Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

With this edit, User:Flaughtin inserted a close paraphrasing of a source. I reverted it, but Flaughtin has reinserted the plagiarized material, so I'm bringing it here to the talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Get specific. What part of my edit was close paraphrasing? If that edit (a part of it or otherwise) was close paraphrasing, how does that differ from the paraphrasing of the Heisdorffer and Quach material that you included? By the way, it's not plagiarism as I cited the material. Bad arguments. As usual. Flaughtin (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the passage from the AP source:

Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, said pork producers have already seen the value of their pigs fall after a previous Chinese tariff. Warner said pig producers will likely feel the effect of the new tariff, though it’s not yet clear exactly how.

And here is the passage from your edit:

Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, said that pork producers had already seen the value of their pigs fall after a previous Chinese tariff and warned that pig producers would likely feel the effect of new tariffs, though it was not yet clear exactly how.^[1]

References

1. ^ "Reaction to the Trade Battle Between China and the US". AP. July 7, 2018. Retrieved December 13, 2019.

This is "Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution", a form of WP:Plagiarism. Direct quotes need to be attributed; information that isn't a direct quote should be summarized in our own words. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added in-text attribution to AP; hopefully that will resolve this issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit removed the fact that the US and China are the world's two largest economies, which I think is an important piece of information for putting the trade war in context. What do others think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on your own criteria [1], your support for this material is nonsensical because it is not directly linked to the trade war. Flaughtin (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This source ties this piece of information to the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a need in this article for neutrality of views, based on Wikipedia:NPOV. Wherefore, the unneccesary deletion of the political analysis of Stephen Roach, who weighed-in on the reason for the US-trade deficit with China and other nations is an important balance in this regard (see following edit):

In supporting tariffs as president, he said that China was costing the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year because of unfair trade practices. After imposing tariffs, he denied entering into a trade war, saying the "trade war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S." He said that the U.S. has a trade deficit of $500 billion a year, with intellectual property (IP) theft costing an additional $300 billion. "We cannot let this continue," he said.^[1][2] Former White House Counsel, Jim Schultz, said that "through multiple presidential administrations — Clinton, Bush and Obama — the United States has naively looked the other way while China cheated its way to an unfair advantage in the international trade market."^[3] In contrast, according to Stephen Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, the US trade deficit with 102 countries around the world (as of 2017), the largest of which being the US trade deficit with China, is the direct result of America's lack of domestic savings, rather than a by-product of unfair trading practices.^[4]

The argument that "The material does not document the views of the government of the PRC" is a non-sequitur. The above edit is, therefore, being restored.

. ---Davidbena (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The view expressed by Stephen Roach appears to me to be the mainstream economic view. The editor who removed it is saying that CGTN is unreliable. Maybe add more attribution? "In an interview with CGTN, Stephen Roach, a senior fellow..." -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is worth including in the article somewhere, and I think Thucydides411 is right that it's the mainstream economic view. I don't think in-text attribution to CGTN is necessary—the source seems to be a video of an interview with Stephen Roach. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, it's much preferred to use text sources rather than videos. Has Stephen Roach expressed these views elsewhere in writing? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

He may have written about these views, but if so, I am unaware of them.Davidbena (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

However, this isn't a forum for editors to the article to give their personal opinions and give prominence (25%) to one economist's viewpoint from a television interview. It also veers away from the original topic, which was more general, as noted from the section in December. My suggestion would be to review that pre-deleted section and simply add more sources opposing the ones used. There must certainly be some speeches from China or reliable sources in which China denied violating copyrights and other IP or of forced technology transfers. Simply add those denials to the assertions by the U.S. to keep it neutral. That would prove a more neutral edit to the background than simply deleting selections from a NT Times article.

And as noted from an earlier edit, by trying remove a non-neutral background section, I'm all for keeping this neutral. So much so, that even after trying to fix the title of article, it seemed our overseas editors preferred watching a "war," even trying to overrule China's opinion. --Light show (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Stephen Roach's opinion in particular should be given prominence. However, the mainstream economic view, which he represents in that interview, should be given prominence. The mainstream view is that US trade deficits are primarily due to structural issues in the US economy and the use of the US Dollar as an international reserve currency. The trade war is merely expected to displace the US trade deficit from China to other countries. This is all explained in the WTO summary of the trade war we've been discussing at WP:DRN. I think that that summary is a better source than Stephen Roach's interview.

The pre-deleted section is far too long. We don't have to recapitulate details about China's history in the WTO over the past two decades. We only need a short, neutral overview. I've provided a rough draft of how such an overview could begin here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Readers would benefit from relevant facts, not filler. Only 20% of your linked text, the one-sentence last paragraph, was directly relevant to the ongoing trade war. The rest was true, but are overly general statements implying nothing specific. As opposed to a cite such as Newsweek, which gave relevant historical details, which is what a background is meant to explain. When the president states in the article, "You go back a long way. You look at President Clinton, Bush—everybody. They allowed this to happen, they created a monster," the background should support the assertions, not bury them in trivia and links. Giving one brief sentence with no facts essentially adds little. The trade war is an effect, and the article should include its causes.--Light show (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Light show:, @Thucydides411:, @Mx. Granger:, What we ought to remember here is that we're speaking here about two distinct issues: 1) the US-China trade war, and 2) the US trade deficit, the largest of which being with China. Please feel free to re-organize / re-structure the wording of the text, perhaps even by shortening it. Since the reason for the trade war is invariably linked to America's trade deficit with China, Roach's opinion gives our readers a greater perspective of the issues at hand.Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The trade deficit is naturally linked. However, the WTO stated in March, "Raising import tariffs on imports in general and on Chinese imports in particular would help reduce the trade deficit in general and the bilateral trade deficit with China in particular." The trade issue is not just about China. For instance, U.S. car exports to Europe pay duties of 10%, while European car imports to the U.S. have a duty of 2.5%. Note Barrons: "U.S. Could Extend Tariffs to More European Products", which noted that a WTO "ruling allowed the U.S. to impose retaliatory tariffs on imported goods representing up to US$7.5 billion worth of trade value."

And per the WTO report in its list of motives for the "trade dispute," "#4. China should change various policies with adverse effects... The following policy issues have been used to motivate the tariffs on imports from China, ...the poor protection of intellectual property rights in China, forced technology transfer from foreign companies investing in China, and the heavy involvement of the Chinese government in its economy through (implicit) subsidization of state-owned companies (SOEs)."

Yet despite numerous efforts to have editors provide opposing viewpoints to those of the U.S. and Europe about the causes, the only response has been to simply delete material which directly or indirectly supports the complaints. Some claim that the article is thereby not neutral, then tag it, and use that tag as a rationale to continue deleting relevant background material. But that's not the way to neutralize the assertions. Editors should simply provide counter-assertions and denials. To continue removing those reliably-sourced complaints implies that while they are probably correct, some editors would rather not deal with them. --Light show (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not accurately representing the WTO source (Bekkers & Schroeter). The WTO source lists four arguments that supporters of tariffs give:

1. Manufacturing jobs should be brought back to the United States.
2. Tariffs should be "reciprocal" at the bilateral level.
3. The Bilateral trade deficit with China should be eliminated.
4. China should change various policies with adverse effects.

Bekkers & Schroeter comment, "Most economists are skeptical about the first three arguments for the tariff increases." They do not comment on the fourth argument: "Assessing the fourth argument for the tariff increases is beyond the scope of this paper and is not further discussed here." About trade deficits, they discuss the standard economic view that the US trade deficit is based on structural issues in the US and the use of the US Dollar as a reserve currency, and that tariffs on China will only shift the trade deficit. I agree that Bekkers & Schroeter should be used to guide the background section, but their article should be accurately summarized. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Our job isn't to "support [Trump's] assertions", but rather to be neutral. We should explain support, disagreement, and other material in a way that proportionately reflects reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The term "support" was referring to required citations that are a source for statements. Every quote needs to be supported by a source. It wasn't meant in the sense that anyone should agree with anything, as in voting, where we "support" or "oppose" a proposal. Maybe the word "sourced" would have been been clearer. --Light show (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Davidbena BRD means that you don't reinstate your disputed material after you've been reverted without resolving it on the talk page first. PUS and RSP (for analogous cases, see the descriptions for the state run outlets in Iran, PRC and Russia) also mean that your Roach material cannot be used as state run media cannot be used unless they are used to cite the views of the respective government - in this case the views of the government of the PRC. (See also the analogous case in the First round of debate subsection above - First round of debate, point 15.) Is this your first day editing Wikipedia? Flaughtin (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin:, you make a good point there, but whether or not CGTN America or CGTN, both Chinese media outlets, can be used without infringing upon Wikipedia:PUS whenever they cite an American scholar, such as the likes of Stephen S. Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, who clearly does not speak on behalf of the Communist party of China or the Peoples Republic of China, is a gray area. I think we should take the matter to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, especially since the majority of the editors here think that his words are pertinent to this article. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is nonsensical. It's not a grey area because PUS and the analogous cases on the RSP list and in the debate above explicitly say you can't use state run media unless they are used to cite the views of the respective government - that is why you can't use the Roach interview because even you admit that he does not speak on behalf of the Communist party of China or the Peoples Republic of China. DId you even read what I wrote? Flaughtin (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether a "grey area" or "not a grey area," that was only my personal opinion. In any rate, it seems that it is alright to cite Stephen Roach, as you can see here, since it is still his own opinion, rather than that of the PRC. Try, my friend, being more open-minded, and do not insult others. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411 is correct that published sources are preferable to interviews. Has Roach published relevant scholarly research? If not, how WP:DUE is his opinion? Futhermore, if it is the mainstream view among economists, it should be easy to find a peer-reviewed, scholarly source for it. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that a published source would be far better than an interview. But if we have nothing else to show, this is still valid, as per his notability. Perhaps, though, if you can access some of Stephen Roach's published works at your nearest library or university, that would be helpful. I often do this in my areas of research here, in Israel, but I am doubtful that I will be able to find any of Roach's works here at the Hebrew University Library.Davidbena (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed your Stephen Roach material as the state run outlet that it was sourced to has been deprecated. Flaughtin (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The article has been edited quite a bit over the past few months, with some of the page tags below likely no longer needed. If not, can someone pick one and justify its use?

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

• The neutrality of this article is disputed. (June 2020)
• The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (August 2020)
• This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (October 2020)
• This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Chinese. (November 2019) Click [show] for important translation instructions. --Light show (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and worldwide view continue to be significant problems with this article. It is written mainly from a US perspective, with insufficient focus on a Chinese perspective. Moreover, it is slanted towards a specific (pro–trade war) point of view. This problem seems to be especially severe in the "Background" section.

Expanding the article with text translated from zh.wiki is a good idea and might help to address "worldwide view" issue. I can read Chinese, so I will try to do some translating in the near future. (Please feel free to remind me if I forget.)

On the other hand, I haven't noticed much of a problem with weasel words in this article (if anything, it seems to rely too heavily on direct quotations and in-text attribution). That tag could probably be removed —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed the text and citations in the current article, and comparing them with some new ones I found that at least mention the pre-trade war period as background, I've gained a broader perspective. If the goal is to a) use only recent sources that tie the background to the trade war, and b) to keep the material neutral, then I don't think it will be an easy canyon to cross.

It turns out that the current article already covers most of the pre-trade war issues when they explain its causes. Which makes a "background" section too redundant, along with being slanted by looking at current problems in hindsight. And when I went back to the previous material which included cites before the trade war, I think some of that could be used if agreed. If there are statements that have been disputed, then those can be added cites. But IMO, most of the material consists of basic facts, not opinions, with good neutral sources. None of them were advocating a trade war.

As an example, a statement such as "When President Obama met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2011, officials were concerned that China was not acting in the free trade spirit it agreed to when it joined the WTO 10 years earlier," was cited in the Washington Post, but in 2011. And since it implies some background, we need to decide if such material will be in a background section. It sounds neutral to me. Questionable material can be left out. OTOH, if someone wants to give a totally neutral background, they may have to start with Confucius. --Light show (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Light show correct me if I am wrong, but your solution is to keep the background section as it currently is? Flaughtin (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I would expand it. However, I see no logical reason to exclude material that was cited before the trade war, so long as it provides background to current US—China trade. Most of the previous material included basic facts such as, "President Bill Clinton in 2000 pushed Congress to approve the U.S.-China trade agreement and China’s accession to the WTO, saying that more trade with China would advance America’s economic interests." Or, "In the four years after joining the WTO, China in general complied with many of its legal obligations, including passing laws and meeting deadlines." Other sources, like the Washington Post, noted potential problems, "There were also complaints by various lawmakers who wanted the administration to act against what they said was China's manipulating its currency..."

So if we take the time to consider sources written before the trade war which clearly relate to US—China trade, along with complaints, it would seem that they would be reasonable in a "background" section. As the article is now, stripped down of any background material, all we have are the complaints issued by the current administration, which makes the article imbalanced IMO.

Maybe stating it as a simple questions is best:

Should a "Background" section include sources written before the current trade war if they seem relevant to its causes?

• Support, per above comments. --Light show (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose if no source can tie these events to the trade war, it is WP:OR. Remove until/unless a source that makes the connection is cited. If no connection is demonstrated, we cannot decide ourselves that it is relevant to the trade war. (t · c) buidhe 02:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that two sources for a fact are OK, where one was pre-trade war and another was after? For instance, an older source might have, "Clinton in 2000 pushed Congress to approve the WTO," and a current source, like footnote 23, can verify that Clinton wanted the agreement, thereby the event is tied together.--Light show (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It should also be noted that the recommendations by the the two primary opposing interlocutors Mx. Granger (here) and Thucydides411 (here) provides sufficient evidence that they should not have a problem with supporting the above proposal/principle either. Flaughtin (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The background should really just cover the immediate background of the trade war. The WTO paper cites four main economic arguments made by proponents of the trade war. For the political background, Trump's 2016 campaign promises are the most important thing to discuss. We don't need to go all the way back to China's entry into the WTO, except as it pertains to the four economic arguments discussed in the WTO paper. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Light show have you finished writing up the proposal for the background section yet? It's been some time since you said you were almost done with it and I see you've been editing other articles. We need some progress on this. Flaughtin (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And can you explain this edit of yours? I don't understand why (among other things) you removed the Autry quote but left the Roach one in. You should have removed both quotes if you thought per your edit summary that the article doesn't benefit from "academic" opinions Flaughtin (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated the material you removed per your non-response. Flaughtin (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Some might consider an opinion by a non-economist like Greg Autry should have little if any weight compared to Stephen S. Roach. But IMO, neither of their opinions should be included, since it sets a precedent for allowing almost anyone's published opinion to be considered encyclopedic, whether an "academic" or an economist.

As for my attempt to revise the deleted background section, I asked above a simple question which was important to get behind us, but it has been ignored and left unanswered. So it seems that from the few replies, and assuming Granger, through his silence, would also oppose, there is no basis to work on. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and have removed Roach's views accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting in this section sooner. It must have slipped my mind—the past few weeks have been pretty busy for me. I think I've made my view clear in earlier discussions, but to reiterate: I think it's a good idea to limit the background section to material that reliable sources tie to the trade war. That would mean excluding material that's only mentioned in pre-trade-war sources. (But I think those sources could still be used to support material that more recent sources do tie to the trade war.) I'm open to the possibility of including other material, but I'm concerned that it will be difficult to determine due weight if we cover material that reliable sources don't connect to the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion seemed to be going somewhere, but then petered out for some reason. Maybe we were all busy with other things. However, the recent additions (which I have reverted) went very much against the general thrust of this discussion, which was to rely more narrowly on sources that discuss the trade war. The recent additions were more a litany of complaints by various American commentators against China than an objective analysis of China in the WTO. I still support basing the section on the WTO white paper we discussed above, which gives a neutral overview of the complaints of American trade hawks, as well as the mainstream economic view of those complaints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, the WTO white paper that we were discussing earlier is Bekkers & Schroeter (2020). It lists four arguments given by American supporters of tariffs on Chinese goods:

1. Manufacturing jobs should be brought back to the United States.
2. Tariffs should be "reciprocal" at the bilateral level.
3. The Bilateral trade deficit with China should be eliminated.
4. China should change various policies with adverse effects.

Bekkers & Schroeter evaluate the first three of these arguments, and say explicitly that they do not comment on the fourth. They also point to relevant literature concerning the first three points. I think we should base the "China in the WTO" section on Bekkers & Schroeter's discussion of the trade-war background. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: Your recent additions are very much against the general principles we seemed to be converging on here, and I'm extremely doubtful that they would not be accepted by most participants in the discussion. Relying so heavily on one opinion columnist (Friedman), whose views on tariffs happen to be factually incorrect (see the NYT news article - not an opinion piece - that was discussed above, which details the drastic reductions in Chinese tariffs due to WTO entry, from about 40% to under 10%), is POV. We should base the discussion generally on the WTO white paper. I thought that you were on board with this, given that you've cited the WTO white paper a few times in the discussion as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The revised material was focused on the background to the trade war in relation to the WTO. Please review the comments above, where the main problem was that the previous background section used pre trade war sources, which did not refer to the current trade war. The new material uses post trade war sources which do discuss the background and its relationship to the WTO. If you have some new issue about the WTO, white paper, or the background section, please start a new thread to keep the subject focused. --Light show (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, as the trade war is an evolving news event, feel free to add updated facts and figures. If X says one thing, and Y says another, it's more neutral to include them both. The Friedman article was comprehensive and clear and did mention the WTO as a background issue. However, the WP article has over 350 citations already, so there's nothing he said which isn't covered by hundreds of other citations, but his linking the background to the WTO was useful. --Light show (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Friedman writes an opinion column. He doesn't write news articles. The opinion that you've included so prominently is directly contradicted by a Times news article. This is really a massive violation of WP:NPOV.

I took part in the discussion above, so there's no need for me to review it. The consensus seemed to be to use sources more narrowly focused on the trade war, with the WTO white paper being raised multiple times as a good source to base the section on. There's no way that the above discussion could be interpreted as supporting the addition of extensive, one-sided quotes from American opinion columnists criticizing China (particularly not an opinion which reliable sources directly contradict). You're editing against consensus. Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The recent additions do not seem to be neutral. I agree that we should avoid relying on opinion pieces, especially in the "Background" section. I support adding information from the WTO source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The white paper has only been raised above once before, by you, with the verbatim comments and list. But is itself also an opinion by the WTO, since it recites opinions by others about current facts and the future. One of its overall premises, based on facts:

"China should change various policies with adverse effects. The following policy issues have been used to motivate the tariffs on imports from China, as discussed for example in Ciuriak (2019): the poor protection of intellectual property rights in China, forced technology transfer from foreign companies investing in China, and the heavy involvement of the Chinese government in its economy through (implicit) subsidization of state-owned companies (SOEs)."

So I'm not sure why you would add the word "claims" to every fact, now commonly accepted by economists, that Friedman stated, considering that the WTO and countless news articles and opinions all agree. Do you really want to overcite the material with redundant articles? Also, note that the WTO white paper did not dispute the statement it made. And China itself announced it would change many of its former policies to comply with the WTO guidelines.

In any case, the background section should stay focused on what reliable sources claim are some of the sources and causes for the trade war. And the white paper also includes a "background" section, #4, which merely summarizes opinions by economists. Feel free to cite reliable Chinese sources, but simply because there are few to be included or found, does not make the material from RSs non-neutral.

If, in your and Granger's opinion, all RSs which give an informed opinion using known facts is somehow unacceptable, then please start a new thread about that. --Light show (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: You yourself cited the WTO white paper above: [2]. It's a scholarly paper, written by economists, which reviews the literature and the mainstream economics view of a few central issues in the trade war. However, you're misunderstanding the paragraph you've quoted here from the WTO white paper. That quote is not the view of the authors. They are trying to summarize the views of proponents of tariffs. They are not stating that those views are correct. In fact, they state explicitly that that is the one argument that they will not evaluate.

Any claim that comes from Friedman's opinion column has to be attributed in-line. But more importantly, Friedman's views should not be included in any prominent way in the "Background" section. He's not an expert in economics or trade policy (and many of his factual claims about Chinese compliance with WTO regulations range from outright false to heavily distorted). He's a political commentator. We need neutral discussion of the trade war background, and basing the entire economics discussion off of the views of one American political commentator who is a trade hawk is really an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. The WTO white paper is written by experts and discusses the background of the trade war neutrally. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right about the WTO white paper: "They are not stating that those views are correct. In fact, they state explicitly that that is the one argument that they will not evaluate." They summarize their opinion on most of the key factors that have been cited by the U.S. for the trade war itself, stating clearly they will be ignored: "Assessing the fourth argument for the tariff increases is beyond the scope of this paper and is not further discussed here."

But if the WTO has chosen to ignore those, what purpose does their white paper serve? And in any case, simply reading their own "Background" section, it's mostly all speculations by economists about the balance of trade and effect on employment. It's as if the WTO white paper is impliedly admitting that the key complaints are correct, so they chose to simply not discuss them. The result is that the white paper consisting of 17,500 words, charts, graphs, formulas, and cites for 50 economists, decided to skip over the essence of what the U.S. states clearly are the causes of the tariff conflicts. Need proof? Just read the rationales stated by the U.S., where the trade deficit is the least important, which is why it was stated last.

Also note that there are within the Background section of this article alone, fifteen separate RSs cited. Therefore your comment that "basing the entire economics discussion off of the views of one American political commentator" makes no sense. Any, or most of those citations, could have supplemented or simply replaced Friedman's article. I was trying to keep the section brief and concise, and his article works fine. In fact, using his comments was an effort to keep the section neutral, since neither he nor his newspaper are Trump supporters.--Light show (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

They're not "admitting that the key complaints are correct". They're saying that they're not going to evaluate that fourth complaint. They evaluate the other three complaints, however. We don't actually have to give a judgment on the validity of these complaints in this Wikipedia article. We just have to neutrally describe them - which the WTO white paper does. Where the WTO white paper notes the mainstream economics view, then we can note that view as well.

You included several paragraphs based on the writings of Friedman, who is not an expert in the subject, but rather a partisan commentator. This isn't a question of being a Trump supporter or not - there are more than two political positions in the world. Friedman is expressing a hawkish point of view within the American political spectrum, which puts his views not very far from those of the Trump administration on this question, in the grand scheme of things. The background section should give a neutral description of the effects of China's WTO accession, not the particular view of trade war hawks in the US. The WTO white paper is a scholarly work that should serve as the basis for that discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the material cited to opinion pieces from the "Background" section. I'd say the material from sources that don't mention the trade war should probably be removed too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If you call a noted liberal like Friedman a "hawk," then what would you call Trump? --Light show (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also a hawk on trade. They're not very far from one another on this issue. Friedman and Trump do not span the range of views on trade between the US and China. They represent one end of the spectrum. In any case, while the article can note the views of American trade hawks, it should mainly reflect the mainstream economic view of China's entry into the WTO. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The restoration of previously relevant material (here,) was made due to the wholesale deletion of the entire section and replacement with an off-topic discussion of everything except the background to the trade war as it relates to China's entry into the WTO. I believe some might consider that an "egregious violation of NPOV." The editor who wrote that was not asked, nor did they ask, to rewrite the section. For clarification, the full text of the rewrite removed is below:

--Light show (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. Certainly better than the current version, which reads like a defense of one specific point of view about the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Trade war" is an interesting concept, seemingly preferred and promoted mostly by a rush of non-US editors going against numerous expert sources soon after the first tariff took effect. Even the Smoot–Hawley Tariffs on over 20,000 products, which lasted for many years and was retaliated against, is not considered as having been a "trade war." --Light show (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where editors come from, and discounting non-US editors is not going to get you far here. I rewrote the section based on Bekkers & Schroeter (2020), which summarizes the background of the trade war and reviews the arguments given in favor of tariffs. The result is a lot more neutral than the section as it was before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You do not OWN the article. And please acknowledge that you have no conflict of interest in that Bekkers & Schroeter treatise or any of the other material you are promoting so forcefully. --Light show (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. To summarize the background of the US-China trade relationship, I prefer neutral, academic articles by professional economists over opinion pieces by political commentators. Hence my usage of Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) and Guo et al. (2018). Previously, this section relied almost solely on American political commentators who supported the trade war - i.e., non-neutral non-RS. You've now disparaged non-US editors and suggested that I have a COI, simply because I'm citing an academic article. This is really unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, you have totally rewritten the Background section, focused on China's entry into the WTO, and have unilaterally converted it into a separate issue, "Bilateral US-China Trade Imbalance." In other words, you are, like the WTO paper, preferring to totally ignore most of the key published rationales: "dumping, discriminatory non-tariff barriers, forced technology transfer, over capacity, and industrial subsidies". And you call that "neutral?" In any case, this is an encyclopedia using RSs, and while academic treatises are usable, it is not the right of some editor to decide that all other RSs are not acceptable, and labeling all RSs as "trade war hawks." --Light show (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There's an entire section devoted to Trump's complaints about China. This section is supposed to be a general background to the trade relationship. The sources you're calling "RSs" are almost all opinion pieces (or documents issued by the Trump administration), and they all come from similar points of view. I wrote a neutral summary based on two academic articles and a news article that gives an overview of the trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously incorrect to claim that the Background to the trade war "is supposed to be a general background to the trade relationship." As stated, you're trying to avoid the subject of the section and change it to focus on trade balances. Like the white paper, which chose to ignore most of actual justifications for the tariffs and dispute by claiming they are "beyond the scope of this paper and is not further discussed here." Which essentially invalidates much of its usefulness. And you have yourself "disparaged" numerous American journalists by labeling them "trade hawks." --Light show (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't disparaged anyone. I pointed out that you rewrote the background section to present one narrow set of views - those of American trade-war hawks. What you've written cannot in any way be viewed as neutral. You're even using the White House itself as a "reliable source" for statements about the Chinese economy. This is not what WP:NPOV looks like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Among the reliable sources you alone feel have no right to be cited and were deleted:

I think it's obvious that at least some of these sources are not acceptable for statements made in Wikipedia's voice. The White House is a reliable source for the US administration's views, and opinion pieces are reliable sources for their authors' opinions, but they should not be the main basis of the background section if we're going to follow NPOV. The US administration's views are extensively covered in the "Trump administration's complaints" subsection.

Also, some of these sources are of questionable relevance. Some of them were written more than a decade before the trade war began. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The section is a "background," and the entire purpose of it is to cover pre-trade war issues, not current opinions about it. If a source is irrelevant, then an editor can simply explain why before simply deleting it. However, an editor simply calling a RS a "trade hawk" and deleting it based on their personal opinion is not the way to decide if a RS is usable.--Light show (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's focus on specific content. Which of these sources do you think should be used to add material to the section? (I suggest we focus on sources that discuss the trade war and aren't opinion/editorial pieces.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Fine. You can review the list of sources above and comment on which of those is not a RS. If a RS appears to be giving a personal opinion, as opposed to citing published facts, then it might be questionable. But the basis should be reliable sources. And as some of us know, when the real Thucydides wrote his background to the "Peloponnesian War," most of it was also his opinion, so an opinion by a RS editor is no reason to automatically exclude it. A very large percent of the Bekkers paper is speculation. --Light show (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the "China joins the World Trade Organization" is quite clearly written from a very specific, strong point of view. It does not present a neutral analysis of China's entry into the WTO, or of the effects of that entry on world trade or the US economy. It is very clearly trying to promote the argument that China somehow swindled everyone. That's a view that some people - particularly supporters of the trade war - hold, but it's not a neutral description, and it really has no business being in a general background section. The view that China took advantage of the US is already very well represented in the section dedicated to Trump's views. I view the "China joins the World Trade Organization" section as completely redundant, and clearly POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally everything you just wrote is your personal opinion: "The problem is... is quite clearly written... It does not present... It is very clearly trying ... I view." While the RSs covering the pre-trade war period are all in your opinion "trade hawks," and only the WTO white paper is acceptable. Maybe you should discuss this at the RS talk page.--Light show (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to present the White House and Thomas Friedman's opinion columns as reliable sources on the Chinese economy. At the same time, you're arguing against using actual economics papers. You misunderstand WP:RS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The NYT is a RS, regardless. Although his article is not a cite, you've never pointed out any of his statements of facts which were his personal opinion. And why this blatant attack on any and every news story that implies improper behavior by China after jointing the WTO, first deleting them as opinionated, then defaming their credibility by calling them all "trade hawks?" All of Friedman's facts and figures were from published sources. BTW, I've never argued against using economics papers. As we both know, I was the one who actually added the WTO as a source. --Light show (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The opinion pages of the NYT are not a RS for statements of fact. Re: this blatant attack on any and every news story: Opinion columns are not "news stories"! There are some very basic distinctions that you're papering over. Opinion pieces are not news articles. Press briefings put out by the White House are not reliable sources for statements of fact (such as how high Chinese tariffs are). -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the term "Trade war" is a questionable term. In fact, the WTO (Bekkers) white paper calls it a "trade conflict" five times more than "trade war." Apparently the WTO is not in the business of sensationalism and doesn't rely on advertising. --Light show (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A quick glance at Google Trends suggests "trade war" is more common, but feel free to start a move discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It was opposed the first time, before it was even a war. Apparently most WP editors prefer observing scenes like this or this, to ones like this or this. --Light show (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through the disputed material and I think the following portions might be usable in the "Background" section.

With the United States–China Relations Act of 2000, China was allowed to join the WTO in 2001. According to economic analyst Gabe Lipton, this "laid the groundwork" for the current trade war.^[1] He notes that as a condition for joining the WTO, China committed to lower trade barriers and to follow international rules that had been accepted for decades among most trading nations.^[1]

From 2001 when China joined the WTO until 2018, factory employment in the U.S. has dropped by 3.1 million workers, although many of those lost jobs were due to robotics and other new technologies.^[2]

That said, Fox News's reliability on politics is questionable (see WP:RSP). Can we find a better source for U.S. job losses? —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to decide which RSs are acceptable, you will need to get some consensus for any source you feel is unacceptable, with a rationale based on RS guidelines. If you feel that a source is non-neutral, you should provide a rationale with support. Mass deletions based on IDLI are not usable.

In addition, there is currently a clear consensus to keep the expanded background material, with four (4) supporting (including you) and no one (0) opposing. In the initial discussion about this last month, the only comment as a conditional "oppose" was made by someone who has not edited the article. In any case, they stated that "If no source can tie these events to the trade war, it is WP:OR. Remove until/unless a source that makes the connection is cited." That was taken care of by all of the cites in the revised background material. User:Flaughtin and I also supported it.

The only other comment about that issue was from you, who wrote essentially the same: " I think it's a good idea to limit the background section to material that reliable sources tie to the trade war." Thucydides411 has been focused on making sure that that the WTO white paper was the main source, despite the fact that it stated it would "not discuss" the key complaints, but instead discuss only the balance of trade issue. --Light show (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you've apparently misunderstood me, let me be perfectly clear: I oppose adding this section as written, mainly because it is not neutral. It also includes material without a clear connection to the trade war and material not suited to the background section (such as an update on the trade war from 2019). I will let User:Thucydides411 and User:Fortliberty speak for themselves. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411 has been focused on making sure that that the WTO white paper was the main source: This is not what I have argued. I have argued that we should rely on scholarly works, like papers written by actual economists, to summarize the background of the trade war. I have written a section based not only on the WTO white paper, but on a whole number of economics papers about the trade war. despite the fact that it stated it would "not discuss" the key complaints, but instead discuss only the balance of trade issue: You're again mischaracterizing the WTO white paper. It gives four key justifications for the trade war, and analyzes three of them. You're taking that fourth justification and declaring, based on your own original research, that it is the key reason for the trade war.

I am in favor of removing the "China joins the World Trade Organization" section entirely, both because it is redundant (the key points are already covered by the sections, "The US-China trade relationship" and "Trump administration's complaints") and because the way it is written makes a mockery of WP:NPOV. How anyone can believe statements like the following are neutral is beyond me:

However, by 2018, China's tariffs on U.S. imports were three times the corresponding rate charged by the U.S. For autos, for example, China imposes a 25 percent tariff, while the U.S. charges only 2.5 percent on imports from China.

The source given is the Trump administration: [3] (i.e., not a WP:RS). -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The source is also Reuters, a UK news source, which stated that a year and half ago: "China has suspended a 25 percent duty on U.S. auto imports during their trade negotiations." In fact most of the exact complaints from the Trump administration about China were made over 20 years ago. --Light show (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A year before China joined the WTO, it had tariffs of 120 percent on U.S. autos, which they promised to reduce to just 50 percent. Beyond belief? Trump's trade war is a misnomer, since over 11 years ago Obama imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese imports. While 17 years ago, the Bush administration planned to impose tariffs of 30-80% on China due to dumping.

To join the WTO, in 2000 China promised to cut tariffs on countless products: Dairy products, from existing tariffs of 50% down to 12%; vegetables, to cut from existing 60%; Beef, from existing 45%; Pork, from 20%. Its failure to live up to its promises is among the reasons for the trade war, which as Trump stated, the U.S. had lost many years ago.--Light show (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Its failure to live up to its promises is among the reasons for the trade war This is your editorializing, based on the allegations made by the Trump administration. It's not a factual statement, backed up by reliable sources, and I have not seen any economics paper that makes sweeping statements like "China has failed to live up to its promises." In the particular issue you're raising - tariff reductions - the economics papers I've read have generally pointed to the massive reductions in tariffs that China has carried out (World Bank provides charts, if you're interested: [4]), and have said that tariffs are not a significant issue between the US and China. Most of the disputes are about non-tariff barriers to trade. Anyways, the presentation of the background should be based on reliable sources, not copied directly from the Trump administration's press briefings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'll go ahead and revert the non-neutral section, as it's clear there isn't consensus for adding it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Since this RS vs. experts only issue seems to be against RS guidelines, I've asked about this here. --Light show (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

An update: The RSN discussion has been archived here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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. [5]), 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 ([6], [7], [8], and [9]) 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)

if the material isn't connected to the subject matter of this article, then it has to go. Then it sounds like we are all in agreement about the principle to follow for this section. My goal with this edit was to remove the material that the sources don't connect to the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You really want to take this to the DRN? You really want to embarrass yourself there with these mediocre arguments? I repeat: 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 ([10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]) for you to explain your previous edits. Get specific or move on. How and why does the material that you purged not relate to the article? If you can't explain it, then the material must stay in. It is that simple. Don't waste my time if you aren't going to follow the rules. Flaughtin (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the other editors in this discussion have indicated support for ReconditeRodent's solution (that the background information should be linked to the trade war by reliable sources). I'm going to edit the article again to implement this solution. Assuming this sticks, it should resolve most of the disputes here, including the comments you linked to.

Please don't revert this without getting consensus first—you're the only person in this discussion trying to include the non-neutral material in this section. If you want to re-add any of the material despite reliable sources not linking it to the trade war, you're welcome to make the case for that here on the talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As you've refused to properly address my objections, I have escalated this matter to the DRN. Flaughtin (talk) 21:47, 1 September 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)

While I do not have good knowledge of what this rewrite replaced and i do not wish to be deeply entagled in what looks like a serious and lengthy disagreement between a whole heck of a lot of editors, it would appear to me that the rewrite has some problems. The opinion of one source is being used to represent what economists think (or "most economists" as is being claimed) and this would appear to violate what is required in order for things to be said in wiki-voice. At a minimum, it would appear that multiple sources (reliable of course) would be required to meet the "wikivoice" standard so-to-speak. I do not doubt Mr.Bekkers & Schroeter's qualifications, but at the end of the day it must be born in mind that they are just two people and we cannot prejudge them to say that they are representative of what most economists think. I have also some concerns about the appropriateness of where the information is put. It would appear to me that since most of the information is about Mr. Donald Trump's complaints, and since the article already has a section with that exact same title, it would fit better there than where it was first put (in the "background" section). However, at the same time, it would appear that there is disagreement over what should replace the rewrite as well. Therefore I would suggest keeping the background section blanked out until all of us here can agree on what should replace it. If there are any objections to the blanking, I would ask at a minimum that we please discuss any disagreements you may have here first before reverting. Thank you. Fortliberty (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to include the Bekkers paper as one of the sources in the background, which was stated above. But can you first reply in some way to the general comments made above in this section? As for simply blanking out a section first, that is not acceptable. --Light show (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

When the rewrite says that "most economists" believe something, that's because Bekkers & Schroeter wrote that that's what most economists believe, and gave a literature review. Bekkers & Schroeter has an entire section that reviews the arguments in favor of tariffs, and then reviews the economics literature about each argument.

As a matter of fact, though, Bekkers & Schroeter are not saying anything extraordinary. It is true that the overwhelming consensus of economic thought is that trade deficits are due to structural, macroeconomic issues, and that tariffs against individual countries will cause trade diversion, but no substantial decrease in the trade deficit. Bekkers & Schroeter cite Nicita (2019) and a Financial Times article by Prof. Obstfeld to illustrate this point. I could also cite Guo et al. (2018) and Chong & Li (2019) as examples of economics papers that come to the same conclusion (both are cited in the rewrite). Every analysis of the trade war I've seen has come to this result. It's a completely uncontroversial statement in the field of economics.

I agree that as Trump's views are already amply described in the following section, there's no use filling the first "Background" subsection with them as well. I tried to rewrite the first background subsection to more generally review the development of the US-China trade relationship, using scholarly articles written specifically about the trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is WP, aimed at a general readership, not economic scholars. A reliance on white papers by economic organizations and pay-wall protected treatises written for economists, in Chinese, works against making the topic understandable by the general reader. The background section is meant to cover the eighteen years before the tariffs.

While the current background about the WTO does that, much of the "Relationship" section are current opinions about other matters ie.: "American proponents of tariffs on China have argued ... Most economists are skeptical of the ability of tariffs... Most economists believe... they are expected to lead to increased imports." IOW, off-topic opinions to the background. The main topic of that "Relationship" section is simply a discussion about the causes and effects of the balance of trade, while avoiding the primary rationales given by the U.S. for the tariffs. The trade balance (money) issues are naturally important, but intentionally ignoring critical issues like dumping, forced technology transfers, subsidizing industries, counterfeiting, IP theft of patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights, etc. are legal violations, like breach of contracts, torts and criminal, at a minimum. To the extent that those violations are skipped over, the "relationship" leaves out much of the relevant background from 2001 to 2018. IOW, it's more than just a pure money issue, which might be why the WTO decided they wouldn't discuss it. "Trust" in business relationships may be more important than just profit. --Light show (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We aim at a general readership. That does not mean that we should intentionally avoid citing experts. It's perfectly reasonable - and in fact highly desirable - to rely on actual economics papers to summarize the US-China trade relationship. What's not acceptable is summarizing the US-China trade relationship using statements from the White House and opinion columns written by supporters of the trade war (or opinion columns pushing any other political position). Neutral analyses of the trade relationship written by economists should guide the section.

My rewrite does actually discuss US accusations against China of dumping. If anything, my rewrite is still skewed towards emphasizing US accusations against China, rather than vice-versa. But the next section, about Trump's complaints, details the various accusations at length.

By the way, none of the sources I cite is written in Chinese, and every one is available in preprint form without a paywall (you'll have to search the titles to find the preprints). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: "That does not mean that we should intentionally avoid citing experts." Of course not, which is why, as you pointed out, I was the one who first found and used the WTO white paper as a source in the article. And I agree that it's not acceptable for an editor to "summarize" the topic, yet none of the cites in the background of the pre-trade war period do that. They are simply articles about various aspects of the pre-trade war years, not summaries.

If anything, your "relationship" section does essentially try to summarize the issues, ie. "Most economists believe... Most economists are skeptical." You should at least attribute who it is that claims what most economists believe, and how they arrived at that conclusion. It's common knowledge that economists disagree a lot. And no one is interested in skewing anything. If you have any general readership sources that cover the pre-trade war period, simply add them. But as noted earlier, the Bekkers white paper, which pointedly chose to not discuss most of the violations, has itself skewed the topic onto a pure money-balance of trade-issue. Would the fact that your "rewrite is still skewed towards emphasizing US accusations against China," make you a trade hawk?--Light show (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Would inclusion of a news story such as this, make the WTO trade hawks? --Light show (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're suggesting we include that source in the "Background" section, I'll point out that it was written long before the trade war began, so if we're following the standard above it probably shouldn't be used on its own. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The new "standard" you've created is one based on fear, not fact. Even Arthur Conan Doyle had no fear of examining motives. Had he, like you guys, stated his utter disinterest in evidence, his Sherlock would have been a laughingstock. Even Inspector Clouseau wasn't afraid of evidence.--Light show (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It would appear from the discussion and what is now in the article that the problem i had pointed out remains. The views of economists are said in wiki-voice without the proper sourcing. I do not have an issue with using the paper by Mr.Bekkers & Schroeter, but as i had said at the end of the day we cannot describe their work in wikivoice as it is just the views of two people. At a minimum, it would appear that multiple sources would be needed if we are to represent their works in wiki-voice. I would also like to say that there is also a secondary issue which has been astutely pointed out and it is that there is more to the trade or trading issues that make up the "backgrounding" so-to-speak for the trade war. It would appear from the rewrite that this factor is not addressed in any way, shape or form. I would support removing the rewrite (now currently called "The US-China trade relationship") and expanding on the now-removed "background" section however as i have made crystal clear i do not wish to be deeply entangled in what looks like a serious and lengthy disagreement. Therefore I will leave the actual action to remove up to you Mr. Light show. Fortliberty (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fortliberty: It's not just the view of two economists. It's the view of the overwhelming majority of economists. The article currently cites multiple economics paper on each separate argument given in favor of tariffs. Every economics paper I've looked at so far about the trade war has made similar statements: that tariffs will cause trade diversion (rather than a reduction in the US trade deficit), and that the impact on manufacturing jobs in the US is questionable (and very possibly negative). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And once again, you've actively chosen to ignore the "background" with comments like "tariffs will cause trade diversion ... and that the impact on manufacturing jobs..." might be, etc. IOW, the wrong article for discussions about the future of trade in the opinion of the cherry-picked team of economists. While you have no problem in disparaging all U.S. journalists as "trade hawks," you're implicitly describing your sources as storks. --Light show (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not cherry-pick economists. The view that trade deficits are caused by macroeconomic factors, and cannot be effectively reduced with tariffs is mainstream in economics. Every scholarly work I've seen on the trade war has made this same point. I haven't disparaged a single American journalist. I pointed out that you have selected a group of opinion columnists who all share one thing in common: they're hawks on trade. You're trying to play off their opinion columns as reliable sources. Just as bad, you're trying to play off press briefings issued by the White House as reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the WTO is a reliable source for descriptions of the views of economists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In relation to the above, there is now consensus to eliminate the US-China trade relationship section that is in the most current version of the artile as there are three people who want it removed (myself, User talk:Light show and User talk:Fortliberty) as opposed to two others who want to kept, and I have performed the action accordingly. The reasons I have for disagreeing entirely with the extant material has already been extensively debated above, but they include OR, NPOV and MOS violations. While vote tallying is not the ideal mechanism for resolving this content dispute, it is ideal enough for the way previous content disputes (on this page) have been resolved, and their outcomes have been, for the record, abided by by the participants involved. Given the amount of the edit warring that has already occurred over this section, I will escalate this matter to the appropriate forum should be there be any revert (partial or otherwise) of my removal of this section.

The only thing to be resolved now is the material that should take the place of the aformentioned section. From what I can tell, there have been 12 versions of the background text: version 1, version 2, version 3, version 4, version 5, version 6, version 7, version 8, version 9, version 10, version 11 and version 12

My preference is to reinstate version 5. User talk:Light show and User talk:Fortliberty can each of you state your preference as to which version should be reinstated? We will use the aggregate preference as the basis for consensus for the prospective version of the background section. Flaughtin (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that #5 is a reasonable neutral description of the background from RSs. --Light show (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no consensus to remove the section. There's no OR in it - the section just summarizes what economics papers about the trade war say about the background. Everything in it is directly stated by multiple reliable sources. It's also written neutrally. If anything, it tends to focus too much on American criticisms of Chinese economic policy, and too little on Chinese responses to these criticisms. Light show wants more coverage of American claims about IP. These are already mentioned in the background section, and they're explained at greater length in the following section. But if anyone can find a strong source that discusses them, then they should expand the background section. But deleting the section is just unproductive at this point. It's already in pretty good shape, and is the best written part of the article at the moment. There's a lot of work to do on the following sections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an assumed consensus to keep a background section, and to keep it neutral. However, from just a snippet of the text you replaced the former background section with, it fails on both of those requirements. Instead, it discusses future speculations by a small group of cited sources, and it relies on professional-level treatises from a few economists. The new "trade relationship" section has actively excluded sources from U.S. RSs as being biased "trade hawks," including published statements by the administration. Sixteen RSs were simply removed against all RS guidelines, besides creating an additional ownership issue. A sample of off-topic subjects, which transformed the "background" section into an economic argument about the future:

--Light show (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There's already consensus to eliminate your material as there are three people who want it removed (myself, Light show and Fortliberty) as opposed to you and that other editor who want it kept. I don't like it is not a reason to override policy. Fine if you do that on your personal blog, but it's not going to fly here.

User:Light show I have filed an ANI report here against Thucydides411 in response to his/her latest revert. As you are a direct participant to the relevant content dispute, your input there would be appropos and at any rate most welcomed. Flaughtin (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As extensively discussed above, "version 5" is not neutral and has sourcing issues. It's worth noting that the ongoing WP:RSN discussion seem to support using the sources in the most recent version of the section that Flaughtin has removed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: Instead, it discusses future speculations by a small group of cited sources, and it relies on professional-level treatises from a few economists. What makes you call this a "small group of cited sources" and "a few economists"? I looked for the most-cited economics papers on the trade war, and I summarized what they wrote about the background of the trade war. Among the papers I cited:

• Guo et al. (2018), "The Day After Tomorrow: Evaluating the Burden of Trump's Trade War": 65 citations.
• Chong & Li (2019), "Understanding the China–US trade war: causes, economic impact, and the worst-case scenario": 23 citations.
• Kwan (2020), "The China–US Trade War: Deep‐Rooted Causes, Shifting Focus and Uncertain Prospects": 12 citations. This is a review article in a reputable Japanese economics journal.

Is there another highly-cited economics paper on the trade war I've missed, which takes a different view on the background to the trade war? Rather than saying that I'm cherry-picking, it would be much more helpful if you would show that the papers I've found are not representative of the mainstream view in economics. I don't agree that the paragraph you've quoted above contains "future speculations", nor that it's irrelevant to the background. I say this for two reasons:

1. If the material is irrelevant, why do most economics papers about the trade war discuss it in their background sections?
2. The nature and origins of the US-China bilateral trade imbalance is tightly interrelated with how tariffs will affect that trade imbalance. That's why many economics papers about the trade war discuss trade diversion in their background sections.

Sixteen RSs were simply removed against all RS guidelines: We just had a discussion about this at WP:RSN, and that's not how people there saw the issue. White House press releases are not reliable sources, and neither are opinion columns. Journal articles written by economists are. News (not opinion) articles in respectable newspapers are. I'm really only trying to summarize the background to the trade war as described by the highest-quality sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually much worse than just the small group of selected sources you added. You and Granger have deleted at least sixteen totally acceptable citations, all of which are allowed under the guidelines. You replaced the background with speculations by a few economists. You added your personal interpretation from a small cherry-picked group of pay-wall protected professional scholarly economics journals. Obviously any editor deciding in a general encyclopedia that "Most economists are..." and " Most economists believe..." is engaging in OR. And calling U.S. sources "trade hawks" is an adversarial argument. In any case, including opinions, press briefs, or editorials from RSs is fully allowed with attribution, and most of the deleted cites were general news articles, not editorials or briefs. --Light show (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously any editor deciding in a general encyclopedia that "Most economists are..." and " Most economists believe..." is engaging in OR. Let me quote from Bekkers & Schroeter (2020): "Most economists are skeptical about the first three arguments for the tariff increases." Later, they write, "Third, most economists contend that trade policy is not an appropriate tool to reduce trade imbalances, since these are driven by macroeconomic factors." And finally, they write, "Most economists argue that savings and investment are not significantly affected by policies impacting imports and exports such as tariff rates." This is not WP:OR on my part. Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) directly states that this is what "most economists" believe, and every source I've been able to find that discusses these issues is of the same opinion.

You went to WP:RSN and asked about your "sixteen totally acceptable citations". The two uninvolved editors who commented there criticized those "totally acceptable citations" and said that the economics papers I found were preferable. And calling U.S. sources "trade hawks" is an adversarial argument: I have absolutely no problem with using US sources. I have a problem with basing the "Background" section largely on opinion columns (and not even a range of opinions - you specifically chose opinion columns that support the trade war) and White House press releases. If you want to propose economics papers about the trade war published in US-based journals or written by American authors, then go ahead. The most-cited papers I've found on this subject have not been by American authors, but that's not because I sought to exclude Americans. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but somehow failing to add "According to..." did in fact make it OR. Your version is mostly about the "US-China trade relationship," speculations about its possible effects, and ignores most of the causes cited by the numerous sources. In fact it really doesn't belong as a subsection under the main "Background" section.

To improve on that section and keep it meaningful, you might consider adding something like, "While Bekkers & Schroeter discussed some of the justifications for trade conflict and tarrifs, they specifically chose to not discuss many of the key issues, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, excessive tariffs on imports, Chinese government subsidies, and breaches of promises made to the WTO and U.S. upon joining the WTO." You can even quote the white paper.--Light show (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) is a reliable source - it doesn't need in-line attribution. As for your proposal, it's completely absurd. You're proposing that we tack on a bunch of POV editorial statements that don't come from the source. We're not getting anywhere here, and we need an RfC to get outside input. Flaughtin, the RfC looked fine to me. Can you please reinstate it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) is a reliable source - it doesn't need in-line attribution. See this kind of garbage is exactly we mean when we say your edits are just disruptive. Just because you cited a reliable source doesn't mean that that source doesn't need attribution. WP:INTEXT is one of the most basic policies on this encyclopedia. I'd strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with the fundamentals of Wikipedia first because it's obvious you lack the competence carry on this debate any further. Flaughtin (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You and that other editor just aren't reading/are refusing to read what we are saying. It isn't a sourcing issue, it's a content issue. What we are saying is that the background section of the trade war needs to encompasses much more than just this obsession on the trade deficit; as User:Light show pointed out (and User:Fortliberty subsequently substantiated) it's dumping, forced technology transfers, illegal subsidies, IP theft and the like. In your version of the background section, the propositions which articulate these factors are semantically positioned in a way that systematically downgrades their importance. None of these issues have anything to do with economics, much less trade, and there is definitely no requirement that commentators need to be an "expert" on economics (how do you even define who qualifies as an expert?) in order for their views to be included in this article. And most importantly, it's not even clear why your preferred material should even belong in the background section in the first place when what they are saying has already been amply covered in the economists and analysts section of the article. Just because you got (Google mined?) a bunch of journal articles that come to the same conclusion and are cited by dozens of other people isn't carte blanche to violate all sorts of WP policies and procedures. Flaughtin (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Since we have high-quality sources (these journal articles) available, there's no need to base the background section on low-quality or partisan sources (like the Washington Times) and irrelevant sources (articles that don't even mention the trade war). See the RSN discussion for more on this. The section should be based on what high-quality sources say about the background to the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

As usual, you're not reading what I am saying. Even if you were right about the sourcing, the category error still remains. It's not clear why those views by the economists should even belong in the background section in the first place when what they are saying has already been amply covered in the economists and analysts section of the article. If you can't answer that (the BURDEN is on you to answer it) then the material has to go. Just because you agree with what a bunch of (Google mined?) journal articles that are cited by dozens of other people are saying isn't carte blanche to violate all sorts of WP policies and procedures.

User talk:Light show - can you comment on my point above about the category error problem? Flaughtin (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all your points, especially about requiring attribution from a few economists. The way it was written makes the statement an absolute fact, not opinions from Chinese economists.

It's amazing that Thucydides411 would actually write about my suggestion above, You're proposing that we tack on a bunch of POV editorial statements that don't come from the source. Apparently the WTO and Bekkers is no longer a RS, since they stated very clearly some of the key issues in the background to the trade war from the U.S.:

4. China should change various policies with adverse effects. The following policy issues have been used to motivate the tariffs on imports from China, as discussed for example in Ciuriak (2019): the poor protection of intellectual property rights in China, forced technology transfer from foreign companies investing in China, and the heavy involvement of the Chinese government in its economy through (implicit) subsidization of state-owned companies (SOEs)...

[However,] Assessing the fourth argument for the tariff increases is beyond the scope of this paper and is not further discussed here.

The Bekkers paper did make clear its purpose: an "extensive discussion about the potential effects of the trade tensions" --Light show (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a neutral description of what Bekkers & Schroeter wrote: they specifically chose to not discuss many of the key issues, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, excessive tariffs on imports, Chinese government subsidies, and breaches of promises made to the WTO and U.S. upon joining the WTO. It reads like you're trying to dismiss the source - not as if you're trying to summarize it. But the fact that we can't agree on even this basic an issue shows why we need an RfC. Flaughtin, would you be okay with Chess' RfC if a third "no background section" option were to be added? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually a much better question is why in the first place does this even need to settled by an RFC? Why can't we get an administrator from the ANI to come here and do it? Flaughtin (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Admins don't settle content disputes. The point of an RfC is to get broader input from a larger pool of editors. We've been at an impasse for months, so asking for outside input is the only path forward that I can see. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not really, no. An administrator can settle or at any rate help settle the dispute as another editor has pointed out at the ANI. In any case this isn't just a content dispute as it's a conduct one as well (as I've made clear here. Flaughtin (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

But can you comment on the specific point about the views of the economists not belonging in the background section in the firs tplace? My argument is that their views don't belong there because as I pointed out we already have a section for economists. So even if we do decide to include their views, we would be including them in the wrong place if we put them in the background section. I assume you agree with this? Flaughtin (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and made that same point many times above and below. As the WTO stated, their paper would be "an extensive discussion about the potential effects of the trade tensions." IOW, about the effects, not the causes. --Light show (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Light show I'll leave the manipulation of the Bekker source to you as you have a much better knowledge of what they're saying than I do. My only suggestion is that you read through the economist and analyst and international sections of the article to see if you can incorporate what they're saying into there first. But with regard to the two Chinese sources, while it's not acceptable that they be used in the background section (and especially not in the manner in which they are used there, which is as a source for statement of facts) I think we can as a compromise include them into the Chinese domestic reactions section. I've gone ahead per WP:BOLD and made those changes. Let me know if you have any comments. Flaughtin (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential for an RfC

Can we please make progress on starting an RFC about the background section? What was wrong with User:Chess's RFC wording? —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you refuse to answer the questions I asked you? Flaughtin (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To respond to that question: the World Trade Organization and journal articles by economists are reliable sources about a trade war. To the extent that those sources discuss the background to the trade war, it makes sense to use them for the "Background" section. I've already made these points above, and it doesn't feel like we're making progress. Let's start the RFC. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

About an RfC, I'm not sure one is actually possible, and certainly not in the two version option. IMO, both you and Thucydides, by first deleting the only section actually focused on the "background", then adding opinions from only Chinese economists about the "effects" of the trade war into a non-background "trade relationship" section, have made one impossible.

A clearer RfC might have asked something similar to the RSN discussion, for example. Or one might have asked whether pay-walled scholarly publications should replace newspaper RSs, or be included along with them. Or whether NYT opinions from someone like Thomas Friedman are acceptable. Those are a few examples. However, you both decided to eliminate sixteen fully acceptable RSs on the pretext that one or two of those, like President Trump's statements, were not acceptable.

To create a reasonable RfC, one possibility would be to revert to this version, for example, which included both the Background and the Trade relationship in their own sections. Then an RfC can ask something in a clear way. --Light show (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to create an RfC based on whether or not these sources are reliable or not. But it would also be a clumsy one because both sides seem to disagree on the exact nature of those sources and the sources range from government publications to opinion pieces to regular news reports. The context in which these sources can be used also vary and as I've said before government sources that can be unreliable when used to support factual statements in WikiVoice can be reliable when used to attribute government positions on the trade war itself. If the USTR puts out a report saying that sanctions were implemented as a response to China stealing US technology, it's not appropriate to say that "the trade war is caused by China stealing American technology" but it could be appropriate to say that "the United States claims that sanctions were imposed in reaction to China's theft of American technology". Context matters and that's why I decided to do a RfC on the entire section rather than try to start an RfC on the sources themselves which wouldn't include the context in which they were used. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 07:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, the point of the RSN discussion was to evaluate the reliability of the sources, and in broad strokes I think it accomplished that purpose (at least when it comes to citing material stated in Wikipedia's voice in an overview section). As for information about the US administration's views, those are already covered extensively in the "Trump administration's complaints" subsection. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

at least when it comes to citing material stated in Wikipedia's voice in an overview section the RSN says the exact opposite. That is just garbage you made up on the spot. Flaughtin (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the RSN discussion. In that discussion, both User:Thucydides411 and User:Chess specifically drew attention to the problem of using opinion pieces to support factual claims. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's clear you didn't read what was written at the RSN. The exchange concerned the citation of material in relation to opinions and facts. Nothing there about citing material in Wikipedia's voice, much less Wikipedia's voice in an overview section and certainly not Wikipedia's voice "in an overview section that uses journal articles." Please don't pretend that that discussion makes your implicit argument that you don't need to adhere to WP:INTEXT just because your preferred material is cited to two (Google-mined?) journal articles. Flaughtin (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

But you can't start an RFC with options which lack standing in the first place. We can't admit option A because it commits basic violations that renders the version inadmissible under any circumstances - you alluded to this when you pointed out in your immediately preceding remarks about the importance of attribution. In this case, the basic violations include exactly that (INTEXT), as pointed out ad nauseum by editors User:Light show and User:Fortliberty and mind-bogglingly denied by Thucydides411. We had an analogous situation when it was decided that we can't admit material that is cited to sources which don't explicitly mention the trade war - that is why this section can't be involved in any hypothetical RFC on this article. (incidentally, that is also why option B doesn't work either - paragraphs 2-5 draws on sources that don't explicitly mention the trade war.) The same dynamics for option A are at play here. Flaughtin (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential for administrator intervention

Can we please just get an administrator to come over here from the ANI and settle this background dispute issue once and for all? What's wrong with this suggestion of mine and User talk:Chess why did you ignore it? Flaughtin (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Light show and User:Fortliberty what are your opinions on resolving the dispute through administrative intervention in relation to the above ANI as opposed to an an RFC? Flaughtin (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The typical way to resolve an intractable content dispute is to start an RFC. When the RFC has lasted a suitable amount of time (typically 30 days), if the consensus is not obvious, an administrator (or other experienced editor) can evaluate the consensus and close the discussion.

The discussions on this talk page are very messy and complicated, so they may be difficult to close—one advantage of an RFC is that it organizes discussion about a specific issue in a fairly straightforward way. But if you think there is a clear consensus about which version of the background section to use (I would say there isn't), the place to request closure would be WP:RFCLOSE, not ANI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussions on this talk page are very messy and complicated, that's exactly the reason why administrator intervention is needed, not just to determine how to close the RFC but, more importantly, to decide how the RFC should be formulated in the first place. For the record another editor has made the same point at the ANI Flaughtin (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that my predictions about the worst case scenario that the disagreement could head towards has been born out and that help from skilled editors is needed to unentangle this mess. Thus I am certainly sympathetic to your proposal and while I would not adopt an extreme (if I may put it in such a way) position as yours to say that an RfC can only happen after administrator has certified it (or "administrator intervention for the formulation of the RFC" as you put it), i do agree with the basic gist of what you saying, namely that an administrator should be present throughout the process to make sure that nothing untoward is happening. I think logistically-wise this would make the most sense as opposed to having an administrator try and do this after the RfC has concluded. At the same time though I would like to point out that the assumption you are relying on to make sure that things go smoothly beforehand while totally reasonable and even appropriate can also be applied to things afterhand so-to-speak. So it is possible that if an administrator really is absent from the RfC process, you can still request for one when it has concluded to come and look to make sure that nothing untoward has happened. This failsafe would seem to me to have the same effect in making sure of the integrity of the request outcome as if the administrator was involved from the very beginning. Fortliberty (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

More specific examination of the issues

Because the vast majority of the above exchanges on this particular thread concerns the third paragraph of the "The US-China trade relationship" subsection in this version of the background section I have opened up this section specifically to do a (line-by-line) critical analysis of the problems in it.

1) The first two sentences should be removed. They are redundant as their arguments are already covered in the immediately proceeding subsection (Trump administration's complaints) and at any rate can be integrated into it.

2) The third sentence should be removed. The argument is redundant as it's already covered by the first paragraph of the economists and analysts section, lacks substantiation as it's a primary source (the UN is afterall a type of government) and lacks attribution as it's cited to just one source. The material also seems cherry picked (UNDUE) when the main point (or one of the main points) of the source is about how the US benefits comparatively more over the PRC from the trade war (The impact of the Phase One Agreement on the global economy is even smaller, although the US is projected to turn real income losses into real income gains because of the Chinese commitments to buy additional US goods.) - at any rate, the issue of tariffs is not the main focus of the article and the supporting quotation given in the citation doesn't even reference the correct part of the article. In any case, if we are to include the WTO article, then the material should be included in the effects and economists and analysts sections, and not in the background one (as has been pointed out on multiple occassions by User talk:Light show)

3) The fourth sentence can be kept

4) The fifth sentence should be removed. In addition to suffering from all the problems that also afflicts the third sentence (as explicated in point #2), the supporting citations themselves are defective. The sources by Guo, Chong and Nicita don't say anything about what most economists believe, let alone what most economists believe is the cause of the US trade deficit with China.

5) The sixth sentence doesn't belong in the background section and should instead be put under the effects/economists and analysts section. The trade diversion is an effect/a consequence of the trade war and per the sources is a phenomenon that is analyzed economists. That said, there are problems with attribuion and sourcing, as the Guo source doesn't say that trade diversion will leave the the United States' overall trade deficit largely unchanged while the Chong source doesn't mention trade diversion at all. Flaughtin (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that information covered in the "Trump administration's complaints" subsection doesn't need to be repeated in other subsections. But I do think it's worth citing economic analysis of the background to the trade war in the "Background" section. Journal articles by economists are just about the best sources for us to use in this article (certainly better than the partisan news outlets and opinion pieces that some have suggested for the background section).

I think trade diversion should be covered in the article, but I'm not sure where. I suppose that if the sources about trade diversion are forward-looking analyses from early in the trade war, they might fit better in the "Background" section, while retrospective analyses from later in the trade war would fit better in "Effects". —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous section about the trade relations between the U.S. and China had little to do with the background and causes, but was mostly about the potential effects. The section was cited from totally non-U.S. and pay-walled journals, all written presumably by Chinese economists. FYI, almost anyone can pay to have their essays or treatises published in many economics journals to get exposure, actually noted in RS. It was amazingly added under the rationale of being a "neutrally written background," when it was from non-neutral sources and irrelevant to the background. The rationale was Rewrite of WTO section, based on Bekkers & Schroeter, despite admitting that the source would not discuss the key causes of the trade war.

There is no harm in using any citation more than once in an article, assuming the statements they support aren't clearly redundant. And claiming that what WP used to consider RSs would be better replaced by unreachable, scholarly essays from only the perspective of those who by nature would oppose the trade war, is a problem. But as far as the previous "background" section you unilaterally eliminated without consensus or any reasonable rationale, and contrary to the support you originally gave to the material, it should be restored in full.

When you deleted the section without consensus or even discussing first, your pretext was that they were opinions only, which was your opinion and not true. And opinions with attribution are fine in any case, especially from high quality sources, which they were from. The former "background" section can be edited for improvement as explained here. As Thucydides411 stated a few days ago, Improve it rather than blanking it. Please take his advice. In any case you and the three other commenters did support the basic background section with an opinion, such as yours below, with those conditions met:

I think it's a good idea to limit the background section to material that reliable sources tie to the trade war. That would mean excluding material that's only mentioned in pre-trade-war sources. (But I think those sources could still be used to support material that more recent sources do tie to the trade war.)

--Light show (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The nationalities of the economists who wrote the journal articles are not particularly relevant. I would support including material by economists born in the United States, China, or other countries, and in fact I don't usually check the nationality of an author before using a source on Wikipedia. A quick Wikipedia search found that Journal of Political Economy, Asian Economic Papers, Journal of International Economics, and The American Economic Review are all peer-reviewed academic journals, and some of their Wikipedia articles mention that they are well respected. The problems with the other version of the subsection have been pointed out repeatedly, some of them at the RSN discussion that you started.

In the interest of making progress, here's an attempt at a compromise version of the subsection, incorporating some of the material from each version:

Trade diversion would then be covered in the "Effects" section. Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As a revised "Trade relationship" section, it's slightly more balanced, but not for the "background" or the WTO aspect. It still declares without attribution what "most economists believe..." Even the Bible and Confucious attribute who says things, and this article is not above those.

So overall, the section sounds like a promo to invest in China's proven future growth, while claiming it was mostly the trade deficit that was the major cause of raising tariffs: "More broadly, China's economic growth has been viewed by the US government as a challenge to American economic and geopolitical dominance." It ignores, like the Bekkers paper does, key rationales for raising tariffs, none of which China has denied, btw. And unlike its numerous former colonizers, the U.S. has never asserted "geopolitical dominance," but only free trade. --Light show (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The section mentions many complaints by the American government, beyond tariffs. It mentions accusations of dumping, exchange rates, intellectual property concerns, and decreases in US factory employment. Several of the papers I looked at mentioned geopolitical rivalry as a major cause of the trade war. I actually softened the word "hegemony" (used by Kwan 2019) to "dominance". If you think it would sound more neutral, we could try to rephrase it to something like, More broadly, China's economic growth has led the US government to increasingly view China as a geopolitical rival. But keep in mind that the very next section goes through the accusations made by the US government in much greater detail.

As for attribution, WP:INTEXT gives examples of where in-text attribution is and is not appropriate. When expressing a widespread scientific view, attribution is viewed as a potential WP:POV problem, because it implies that the view is only particular to whoever is being quoted. If this were the view of just a few economists, but other economists disagreed, then attribution would be appropriate. But the view that macroeconomic factors (not the trade policy of America's trading partners) drive the US trade deficit is standard in economics, and the view that tariffs will cause trade diversion (which is, by the way, what has actually happened during this trade war) is also standard in economics. The draft cites a whole series of economics papers that support this view, and it is the standard view in the field. Attribution would therefore be WP:POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Your proposed compromise section looks good. One minor comment I have is that the sentence about factory employment logically fits better after the sentence, Economists have studied the impact of trade with China and increasing labor productivity on employment in the American manufacturing sector, with mixed results. I also think that a better source should be found than Fox Business (some of the economics journal articles cited in the draft discuss factory employment, I think).

@Light show: The journal articles we're looking at here are not from "pay-to-publish" journals. I looked specifically for articles with high citation counts (meaning that they've been influential in the economics community), which contain significant background sections on the trade war. The authors are by no means exclusively Chinese, as far as I can tell (Nicita, Bekkers, Schroeter, Kehoe, Steinberg and Feenstra don't sound like Chinese family names to me), and one of the Chinese authors (Kwan) has spent his entire career in Japan and is publishing in a Japanese economics journal. But it doesn't matter where the authors of these papers came from. What matters is that they're professional economists publishing in reputable journals, and that their articles are highly cited. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bekkers paper admits that it and the WTO are, unlike China, not interested in discussing many of the causes for the tariffs, which makes it and the other opaque scholarly sources do likewise, thereby heavily biased. The WTO stated it would not discuss many of the motives it wrote about, "such as poor IP protection, subsidies of state-owned enterprises, and forced technology transfers."

And although you actually cited SCMP, you chose to exclude its basis, as it also made clear:

US President Donald Trump promised during his 2016 presidential campaign to reduce the large trade deficit with China, which he claimed was based in large part on unfair Chinese trading practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, lack of market access for American companies in China and an unlevel playing field caused by Beijing’s subsidies for favoured Chinese companies.

The result is that your essay is defective and biased at its core, lacking attribution or any U.S. sources (claiming anything by the U.S. is biased or from opinionated "trade hawks"). If I were Chinese, I'd be embarrassed at this obvious attempt to hide important issues, such as counterfeiting of intellectual property or excessively high tariffs, which makes your material an anti-U.S. essay with your own "scholarly journal" conclusions.

IMO, your section would never have been written by a Chinese economist. It seems that your material favors conflict, falsely blaming it on an American desire for "geopolitical dominance," a "challenge" against China, or just a "rival." While you totally ignore events such as last December, when China announced it would lower import tariffs on over 850 products, or last November, when it agreed to toughen intellectual property theft penalties and "Agreed to [an] Anti-Counterfeit Accord,"cite or last October, when it "promised no [more] forced tech transfers." --Light show (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've adjusted the draft somewhat based on these comments. Saying "most economists believe..." seems to be fine based on the Bekkers source without additional in-text attribution. As discussed above, the Trump administration's complaints are already covered in the following subsection, so they probably shouldn't be repeated here. Last December was well after the trade war started, so updates from that time would probably fit better elsewhere in the article, not in the "Background" section.

Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The only difference between this version and the previous one that I can easily see, is the word count: 885 vs. 883 previously. It would help if you clarify what was changed besides two words somewhere. --Light show (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I've edited the draft to highlight the portions that have changed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Much clearer. However, the first sentence is identical in essence to the previous version, which again mischaracterizes the tariff wars by minimizing this aspect in preference to this. While the text in the second highlighted section is identical to the first version. So I see no change. --Light show (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks okay, except that an opinion column (the piece from the Atlantic) should not be cited so prominently to frame the trade war. I don't think that the view expressed in the Atlantic opinion piece necessarily represents the mainstream view in economics, and the way it's worded subtly implies that China has not met its WTO obligations (which is something China disputes and which I think economists have different views on). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I'm okay with removing or rephrasing the material from the Atlantic source. @Light show: Am I understanding correctly that in your view, the subsection needs to focus more on the history of mutually beneficial trade relations between the United States and China? If so, I'll see what I can find to add from reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

On your two points, first removing The Atlantic cite should not be done as it would violate RS guidelines along with your own earlier statements that it was fine. In any case, many of the previous 16 sources you deleted from the "Background" section were much better. As for the "history of mutually beneficial trade relations," that would be a totally different subject and unrelated to this WP article and even this talk section, Discussion of former "Background" section. Maybe start a new thread about the "history of mutually beneficial trade relations." --Light show (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Then could you please clarify what you think needs to change about this subsection to make it an acceptable compromise? I did my best to interpret the photos you linked above, but this discussion would probably make progress faster if you could suggest specific changes based on reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As there seems to be tacit agreement with The Atlantic, that China joining the WTO may have "laid the groundwork" for the current trade war, which the previous Background section supported with numerous sources, one compromise would be to first discuss why any of the sources it included are not acceptable. If you agree with Thucydides that essentially any opinion by a U.S. writer or any statements made by administration spokespersons are biased and thereby invalid, please make that clear. It would seem we need to first compromise on which sources are allowed per guidelines, including MSM news, and whether the article should be written primarily for average visitors or mostly for professional economists.--Light show (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The background section should rely as little as possible on opinion pieces. I don't see why we should cite any opinion piece in the background section (note that I've never objected to citing US writers - I criticized the extensive use of opinion writers with the same POV). Similarly, I don't see why we should cite White House press releases. The background section should use high-quality, neutral sources. We've already identified several such sources (the economics papers, plus the SCMP news article). The background section is written for a general audience, but that doesn't mean that the sources have to be written for a general audience (note that the SCMP news article is written for a general audience, and that the background sections of the economics papers do not require much specialist knowledge to understand).

The proposed background section looks pretty good, though the Atlantic opinion piece should not be used. There is no tacit agreement that China joining the WTO laid the groundwork for the current trade war. One could just as easily say that the election of an economic protectionist as president of the US laid the groundwork (and that is something many of the sources emphasize). In any case, I don't see why this particular opinion should be presented in the background section. It's enough to say that China's entry into the WTO accelerated growth in trade between the US and China, and to document the various trade disputes that occurred during the 2000s and 2010s (e.g., textile quotas). Light show, it looks to me like the proposed piece touches on all the points you've said should be covered (US IP & investment concerns, etc.). What additional points would need to be included for this draft to be acceptable to you? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid opinion pieces in the "Background" section, as we have much higher-quality sources available, though opinion pieces might be acceptable for other sections such as "Reactions". I included the Atlantic piece in the proposal above anyway, to try to compromise with editors who disagree with me, but I'm perfectly happy to leave it out.

I don't think any of the other sources in this version are usable here, because with the exceptions of The Atlantic and CNBC, they consist entirely of (a) sources that don't mention the trade war, (b) low-quality sources like the Washington Times (see WP:RSP), or (c) inherently partisan sources like the White House. (The CNBC piece is usable in other sections of the article, but seems unsuitable for the "Background" section because it's focused entirely on updates from well into the trade war.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Returning to the main point, whether your proposed section even belongs in this article, it's clear it doesn't IMO, as most of it does not discuss the background. If anything, it might fit in the China–United States relations section of the Thucydides Trap. --Light show (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This compromise version is entirely based on sources about the trade war. The point here is to summarize what reliable sources say is the background to the trade war.

Is a compromise possible here? If not, let's restart the RFC and get input from other editors. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What would the RfC be about? "Statement should be neutral and brief," per RfC. --Light show (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll restore User:Chess's RFC, with simpler wording. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I've pulled the RFC (in line with point 2 of WP:RFCEND) and I would advise that you stop your disruptive editing. There is no consensus for starting it (much less a consensus over what the options are), the examination process (in this section) hasn't even concluded yet, this is a content dispute that involves more than two editors (so you can use the DRN instead) and is too complex/technical to be resolved (purely) by an RFC (so you can either use the DRN or ask help on the relevant WikiProject instead) and it doesn't give the full range of options to choose from (there is no option for removing the subsection altogether as was pointed out here). In addition, there are prior issues that have yet to be resolved, such as the fact that it has been initiated prior to administrator intervention (see the relevant exchanges here and here) and the fact that the outstanding challenges over the standing of the RFC options have yet to be addressed (see relevant exchange here). I understand your obsession to reinstate this material, but that really isn't license for you to violate all sorts of Wikipedia policies and procedures. As it's clear that there is a plurality of editors who oppose your material and it is also clear that you are just going in circles repeating yourself, it's probably best for you and that other user to stop bludgeoning the process and just move on. Flaughtin (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: I've re-instated the RfC. Point 2 of WP:RFCEND does not apply for starters, unilateral disruption of a resolution process is also inappropriate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Light show, User:Fortliberty, and User talk:Horse Eye's Back in relation to my immediately preeceeding comment, can each and every one of you state your opinion with regard to the standing of the RFC below? My argument is that it should not proceed until we've had an administrator go through the relevant arguments (above and below) to: 1) determine that we even need an RFC and 2) if we do need an RFC, to ensure that its formulation accurately reflects the content in the disputes.

Also User talk:Light show you may want to modify your answer for the RFC as I've modified its list of options Flaughtin (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see my response to you in the "Potential for administrator intervention" section Mr. Flaughtin. Thank you. Fortliberty (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: The above is canvassing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)