Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 2

Clearly biased article
I read the article and I noticed that everything the USA did or say is based on claims. And everything that the PRC did or say is based on facts. Getting suspicious, I checked out the person who wrote the article and sure enough the guy's first language is simplified chinese and he contributed to pages about PRC railway stations. I am annoyed because I expect to read facts on wikipedia and not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.136.49 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as representation of Trump, overall, relative to other pages on this site, this one is one of the more even-handed.

Use of the term "superpowers"
The leading sentence describes China as a "superpower" alongside the United States. This is highly questionable based on demographic, diplomatic, economic, and military limitations that afflict China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielTeitelbaum (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording accordingly. Lead it off by saying it's affected both countries without all the other puffery language. Flaughtin (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is confusing and contradictory as hell
On 2 April, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs on 128 U.S. products including aluminium scraps, airplanes, automobiles, pork products, and soybeans (which have a 25% tariff), as well as fruits, nuts, and steel piping (15%).[3][4] The next day, the USTR published a list of over 1,300 categories of Chinese imports worth $50 billion on which it planned to impose levies, including aircraft parts, batteries, flat-panel televisions, medical devices, satellites, and weapons.[5][6][7] In retaliation for that announcement, China imposed an additional 25% tariffs on airplanes, automobiles, and soybeans, which are the top U.S. agricultural export to China.[4][8] A 25% tariff on soybeans is mentioned twice, the second time as "additional". Does this mean a 50% total tariff? Or has one tariff gotten mentioned twice?

Also, the lead talks about "intention to impose tariffs of US$50 billion", but later it talks about imposing a 25% tariff on $34b + $16b = $50 billion of goods. That would be a $12.5b tariff. Which is it?

And is that $50b for all time, i.e. the tariff expires after $50b? Or is that (pre-tariff) annual trade in the covered items, which would thus be an annual recurring thing? (But an overestimate as people change to alternate suppliers.)

This really needs untangling. I don't feel like researching it right now, but I definitely appreciate anyone who does. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the "Chronology of tariff events" should list when tariff rates came into effect, what the rates are, the amount of goods they cover, and possibly the type of goods. The current Chronology appears to be primarily a list of statements, accusations, and counter accusations. This doesn't say much about what the tariffs are. One possibly useful source is https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/05/13/business/13reuters-usa-trade-tariffs-factbox.html. 165.120.163.166 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

International support?
What is this statement in the lede based on?

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


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

Timeline updates
The following updates from the 2020 section of the timeline have been reverted by Flaughtin, but explained why. Should these be restored to the timeline?

—Granger (talk · contribs) 23:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you have to explain why they are important first. Announcements and developments like that are a dime a dozen. Flaughtin (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first bullet point gives an update following the February 17 tariff exemptions already mentioned in the timeline. The other two bullet points give information about the two countries' progress in meeting their trade deal obligations, plus the important update that China rose to become the US's top trading partner again. They also indicate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic crisis (currently not covered adequately in the timeline). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include the first and third item but not the second. It's perfunctory and in any case had been superseeded by the developments in your third item. Flaughtin (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership in background section
There should be some mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the background section. It was commonly seen as part of the Obama administration's strategy for dealing with China's economic rise, and Trump's rejection of TPP and launching of the trade war with China are commonly linked (for example, in this BBC article). I added some information on the TPP in two edits:. Both were reverted, though I've restored the first. It might make more sense to put both paragraphs together in one of the background subsections, so that the connection between the two paragraphs is clearer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wrote in this edit of yours didn't even mention about China. Flaughtin (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section
I reworked the section titled, "Conflicts after China joins the WTO":. The section was written as a litany of complaints against China, and overall gave a very unrealistic picture of the impacts of China's accession to the WTO. This egregious passage was typical of the tone of the section:

These sentences were sourced to a 2005 NY Times article: "Accession has brought change to China and WTO". The tone of the article is nearly completely opposite to the tone of the above passage. The article discusses the rapid increase of China's imports and exports (the latter faster than the former) in the wake of WTO accession, and cites various experts who say that China is largely meeting its obligations, and that the business environment has greatly improved. Yet whoever wrote the "Conflicts after China joints the WTO" section pulled a few out-of-context details out to paint an entirely different picture.

My edits have no been completely reversed, and I sense there's an ownership issue at work here. I think the section, as I wrote it, is a much more neutral description of the effects of China's WTO accession, and of the various disputes the US and China have had at the WTO since. I think this is a much better basis to work from than what is presently in the section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of issues with your arguments. Prior consensus for that header has already been established which you would have known had you read (or more accurately, cared to read) the debate on the talk page first. You opinions about what you personally think the tone of the article is is your business, but that's irrelevant in determining what from that article should be put into this one and redundant in any case because we are all editing from a position of bias. To be clear I didn't write the original verion of the section, but I will say for the record that your proposed version is equally as terrible as the version you are criticizing as it suffers from the same issues: POV, lack of attribution, misrepresentation of the sources, manual of style violations.
 * As for your risible and operatic insinuation of my ownership of this article, that really wasn't worth the bandwith you took to write that nonsense. There is plenty in this article which aligns with your pro China position and I wouldn't have taken the time to engage in the extensive debates above with the other editor if I was paranoid about trying to own this article. If I was trying to own this article I would have immediately reverted these edits ( and ). Maybe that's the way you do things, but not me. I don't revert any edits - I just revert bad edits. If anything your ownership complaint is a ploy to try to get me article-banned or topic-banned so that you yourself can own the article. That isn't going to fly and I will be prepared to fight that ludicrous allegation if you bring that to the ANI noticeboard. It's either we debate your concerns on the talk page or you continue to edit war. Choice is yours. Flaughtin (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Where was prior consensus established for the text in question?
 * My "pro China position"? I haven't expressed any pro-China views or put any in the article. I accurately summarized what the sources said, which was quite different from the sentences they were being used to source.
 * continue to edit war: I haven't edit warred at all here. I haven't even reverted a single time. I made various edits to the article, almost all of which you have reverted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) First round of debate, point 6. As I have already told you.
 * 2) Your position is pro China and that is clear from the material you are writing. Of course I am not concerned with that as we all edit from a position of bias (myself included), but the real issue is that the material itself is as terrible as the material that you are trying to replace. POV issues, lack of attribution, misrepresentation of the sources, manual of style violations as was said to you already. By way of example this edit of yours is just awful: for starters, where's the attribution? It's true that the previous version (which again, for the record, I didn't write) didn't have attribution, but that doesn't mean your version now suddenly gets a license to do the same thing. If you think your edits are superior to mine, then that's your job to prove. As i said, it's either we debate your concerns on the talk page or you continue to edit war. Choice is yours. Flaughtin (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're calling "pro-China" is simply the same neutral description of the effects of China's accession to the WTO, as described in reliable sources. Those effects include a massive expansion of Chinese imports and exports, quick reductions in import tariffs, improvements in business environment for foreign companies operating in China, as well as various disputes adjudicated at the WTO, disputes over what constitutes state aid, etc. I tried to cover this all pretty neutrally. The version you've reverted back to doesn't give this broad overview, but instead focuses entirely on various complaints against China.
 * "By way of example this edit of yours is just awful: for starters, where's the attribution?" Every sentence in that edit is sourced to the 2005 NY Times article. Factual statements don't need attribution (opinions do), but they need citation. I provided a citation.
 * The "rounds of debate" that you're engaging in are not standard practice on Wikipedia. It reminds me of "nothing is decided until everything is decided," which is a recipe for getting nothing done. Each issue should be discussed separately - not everything at once. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sentences like "Upon joining the WTO, China agreed to some of the quickest reductions in tariffs ever undertaken by a new member." and Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. are biased statements and require attribution. I can't help it if you think otherwise. Just because a reliable source says something (which you like) doesn't mean that attribution requirements suddenly go out the window. If there are specific complaints you have about my reverts of your edits, then that is your job per BURDEN to defend them. Flaughtin (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not biased statements. They're factual statements made by the NY Times, and they accord with what I've read elsewhere about China's WTO accession. Questions like, "Which new WTO member agreed to the largest tariff reductions?" are quantitative and objectively answerable. If a reliable source gives the answer (as in this case), we don't need to attribute it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Thucydides411 is right that the paragraph quoted above is misleading. It doesn't reflect the source in tone or emphasis, and it should be rewritten. The main focus of the source is that China made significant progress in reforms after joining the WTO; the paragraph summarizing the source should reflect that. I haven't looked closely at the rest of the section yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear I didn't write that; this is my version of the material. That said, that user's proposed version was as terrible as the version that was replaced. If we focus on just the first paragraph in opposing user's proposed version, the material is lacking in attribution (first for the first sentence), violates POV (there is a significant minority focus in the source which documents US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO that isn't in the paragraph. From the source: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors.), contains undue, irrelevant information (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s. This doesn't mention anything about either the US or China) and suppresses other relevant information (e.g: China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States, which has seen its trade deficit with China almost double to $175.8 billion last year from $90.2 billion in 2001.) Of course, there are other issues which would come up if you compared the opposing user's version of the material with mine (for example the overreliance of the paragraph on just one source, which my version of the material rectifies) but for the sake of clarity, I have decided to focus on the problems of the user's proposed version on solely its own (malformed) terms. Flaughtin (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it's been some time since work has been done on this section, I have taken the initiative to make some changes to it given the amount of attention it is attracting. I have not modified the first and third paragraphs of the most recent version of the section as there is controversy surrounding that but I have made changes to other parts of the section which I am confident will not be controversial. Below are the changes I have made:


 * 1) Change the last paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous material wasn't clear enough in spelling out how the industrial job losses was linked to China's WTO accession, so I have rectified that by providing a more accurate summary with attribution and higher-quality sources.
 * 2) Change the 7th paragraph of the original version starting with the meetup between Obama and Jintao from this to this. The previous version was problematic because: a) the officials referred to in the first and second sentence of the article are not the same ones which are found in the source; b) the sources for the third and fourth sentences do not even mention the meeting between the two Presidents.My version rectifies for this by quoting verbatim what the officials in the Washington Post article said and eliminates the third and fourth sentences entirely.
 * 3) Change the 4-6th paragraph of the original version starting with the actions that the Obama administration took in 2010 from this to this. The previous version wasn't clear enough in spelling out why and how the complaint of the USW was important (i.e. didn't establish due weight) so I rectified that by combining the materials in the three paragraphs which shows the due weight of the complaint (i.e. a petition which USW filed with the USTR and subsequent response by the USTR and uninvolved third parties) and further substantiate the importance of the event with other sources.
 * 4) Change the 2nd paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous version was problematic because it left out key information (e.g. the other WTO cases which the US won and the PRC lost) and didn't clearly establish how the cases related to a) the background conflicts of the trade war and b) the bipartisan nature of the support. My version of the material rectifies this by providing all the relevant information.
 * I will assume consensus has been established for these changes if I don't see any objections from you. Flaughtin (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your objections to my rewrite.
 * "the material is lacking in attribution (first for the first sentence)": It's cited. It's not attributed ("The NY Times claims that ...") because it's a factual statement. Facts don't need attribution. Opinions do.
 * "violates POV (there is a significant minority focus in the source which documents US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO that isn't in the paragraph." It would be possible to discuss the shakeups that occurred in various markets (such as textiles) after China joined the WTO, but I thought that was too much detail. But this isn't a POV problem - it's just additional detail that you'd like to be included (and it might be too much detail).
 * "contains undue, irrelevant information (the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s. This doesn't mention anything about either the US or China)": This is extremely due and relevant information. This was one of the most important demands made on China as a condition for WTO membership, and it was hugely important to the US business community.
 * "suppresses other relevant information (e.g: China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States, which has seen its trade deficit with China almost double to $175.8 billion last year from $90.2 billion in 2001.)": My rewrite discusses the fact that the US trade imbalance with China has widened. This information is not, in any way, "suppressed."
 * "overreliance of the paragraph on just one source": That "one source" gives an excellent overview of the effects of China's WTO accession. It would be possible to cite other sources as well, but it's not necessary - the basic facts are already covered in the NY Times article.
 * The real question is what the point of this section is. Is it meant to make Trump's case against China, or is it meant to give an objective overview of the US-China trade relationship after China's WTO accession? I want the former, which is why I rewrote the section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * a) Again, I have a different view on that and explained why; the sentences aren't binary propositions, they admit of degrees and I can't help it if you think otherwise. But even if you were right that they were statements of fact and not opinion, the opening sentence in your proposed version would still would not work because it leaves out the opposing statements of facts which index the (significant) minority focus of the source on the US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO. The article itself says as much: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors. Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. If you are going to do a summary of the article, then you must include both the minority AND the main points of the article. Not this cherrypicked version where the minority focus is purged from the summary.
 * b) the sentence By 2005, China cut import tariffs to a general level of 9.9%, from a previous level of nearly 40% in the early 1990s. This is extremely due and relevant information. This was one of the most important demands made on China as a condition for WTO membership, and it was hugely important to the US business community. - irrelevant as that's your opinion. If that's true, then quote me verbatim in the source where it says that. If you can't then it has to go
 * c) "suppresses other relevant information (e.g: China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States, which has seen its trade deficit with China almost double to $175.8 billion last year from $90.2 billion in 2001.)": My rewrite discusses the fact that the US trade imbalance with China has widened. This information is not, in any way, "suppressed." - well no no you did suppress information because your version left out the description in the article which says that China's trade boom has been uncomfortable for the United States. This part is important as it reflects the minority focus in the article and your suppression of it just isn't going to fly.
 * d) "overreliance of the paragraph on just one source": That "one source" gives an excellent overview of the effects of China's WTO accession. It would be possible to cite other sources as well, but it's not necessary - the basic facts are already covered in the NY Times article. - Nope. One source reflecting one view (the one you like) isn't sufficient to cover almost a generation's worth of developments which have had have global implications. At the very least you need two with counterbalancing views: one which reflects a pro PRC view and another one which opposes it. This is to satisfy basic policy requirements like NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored and, of course, you for the record don't own the article.


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


 * 1) Change the last paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous material wasn't clear enough in spelling out how the industrial job losses was linked to China's WTO accession, so I have rectified that by providing a more accurate summary with attribution and higher-quality sources.
 * 2) Change the 7th paragraph of the original version starting with the meetup between Obama and Jintao from this to this. The previous version was problematic because: a) the officials referred to in the first and second sentence of the article are not the same ones which are found in the source; b) the sources for the third and fourth sentences do not even mention the meeting between the two Presidents.My version rectifies for this by quoting verbatim what the officials in the Washington Post article said and eliminates the third and fourth sentences entirely.
 * 3) Change the 4-6th paragraph of the original version starting with the actions that the Obama administration took in 2010 from this to this. The previous version wasn't clear enough in spelling out why and how the complaint of the USW was important (i.e. didn't establish due weight) so I rectified that by combining the materials in the three paragraphs which shows the due weight of the complaint (i.e. a petition which USW filed with the USTR and subsequent response by the USTR and uninvolved third parties) and further substantiate the importance of the event with other sources.
 * 4) Change the 2nd paragraph of the original version from this to this. The previous version was problematic because it left out key information (e.g. the other WTO cases which the US won and the PRC lost) and didn't clearly establish how the cases related to a) the background conflicts of the trade war and b) the bipartisan nature of the support. My version of the material rectifies this by providing all the relevant information. Flaughtin (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, this is not acceptable writing:

You call this NPOV? This is Wikipedia, and there are certain standards of neutrality. Please stop forcing this sort of material into the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's really not an acceptable summary of the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please make your comments more concise. You're largely repeating yourself above, making the same (erroneous) points over and over again (for example, claiming I'm "suppressing information" about the US-China bilateral trade deficit, when I actually included it; another example: claiming I left out information about WTO cases that China lost - I included descriptions of two, one of which had been seriously mischaracterized in the previous text). I think my rewrite of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" (which I renamed "Effects of China's WTO Accession") is a much more neutral text to work from. Here it is, for reference:. What do you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See above. I forgot to sign the first time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My comments are concise and accurate enough, the problem is that you just aren't reading it. Flaughtin (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And why are you trying to circumvent the debate process by turning it into a vote??? You can't just override all the above questions I have posed to you simply because you may or may not get another person to agree to your preferred version of the material. This is not how you build consensus. If this is how you are going to proceed, then I will escalate this to DRN. The way you are going about this is absolutely ridiculous. Flaughtin (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current version of the section reads like a defense of Trump's position rather than a neutral summary of the background to the trade war. I think your rewrite is better, though it might be worth including some of the other details from the current version (for instance, the size of the trade deficit). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can include the absolute size of the bilateral trade deficit. I can also include some information on textiles. Previously, I didn't include it in my rewrite, because it's a highly complex issue that's difficult to boil down into one or two sentence. The history of regulation of the textile trade, the WTO and China is quite complex, involving a number of different treaties and a quota system that was extended for Chinese textiles. I can try to boil this all down, but it's quite difficult to do while still remaining accurate. It's also probably minimally relevant to the ongoing trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No but you still haven't addressed all the other concerns that I have raised in relation to your edits here. Don't think that addressing just one part of one of my concerns is supposed to make me overlook how you ignored all the other ones. I will be escalating this to the DRN if you restore anything from your version of the material without its prior consensus here on the talk page first. Flaughtin (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Granger: Please comment on this set of edit as I had asked of you here. Flaughtin (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to evaluate the paragraph about manufacturing job losses, as I can't read the sources you cited, but at a glance your version of that paragraph looks fine. Your version of the Hu-Obama meeting paragraph seems fine, though I think it would be worth including the view that "China has complied with many of the explicit promises it made to lower tariffs and other barriers but has failed to adhere, as many hoped it would, to the broader spirit of free trade." I'm not sure the United Steelworkers dispute needs a whole paragraph. On the paragraph about disputes settled through the WHO, I think Thucydides411's version seems more concise and clear. Overall I think Thucydides411's version (the current version) is a clearer structure, so I suggest we work from that version and add detail as necessary (for instance, maybe we could re-add a mention of US manufacturing job losses). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated the rewritten version, with additional references (to satisfy Flaughtin's objection about over-reliance on the NY Times news article) and an explicit mention of the level of the US bilateral trade deficit with China in 2001 and 2004 (to satisfy Flaughtin's objection that this information was "suppressed"). I tried figuring out a way to include information about textiles, but the issue is really too complex (and in the end, unimportant to the trade war) to summarize briefly (if you're interested in it, you can read about the Agreement on Textiles an Clothing, the end of the global quota system in 2005 and the incorporation of textiles into the WTO system, and the extension of quotas on Chinese exports). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks decent. I'm not sure the government procurement treaty needs to be mentioned, as it gets only a passing mention in the source. Should we mention US manufacturing job losses? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * About job losses, I'd like to find a source that discusses more broadly the impact on the US economy of China's WTO entry. The NY Times article hints at the fact that various markets were shaken up, but it only mentions textiles. I haven't found a good overview yet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already gave you the information in my list of objections that I had asked you to respond to which clearly showed the impact that the PRC's WTO entry had on the US economy (points a, c, d, 1, and 4). You would have known had you read it. Flaughtin (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see sources in that comment. Which source are you referring to? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are there I've already told you where to look. Not my problem you can't/don't want to put in the work, follow the instructions and read the material. Flaughtin (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


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


 * I've addressed most of the concerns you expressed above, and sought input from . Do you have additional concerns that you haven't yet stated? Do you have concrete proposals for how to change the text? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No you haven't and please do not try to be cute with this. In particular please don't try to game the system by getting cute with the sequencing, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. I had asked you to respond to this extensive list of objections that I had to your version of the material and expected you to respond in kind - not this half-baked, mediocre 5 sentence comeback that basically consisted of "i am not going to read it" and attempt to circumvent the debate by vote stacking.I need a point-by-point rebuttal from you, and if you aren't going to follow the rules, then as I've said, don't waste my time. Flaughtin (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've already responded to the four objections you raised in your above comment. But just so this is clear, I'll summarize my views here:
 * a) I've explained why I didn't include a sentence about textiles. It's an extremely complicated issue, and it's not terribly relevant. Above, Granger and I are discussing how to include information on how China's WTO accession affected industries in the US more generally.
 * b) China's tariff reductions (and other reforms it undertook as part of its WTO accession) are obviously relevant.
 * c) I included the absolute trade deficit, as you demanded.
 * d) I used additional sources, as you demanded.
 * So I've acquiesced to two of your demands (c and d), explained why I disagree with one (b), and am discussing another (a) above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well no no those are non-responses. For example, your point a reponse proves you haven't even read my objection. It's not about textiles - nobody really gives a shit about that. The point is that the first sentence in your proposed version is purged of the significant minority focus in the NYT article, which was about the US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO. The article itself makes that focus very clear: Sometimes, as in this year's surge of textile exports to the United States and Europe, the expansion has unsettled markets and competitors. Yet when China joined the WTO, it agreed to one of the fastest programs of import duty cuts and market opening ever accepted by a new member. The case of textiles is used as just an illustrative example of those concerns. If you are going to do a summary of the article, then you must include both the minority AND the main points of the article. Not this cherrypicked version where the minority focus is purged from the summary.
 * But more than, first of all you need to explain why you thought you could get cute with the way you responded to me, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. Who are you to act like you are entitled to respond like this? Who are you to think that you can own the article? If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. Also, as you know there is a DRN I have filed against you, so it'd be best if you responded to my objections to your edits there. Flaughtin (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, it would help if you'd at least acknowledge that I've acquiesced to your demands on 2 of 4 of your concerns (c and d), and that I've said I'm interested in looking into how to address a third one (a). As I said, I'm looking for good sources on the overall effect of China's WTO accession on US industries. We could insert a bland phrase about "markets being shaken up," based on the NY Times article, but I think that with good sourcing, it would be possible to write something far more informative about how the structure of the US economy adjusted to increased trade with China (which industries suffered and which benefited?). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, first of all, you need to explain why your insane editing approach and why you thought you could get cute with the way you are responding to me, addressing my objections only after you've rammed through your preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. Who are you to act like you are entitled to respond like this? Who are you to think that you can own the article? If you were serious about editing with me in good faith, you would not have touched the article and instead waited for my evaluation of your response. If you are this crazily upstanding editor that you are making yourself out to be, you would reset the section to the original version until the issues here can be resolved first. But of course we both know you aren't going to do that, which is why I have had to take you and your "arguments" to the DRN. Flaughtin (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Source on manufacturers' support of trade war?
What's the source for this statement in the lede?

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


 * The statement is not an accurate summary. Some sources indicate opposition from manufacturers while other sources indicate support (or a mix of support and opposition). I tried to correct the text to, but was reverted by User:Flaughtin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm removing this obviously false statement then. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That summary is misleading as the majority of the material in the manufacturing section describes support for Trump and the summary (especially the semantic focus) has to reflect that reality accordingly. As compromise, I propose the following summary: While Trump's tariffs have drawn criticism from some representatives in the U.S. manufacturing industry, many others, including the presidents of AFL-CIO, IBT and USW, have endorsed Trump's tariffs. This satisfies your demand that criticism from the manufacturing industry be reflected while also reflecting my demand that emphasis should be on the support based on what's written in that section. Flaughtin (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not due weight, and it's really too much detail for the lead. (By the way, the "Manufacturing" section is missing information about the "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" campaign, because you keep removing it.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not reading the material, if you have then you haven't been reading it carefully. The stuff about Tariffs Hurting the Heartland is already in the article, it's under the business section as that is how the source describes the campaign (The Trump administration’s tariffs are the target of a new multimillion dollar campaign by a coalition of businesses.) The only thing about manufacturing in that same source is also already in the article (the quote by vice president at the National Marine Manufacturers Association) That's three spokespersons for Trump's tariffs vs one spokesperson against. I repeat: as the majority of the material in the manufacturing section describes support for Trump, the summary (especially the semantic focus) has to reflect that reality accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This source says that manufacturers have joined the "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" campaign. It's true that this campaign is introduced earlier in the article. It should also be mentioned in the "Manufacturing" section; otherwise, the section gives a misleading impression of the trade war's level of support in the industry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But your suggestion that the Heartland campaign be mentioned in the manufacturing section doesn't make sense. The article explicitly classifies the campaign as a business coalition, it is therefore a business reaction. Mentioning it in the manufacturing section as well would be a category error. Flaughtin (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the source mentions that manufacturers joined the campaign. Maybe the subsections are part of the problem here—there's a lot of overlap between "Industry", "Agricultural", "Business", and "Manufacturing". —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And what I am saying is that that material is already in the article. If you are going to change the subsections then everything in the lede that corresponds to it will also have to go. Flaughtin (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "While Trump's tariffs have drawn criticism from some representatives in the U.S. manufacturing industry, many others, including the presidents of AFL-CIO, IBT and USW, have endorsed Trump's tariffs": That sounds like a partisan defense of Trump's tariffs, not a neutral summary of the views of US manufacturers. Ignoring the fact that the AFL-CIO, IBT and USW are not manufacturers (they're unions), I don't see any evidence yet that most US manufacturers support the tariffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you didn't read what you quoted carefully enough. I didn't say most manufacturers support the tariffs I said many others, and you didn't even get what I was referring to right (I was referring to the presidents of those manufacturing unions, not the unions themselves) Flaughtin (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks for finding these sources. I'll add the information about NAM to the "Manufacturing" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've modified this edit of yours. I've added information to the the first sentence which places the NAM statement in its proper context (while disagreeing with the tariffs, they they support Trump's end goals which the letter amply makes. This is similar to the kind of issue we debated in our first round of debate, point 6 - it's a difference betwen ends and means) This is done to satisfy DUE and NPOV, as NAM's statement is more nuanced than a categorical rejection of the trade war. As for the second sentence, I have again added further information which also better reflects what's in that article. The vast majority of the content there is about the rapport between presidents of NAM and USA, and that has to be reflected in the mainarticle. I've tried to ensure the article summary maintains fidelity to the source by quoting the headline verbatim. Reasons for modification are the same as before, DUe and NPOV. Flaughtin (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of the content there is about the rapport between presidents of NAM and USA": That's not the way I read it. From the article, it appears that many manufacturers represented by NAM are very unhappy about and worried by the tariffs, but that the leadership of NAM doesn't believe that openly attacking Trump will bring them anything. They can't stop the trade war and they don't choose the president of the US. The article paints a picture of an organization "Fighting against Trump's trade war from within," rather than from without. However you summarize the article, that should come through.
 * "A 2018 Politico article documented the close partnership between the president of NAM Jay Timmons and President Trump and said that Timmons was fighting against Trump’s trade war from within": this does at least mention the salient point about fighting the trade war from within, but the first clause about "close partnership" doesn't really reflect the Politico article, and sounds like something you'd read in a hagiography of Trump. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of the content there is about the rapport between presidents of NAM and USA": That's not the way I read it. From the article, it appears that many manufacturers represented by NAM are very unhappy about and worried by the tariffs, but that the leadership of NAM doesn't believe that openly attacking Trump will bring them anything." - it's obvious you didn't read the article carefully because the stuff in the article says the complete opposite (e.g "But as trade conflicts mount, NAM’s diverse membership is giving Timmons some room to maneuver. In 2006, NAM’s smaller members mounted a revolt against the multinationals that typically set the group’s trade agenda, pushing them to endorse legislation that would give the U.S. power to retaliate against China and other countries that manipulate their currency to gain an export edge.The effort failed, and some of those same small companies now are cheering Trump’s tariffs and big-stick swagger.") Flaughtin (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That type of internal disagreement is what I was trying to convey with the sentence —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No but it's more nuanced than that. They agree on ends, disagree on means, but even then it's a qualified and not an outright disagreement from Timmons (“It’s not the way I would negotiate it, but the last time I looked I wasn’t elected president,” Timmons said. “If this is a better way to encourage investment here in the United States, and create jobs and wage growth, we’ll have to see.”) As I said, the vast majority of the article is about the rapport both Presidents have built up; even the headline says as much: Fighting against Trump’s trade war from within. Flaughtin (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of the article is not about Trump and Timmons' "rapport" (or the latter cozying-up with the former, as Politico characterizes it). It's about an organization that is divided over how to respond to the trade war, and how the leadership has decided to try to influence the Trump administration without criticizing it from the outside. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you haven't read the article, or if you did then you didn't read it carefuly enough. The vast majority of the article is about the rapport between the two presidents; at least 29 of the article's 40 paragraphs is devoted to that topic. (29 because that's how many paragraphs explicitly mention Timmons's name) Flaughtin (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

US-centric
The perspective of this article is very US-centric, relating the trade war almost entirely through from the perspective of the United States. For example, there are extensive descriptions of various US complaints about China's trade practices, but very little (or no) description of Chinese views on these same issues. There's a lot of work to be done to give the Chinese perspective on this issue, since China is, after all, the other half of the story. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Source for claim about effects of trade war on China?
The lede currently states, "In China, it has led to record decreases in economic growth and manufacturing activity." What's the source for this claim? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That question is being resolved in the second round of debate above. Flaughtin (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the source? The massive "rounds of debate" above are completely opaque to me. If there's no source, I am going to remove the information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that edit and will continue to do so should you edit war over this. As I said, the question is being resolved in the second round of debate (point 4) above. If those debates are opaque to you, then that really is your problem; I don't want to read it is not a reason to revert. The debates above were reached and are proceeding after hours of work that the other editor and I put in, and nobody is going to let you just jump the line because you feel entitled to. Flaughtin (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're pointing me vaguely to pages of text, saying the issue is under discussion. I've tried looking through those pages and pages, but I haven't found the answer. There's a problem with your approach here - reverting, refusing to provide a source and directing me to a massive wall of text that supposedly contains the answer to my question buried deep within it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you haven't been reading what I have been saying. It's not vague when I have already told you where to look. (second round of debate, point four) Not once, but twice. If you followed my instructions, you would have seen what the supporting information is for the sentence whose corroboration you are disputing. (August 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020 items in the chronology section) Flaughtin (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop telling me to look at the walls of text above, and just cite the source here. If the sources exist, it won't take you more than a few minutes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already told you where the sources are. August 13, 2019 and January 17, 2020 items in the chronology section. The first item says Official figures from China showed its industrial output growth falling amid the trade war to a 17-year low while the second item says Official figures from China showed its 2019 economic growth rate falling amid the trade war to a 30-year low.  I don't want to read it is not a reason to revert and I will revert your original edit above and continue to do so should you edit war over it.  Flaughtin (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * China's growth rate has been decreasing for years. Every year is a "new X-year low." It's different to say that growth has declined to a 30-year low, and that it has faced record decreases. The latter is a statement about the rate of decline - a statement which happens to be wrong. For example, the drop in growth from 2007 to 2008 was much more severe than the decreases seen during the trade war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Right—there's a big difference between a decrease in manufacturing and a decrease in the rate of growth of manufacturing. The Reuters source says that industrial output growth fell, not that the level of industrial output fell (the latter continued to rise, just at a slower rate). I suggest rephrasing as follows: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in many years." —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated it to read, "Through the end of 2019, the Financial Times found that the trade war had damaged both American and Chinese manufacturers, and driven the American manufacturing sector into contraction." (diff). This is based on this FT article, titled, "US manufacturers hit harder than China's in trade war". China's overall growth rate hasn't actually fallen that much since the trade war began - from about 6.8% in 2017 to 6.0% in 2019. Coronavirus had a much more dramatic effect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't read the FT article (paywall), but assuming that's an accurate summary of the source, it seems fine to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That user's proposed edit omits the part about the slowdown in economic growth so I will assume when you said the FT article is an accurate summary that that only applies to the part about manufacturing and not economic growth. As for the phrasing I propose the following: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in decades." The use of the word decades reflects verbatim what is in the source. I will put this into the article if I don't see an objection from you. The current version of the article has this sentence in the lead (In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial difficulties for farmers.) without any counterbalancing statement, and this is a violation of NPOV.Flaughtin (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I don't see any objection from you, I will assume consensus has been stablished for this and put the phrase in the article accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop doing this. There's no consensus for what you're proposing. You can't propose something, and then declare that you've established consensus a few hours later because you haven't heard an objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No but there is consensus for a variation of what I am proposing - it's what the other user wrote. His/her words, not mine: I suggest rephrasing as follows: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in many years. Flaughtin (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mx. Granger I endorse your rephrasing as an interim solution, but propose the following as a superior version: In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in decades. The use of the word decades reflects verbatim what is in the source. Your input on this would be helpful as it'd be the fastes way to break to the impasse on this point of contention between myself and the opposing editor. Flaughtin (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411 makes a good point below, though, that China's growth was already slowing before the trade war started. We shouldn't give readers the incorrect impression that the slowdown was caused entirely by the trade war. I'm not sure the best way to cover this information, but I think the current version of the paragraph doesn't give quite enough information about the economic impact in China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Mx. Granger But your objection doiesn't make sense. The whole "decreasing for years" argument advanced by the other editor is just original research - how big of a role that factor has played in the PRC's contemporary econoic profile has to be substantiated by secondary sources, not just made up on the spot. The articles all show that the trade war has had a dramatic effect on growth rates in China and, for the record, anyone who would deny that is just insane (their headlines, not mine: China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years.) As a compromise, i propose the following: In China, the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth that had not been seen in many decades. This satisfies your demand to make it clear there are other factors besides the trade war at play while it also satisfies my demand that the relationship between the trade war and negative effects on the growth rates have to be included. Flaughtin (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the current version of the article has this sentence in the lead (In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial difficulties for farmers.) without any counterbalancing statement, and this is a violation of NPOV. Flaughtin (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I object to your inclusion of this material into the lede as it is undue. That material can go into other sections of the article (chronology, effects, manufacturing) but not the lead section; the manufacturing dimension is only one aspect of the trade war and to put it into the lead section particularly as a basis of comparison between the two countries gives it exaggerated importance relative to what is written about it in the article. The content in these three sources (, and ) is much more appropriate for inclusion into the lead section as they compare the effects of the trade war on both countries across multiple domains. Flaughtin (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the three sources in my immediately preceding comment(this should be uncontroversial) into the lead and will move your financial times material into the body of the article if I don't see an objection from you. Flaughtin (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in decades" is highly misleading. China's growth rate has been slowing for years. Your proposed text makes it sound like the trade war has had a dramatic effect on growth rates in China, but that's not the case. The Financial Times is a high-quality source for analysis of economic trends, and it states that manufacturing has been affected in both countries. I think that's worthy of inclusion in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All of this is just soapboxing. It's not what I am making it sound like, it's what the sources are saying. The sources themselves are saying that the trade war has had a dramatic effect on growth rates in China. Their headlines, not mine: China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years. I'm just reporting what they are saying. If you have an issue with that, then you can take it up with those outlets. As you would say: They're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided. Flaughtin (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Fortune.com ... what do you expect? We shouldn't be using over-the-top headlines to make misleading claims - unless we don't care about accuracy. The Reuters headline is much more accurate: industrial growth has slowed, just as the FT also reports. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Of course there are others which reports the same (e.g.China's economic growth hits 30-year low...the country has faced weak domestic demand and the impact of the bitter trade war with the US.) but i doubt you'd care to read them. But, to be clear, again, if you have an issue with what's written in the sources, then you can take it up with those outlets. As you would say: They're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided. Flaughtin (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What if we add something like, "In China, economic and industrial growth has slowed."? That seems to be well supported and I think avoids the risk of misleading. (By the way, interestingly enough, the BBC source you linked also includes the analysis that "The trade war may have actually helped the Chinese economy".) —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mx. Granger I endorse this as an interim solution to balance out the NPOV in the lede section, but not a final solution as your proposed material has now introduced more problems. Because now you are contradciting what you previously wrote: I suggest rephrasing as follows: "In China, economic growth and industrial output growth have slowed to their lowest rates in many years. You current proposal has now removed the timescale part ("in many years") and you've collapsed the distinction between growth and growth rate which you've been banging on about for the longest time. As for the sufficiency of the sourcing, here's more which unambiguously prove my point about the trade war having an effect on China's economic growth/growth rate:,  Flaughtin (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been trying to distinguish "between growth and growth rate" (not sure what that would mean) but rather between the overall amount and the growth rate (in calculus terms, this is the distinction between a function and its derivative). The current sentence accomplishes that.
 * Previously I did suggest "in many years", but Thucydides411 made a good point that that may be misleading. The long-term slowdown was caused by multiple factors (the BBC article you linked discusses a few of them), and we shouldn't give readers the impression that it was caused entirely by the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But your objection doiesn't make sense. As I said, the whole "decreasing for years" argument advanced by the other editor is just original research - that argument needs citation and how big of a role that factor has played in the PRC's contemporary econoic and industrial profile has to be substantiated by secondary sources, not just made up on the spot. What is not original research is that the trade war has played a newsworthy factor in the China's current economic and industrial situation; the articles I've cited to you all say that the trade war has led to decreases in China's economic and industrial growth rates not seen in decades - anyone who would deny that is just insane because that is straight from their headlines, not mine: China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years. Once again, I restate my compromise wording: In China, the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth that had not been seen in many decades. This satisfies your demand to make it clear the slowdown is not caused entirely by the trade war as it acknowledges that there other factors besides the trade war at play (key word here is contributed) while it also satisfies my demand that the relationship between the trade war and negative effects on the growth rates have to be included. Flaughtin (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But the slowdown had already started, so it's not quite right to say "a slowdown...that had not been seen" (and not "in many decades"! I assume that was a mistake). If you want to say "In China, the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in economic and industrial growth.", that would work for me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The decrease in the rate of growth has been small (6.8% to 6.0%). The absolute rate of growth is lower than it has been in decades. That was also true before the trade war began. In 2014, China's growth rate (7.3%) was lower than it had been in decades. In 2015, China's growth rate (6.9%) was again lower than it had been in decades. In 2016, China's growth rate (6.7%) was lower than it had been in decades. The only year it wasn't true was 2017, when China's growth rate ticked up ever so slightly (to 6.8%). The wording, "the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth that had not been seen in many decades" implies that the decrease in the rate of growth is unprecedented. That's incorrect. It's a continuation of a long-term trend, and the decrease from 2017-2019 was not spectacular in any sense. Granger's wording, "the trade war has contributed to a slowdown in economic and industrial growth" is much more accurate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mx. Granger No but the point is that the timescale has to be mentioned as that is what made the information newsworthy in the first place. I propose the following wording: In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on decades-long declines. The last part of the proposed wording should satisfy your demand to make it clear that the slowdown had already started before the trade war. I will put this into the article if I do not see any objections from you. Flaughtin (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I haven't seen any objections from you and have also seen that you've edited other articles (e.g. ) even though I notified you of my immediately preceeding comment, I will assume you have agreed to my proposed wording and will put it into the article accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the new phrasing is a little confusing, but I can live with it. Let's see what User:Thucydides411 thinks, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What's confusing about the wording? It reads perfectly fine to me and satisfies all your demands. Flaughtin (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The length of the existing slowdown strikes me as not directly relevant and therefore possibly confusing. But like I said, I can live with it. If Thucydides411 doesn't object either, we can consider the matter resolved. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say just to remove the last clause, "which had already been on decades-long declines." It's unnecessary, and also not really accurate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No but the last part is necessary and accurate because the timescale component is what made the data newsworthy. It's in the (their) headline for God's sake, just read it China's economy worsens in July, industrial growth at 17-year low as trade war escalates and The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth to its weakest pace in nearly 30 years. Nobody would care if it just read China's economy worsens in in July, industrial growth at a low as trade war escalates or The U.S. trade war slowed China’s 2019 economic growth. Why do you pretend otherwise? Please don't object just for the sake of objecting, you need to make substantive arguments and a one-liner isn't going to do it. Flaughtin (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Headlines are often the least reliable part of a news article, because they're usually not written by the authors of the piece and are often chosen to grab attention. I'm not objecting for the sake of objecting. I'm objecting because the clause ("which had already been on decades-long declines") is inaccurate. China's GDP growth rate has been generally decreasing since the Great Recession (just over one decade ago, not decades ago), with some upturns along the way. It's best just to leave out the clause entirely. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting aside your other nonsensical arguments (e.g. the headlines for the articles I cited to you are reliable because, as you would say, they're not biased statements, they're factual statements and all factual statements need are citations, which I have provided), you haven't explained how the clause is unnecessary. Flaughtin (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read WP:HEADLINE. Rereading this discussion and the sources, I just noticed that the phrase isn't actually supported by the sources—if GDP growth reached its lowest rate in the past 30 years, that suggests the rate of growth 30 years ago was less than the peak rate of growth in the past 30 years. So growth has not been slowing for the entire 30-year period. (The source doesn't seem to say when the peak growth rate was.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's a graph to illustrate. 1990 was a low point, not a peak. This is consistent with what the source says. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mx. Granger WP:HEADLINE is an essay so I didn't read it; similarly, I disregarded the graph you are using because the figures aren't up-to-date (it terminates at 2015) and relies on information from a finance, blog-type website.
 * As for your specific arguments, I don't know who you are addressing when you bring up the 30 years figure (what about the 17 year figure in industrial growth?) as I never said the growth was slowing for the entire 30 years. But if you are going to insist on quibbling with the numbers, then I propose the following wording: In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. The wording is ambiguous enough that it satisfies your demand that the imprecise statistical interpretation (whatever that may be) is taken out while it also satisfies my demand that the timescale component be kept in as reflected by the sources. Flaughtin (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that wording is all right, but I think it's overly wordy and a little hard to follow. How about: "In China, the trade war contributed to an existing slowdown in economic and industrial growth." —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what the issue is. All your proposed wording eliminates what I am requesting, which is that the timescale component be included. How is the last clause (which had already been on a decline) still too wordy and hard to follow? Flaughtin (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggested including the word "existing" as a more concise summary of "which had already been on a decline". If you think that's unclear, I'm okay with including "which had already been on a decline". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've modified the content accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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


 * What does coronavirus have to do with the trade war? The sentence in question makes it sound like the coronavirus is a Chinese weapon, which is really unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to address an argument that is as absurd as this. If you have a problem with the summary then take it up with the person who wrote the article. He's the one who wrote that headline and started the article off with this sentence: The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered calls in many countries for a reexamination of their relationship with China. His words, not mine. Flaughtin (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not required to cite this opinion piece, and we're certainly not required to cite it in a manner that implies coronavirus is a Chinese weapon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We also aren't required not to cite the opinion piece. Take your summary complaint to the guy who wrote the article. Bad arguments. As usual. Flaughtin (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't remember why I didn't remove the source at the time, but it's not about the trade war. The source is criticizing various Chinese government policies and advocating a vague multilateral response. It doesn't mention the trade war at all, and decoupling isn't Trump's goal in the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No but it is about the trade war. The policies the article is attacking form the background issues which started the trade war. The article even explicitly mentions China joining the WTO (under the Weaponizing China’s economy section) I'd say that some of the information can go into the background section. Flaughtin (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've found two more sources analogous to the FP one and ask that you please comment on whether or not they should be included in the article. ( and ) I want to see where we are supposed to draw the line on due weight/inclusion of material when it comes to the issue of decoupling. Flaughtin (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These sources don't seem to be focused on the trade war either, but rather on the future of US-China trade more broadly. They might fit better in the China–United States relations article than here. If we want to discuss the "decoupling" concept in this article, we should find a source that explicitly ties it to the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These sources don't seem to be focused on the trade war either, but you can say this for all the information and sources in the background section. So what's the difference?
 * In any case I've found an article which meets you request that the decoupling issue is tied explicitly to the trade war. It's best laid out in the third paragraph which says: His words captured the fears — particularly within parts of Washington’s economic and foreign policy establishment — that US President Donald Trump’s trade war against Beijing has paved the way for an irreversible “decoupling” of the world’s two largest economies. I will put a near-verbatim summary of the ft article into the main one if I don't see any objections from you to the article's inclusion. Flaughtin (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it would be good to include some information from that source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Chinese domestic reactions bias
A couple of points to pick up on here: I don't think the sources on Chinese social media censorship are particularly neutral, while it also seems irrelevant given that everybody knows that China is a one-party state. Similarly, lots of fluff in the opening sentence "state-controlled Communist Party newspaper" -- we don't add these disclaimers for every source. WeeMungo (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the sources there are reliable/neutral per WP:RSP and the material is also important because it provides important context for the reader to understand why the PRC views are so (artificially) uniform. Removing that would violate NPOV and UNDUE. The labels are also necessary per PARTISAN, PUS, and SUBSTANTIATE; removing them would also violate NPOV and UNDUE. You are correct, labels like that don't apply to every source and that's because not every source originates from a one-party state. Flaughtin (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It feels superfluous to say both state-controlled and Communist Party though, with some red scare undertones. Everyone knows the state is communist, so would just going with that would abide by the rules? Is it right for the SCMP to be considered an entirely neutral source in this topic, given its pro-capitalist editorial? These things are generally not a big deal but I think in a China-US article it holds more weight. WeeMungo (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point about the People's Daily—I'll go ahead and adjust that sentence. I do think the censorship is worth mentioning, though, to provide important context for the other information in the section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version reads, "The state-controlled newspaper People's Daily." Would anyone here, perhaps, deem it more unambiguous and neutral-sounding to phrase it as "The Chinese state-owned newspaper" or "The CCP-owned newspaper"? Even though the PRC is effectively a one-party state, the newspaper is formally owned and published by the party rather than the state, so that theoretically by law the newspaper would still be owned by the CCP regardless of who held a controlling majority in China's National People's Congress or any other state institution. For the record, I'm not going to make any revision of this sort to the article, only making a suggestion on the talk page to be consider by whomever it may concern. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On paper though not in fact, the CCP and the PRC are distinct legal persons. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though the PRC is effectively a one-party state, the newspaper is formally owned and published by the party rather than the state - this is an excellent point and I have modified the material accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)