Talk:China warns US to avoid trade confrontation

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"China warns US on trade" is the headline that sums up these high-level talks? Also, the format is highly unusual, with each section introduced by a quote from Wu Yi. I don't want to go as far as disputing the article, but it does seem less than neutral (see WN:NPOV. Further, the portions that are below each quote from Wu Yi are not exactly news, they could have all been written months ago, basically just background. --SVTCobra 00:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The news event is just the uttering quote itself. It happened yesterday. The rest is just the context of the relationship between the two countries, and reinforces to the reader just how close the US and China could get to a trade war. Do what you need with the format, it's my first article. NByz 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly (sort of, I don't think we are close to a trade war and the US politicians that complain are just blowing smoke up the asses of their constituents). If one "boils off the fat" the article is down to two sentences. --SVTCobra 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and my purpose isn't to editorialize. I think that this is an issue that doesn't receive a lot of attention, but warrants it. To understand it in a historical context though, the summary is important. In my opinion, as China grows, both economically and politically, it will begin to rub shoulders with the current superpower. Swapping blows in terms of international trade (even if they are just using "moral suasion" (I prefer that phrase over "blowing smoke up their asses" (though you're quite on base))) to pursue their ends (pun intended), is just a start. Or so history would suggest. NByz 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I think someone else should de-POV it. Probably not best that I go it alone. NByz 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the neutrality issue, there is something that is confusing me. In the first section it mentions that "US officials...claim that the yuan is still undervalued." But in the second section it states that "manufacturing groups have been lobbying both the US impose penalties on China...for...overvaluing the yuan." Is this contradictory, or is it referring to two different things and I missed something? Jcart1534 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I just added that little part as a recap, near the end. My mistake! US manufacturing groups claim the yuan is 'under'valued vs. where it would be set in a competitive, liquid market. NByz 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on neutrality[edit]

This article comes down heavily against trade barriers and protectionism. Although, I happen to personally agree with this POV, it is not neutral. --SVTCobra 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its is not neutral. Will tag as such. DragonFire1024 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most economics programs share this 'view', conceding that trade can make certain groups (or owners of certain factors of production) worse off, though, in theory, the winners can compensate the losers by more than the amount they have lost by. Because of how politically loaded this view is (the British empire stopped sharing in it when they were overtaken by the Americans in the early 20th century, for example), I agree that isn't NPOV. Any suggestions? Other than just identifying those loaded statements with "many economists suggest..." and things like that? NByz 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be looked at again? I don't think it is too bad, in terms of being one-sided. Jcart1534 03:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movies and software is common in China. It wasn't until April 2006 that the Chinese government issued the requirement that all government computers use legal, or non-pirated, software.

Articles should not lean on any side, even if it's true. Needs to be re-written in NPOV or removed.

These moves may be considered preemptive to Congress' "27% tariff on all Chinese goods" bill.

Sounds like opinion piece.

...but it has not made significant legislative progress.

Needs to be re-written in NPOV or removed. Sounds like opinion piece.

Tariffs make imported products relatively more expensive than their domestic counterparts. Tariffs raise the price of the good to consumers, but make domestic producers better off.

Uses weasel words. Needs to be re-written in NPOV or removed.

Under current economic theory, protectionism generally makes society worse off, as the loss to consumers and foreign producers outweighs the gain to domestic producers.

See above comment.

...It is generally thought to lower standards of living on both sides.

See above comment. Sounds like opinion piece.


The Chinese yuan has been pegged to the US dollar for years.

How many years? Sentence doesn't sound right.

Note that there may be some sentences missing or wrong sentences listed. Was rushing...sorry.

have taken a shot at copyediting. some of the "opinion sounding" bits are pretty well established statements of how economies work, they don't particularly need to be attributed like an opinion but do need to be sourced. what i'd like to see is a little more views on the Chinese side - all they get to say right now is the Wu's "play nice" statement. –Doldrums(talk) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to tone it down a bit. Interesting article.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on version as of 21:27, 24 May 2007[edit]

Some observations:

  1. A better job needs to be done in the first part to distinguish positions that are current credited to "US officials" and "American officials" and "officials." Some of these are positions of the Administration (Paulson and departments such as the Treasury and Commerce). Others are positions of Legislators (individuals such as Schumer, but also groups in Congress from both parties). And some are the positions of Lobby groups (such as manufacturing associations or the MPAA).
  2. Also, the article paints a rosy picture of China on protectionism. It solely focuses on Wu's quotes against protectionism. The article points out various proposed US tariffs, but fails to mention protectionist measures that are already in place in China. Such things include tariffs on American energy technology products and services sold in China and a cap on foreign ownership at 25% in Chinese companies. (and yes, these things are in the listed sources, but left out of our article for some reason)

I hope this will be helpful. --SVTCobra 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a whack at it, as well. I think I, and others, managed to address most of the concerns expressed on the Talk page? Thanks to everyone who put the time into this. It seemed a shame to let it die. I think it is best if someone else removed the "Cleanup" tag, if it is fit for publishing now. Jcart1534 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on version as of 00:22, 25 May 2007[edit]

Clearly better now. I will leave it to someone else to remove the tag, if they see fit (I might edit the requests within the tag). The reason that I will not, is that it is possible that the POV has shifted/skewed in the other direction. It is understandable that this could happen as part of systemic bias due to the overwhelming availability of information from Western sources, particularily when narrowed down to English-language sources. Striking a balance in an article such as this is incredibly hard. That being said, I think will do some copy-edit on the article in its present form, which I think is the best yet. --SVTCobra 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my copy-edits and think the article looks pretty good. Please review it. --SVTCobra 01:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on version as of 01:48, 25 May 2007[edit]

Looks great, SVTCobra! I am sorry for trying to keep this alive. It has been a much more brutal exercise than I thought it would be. I'm going to remove the "Cleanup" tag. Jcart1534 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. The real tragedy would have been if all this work got lost as Abandoned. --SVTCobra 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Work[edit]

I was away all weekend, but great work on the article guys! I especially agree with the comment regarding the Western economic bias potentially inherent in English reporting! I'll work harder on sticking to the news in future articles! - NByz 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]