Talk:China–United States trade war

Rename Article to 2018 Gobal Trade War?

The Canadian tariffs on American goods have gone into effect, making the trade war go beyond the US and China. I don't know if or when the EU's tariffs on US goods will come into effect, but it's obvious this trade war is now a global one. Elishop (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that the trade wars involving US and Canada/EU are different from the China-US trade war. We cannot rename 2018 China–United States trade war to cover all these trade wars until enough reliable sources call theses as a global trade war. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support renaming to 2018 global trade war or Trump's global trade war[1][2][3], and expanding the scope of this article to include the EU and Canadian retaliatory tariffs. Unless Turkey becomes a major factor, we should call it a global, not gobal trade war.- MrX 🖋 17:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A merge is good, but how about 2018 U.S. trade wars? I think "U.S." is a more appropriately formal name, and talking about wars plural emphasizes the separate-but-interrelated nature of the various actions. (It may be that separate aspects later develop enough to warrant their own articles, but I think an overview article will still be wanted.) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps we should consider more neutral language, such as "trade dispute". Seems premature and sensationalist (and non-encyclopedic) to already be calling it a "trade war". SecretName101 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @SecretName101: best discussed at § Page move below, where "dispute" is an alternative under consideration. I can live with either, but as I say below, "dispute" implies discussion before shots fired, but this went pretty directly to a (metaphorical) exchange of lie ammunition, so I worry that "dispute" is being too milquetoast and euphemistic. Also, the most common name I see in the press is "trade war". https://www.npr.org/2018/07/07/626929883/is-trade-war-accurate discusses the appropriateness of the term. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. 2018 China–United States trade war was created as a spin-off of Trump tariffs, and is long enough to be an independent article. If it is renamed to something like 2018 Gobal Trade War or 2018 U.S. trade wars, it will be too similar to Trump tariffs. This article should focus on the trade war between US and China. The general information about the so-called global trade war can be added to article Trump tariffs. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neo-Jay. — JFG ^talk 18:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no trade war between the US and EU, there simply hasn't been the retaliatory to-and-fro. In fact, the US and EU are discussing reducing tariffs. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is confusing and contradictory as heck

“ 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] ” — Special:PermanentLink/849254847

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)

Page move

Moved from User talk:Muboshgu § 2018 China–United States trade dispute

 – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone renamed this page to a trade dispute without discussion when all RS refer to it by the COMMONNAME of trade war. Please revert it back and add page protection until discussion reaches a different consensus. I cannot do it because a redirect is blocking me. Also the talk page still has a capitalized "Dispute"--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Also this was done by an SPA [4] who came in just to do this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I just fixed the location of the talk page. Given the nature of this issue, I am not going to engage in a move war. It was at "dispute" when I posted it. I suggest a discussion on the talk page to decide between "dispute" vs. "war". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your predicament. Can you suggest a solution in the mean? How can we allow an SPA to POV move like this without discussion and block a revert page move like this?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm debating this. I see it was at "war" from June 15 until today. Perhaps I should move it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: After more consideration, the page name was stable for long enough that the move made today should be undone, so I have undone it. A move discussion could be beneficial to codify consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and Coffeeandcrumbs: IMHO, either is fine. But I worry that "disputes" is a bit milquetoast, especially given the abrupt and unilateral beginning; it falsely implies that there was some meaningful discussion preceding the recourse to tariffs. (As an example of a dispute, softwood lumber has been a longstanding contentious issue between the U.S. and Canada.) Also, it's Trump's own word: "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." 209.209.238.189 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Please move this talk page as well. Thank you!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems MrX did so already. Odd it didn't move with the main page. I guess a side effect of the earlier page moves. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed removal of {{fact}} in the leading sentence

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

Date format

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

Missing rationales for the tariffs

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

Propose using "dispute" instead of "trade war"

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

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

Should the article title use the term "dispute" instead of "trade war"? Support --Light show (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm not strongly in favor of one term over the other, since the MSM obviously uses "trade war" in most headlines. But I'm aware that the MSM, as profit-making enterprises, will sensationalize stories when possible. And since "dispute" is neutral, and was used by all the sources I listed in their recent headlines, I thought the question was worth considering. I also thought that China's instructions to their own media to tone down the "war" aspect was relevant.

A bit off-topic, but I likewise took notice early last year after North Korea started testing missiles, that a number of UK papers (not U.S. papers) immediately began publishing multiple news stories with "World War 3" in their headlines (i.e., Express, The Sun, Daily Star, Mirror, Independent, etc.) So here's the U.S. dealing with NK, and our UK ally is turning it via headlines into a hot war. I mention this because for something as dangerous as international disputes, I really didn't appreciate seeing the media use sensational headlines to sell papers. I therefore think a neutral title is preferred for an encyclopedia. --Light show (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, generally speaking, I don't think that the word "dispute" is more neutral than "war". The two words can be neutrally used in different cases. It is not neutral to use "dispute" when "war" should be used (for example, it's not neutral to call "World War II" as "World Dispute II"). Secondly, IMHO, the scale of this trade conflict (or whatever we call it) makes it correct and appropriate to call it as a "trade war". Exclusively calling it just a "trade dispute" is not neutral and is just deferring to some political concerns. And I strongly disagree that the Chinese government's choice of words is more neutral or advisable than mainstream media's. But I don't want to spend my time on arguing which word is more neutral in this case and whether calling it a "trade war" is "sensationalizing stories" or just describing the fact as I think that the answers to these questions are just POV. What we should follow here is Wikipedia:Common name. "Trade dispute" was just used in all the sources you listed in their recent headlines, and what you listed were just a small part of those media's reports. It is "trade war" that is the common name, and should be used as the title of this article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not strongly leaning toward either term. But when you wrote, "I don't think that the word 'dispute' is more neutral than 'war,' I have to disagree. For instance, the CFR article gave a good summary for a non-MSM publication in their article titled "U.S.-China Trade Dispute." From the first paragraph: "The two largest economies in the world are exchanging threats of retaliatory tariffs, arousing concerns of a trade war and its repercussions... Speakers discuss the recent developments of additional tariffs, the implications of a possible trade war, and the impact on the future of U.S.-China relations." (emphasis added)

The point is that "trade war" is very often used looking ahead, as a future possibility. I see that in about half the articles using "trade war." The BBC's recent article is typical, "How a US-China trade war could hurt us all." Or CNBC: "While there is a concern that the trade dispute between the United States and China could escalate." Many headlines and stories using "trade war" often see it as a risk, not an absolute event, as today's headline in The Hill did: "EU presses China to open up economy, avoid trade war".

I think everyone agrees there is a trade "dispute," but they don't all consider it a "trade war." Even the Smoot–Hawley Tariffs, which imposed tariffs on 20,000 products, lasted for many years and was retaliated against, is not described as having been a "trade war." --Light show (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The CFR article you mentioned was published on June 26, while the tariffs actually started on July 6. So it's understandable that it called the trade war as "possible". The BBC's article that you described as "typical" was published on July 5, also one day before the tariffs began, but it already described the trade war as something that was happening ("US and China are at the beginning of a trade war"), not just a "future possibility". The future possibility that the article talks about is the effect of the trade war, not the trade war itself. And we don't need everyone to agree that this is a trade war. Wikipedia:Common name does not require that the article title should be accepted by everyone. What we need to see is which name is the common name, i.e., used by a significant majority of sources. And we should not presume that those sources using "trade war" agree that the phrase "trade war" they use can be appropriately replaced by "trade dispute". The two phrases are different concepts and, as I put above, can be neutrally used in different cases. It is not neutral to use "trade dispute" when "trade war" should be used. As for Smoot–Hawley Tariffs, the current version of article Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act even does not mention "trade dispute", but "trade war" is at least used by one of its references (McDonald, Judith; O'Brien, Anthony Patrick; Callahan, Colleen (1997), "Trade Wars: Canada's Reaction to the Smoot–Hawley Tariff", Journal of Economic History, 57 (4): 802–26, doi:10.1017/S0022050700019549, JSTOR 2951161). And by the way, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs are also described as having "inspired a trade war" by the BBC's article that you described as "typical" above. In short, it's quite another issue how article Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act should be edited. That article may not be the perfect model that this article should follow.--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment both are inaccurate. This is more than a dispute because there have been actions, not merely words. It isn't quite a "trade war", either, though it may become one. The word "war" is overused. Tariffs are not war. If you don't understand what an actual war is like, I recommend All Quiet on the Western Front as an introduction. I'd suggest talking to a few people who have been to war, but they might not want to tell you. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Jamie Dimon says it is not a trade war. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• We should use the common name, not the name used by a specific person. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Some sources are more reliable than others. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Why is a banker more reliable than mainstream media? And by the way, Jamie Dimon called this as a "trade skirmish", not a trade dispute, per the source you provided above. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Theft" of intellectual property

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

This article addresses your point: "For instance, the Chinese government likes to claim that it doesn’t “force” technology transfers to local firms; foreign companies do so voluntarily. That’s disingenuous: In certain sectors, such as automobiles, regulation has been designed to leave foreign companies little choice." In my opinion, putting "theft" in quotation marks goes too far in the direction of skepticism. How about "A number of experts have focused on China's alleged theft of intellectual property"? Λυδαcιτγ 06:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How about "acquisition of intellectual property" or "transfer of intellectual property"? Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, there is some actual theft. For example, "One of the most recent high profile examples of theft of US intellectual property happened earlier this year. In January, a Beijing-based wind turbine company was found guilty in the US of stealing trade secrets, using secretly downloaded source code stolen from a Massachusetts company." The article goes on, "Total theft of US trade secrets accounts for anywhere from $180 billion to $540 billion per year, according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property -- as "the world's principal IP infringer," China accounts for the most of that theft." [5] CNBC just reports it as "China's alleged theft of intellectual property", which I think we should follow. Λυδαcιτγ 02:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2018

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

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

---

2018 China–United States trade war → 2018 China–United States trade dispute – The term "trade war" is possibly inaccurate. This nomination is procedural as there have been several discussions and moves but no WP:RM discussion; I am neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Trade war" is much more commonly used, and should be used as the title per Wikipedia:Common name. Whether "trade war" is inaccurate is irrelevant to the discussion if it is the common name. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only is it the common name, but as per the trade war article this meets the definition perfectly. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Neo-Jay. "Trade war" is the common name. Dappl (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a commonly used name and trade war in the article name makes sense. Felicia (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Change Trade War to Trade Conflict(Title Change)

I believe that Trade War, should be changed to Trade Conflict,

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

Siccsucc (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Request correction for incorrectly attributed quote

I am a COI editor requesting a correction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background subsection off topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support: Per Wildcursive's rationale above, The first paragraph cites professional contents to describe and explain what China's system is as most people don't understand or misunderstand. And per Waskerton's rationale, The section is wholly relevant. it explains the ideological (in other word cultural, political cultural) reason that make this trade "war."
  

But since this article is about a current event, the 2018 Trade War, both of those rationales are opinions about other stuff, such as "China's system," and "ideological, cultural, and political" historical background, which are way off topic. As such they go against the purpose of WP, which should avoid "essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." And the section gets too close to straight propaganda, ie., stating facts "used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception ..." So I agree with User STSC, that since WP should not engage in soapboxing, regardless of the truth of any facts cited, that section doesn't belong. --Light show (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• • @STSC: @Wildcursive:
  • Nobody is insult the intelligence of anyone we are saying you must be an idiot to want what you want which is to delete ENTIRE section. I repeat again because it is obvious you did not read what i say if there is OR or soapbox then you delete that content not do a whole mass deletion of the paragraph. I have also undone your massive revert (purge) of the section ([6] and [7]) DISCUSS this first lots of the materiall you removed is well source and actually IN the source. this is not like a video game you eliminate a bunch of things and pretend there are 0 consequences. i have notifiied Wildcursive as he is the user who put most of material you took out and involve him in this convo to see what can be done about consensus over the content. Waskerton (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As per above, this section is off-topic and biased. For one, the content belongs in a separate article documenting economic policy. Also, @Waskerton: The background section tries accurately capturing where the anger and fear came from and explaining American's minset now., if we additionally choose to document propaganda, it needs to be WP:NPOV. Wakari07 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Comment @Wakari07: firstly this t is example of wikhounding as i have clashed with you on other pages and i will report you to ani if you remove any material in concened pharagraph on basis of his votestack attempt. there is no way you would found your way on this vote except for my involvvemnet here when you basicaly everything you do is just edit on portal news. As for your hysterical, fkae "arguments": firstly as has been main point of the paragraph is not economic so your advice of put the material in separate article about economic policy make 0 sense. And as for "propaganda" you should note it was not made by my the material was not writen by me. And in any case they are all attribute with good sourcing to notable figures all with wiki article...pretty much like how every article in wikipedia si written. Waskerton (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The article page is on my watchlist since August, when User:Waskerton was barely one week old. And naturally, since I'm involved in almost endless, almost fruitless "talks" with them [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], my attention was directed to this talk too. Wakari07 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The Waskerton account was created on 16 August 2018 and it has involved many edit wars. It looks like a sock to me. STSC (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Whether section about China's general politics and economy belong

Does the sub-section under Background, titled Structure of China's political economy system, belong in this article? --Light show (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• No: It is an off-topic commentary by one editor. The consensus shown above is against including someone's summary and opinion about a massive subject such as this, even if it fit the topic of the article. And because all of it is simply a multi, over-cited critique about China's policies, it clearly goes against NPOV in any case.--Light show (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo of liu he and other photos

@Tobby72: Per your edit wars here and here for the liu he photo i have removed the liu he AND your photos you includ here until an agreeement on this can be occurred. Per brd do not restore ANY of this material till we discuss this or i take you to administrator incident place for edit war on this article and the other ones (Miao Wei, Canada china relations and Wilbur Ross). Waskerton (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted since I see no argument here to remove these relevant and informative additions. Wakari07 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Tobby72 hasn't responded and you have not made arguments to KEEP the additions either. discuss here first Waskerton (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Waskerton: I agree with @Wakari07:, no reasonable argument, just your threats and intimidation. My additions are relevant and the CONSENSUS is against you, Waskerton. Also beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No intimidation by me and bad example of consensus here as wakari07 has clashed on other pages before. Making this as result example of vote stacking. Waskerton (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You are wikihounding by reverting my edits, Waskerton — diff, diff, diff, diff. On your edit: also read Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:OWNER. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are wikihounding more ([14]). more of that and we go to ani Waskerton (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Waskerton: more threat and still no argument. Wakari07 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)