![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Labeling his views as “fringe” by using one unnamed Economists opinion piece, one Bloomberg opinion piece written by an Australian economist at the University of Michigan, and another Bloomberg opinion piece written by an economics editor for Bloomberg Businessweek is not sufficient for labeling one’s ideas as “fringe.” None of the referenced articles even mention what of Mr. Navarro’s ideas are “fringe;” simply stating something is so doesn’t make it so without showing some examples. karagory ( talk) 17:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
"... restore longstanding text" Just because the claim was longstanding, does not make it any less potentially slanderous. Please reference the claims from multiple sources. 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Karagory ( talk)
“From autos to our stockpiles, we’re going to buy American,” Mr. Biden said in November. [1] I believe your initial recommendation of 'The section could also be called "controversial views"' would be an acceptable, and more accurate alternative. karagory ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOCRIT and WP:BLP need to be considered here. Note the concerns about criticism of living persons. Teishin ( talk) 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor(s) are not participating/refusing to participate in any meaningful dialog, thus I have requested a Wikipedia Third Opinion. Karagory ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor reverted the sentence without giving any reason or attempting any dialog in the talk page. Karagory ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders was/is also against the TPP as was/is Peter Navarro. Soon to be President Joseph Biden also has concerns about China trade. These were both mentioned as "fringe" by the articles referenced. I fail to see Mr. Sanders, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Biden as being "fringe" when it comes to this economic issue. What am I missing? User: Soibangl stated Mr. Navarro's recent election stances are fringe, however, the sentence in question deals with his economic ideas, that happen to coincide with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden at times. karagory ( talk) 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Fringe as it is referenced in Mr. Navarro's Wiki is a pejorative. "Fringe" as defined by the dictionary (the same way the U.S. Supreme Court holds common definitions) implies a very small number. The fact that Bernie Sanders holds the same position that Mr. Navarro holds on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which is referenced multiple times in articles purporting to show Mr. Navarro's fringe views) shows that the economic views that Mr. Navarro holds is not "fringe" (held by a very small number of people/economists). Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons states that " The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material" which has not shown that Mr. Navarro's views are held by a very small minority of people (Mr. Sanders being the perfect example of Mr. Navarro's views not being held by a small minority of people.) karagory ( talk) 13:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please provide a list of Mr. Navarro's "fringe" economic ideas. This would be a good starting point for discussion. I have provided evidence refuting the claim of "fringe" for Mr. Navarro's TTP and China trade stances. Providing me with 25 articles for me to read for homework is not sufficient. What is it that editor(s) claims is so "fringe?" I thank you in advance. karagory ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal, By Bob Davis, Jan. 11, 2021 4:36 pm ET: "... U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer helped move protectionism from the fringes of American policy-making to the core." Karagory ( talk) 12:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal, By Jacob M. Schlesinger, Sept. 10, 2020 1:34 pm ET: "Advisers to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden say they share the Trump administration’s assessment that China is a disruptive competitor." Karagory ( talk) 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This section has concluded with additional references/citations added to the sentence in question through the use of Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Karagory ( talk) 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
References
To add to this article: Navarro is Italian American. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It is inane to contrast Navarro's fringe rhetoric which is widely rejected by economists with a vague statement that "many" businesspeople agree with him. The editor 'Quaerens-veritatem' edit-warred this content in in the absence of consensus. The editor claims that a NYT article substantiates it, but it's misleading in the extreme. The NYT article explicitly says that "many businesspeople share" Navarro's view that China is praying on American companies (through for example IP infringement), but explicitly says that economists reject Navarro's "prescription" to those problems, such as raising tariffs on China. [1] There's absolutely nothing contentious about the fact that Chinese companies steal IP, get government support etc., yet the editor conflates this standard view with Navarro's fringe views to make readers think that Navarro's fringe views aren't actually fringe. This edit should be reverted ASAP [2]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"White House said it is committed to using tariffs and other tools to combat alleged unfair trade practices by Beijing" - U.S. to Take Hard Line on Chinese Trade Practices, Administration Says - WSJ March 1, 2021 Anyone else have any thoughts on this nature of tariffs? Karagory ( talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
"The Biden Administration is committed to using all available tools to take on the range of China’s unfair trade practices that continue to harm U.S. workers and businesses. These detrimental actions include China’s tariffs and non-tariff barriers to restrict market access, government-sanctioned forced labor programs, overcapacity in numerous sectors, industrial policies utilizing unfair subsidies and favoring import substitution, and export subsidies (including through export financing)." 2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020 Annual Report, Page 4 Karagory ( talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
"Today’s national security experts need to move beyond the prevailing neoliberal economic philosophy of the past 40 years." - Foreign Policy February 7, 2020, by Jennifer Harris, Jake Sullivan; Jake Sullivan is now President Biden’s national security adviser. Karagory ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
"Amid worries about vulnerability of semiconductor supply in China and Taiwan, Washington seeks to halt migration of chip making overseas" - Wall Street Journal - "China’s Rise Drives a U.S. Experiment in Industrial Policy" by Greg Ip, March 10, 2021. Karagory ( talk) 23:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
"New Trade Representative Says U.S. Isn’t Ready to Lift China Tariffs" - Wall Street Journal - By Bob Davis and Yuka Hayashi, March 29, 2021. Karagory ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Biden has left Trump's China tariffs in place. Here's why By Katie Lobosco, CNN Updated 10:35 AM ET, Thu March 25, 2021 Karagory ( talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The Reliable Sources cited to claim that Mr. Navarro is "fringe", used in part, Mr. Navarro's support of tariffs on Chinese goods for their determination of him being "fringe". I did not imply it, the Reliable Sources stated it. These Reliable Sources were then cited to justify this article's claim that Mr. Navarro is "fringe". It is not a false balance to point out, using Reliable Sources, that President Biden's administration also supports Chinese tariffs to balance the claim of "fringe". Neutrality requires that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints if they do exist; which in this case, a significant counterbalance exists. Karagory ( talk) 04:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Biden's administration also supports Chinese tariffs. It's that the existence of the tariffs has put Biden in a predicament about eliminating them as they formulate their China policy. It's early yet. soibangla ( talk) 14:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
"David Weinstein, a Columbia University economist, says tariffs may actually lower prices over the long term." - U.S. Manufacturers Blame Tariffs for Swelling Inflation - The Wall Street Journal, By Yuka Hayashi and Josh Zumbrun, May 30, 2021. Karagory ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
repeatedly and consistently objected to by editorsbased on little more than "it's just not fair!" Please provide reliable sources showing reputable people praising his expertise. Incidentally, his recent fascinating comments about the election and the pandemic, fields outside his purview, don't exactly bolster his reputation. soibangla ( talk) 20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
mischaracterization of my position. Once again, if editors insist
this article is failing to keep up with the timesthen it is incumbent upon them to provide recent reliable sources to support that assertion. But since you
concede that I have not prevailed in this debateI can only hope that this matter is resolved for good. soibangla ( talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This is very much into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory by this point. Volunteer Marek 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
"As recently as the early Trump years, centrist pundits in both parties were appalled at the China-bashing of hard-liners such as Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief China advisor, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who in May 2020 called for a reversal of U.S. economic offshoring in response to China’s 'predatory trade and economic policies.' Now Biden indulges in the same rhetoric with scarcely a pushback or a mention of its pitfalls." - The Bidenomics Revolution, by Michael Hirsh, June 9, 2021, Foreign Policy. Karagory ( talk) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"I do not see WP:FRINGEBLP says it's perjorative," -- Fringe Theory states it is a pejorative.
"such that they counter the many reliable sources showing reputable people calling his views fringe" -- see "The Bidenomics Revolution" referenced above.
"biden is not an economist. there are all kinds of politicians who hold fringe views on trade. unclear why this is juxtaposed in the lead" -- Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented (pejorative stated in lead demands balance also be presented in the lead). How can President's Biden's views on trade be considered "fringe?" Please reference a Reliable Source stating such... otherwise the editor is presenting Original Research.
President Biden's views on Mr. Navarro's rhetoric offers balance to the pejorative claim that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe." Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented. Where is the balance in the pejorative statement that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe?" President Biden's view would be an excellent balance. Karagory ( talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"But there is also plenty of data to show that China was the loser in the trade war because it took a bigger economic hit than the U.S., with much of the evidence compiled by Chinese economists." - The Wall Street Journal, "Who Won the U.S.-China Trade War?", May 20, 2022. Some editors are continuing to refuse to give a balanced portrait of Mr. Navarro’s trade/tariff views. Karagory ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
This fringe is nonsensical. Current US economic policy is mainstream. The majority of economic activity on the globe is conducted in USD. It was never fringe and given now that the Biden administration has continued same policy-it is bipartisan mainstream. This is the result of collating leftist opinion fom nothing but leftist sources, end up with nonsense. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:35AE:C282:6234:E862 ( talk) 21:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
"We’ve been doing FTAs for almost forty years now. And while some sectors of the economy have benefited, many in this room know that the traditional approach to trade—marked by aggressive liberalization and tariff elimination—also had significant costs: concentration of wealth. Fragile supply chains. De-industrialization, offshoring, and the decimation of manufacturing communities." - Remarks by Ambassador Katherine Tai at the Roosevelt Institute's Progressive Industrial Policy Conference, October, 2022. Karagory ( talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Editor is engaging in edit warring. Karagory ( talk) 22:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor is archiving an active discussion. Will the editor please explain? Karagory ( talk) 22:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The use of "fringe" is under active discussion. Please do not remove (archive) the discussion. Please explain your actions. Karagory ( talk) 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
As I have stated previously, I am actively providing new and update reliable sources as they are published. This is not a dead thread, as evidence by an editor statement of only a few days ago. I am seeking consensus with updated reliable sources. I do not understand your false accusations. Please explain yourself further? Why are you trying to stop consensus building with new reliable sources? Karagory ( talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Your accusation of WP:DROPTHESTICK is false. Dropthestick states " if you continually refer to old news," which I am not doing. I am quoting recent reliable sources. If editor no longer feels like contemplating new information, please do not stop those editors wishing improve upon the article.
Your charge of "meaningless" is disconcerting; reliable sources are not "meaningless." Your charge against another editors thoughts goes against the process of consensus building. "as you'be been told again and again"; editors do not "tell" other editors. Editors are trying to make a good article by consensus. Your attitude directed towards this editor is troubling. Karagory ( talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
“I think what you see right now is we’re on a path, working together to try to bring us back to a new model,” Tai said, aided by the China tariffs and the big investments Congress and the Biden administration are making in domestic manufacturing. In recent weeks, Tai has stood by her position of refusing to negotiate traditional free trade agreements that involve tariffs cuts, despite pressure from the business community, farm groups and leading Republican members of Congress. - Balloon drama pumps up trade tensions, By Steven Overly, February 13, 2023, Politico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Labeling his views as “fringe” by using one unnamed Economists opinion piece, one Bloomberg opinion piece written by an Australian economist at the University of Michigan, and another Bloomberg opinion piece written by an economics editor for Bloomberg Businessweek is not sufficient for labeling one’s ideas as “fringe.” None of the referenced articles even mention what of Mr. Navarro’s ideas are “fringe;” simply stating something is so doesn’t make it so without showing some examples. karagory ( talk) 17:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
"... restore longstanding text" Just because the claim was longstanding, does not make it any less potentially slanderous. Please reference the claims from multiple sources. 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Karagory ( talk)
“From autos to our stockpiles, we’re going to buy American,” Mr. Biden said in November. [1] I believe your initial recommendation of 'The section could also be called "controversial views"' would be an acceptable, and more accurate alternative. karagory ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOCRIT and WP:BLP need to be considered here. Note the concerns about criticism of living persons. Teishin ( talk) 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor(s) are not participating/refusing to participate in any meaningful dialog, thus I have requested a Wikipedia Third Opinion. Karagory ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor reverted the sentence without giving any reason or attempting any dialog in the talk page. Karagory ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders was/is also against the TPP as was/is Peter Navarro. Soon to be President Joseph Biden also has concerns about China trade. These were both mentioned as "fringe" by the articles referenced. I fail to see Mr. Sanders, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Biden as being "fringe" when it comes to this economic issue. What am I missing? User: Soibangl stated Mr. Navarro's recent election stances are fringe, however, the sentence in question deals with his economic ideas, that happen to coincide with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden at times. karagory ( talk) 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Fringe as it is referenced in Mr. Navarro's Wiki is a pejorative. "Fringe" as defined by the dictionary (the same way the U.S. Supreme Court holds common definitions) implies a very small number. The fact that Bernie Sanders holds the same position that Mr. Navarro holds on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which is referenced multiple times in articles purporting to show Mr. Navarro's fringe views) shows that the economic views that Mr. Navarro holds is not "fringe" (held by a very small number of people/economists). Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons states that " The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material" which has not shown that Mr. Navarro's views are held by a very small minority of people (Mr. Sanders being the perfect example of Mr. Navarro's views not being held by a small minority of people.) karagory ( talk) 13:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please provide a list of Mr. Navarro's "fringe" economic ideas. This would be a good starting point for discussion. I have provided evidence refuting the claim of "fringe" for Mr. Navarro's TTP and China trade stances. Providing me with 25 articles for me to read for homework is not sufficient. What is it that editor(s) claims is so "fringe?" I thank you in advance. karagory ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal, By Bob Davis, Jan. 11, 2021 4:36 pm ET: "... U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer helped move protectionism from the fringes of American policy-making to the core." Karagory ( talk) 12:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal, By Jacob M. Schlesinger, Sept. 10, 2020 1:34 pm ET: "Advisers to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden say they share the Trump administration’s assessment that China is a disruptive competitor." Karagory ( talk) 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This section has concluded with additional references/citations added to the sentence in question through the use of Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Karagory ( talk) 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
References
To add to this article: Navarro is Italian American. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It is inane to contrast Navarro's fringe rhetoric which is widely rejected by economists with a vague statement that "many" businesspeople agree with him. The editor 'Quaerens-veritatem' edit-warred this content in in the absence of consensus. The editor claims that a NYT article substantiates it, but it's misleading in the extreme. The NYT article explicitly says that "many businesspeople share" Navarro's view that China is praying on American companies (through for example IP infringement), but explicitly says that economists reject Navarro's "prescription" to those problems, such as raising tariffs on China. [1] There's absolutely nothing contentious about the fact that Chinese companies steal IP, get government support etc., yet the editor conflates this standard view with Navarro's fringe views to make readers think that Navarro's fringe views aren't actually fringe. This edit should be reverted ASAP [2]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"White House said it is committed to using tariffs and other tools to combat alleged unfair trade practices by Beijing" - U.S. to Take Hard Line on Chinese Trade Practices, Administration Says - WSJ March 1, 2021 Anyone else have any thoughts on this nature of tariffs? Karagory ( talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
"The Biden Administration is committed to using all available tools to take on the range of China’s unfair trade practices that continue to harm U.S. workers and businesses. These detrimental actions include China’s tariffs and non-tariff barriers to restrict market access, government-sanctioned forced labor programs, overcapacity in numerous sectors, industrial policies utilizing unfair subsidies and favoring import substitution, and export subsidies (including through export financing)." 2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020 Annual Report, Page 4 Karagory ( talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
"Today’s national security experts need to move beyond the prevailing neoliberal economic philosophy of the past 40 years." - Foreign Policy February 7, 2020, by Jennifer Harris, Jake Sullivan; Jake Sullivan is now President Biden’s national security adviser. Karagory ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
"Amid worries about vulnerability of semiconductor supply in China and Taiwan, Washington seeks to halt migration of chip making overseas" - Wall Street Journal - "China’s Rise Drives a U.S. Experiment in Industrial Policy" by Greg Ip, March 10, 2021. Karagory ( talk) 23:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
"New Trade Representative Says U.S. Isn’t Ready to Lift China Tariffs" - Wall Street Journal - By Bob Davis and Yuka Hayashi, March 29, 2021. Karagory ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Biden has left Trump's China tariffs in place. Here's why By Katie Lobosco, CNN Updated 10:35 AM ET, Thu March 25, 2021 Karagory ( talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The Reliable Sources cited to claim that Mr. Navarro is "fringe", used in part, Mr. Navarro's support of tariffs on Chinese goods for their determination of him being "fringe". I did not imply it, the Reliable Sources stated it. These Reliable Sources were then cited to justify this article's claim that Mr. Navarro is "fringe". It is not a false balance to point out, using Reliable Sources, that President Biden's administration also supports Chinese tariffs to balance the claim of "fringe". Neutrality requires that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints if they do exist; which in this case, a significant counterbalance exists. Karagory ( talk) 04:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Biden's administration also supports Chinese tariffs. It's that the existence of the tariffs has put Biden in a predicament about eliminating them as they formulate their China policy. It's early yet. soibangla ( talk) 14:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
"David Weinstein, a Columbia University economist, says tariffs may actually lower prices over the long term." - U.S. Manufacturers Blame Tariffs for Swelling Inflation - The Wall Street Journal, By Yuka Hayashi and Josh Zumbrun, May 30, 2021. Karagory ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
repeatedly and consistently objected to by editorsbased on little more than "it's just not fair!" Please provide reliable sources showing reputable people praising his expertise. Incidentally, his recent fascinating comments about the election and the pandemic, fields outside his purview, don't exactly bolster his reputation. soibangla ( talk) 20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
mischaracterization of my position. Once again, if editors insist
this article is failing to keep up with the timesthen it is incumbent upon them to provide recent reliable sources to support that assertion. But since you
concede that I have not prevailed in this debateI can only hope that this matter is resolved for good. soibangla ( talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This is very much into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory by this point. Volunteer Marek 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
"As recently as the early Trump years, centrist pundits in both parties were appalled at the China-bashing of hard-liners such as Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief China advisor, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who in May 2020 called for a reversal of U.S. economic offshoring in response to China’s 'predatory trade and economic policies.' Now Biden indulges in the same rhetoric with scarcely a pushback or a mention of its pitfalls." - The Bidenomics Revolution, by Michael Hirsh, June 9, 2021, Foreign Policy. Karagory ( talk) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"I do not see WP:FRINGEBLP says it's perjorative," -- Fringe Theory states it is a pejorative.
"such that they counter the many reliable sources showing reputable people calling his views fringe" -- see "The Bidenomics Revolution" referenced above.
"biden is not an economist. there are all kinds of politicians who hold fringe views on trade. unclear why this is juxtaposed in the lead" -- Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented (pejorative stated in lead demands balance also be presented in the lead). How can President's Biden's views on trade be considered "fringe?" Please reference a Reliable Source stating such... otherwise the editor is presenting Original Research.
President Biden's views on Mr. Navarro's rhetoric offers balance to the pejorative claim that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe." Biographies of living persons requires that balance is presented. Where is the balance in the pejorative statement that Mr. Navarro views are "fringe?" President Biden's view would be an excellent balance. Karagory ( talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"But there is also plenty of data to show that China was the loser in the trade war because it took a bigger economic hit than the U.S., with much of the evidence compiled by Chinese economists." - The Wall Street Journal, "Who Won the U.S.-China Trade War?", May 20, 2022. Some editors are continuing to refuse to give a balanced portrait of Mr. Navarro’s trade/tariff views. Karagory ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
This fringe is nonsensical. Current US economic policy is mainstream. The majority of economic activity on the globe is conducted in USD. It was never fringe and given now that the Biden administration has continued same policy-it is bipartisan mainstream. This is the result of collating leftist opinion fom nothing but leftist sources, end up with nonsense. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:35AE:C282:6234:E862 ( talk) 21:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
"We’ve been doing FTAs for almost forty years now. And while some sectors of the economy have benefited, many in this room know that the traditional approach to trade—marked by aggressive liberalization and tariff elimination—also had significant costs: concentration of wealth. Fragile supply chains. De-industrialization, offshoring, and the decimation of manufacturing communities." - Remarks by Ambassador Katherine Tai at the Roosevelt Institute's Progressive Industrial Policy Conference, October, 2022. Karagory ( talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Editor is engaging in edit warring. Karagory ( talk) 22:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor is archiving an active discussion. Will the editor please explain? Karagory ( talk) 22:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The use of "fringe" is under active discussion. Please do not remove (archive) the discussion. Please explain your actions. Karagory ( talk) 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
As I have stated previously, I am actively providing new and update reliable sources as they are published. This is not a dead thread, as evidence by an editor statement of only a few days ago. I am seeking consensus with updated reliable sources. I do not understand your false accusations. Please explain yourself further? Why are you trying to stop consensus building with new reliable sources? Karagory ( talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Your accusation of WP:DROPTHESTICK is false. Dropthestick states " if you continually refer to old news," which I am not doing. I am quoting recent reliable sources. If editor no longer feels like contemplating new information, please do not stop those editors wishing improve upon the article.
Your charge of "meaningless" is disconcerting; reliable sources are not "meaningless." Your charge against another editors thoughts goes against the process of consensus building. "as you'be been told again and again"; editors do not "tell" other editors. Editors are trying to make a good article by consensus. Your attitude directed towards this editor is troubling. Karagory ( talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
“I think what you see right now is we’re on a path, working together to try to bring us back to a new model,” Tai said, aided by the China tariffs and the big investments Congress and the Biden administration are making in domestic manufacturing. In recent weeks, Tai has stood by her position of refusing to negotiate traditional free trade agreements that involve tariffs cuts, despite pressure from the business community, farm groups and leading Republican members of Congress. - Balloon drama pumps up trade tensions, By Steven Overly, February 13, 2023, Politico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)