I will escalate this to DRN. The way you are going about this is absolutely ridiculous. Flaughtin (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I agree that the current version of the section reads like a defense of Trump's position rather than a neutral summary of the background to the trade war. I think your rewrite is better, though it might be worth including some of the other details from the current version (for instance, the size of the trade deficit). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I can include the absolute size of the bilateral trade deficit. @Flaughtin: I can also include some information on textiles. Previously, I didn't include it in my rewrite, because it's a highly complex issue that's difficult to boil down into one or two sentence. The history of regulation of the textile trade, the WTO and China is quite complex, involving a number of different treaties and a quota system that was extended for Chinese textiles. I can try to boil this all down, but it's quite difficult to do while still remaining accurate. It's also probably minimally relevant to the ongoing trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No but you still haven't addressed all the other concerns that I have raised in relation to your edits here. Don't think that addressing just one part of one of my concerns is supposed to make me overlook how you ignored all the other ones. I will be escalating this to the DRN if you restore anything from your version of the material without its prior consensus here on the talk page first. Flaughtin (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Granger: Please comment on this set of edit as I had asked of you here. Flaughtin (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate the paragraph about manufacturing job losses, as I can't read the sources you cited, but at a glance your version of that paragraph looks fine. Your version of the Hu-Obama meeting paragraph seems fine, though I think it would be worth including the view that "China has complied with many of the explicit promises it made to lower tariffs and other barriers but has failed to adhere, as many hoped it would, to the broader spirit of free trade." I'm not sure the United Steelworkers dispute needs a whole paragraph. On the paragraph about disputes settled through the WHO, I think Thucydides411's version seems more concise and clear. Overall I think Thucydides411's version (the current version) is a clearer structure, so I suggest we work from that version and add detail as necessary (for instance, maybe we could re-add a mention of US manufacturing job losses). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger and Flaughtin: I've reinstated the rewritten version, with additional references (to satisfy Flaughtin's objection about over-reliance on the NY Times news article) and an explicit mention of the level of the US bilateral trade deficit with China in 2001 and 2004 (to satisfy Flaughtin's objection that this information was "suppressed"). I tried figuring out a way to include information about textiles, but the issue is really too complex (and in the end, unimportant to the trade war) to summarize briefly (if you're interested in it, you can read about the Agreement on Textiles an Clothing, the end of the global quota system in 2005 and the incorporation of textiles into the WTO system, and the extension of quotas on Chinese exports). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks decent. I'm not sure the government procurement treaty needs to be mentioned, as it gets only a passing mention in the source. Should we mention US manufacturing job losses? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

About job losses, I'd like to find a source that discusses more broadly the impact on the US economy of China's WTO entry. The NY Times article hints at the fact that various markets were shaken up, but it only mentions textiles. I haven't found a good overview yet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I already gave you the information in my list of objections that I had asked you to respond to which clearly showed the impact that the PRC's WTO entry had on the US economy (points a, c, d, 1, and 4). You would have known had you read it. Flaughtin (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see sources in that comment. Which source are you referring to? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources are there I've already told you where to look. Not my problem you can't/don't want to put in the work, follow the instructions and read the material. Flaughtin (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have filed a case against you on the DRN as you have disregarded my explicit request to not restore anything from your version of the material without its prior consensus here on the talk page first. Flaughtin (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed most of the concerns you expressed above, and sought input from Mx. Granger. Do you have additional concerns that you haven't yet stated? Do you have concrete proposals for how to change the text? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No you haven't and please do not try to be cute with this. In particular please don't try to game the system by getting cute with the sequencing, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. I had asked you to respond to this extensive list of objections that I had to your version of the material and expected you to respond in kind - not this half-baked, mediocre 5 sentence comeback that basically consisted of "i am not going to read it" and attempt to circumvent the debate by vote stacking.I need a point-by-point rebuttal from you, and if you aren't going to follow the rules, then as I've said, don't waste my time. Flaughtin (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already responded to the four objections you raised in your above comment. But just so this is clear, I'll summarize my views here:

a) I've explained why I didn't include a sentence about textiles. It's an extremely complicated issue, and it's not terribly relevant. Above, Granger and I are discussing how to include information on how China's WTO accession affected industries in the US more generally.

b) China's tariff reductions (and other reforms it undertook as part of its WTO accession) are obviously relevant.

c) I included the absolute trade deficit, as you demanded.

d) I used additional sources, as you demanded.

So I've acquiesced to two of your demands (c and d), explained why I disagree with one (b), and am discussing another (a) above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well no no those are non-responses. For example, your point a reponse proves you haven't even read my objection. It's not about textiles - nobody really gives a shit about that. The point is that the first sentence in your proposed version is purged of the significant minority focus in the NYT article, which was about the US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO. The article itself makes that focus very clear: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors. Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. The case of textiles is used as just an illustrative example of those concerns. If you are going to do a summary of the article, then you must include both the minority AND the main points of the article. Not this cherrypicked version where the minority focus is purged from the summary.

But more than, first of all you need to explain why you thought you could get cute with the way you responded to me, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. Who are you to act like you are entitled to respond like this? Who are you to think that you can own the article? If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. Also, as you know there is a DRN I have filed against you, so it'd be best if you responded to my objections to your edits there. Flaughtin (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, it would help if you'd at least acknowledge that I've acquiesced to your demands on 2 of 4 of your concerns (c and d), and that I've said I'm interested in looking into how to address a third one (a). As I said, I'm looking for good sources on the overall effect of China's WTO accession on US industries. We could insert a bland phrase about "markets being shaken up," based on the NY Times article, but I think that with good sourcing, it would be possible to write something far more informative about how the structure of the US economy adjusted to increased trade with China (which industries suffered and which benefited?). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, first of all, you need to explain why your insane editing approach and why you thought you could get cute with the way you are responding to me, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. Who are you to act like you are entitled to respond like this? Who are you to think that you can own the article? If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. If you are this crazily upstanding editor that you are making yourself out to be, you would reset the section to the original version until the issues here can be resolved first. But of course we both know you aren't going to do that, which is why I have had to take you and your "arguments" to the DRN. Flaughtin (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Source on manufacturers' support of trade war?

What's the source for this statement in the lede?

the U.S. manufacturing industry have supported Trump's tariffs

This statement appears dubious to me, as it makes a sweeping statement about all US manufacturers. Surely some of the manufacturers who have been negatively affected have a different opinion. In any case, if there's no source for this broad statement, it should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement is not an accurate summary. Some sources indicate opposition from manufacturers[108][109] while other sources indicate support (or a mix of support and opposition)[110]. I tried to correct the text to the manufacturing industry's response has been mixed, but was reverted by User:Flaughtin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm removing this obviously false statement then. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That summary is misleading as the majority of the material in the manufacturing section describes support for Trump and the summary (especially the semantic focus) has to reflect that reality accordingly. As compromise, I propose the following summary: While Trump's tariffs have drawn criticism from some representatives in the U.S. manufacturing industry, many others, including the presidents of AFL-CIO, IBT and USW, have endorsed Trump's tariffs. This satisfies your demand that criticism from the manufacturing industry be reflected while also reflecting my demand that emphasis should be on the support based on what's written in that section. Flaughtin (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not due weight, and it's really too much detail for the lead. (By the way, the "Manufacturing" section is missing information about the "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" campaign, because you keep removing it.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not reading the material, if you have then you haven't been reading it carefully. The stuff about Tariffs Hurting the Heartland is already in the article, it's under the business section as that is how the source describes the campaign (The Trump administration’s tariffs are the target of a new multimillion dollar campaign by a coalition of businesses.) The only thing about manufacturing in that same source is also already in the article (the quote by vice president at the National Marine Manufacturers Association) That's three spokespersons for Trump's tariffs vs one spokesperson against. I repeat: as the majority of the material in the manufacturing section describes support for Trump, the summary (especially the semantic focus) has to reflect that reality accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This source says that manufacturers have joined the "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" campaign. It's true that this campaign is introduced earlier in the article. It should also be mentioned in the "Manufacturing" section; otherwise, the section gives a misleading impression of the trade war's level of support in the industry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

But your suggestion that the Heartland campaign be mentioned in the manufacturing section doesn't make sense. The article explicitly classifies the campaign as a business coalition, it is therefore a business reaction. Mentioning it in the manufacturing section as well would be a category error. Flaughtin (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the source mentions that manufacturers joined the campaign. Maybe the subsections are part of the problem here—there's a lot of overlap between "Industry", "Agricultural", "Business", and "Manufacturing". —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that that material is already in the article. If you are going to change the subsections then everything in the lede that corresponds to it will also have to go. Flaughtin (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"While Trump's tariffs have drawn criticism from some representatives in the U.S. manufacturing industry, many others, including the presidents of AFL-CIO, IBT and USW, have endorsed Trump's tariffs": That sounds like a partisan defense of Trump's tariffs, not a neutral summary of the views of US manufacturers. Ignoring the fact that the AFL-CIO, IBT and USW are not manufacturers (they're unions), I don't see any evidence yet that most US manufacturers support the tariffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious you didn't read what you quoted carefully enough. I didn't say most manufacturers support the tariffs I said many others, and you didn't even get what I was referring to right (I was referring to the presidents of those manufacturing unions, not the unions themselves) Flaughtin (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've looked into what various US industry associations have said about the trade war. It's very mixed. The National Association of Manufacturers has criticized tariffs, called for a bilateral trade agreement between the US and China, and complained about what it calls "unfair trade practices" by China.[111] There is, of course, conflict within the NAM about the issue of trade with China, because different types of companies have different interests.[112] The Semiconductor Industry Association has expressed alarm about the possibility of a "decoupling" between the US and China, since the semiconductor industry relies particularly heavily on trade with China.[113] Ascribing one uniform view to manufacturers would be wrong. We could mention some of the statements by the industrial lobby organizations, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these sources. I'll add the information about NAM to the "Manufacturing" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've modified this edit of yours. I've added information to the the first sentence which places the NAM statement in its proper context (while disagreeing with the tariffs, they they support Trump's end goals which the letter amply makes. This is similar to the kind of issue we debated in our first round of debate, point 6 - it's a difference betwen ends and means) This is done to satisfy DUE and NPOV, as NAM's statement is more nuanced than a categorical rejection of the trade war. As for the second sentence, I have again added further information which also better reflects what's in that article. The vast majority of the content there is about the rapport between presidents of NAM and USA, and that has to be reflected in the mainarticle. I've tried to ensure the article summary maintains fidelity to the source by quoting the headline verbatim. Reasons for modification are the same as before, DUe and NPOV. Flaughtin (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"The vast majority of the content there is about the rapport between presidents of NAM and USA": That's not the way I read it. From the article, it appears that many manufacturers represented by NAM are very unhappy about and worried by the tariffs, but that the leadership of NAM doesn't believe that openly attacking Trump will bring them anything. They can't stop the trade war and they don't choose the president of the US. The article paints a picture of an organization "Fighting against Trump's trade war from within," rather than from without. However you summarize the article, that should come through.

"A 2018 Politico article documented the close partnership between the president of NAM Jay Timmons and President Trump and said that Timmons was fighting against Trump’s trade war from within": this does at least mention the salient point about fighting the trade war from within, but the first clause about "close partnership" doesn't really reflect the Politico article, and sounds like something you'd read in a hagiography of Trump. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"The vast majority of the content there is about the rapport between presidents of NAM and USA": That's not the way I read it. From the article, it appears that many manufacturers represented by NAM are very unhappy about and worried by the tariffs, but that the leadership of NAM doesn't believe that openly attacking Trump will bring them anything." - it's obvious you didn't read the article carefully because the stuff in the article says the complete opposite (e.g "But as trade conflicts mount, NAM’s diverse membership is giving Timmons some room to maneuver. In 2006, NAM’s smaller members mounted a revolt against the multinationals that typically set the group’s trade agenda, pushing them to endorse legislation that would give the U.S. power to retaliate against China and other countries that manipulate their currency to gain an export edge.The effort failed, and some of those same small companies now are cheering Trump’s tariffs and big-stick swagger.") Flaughtin (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That type of internal disagreement is what I was trying to convey with the sentence There was disagreement among NAM members, however, with some larger members supporting tariffs on steel and aluminum. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No but it's more nuanced than that. They agree on ends, disagree on means, but even then it's a qualified and not an outright disagreement from Timmons (“It’s not the way I would negotiate it, but the last time I looked I wasn’t elected president,” Timmons said. “If this is a better way to encourage investment here in the United States, and create jobs and wage growth, we’ll have to see.”) As I said, the vast majority of the article is about the rapport both Presidents have built up; even the headline says as much: Fighting against Trump’s trade war from within. Flaughtin (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of the article is not about Trump and Timmons' "rapport" (or the latter cozying-up with the former, as Politico characterizes it). It's about an organization that is divided over how to respond to the trade war, and how the leadership has decided to try to influence the Trump administration without criticizing it from the outside. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious you haven't read the article, or if you did then you didn't read it carefuly enough. The vast majority of the article is about the rapport between the two presidents; at least 29 of the article's 40 paragraphs is devoted to that topic. (29 because that's how many paragraphs explicitly mention Timmons's name) Flaughtin (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

International support?

What is this statement in the lede based on?

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.

Which countries are meant? This statement may have to be made more specific. For example, does this refer to US allies? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This sentence was a compromise to try to cover the fact that the trade war has received international criticism [114][115][116], but that some US allies do support some of the trade war's goals[117]. It was discussed as item #6 in the big section above. I agreed to the current phrasing as a compromise, but I would welcome a clearer or more informative version of the sentence. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeline updates

The following updates from the 2020 section of the timeline have been reverted by Flaughtin, but they haven't explained why. Should these be restored to the timeline?

• May 12: The Chinese government announced exemptions for tariffs on 79 additional US goods.
• May: The United States Trade Representative said that "in spite of the current global health emergency, both countries fully expect to meet their obligations under the agreement in a timely manner."
• As of June, China had risen to become the United States' top trading partner again, amid the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the countries were not on track to meet the targets from the trade deal, which would have been a challenge even under strong economic conditions, according to Chad Brown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Chenjun Pan of Rabobank. The economic damage and barriers to trade caused by the pandemic made those targets even harder to reach.

References

—Granger (talk · contribs) 23:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

you have to explain why they are important first. Announcements and developments like that are a dime a dozen. Flaughtin (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The first bullet point gives an update following the February 17 tariff exemptions already mentioned in the timeline. The other two bullet points give information about the two countries' progress in meeting their trade deal obligations, plus the important update that China rose to become the US's top trading partner again. They also indicate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic crisis (currently not covered adequately in the timeline). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Include the first and third item but not the second. It's perfunctory and in any case had been superseeded by the developments in your third item. Flaughtin (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership in background section

There should be some mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the background section. It was commonly seen as part of the Obama administration's strategy for dealing with China's economic rise, and Trump's rejection of TPP and launching of the trade war with China are commonly linked (for example, in this BBC article). I added some information on the TPP in two edits: [118] [119]. Both were reverted, though I've restored the first. It might make more sense to put both paragraphs together in one of the background subsections, so that the connection between the two paragraphs is clearer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What you wrote in this edit of yours didn't even mention about China. Flaughtin (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

US-centric

The perspective of this article is very US-centric, relating the trade war almost entirely through from the perspective of the United States. For example, there are extensive descriptions of various US complaints about China's trade practices, but very little (or no) description of Chinese views on these same issues. There's a lot of work to be done to give the Chinese perspective on this issue, since China is, after all, the other half of the story. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of FP source

User:Mx. Granger I have reverted your removal of the long-standing FP source which you had initially left in and not removed until now. Your edit summary that the article is not about the trade war in particular is contradicted by your initial edit of the material and the last two paragraphs of the article which contains its main argument that makes it unambigously clear that the article is entirely about the trade war (But those pushing for decoupling live in a more realistic world than those who would advocate a return to the status quo ante,) Please do not per BRD revert your removal until it has been resolved here on the talk page first. Flaughtin (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What does coronavirus have to do with the trade war? The sentence in question makes it sound like the coronavirus is a Chinese weapon, which is really unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even going to address an argument that is as absurd as this. If you have a problem with the summary then take it up with the person who wrote the article. He's the one who wrote that headline and started the article off with this sentence: The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered calls in many countries for a reexamination of their relationship with China. His words, not mine. Flaughtin (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not required to cite this opinion piece, and we're certainly not required to cite it in a manner that implies coronavirus is a Chinese weapon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We also aren't required not to cite the opinion piece. Take your summary complaint to the guy who wrote the article. Bad arguments. As usual. Flaughtin (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't remember why I didn't remove the source at the time, but it's not about the trade war. The source is criticizing various Chinese government policies and advocating a vague multilateral response. It doesn't mention the trade war at all, and decoupling isn't Trump's goal in the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No but it is about the trade war. The policies the article is attacking form the background issues which started the trade war. The article even explicitly mentions China joining the WTO (under the Weaponizing China’s economy section) I'd say that some of the information can go into the background section. Flaughtin (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've found two more sources analogous to the FP one and ask that you please comment on whether or not they should be included in the article. ([120] and [121]) I want to see where we are supposed to draw the line on due weight/inclusion of material when it comes to the issue of decoupling. Flaughtin (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

These sources don't seem to be focused on the trade war either, but rather on the future of US-China trade more broadly. They might fit better in the China–United States relations article than here. If we want to discuss the "decoupling" concept in this article, we should find a source that explicitly ties it to the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

These sources don't seem to be focused on the trade war either, but you can say this for all the information and sources in the background section. So what's the difference?

In any case I've found an article which meets you request that the decoupling issue is tied explicitly to the trade war. It's best laid out in the third paragraph which says: His words captured the fears — particularly within parts of Washington’s economic and foreign policy establishment — that US President Donald Trump’s trade war against Beijing has paved the way for an irreversible “decoupling” of the world’s two largest economies. I will put a near-verbatim summary of the ft article into the main one if I don't see any objections from you to the article's inclusion. Flaughtin (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it would be good to include some information from that source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Chinese domestic reactions bias

A couple of points to pick up on here: I don't think the sources on Chinese social media censorship are particularly neutral, while it also seems irrelevant given that everybody knows that China is a one-party state. Similarly, lots of fluff in the opening sentence "state-controlled Communist Party newspaper" -- we don't add these disclaimers for every source. WeeMungo (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources there are reliable/neutral per WP:RSP and the material is also important because it provides important context for the reader to understand why the PRC views are so (artificially) uniform. Removing that would violate NPOV and UNDUE. The labels are also necessary per PARTISAN, PUS, and SUBSTANTIATE; removing them would also violate NPOV and UNDUE. You are correct, labels like that don't apply to every source and that's because not every source originates from a one-party state. Flaughtin (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It feels superfluous to say both state-controlled and Communist Party though, with some red scare undertones. Everyone knows the state is communist, so would just going with that would abide by the rules? Is it right for the SCMP to be considered an entirely neutral source in this topic, given its pro-capitalist editorial? These things are generally not a big deal but I think in a China-US article it holds more weight. WeeMungo (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point about the People's Daily—I'll go ahead and adjust that sentence. I do think the censorship is worth mentioning, though, to provide important context for the other information in the section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The current version reads, "The state-controlled newspaper People's Daily." Would anyone here, perhaps, deem it more unambiguous and neutral-sounding to phrase it as "The Chinese state-owned newspaper" or "The CCP-owned newspaper"? Even though the PRC is effectively a one-party state, the newspaper is formally owned and published by the party rather than the state, so that theoretically by law the newspaper would still be owned by the CCP regardless of who held a controlling majority in China's National People's Congress or any other state institution. For the record, I'm not going to make any revision of this sort to the article, only making a suggestion on the talk page to be consider by whomever it may concern. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

On paper though not in fact, the CCP and the PRC are distinct legal persons. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Even though the PRC is effectively a one-party state, the newspaper is formally owned and published by the party rather than the state - this is an excellent point and I have modified the material accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem section

User:Mx. Granger As the other editor hasn't responded to my latest objections I posed to him/her in the Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section section of the talk page even though he/she has been responding to other issues on the article (e.g. [122]), I'm appealing to you as the third party editor to break the impasse in the resolution of the competing versions of the material in question. For references and to recapitulate: This is my version of the material while this is the opposing editor's version, which is what currently exists in the article. I understand that you have on multiple occasions said that the opposing editor's version should be the basis of further revisions, but I think we can both agree that that suffers from serious issues as well. I am confident based on our past interactions that we can resolve most, if not all, of the objections that I have.

My objections are as follows:

1) The first paragraph has the following issues:

a) the first sentence in the current version of the article violates NPOV because it leaves out opposing material which index the significant minority focus of the NYT article on US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO. The article itself says as much: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors. Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. If we are going to do a summary of the article, then it must include both the minority AND the main points of the article. Not this cherrypicked version where the minority focus is purged from the summary.

b) the second sentence (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s.) is irrelevant as it doesn't mention anything about either the US or China, much less the trade war between the two. If there's an explicit connection in the article between that sentence to the trade war between the two countries, then the material in the source must support that. If it's not there, then the sentence has to go

c) the fifth sentence (However, China's exports to the United States grew more quickly than its imports from the United States, and the bilateral trade imbalance widened from $90.2 billion in 2001 to $175.8 billion in 2004.) violates NPOV because it leaves out the description of that fact in the article which says that China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States. THe inclusion of the word uncomfortable is important as it reflects the minority focus in the article.

2) The second paragraph has the following issues:

a) The first sentence requires attribution because this is not what the NYT article itself is saying: it's quoting somebody else who said that (Owen Nee, a counsel with the U.S.-based international law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe). It's also UNDUE because the person isn't notable, the opinions seem to be (cherry) picked to advance in violation of NPOV a certain view and it is superceeded by the views of the U.S.-China Business Council, which is a far more notable entity. If you are going to insist on keeping Nee's views, then there has to at the very least be further sources to sustantiate the notability of them.

b) the second sentence (Within China, WTO rules gave the central government in Beijing a tool for pushing through reforms resisted by local officials.) is irrelevant as it doesn't mention anything about either the US or China, much less the trade war between the two. If there's an explicit connection in the article between that sentence to the trade war between the two countries, then the material in the source must support that. If it's not there, then the sentence has to go

c) The pro-PRC bias advance by this and the first paragraph needs a balance, and this is to satisfy basic policy requirements like NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored. The previous argument in the Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section section of the talk page that it wasn't necessary to cite another source because the NYT source already gave an excellent overview of the effects of China's WTO accession is nonsensical because one source reflecting one view isn't sufficient to cover almost a generation's worth of developments which have had have global implications.

3) The third paragraph has the following issues:

a) The first sentence is original research; at thevery least it requires attribution.

b) It has purged relevant and well-sourced information contained in paragraph 2 in of my proposed version of the article. Specifically it leaves out the other WTO cases which the US won and the PRC lost and doesn't clearly establish a) how the cases related to the background conflicts of the trade war and b) the bipartisan nature of the support.

4) The fourth paragraph has the following issues:

a) The first sentence has MOS violations (WP:SAY)

b) The third sentence is irrelevant as the source does not even mention the meeting between the two Presidents.

5) The version of the material purges paragraphs 3 and 5 in my proposed version of the article. Flaughtin (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

For point 1a, the trade imbalance is covered by the last sentence of the paragraph. For point 1b, you seem to be applying a double standard—your version of the section also includes material that the sources don't explicitly tie to the trade war. For point 1c, I don't really see any need for the word "uncomfortable"; we should be consistent with the fact that in a previous discussion you excluded any mention of investors' unease or anxiety caused by the trade war.

I'm okay with attributing the compliance point to Owen Nee, but I think it is worth including, as it aptly summarizes the main thrust of the NYT source. I'm also okay with removing the sentence that starts "Within China". I don't fully understand what you're arguing in point 2c, but if you'd like to suggest another broad-overview source that we can use to expand these paragraphs, I'm open to that.

The topic sentence of the third paragraph seems like an accurate summary of the rest of the paragraph and what the sources say. I'm okay with adding other WTO cases to this paragraph.

I'm okay with mentioning the United Steelworkers case, but I don't really think it merits a whole paragraph. Maybe just a sentence. And I think the decrease in manufacturing jobs in the US may be worth mentioning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Mx. Granger 1a) That's irrelevant. The first sentence summarizes the article and the trade imbalance part is a significant minority focus of it, so a balanced summary of the article has to include the trade imbalance part. It doesn't matter if the trade imbalance has been mentioned elsewhere. Even if you were right that the last sentence is about the trade imbalance, you'd still be wrong in your implicit assertion that it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence because the two sentences are referring to two distinct aspects of the trade imbalance. The last sentence documents the facts of the trade imbalance whereas the first sentence which documents the reactions to/interpretations of the trade imbalance - that's why the first sentence raises POV issues and the last one doesn't. You can't have one reaction/interpretation without a counterbalancing reaction/interpretation and call that NPOV. If you must insist on objecting to the redundancy of the material, then that at the very least can be rectified by removing the coverage of the trade imbalance in the last sentence and putting it in the first sentence.

1b) Where? Where is the part in my version of the section which includes material that the sources don't explicitly tie to the trade war?

1c) That is a distortion of the historical record. Yes that was my original position, but I had to give ground as we eventually came to the compromise wording in which investor unease/anxiety caused by the trade war is explicitly mentioned. (Investor uncertainty due to the trade war has caused turbulence in the stock market.) As I have comrpomised there, I expect you to do the same here.

2a) That argument isn't good enough to justify its inclusion and the burden is on you to do so as you are the one who wants to (re)include this new material into the article. As I said, Nee's views require substantiation, without it it's undue because the person isn't notable, it's superceeded by the views of the U.S.-China Business Council (which is a far more notable entity) and it violates NPOV by giving the main point of the article an exaggerated importance and biasing the article accordingly - we don't need three different quotes from the same article all pushing the same pro-PRC POV.

2b) I've modified the material accordingly

2c) I mean reinstating the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph in my version the article which the other user purged. I've provisionally put the material back in and I will assume there is consensus for this barring any objections from you.

3) I've reinstated the WTO cases and modified the opening sentence accordingly.

4) I've reverted the material to what was in my version of the article and will assume consensus has already been established for this as I saw no prior objections from you on this point of contention.

5) I've reinstated the material from the two paragraphs accordingly. I don't see why the United Steelworkers case shouldn't merit a paragraph (which t should for the reasons I've given above) and in any case I don't see how the material can be mentioned without it being a standalone paragraph. If you have a solution for it, then say. Flaughtin (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the current version of the section is particularly good, especially with respect to WP:NPOV. Compared to reliable sources, the section focuses too much on negatives and not enough on positives. It gives insufficient attention to China's extensive reforms, which are the main focus of the NYT source. Moreover, the current version of the section is confusingly organized, with long paragraphs that aren't very cohesive. I think we should go back to User:Thucydides411's way of structuring the section.

About point 1b, to give one example, the sources you cited on the United Steelworkers petition don't tie it to the trade war. About point 1c, my point stands about the double standard of using the word "uncomfortable" here while refusing to use similar language in a section that is actually about the trade war.

The reason for including the information from Owen Nee is that it serves as a good summary of the main thrust of the NYT source.

And what was wrong with the section header "Effects of China's WTO Accession"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your complaint about NPOV is nonsensical because that's what the reliable sources in the section are saying. If you have an issue with their POV, then you can either take your complaint up with those outlets or find (reliable) sources which push your POV - I don't want to do the work is not a reason to revert. Wikipedia is not censored, and as the other user would say: They're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided. Ironically enough, the fact that there are NPOV issues in the section is actually a product of your POV push when you give disproportionate attention to the NYT article by cramming three different parts of it which are all pushing the same pro-PRC POV into the section.

1a) I propose the following wording for the opening sentence of the first paragraph: While the expansion of China's volume of trade after its entry into the WTO sometimes unsettled markets and competitors, the country had agreed to some of the quickest reductions in tariffs ever undertaken by a new member. This near-verbatim quotation of the main point of the article rectifies the POV violation in he previous version of the text that failed to incorporate the significant minority focus in the source which documents US and European concerns about the trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO.

1b) Where? Which one? Get specific or move on. Please do not forget that you were the one who agreed to the inclusion of the material (Your words, not mine: I'm okay with mentioning the United Steelworkers case, but I don't really think it merits a whole paragraph. Maybe just a sentence.) and please do not try to deflect from your failure to address my original argument. The second sentence (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s.) is irrelevant as it doesn't mention anything about either the US or China, much less the trade war between the two. If there's an explicit connection in the article between that sentence to the trade war between the two countries, then the material in the source must support that. If it's not there, then the sentence has to go.

1c) Firstly you will note how ou are shifting the goalposts. You first began with a specific complaint about investor unease/anxiety, but now you are making a much vaguer one about using similar language. Secondly the semantic issue isn't comparable because of the differences in the scope conditions. I am using the word "uncomfortable" in the same contextual way that the source is while you used the word "rattled" in the totally opposite way. If you have lost track of what's going on wrt this point of contention, then just say you don't know what is going on. Please do not get cute with these misreadings and waste my time by going back-and-forth with you like this.

2) Prove it. How does it serve as a good summary of the NYT article when there's already two other quotes from it which push the same POV in the section? Burden is on you to prove its due weight as you are the one who wants to re-include the material.

3) What's wrong with that header is that it contradicts the one you proposed and I subsequently agreed to. If you have lost track of what's going on wrt this point of contention, then just say you don't know what is going on. Flaughtin (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"The second sentence (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s.) is irrelevant as it doesn't mention anything about either the US or China, much less the trade war between the two." If there's going to be a section about China's entry into the WTO, it has to present the subject neutrally. A section that presents China's entry into the WTO solely from the perspective of critics of trade with China would be unbalanced. However, I'm thinking more and more that the background section is far too long, and should be dramatically cut down to focus on the more immediate origins of the trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As usual you're not even making any sense. It's not even about presenting things neutrally (something which based on your past edits to the article really isn't something you are in a position to be giving lectures others), it's about presenting information which is relevant in this first place. You can't present things neutrally if the things themselves can't be presented. I repeat: the sentence is irrelevant as it doesn't mention anything about the US, much less the trade war between the US and China. If there's an explicit connection in the article between that sentence to the trade war between the two countries, then the material in the source must support that. If it's not there, then the sentence has to go. And it's not about the perspective of critics either. It's about reporting what the reliable sources (which they are) are saying. If you have an issue with their POV, then you can either take your complaint up with those outlets or find (reliable) sources which push your POV. As you said: they're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided.

But more than that, you should first of all explain your insane editing approach and why you thought you could get cute with the way you are responded to me, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. Who were you to act like you were entitled to respond like this? Who were you to think that you could own the article? If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. If you were this crazily upstanding editor that you were making yourself out to be, you would have reset the section to the original version until the issues were resolved on the talk page first. Flaughtin (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: Please be civil.

On the section header, the compromise that two of us came to in a previous discussion isn't set in stone. Now that "Effects of China's WTO Accession" has been proposed, I think that looks like a better option.

With respect to the NPOV issues—the main focus of the NYT source is China's reforms, so this should also be the main focus of our summary of the NYT source.

@Flaughtin and Thucydides411: I agree with both of you that it seems like there's too much material in the section that's only tangentially relevant. Maybe part of the problem in this dispute is that the section includes too much material with little or no connection to the trade war. I'll try cutting down the section to address this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

1) But that doesn't make sense, your title option is even worse because it misrepresents the majority of the material in the section, which documents the conflicts which have been created by China's accession to the WTO. User talk:ReconditeRodent I am pinging you to this debate to get your views on this point of contention as you have already provided third opinions to previous disputes between myself and the same opposing editor.

2) You're not reading what I am saying, if you have then you aren't reading it correctly. The issue isn't about the summary of the main focus of the NYT article, it's about a summary of competing foci of the NYT article.

3) I have reverted your mass purge of the material as your action is not supported anywhere in the debates on this the talk page. Please do not put words into my mouth as I never said that that there's too much material in the section that's only tangentially relevant. If you are serious about editing in good faith, then debate your proposed changes here first. Don't try to shift the status quo by misrepresenting my position, ramming through your preferred changes to the main article on the basis of that misrepresentation and then addressing the extant objections that I had to your previous arguments. Again, User talk:ReconditeRodent I am pinging you to get your views on this point of contention as you have already provided third opinions to previous disputes between myself and the same opposing editor. Flaughtin (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As the timestamps show you have been active on other pages despite my immediately preceding remarks to you, I have taken take your non-response to be concessions to them and have modified the article accordingly. (reinstatement of my edits in points 1a, 1b, 1c and 2a) Flaughtin (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It looked like your last comment was directed at User:ReconditeRodent, so I was waiting to see if they would respond. My points above about NPOV and the organization of the section still stand. You seem to be the only person arguing for the current confusingly written and non-neutral version of the section; User:Thucydides411's version is more focused, better organized, and more neutral. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger and Flaughtin: I don't particularly want to get involved but at a glance I would say that any background information on China and the WTO in this article should be linked directly to the trade war by reliable sources (e.g. being explicitly discussed among causes or outcomes). Most of the information in those sections seems not to currently meet that criteria as many of the sources were published long before the trade war began. I would personally move it to China and the World Trade Organization, which can continue to be linked to from this article. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say that any background information on China and the WTO in this article should be linked directly to the trade war by reliable sources (e.g. being explicitly discussed among causes or outcomes). That sounds like a reasonable standard to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent - Please be specific. How does the information not connect to the trade war? Your argument that most of the information in the sections concerning China and the WTO does not to meet your criteria of relevancy because many of the sources were published long before the trade war began doesn't make sense because that's how "background information" works - they wouldn't be background information if they were published during the trade war. The other user also prefers the section to be reverted to either this or this version, both of which suffers from even more problems using your criteria. I hope you are not be suggesting that any one of those versions is superior to mine. Flaughtin (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Mx. Granger - Well no actually first you need to explain your mass purge of the material as that action was not supported anywhere in the debates on this the talk page. Please do not put words into my mouth as I never said that that there was too much material in the section that was only tangentially relevant. If you were serious about editing in good faith, then you should have debate your proposed changes here first. Don't try to shift the status quo by misrepresenting my position, ramming through your preferred changes to the main article on the basis of that misrepresentation and then addressing the extant objections that I had to your previous arguments. Flaughtin (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: You previously said the sentence is irrelevant as it doesn't mention anything about the US, much less the trade war between the US and China. If there's an explicit connection in the article between that sentence to the trade war between the two countries, then the material in the source must support that. If it's not there, then the sentence has to go. I understood this to mean that you thought that we should reduce the amount of material that doesn't mention the trade war. If I misunderstood your position, I apologize. Are you okay with implementing User:ReconditeRodent's suggested standard for the background section?

@Thucydides411: What do you think of ReconditeRodent's suggested standard that any background information on China and the WTO in this article should be linked directly to the trade war by reliable sources? —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I really cannot tell if you are trying to be sarcastic, but if you are then please stop because it isn't working. I understood this to mean that you thought that we should reduce the amount of material that doesn't mention the trade war. - so why did you (unilaterally) decide to keep the paragraphs and remove the ones for which there was prior consensus in this edit of yours? None of the remaining paragraphs mention the trade war either, or if they did, they mentioned it no less than the paragraphs that you purged. Of course, all the material on the page has to be linked directly to the trade war by reliable sources, which is why all the material has to stay in. Just because the material in the section doesn't literally mention this current trade war (how can it if it's background information?) doesn't mean it's not linked (directly or otherwise) to the trade war. If you can't explain how then the material isn't connected to the trade war, then it must stay in. It is that simple. Flaughtin (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I generally agree with ReconditeRodent's suggestion, though I think a minimal amount of additional background could be included. But by "minimal," I really mean minimal. The background section is way too long right now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So get specific or concede already. Which part and why? If you can't explain how then the material isn't connected to the trade war, then it must stay in. It is that simple. Flaughtin (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a double standard. About material you don't like, you said If there's an explicit connection in the article between that sentence to the trade war between the two countries, then the material in the source must support that. If it's not there, then the sentence has to go. But about material you do like, you said If you can't explain how then the material isn't connected to the trade war, then it must stay in.

In any case, it seems that aside from Flaughtin, everyone else in this discussion agrees that, as a general principle, material in the background section needs to be linked to the trade war by reliable sources. I'll try to cut down the background section on this basis. Hopefully that will resolve most of the disagreements that have come up in this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Done (assuming I haven't missed anything). Of course information can be re-added to the section if RSs tie it to the trade war, and anything that's relevant and neutrally written can be moved to China and the World Trade Organization. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your mass purge of the material and I will be taking you or anybody else to the DRN if you/they revert it. Your action is not supported anywhere in the debates on this talk page as the other editors never specified which part of the article to remove and you have not responded to my repeated demands ([123], [124], [125], and [126]) for you to explain your previous edits. There is no double standard from me as my position on this issue has been clear all along: if the material isn't connected to the subject matter of this article, then it has to go. Don't waste my time if you aren't going to follow the rules. Flaughtin (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarity

To be clear consensus has already been established for the following material and they are to appear on any version of the Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section/Effects of China's WTO Accession section of the main article. BURDEN is accordingly shifted onto the complainants and the ONUS is on them to get consensus to modify the material on the talk page first.

Reinclusion of the third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph in this version of the article - evidence of consensus is here, here and here. (to repeat: the involved user makes no specific objections to the arguments raised in point 2c which I had requested if they had any)

Reinclusion of the WTO cases mention in the second paragraph in this version of the article - evidence of consensus is here and here.

Reinclusion of the third and fifth paragraphs in this version of the article, with a grammatical modification to the third paragraph - evidence of consensus is here and here.

Reversion of the paragraph beginning with the meetup between Obama and Jintao to this version of the article, evidence of consensus is here, here and here. (to repeat: the involved user makes no specific objections to the arguments raised in point 4 which I had requested if they had any)

Flaughtin (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary of the current consensus (to be honest, there isn't much of a consensus right now regarding this section), and seems to indicate a misunderstanding of WP:BURDEN. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Get specific or concede already. Where is the inaccuracy in my interpretation of what you wrote and did? Flaughtin (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider

Is Business Insider a reliable source for the following material?

According to Capital Economics, China's economic growth has slowed as a result of the trade war, though overall the Chinese economy "has held up well", and China's share of global exports has increased.

Any input would be appreciated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:ReconditeRodent can you help with this? I am pinging you as you have already provided third opinions to previous disputes between myself and the same opposing editor. (the relevant reference for the prior debate on this point of contention is here) Flaughtin (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree that BI is a reliable source per my explanation in the prior debate on this point of contention here. Flaughtin (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest starting a discussion at WP:RSN. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

BURDEN is on you to do that as you are the one who wants to reinclude that material into the article. Flaughtin (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Business Insider —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)