Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 5

POV tag needs support
Based on the recent discussions and changes to the article, it seems that the POV tag is not supported. The only source that was vehemently attacked was from the NY Times writer, who was labeled a "trade hawk" by an editor and was removed, although that label was their opinion. A few other RSs were removed based on the fact that they were opinion articles, and apparently syndicated journalists are no longer allowed to give opinions in a WP article.

All of the WTO material is included, with only neutral RS material added in the article overall. No one has been prevented from adding sources from any country, with a number of Chinese sources now included. Therefore, if the POV tag is still necessary, we should have a clear explanation and some consensus. --Light show (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My comment from above still applies: A good start would be to remove or rewrite the "China joins the World Trade Organization" subsection, and to expand the article with more information about Chinese (and other countries') perspectives on the trade war. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So you're suggesting we find more cites like "WTO Challenges China on Tariffs", from 12 years ago? If that's still to non-neutral, being that it came from a U.S. newspaper, maybe some EU or Japan sources, which cover the same issues as stated by the U.S., with published statements including "China discriminates against foreign companies by imposing on them conditions, which are less favourable than those applicable to the transfer of technology between Chinese companies." A number of those recent sources are available, ie. "US and China clash over ‘technology transfer’ at the WTO". --Light show (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Citing articles about WTO cases from 12 years ago and tying them to the current trade dispute would be WP:OR. By the way, WTO disputes are pretty common. I don't see why the particular dispute you're citing is particularly important, or especially relevant to the trade war. The only WTO dispute that's undoubtedly relevant to the trade war is the case that China recently won against the US. Per the BBC: "The World Trade Organization has ruled that tariffs the US imposed on Chinese goods in 2018, triggering a trade war, were 'inconsistent' with international trade rules." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The CNBC source might be useful for expanding the "China's response and counter-allegations" section. And the BBC source should be useful for the timeline section if it isn't already covered there. Thanks to both of you for finding them.
 * It would also be great if we can find sources discussing the trade war's effects on the Chinese economy, to make the "Effects" section less US-centric. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the WTO ruling is already covered in the timeline. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From your opinion, the real Thucydides would have been an unknown, as his entire notability was from his writing a History of the Peloponnesian War, which was a "background" to the war. Whereas you and Granger, like the WTO, choose to avoid discussing facts which led to this one. The balance of trade/money aspect may be easier to arrive at than the value of lost jobs or industries, for example, but does not support a total avoidance of the decades of trade issues which led up to the present. Since no one is prevented from improving the so-called "insufficient focus on a Chinese perspective," using that as a pretext for deleting the entire background section is unwarranted. --Light show (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The background section has not been removed. A redundant, highly POV subsection has been removed. I'm trying to summarize the background to the trade war using economics papers as the main source. They do discuss possible job losses, and the background section states, Economists have studied the impact of trade with China and increasing labor productivity on employment in the American manufacturing sector, with mixed results. That statement is referenced to four studies. In fact, the background section mentions a whole range of issues, including allegations of price dumping, unease at major Chinese initiatives (e.g., the Belt and Road Initiative) and intellectual property concerns. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem you've created is actually much worse than a mere POV issue: 1) You've replaced at least sixteen general RSs with either Chinese or non-U.S. sources; 2) You've replaced the former "Background" section about the pre-trade war decades, with non-background subjects, "The US-China Trade Relationship"; 3) You've repeatedly added off-topic, non-U.S. economic opinions about the future, into a section called "background", (admitting it is "about the impact of trade with China..." In effect, with support from a few editors, the article has been badly corrupted, IMO. You're POV edits have taken on a distinctly adversarial aura.--Light show (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. Many of the sources you were using were not reliable sources (e.g., White House press releases and opinion columns by political commentators). 2. The nationality of the economists I cite shouldn't be important, but I looked and saw that Bekkers is Dutch, Schroeter is Swiss, Kwan is from Hong Kong and has spent his entire career in Japan, Chong is from Hong Kong, Nicita studied in Switzerland and the US, and Guo is at Tsinghua in China. This is an international sampling of economists, and I picked their papers because they appear to be the most highly cited papers that cover the general background of the trade war. Nicita's paper has been cited in the St. Louis Fed's blog, so it's not as if the views these economists represent are rejected by American economists. In fact, a look through the St. Louis Fed's blog will convince you that the things I've written in the background section are completely mainstream. For example, "U.S. Trade Imbalances with China and Others" and "Understanding the Roots of the U.S. Trade Deficit". -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, you've proven all my points. Thanks. But you forgot to mention that the Bekkers treatise stated some of the justifications for trade conflict and tarrifs: "the poor protection of intellectual property rights in China, forced technology transfer from foreign companies investing in China, and the heavy involvement of the Chinese government in its economy through (implicit) subsidization of state-owned companies (SOEs)." Some major issues, right?

However, despite writing a 17,500-word treatise, it decided that none of those matters would be taken up because they claimed they were "beyond the scope of this paper and is not further discussed here." Which essentially makes the primary source you're using mostly irrelevant to the trade war background, as the WTO paper states in its introduction: "To limit the scope of the paper, it focuses on the trade tensions between the US and China." IOW, let's just ignore the last 30 years. --Light show (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * IOW, let's just ignore the last 30 years: That's entirely your own personal editorializing. They analyze three of the four major reasons given for tariffs. I haven't yet found a source that does a comprehensive analysis of claims about the intellectual property claims, but the sources pretty consistently describe them as "allegations" (or use similar cautious wording). The closest thing I've found to an economic analysis of the Trump administration's claims about IP theft is from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE): . They are skeptical of the Trump administration's claims, and present an analysis of the volume of intellectual property license payments paid by Chinese firms. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The only point of relevance about the decades of IP theft is that China has never denied them. --Light show (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you're trying to make a political point with this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some might expect an editor over fourteen years would know the guidelines. --Light show (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been arguing for using literal White House press releases as reliable sources, and now you're making statements about China supposedly not denying IP theft that appear to have nothing to do with article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of law enforcement organizations in dozens of countries have accused China of IP theft... Theres no argument over whether its a near universal phenomenon. Are you suggesting that China hasn’t engaged in decades of pervasive IP theft from basically every country and major company on earth? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Labeling an entire country a thief in Wikivoice would be a violation of NPOV, and of course, White House press releases are not neutral sources. Whatever statement we make about the IP issues should come from high-quality reliable sources discussing the background to the trade war, such as the economics papers I've been citing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How would it violate NPOV? Please be specific. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, we would need to be specific about what entity in China has stolen intellectual property (the national government? Local governments? Individual companies?). It doesn't make much sense to accuse an entire country of a crime. What do reliable sources say about IP theft in China as it relates to the trade war? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No one actually labeled the country of anything. Simply writing that "dozens of countries have accused China..." is a no-brainer, ie. Counterfeit consumer goods. A Google search for "trade war counterfeiting china" will bring you 8.6 million articles such as "Counterfeiters Will Win the Trade War" from Foreign Policy, 8/10/18. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Found it. Thanks, that was an interesting read, though since it's an opinion piece it is probably not ideal for the "Background" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * With no background material, there is no reason for a section called "Background." Nor are the various page tags now relevant. --Light show (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Light show I'd support your removal of them Flaughtin (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the battleground mess of disputes ongoing here and at ANI and the scuppering of the RFC, possibly invalidly, that was suggested to be raised by I am uncomfortable with removal of POV tags until an RFC or independent dispute resolution process is concluded.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the background section
Which version should we use for the first subsection of the "Background" section?


 * Version A:
 * Version B:

—Granger (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Version C:
 * Version D:
 * Version E:
 * Version F: None of the above

NB: RfC re-instated following blanking Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

NB2: the list of RFC options above is incomplete as the relevant debates have not concluded Flaughtin (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Version A (the one with the heading "The US-China trade relationship"). Version B is non-neutral and has significant sourcing problems: it is mainly cited to (a) sources that don't mention the trade war, (b) low-quality/partisan sources like the Washington Times and Fox News (see WP:RSP), and (c) the White House (an inherently partisan source in this context). In contrast, Version A is cited to reliable sources about the trade war. I'm also okay with the compromise version discussed above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Version B: Version A is mostly off-topic to the Background, as noted by it's title. If anywhere, it might fit in the China–United States relations section of the Thucydides Trap, as it accentuates conflict, not background. Of the few sources that may be considered non-neutral, they can be discussed and potentially just removed or replaced. But blanking a 1,000-word section with sixteen sources should never be acceptable in the interim, IMO.--Light show (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Version A, which uses high-quality, neutral sources. Version B relies heavily on low-quality and non-neutral sources, and is written in a POV manner. Here is a breakdown of the types of sources used by Version B (with source numbers from that version):
 * 6 opinion pieces, almost all supportive of the trade war (21, 23, 30, 32, 33, 34)
 * 4 White House press releases (22, 24, 28, 29)
 * 3 news articles/book chapters that do not mention the trade war (25, 26, 27)
 * 2 news articles about the trade war from heavily pro-Trump sources (Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire & the Washington Times - 31, 35)
 * 1 news article about the trade war from a relatively reliable source (Fox Business - 36)
 * Contrast that with the sources used by Version A:
 * 6 peer-reviewed papers from economics journals (21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28)
 * 1 WTO white paper (25)
 * 1 conference paper from UN Conference on Trade & Development (29)
 * 1 news article that gives a broad overview of trade war (22)
 * 1 opinion piece in the Financial Times, written by an economist (30)
 * The broader problem with Version B is that it is clearly trying very hard to push a narrative (it was a mistake to let China join the WTO, China took advantage of the US, China devastated US factory employment, China has been stealing US intellectual property, etc.). This is why Version B makes extensive use of White House press briefings and opinion pieces that support the trade war. For example, a single opinion piece by Thomas Friedman gets nearly two full paragraphs of coverage in Version B.
 * Version A just tries to briefly trace the growth in US-China trade, to mention the areas of dispute (e.g., IP concerns, anti-dumping investigations, textile quotas, geopolitical rivalry), and to discuss the growth of the US-China bilateral trade imbalance. In summary, Version A is far better sourced, and doesn't aggressively push any POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would appear to me to be disingenuous to say that Version A does not push a point-of-view or push a narrative when that is also what it appears to do. I am certain you will dispute this so this is not something which I wish to get into a protracted argument with you over as that has already been done in the previous discussions, but presenting the views of select economists in select sources in wiki-voice (or "cherry-picking" as some of your detractors would say) seems to me to be an egregious violation of neutrality policies. At a minimum, multiple sources would be needed for this sort of representation and I think the discussions above have made it abundantly clear that this requirement has not been met.
 * Your preferred version is pushing an anti-tariff narrative. The issue isn't the reliability or quality of the sources, the issue is the (defective) way in which you are using the sources (primarily attribution violations which three other editors have pointed out ad nauseum to you.) Flaughtin (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).


 * It would appear based on the discussions above that the disagreements have reached a terminal impasse. Such may be par the course for any RfC, but what makes this particular one stand out is that is how lenghty the discussions have been and how there is still so much serious disagreement despite the discussions. I think that a big issue is that the result of the RfC is going to be relitigated so-to-speak if the outcome goes in either direction because the opposing side will simply not accept the result and I think this is already beginning to be born out from the discussions in the "threaded discussion". I think that another equally important issue is that due to the length of the discussions, voters will not have either the time or the interest to read through and truly flesh out the arguments advanced in the duelling version options and the reasonings behind them. I think this explains the hyper-partisan nature of the reasons given by the editors who have already voted and I feel like this sensationalism which obviously is meant to grab votes will be a shortcut for the work that voters need to put in. Naturally this is harmful to the integrity of the RfC outcome and it also will no doubt become a central plank of attempts to re-litigate the RfC outcome. I had on a previous occasion supported a reset of the background subsection to a version that roughly corresponds to option C because of how heated things got at that time, but seeing how much worse the discussion has degenerated has now convinced me that the optimal solution should be to have this subsection left out entirely. Therefore my vote would be Version F. Fortliberty (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Fortliberty (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).


 * I didn't cherry-pick "select" economists. I picked every highly cited economics paper I could find that had a section on the background of the trade war. You're free to propose additional economics papers, rather than saying (without evidence) that I'm cherry-picking. The alternative, Version B, relies heavily on opinion pieces and White House press releases, as I showed above.
 * Also, what POV does Version A push? It's just a brief summary of the growth of US-China trade, of a few of the previous trade conflicts between the two countries, and of the growth and nature of the bilateral trade imbalance. Version B is the one that cites extensively from opinion pieces and White House press releases. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to read what the word "irony" means because I think it is in-order for you. At a minimum, every reply you make is further proof of your refusal to accept the opposing side and general hyper-partisanship I spoke of earlier.


 * I would like to make this crucial comment: With the election of Mr. Joe Biden and therefore the election of a new President and administration of the United States, it would appear that the "Trump administration's complaints" section is now technically apart of the background to the trade war. This is yet one more reason to adopt Version F and discard this subsection and whole heck of a disagreement once-and-for-all. Fortliberty (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC) — Fortliberty (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).


 * Option F per reasoning by Fortliberty and the response to it GMPX1234 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * Option F or possibly Version A (Mx. Granger compromise version) Option F:  There does need to be a Background or lead-in section to the 2018 trade war but as a simple reader unfortunately the versions I am seeing are not doing this for me. I think I'm seeing too much emphasis of individual presidents at the expense of keeping the section focused on the growth of the Chinese economy and the widening trade gap.  I broadly like Thucydides411's reasoning behind Version A and the type of sources chosen but the implementation seems to get lost in detail in my opinion. This might benefit from a rip it up and start again approach.  It may be a fresh actor could do a clean sheet re-write.  Another possibly might be to try to first ensure there is agreement on the set of points the section needs to cover first.  A moderated discussion may also be possible approach, but it's likely to be lengthy and I would have sympathy for anyone trying to take the moderator role.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)  On review it may be possible to possible to move forward with one of Mx. Granger's compromise versions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Version B as the first preference. If that doesn't work then Version F. The compromise version is as defective as Version A (as has already been explained here) and User:Fortliberty makes the excellent point about the mootness of this exchange as there has been a change in government in the United States. Prospective contributors should also be aware per the extensive exchanges above that there is another article entitled China and the World Trade Organization and existing sections in this one entitled "Economists and analysts" and "Effects" under which the information in Version A (particularly the controversial ones) can go. Flaughtin (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * Version A. It has higher-quality sourcing, it's more neutrally-worded, it summarizes the topic succinctly according to the best sources, and it avoids placing undue weight on any particular aspect.  Strenuous opposition to Option F or leaving the section blank, obviously, which shouldn't even be considered as an option - context from high-quality economic experts is required in an article like this.  Likewise, oppose Version B or any version derived from it in strongest possible terms - it is a massive, sprawling, POV mess that gives WP:UNDUE weight to white house press releases and axe-grindy culture-war opinion-pieces, with massive blocks devoted to bickering among talking heads.  It reads like it's trying to convince the reader by dropping a massive number of op-eds and press releases on them, but at the same time (despite wasting far more text) it manages to be much less informative due to a fixation on transient, unimportant talking points and point-scoring by political talking heads rather than broad summaries.  Particular opposition to any version that devotes significant text to Friedman - yes, he has an economic background, but an opinion piece is still far lower-quality than the peer-reviewed paper that he is being used in an effort to rebut; his opinions are simply not noteworthy enough to be given the massive sprawling amount of text people are trying to give him here, and are generally unworthy of note when we have much better sources available in non-opinion venues. Version C is even worse (the one change from B's unacceptable sprawling mess seems to be a POV effort to imply something uncited about the effectiveness of the tariffs.)  Version D just...  kills the section almost entirely, which seems like a terrible idea because it loses vital, well-sourced context present in Version A.  And similarly, Version E, compared to A, removes numerous high-quality sources and facts cited to them in favor of relying on a tiny number of primary sources; it's a clear step down.  And option F is simply unacceptable; obviously omitting any context is unreasonable, but beyond that no one has raised any valid flaws with Version A beyond, essentially, disliking the conclusion that the cited economists reach.  Version A's opponents have repeatedly and decisively failed to argue that those economists are unrepresentative of the overarching analysis among top-quality sources (as can be seen by the far weaker sourcing in Version B), which makes their objections essentially an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE; plainly, given that the dispute is ultimately "should we mention what the majority of economists say, or not", version F is no compromise at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Version A. This version relies on much better sources and presents a far more neutral, informative, and complete summary of the background to the topic of the article. Version B is completely unacceptable because it relies almost entirely on primary, non-expert sources, and thus presents a skewed, inaccurate, and incomplete account. Those kinds of sources can be used, but should be used with care, and only to expand significant points of view to supplement the main text based on independent secondary sources. Versions C and E are very similar to Version B in that they are based mainly on primary sources and unreliable sources. Version D removes most of the background section and is thus also inferior to Version A because it lacks important information that is critical to readers' understanding of the topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Version d or f version A is too limited because its focus is on the trade deficit when the background reasons for the trade war is more multicuasal than that. Version B has the right idea because it tries to expand the focus but the references is of a lower-quality Although if there’s more that report on the things B is making then maybe they can go back in the article. but as of now i would argue the best options would be either a soft (D) or a hard redo (F) of the section. Festerhauer (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Festerhauer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * Version A' per Aquillion. It's not perfect, but at least it doesn't include WP:OR or non-reliable sources (eg. White House press releases, opinion pieces, which are only reliable for the source's opinion). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Version A for the far superior sourcing and providing a comparatively concise summary of the background of U.S. complaints in this trade relationship. Version B and C are both a no-go with the four full paragraphs at the end devoted to opinion pieces or columns. Version D, as puts it, is a denuding of key background. Version E has only journal citation, and on the tangential "human" rights" issue (which could also be a violation of WP:DUE in this context), compared to six with a DOI in Version A plus the WTO analysis. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Version A but with the caveat that version A isn't great or even good its just better than Version B, there is still massive room for improvement here and indeed improvement is necessary to bring Version A up to wikipedia standards. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Version A Has less WP:OR and WP:Synthesis compared to others. Other versions devolve into opinion pieces, which can go which ever way an editor feels that day. Albertaont (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * D/F: A,B,C and E fails NPOV as alluded to earlier. Will be willing to oversee a rewrite if that is agreed upon. The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Version A: Version A offers a summary of key points using the most reliable sources out of the various versions.• Version A covers major points of economic background from reliable sources (mostly peer-reviewed academic publications and generally reliable sources in WP:RSP), describes aspects with due weight, and is neutrally worded.

• Versions B and C dedicate substantial portions to opinions from individual columnists, are relatively poorly organized / less succinct, and provides less of an general overview than Version A.

• Version D provides lacks substantial economic background.

• Version E looks better than Versions B, C, and D, but offers less of a holistic summary of the economic relationship than Version A by largely focusing on the China-WTO status and economic conflicts (to the point of being undue weight with respect to the entire China-US economic relationship); the sourcing of Version E is not that bad, but it relies largely on old newspaper articles with contemporaneous reactions/analyses (which can run into WP:RSBREAKING-type issues), whereas Version A uses academic analyses further removed from the time periods. — MarkH21talk 07:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This entire article was a breeding ground for sockpuppeting by Waskerton. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
In relation to this comment and the related exchanges, and this ANI request, this is an invalid RFC and prospective contributors should accordingly refrain from providing their opinions until the relevant issues have been resolved. Flaughtin (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).


 * Since RfC statements need to be neutral and brief," per RfC, I don't expect visitors to take the time to consider all the options. I therefore suggest it would make more sense to simply revise Version B by either deleting or rewriting text and supporting citations which don't meet RS guidelines or any other timeline issues that most editors have a problem with. I can do that. --Light show (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer. I tried to salvage the usable parts of Version B in above. A major problem with Version B is that most of the sources aren't appropriate, for the reasons I stated above (some don't mention the trade war, some are low-quality and partisan). We should instead base the section on high-quality sources about the trade war.
 * I don't think this RFC needs six options, and I don't understand why so many options have been added. It seems to me two or three options should be enough. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If we stick to the RS guidelines, then anyone's opinion about a cite needs to reflect those. So it would seem an editor's statement about "what we can use," needs to be based on those also. If you're suggesting some hybrid RS, please explain. --Light show (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For instance, per RS guidelines, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Apparently, attribution is required with an opinion from a RS. --Light show (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with versions C-F? They look fine to me. Flaughtin (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * User talk:Light show There has to be an option that includes none of the above. That's one of the reasons why I initially removed this malformed RFC. Flaughtin (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * Since an RfC is supposed to be "neutral and brief," I feel that even the A and B option is too complicated and long. And each version is so different in style and subject matter, I'd anticipate many questions and comments from visitors, not unlike the 1.5 million words so far on the talk page. --Light show (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, per your wake-up notice a month ago, I revised the section (version B). But I don't recall your opinion or any suggestions for improvement. --Light show (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any comments because I was gone for that entire month but I thought my comment here sufficed as an endorsement (at that point anyway) of your version. Flaughtin (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).


 * Incomplete????????? You already have 6 options. In those very long discussions above, could you all really not come to some agreement to limit the choices to a reasonable number rather than needing more than 6 options??? Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we only need two options, or maybe three if we want to include a compromise option. I don't think we need six. As far as I can tell from the discussions, User:Thucydides411 and I are both fine with version A, while User:Flaughtin and User:Light show are both fine with version B, so it seems those are the only versions we need in the RFC. Flaughtin, could you explain why you feel we need more options than that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Version C presents the unmoderated and technically correct version of Version B as it draws on sources that don't explicitly mention the trade war in contravention to the prior consensus to not do so.
 * Version D presents the most neutral wording for the subsection.
 * Version E presents my most preferred version of the subsection.
 * Version F is self explanatory. Flaughtin (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  — Flaughtin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

Could you propose some changes to Version A that would make it more focused, in your opinion? Above, in #More_specific_examination_of_the_issues, has made some compromise proposals, which you might propose changes to. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I didn't really see that option as part of the RFC. I was going to say to I too little RL time to look at this fully, but I believe Mx. Granger's compromise versions edges towards what I think is okay as seems to better emphasis on China's growth.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've posted a neutral notification at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard alerting editors to this RFC as per Requests for comment. See WP:RSN Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
It seems there are issues with both versions from the opinions above. I'd suggest a rewrite using the "high quality" sources from Version A (that are not pay-walled,) with better sources than opinion pieces, which made up about half of Version B. Some better higher quality sources might include the ones below. A few of those may be in Version A, and all discuss the trade war background. More can also be added.
 * 1. "Understanding China-US Trade War: Causes, Economic Impact, and the Worst-Case Scenario", Chong and Li, Institute of Global Economics and Finance, Hong Kong, Feb. 2019
 * 2. "The US-China economic relationship" Brookings Institute Feb. 2019
 * 3. "Section 301: US Investigates Allegations of Forced Technology Transfers to China", Peterson Institute for International Economics Oct. 2017
 * 4. "Shifting IP Battlegrounds in the U.S.–China Trade War", Columbia Journal of Law, Feb. 2020
 * 5. "The Details of Trump’s Phase One Trade Deal with China", American Action Forum, Jan. 21, 2020
 * 6. "Five things to know about China’s promised crackdown on intellectual-property theft", Market Watch, Nov. 25, 2019
 * 7. "U.S.-China Trade: If We Get to Yes, Will It Make Any Difference?", The Foreign Service Journal, July/Aug 2019
 * 8. "U.S.-China Trade War and Its Global Impacts", China Quarterly 2018
 * 9. "US–China Strategic Competition", Asia-Pacific Programme Nov. 2019
 * 10. "China-U.S. Trade Issues, Congressional Research Service, July 2018
 * 11. "Priority Recommendations for U.S.-China Trade Negotiations", American-China Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 2019
 * 12. "FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO CHINA’S ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND INNOVATION UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974", U.S. Trade Representative
 * 13. "The IP Commission Report", 2013
 * 14. "The Week in Tech: What Trump’s Trade War Is Really About", New York Times, July 2018
 * 15. "The Future of America’s Contest with China", The New Yorker, Jan. 20, 2020 ``
 * Light show (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding these. I think some of them may be usable, though some require caution. As discussed at RSN, we should be cautious about relying on US government sources for the background section, because they're biased on this topic (the same is true of Chinese government sources). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether a source is paywalled has nothing to do with how reliable or DUE it is. You can always get paywalled sources through WP:TWL or at WP:RX. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestions on how to improve Version A would be more productive than a full rewrite. As for the sources you've listed above, they're of varying quality. Source #1 is great - it's an overview of the trade war written by economists and published in an economics journal, and it's been cited 25 times by other papers. It's also used in Version A. Source #2 gives the perspective of the US policy establishment, as it is published by a think tank with close ties to the US government. It could certainly be used to illustrate the US government's views, but it shouldn't be used to give a neutral overview of the trade war. I could continue to go down the list of sources, but in general, Version A already uses an array of sources that are of higher quality than sources 2-15 on your list (with the exception of your source #4, which would be worthwhile to include). Choosing Version A does not mean that the text is set in stone. It can still be expanded and amended later on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Background does not include speculations about the future
The following material, which is included in the Background section, is actually not background, but speculations about the future. It should therefore be relocated. The subject has been discussed above and no one has disputed that fact. --Light show (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, we just had an RfC on the background section.
 * Secondly, the above paragraph describes the mainstream view among economists on the causes of the US-China bilateral trade deficit, and the effects that tariffs will have (this consensus has turned out to be correct, as the effect of the tariffs has, in fact, been to cause trade diversion).
 * We've spent a lot of time discussing the background section, and the RfC came back strongly in favor of version A. We can still make small adjustments to the text, but removing an entire paragraph is really out of the question now. Moreover, looking over the entire article, the background section is in much better shape than most of the article. Our efforts should be focused on bringing the rest of the article up to the same standard as the background, rather than arguing endlessly over the background. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would make sense to work the information about trade diversion into other parts of the article, but the other sentences quoted here seem like part of the background to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The RFC was concerned with a general question: "Which version should we use for the first subsection of the "Background" section?" It did not claim that every fact or source in the two versions was either accurate, unbiased, properly stated, or did not include extraneous details. And it did not imply whichever version people voted for, it could never be improved with different sources or rephrasings. If anything, the very title of this new section implies extraneous topics: The US-China trade relationship. Which is also why the hatnote at the top of the new section points to the Main article about the topic: China–United States relations.
 * However, the main section of this apparently extraneous addition is called Background, so it seems that the overly-sourced text included in the quote box, which is not about the past, but the future, at a minimum belongs in some other section.
 * In any case, editors who preferred version A over B, wrote,"It's not perfect," or "version A isn't great or even good its just better than Version B, there is still massive room for improvement here and indeed improvement is necessary to bring Version A up to wikipedia standards." --Light show (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really not productive to continually relitigate the background section. It is, by far, the best written section in the article at the moment. The rest of the article is honestly a mess. That's where our focus should be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Have the banner issues been resolved here?
Particularly POV and weasel? They're a bit old and the banner is quite obtrusive. Are there some quick hits we can do to remove the tags, which are often quick to go up but slow to come down? soibangla (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that tags, especially multiple ones, are obtrusive. However, none of the causes for those have been dealt with. Simply look at the so-called "Background section," where the the first two large paragraphs have nothing to do with the trade war. POV? In the extreme, IMO. --Light show (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Skimming those two paragraphs, they seem like pretty standard "how we got here" stuff, though maybe verbose. Please would you cite specific passages that seem POV? soibangla (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Example: "More broadly, China's economic growth has been viewed by the US government as a challenge to American economic and geopolitical dominance." It cites two Chinese sources. Nowhere in any of the U.S. sources, including those from the strangely unacceptable list above ("Proposed rewrite" section), is the concept of "challenge" or "domination" an issue. --Light show (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That sentence seems to be cited to two high-quality academic journals. Their country of publication is not particularly relevant, but I note that they are not, because one of them is from Korea. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been largely absent from this article for months, but in perusing this Talk page I see you argued last October that the POV tag was not supported, which resulted in a rather contentious debate, including an assertion by that you used White House press releases and political commentator opinion pieces as sources, as you appeared to  assert non-US sources are inherently unacceptable, despite a tag suggesting the article may have a US-centric view from overreliance on US sources. Now, after saying tags, especially multiple ones, are obtrusive, you immediately added a new one calling for a lead rewrite. I would prefer to avoid battleground drama, but I ask you to make specific proposals here on Talk to mitigate your concerns so we can promptly resolve these disputes. I simply do not see POV in the two paragraphs which you assert are POV? In the extreme, IMO. "More broadly, China's economic growth has been viewed by the US government as a challenge to American economic and geopolitical dominance" is hard to dispute, and explains the hand-wringing about China across the political/economic spectrum for many years, and provides the backdrop for Trump's actions. 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs)
 * The tag added about the lead may only be the tip of the bias iceberg. The article has IMO become a flood of cherry-picked citations declaring the trade dispute as a failure while censoring articles from U.S. sources that tried to explain its causes. A few more recent examples:
 * A massive removal of highly relevant international support for the trade issues was made here under the claim it was not about the US-China trade war, when all those sources and events were specifically about it.
 * While almost all of the treatises and opinions which explained the issues behind the trade war in a balanced manner were removed as being US-centric, the opposite are readily included in dozens of cherry-picked opinion pieces such as this one, which support if not promote the so-called "failure" of the trade war.
 * As for avoiding "battleground drama," there is likewise no reason to add sources or topics such as this, (China Sends Warplanes to Taiwan Strait in a Show of Force to Biden), which do not even mention trade issues.
 * In any case, there's not much to add that hasn't been dealt with in the earlier discussions above. --Light show (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured cherry-picked citations declaring the trade dispute as a failure was inevitable. Please closely examine the ten refs to see the high quality of the sources that span practically the entire spectrum of perspectives, with a significant representation of conservative/libertarian sources that might be expected endorse the trade war, but evidently have been unable to do so in the face of overwhelming reality. This includes the op-ed you say is among cherry-picked opinion pieces which I noted in my edit summary is by Phil Gramm, a conservative Republican former senator with a PhD in economics, and a former economics professor at Texas A&M, who has since established himself as a party loyalist and is among the last people one would expect to write such a piece in the conservative WSJ opinion pages. Nevertheless, if you believe this is unfair cherrypicking, I strongly encourage you to provide reliable sources characterizing the trade war as a success. I have lost count of the times I have been accused of cherrypicking, then I request alternative sources, only to see my accuser vanish in silence. there's not much to add that hasn't been dealt with in the earlier discussions above, but there needs to be a resolution to these issues because this article cannot be allowed to be tagged as POV forever. And adding a new tag calling for a lead rewrite while stating there's not much to add that hasn't been dealt with in the earlier discussions above isn't particularly helpful. Let's try to collaborate in a collegial way to get it done. soibangla (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of collaboration, feel free to fix the essay in the lead, which as a summary of the article, should not actually have any citations, especially new ones. Then, if you're able, describe why Gramm's opinion piece should be kept while the long list of sources in the Proposed rewrite section above should be censored.
 * Naturally, the idea of failure or success is vague and premature. While it's easy to claim failure, some might also suggest that the officially signed trade deal with China a year ago,  implies some success: The pact is intended to open Chinese markets to more American companies, increase farm and energy exports and provide greater protection for American technology and trade secrets. China has committed to buying an additional $200 billion worth of American goods and services by 2021 and is expected to ease some of the tariffs it has placed on American products.--Light show (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See that word intended there, from the day the deal was signed? Have you seen any subsequent reliable source analysis of the actual outcome, which includes the expression "failed spectacularly?" soibangla (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you don't mind using PIIE as source, then why censor a similar PIEE article, #3 in the Proposed rewrite section? It explains in its final paragraph, that "Whatever approach is taken, changes in Chinese practices will take time." --Light show (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With reference to that linked article about the investigation, it always seemed odd that even after Trump opened it and initiated the trade war, he was greeted warmly by China a few months later. Yet he was given a hostile opposite welcome by one of our closest allies not long after. --Light show (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * why censor a similar PIEE article I wasn't here for that discussion, I didn't censor anything, and from what I can see in that thread I'm not sure anything was "censored" so much as it fell flat without gaining much consensus. And in any event, Trump is hardly the first or only person who has been concerned about tech transfer (he just publicly hollered louder about it) or for that matter China trade policies in general. It's his policy remedies that have drawn criticism, and based on literally centuries of evidence supplemented by extensive computer modeling, virtually all credible economists warned him they wouldn't work, and would actually backfire, and lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. Surprise! Who could have known? Right problem, wrong solution. What linked article about the investigation and why is it relevant, let alone comparisons between the reception from a world leader on an official state visit compared to that of street protestors? Anyway, I see you have significant problems with the article, and you seem to expect others to take action on your behalf and they don't seem willing to, so at this point I suggest you WP:BEBOLD and let's roll with WP:BRD and settle all this. soibangla (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: POV tag
Does the article contain endemic POV, or should the POV tag be removed? 20:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. 20:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. I can't see the endemic POV- unless someone wants to point it out specifically, the tag should be removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave I think the article looks more balanced since the tag was put up in June of 2020. But there really are still lots of news sources cited on the lead "yet over half of the 23 citations, including many in excess, are unique." This is not good because people are putting too many news sources in the lead - news sources are very volatile and show significant biases. More scholarly sources would be needed before removing it because it is a current event that has numerous opinions being pushed. At least it warns the readers that the content is volatile.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * POV tags are not meant to indicate an issue with sources; they are meant to indicate problems with the way that the article is written, and that the text should be revised to reflect a more neutral tone. If the only reason your are supporting there being a POV tag is because the sources are not ideal, that is inappropriate use of the flag. There are order template flags that would be better fitting for those particular concerns you have.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unless the sources are cherrypicked to push a POV, which I think is what they are suggesting. To be clear, I don't have an opinion either way on this matter, I just wanted to provide some clarity. BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutal description of outcome of Phase-I deal
The lede cites a WSJ article that discusses how China did not meet the purchase targets in the Phase-I deal, despite large increases in imports from the US. For example, the WSJ article notes,

Large increases in other sectors are also noted, as is a decrease in service exports. As the WSJ notes, the Chinese government says that the economic effects of the pandemic prevented it from reaching the purchase targets.

The lede boils all this down to: it expired in December 2021 with China failing by a wide margin to purchase American goods and services as agreed. This is a very partial and incomplete summary of what happened. The large increases in imports of US goods by China and the effects of the pandemic should also be noted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would this be acceptable? "it expired in December 2021 with China having substantially increased its imports of American goods and services beginning in 2020 yet failing to reach its agreed targets by a wide margin." soibangla (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)