Talk:Peter Navarro

"Many businesspeople agree with him"

It is inane to contrast Navarro's fringe rhetoric which is widely rejected by economists with a vague statement that "many" businesspeople agree with him. The editor 'Quaerens-veritatem' edit-warred this content in in the absence of consensus. The editor claims that a NYT article substantiates it, but it's misleading in the extreme. The NYT article explicitly says that "many businesspeople share" Navarro's view that China is praying on American companies (through for example IP infringement), but explicitly says that economists reject Navarro's "prescription" to those problems, such as raising tariffs on China.[1] There's absolutely nothing contentious about the fact that Chinese companies steal IP, get government support etc., yet the editor conflates this standard view with Navarro's fringe views to make readers think that Navarro's fringe views aren't actually fringe. This edit should be reverted ASAP[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed this challenged content. As you say, the statement inserted in text is not supported by the cited source (and even if it was, it would be undue weight in the lead section). Neutrality^talk 15:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word "inane" violates Principles of Wikipedia etiquette to be polite. Could you please use a different term? Karagory (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2021 - Part 2

"White House said it is committed to using tariffs and other tools to combat alleged unfair trade practices by Beijing" - U.S. to Take Hard Line on Chinese Trade Practices, Administration Says - WSJ March 1, 2021 Anyone else have any thoughts on this nature of tariffs? Karagory (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"The Biden Administration is committed to using all available tools to take on the range of China’s unfair trade practices that continue to harm U.S. workers and businesses. These detrimental actions include China’s tariffs and non-tariff barriers to restrict market access, government-sanctioned forced labor programs, overcapacity in numerous sectors, industrial policies utilizing unfair subsidies and favoring import substitution, and export subsidies (including through export financing)."2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020 Annual Report, Page 4 Karagory (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

These sources don't mention Navarro, so we can't use them for this article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How can Mr. Navarro's actions/policies be considered fridge if the Biden administration is behaving in an identical manner? Karagory (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comparing Navarro and Biden is original research. We would need a source explicitly stating this. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

President Trump enacted tariffs A; President Biden did not make changes to tariffs A. ("Katherine Tai, Biden’s top trade nominee, says tariffs are ‘legitimate tools’ to counter China" - CNBC February 25, 2021); hence their responses are identical. That is not original research. What are the recent, since President Biden became president, justification(s) that Mr. Navarro's views on China (tariff's as referenced in the outdated sources) are "fringe" since President Biden's actions are identical to those of President Trump? Karagory (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, this source does not mention Navarro, so we cannot use it for anything here. Assuming that any use of tariffs is 'identical' to Trump's actions is unsupported by the sources and absolutely is OR on your part, as is assuming that Trump's actions completely matched Navarro's views. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not "assuming" that the use of tariffs is identical. The sources state that the tariff's were left in place; nothing changed in regards to China tariff's, hence identical. Biden administration officials have stated that they are keeping the tariffs as they currently stand. I don't understand your logic? If your argument is Navarro is not directly mentioned in the source, please do not conflate it with unsourced and unfounded claims that President Biden's China tariffs are somehow different than President Trump's China tariffs. Karagory (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

My argument is that we follow what the sources say, and everything else here is WP:OR, and that no one (either you or myself) should be attempting to use logic to infer anything not directly stated in a source. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources state that the tariff's were not removed after a change of Presidential administrations, hence, they are identical. Logic dictates that if A did not change, then A is the same as before. That is not original research, that is what the sources state. Maybe a better term than "logic" can be used, however, it doesn't change that sources state that the tariffs were not changed under the Biden administration for the same reason the Trump administration imposed the tariffs originally. I understand your argument not to include because the source does not specifically mention Navarro; but, to claim my statements are original research (when supported by sources) is extremely weak to say the least. Karagory (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Today’s national security experts need to move beyond the prevailing neoliberal economic philosophy of the past 40 years." - Foreign Policy February 7, 2020, by Jennifer Harris, Jake Sullivan; Jake Sullivan is now President Biden’s national security adviser. Karagory (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Amid worries about vulnerability of semiconductor supply in China and Taiwan, Washington seeks to halt migration of chip making overseas" - Wall Street Journal - "China’s Rise Drives a U.S. Experiment in Industrial Policy" by Greg Ip, March 10, 2021. Karagory (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"New Trade Representative Says U.S. Isn’t Ready to Lift China Tariffs" - Wall Street Journal - By Bob Davis and Yuka Hayashi, March 29, 2021. Karagory (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden has left Trump's China tariffs in place. Here's why By Katie Lobosco, CNN Updated 10:35 AM ET, Thu March 25, 2021 Karagory (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, This continues to be OR. You can link as many articles about 'Trump's China tariffs' as you like on this talk page, but they do nothing to contradict the sources we already have, which, -again - are about Navarro's views, not about the tariffs the Trump administration implemented. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the Original Research exactly? The source states that President Biden as left the tariffs in place for a reason; the statement is about President Biden keeping Navarro's tariffs in place. Karagory (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, The original research is 1) the implication that the tariffs exactly reflect Navarro's views, and 2) that Biden hasn't removed them means that they weren't (and aren't) considered to be based on fringe views by econonimsts. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Blatant WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If it is so blatant as you state, can you please be a little more specific in your criticism. What is the statement that I made that is Original Research that has not been explicitly stated in the aforementioned reliable sources?

The statement I wish to include is: "Biden has left Trump's China tariffs in place."

I believe that Biographies of Living Persons demands a NPOV -- "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints"; President Biden's actions and views on Tariffs are definitely "significant" and should be included in the article to balance the claims that Mr. Navarro's tariffs are "fringe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs)

It's a Non sequitur. It has nothing to do with Navarro. Implying that it has anything to do with Navarro is OR for the reasons I just gave you a couple lines above this comment. - MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for being a little more specific. Karagory (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I implied nothing. The editor is miss characterizing the statement that I proposed. Balance in not being given to the Living Person; neutrality requires that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Where is the opposing significant viewpoint to the pejorative "fringe"? Karagory (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, These sources you're listing don't even mention Navarro. Using them for anything on this article would create a false implication - the implication that they are at all relevant to economist's views of Navarro's ideas. Neutrality explicitly does not require us to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources cited to claim that Mr. Navarro is "fringe", used in part, Mr. Navarro's support of tariffs on Chinese goods for their determination of him being "fringe". I did not imply it, the Reliable Sources stated it. These Reliable Sources were then cited to justify this article's claim that Mr. Navarro is "fringe". It is not a false balance to point out, using Reliable Sources, that President Biden's administration also supports Chinese tariffs to balance the claim of "fringe". Neutrality requires that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints if they do exist; which in this case, a significant counterbalance exists. Karagory (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not that Biden's administration also supports Chinese tariffs. It's that the existence of the tariffs has put Biden in a predicament about eliminating them as they formulate their China policy. It's early yet.soibangla (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"David Weinstein, a Columbia University economist, says tariffs may actually lower prices over the long term." - U.S. Manufacturers Blame Tariffs for Swelling Inflation - The Wall Street Journal, By Yuka Hayashi and Josh Zumbrun, May 30, 2021. Karagory (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Navarro's views? You just removed long-standing content from the lead[3] after making that comment, as if the comment had anything to do with the content. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with Navarro's economic views. There's nothing about Navarro holding the view that tariffs reduce inflation. This is pure original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

But the Trump tariffs were intended to bolster American jobs, not reduce prices. soibangla (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Biden's view offers balance to the pejorative claim that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe." Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented. Where is the balance in the pejorative statement that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe?" The "long standing" content has been repeatedly and consistently objected to by editors. There is no original research; what did I state that is original research? I stated nothing. Karagory (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, As detailed multiple times previously in the discussion, juxtaposing Navarro's views with anyone else's is WP:SYNTHESIS (a type of original research). To make this comparison in the article we need a reliable source that explicitly makes this comparison. Also, you're trying to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE here. A neutral article on Wikipedia reflects how the sources characterize the subject, we don't try to split the difference ourselves by bringing in unrelated sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the balance as required by Biographies of living persons? What is the editor's justification for no balance? Karagory (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, By faithfully reflecting the tone of the sources and the views of mainstream economists, this article is already balanced. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it has been repeatedly and consistently objected to by editors based on little more than "it's just not fair!" Please provide reliable sources showing reputable people praising his expertise. Incidentally, his recent fascinating comments about the election and the pandemic, fields outside his purview, don't exactly bolster his reputation. soibangla (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor is mischaracterizing my discussion on this page. Why does the editor bring up "pandemic" if the discussion is about economics and tariff's? "Please provide reliable sources showing reputable people praising his expertise." - That is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of the editor claiming "fringe" to show balance (which is not being done in this case). Karagory (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this Talk page is to improve the article, often by persuading others that you're right and they're wrong. If editors can produce reliable sources showing reputable people praising Navarro as an economist, such that they counter the many reliable sources showing reputable people calling his views fringe, then those editors will prevail in the debate and the passage will be modified or removed. But in all the many months I have seen this matter argued here, I have not seen you or any other editor do that. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

His views may (past tense) have been considered "fringe." I object to no balance given to the pejorative (Wikipedia defines "fringe" theory as a pejorative). I have never sought to praise Mr. Navarro as you state - mischaracterization of my position. Secondly, this article is failing to keep up with the times. The editors appear stuck in their rigidly held beliefs that tariff's are bad despite the very, very recent references to the contrary; the Reliable Sources state Mr. Navarro's views are "fringe" because he believes in China tariffs (Reliable Sources state this -- not me). However, I concede that I have not prevailed in this debate. I still do not understand why you brought up the pandemic??? Karagory (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not see WP:FRINGEBLP says it's perjorative, nor do I see I have said you have sought to praise "Mr." Navarro, which is a mischaracterization of my position. Once again, if editors insist this article is failing to keep up with the times then it is incumbent upon them to provide recent reliable sources to support that assertion. But since you concede that I have not prevailed in this debate I can only hope that this matter is resolved for good. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is very much into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory by this point. Volunteer Marek 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion made by the editor. Mr. Navarro's views of China tariffs (part of the basis for the term "fringe" as stated by Reliable Sources) are becoming more mainstream as my references have documented throughout the recent months. Times appear to be changing and this article, I am afraid, is failing to keep up to date. Karagory (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"As recently as the early Trump years, centrist pundits in both parties were appalled at the China-bashing of hard-liners such as Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief China advisor, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who in May 2020 called for a reversal of U.S. economic offshoring in response to China’s 'predatory trade and economic policies.' Now Biden indulges in the same rhetoric with scarcely a pushback or a mention of its pitfalls." - The Bidenomics Revolution, by Michael Hirsh, June 9, 2021, Foreign Policy. Karagory (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Karagory (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2021 - Biden Administration

"As recently as the early Trump years, centrist pundits in both parties were appalled at the China-bashing of hard-liners such as Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief China advisor, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who in May 2020 called for a reversal of U.S. economic offshoring in response to China’s 'predatory trade and economic policies.' Now Biden indulges in the same rhetoric with scarcely a pushback or a mention of its pitfalls." - The Bidenomics Revolution, by Michael Hirsh, June 9, 2021, Foreign Policy. Karagory (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"I do not see WP:FRINGEBLP says it's perjorative," -- Fringe Theory states it is a pejorative.

"such that they counter the many reliable sources showing reputable people calling his views fringe" -- see "The Bidenomics Revolution" referenced above.

"biden is not an economist. there are all kinds of politicians who hold fringe views on trade. unclear why this is juxtaposed in the lead" -- Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented (pejorative stated in lead demands balance also be presented in the lead). How can President's Biden's views on trade be considered "fringe?" Please reference a Reliable Source stating such... otherwise the editor is presenting Original Research.

President Biden's views on Mr. Navarro's rhetoric offers balance to the pejorative claim that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe." Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented. Where is the balance in the pejorative statement that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe?" President Biden's view would be an excellent balance. Karagory (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Navarro's views are largely considered to be fringe because of his disagreements with essentially every other living economist about the impacts of trade deficits. (see for example the economist) The fact that he has employed 'anti-China rhetoric', and Biden has also employed 'anti-China rhetoric' has nothing to do with the fringe-ness of his economic views - this source is silent on the actual issue. Also, again, WP:BLP does not require us to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Marek is right, this is really WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. - MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor is failing to acknowledge the recent dates of my references. I am well within acceptability to bring recent references to this talk page. The editor's claim of IDIDNTHEARTHAT fails to take into account changing nature of the rhetoric and is incorrect. Karagory (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Comparing Navarro and Biden is original research. We would need a source explicitly stating this. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)" -- I provided a source explicitly stating: "As recently as the early Trump years, centrist pundits in both parties were appalled at the China-bashing of hard-liners such as Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief China advisor, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who in May 2020 called for a reversal of U.S. economic offshoring in response to China’s 'predatory trade and economic policies.' Now Biden indulges in the same rhetoric with scarcely a pushback or a mention of its pitfalls." - The Bidenomics Revolution, by Michael Hirsh, June 9, 2021, Foreign Policy. Karagory (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, Apples and oranges. Navarro's economic views are considered fringe by economists. You can't contradict that with a source that talks about rhetoric, especially when the source is not about economists! This has been the common theme of your talk page comments and the root of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. One more time: we cannot use sources that make different points (or are about different people entirely) to undercut the fact that Navarro's economic views are regarded as fringe by other economists. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears as though the editor WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to new references. I have provided at least 4 new references from this year and one in the last month citing both President Biden and Mr. Navarro. The editor points to references years old. I do not contest the use of the would "fringe;" reliable sources state the use of the word. I do dispute that lack of balance. The statement that President Biden's economic views are irrelevant is laughable. If discussing policing issues, does one only cite the academics and not the police officers actually doing the work? I do not think so... Karagory (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Fringe theory says it "is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative," that is, it can be used as a pejorative, but not necessarily, and IIRC I cited at least four RS describing his views as quote-unquote "fringe" in your DRN filing.

Few across the economic and political spectrum dispute that China poses an economic challenge, and everybody hollers about it, but few economists agree that a hostile trade war centered around tariffs is the correct solution, as they point out the extensive historical evidence, approaching proof, showing such trade wars hurt both sides and result in an escalating, unwinnable stalemate. And that's exactly what played out with Trump's trade war, as he called a truce in January 2020 after realizing China would not quickly capitulate as predicted, and after the tariffs raised costs for American manufacturers (yes, they paid the tariffs, not China) and manufacturing hiring flatlined in 2019, and tariffs cost the typical American household ~$1000 a year, wiping out any benefit from the Trump tax cut, and China retaliated against farmers (a large part of Trump's base) such that he had to give them about $30 billion in cash aid from a New Deal program to prop them up. He basically wrecked one of the major export markets for farmers that they'd spent decades building and put farmers on welfare, as China shifted their farm imports to Canada, Brazil, Turkey and elsewhere, and it remains to be seen if they'll ever come back. Of course, Team Trump blames China for this, as if China has no sovereign right to assert its own economic interests and retaliation wasn't playing fair, but it wouldn't have happened if Trump hadn't declared economic war on China. It was a fiasco, and credible economists knew this all along. So the rhetoric isn't the issue, it's the policy. A fringe policy, akin to returning to the gold standard. And even then, Biden's rhetoric isn't nearly close to the outright demonization of China by Team Trump, despite what Hirsh asserts without providing much of a persuasive argument.

This will be the last time I engage you on this topic. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor's statements are all original research. Also, it is not up to the editor to redefine Fringe theory to now claim "fringe" is not a pejorative; simply follow the link. I would recommend removing the link and thus the claim of "pejorative" (and disagreement) would be eliminated. Karagory (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2022 - Biden Administration Part 2

"But there is also plenty of data to show that China was the loser in the trade war because it took a bigger economic hit than the U.S., with much of the evidence compiled by Chinese economists." - The Wall Street Journal, "Who Won the U.S.-China Trade War?", May 20, 2022. Some editors are continuing to refuse to give a balanced portrait of Mr. Navarro’s trade/tariff views. Karagory (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This fringe is nonsensical. Current US economic policy is mainstream. The majority of economic activity on the globe is conducted in USD. It was never fringe and given now that the Biden administration has continued same policy-it is bipartisan mainstream. This is the result of collating leftist opinion fom nothing but leftist sources, end up with nonsense.2601:46:C801:B1F0:35AE:C282:6234:E862 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"We’ve been doing FTAs for almost forty years now. And while some sectors of the economy have benefited, many in this room know that the traditional approach to trade—marked by aggressive liberalization and tariff elimination—also had significant costs: concentration of wealth. Fragile supply chains. De-industrialization, offshoring, and the decimation of manufacturing communities." - Remarks by Ambassador Katherine Tai at the Roosevelt Institute's Progressive Industrial Policy Conference, October, 2022. Karagory (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Active discussion is being deleted (archived)

Editor is engaging in edit warring. Karagory (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor is archiving an active discussion. Will the editor please explain? Karagory (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that you were edit warring, thanks for acknowledging that. You are moving stuff that is more than a year old out of the archives for no apparent reason. Your refusal to accept consensus and WP:DROPTHESTICK is worrying. MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The use of "fringe" is under active discussion. Please do not remove (archive) the discussion. Please explain your actions. Karagory (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I am actively providing new and update reliable sources as they are published. This is not a dead thread, as evidence by an editor statement of only a few days ago. I am seeking consensus with updated reliable sources. I do not understand your false accusations. Please explain yourself further? Why are you trying to stop consensus building with new reliable sources? Karagory (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You're actively posting meaningless links on the page that don't address the actual issues, as you'be been told again and again. A drive by IP who thinks everything is 'leftist sources' does not validate anything that has been going on on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your accusation of WP:DROPTHESTICK is false. Dropthestick states " if you continually refer to old news," which I am not doing. I am quoting recent reliable sources. If editor no longer feels like contemplating new information, please do not stop those editors wishing improve upon the article.

Your charge of "meaningless" is disconcerting; reliable sources are not "meaningless." Your charge against another editors thoughts goes against the process of consensus building. "as you'be been told again and again"; editors do not "tell" other editors. Editors are trying to make a good article by consensus. Your attitude directed towards this editor is troubling. Karagory (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been posting the same junk on this page for years and convincing absoltely no one. If this isn't a case of beating a dead horse nothing is. MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, recently published reliable sources are not "junk." (8 June 2022, 20 May 2022) Please stop disrupting an active discussion with recent reliable sources. Karagory (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic citations that do not directly discuss the subject of this biography absolutely are meaninglessness junk, because we do not engage in WP:OR here. If you haven't noticed, I'm the only one who really bothered to respond to you at all here. I'm happy to take some time off, but don't be surprised if your 'active discussion' is anything but. MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"As recently as the early Trump years, centrist pundits in both parties were appalled at the China-bashing of hard-liners such as Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief China advisor, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who in May 2020 called for a reversal of U.S. economic offshoring in response to China’s 'predatory trade and economic policies.' Now Biden indulges in the same rhetoric with scarcely a pushback or a mention of its pitfalls." - The Bidenomics Revolution, by Michael Hirsh, June 9, 2021, Foreign Policy.

Please let all editors determine for themselves weather my quoted reliable sources are "off-topic" and "meaningless." I do not think the editor fully understands how consensus works. Karagory (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussed above, and still not relevant to the statement, as discussed above. Tell me again how you're not beating a dead horse? MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the editor does believe that the reliable source is relevant. Let's see if other editors' have an opinion; don't delete the reliable source(s). Karagory (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2023 - Biden Administration Part 3

“I think what you see right now is we’re on a path, working together to try to bring us back to a new model,” Tai said, aided by the China tariffs and the big investments Congress and the Biden administration are making in domestic manufacturing. In recent weeks, Tai has stood by her position of refusing to negotiate traditional free trade agreements that involve tariffs cuts, despite pressure from the business community, farm groups and leading Republican members of Congress. - Balloon drama pumps up trade tensions, By Steven Overly, February 13, 2023, Politico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, just take the hint. Posting these irrelevant articles on this talk page is just a waste of your time, you will never convince anyone. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why does the editor use negativity instead of discussing the newly published references? I do not understand. Karagory (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"you will never convince anyone." - apparently the editor does not understand consensus? Karagory (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been posting this nonsense for years and years and have convinced no one. I think you're the one who doesn't understand consensus. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why does the editor berate my thoughts as nonsense? The editor is being quite hostile! The editor does not understand proper etiquette. Please, if you do not have anything to add to the discussion, stop deleting the active discussion and being so negative. Karagory (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Active discussion is being deleted (archived) - Part 2

Why is the editor deleting an active discussion? I do not understand. The editor did NOT discuss before deleting an active discussion. Does the editor need help understanding the discussion rules. Why did the editor not seek consensus? Karagory (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

These are years old discussion sections being archived by the bot. They are not remotely active discussions. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

These are active discussions using previous thoughts and opinions. The editor specifically told the auto-bot to remove the thoughts and opinions. Why did the editor take it upon him/herself to delete material that the editor knew was under active discussion with seeking consensus? Why does the editor not try and seek consensus NOW, BEFORE deleting material? Karagory (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

They have been inactive for YEARS. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)