Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 1

Rename Article to 2018 Gobal Trade War?
The Canadian tariffs on American goods have gone into effect, making the trade war go beyond the US and China. I don't know if or when the EU's tariffs on US goods will come into effect, but it's obvious this trade war is now a global one. Elishop (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the trade wars involving US and Canada/EU are different from the China-US trade war. We cannot rename 2018 China–United States trade war to cover all these trade wars until enough reliable sources call theses as a global trade war. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

oppse,there is no trade war between the us and china.In fact ,the us and china are discussing all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganlihao (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to 2018 global trade war or Trump's global trade war, and expanding the scope of this article to include the EU and Canadian retaliatory tariffs. Unless Turkey becomes a major factor, we should call it a global, not gobal trade war.- MrX 🖋 17:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment A merge is good, but how about 2018 U.S. trade wars? I think "U.S." is a more appropriately formal name, and talking about wars plural emphasizes the separate-but-interrelated nature of the various actions. (It may be that separate aspects later develop enough to warrant their own articles, but I think an overview article will still be wanted.) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should consider more neutral language, such as "trade dispute". Seems premature and sensationalist (and non-encyclopedic) to already be calling it a "trade war". SecretName101 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * best discussed at below, where "dispute" is an alternative under consideration.  I can live with either, but as I say below, "dispute" implies discussion before shots fired, but this went pretty directly to a (metaphorical) exchange of lie ammunition, so I worry that "dispute" is being too milquetoast and euphemistic.  Also, the most common name I see in the press is "trade war".  https://www.npr.org/2018/07/07/626929883/is-trade-war-accurate discusses the appropriateness of the term. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 2018 China–United States trade war was created as a spin-off of Trump tariffs, and is long enough to be an independent article. If it is renamed to something like 2018 Gobal Trade War or 2018 U.S. trade wars, it will be too similar to Trump tariffs. This article should focus on the trade war between US and China. The general information about the so-called global trade war can be added to article Trump tariffs. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neo-Jay. — JFG talk 18:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is no trade war between the US and EU, there simply hasn't been the retaliatory to-and-fro. In fact, the US and EU are discussing reducing tariffs. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Page move
Someone renamed this page to a trade dispute without discussion when all RS refer to it by the COMMONNAME of trade war. Please revert it back and add page protection until discussion reaches a different consensus. I cannot do it because a redirect is blocking me. Also the talk page still has a capitalized "Dispute"--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also this was done by an SPA  who came in just to do this.---  Coffee  and crumbs  21:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the location of the talk page. Given the nature of this issue, I am not going to engage in a move war. It was at "dispute" when I posted it. I suggest a discussion on the talk page to decide between "dispute" vs. "war". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your predicament. Can you suggest a solution in the mean? How can we allow an SPA to POV move like this without discussion and block a revert page move like this?---  Coffee  and crumbs  21:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm debating this. I see it was at "war" from June 15 until today. Perhaps I should move it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * After more consideration, the page name was stable for long enough that the move made today should be undone, so I have undone it. A move discussion could be beneficial to codify consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO, either is fine. But I worry that "disputes" is a bit milquetoast, especially given the abrupt and unilateral beginning; it falsely implies that there was some meaningful discussion preceding the recourse to tariffs.  (As an example of a dispute, softwood lumber has been a longstanding contentious issue between the U.S. and Canada.)  Also, it's Trump's own word: "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." 209.209.238.189 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please move this talk page as well. Thank you!--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems did so already. Odd it didn't move with the main page. I guess a side effect of the earlier page moves. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Should the article title use the term "dispute" instead of "trade war"? Support --Light show (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - When I do a news search for 'china + trade' I find that the major news sources use the term "trade war", and "trade war" is use far more often than "trade dispute". The current title is recognizability and natural as guided by WP:TITLE.- MrX 🖋 22:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:POVNAME; the English-language press is overwhelmingly using the term "trade war". While I could live with "Dispute", as I mentioned previously in  to me that term implies that there was some attempt at negotiation, as in the Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute, while these events have proceeded directly to (figurative) shots being fired. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Chinese government's instruction to their media should play no role in naming this Wikipedia article. Politicians' rhetoric is not more neutral than independent media's reports. "Trade war" is much more commonly used, and should be used as the title per Common name. Could you please provide evidences to verify your claim that "[r]ecent stories in the BBC, NBC, ABC, Reuters, Nasdaq, UPI, CNBC, WSJ, CFR, NPR, and Bloomberg all use "trade dispute" in their headlines"? I find that these organizations are still using "trade war" in headlines or texts, such as "How the US is waging its trade war with China" (BBC, 12 Jul 2018), "Trump's trade war may soon hit consumers' wallets and paychecks" (NBC News, 12 July 2018), "...investors remained optimistic about the U.S. economy even as they worried about the trade war between the U.S. and China" (ABC News, 16 July 2018), "'This is a trade war that began in 2010,' says CIO" (CNBC, 15 July 2018), "U.S.-China Trade War: How We Got Here" (CFR, 9 July 2018), "Trade War With China Heats Up" (NPR, 11 July 2018), etc..--Neo-Jay (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just saw your proving source links for your claim. But I hope that you could have provided the sources after my question, not directly modified your message originally posted before my question, which made my question out of context and look weird. And now let me analyze the sources you added. The BBC story you added was published on July 11, in which "trade war" is used in text although "trade dispute" is used in headline. And per the source I provided above, BBC still used "trade war" in headline on July 12. The NBC(Chicago) and ABC stories you added were the same one by Associated Press published on July 12, and per my sources above, NBC and ABC still used "trade war" in headline and text on July 12 and 16. The UPI story you added was published on July 6, which also uses "trade war" in text although using "trade dispute" in headline, and I just found a UPI story published on July 11 using "trade war" in headline ("Trade war: Trump again threatens China with $200B in new tariffs"). The CNBC story you added was published on July 10, and per my source above, CNBC still used "trade war" in headline on July 15 (I can also added one more published on July 13). The CFR story you added was published on June 26, and per the source I provided above, CFR still used "trade war" in headline on July 9. Thanks to China's GFW, I cannot open every link you provided. But I think that it's enough to prove that your claim that "[r]ecent stories in ... all use 'trade dispute' in their headline" (emphasis added) is not accurate. And by the way, I will not be surprised if SCMP, a subsidiary of China's Alibaba Group, follows the Chinese government's instruction although it is still using "US-China trade war" as the topic now. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not strongly in favor of one term over the other, since the MSM obviously uses "trade war" in most headlines. But I'm aware that the MSM, as profit-making enterprises, will sensationalize stories when possible. And since "dispute" is neutral, and was used by all the sources I listed in their recent headlines, I thought the question was worth considering. I also thought that China's instructions to their own media to tone down the "war" aspect was relevant.
 * A bit off-topic, but I likewise took notice early last year after North Korea started testing missiles, that a number of UK papers (not U.S. papers) immediately began publishing multiple news stories with "World War 3" in their headlines (i.e., Express, The Sun, Daily Star, Mirror, Independent, etc.) So here's the U.S. dealing with NK, and our UK ally is turning it via headlines into a hot war. I mention this because for something as dangerous as international disputes, I really didn't appreciate seeing the media use sensational headlines to sell papers. I therefore think a neutral title is preferred for an encyclopedia. --Light show (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, generally speaking, I don't think that the word "dispute" is more neutral than "war". The two words can be neutrally used in different cases. It is not neutral to use "dispute" when "war" should be used (for example, it's not neutral to call "World War II" as "World Dispute II"). Secondly, IMHO, the scale of this trade conflict (or whatever we call it) makes it correct and appropriate to call it as a "trade war". Exclusively calling it just a "trade dispute" is not neutral and is just deferring to some political concerns. And I strongly disagree that the Chinese government's choice of words is more neutral or advisable than mainstream media's. But I don't want to spend my time on arguing which word is more neutral in this case and whether calling it a "trade war" is "sensationalizing stories" or just describing the fact as I think that the answers to these questions are just POV. What we should follow here is Common name. "Trade dispute" was just used in all the sources you listed in their recent headlines, and what you listed were just a small part of those media's reports. It is "trade war" that is the common name, and should be used as the title of this article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not strongly leaning toward either term. But when you wrote, "I don't think that the word 'dispute' is more neutral than 'war,' I have to disagree. For instance, the CFR article gave a good summary for a non-MSM publication in their article titled "U.S.-China Trade Dispute." From the first paragraph: "The two largest economies in the world are exchanging threats of retaliatory tariffs, arousing concerns of a trade war and its repercussions... Speakers discuss the recent developments of additional tariffs, the implications of a possible trade war, and the impact on the future of U.S.-China relations." (emphasis added)
 * The point is that "trade war" is very often used looking ahead, as a future possibility. I see that in about half the articles using "trade war." The BBC's recent article is typical, "How a US-China trade war could hurt us all." Or CNBC: "While there is a concern that the trade dispute between the United States and China could escalate." Many headlines and stories using "trade war" often see it as a risk, not an absolute event, as today's headline in The Hill did: "EU presses China to open up economy, avoid trade war".
 * I think everyone agrees there is a trade "dispute," but they don't all consider it a "trade war." Even the Smoot–Hawley Tariffs, which imposed tariffs on 20,000 products, lasted for many years and was retaliated against, is not described as having been a "trade war." --Light show (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The CFR article you mentioned was published on June 26, while the tariffs actually started on July 6. So it's understandable that it called the trade war as "possible". The BBCs article that you described as "typical" was published on July 5, also one day before the tariffs began, but it already described the trade war as something that was happening ("US and China are at the beginning of a trade war"), not just a "future possibility". The future possibility that the article talks about is the effect of the trade war, not the trade war itself. And we don't need everyone to agree that this is a trade war. Common name does not require that the article title should be accepted by everyone. What we need to see is which name is the common name, i.e., used by a significant majority of sources. And we should not presume that those sources using "trade war" agree that the phrase "trade war" they use can be appropriately replaced by "trade dispute". The two phrases are different concepts and, as I put above, can be neutrally used in different cases. It is not neutral to use "trade dispute" when "trade war" should be used. As for Smoot–Hawley Tariffs, the current version of article Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act even does not mention "trade dispute", but "trade war" is at least used by one of its references . And by the way, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs are also described as having "inspired a trade war" by the BBCs article that you described as "typical" above. In short, it's quite another issue how article Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act should be edited. That article may not be the perfect model that this article should follow.--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment both are inaccurate. This is more than a dispute because there have been actions, not merely words. It isn't quite a "trade war", either, though it may become one. The word "war" is overused. Tariffs are not war. If you don't understand what an actual war is like, I recommend All Quiet on the Western Front as an introduction. I'd suggest talking to a few people who have been to war, but they might not want to tell you. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Jamie Dimon says it is not a trade war. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We should use the common name, not the name used by a specific person. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some sources are more reliable than others. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is a banker more reliable than mainstream media? And by the way, Jamie Dimon called this as a "trade skirmish", not a trade dispute, per the source you provided above. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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


 * CommentAlthough "trade war" is more popular with the media, it is a quite an exaggeration. I guess that's how the media gets attention. The tension between the US and China is not yet to the point of "war" as far as I'm considered, given how both parties have put off tariffs and how negotiation have been put into place. I guess nowadays people are just used to these exaggeration. Escalate conflict to war is not really a good habit cause it exaggerate tension and confuse the public of the relation between those two nations. Viztor (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose A "trade war" is a term for a distinct economic concept and its usage here is not simply sensationalizing a dispute between two countries. E.g., the first sentence of Wikipedia's own article on trade wars cites and states "A trade war is an economic conflict resulting from extreme protectionism in which states raise or create tariffs or other trade barriers against each other in response to trade barriers created by the other party." Escalating tariffs (or other barriers to free trade) in an attempt to extract concessions from the opposing state(s) and/or protect domestic manufacturing is the literal definition of a trade war. It's not sensationalizing or spinning. It's a neutral, academic, term for a specific macroeconomic occurrence which is wholly applicable to the situation currently unfolding. Dawaegel (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it is because China uses the term "dispute", then keep the title used now since China has changed the name to "war" now. --Mariogoods (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is a sterling case of a trade war, per the usual definition of the term. — JFG talk 09:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Requested move 24 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 China–United States trade war → 2018 China–United States trade dispute – The term "trade war" is possibly inaccurate. This nomination is procedural as there have been several discussions and moves but no WP:RM discussion; I am neutral. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Trade war" is much more commonly used, and should be used as the title per Common name. Whether "trade war" is inaccurate is irrelevant to the discussion if it is the common name. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not only is it the common name, but as per the trade war article this meets the definition perfectly. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per Neo-Jay. "Trade war" is the common name. Dappl (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a commonly used name and trade war in the article name makes sense. Felicia (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


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

Change Trade War to Trade Conflict(Title Change)
I believe that Trade War, should be changed to Trade Conflict,

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

Siccsucc (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A trade war is not a war in a military sense. Wikipedia article "trade war" defines it as an "economic" conflict. I don't think that this definition is wrong. Do you? --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request correction for incorrectly attributed quote
I am a COI editor requesting a correction.

Under the section "Markets" there is a quote included from Brent Schutte, Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management. The quote originates from a MarketWatch article on 12/4 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-futures-drop-100-points-as-doubts-over-us-china-trade-deal-emerge-2018-12-04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/201812046306/market-snapshot-dow-sinks-200-points-as-us-china-trade-and-falling-10-year-yield-unnerve-investors.aspx

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

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

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

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


 * There are lots of trade disputes among countries in history. Why this last long and has different implications? Why State Secretary Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John R. Bolton, and NSC Senior Director for Asian Affairs Matthew Pottinger all participated in the December 1st trade negotiation with China? Why political leaders in the Congress address what you called "off topic" when talk and push for firm and further trade-related actions against China? If you don't know Peter Navarro's views in his works, how can you understand the White House National Trade Council Director's goals in this conflict? How can you understand what are the President and Vice President's intentions if you purposely bypass their important speeches on China amid the conflict? There are only 4 or 5 socialist/communist regimes left now, why Trump wasted several sentences to address this while specified the trade problems China caused in front of world leaders two months ago?


 * The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. It's obviously misleading if intentionally or unintentionally letting people think subtly that one-party China is functioning as same as democratic market-oriented countries like Mexico, Germany, Japan, Ireland, Italy, India, Canada who contributed much less trade deficit to U.S. The second and third paragraphs quote words of the main figures in this process and U.S official reports to address the problems mentioned in the first paragraph. They are all well-sourced compared with some other content in this article.


 * This is not a surface but a critical factor why and how China didn't follow the rules for such a long time and why U.S. can't but to take concrete actions now after two decades. Persons who really know the topic and political economy know this is actually the key and real issue. There are somethings the governments do but may not say it in an explict way due to all kinds of concern. But it doesn't mean they are less important or you cannot see them. This is not merely a "trade war" but a competition of two different economic and political systems of democratic market countries and the dictator communist regime while financial, industrial, and military competitions (VP Pence mentions President Ronald Reagan and defense budget in his special-China-focused speech two months ago) among others occur at the same time which we should not ignore. People lost the point from just an isolated perspective. Downgrading the real problems from bigger picture is not a honest way to record and comprehend the issue. It's simply incomplete if overlooks the true dynamics.


 * --Wildcursive (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanations, but it's not your personal job to use an article about tariffs and a trade war to give us a history lesson about Chinese politics, its true dynamics, or its communist system. Doing so, makes the article less readable or useful, since too much of it is irrelevant.


 * That's obvious from some of your recent comments, like one above: The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. And your additions to the article which generalize about Chinese politics from Trump's UN speech, was not about the tariffs: Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone. In that speech he covered politics around the world. This article is about the tariffs and the current trade war, and shouldn't be used to tell us all the negative aspects about Chinese communism. So my opinion up top still stands, that most of your additions and old citations are off topic.  Even if most people don't totally understand Chinese politics, this article is not a forum for an editor to educate us about it.--Light show (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Without a direct link and citation of statements, whether true or not, to the current trade war or tariffs, they should be removed. Hopefully by you. Feel free to fix or add them back once the relevance issue is fixed. The long strings of cites added to the end of sections is not the way to cite facts: On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it.--Light show (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Let the readers understand the topic with reliable and professional sources certainly contributes useful information for Wikipedia. This pattern/style or "Background" section can be seen in most other articles. I see no reason to cover for a rogue regime or not to reveal all kinds of truth. U.S. punishment/retaliation is not occurring in a vacuum or suddenly occurs this year. So many experts with personal articles on Wikipedia have argued or provided evidences that U.S. trade policy toward China is not only about trade. I am sorry to ask why you think yourself is more important or authoritative than them and can remove all these information which surely fit the article title/topic? The readers of different backgrounds can judge themselves. I will continue to work on this article. --Wildcursive (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There is already a relevant background section, Sources and rationales for the tariffs. Your "background" section is a short essay about the history of China's politics and economics, which is off topic, and belongs in other more relevant articles. --Light show (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, I've refined the section and will continue to work on the article.


 * In fact, the subtitle "Sources of Conflicts" was what I changed from the original somewhat strange "Trade grievances" for the now "Background" section. It's not difficult to rename or restructure the paragraphs. The key point is why you think you are the only capable or knowledgeable person to define the scope?


 * There are many shown on the article support the current article structure while you cannot cite/auote any important person or media to support your own way that this trade war is merely about trade. If this is only a trade issue, it should have been solved by USTR alone long time ago and as easy as from NAFTA to USMCA. The democratic-elected Congress play an important role in U.S. side and the one-party dictator regime doesn't have any organization like U.S. Congress, isn't it politics?


 * "Production" and "Market" are two main issues in economy which interact with politics in different ways in different systems. If you totally ignore factors concerning party control and market distortion, you certainly don't know how economy and trade work in China. The background section tries accurately capturing where the anger and fear came from and explaining American's minset now.


 * --Wildcursive (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The China as an party-controlled market-distorting system Structure of China's political economy system is off topic, and is soapboxing. It should be removed entirely. STSC (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The section is wholy relevant. it explains the ideological (in other word cultural, political cultural) reason that make this trade "war" totally different than usa trade "war" with canada and mexico AND european union (you may also say japan too). aside from being arguably most important reason for the trade war it is also the section that comes cloossest in ENTIRE article to address the ideological issue.  So the basic idea by  is right. Integration of this material into source and rationale for tariff section does not work caus is does not deal direct with tariff issue. That said i think we can all hav e agreement some of the titles are too peacock and just inflllamatory. I would suggest using more neutral heading like "Ideological reason"or "difference in political culture" or something like that. Just start off by saying "China as an party-controlled market-distorting system" is too much. Waskerton (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Per Wildcursive's rationale above, The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. And per Waskerton's rationale, The section is wholly relevant. it explains the ideological (in other word cultural, political cultural) reason that make this trade "war."
 * But since this article is about a current event, the 2018 Trade War, both of those rationales are opinions about other stuff, such as "China's system," and "ideological, cultural, and political" historical background, which are way off topic. As such they go against the purpose of WP, which should avoid "essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." And the section gets too close to straight propaganda, ie., stating facts "used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception ..." So I agree with User STSC, that since WP should not engage in soapboxing, regardless of the truth of any facts cited, that section doesn't belong. --Light show (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User Light show Your reasoning make no sense. So what if the article is about current events it does not mean there cannot be a background section (if that is what you are saying). You will also notice the section is well source by notable people with wiki articles for each of them which means it is not essay-like. if there is statement you think is to peacock then we can take those out but you do not say just take out the whole section. Which is also the same thing that happen for the other background section, but funnily enough you do not make a fusss about them but only choose to focus all your attention on this one section that talks about the ideology, culture or whatever you want to call it. Why the double standard? Finally i have revert your inclusion of the off topic tag. I explained as part of edit summary but you did not read it (maybe you chose not to read it) but for any case I will repeat again: i will ask that you do not include back the tag into article as the priorversion for this article before your edit warring on this did NOT have this tag.  I respectfully ask you observe this or i will be force to take you to administrator incide noticeboard if you do a few more of you putting the tag back in. Waskerton (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Waskerton and I obviously and strongly disagree with you. You never answer and may actually unable to answer all the questions I raised above. I believe most readers have different judgement from you. -- Wildcursive (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes. this whole request for deletion actually sound like POV to me try to hide underlying issue for fear of exposing the rational reasons (if they exist) to has for it to happen. I reallly cannot understand why the other background paragraph are EXACTLY like this one but nobody care about it. It is only this one that get people all excited with nonsense talk of "propaganda" and "soapbox". if this is an attempt to suppress another view just because one does not have a good view FOR it, then it is just a terrible tactic. Waskerton (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes. this whole request for deletion actually sound like POV to me try to hide underlying issue for fear of exposing the rational reasons (if they exist) to has for it to happen. I reallly cannot understand why the other background paragraph are EXACTLY like this one but nobody care about it. It is only this one that get people all excited with nonsense talk of "propaganda" and "soapbox". if this is an attempt to suppress another view just because one does not have a good view FOR it, then it is just a terrible tactic. Waskerton (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't insult the readers' intelligence, there's outright soapboxing and OR content in that section. STSC (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody is insult the intelligence of anyone we are saying you must be an idiot to want what you want which is to delete ENTIRE section. I repeat again because it is obvious you did not read what i say if there is OR or soapbox then you delete that content not do a whole mass deletion of the paragraph. I have also undone your massive revert (purge) of the section ( and ) DISCUSS this first lots of the materiall you removed is well source and actually IN the source. this is not like a video game you eliminate a bunch of things and pretend there are 0 consequences. i have notifiied Wildcursive as he is the user who put most of material you took out and involve him in this convo to see what can be done about consensus over the content. Waskerton (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above, this section is off-topic and biased. For one, the content belongs in a separate article documenting economic policy. Also, The background section tries accurately capturing where the anger and fear came from and explaining American's minset now., if we additionally choose to document propaganda, it needs to be WP:NPOV. Wakari07 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Comment firstly this t is example of wikhounding as i have clashed with you on other pages and i will report you to ani if you remove any material in concened pharagraph on basis of his votestack attempt. there is no way you would found your way on this vote except for my involvvemnet here when you basicaly everything you do is just edit on portal news. As for your hysterical, fkae "arguments": firstly as has been main point of the paragraph is not economic so your advice of put the material in separate article about economic policy make 0 sense. And as for "propaganda" you should note it was not made by my the material was not writen by me. And in any case they are all attribute with good sourcing to notable figures all with wiki article...pretty much like how every article in wikipedia si written. Waskerton (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article page is on my watchlist [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=856192145 since August], when User:Waskerton was barely one week old. And naturally, since I'm involved in almost endless, almost fruitless "talks" with them [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk%3ACurrent_events%2F2018_December_7&type=revision&diff=873981085&oldid=873977776] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWilbur_Ross&type=revision&diff=873283164&oldid=872843165] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWaskerton&type=revision&diff=873374650&oldid=865025865] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMeng_Wanzhou&type=revision&diff=872943606&oldid=872815946] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWakari07&type=revision&diff=870972158&oldid=869729780], my attention was directed to this talk too. Wakari07 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Waskerton account was created on 16 August 2018 and it has involved many edit wars. It looks like a sock to me. STSC (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Waskerton account was created on 16 August 2018 and it has involved many edit wars. It looks like a sock to me. STSC (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Whether section about China's general politics and economy belong
Does the sub-section under Background, titled Structure of China's political economy system, belong in this article? --Light show (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No: It is an off-topic commentary by one editor. The consensus shown above is against including someone's summary and opinion about a massive subject such as this, even if it fit the topic of the article. And because all of it is simply a multi, over-cited critique about China's policies, it clearly goes against NPOV in any case.--Light show (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo of liu he and other photos
Per your edit wars here and here for the liu he photo i have removed the liu he AND your photos you includ here until an agreeement on this can be occurred. Per brd do not restore ANY of this material till we discuss this or i take you to administrator incident place for edit war on this article and the other ones (Miao Wei, Canada china relations and Wilbur Ross). Waskerton (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted since I see no argument here to remove these relevant and informative additions. Wakari07 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tobby72 hasn't responded and you have not made arguments to KEEP the additions either. discuss here first Waskerton (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, no reasonable argument, just your threats and intimidation. My additions are relevant and the CONSENSUS is against you, Waskerton. Also beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No intimidation by me and bad example of consensus here as wakari07 has clashed on other pages before. Making this as result example of vote stacking. Waskerton (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wikihounding by reverting my edits, Waskerton — diff, diff, diff, diff. On your edit: also read Harassment and WP:OWNER. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wikihounding more . more of that and we go to ani Waskerton (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * more threat and still no argument. Wakari07 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Rename to China–United States trade war?
China–United States trade war is currently a blank page. This should be the first trade war between PRC & USA. Therefore, this can be renamed to China–United States trade war until second trade war happens in the future. --Kowlooner (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The parenthesis "(2018–present)" in the title is unneccessary. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. I moved China–United States trade war (2018–present) to China–United States trade war. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

so, what the excuses are?
original text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's with the 50 cents party link?
Is it even relevant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.64 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This Article Reads like a U.S policy briefing
This article is shockingly biased in that its only purpose seems to be to justify and support the U.S position rather than give a real and impartial insight into what is happening. The entire piece serves to give credence to the U.S position alone even when some of these claims are obviously politically motivated or biased, utilizing sinophobic discourses than actual empirical facts. For example, look how it is even using quotes from Steve Bannon to prop up the piece! It's just one gigantic attack on China's political system and economic structure. There's no middle ground here.--180.233.216.226 (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you expect on Wikipedia? American newspapers are treated as divine (read "reliable sources") here. Most American editors (in the same way as most Americans) have unshakable belief over the reliability of their media. So, just accept that and move on. Don't start an edit war or something. You'll end up wasting your time. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I read through it, it's much much worse than even I initially suspected. Just wow. Grew up in Vietnam. We had propaganda but nobody ever believed it. But the US is like a cult or something. Now, I'm more determined than ever that I won't get involved. It will be 100 times worse than arguing with missionaries that God doesn't exist. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

United States or Trump administration?
With this edit, replaced "the Trump administration" with "the United States" when describing in the lead section this administration's legal justification for imposing tariffs. I believe that "Trump administration" is more accurate, as this part of the text does not discuss trade disputes with China under prior U.S. administrations. Accordingly, I reverted, but Lmatt restored their version without comment. Per WP:BRD, a discussion is required. — JFG talk 00:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made an additional edit to replace "the United States" with "the president of the United States, Donald Trump" for greater clarity and accuracy. Lmatt (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda piece for the Trump administration.
I'm really surprised to see how this whole article turn out to be this blatantly one-sided. This reads like a war propaganda piece. No pluralism, no dissenting opinions, no analysis on the technical or economical impacts of the trade war, it's just pure rhetoric and actual directives from the Trump government to the American farmers and consumers about how they should've behaved. It's sad how the editors don't even bother to pretend to be encyclopedic. I'm fairly certain that no side will win in a trade war, but clearly the Trump MAGA nation has won the editing war of this article. --Aceus0shrifter (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this qualify as an attack page? Yes, it's only purpose is to disparage its subject, China. The pro-U.S. bias is way too obvious, to the point that I think this article needs to be chucked and started again from scratch. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article (in the same way you proudly display your POV on your talk page) and we will go from there. It is clear that nobody is stopping you from doing so, or if there is, then you have obviously found a way to get around it. Doing anything else is just a shitty, mediocre attempt at buck passing: this main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so I'm going to complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else will do it. Syopsis (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I had cold feet on actually nominating this for speedy deletion as an attack page, but then I realized that might be considered WP:POINTy (since usually a G10 is used for actual libel. I have not seen it applied to any article whose content has reached a point that it is effectively a biased attack against one of its subjects—person, corporate person, nation, or not). I think this article, at this rate, needs to be restarted and rewritten neutrally from the start, so that we can present objective information without bias on this crucial trade dispute. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Shut this pseudo-intellectualized, tryhard RFC down with prejudice. Asi said above this RFC is just another iteration of a shitty, mediocre attempt at buck passing: the main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so i am going to take the short cut and rewrite it completely so it fits into my point-of-view/bias. I should also say I find it curious that the writing by the requester is suspiciously similar to the what the IP user 180.233.216.226 wrote in the This Article Reads like a U.S policy briefing section above (key words: sinophobic, attack); perhaps this RFC is part of a larger attempt to garner the impression that there is more opposition than there really is to what's currently in the articles. Notify User:Neo-Jay and User:Wildcursive of this RFC whoo would have direct interest in this as they have made the most contributions to this (talk page) article. Syopsis (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This RFC may be too much, but you should not deny that the majority of this article are composed of views by American, if not Trump-related, politician and/or their associates, it is just way too obvious. BTW, when talking about POV, it's not just about taking all perspectives in the US, especially when this article is talking about United States AND China, not US alone. Viztor (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, no. I just happened to agree with the fact that this article feels like a right-wing puff piece rather than actually being neutral and encyclopedic.  ViperSnake151   Talk  23:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "right-wing" (or "left-wing") or fact about anything. The issue here is you just don't like that this article doesn't fit your point of view but you can't be bothered to change it the right way, so you initiated this RFC in a desperate attempt to short circuit the whole process. It's pretty simple if you hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article - nobody is stopping you from doing this. But please stop pretending you are the victim here or occupy some kind of moral high ground just because you don't care enough to put in the necessary effort to get the changes you want to see happen on the article.   Syopsis (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't a lack of a certain POV, it's that there's too much in this article that appeals to the Trump POV. It just needs to be trimmed down to focus on just facts. Less spin. ViperSnake151   Talk  02:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is stopping you from doing it - just don't be surprised if other people take issue with it. As somebody who has made 50k edits on this encyclopedia this is something you should know by now. By the way you can forget about making changes like this and this - doing that will most likely just get you reported. I would suggest that you discuss your changes here on this talk page first, but of course you are free to ignore it and edit war as you please. Syopsis (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Feedback Request Service legobot sent me. This article is absolutely terrible. The "Reactions" section is almost entirely pro-tariffs, omitting the far more prevalent opposition to them in Congress and among economists, commentators, and those adversely affected by them. I've hardly ever seen any article so blatantly biased and unbalanced. However, having said that, I doubt deletion (speedy or otherwise) is anywhere near as good an alternative as correcting it by including the mainstream point of view, which should not be particularly difficult. I suggest that those concerned with the article's bias work on balancing it instead of deleting it. EllenCT (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this version is much shorter, hence easier to fix/edit etc, however, if you look back at this version. You might get the idea why the proposer believe starting from scratch would be easier. Viztor (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. Someone should add in https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/02/morgan-stanley-sees-recession-on-the-horizon-if-trade-war-escalates.html by the way. EllenCT (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Summoned by bot. Indeed this is somewhat biased, in terms of what is highlighted, and even with the chosen phrasing. It was also full of grammar issues and typos but I fixed some of it.  I also added a sentence about the ineffectiveness of the tariffs to the lede, to balance things out. I also think it's fixable rather than needing to be blown up. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments (invited by the bot) First, an RFC that says "restart the article from scratch" for a large and highly developed article has to be seen as more of a rant than a serious proposal. So, No to the RFC.   Now, regarding bias.   The general reality is that China is doing a lot of stuff widely considered to be unfair at best, and the trade war is an attempt to change that.  So, so some extent, "reality has an anti-China bias" :-) and NPOV coverage is going to reflect that. On the topic of reaction at home in the US, while attempts at balance are clear, it does seem to lean a bit towards picking quotes etc. that make the case for the US & administration's actions tarriffs and to show domestic US support for US actions. In short, a bit biased there. But more to say "just the facts"   North8000 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Restart with a vengeance, as I agree that the article is so slanted and NPOV, one noble editor trying to unravel the mess is a waste of time. WP:TNT and start from the most reliable bare bones sources. To disclose my own viewpoint, I am a non-partisan American who frequently reads diverse mainstream perspectives on American politics - CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NYT, South China Morning Press, AP, Politico, Reuters, etc., enough to have a global perspective on this, and despite the varied sourcing, this article wwaaaaay prioritizes conservative viewpoints held by American outlets. Also, what are crappy sources like MarketWatch doing on such a delicate international topic? It's embarrassing, frankly. This is a classic example of American bias, likely resulting from the fact that most active editors are American. And such biases have no place in an encyclopedia of repute, so burn this page down, and hopefully a thoughtful and diverse group of interested volunteers can scrutinize all new content carefully for undue weight. For example, there are far too many quotes, giving undue weight to particular politicians' viewpoints. Thousands upon thousands of politicians go on about this topic, so why just those few, and why so much space devoted to them? As is, it seems that editors are cherrypicking quotes in order to use this article as a personal coatrack. 68.129.252.188 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Restart (via FRS) - This is too heavily focused on the American perspective and even then, absurdly pro-tariff. Otherwise, I agree with EllenCT. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

Infobox
The article should not use the war infobox, since it's not a military conflict. Benjamin (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removed as per this discussion. An acutal military infobox with words like "commanders" is utterly offtopic. --Loginnigol 15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Article concerns
Even with the recent cuts, the article is still too long. Should we consider splitting off China%E2%80%93United States trade war? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly can you please explain why you put in the globalize tag and the the Trump and Xi sidebars and that unverified statement. Those edits just didn't make any sense. Syopsis (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First, full disclosure: mentioned this article up on WP:Discord, and that was what brought it to my attention. I think it is only fair that you know that. Secondly, the sidebar is for navigational purposes, but it's fine that you deleted I guess. It's merely cosmetic. However, the tag should stay. It rather clearly portrays a very US-focused view of the situation (not let's say... Mexico nor Japan or any other unrelated country for that matter). Please let another uninvolved editor remove the tag once the concern is sufficiently address. Thank you, &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it's a partial revert, I'll let it go. That said, since I obviously disagree with it, I respectfully ask that we try to work this out between us first before we escalate the situation any further. Please explain why you think the tag should stay. Syopsis (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] It almost doesn't mention any country besides China and the United States (despite the EU and Japan having a rather significant reaction). Almost all the sources are from American media. Other than that, the article puts undue weight towards political considerations in the United States. Finally, there is not a single mention is made in the reaction section from the Chinese side of this dispute. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then put the tag in the reactions section - why does it need to apply to the whole article? As for your other arguments: why should it even mention other countries? It's a trade war between THE TWO COUNTRIES. The sources are mainly from America - so what? Syopsis (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In no particular order: It's a dispute between two of the largest economic powers in the world. Other countries have a very vested interest in the outcome of this dispute. Therefore, this article (like all articles on Wikipedia) should take care to put it into a global context and perspective. THe problem with having too many American sources is that it leads to biased coverage (in this case, a pro-USA POV). Finally, I do think the problem extends to the entire article. It entirely focuses too heavily on American political and economic consideration and nothing of the 100+ countries sitting on the sidelines for this dispute (all of whom have their own independent media we can source from). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning, uses bad information and overall just trades on a bad attitude which just leads to all kinds of shitty consequences. It is just a pseudo-intellectual, desperate attempt to rationalize discrimination - it's wrong to devalue a person's opinion based on race or ethnicity but somehow we are supposed to be okay if we start doing it by nationality/geography. Really? I could understand if it went the other way because Mainland China doesn't have a free press, but even then...it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling. And about your specific argument that we should take the views of other countries into account - where is it going to end? Are we going to include the reactions of all the countries on Earth? If we are going to include the EU and Japan's views (as you suggested above), are you going to complain if it leads to more "bias"? I will also make the general remark that ive said above which is that what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing: this main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so I'm going to just take the short route, slap a tag on the article and then complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else will do it. What precisely you are proposing? Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

One thing that would help, I think, is historical background at the onset of the article. This would help explain China's particular regulations regarding foreign investment and economic partnership. This section could also describe China's rapid economic growth and the prospect that the Chinese economy will surpass the American, something which is obviously contributing strongly to the trade war. -Darouet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say at the outset that it should be noted you really aren't in any position to be complaining about "partisan tone," natural balance or whatever given your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias as the other person who filed the meaningless RFC request above did. As i said above to MJL I don't buy the whole "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling and really just code for "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." As for your comments/specific suggestions: the lead removals are totally warranted the information that was there either could have went into/was already in the body of the article or just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing, much like what your proposal for about the "historical background" would lead to (which is already kind of there and at any rate has already been tried in the way you want...and ended up as a complete clusterfuck) Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The removal of stuff from the lead wasn't me. In fact, all of my changes were reverted except for the tag which is what we are currently discussing . This is why I am... confused by saying [The arguement behind my tag is]... "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." considering I did make changes that I felt at least helped. The only thing left from edits is the tag, and I sure am not going to start arguing for individual changes to an article when we can't even agree whether or not needs fixing. On a separate note to Syopsis, you should really avoid making the ad hominem personal attacks against Darouet like you just did in the beginning. Further, you never really had consensus to cut the historical background section, so I ask you please note that fact when saying it ended up as a complete [expletive]. Now, can we get back onto track here? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack, I was just stating a fact. That person has strong, partisan view on things and edits accordingly; it's pretty obvious if you look at the editing record. If it makes you feel better, I happen to think that applies to every user on Wikipedia - we all edit from a strong point of view. The difference is I am not the one trying to play both sides: talking about avoiding partisanship while editing partisanly. And yes, I stand by what i said about the "historical background" (what ever that even refers/referred to) - it was a complete clusterfuck. You had people cramming in totally irrelevant, blog-type, cherry-picked information in background section, followed by an alphabet soup of point-of-view, worded titles (also littered with blog-type, cherry-picked information, sometimes splattered with large chunks of irrelevant material) and concluded by stand alone paragraphs that had no reason to even be stand alone paragraphs in the first place. Much inferior to the background section in the current version of the article - you can pretty much find all the background info to the trade war there.
 * But moving on. What exactly is it that you even want to see changed in the article? All you have done is complain about the biasedness of the article with absolutely terrible reasons (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) while giving me zero ideas on what your solution even is. the only (proper) description for that kind of attitude is (you guessed) "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am slap (or restore) a tag and complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." Syopsis (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] First, I have never subscribed to the WP:STRAIGHT/WP:POLE philosophy that everyone has a POV and compromise somehow brings us closer to neutrality or something. I'm not trying to ascribe words to you that you did not author, but that's why I don't think it's fine to call someone else a partisan nor imply they are a hypocrite because of the fact.  Whatever, I guess. I really don't want to argue conduct on a content talk page because that's not what this namespace is for. Let me just put this in perspective. The following editors have said as recently as 27 May 2019 that this article definitely as some bias towards the US:, , , , myself, and now  (actually, I am wrong here because in fact there are more editors who have said as such, but I digress) . You are quite literally the only one recently defending this ludicrous idea that the article isn't biased. I proposed specific, concrete, changes I would like to have been able to make that you dismissed as silly (ie, that all the major players in line with reliable sourcing be included, that more sourcing come from outside the western hemisphere, and introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative). If that sounds like mindless complaining, I'm sorry. My first gosh dang idea was to split off Chronology section into its own article to cut down on length, but I guess that doesn't matter. I couldn't even tag this article without having to write a paragraph in defense of it (much less make content related edits). I would be more than happy to help make more specific changes if I wasn't spending most of my emotional energy trying to defend that single note which so perplexes you as to warrant this discussion. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk'‐☖ 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you have a hard time reading so I will make it easier. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? You haven't proposed anything speciic, I've asked you three times now, all I have gotten is just non-answers. You started with the sources are all from the US, I challenged you on that so-called argument (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) and you responded by not only refusing to answer, but now you have introduced some more nonsensical arguments - "introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative" (we already have tons of this). Syopsis (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're yelling now. Here on User:MJL/sandbox6 I have bundled every single source that is used to convey the single point that China steals technology in the United States. I counted 23 different sources used to convey this single point where only maybe a few are used to detail it with things like US economic costs or a person reacting to something. What concerns me the most about this list is several are completely unrelated to the trade dispute. I cannot find a single shred of logical reasoning (1) this many sources are need for this one point (2) why a 2010 Bloomberg article by Andy Grove about American job loss to China is super-duper relevant to this international trade dispute, and (3) why we are citing material about unrelated events like this. What WP:RS said that a downed F-117 Nighthawk in Serbia was so relevant to 2019 world politics that it's being included in this gosh forsaken article??? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk to User:Wildcursive, he is the one who added most if not all the material. 2) Actually we still have not solved problem #1 which is the "global" tag that you restored. Why do we even need it? Nothing else matters until we solve that point because (surprise surprise) that is the first thing that we disagreed on. Syopsis (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant who wrote the article. The discussion here is on article content and gaining consensus on steps forward. The tag does nothing but signify an ongoing discussion on how to improve the article to address these concerns. It should be pretty clear that this isn't some WP:DRIVEBYTAG. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive. That is irrelevant. i am asking why YOU did what you did since YOU restored it. Why do we need the tag? t's a pretty simple question.. I don't know why you are trying so hard to dodge answering it. Syopsis (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We need a tag to signify that the article can be improved to other editors and our readers. Without a tag, readers might think that this article meets our standards even though it doesn't. I'm really not dodging the question. I don't know how many ways I can repeat that the article does not have a geographically diverse sources and thus skews in a American-centric view of the subject. You are welcome to subjectively disagree with that premise, but don't expect me to change my mind because it isn't a good enough answer for you. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral", perhaps he is right, there is no neutrality in its strict definition, however, when we are debating neutrality, it is defined the way wikipedia defines it, take proportionally from reliable sources, that is not that hard. Yeah, we would love our articles to be not so heavy-tasted towards one-side. Yeah we are only as neutral as our sources, and all we are trying to do is to make sure it proportionally represent views of reliable sources. That's it, if you don't like it, convince the sources, don't try to convince us, that's not how it works. Saying that is like saying those who try to do what is it right because they like it, of course, but so what? Viztor (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

and

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


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

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

He keeps repeating the same point to everyone that we can never make it neutral and we're just trying to insert our own POV therefore it better stays the way it is, that's what I would call nihilism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing and I already explained in the same paragraph. #3 is what we've all been saying for quite a long time, of course I would agree.Viztor (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's take that part of the dispute onto my talk page. Darouet, to answer your questions: Yes, yes, and yes. Let's do those things! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does it even matter what country the sources are from? How is that not discrimination (and would therefore run afoul of a whole bunch of Wikipedia guidelines?) Syopsis (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to have interacted with you before to know that you have strong, partisan view on things and edit accordingly I can do that just by looking at your editing record. The point i made was pretty simple obviously it's your right to make suggestions so that the article fits according to your point-of-view but let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position (as you did above). I don't know why you and that other user are making such a massive controversy out of this, I am just stating facts. As for your specific suggestions: #1 - there is sufficient information in the background already especially when you compare it to what was there before (blog-type, cherry-picked information, sometimes splattered with large chunks of irrelevant material). #2 - it waas tried already and it turned into a complete clusterfuck. I would know because i was the one who removed the trash that was there. #3 - we have already there are lots of international news sources. Syopsis (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In act of good faith, I stroke the aforementioned well-intended comment that suggest we move on and hope consensus could be reached through well-intended conversations, with the interest of building a better encyclopedia in mind. Viztor (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi : above you write, What is my partisan position, and why isn't it neutral? -Darouet (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it's fairly obvious from your edits on the Venezuela-related pages (especially the ones concerning Guaido). And that's just for starters. I am not going to be naming names and get all specific because I really am not interested in wasting my time on a conversation that is going to go nowhere. The point is this, I repeat you have a strong, partisan view on things and you edit accordingly. If it makes you feel better, I happen to think that applies to every user on Wikipedia - myself included. We all edit from a strong point of view. Fine if you do that, just don't expect people to not get irritated when you then start talking romantically about avoiding partisanship and that kind of stuff. I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of this. All i am doing is just stating facts. This isn't me assuming bad faith (aka opposite of WP:AAGF) on your part by the way; you made concrete proposals and i actually gave you my feedback.  Please stop dragging this out longer than it should. And on another note, i would ask that you please stop interacting me (per this) until after I sort out my disputes with . I really do not have the time to be spending hours responding to comments on Wikipedia...as i am sure is the same with you and the other user. Syopsis (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can find the time to accuse another editor of making "partisan" edits, you need to be willing to "get all specific." The OED defines someone who is partisan as "supporting a cause, party zealously..." and who is "one-sided, prejudiced." You have accused me of being a partisan here, but have not explained and (I still have no idea) how you consider my edits or proposals here and on this page to be "partisan." What cause or party am I zealously supporting? What is my specific prejudice, here on this page, that you are referencing? -Darouet (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This really has become a conduct dispute and is why I have opened up this thread on ANI. Cheers, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Could one of you summarize this content dispute? Benjamin (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing new, Syopsis believe the globalize tag should be removed, while some others believe this article use too many and cherry-picked US sources. Viztor (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

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


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

No mention of reason for recent reneging of trade deal
The recent escalation of the trade war came from China crossing out portions of the already agreed on deal however this detail is completely missing from the article. Is this article being whitewashed with a pro-China perspective? Ergzay (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-talks/us-says-china-reneged-on-trade-commitments-talks-continue-idUSKCN1SC247
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/world/asia/xi-jinping-donald-trump.html
 * WP:SOFIXIT. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Ergzay (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

冷雾 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

To-do: Trade talk resumption in Shanghai after G20 meeting should be added to chronology
Now that more events are added to the mix. I am marking this in case of omission in the future.

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

冷雾 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * As far as I can recall, I haven't seen much either. There has been good news for Canada, which I added yesterday. I vaguely remember reading that there's been good news for Vietnam (in the form of more manufacturing jobs) and Brazil (more soybean exports), but I don't have a source handy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I found this source listing several countries that have benefited from the trade war: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-08-23/these-countries-are-the-winners-of-the-china-us-trade-war —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight in the responses section
I believe that the responses section does not do an effective job of detailing both sides of the conflict in a neutral way. This can be observed by noting the specific size of the US responses section, and the Chinese responses section. I'm proposing to add Template:Undue_weight to the section in question, and then aim to improve the neutrality in that section until it's compliant with WP:NPOV Oldosfan (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * America is a loud country, China much less so. Note how Trump has made assertions of Chinese commitments, while the Chinese don't deny them, despite not making the commitments. This may have to do Face (sociological concept), which is kind of a "golden rule" in many Asian countries: don't publicly embarrass me and I won't publicly embarrass you. Trump repeatedly causes the Chinese to "lose face," which is generally not a good way to gain their cooperation. American executives who do business in Asia commonly get tutored in this to enhance their chances of success. This might explain why it's much harder to find Chinese reactions: they just don't talk about it much except behind closed doors. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that more information about reactions in China would be good. That said, Soibangla is right that those are harder to source than reactions in the U.S. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yes I completely agree with this and User:Soibangla, and also that more information on China's reaction would be nice to have. However for the time being it would also be prudent to have Template:Undue weight displayed inside that section. Ideas? Oldosfan (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't agree that a template is a good idea, considering that "Domestic reporting on the trade war is censored", is stated in the Reactions section. --Light show (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, however the fact that no reliable sources exist does not change the fact that the article has undue weight Oldosfan (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A neutrality tag would only bring attention to the censorship issue. The best way to explain the problem within the article, IMO, is to note that there is a lack of verifiable commentary from Chinese sources. Otherwise, a tag would imply that due to America's free press, it makes discussing the trade war unfair. --Light show (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The censorship doesn't mean that no reliable sources exist. Reliable sources do exist, and we should work to add them to the article. It just means the range of perspectives we can source is likely to be more limited.
 * A related issue is that the "Background" currently focuses way too much on the U.S. government perspective and gives inadequate weight to the Chinese government perspective and outside analysts' characterizations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * I haven't looked through every headline in this list, but the overwhelming pattern in stock market news related to the trade war is that when the trade war has escalated, stock markets have fallen (with "safe haven" investments rising), and when tensions have cooled, markets have rallied. If we can find a reliable source that explicitly notes this pattern, that would be ideal. Failing that, it is still helpful to give several noteworthy and/or representative examples of trade war effects on the stock market. As I said in an edit summary, stock market effects have been a significant component of RS coverage of the trade war, so we've got to cover it in the article somehow. Moreover, the first sentence of the disputed section is not "daily news", but rather a general (if bland and somewhat vague) summary.
 * I do agree with you that we shouldn't let the section grow to become a day-to-day list of every bit of stock market news, and that a general article noting overall trends would probably be preferable as a source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * An even better first sentence could be from another story a few weeks later: Donald Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve for raising those rates, a government shutdown and the continuing trade tensions between the US and China have all rattled investors. Although the source for that one included the headline: "Dow up more than 1,000 points in biggest one-day gain ever." IOW, opening a section to select daily opinions about market fluctuations will only invite cherry pickers. --Light show (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've added material from the sentence you quoted. The source doesn't say that the 1,000-point gain was due to trade war news (indeed, it indicates the gain was in spite of continuing trade tensions). That said, there have certainly been cases where markets rallied due to events in the trade war, and I think it might be worth adding one or two major examples. As I said above, it would also be worth rewriting the subsection to focus more on broader trends than individual stock market movements. But removing all mention of the stock market from the "Effects" section is not reasonable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What caught my attention to that small section is the very first example, which states, "it declined nearly 600 points, to which some argue is in part due to the trade war." That kind of statement can be found in countless daily articles as the market goes up or down. So any general article about the subject that avoids daily movements would be more useful. --Light show (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that sources about general trends would be more useful. I will look and see what I can find. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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


 * In trade and economics issues, the word "war" is just a metaphor. Those kinds of sensationalist words are needed by our media to attract readers and tv watchers. "If it bleeds, it leads," is the idea there. Without that metaphor, they'd be stuck having to rely on informative but boring terms like "trade barriers," "economic conflict," or "tariffs." So I think the lead is probably good enough. --Light show (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the danger of having an infobox? It could summarize things like, how much both side has lost financially. Etc. KasimMejia (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there a template for a tariff conflict? You can try putting something together and putting it on the talk page for opinions. But note that there are more than just two countries that are affected financially. --Light show (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggested infobox What do you think of an infobox like this? KasimMejia (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a proper use of Template:Infobox_military_conflict.--Light show (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Most readers won't even know whether this is a military conflict infobox or a trade war infobox. I think it will summarize the trade war pretty well. Whenever I'm trying to read the updates on the trade war, the first things I want to see is whether the tariffs have been increased and how much its costing the countries, the infobox is the perfect summary that can show these at the top of the page. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The suggested infobox below is not appropriate—the terminology used, especially "belligerents", is suggestive of a military conflict, which this is not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright here I've adjusted the infobox into a trade war infobox. Now this should be appropriate. If you can find a better name than sides you can edit it here. KasimMejia (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would obviously not be suitable. Way too simplistic, relying on a few new recent sources, and too localized, since the article and the proposed box say it's worldwide and ongoing. In fact the one source you used even states the tariffs "expected to increase in the coming months." The article explains that many other countries are affected, that there are too many causes and effects, here and abroad. So trying to post an info scoreboard would do more harm than good, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think of changing "Tariffs imposed" to "Economic measures" that will include tariffs, as well as others measures such as ban of Huawei, moving companies to US, block of android, etc. Could include arrest of Huawei CFO too perhaps. KasimMejia (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Once you start actually adding things to the body of the article, a very long and detailed one, you'll probably agree that this kind of ongoing, worldwide and ever-changing event is not one that can be put into a box. --Light show (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement, but I still have to say no. The "Economic losses" are not what they claim to be—the source gives $34 billion as the figure for how much Americans have paid in tariffs and doesn't take into account lost business. Dates would need to be attached to these figures, and it would be challenging to keep them up to date. The date listed in the infobox is controversial—sources disagree about when the trade war actually began.
 * I'm usually a fan of infoboxes, but maybe this is a case where a box is not terribly useful. For this situation it seems to be hard to give fast facts without oversimplifying. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)