Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent edits

First round of debate

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

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

1) There is a reason why we don't do mass purges of edits as you did here. Substantively it leads to nonsensical and deceptive claims about how you restored balance and the relevant information (as I'll show below) and stylistically it makes it nearly impossible to identify what has to be debated when you lump the reverts together like that. For the sake of clarity I am going to use my original edits as the basis for identifying the vast majority of the areas of contention.

2) [1] - you changed the header of this section to "obama era". This will be the first of many examples of how you haven't bothered to read the material that you are reverting - in this case, most of the content in that section doesn't even have anything to do with Obama. If they do they don't remotely spell out how they are even connected to what Obama did. Putting a vague, overarching header like the one you used as if that is supposed to give the reader the impression that the complaints are just beef on the part a U.S. administration - yeah that isn't going to fly.

3) [2]- your addition of a citation needed tag is pov pushing. It's clear based on your other edits that you've went through each and every one of the sources on which I've made my changes and instead of just simply reciting the Reuters source you instead chose to make the pointy edit of putting a citation needed tag. This is bad form.

4) [3] - more evidence that of how you haven't bothered to read the material that you are reverting. What you restored is not only not in the article, it's the total opposite of what is reported. The aide(s) the article explicitly mentioned didn't even discuss the legality of the order and the analysts they cited who discussed the legality of his statement gave varying views on whether his statement has legal authority: one is unsure, one agrees and the last one (on the face of it anyway) disagrees. Even if what those analysts and aides said was true it the Wikipedia summary of the NYT article would still be problematic because it lacks balance as it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force.

5) [4] - this partial revert of yours is POV pushing. Instead of leaving the first sentence in the original edit as is you tried to give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war by highlighting how the trade war has specifically damaged the US economy while keeping the summary of the impact of the trade war to China vague and generic.

6) [5] - your reversion of the first sentence is misleading and nonsensical. Misleading because the international section shows that the reaction isn't just critical as your revert implies (the third paragraph shows the opposite) and the criticism (the first sentence) is limited to just one aspect of Trump's trade war (tariffs) and nonsensical because US business and agricultural organizations are direct parties to the trade war (and so not an international view).

7 [6] - this is editorializing and your restoration of it is POV pushing. Readers can make up their own minds as to how hard farmers in the United States have been impacted by China's retaliatory measures which the paragraph makes clear is an argument that can go both ways.

8 [7] - As I said in the edit summary the material about wheat and farming machinery is redundant as all of it has already been covered in the immediately preceding paragraph, and your attempt to give reader's the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war by restoring it without a counterbalancing response is just tendentious editing on your part. Again this is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting.

9 [8] - this material has already been covered the chronology section. Again, restoring this POV material (we need a better source for the claim about China than Business INsider, which per RSN is of dubious reliability, and the claim about the US is not even in the Guardian source) is bad form.

10 [9] - As I said in the edit summary this material has already been covered the chronology section and in any case is too vague for inclusion.

11 [10] - the rattled part is editorializing and undue because the Guardian source is using that description in a specific context. Again, yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting.

12 [11] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. The Republican senators are all saying the same thing as the senators who are classified as criticizing Trump's trade war [12] so it is nonsensical to say those Republican senators offered "measured" statements while saying senators from both parties have "criticized Trump for the trade war" when those senators are saying the same thing as the Republican senators.

13 [13] - your restoration of this edit is misleading. They are divided on the tactics, but united on the strategy. Using the word approach is problematic because it cn mean either tactic, strategy or both. (hence my self-revert)

14 [14] - the first and second sentence is original research and at any rate isn't even in the article. The third sentence is redundant and violates WP:SAY

15 [15] - your restoration of this edit is nonsensical. We can't use VOA for anything other than the views of the government of the United States per PUS

16 [16] - this isn't a reliable source and even if it was we need secondary sources for inclusion (WP:DUE). You don't just put in random sources (that presumably have been google mined) all because it advances a view that you agree with. The fact that you restored this is more evidence of POV pushing.

17 [17] - same as above

18 [18] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. Paul isn't disagreeing with Trump's trade war (an impression which the material is meant to convey) he was disagreeing with the trade talks (which is obviously different as the NYT article makes clear) and in any case the second sentence isn't even grammatical.

19 [19] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing. As i said US domestic reaction should come first given the preponderance of the content in the sub section. If you think otherwise then you must explain.

20 [20] - no reason why this can't go together when they are completely connected. I understand again that this is part of your POV push because you want to leave criticism of the trade war unchallenged and thereby give people the impression that the United States suffers comparatively more from the trade war, but that really isn't a reason to make reverts like this.

21 [21] - your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. The WaPo link is just a database and whether it is about trade is something you have to manually do (hence WP:OR)

22 [22] - As i said in the edit summary I reworded this so it reflected what was written in the source verbatim; the previous version was misleading because it shifted the semantic focus away from support for confrontation and your restoration of this edit is just POV pushing.

23 [23] - your edit summary is nonsensical. The quote I provided is entirely about the trade war. Just because the article isn't explicitly about the trade war doesn't mean it can't be included. Certainly there are more grounds to include it than these two pieces of information that you restored ([24] and [25]).

24 [26] - your edit summary is nonsensical as is your removal of the source. The quote I provided explicitly ties the trade war with the coronavirus pandemic. Just because the article isn't explicitly about the trade war doesn't mean it can't be included. Certainly there are more grounds to include it than these two pieces of information that you restored ([27] and [28]).

25 [29] - no reason for this rearrangement aside from trying to (literally) bury criticism of the trade industry because you want to give readers the overall impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war. It entirely belongs in the industry section because Lewis is talking exactly about that (extending reciprocal treatment to...U.S. companies in China.). If you must, it belongs in the business section and the at very least it doesn't belong (at the end) of the others section.

26 [30] - see point 4.

Given the amount of work and time I have put into my response, I will expect a response from you and if you fail to do so then I will revert all of your changes.Flaughtin (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flaughtin, thanks for this reply. Please assume good faith, as I am doing. With the goal of encouraging a collegial discussion, in my responses below I'll ignore your unfounded accusations of bias or "not reading the material", and I will focus on content rather than the contributor. I ask you to do the same. I'll respond to your numbered points.

1. Your edits introduced a number of NPOV issues and other problems, so I reverted. I did my best to avoid reverting the unobjectionable parts of the edits.

2. "China's trade issues, Obama administration's complaints and decline in US manufacturing" is not a neutral section header. The header "Obama era" neutrally identifies a time period. If you have a suggestion for a different neutrally worded section header, I'm open to discussing it.

3. I added a citation needed tag because the claim you added didn't have a citation.

4. The source says "In fact, aides said, no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. For the moment, they said Mr. Trump was signaling American businesses to begin to disentangle from China on their own." It is important to clarify that the tweet was in fact not a legal order but rather a piece of nonbinding rhetoric.

5. I was not trying to "give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively", but rather keep the long-standing and accurate summary. We should also include a summary of how the trade war has affected the Chinese economy.

6. The longstanding consensus version of the summary is accurate. The edit you linked omits the fact that the trade war has been criticized internationally and focuses solely on the U.S. reaction.

7. The sentence you removed is an accurate summary of what reliable sources say.

8. This information about the effects on Canada is sourced and relevant.

9. Sourced, relevant information. The Guardian source says "US economic growth has also slowed on the back of the dispute".

10. Sourced, relevant information, and it is not "too vague for inclusion".

11. This is needed to indicate how and why the trade war caused turbulence in the stock market.

12. I don't fully understand what you're trying to argue here, but the source does not say that those senators supported the trade war. For example, Cornyn is quoted as saying "There’s a lot of concern...If this is what it takes to get a good deal, I think people will hang in there, but at some point we’ve got to get it resolved...If this goes on for a long time, everybody realizes it’s playing with a live hand grenade." McConnell is quoted as saying "One thing I think we all agree on is that nobody wins a trade war."

13. The edit you linked seems fine; we can remove the phrase "reaction to Trump's approach has been divided".

14. You're right that the material isn't supported by the source.

15. This is a piece of media being included, not a source being cited. It's reasonable to include VOA videos in this article. If there's a similar video created by Chinese state media, it would be great to include that too.

16. On what basis are you saying that this is an unreliable source?

17. On what basis are you saying that this is an unreliable source?

18. It is important to include this for balance and completeness. The sentence clearly states that Paul is criticizing the talks, which accurately reflects the source (the source gives him as an example of a "critical" commentator).

19. You say "US domestic reaction should come first given the preponderance of the content in the sub section". That is a textbook NPOV violation. The established order of these two sections is alphabetical order (China followed by US). The fact that we currently have more information about the US is a sign that we ought to add more information about China for balance, not a sign that we should reorder the sections to give even more prominence to the US point of view.

20. It's worth indicating the details of what the WSJ said, not just the vague statement that the action "drew criticism".

21. The "database" point is fair; I'm okay with removing this.

22. It's not acceptable to copy a source's wording verbatim without indicating that it's a quotation. It is clearer and more accurate to give the percentages as indicated clearly in the source. Please read the source beyond the first paragraph—the summary with the percents seems to be accurate.

23. You say "The quote I provided is entirely about the trade war." That is not correct—the quote discusses several topics, including COVID-19, criticism of globalization, and others, but it makes at best an ambiguous allusion to the trade war.

24. The quote, which was published long after the trade war began, is making a broad foreign policy recommendation without seeming to mention what specific countries should implement that recommendation. I don't see any reason to think it's referring to this trade war in particular.

25. Based on our article about James Andrew Lewis, he seems to be a public policy expert rather than an industry representative.

26. See point 4 - as indicated in the NYT source, the tweet was a piece of nonbinding rhetoric rather than a legally binding order.

Phew! What a lot of points to respond to. Hopefully that was all clear—let me know if anything I said doesn't make sense to you, or if I mixed up any of the responses (easy to do when there are so many...). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1) My accusations aren't unfounded when they are just statements of fact. You are editing from a position of bias (as am I) and it's obvious based on your arguments that you haven't read (or carefully read) the material that you are reverting. They're not meant to be insulting - as I said, they're just meant to be statements of fact.

2) See this is what I mean when I say you aren't reading. The header "Obama era" is nonsensical because as I pointed out in my original argument, most of the content in that section doesn't even have anything to do with Obama. And if they do they don't remotely spell out how they are even connected to what Obama did. If my header isn't a neutral section header, then you have to explain why it isn't (as I, on the contrary, did - you just want to give the reader the impression that the complaints are just beef on the part a U.S. administration instead of complaints that are grounded in more encompassing concerns)

3) That's not the point. The point is your edit was bad form. Please don't act like it wasn't.

4) Just because (the article said) the aides said no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be doesn't mean that what Trump's order was without legal force (much less your assertion that it was not a legal order but rather a piece of nonbinding rhetoric.) I mean this is pretty simple stuff: we document things that the source say, not what you imagined them to say. Fine if you do that on you personal blog where you can imagine anything you like, but obviously that's not going to work here. All that the aides said was that no order was drawn up nor was it likely that one would be drawn up. That's it. ANything else (for example about its legality) is just original synthesis.

5) Well no no you are trying to give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively. That's your bias and that's just a fact. Again it's not meant to be insulting because that's just what it is. If you didn't you would have left the first sentence in the original edit as is instead of highlighting how the trade war has specifically damaged the US economy while keeping the summary of the impact of the trade war to China vague and generic. In any case I've rectified this.

6) Consensus can change as is the case now with the debate over this point. My edit didn't omit the fact that the trade war has been criticized internationally because I wrote that the trade war drew mixed reaction (which, perforce, presupposes criticism). Yet another example of how you haven't read/properly read the material that you are reverting. You on the other hand don't like it because you want to suppress any mention of international support for the tradee war. That's your problem and of course that's your argument to make.

7) Prove it. The sources make clear that's not a fact, that's an argument and it's one that can go both ways. The fact that farmers were initially hit hard doesn't mean that that's declaratively the case. (Trump's measures may have meant the farmers are no longer hit hard)

8) I've rectified this

9) I've rectified this

10) Prove it. As I said the mateiral is already covered in chronology section and in any case too vague in any case to merit inclusion. In any case, it's not clear why they can't be integrated into the timeline.

11) You're not reading what I am saying. The rattled part is undue because the Guardian source is using that description in a specific context. You can't use it in a generic context. If you can't find a source that uses the word "rattled" in an overarching context, then this has to go.

12) The issue is that you have to account for the double standards in the characterization of the reactions. The Republican senators are all saying the same thing as the senators who are classified as criticizing Trump's trade war so it is nonsensical to say those Republican senators offered "measured" statements while saying senators from both parties have "criticized Trump for the trade war" when those senators are saying the same thing as the Republican senators. If you can't account for the inconsistency in the description, then you must revert back to my original edit.

15) We can't use VOA for anything other than the views of the government of the United States per PUS. The videos are not documenting the views of the government of the United States, but rather the views of ordinary US citizens for which we will need independent, reliable sources. These videos have to go if you can't find them.

16) Burden is on you establish it's reliability. It's a self published source for which there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims and measure its due weight. The paragraph has to go if you can't find them.

17) Same as above

18) Paul is criticizing the talks, but not the trade war and so it's undue to run the sentences together. Yet another example of how you haven't read/carefully read the material that you are reverting.

19) That's not really a NPOV violation. Promenance is given to the preponderance of the content in the section. There is no "established" anything because consensus on these things can change. if there you don't like the disproportionality of the content, then that's up to you to rectify it.

20) Prove it. Why can't they go together when they are completely connected? There are multiple items in the timeline that features this type of content amalgamation (description of the event that made the day noteworthy along with an opinion on it)

22) Then I will rectify for this by quoting the headline of the article verbatim. It's superior to your version which is to shift the semantic focus away from support by the public for the trade war.

23) You aren't reading what I am saying. The quotes I am providing are entirely about the trade war. I never said they are only about the trade war. The quote that I provided from the Japan Today article which you purged (In fact, the pandemic has made the world arrive at its moment of truth: It must break China’s stranglehold on vital supply chains, including by incentivizing foreign manufacturers to move out of China, or else risk a situation in which Beijing weaponizes its leverage.) could not be clearer in explicating the connection between the trade war and the coronavirus pandemic.

24) I have rectified for this

25) It's irrelevant whether Lewis is an industry rep or not. The point is the (nature of the) argument he is making, which is entirely about the industrial impact of the trade war. (extending reciprocal treatment to...U.S. companies in China.) If we go by your logic, then we would have to remove the karabell quote as well because he is (described as) an economist, not an industry representative.

26) See point 4 Flaughtin (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I again ask you to focus on content. To make this discussion easier to follow, I'm putting the point-by-point responses in this box:

Point-by-point responses

2. We need a neutrally worded header. Starting the header with "China's trade issues" is not neutral. How about "Conflicts after joining the WTO" as an alternative? 3. It's normal on Wikipedia to add a "citation needed" tag to an uncited claim. 4. It is essential that we clarify the fact that, as reported by the source, the tweet was not a legal order even though it contained the phrase "hereby ordered". 6. The "International" section clearly indicates international criticism; it does not seem to indicate international support for the trade war. 7. I added a source for this statement from the Wall Street Journal, which you removed today. 10. It's cited to the Wall Street Journal. I think this material is better in the "Effects" section than the timeline, because it didn't happen on a specific date, but I'm okay with moving it to the timeline as a compromise. 11. We need to indicate how/why the trade war affected the stock market. The quote indicates that, as reported by reliable sources, investors had an unfavorable reaction to the trade war, and this is why the trade war has affected the stock market. I would also be okay with mentioning "anxiety" per the USA Today source or "unease" per the CNN source instead, if you'd prefer that. 12. If you'd like to propose a clearer way to convey the information from the sources, I'm open to that. But the claim that those senators "supported Trump's actions" is simply not an accurate representation of the source. 15. VOA isn't being cited as a source for any claim. The videos are being used to illustrate the article. 16. I can't find much information on Logisym one way or another, so I'm neutral—if you want to remove it, that's fine with me. 17. I checked, and AVWeb seems to be cited in more than 500 English Wikipedia articles. Are you arguing that it's not a reliable source? If so, I think that should be a broader discussion at WP:RSN or WP:AVIATION. 18. The sentence in question clearly states that Paul is criticizing the talks. If you have a suggestion for a clearer way to phrase it, I'm open to discussing that. 19. You say "Promenance is given to the preponderance of the content in the section." In other words, because the article currently gives excessive prominence to a United States point of view, we should edit it to give even stronger prominence to that point of view? That's not appropriate. Let's stick with alphabetical order. 20. I'm okay with moving this content to the timeline as a compromise, but we should keep the details of what the WSJ said, not just a vague summary. 22. We should rely on the information given in the body of a source, not the headline. Headlines are often simplified and sensational; see the essay WP:HEADLINE for more. 23. That Japan Times quote seems to be making a general foreign policy recommendation, not specific to the United States or to this trade war. 25. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the Karabell quote—that shouldn't be in the "Industry" section either. In fact, I suggest we get rid of the "Industry" section altogether and move the paragraphs to other sections—after all, manufacturing is a part of industry, so the current section divisions don't make much sense.

Your edit today (reverting to a version with some of your recent objectionable additions, not the stable version) reintroduced some serious problems, including a non-neutral summary of the manufacturing industry's response and the inaccurate claim that "Official figures from China showed it's second quarter GDP falling amid the trade war to a 27 year low." (Instead, the cited source says that the rate of growth fell to a 27-year low, a very different statement.) You also removed updates from May and June of this year and information about how internet users in China evade trade war censorship—why? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days with no further responses, so I'll go ahead and fix those issues and restore the updates and information about censorship. I'll also implement the compromise I suggested for the "Background" section and restore some other related fixes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand my response is belated but i had real life issues to attend to and that explains the delay in response.

1) I am focusing on the content. Your conduct is just getting in the way.

2) I will settle with "Conflicts after China joins the WTO". That title better reflects what is in the section, which is that China is te root cause of many of the problems (as spelled out in that section of the article) and in any case your proposed header "Conflicts after joining the WTO" isn't even grammatical.

3) You aren't understanding this so I will make my point clearer. You could have prevented this chickenshit, time-wasting back-and-forth between us if you had just put the Reuters citation that I inadvertently left out. Please do not make that kind of edit again as I really just am not interested in having to deal with these low grade art of war tactics.

4) Then prove it. Burden is on you. Quote me verbatim from the NYT article where it says that the tweet was not a legal order.

6) The international section indicates support for the trade war. (See the first and third paragraphs)

7) I can't verify this as there is a paywall. In any case that sentence (even if cited) has to be counterbalanced, namely with a response about what Trump is doing to help the farmers. It can't be a standalone sentence.

11) You aren't reading what I am saying. It's undue to say investors were rattled by the conflict because the Guardian source makes clear that the investors were rattled by the conflict at that particular time (as delineated by the article). If you want to use that word in a generic context, then that's your job. I don't know the USA TOday or CNN source you are referring to, so that is something you will have to provide.

12) But before I do that, I need you to confirm this point. You agree that your characterization of the reaction of the senators are inconsistent, correct? It doesn't make sense for you (or anyone) to say that if the Republican senators are all saying the same thing as other senators who are also criticizing Trump's trade war, then it is nonsensical to say those Republican senators offered "measured" statements while saying the other senators have "criticized Trump for the trade war" when those two groups of senators are saying the same thing. Correct?

15) But the section for which the videos are supposed to be representative of the corresponding content does not document the views of the government of the United States. Hence, the videos must go, per PUS.

17) That's your job. Burden is on you to prove that it is a reliable source as you are the one who wants to use the source. You don't prove the reliability of a source by noting how many times it's been cited in other Wikipedia articles. Even if you can establish its reliability, that still does not mean the source can be included as there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims and measure its due weight. The paragraph has to go if you can't find them.

18) That burden is on you as you are the one who wants to include the unverifiable material back in the article. Again, to be clear, Paul is criticizing the talks, but not the trade war and so it's undue to run the sentences together.

19) Your criterion doesn't apply as the reactions section is not structured in alphabetical order. (The international reaction section is below the US reaction section) Again, if you don't like the disproportionality of the content, then that's up to you to rectify it.

22) Wikipedia:HEADLINE is an essay (i.e not policy) so I am not going to bother reading it. Your arguments that we shouldn't use the headline and instead rely on the information given in the body of a source is: 1) absurd as the headline gives the most accurate summary of what's in the article and 2) irrelevant/not applicable as the source itself is reliable per RSP.

23) Your argument is nonsensical (it doesn't matter how general the recommendation is because it perforce applies to the United States and trade war - afterall, he is talking about what the world should do and using metonymies like supply chains and decoupling), but since we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, I will propose this article (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/backlash-against-china-trade-policy-debt-traps-by-brahma-chellaney-2018-09) as a substitute and, barring your objections, will be putting it into the article.

24) As for this batch of questions, I have my reasons for reverting your content, but the explanation will have to wait until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits that you did here. We are going to do this sequentially and, to be clear, you aren't going to get first dibs on this just because you want to. This will take time but that's typically what happens when you make edits like this. Flaughtin (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've restored the stable version of the article (the form that has roughly been in place for about a month up to today). It's not acceptable for an editor to come back to this article after being absent for weeks and revert wholesale all the updates and corrections that have been made since then. We can't hold off indefinitely on updating and cleaning up the article while waiting weeks to see if you'll respond.

Anyway, let's continue the discussion. I've collapsed the point-by-point responses.

Point-by-point responses

2. I'm okay with "Conflicts after China joins the WTO". 4. The source says "In fact, aides said, no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. For the moment, they said Mr. Trump was signaling American businesses to begin to disentangle from China on their own." If you'd like to find a different way to summarize this essential clarification, I'm open to discussing that. 6. The first and third paragraphs of that section discuss complaints about China's trade policies, but they do not indicate support for the trade war as a method for resolving those complaints. 7. The paragraph already discusses the Trump administration's aid to farmers. We can add more details about that if you'd like. 11. I'm talking about the two other sources cited in that sentence.[31] [32] Would you prefer to quote "anxiety" from the USA Today instead of "rattled" from the Guardian? 12. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. Is your point that instead of characterizing these senators' responses as "measured", we should say that they were critical/negative? 15. If I understand correctly, we can resolve your concern by moving the videos to a different section of the article. Is that right? If so, I can live with that, though I don't think it's necessary. Again, these videos are not being cited as sources. 17. I suggest starting a discussion about the source at WT:AVIATION or WT:RSN. 18. It isn't "unverifiable material". It's reliably sourced to the New York Times. 19. The existing order places the two countries in alphabetical order, and international responses below. I think that's a reasonable order. If you want to argue for a different order, feel free to do so, but the idea that we should change the order in order to give one country's views extra prominence over the other's is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. 22. I'd appreciate it if you'd read WP:HEADLINE and consider its points instead of dismissing it sight unseen. To try to move forward on this issue, how about this as an alternative phrasing? "An August 2019 Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll found that 67% of registered voters wanted the U.S. to confront Beijing over its trade policies despite the fact that 74% said American consumers were shouldering most of the burden of tariffs." 23. Including something from the Brahma Chellaney source sounds good to me. 24. "I have my reasons" is not an adequate justification for reverting a month's worth of updates and corrections.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

1) That's not how it works. WP:SILENCE doesn't give a time frame for when interloecutors must respond and, to be clear, I had made no edits to other articles in the intervening period between my two most recent comprehensive reversions to the article (here and here.) I should also add: 1) that my absence really wasn't that long; 2) that not everybody (very few people) has the amount of time to spend on Wikipediaa as you do and 3) that your insinuation that the article now stands in an unrecognizable form through my wholesale reversions is misleading as there really weren't that many edits which were made in the intervening period. As we now disagree on which version of the article should be the established one, it is clear from WP:BRD that we must go back to the one which was left intact while we were debating on the talk page (i.e. the one that I have been continually reverted to.) I have reverted accordingly and will continue to do should you edit war over this.

4) That is correct. Notice how that proves my point and disproves yours. Just because it said the aides said no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be doesn't mean that what Trump's order was without legal force (much less your assertion that it was not a legal order but rather a piece of nonbinding rhetoric.) In order for your version of this specific edit to go through, I need you quote verbatim from the article where it says Trump's order was without legal force

6) You aren't not reading it properly. They aren't disagreeing with the trade war per se, they are disagreeing with (per the article) with the means of the trade war (tariffs). The first and third paragraphs show the Europeans agreeing with Trump about the causes of the trade war. (which is why I have been saying The trade war has drawn mixed reaction.)

7) I have rectified this

11) You aren't reading what I am saying. It's still undue to say investors were made anxious by the conflict because the USA Today source makes it clear that the investors were made anxious by the conflict at that particular time (for reasons that are delineated by the article). If you want to use that word in a generic context, then it's your job to find a source which uses that word in that way.

12) I can settle on the characterization of the response of the Republican senators as "divided" (this makes the most sense as the sources show that they agree with Trump's overall strategy but disagree with his tactics.) Now I need you to answer my question. You agree that your characterization of the reaction of the senators are inconsistent, correct?

15) You misunderstand. It's not about moving the videos to another section. it's about the videos reflecting what's in the section. If that corresponding section does not document the views of the government of the United States, then the videos have to go.

17) That's your job. Burden is on you to prove (among other things, e.g. dueness) that it is a reliable source as you are the one who wants to use the source. If you aren't going to do it then that paragraph has to go.

18) Prove it. Burden is on you as you are the one who wants to include the material back in the article.

19) No but this isn't an explanation. Why is that double standard ok? Why is it reasonable for your structuring criterion to be applied in some places but not others? I've already given the reasons for my structuring criterion so I will expect you to do the same. If you can't, then you must revert back to my original edit.

22) This can work provided that we include the statement by Mark Penn which makes clearest the main finding of the survey. I have went ahead and restored with my recommendation given the high level of consensus on this point.

24) No the justification is adequate. You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why. Not my problem if you can't. Flaughtin (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Point-by-point responses are collapsed, a more urgent point is below.

Point-by-point responses

4. Why don't we just quote what the New York Times says ("In fact, aides said, no order [had] been drawn up"). Would that resolve this issue? 6. "The first and third paragraphs show the Europeans agreeing with Trump about the causes of the trade war." That is true to some extent, but it is not the same as saying that they supported the trade war. 11. The source says "Anxiety and fear over the U.S.-China trade war continues to hover over the market" – that is sufficient to support the claim that the trade war has led to anxiety. Is there another way to phrase the information that would resolve your concerns? What if we indicate that the "rattled" quote came from December 2018 and the "anxiety" quote came from August 2019? 12. I do not think that my "characterization of the reaction of the senators are inconsistent", no. I'll edit the section to replace "measured" with "divided", which I can live with as a compromise. 15. "If that corresponding section does not document the views of the government of the United States, then the videos have to go." As far as I can tell, this claim isn't supported by Wikipedia policies. I think the videos are relevant to their current sections, but I am okay with moving them to other sections that more directly cover the US government's statements. 17. I'll start a discussion at WT:AVIATION. 18. Okay, here is the source: [33] 19. The existing order of the sections is alphabetical, which is the usual default order used on Wikipedia when there isn't a good reason to order things differently. Your argument that we should put the United States first, because "Promenance is given to the preponderance of the content in the section", is not supported by any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of. We should not reorder the sections for the purpose of giving greater prominence to one country's views over the other.

With today's edits you have again reverted several of the updates and corrections made to the article in the past month or so. You reinstated inaccurate summaries of American manufacturers' reactions and the effects on the Chinese economy, removed updates from May and June of this year, and removed details about censorship in China. Your edit summaries say "WP:BRD", but so far you have refused to discuss these changes. I again ask you to please follow the "D" in "BRD" and explain why you've reverted these updates and corrections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Good news—we have confirmation that AVweb is a reliable source. I look forward to your response about the edits yesterday. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no response and still no explanation or justification for the reverts from a few days ago, I'll restore the updates and corrections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

4) That would not resolve the issue because it violates NPOV by leaving out the opposing view to your interepretation of the events (for example it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force). There are also issues with the wording, such as the editorializing use of the word "in fact".

6) Again you aren't not reading it properly. The international section indicates support for the trade war because the views there indicate support for the causes of the trade war. To be clear I never said the section indicates categorical support for the trade war (the Europeans show disagreement over the means of the trade war - that is why I have been saying the trade war has drawn mixed reaction.) My interpretation and description of the material is superior to yours which misleading;y portrays the international reaction to the trade war as categorically negative.

11) Again you not reading what I am saying. It's undue to say investors were made anxious by the conflict because the USA Today source makes it clear that the investors were made anxious by the conflict AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME (for reasons that are delineated by the article). If you want to use that word in a generic context, then it's your job to find a source which uses that word in that way. My solution is to remove those meaningless, editorializing descriptors which do nothing but furthers your overall strategy to give readers the impression that the United States has suffered comparatively more from the trade war.

15) It is when you read WP:PUS, WP:RSP and WP:V. I am aware that the PUS is an essay like the WP:HEADLINE one you cited to me before, but some essays are more relevant and applicable than others.

17) The source still can't be included as there are no reliable, secondary sources to corroborate its claims and measure its due weight. The paragraph has to go if you can't find them.

18) I didn't ask you to give me the source. I asked you to quote me verbatim the part where Paul is criticizing the trade war, not just the trade talks. To recap since it's obvious you don't know what is going on: Paul isn't disagreeing with Trump's trade war (an impression which your preferred material is meant to convey) he was disagreeing with the trade talks (which is obviously different as the NYT article makes clear) and in any case your preferred text isn't even grammatical.

19) Your argument is nonsensicl because the reactions section is not structured in alphabetical order. (The international reaction section is below the US reaction section) So my question still stands: Why is it reasonable for your structuring criterion to be applied in some places but not others? I've already given the reasons for my structuring criterion so I will expect you to do the same. If you can't, then you must revert back to my original edit.

24) You'll have to wait for my explanation for the reasonsI've stated above and it's not my problem if you can't. I won't be wasting my time telling you this again. Flaughtin (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Point-by-point responses are collapsed.

Point-by-point responses

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

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

4) You're not making any sense. The source is the NYT article, it's all there when it reports on Trump's opinion about the legal order in both the first and third grammatical person. If you haven't read what the article says or if you have lost track of what's going on wrt this point of contention, then just say you haven't read the article or you don't know what is going on. It's a complete waste of time of my time to go back-and-forth with you like this.

6) Your accusation of original research is nonsensical and yet another example of how you aren't reading what I am saying. My position (and what I actually wrote in my original edit) is that the Europeans have a mixed reaction to the trade war. I never said the Europeans support the trade war and just left it at that. If I am engaging in original research by your criteria, then you would be engaging in even more original research because your interpretation and description of the material in that section is even more misleading and inaccurate than mine.

11) The phrasing still doesn't work because of undue weight. Firstly there is the undue weight of the article itself - why does it matter if one article published by one partisan outlet at a particular point in time reported an event in a particular way? (that trade tensions had "rattled" investors) Second, there is undue weight in your summary of the article - you are making an argument about the negative instability in the stock market when the article itself is in the main (per the headline) about how the stock market has made record gains (i.e. positive instability). This is cherry picking at its finest.

15) No I already have. You just haven't read it/refuse to it/didn't read it carefully. Read in particular WP:PUS and WP:RSP (for analogous cases, such as the state run outlets in Iran, PRC and Russia). To reiterate: we can't use VOA for anything other than the views of the government of the United States and if the content does not document the views of the government of the United States, then the videos must go.

17) That's the argument I have been making all along. Even if the source is reliable that still doesn't mean the material that relies on the source can be included. Please don't pretend otherwsie and make it look like I am shifting the goalposts.

18) That's not good enough. Burden is on you to explain how that ungrammatical sentence accurately portrays Paul's position. My position is to remove the quote entirely.

19) No but this isn't an explanation. Why is it reasonable for some parts in the section to be ordered alphabetically but not others? Neutrality can't apply here because you are not applying your structuring criterion neutrally. If you can't explain your double standards, then you must revert back to my original edit. Flaughtin (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Point-by-point responses are collapsed.

Extended content

4. I think I see what's causing the problem. The NYT source mentions more than one tweet, and the passage in our article is discussing the tweet that includes the phrase "hereby ordered". (Our article doesn't seem to discuss the "Emergency Economic Powers Act" tweet, which is about a legal issue but also is not itself a legal order.) Regarding the "hereby ordered" tweet, the NYT source clearly states "In fact, aides said, no order has been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. For the moment, they said Mr. Trump was signaling American businesses to begin to disentangle from China on their own." As far as I can tell, there is no indication that Trump contradicted that statement. 6. The section indicates international opposition to the trade war, and it does not indicate international support for the trade war. (Do we agree on this point now?) So saying that the reaction was "mixed" is not an accurate summary of the section. 11. As I pointed out above, it is not just one source that reported negative sentiment about the trade war among investors. In addition to The Guardian, the USA Today mentioned "anxiety" and CNN mentioned "unease". I'm good with mentioning any of those in the article, as long as we give some indication of why the trade war caused stock market instability. 15. WP:RSP (a guideline) doesn't seem to cover VOA, and WP:PUS is only an essay, but regardless, neither of those pages is directly relevant, because Voice of America isn't being cited as a source in the article. 17. Your original justification for removing this source was the edit summary "not a reliable source and WP:OR". I'm glad we now agree it's a reliable source. The material is about the effects of the trade war on US manufacturing, so it's directly relevant to this article. 18. The sentence mostly consists of direct quotes from the source, and it puts those quotes in context clearly and accurately. Removing the sentence would lead to an incomplete and therefore misleading impression of Paul's views. 19. There is no double standard—all I'm saying is that the countries involved should be ordered alphabetically. This is how sections are ordered in a wide variety of Wikipedia articles. It isn't usually controversial.

I am still waiting for an explanation for your repeated reverts. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

4) It's irrelevant whether Trump did or did not contradict what the aides said because that's not the issue. The issue is one of weight/NPOV which your version of the text would violate as it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force. There are also issues with the wording, such as the editorializing use of the word "in fact".

6) The section indicates international support to the trade war (the ends) as much as it is indicates international opposition opposition to the trade war (the means). Why do you pretend otherwise?

11) None of those sources are using your loaded, editorializing descriptors in a generic context so they are inadmissible for the material that you are writing. But more than that, they are unnecessary because it would be sufficient enough to say that the uncertainty caused by the trade war has led to stock market instability. Why does it matter to get all selective and point out how the investors affected by the trade war?

15) Your argument is nonsensical. Firstly VOA is cited as a source in the article because it is cited as a source for the relevant videos which are in the article. More than that, the section for which the videos are supposed to be representative of the corresponding content does not document the views of the government of the United States. Hence, the videos must go, per RSP and PUS. As we cannot come to a resolution on this point of contention, it will have to go to WP:3O.

17) Actually this is what I've been writing all along: This isn't a reliable source and even if it was we need secondary sources for inclusion (WP:DUE). You don't just put in random sources (that presumably have been google mined) all because it advances a view that you agree with. The fact that you restored this is more evidence of POV pushing. (emphasis added) PLease do not try to be cute and misrepresent what my position on this point of contention has consistently been.

18) This is not an explanation, but a description of your problem material. I repeat: your restoration of this edit is POV pushing and yet another example of how you haven't read the material that you are reverting. Paul isn't disagreeing with Trump's trade war (an impression which the material is meant to convey) he was disagreeing with the trade talks (which is obviously different as the NYT article makes clear), so running the sentences together will give readers the impression that Paul is disagreeing with both the trade talks AND the trade war. At any rate the second sentence isn't even grammatical. If we cannot come to a resolution on this point of contention, then it will have to go to WP:3O.

19) As we cannot come to a resolution on this point of contention, it will have to go to WP:3O. Flaughtin (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Point-by-point responses are collapsed.

Extended content

4. You say "it leaves out Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force". Could you please provide a reliable source for the claim that this is Trump's opinion about the "hereby ordered" tweet? His aides' clarification seems to indicate that this is not Trump's opinion about that tweet. 6. You say "The section indicates international support to the trade war". That is simply not true, and I can only advise you to go back and reread the section more carefully. The section indicates concerns about Chinese trade practices but does not indicate support for the decision to start a trade war. 11. It's helpful to indicate investors' reactions, because that clarifies why the trade war affected the stock market. Here are two additional sources (for a total of five) describing investors' reactions.[34][35] Will it resolve the issue if we use one of these, instead of or in addition to CNN, The Guardian, and USA Today? 17. AVweb is a reliable secondary source, so it sounds like we're good on this.

On the other three points I will start a 3O request. I notice that you still have not explained your reverts, even though two other editors at ANI have confirmed that you need to do so. This stonewalling is disruptive and needs to stop. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

4) Since you aren't reading what I am saying, I will propose the following workaround text: Trump tweeted that he "hereby ordered" American companies to "immediately start looking for an alternative to China". According to an article in the New York Times, Trump's aides said that no order had been drawn up nor was it clear one would be. In a tweet on the following day, Trump said that he had the authority to make good on his threat, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. This satisfies your demand that to include the opinion of the aides while it also: 1) satisfies my demand that Trump's opinion that his statements have legal force. and 2) properly represents the main point of the article, which is (per the headline) about Trump's assertion that he can force US companies to leave China. I will include this material into the article if I do not see any concerns or response from you.

6) No you need to read the section more carefully (or just read the section). The fourth paragraph for example explicitly indicates international support for the trade war (European diplomats and officials acknowledged support for Trump’s goals, even if they disagreed with his tactics.) Why do you pretend that the international reaction to the trade war is categorically negative?

11) As a compromise, I propose the following text: Investor uncertainty due to the trade war has caused turbulence in the stock market. This satisfies your demand to include investor reactions while satisfying my demand to leave out the editorializing descriptors. I will include this material into the article if I do not see any concerns or response from you.

17) Your failure to provide secondary sources to substantiate what is written in the AVWeb means that the material is inadmissible. Flaughtin (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

4. That proposed text looks fine to me.

6. That sentence indicates support for the broader goal of changing China's trade policies, not support for the decision to use a trade war to do that. The source says "Malmstrom says that while the U.S. and EU 'agree on the diagnosis,' they differ on tactics, and she argues for a more multilateral approach, citing the EU’s work with the United States and Japan to address the issues through reform of World Trade Organization rules." How about this as an alternative phrasing, to incorporate the point I think you're trying to make: "The trade war has been criticized internationally, though some U.S. allies agree with Trump's goal of pushing for China to reform its policies."

11. I can live with that as a compromise, though I think it's less informative than the current version.

17. AVweb is a secondary source. Maybe it would help to read the explanation at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

At this point I may sound like a broken record, but you need to stop stonewalling and discuss this revert. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

6) That doesn't work. If you are going to be specific about the support then you also have to be specific about the criticism.

17) You'll need more than one (Google-mined?) source to established the due weight of that event. Wikipedia isn't an an indiscriminate collection of information and not everything that is verifiable needs to be included. If you can't find more secondary sources that established the importance of that event (that should be easy if it's as important as you are making it out to be), then the material has to go. Flaughtin (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

6. How about this: "The trade war has been criticized internationally as economically damaging, though some U.S. allies agree with Trump's goal of pushing for China to reform its policies."

17. You seem to be shifting the goalposts. First you said AVweb wasn't a reliable source. Then you said it wasn't a reliable source and we needed secondary sources. Now that we agree AVweb is a reliable secondary source, you're saying we need more sources. But I don't see a policy-based reason for that. You said that "not everything that is verifiable needs to be included", which is correct—but this information should be included because it's reliably sourced and directly relevant to the article, as it discusses effects of the trade war on U.S. manufacturing. (By the way, I don't know why you keep calling the source "Google-mined". I wasn't the editor who originally added this source to the article, so I don't know how that editor found it.)

Since you still have not explained or discussed these reverts [36][37][38] despite my repeated requests, I'm going to restore the recent updates and corrections. If you have an objection to them, please explain it, as you were advised at ANI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

6) That still doesn't work because the criticism is not specific enough. Again if you are going to be specific about the support then you also have to be specific about the criticism. As a compromise I propose the following: Internationally, Trump's trade war has drawn support for its end goal of trying to change China's trade policies while it has also drawn criticism for the means by which his administration has used to fight the war. (the support should come first given the preponderance of that material in that section - 3 paragraphs are about supporting the ends of the trade war vs 1 paragraph which criticizes the means by which the trade war is being fought. If you object to the support/criticism word pairing, then I propose that the agreement/concern word pairing be used instead) This satisfies my demand to have the text mention international support for the trade war while it also satisfies your demand to have the text mention international criticism of the trade war.

17) I'm not shifting the goalposts. The problem is that you just aren't reading what I am saying. I have always said from the beginning that you need more than one source per DUE to substantiate what is written in the AVWeb article (Note the plural secondary sources) I hate to be uncivil about this, but for me to have to keep telling you this really is a total waste of fucking time. If you can't find more secondary sources that establishes the importance of that event (that should be easy if it's as important as you are making it out to be), then either the material has to go or to 3O we go. It is that simple. Flaughtin (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert and will continue to do so should you edit war over this. As I have already explicitly said (to you) per point 24 above, I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate). Flaughtin (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

6. That version is misleading and doesn't give due weight. The section has two paragraphs focusing on criticism of the trade war, two paragraphs focusing on support for the shared goals, and no paragraphs indicating support for the trade war. Overall, reliable sources discussing the trade war focus more on the criticism than on support for the end goals. And they don't indicate support for Trump's decision to start a trade war, just support for the shared goal of changing China's trade policies. How about this as a compromise, using the order you suggested: "While some U.S. allies support Trump's end goal of trying to change China's trade policies, they have also criticized the trade war for its use of tariffs and damaging economic impact."

17. I don't see any reason why this information would need multiple sources. Its relevance is clear, as it indicates the effects of the trade war on the manufacturing industry. You say "you need more than one source per DUE", but we don't seem to be giving undue weight to the manufacturing industry, as there are many sources discussing the trade war in terms of its effects on manufacturing. It feels like you're trying to impose an arbitrary standard here.

And your continued refusal to discuss reverts like this one is not consistent with the collaborative nature of editing Wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

6) Firstly you are misrepresenting what is in that section. Where is your evidence that the section has "two paragraphs focusing on criticism of the trade war" and that there are "two paragraphs focusing on support for the shared goals"? There are 3 paragraphs that are about supporting the end goals of the trade war (1, 2 and 4) and only 1 paragraph focusing on criticism of the means of the trade war (5). The rest are neutral.

Secondly you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said they agreed with the Trump admin's decision to start a trade war I said they agreed with the Trump admin's end goals of the trade war. Aside from the fact that that is the case and it is verifiable that that is the case, the end goals have to be specified within the context of the actual trade war because the trade war: 1) is what made those articles noteworthy in the first place and 2) is what establishes the due weight of those articles into this Wikipedia article. If that contextual specification is missing (Trump admin's end goals vs the Trump admin's end goals of the trade war; or if you have to be more specific about it: Trump admin's end goals of the trade war vs the Trump admin's end goals of the trade war within the context of the actual trade war) then there wouldn't be any grounds to the material in the first place as they would just be run-of-the-mill criticism.

As a compromise, I propose the following: Internationally, Trump's European allies have supported the end goal of his administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies while they has also criticized the means (tariffs) by which his administration has used to fight the war.

17) It's not a matter of relevance, it's a matter of establishing significance (due weight). Events (or more specifically the type of event - disruptions to manufacturing activity because of a lack of investment due to the trade war) like the one you are vouching for are dime a dozen, so if there's anything unique about this case, then that is your job per BURDEN to prove it . By way of illustration, you will note that the extant material (excluding the material that you are trying to include) in the manufacturing section document the views of representatives of the manufacturing industry.

I reverted your latest revert and will continue to do so should you edit war over that . As I have already explicitly said (to you) per point 24 above, I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate). Flaughtin (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

6. The sixth paragraph also discusses criticism of the trade war. The second paragraph discusses other pushback against Chinese policies (the source is mainly focused on the Belt and Road Initiative, which the US is not a part of; it also briefly mentions EU concerns, but those are covered in other parts of the section). Your latest suggestion is better, but it incorrectly implies that international criticism is only coming from Europe. Criticism from Chile is mentioned in the article, and here's a source[39] for criticism from the International Monetary Fund as well. Also, criticism has been about the economic impact of the trade war, not just about the decision to use tariffs. And it is misleading to call these EU officials (some of whom are harsh critics of Trump) "Trump's European allies". How about this compromise: "Internationally, US allies in Europe have supported the end goal of the Trump administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies, while officials have also criticized the use of tariffs and the trade war's negative economic impact." I think it's overly wordy, but I can live with it if it will resolve this.

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

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

6) It's strange to apply two different descriptors (U.S. allies in Europe and officials) to the same people who are both supporting and criticizing Trump's trade war. I propose the following: Internationally, European officials have supported the end goal of the Trump administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies, while they have also criticized the use of tariffs and the trade war's negative economic impact.

17) You aren't reading what I am saying. If the kind of event you are citing is a common occurrence (which it is), then it fails due weight for inclusion. You will note that all of the other material in that section is material that is representative of the manufacturing industry in the USA. (representative because they are the views of key representatives of major US manufacturing orgs or associations) Flaughtin (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

6. It's not just the same people, though. We have criticism from a broader group than just European officials, including a Chilean official and the IMF.

17. It's true that this isn't the best section for the information, because it's an effect rather than a reaction. I suggest we move the paragraph to the "Effects" section. Will that solve the problem?

Could you please comment in the WP:ANI discussion to resolve the issue of your unexplained reverts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

6) In that case we have to factor in support from non European officials as well. (India, Japan) As compromise I propose the following text: Internationally, there has been support for the end goal of the Trump administration's trade war of trying to change China's trade policies, while there has also been criticism of the use of tariffs and the trade war's negative economic impact. The wording is ambiguous enough to allow for both of our divergent understandings of the scope conditions.

17) That still wouldn't solve te problem because DUE (and BURDEN) applies and you will also note that this is an example of you shifting the goalposts (your position all along prior to your latest response on this point of contention was that the material belonged to the manufacturing section. If you thought otherwise, you should have made that clear right at the beginning, not now when you are sensing defeat) Please do not think that it will be easier to include the material in the effects section because you think there is more lattitude as to what kind of content counts as representative in that section.

I don't see what more I have to say at the ANI noticeboard because I have already said what needs to be said. I will start the second round of edits which you purged as soon as we are finished with this first round of debate, which I am expediting to the best of my ability (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate). If my revert of your edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then that your prior revert of my edits (for which you provided no full explanation) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

6. I can live with that wording as a compromise.

17. Until the other day, we were talking about whether the source was reliable, and I didn't notice that the paragraph was in the "Reactions" section. Now that I've noticed, I think the most appropriate section is the "Effects" section rather than the "Reactions" section. But I can live with keeping it in the "Reactions" section if you'd prefer. My point is that the information is reliably sourced and relevant to the article, so it should be covered in the article.

I have responded to every point you've made about my revert. And I've been trying to discuss your reverts of separate material for weeks, but you still haven't explained or justified them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

17) Are you going to find other secondary sources for this or will this have to go to 3o? Flaughtin (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I will address my revert of your edits after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits that you did here. We are going to do this sequentially and, to be clear, you aren't going to get first dibs on this just because you want to. This will take time but that's typically what happens when you make edits like this. If my revert of your edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then your prior revert of my edits (for which you provided no full explanation) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

17. One reliable secondary source is sufficient for this claim. It doesn't need additional sources. Feel free to start another 3O request, or I can start one if you'd prefer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion request old

The following three points need input. Prior discussion is above, and input would also be appreciated on the other issues under discussion.

a. (issue 15 above) Should the videos from Voice of America be included in the article?

b. (issue 18 above) Should the article include Scott Paul's views as covered in both of these two sources [40][41], or should it only include his views covered in the first source?

c. (issue 19 above) Should the country subsections in the "Reactions" section be ordered in alphabetical order ("China" then "United States") or in the opposite order ("United States" then "China").

Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Prospective contributors should ignore this 3O request for three reasons: 1) the 3O list is incomplete as the above round of dispute is yet unresolved so there will be more questions that will require a 3O; 2) the questions are leading (the opposing user's position on the respective points of contention are ordered first while mine are ordered last); and 3) I and not the opposing editor should have been the one to file this request as I am the original author of the points/list of contentions in question and original proponent for a 3O request. Flaughtin (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled across this, and while I can't spend the time to disentangle this long and complicated argument, if I may, let me try an end one part of your dispute. VOA is not a reliable source except in extremely narrow contexts, and these videos aren't it. VOA is a state run media agency that publishes out and out propaganda, and are explicitly listed(as has been noted) a PUS. Furthermore, the idea that videos don't count as "sources" is frankly absurd. Such a loophole, if it existed, would make Wikipedia unusable. I think Wikipedia should have a an explicit policy about this(I am unable to find one), but the videos are content in an encyclopedia, and that means they should be encyclopedic and follow the same rules for inclusion that any other source does. Grung0r (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a specific policy on this either, but in practice verifiability standards are applied to media files differently from text. Otherwise, most user-created media would be disallowed as original research. I've never encountered a prohibition on using media files from Voice of America and other state media. But I'm willing to let this go for the sake of moving forward. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion request

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

1) Point 17 - disagreement over the sufficiency of the weight/sourcing of the material in question

2) Point 18 - disagreement over how representative the current text is of Scott Paul's views

3) Poitn 19 - disagreement over how the reactions section should be ordered Flaughtin (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second round of debate

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

1) [63] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

2) [64] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

3) [65] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

4) [66] - your reversion of this edit is nonsensical as, per the summary, that material is corroborated by information throughout the article (e.g. August 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020in the chronology section).

5) [67] - prior consensus for the wording for the first sentence of this has already been achieved via the first round of debate. As for the rest of the paragraph, barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

6) [68] - this either has been or is being resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

7) [69] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

8) [70] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

9) [71] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

10) [72] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

11) [73] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

12) [74] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

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

14) [76] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

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

16) [78] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

17) [79] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

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

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

20) [82] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

21) [83] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

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

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

24) [86] - as compromise, i am ok with the inclusion of the part about Canadian wheat provided that you can provide other secondary sources to substantiate that claim. If you cannot, then that material must go.

25) [87] - this material must go if you cannot find a better source for this.

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

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

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

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

30) [92] - this material must go if you cannot find a better source for this. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this

31) [93] - barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this as this edit still stands in the current version of the article.

32) [94] - this has been resolved via the first round of debate. Barring any objections from you, I will assume there is consensus for this Flaughtin (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Business Insider

Is Business Insider a reliable source for the following material?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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