Talk:Peter Navarro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Grnted this is a stub but so far everything in there is accurate. Please read the book, visit his, site, listen to one of his speeches and tell me it isnt. If it isnt you may edit this page and add more about his bio, background, etc. I dont have the time to do this personally. I thought this was the point of the wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mating panda (talk • contribs)

It's not the content, it's the style, tone and lack of balance. Way too slanted, and sounds like its driven by an agenda. Possibly could be rewritten, but better to delete it until someone has the time to write it properly. Thatcher131 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So born in 1949 and served in the Peace Corps? Many sidestepped the draft in this manner, but it is fairly doubtful that his Peace Corps time was in SE Asia where a war was raging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tone

Please change

In the report, Navarro proudly cited biased and unreliable sources of information, such as One America News Network, Newsmax, War Room Pandemic, Just the News, and the National Pulse, because they provided "alternative coverage"

to:

In the report, Navarro cited alternative sources of information, such as One America News Network, Newsmax, War Room Pandemic, Just the News, and the National Pulse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.86 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The tone of this article was too slanted and it looked like an advertisement. I edited so that it sounds more balanced or "neutral". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimuoi (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

On China

This guy is obsessed with China - his dragon book is a paranoid rant filled with hyperbole and little to back up his points. Is there any way to convey this point in a more encyclopaedic way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.215.55.254 (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as you have sources to back this up you could add a controversy section. --The Dark Side (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I want to avert an edit war regarding a section mentioning a pen name Navarro used in a number of his books. A fellow contributor has taken the information (which the source mentions is viewed as an 'inside joke') and placed it under "Criticism of China". It also includes what appears to be personal views and language that goes against neutrality guides.Lucididy (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I created a separate subsection for the “Ron Vara” topic. The language is consistent with source usage. —В²C ☎ 07:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2020-06-21 Navarro claims China "spawned" COVID19 and requests CNN investigate his claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccwyE_0fvrg&t=550 --Ncr100 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fringe views

Discussion spurred on by this edit[1].

Should there be a section called "fringe views"? I think so. The section could also be called "controversial views", but I feel that such a term would be looser and more imprecise. It would give the impression that Navarro's views on trade and China are contested within economics, when they are out-of-the-mainstream among economists and demonstrate rudimentary errors. His views are more appropriately described as "fringe"[2], and reliable sources do describe his views in that kind of language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans, thanks for the edits to the article. See also WP:Fringe theories. In this case, I think that enough independent and reliable sources have classified Navarro's theories as "fringe" to deem it acceptable as a title. Any other comments from other editors can also be added to discussion, but I think for now it is fine as a subsection title. Shaded0 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor Has removed my posts regarding this Talk section after I requested a Wikipedia Third Opinion, and is thus not participating/refusing to participate in any meaningful dialog. <Removed improper comment to specific editor.> Karagory (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The posts were moved to a new section [3] as they were unrelated to the 2017 discussion in this section. No need to make inflammatory comments about the move. Teishin (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why were the posts moved to a new section without any mention, even though it was known at the time that I had ask for the Wikipedia Third Opinion that referenced this specific section? What is "inflammatory" about trying to begin a meaningful discussion on the subject? I do not understand. karagory (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, I moved them, because you were (and now still are) responding to comments that are almost four years old. Wikipedia editors (including those coming in from Third Opinion) expect that the active sections with new comments will be at the bottom of the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that. karagory (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As a watcher of this page, I have to say I was confused (and still am) by the placement of these comments in this old section. I would support moving this 2021 part of this section to a new one at the bottom, without this comment of mine as it would no longer be relevant and only confusing in a new section. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbes blogs

I removed the Forbes blog sources. See this RSN discussion – "content farm", "So as long as you have a contributor account, you can write whatever you want." Articles by Forbes staff are debatable, the "contributor" articles I removed are unusable. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the quotes by Worstall and Kotlikoff but retained the sources. These individuals are notable and Kotlikoff is an expert in his field (widely cited professor of economics at Boston University). I'd be more OK with dropping Worstall. I don't see a firm take in that discussion that you cite. Sounds like a case-by-case estimate seems reasonable. If you feel strongly about Forbes' contributor pieces and are consistent, you might want also be interested in removing the one cited in the Sebastian Gorka article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Full time in Washington / still teaching in California ?

Is his job in the Trump administration a full time job ? In other words : is he really still teaching ? Also in view of his age (July 15 is his 68th birthday) I wonder if he is still teaching. --Neun-x (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been corrected. He's now a former prof. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source for that? I also removed some material from the lede that was undue weight as it currently stands. Maybe try a rewrite here of the lead? --Malerooster (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Over the past few weeks, Navarro, a former professor at the University of California, Irvine...."[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Time to try to reach a consensus for how the lead should be written. Until there is consensus, the newly added contensious material should not be readded to the lead. Haven't we been through this before?!? --Malerooster (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What possible objection could you have to the lede? There are roughly 30 sources in support the sentence (many of them straight-up news reporting from reliable sources), these citations even have quotes in them so that people like you don't even have to read them, and one quarter of the article is devoted to this issue. The individual in question is the director of the National Trade Council and a former econ professor, so this is not some issue that's irrelevant to him. Nearly every reliable source that covers this individual makes note of how his views on trade are either rejected by economists or based on basic errors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said when I removed the "Economists widely reject Navarro's views on trade" claim, you cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You need to find a source that explicitly supports that "economists widely reject his views" vs what you had which were a number of sources from economists who reject his views. Adding dozens of sources scattershot (many of them duplicates) as you did here makes improving the article more difficult. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I literally quoted every single source in the citations. Please read those quotes. Numerous of the straight-up news reporting sources say that "Economists widely reject Navarro's views on trade" in one way or another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The possible objection I have is undue weight in the lead as the lead currently stands, not about sourcing. That doesn't mean that if this article was significantly improved, it couldn't be worked into the lead in the future or not. What do others think. Maybe post to the BLP notice board to get more people and opinions involved. --Malerooster (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The NY Times (really Upshot) article is one economist's opinion piece. It's usable for the author's opinion. The New Yorker source says:

• Navarro’s views on trade and China are so radical, however, that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them.

That's not the same as saying his views are widely rejected and riddled with basic errors, as the removed text claimed.

The bigger issue is this article's neutrality. It's hardly more than a collection of every cite-able criticism (see WP:ATTACK.) My search turned up sources with more favorable views of his policies: [5] [6]. These (and others) should be incorporated.James J. Lambden (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? I sourced the text to at least 25 sources and your rationale for removing all of the text is that one of those sources is an op-ed and the other merely calls Navarro "radical" and says that no one can be found that "fully" agrees with his economically illiterate views? Nothing in the CNBC piece that you cite defends his economic illiteracy on trade deficits. As for the FT piece, nothing in the text that was in the Wikipedia article criticized Navarro for his claims about Germany. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Link the articles claiming his views are "widely rejected." I mentioned two. Those "25" included a number of duplicates and triplicates making them difficult to sort through. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither of your articles addressed his economic illiteracy on trade deficits. If a person claims that vaccines cause autism, yet also happens to say something accurate about vaccines, that person doesn't suddenly stop having widely rejected and erroneous views on vaccines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No, two articles that could support the claim his views are widely rejected. 1. New Yorker 2. NY Times/Upshot If there are other articles that could support the claim please link them. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Approximately 25 (!) sources were scrubbed from the page

These sources were all either straight-up news reporting or op-eds by economists. These sources were used to substantiate and source text that accurately described Navarro's views on trade as fringe and based on basic errors. This is something that nearly every single news report on this man mentions, yet his Wikipedia page now omits. This is not some obscure minor detail in this man's life. This is the individual who will strongly influence US trade policy for the next four years.

This[7] is what the page used to look like (note that footnote 45 includes roughly 20-25 sources). This[8] is how it looks now, with sources and text removed, and weasel words added (Navarro is not just "a proponent of reducing trade deficits", but believes that they are bad in and of themselves and fails to understand how they work per a billion sources which have been scrubbed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll say it again: you can't cite a dozen (or two dozen) sources who might describe his views as fringe to support the claim "his views are widely described as fringe." For that you need sources saying "his views are widely described as fringe." James J. Lambden (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the quotes! There are at least half a dozen quotes from straight-up news reporting that say that his views are fringe in one way or another ("wide range" reject, "many" reject, "so radical" no one agrees with them, "mainstream economists regard as... misguided", "Hooey, say economists across the political spectrum", ""There are plenty of economists who defend some form of protectionism," said Mr. Cowen, to help a growing economy or to bolster selective industries. But "close to no one," he said, agrees with Mr. Navarro’s idea that a trade deficit is bad on its face." and so on!) never mind all the op-eds by economists saying the same thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pinging User:Tryptofish and User:JzG as the only users I know who have expertise on pseudoscience on political pages. Can you please comment on this? At what point can we state in Wiki voice that someone's views on trade are fringe, widely rejected by economists and riddled with basic errors? There are currently 30ish sources (both straight-up news reporting and op-eds by economists) that support that text. If you don't feel comfortable chipping in on econ, is there some group of Wikipedia editors who specialize in fixing "bad economics" that we can call on to arbiter? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Which sources calls his views "fringe" ? There are many sources from economists that reject his views but again, because you seem to be missing this point: You can't cite 30 economists who reject his views then say "his views are widely rejected" – for that you need sources saying "his views are widely rejected."

It would be very helpful if you could link the sources you believe support this view/that of the previous text, which was:

• "Economists widely reject Navarro's views on trade, which they describe as riddled with basic errors" James J. Lambden (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the quotes! There are at least half a dozen quotes from straight-up news reporting that say that his views are fringe in one way or another ("wide range" reject, "many" reject, "so radical" no one agrees with them, "mainstream economists regard as... misguided", "Hooey, say economists across the political spectrum", ""There are plenty of economists who defend some form of protectionism," said Mr. Cowen, to help a growing economy or to bolster selective industries. But "close to no one," he said, agrees with Mr. Navarro’s idea that a trade deficit is bad on its face." and so on!). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're making this unnecessarily difficult by refusing to list (a) the claims and (b) the sources you believe specifically support those claims. Let's take a few examples from your list of quotes above:

1. Your "wide range" quote. The source is the NY Times [9] (fine source) and the full quote is: A wide range of economists have warned that curtailing trade with China would damage the American economy, forcing consumers to pay higher prices for goods and services. That's a reasonable claim and I have no objection to putting language to that effect in the article, e.g. "economists warn that reducing trade with china will drive up the price of goods"
2. "mainstream economists regard as... misguided" The source is the Financial Times [10] (again a good source) and the full quote is Mainstream economists regard targeting the trade deficit as a misguided approach in a world where global supply chains involve products repeatedly criss-crossing borders making traditional trade metrics obsolete. Again another specific claim we can include.
3. "close to no one agrees with Mr. Navarro’s idea that a trade deficit is bad on its face." The source is The Chronicle of Higher Educate [11] (which seems good) but examination of the article shows it attributes the claim to Tyler Cowen (economics professor at George Mason University.) So we can include the specific claim (wide rejection of trade deficits as inherently bad) if we include the attribution. He goes on to say: Navarro’s broad protectionist ideas ... are out of step with generally accepted economic theories which is also usable, attributed.

The third example (Chronicle) illustrates the NPOV problem I mentioned. The full quote from Cowen which you include above is:

• There are plenty of economists who defend some form of protectionism," said Mr. Cowen, to help a growing economy or to bolster selective industries. But "close to no one," he said, agrees with Mr. Navarro’s idea that a trade deficit is bad on its face.

Our article included the criticism (this being one of the sources used to support "widely rejected") but ignored the other half of the quote defending a protectionist position.

The broader point with respect to sourcing is that while specific claims can be made citing specific sources none of the sources support the text I removed, which was:

• Economists widely reject Navarro's views on trade, which they describe as riddled with basic errors.

First, the sources claim only specific aspects of his views are rejected. Second, only a minority claim they're "riddled with basic errors" – our text implied it was a majority. That is not acceptable.

You say you've added 25 sources (or so) to support these claims and the support is in the sources, but examining these three I haven't found that. What I found were more specific claims we can include. Dozens of sources that almost support a claim isn't good enough but a few (in some cases even one) that supports a claim directly is fine. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why all this reliably sourced content was removed. I'm going to restore, unless someone has a reason why it shouldn't be in. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The so-called "reliable" sources include this [12]. I suggest you review them more carefully, heeding the warning at the top of the edit page: Take extra care to use high-quality sources James J. Lambden (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So why not just remove that source? Why all the other ones? FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: That source was one of two sources that were only cited to support the notion that Sumner's remarks were notable enough to be CitedByOthers, in anticipation that James J would delete Sumner's remarks otherwise. They are sources 46-48 here[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In my initial edits I explained the removal of each source. They were restored apparently wholesale, with syntax errors and other seemingly worse sources added – but that's difficult to follow given the syntax errors. Usable sources should be justified. The source I linked is not usable for any purpose in this article. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're not really explaining why you're removing sources. You can fix the syntax errors or remove the single source you claim to be unreliable. That doesn't explain the dozens of other ones you're removing, as identified by Snooganssnoogans. I think it would be helpful if you explained your thinking a little bit more before reverting. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have quality, usable sources and can add them without introducing syntax errors I have absolutely no objection to their addition. If the point of reintroducing them is solely to support the claim his views are "widely rejected and riddled with errors" I suggest you discuss that text here first, which has been removed per BLP. Despite multiple requests for sources which would support that text, in multiple sections, links to those sources have not been provided. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "removed per BLP." You seem to think BLP allows you to remove reliably sourced criticism from pages of articles for any reason you like. You can fix the syntax errors without removing dozens of sources. You've removed Bloomberg, Politico, and Washington Post sources, for example. You've also reverted my edits that had nothing to do with the section, including the removal of unsourced content from that bibliography section, which you should be aware is contrary to WP:V, and added in Youtube links, which is contrary to WP:EL. You've been warned multiple times before about disruptive behavior and edit warring, which it seems you're doing here again. Why don't you try to get consensus on the talk page with your edits instead of doing multiple reverts. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not benefit you. I've asked for sources repeatedly – despite wall of text responses not a single link has been provided. It would be unwise to restore that contentious text, which I won't be forced to repeat for a 3rd time, without first discussing and providing sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I said was a "personal attack." What sources are you looking for? FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If the criticism is "25 sources were removed" I'm not sure how to respond because as I understand it policy encourages us not to over-cite. If the criticism is "these sourced statements along with their sources were removed", that's a discussion we can have but you'll need to identify which statements were removed. The one in the lede wasn't adequately sourced so I removed it; I'm looking for editors to provide sources that support it before restoring it. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I was pinged, so I am here only to respond to that. I don't really think that this is about science, but maybe I'm just not very receptive to economics. I see it as a content dispute about POV, BLP, and especially, DUE weight. I can see the rationale for reverting as being about due weight, which strikes me as reasonable. If I understand correctly, this information was put in the lead, and I don't think that it needs to be there, just in the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

POV section tag

I removed the the POV section tag from the criticism/fringe section that was added by James J. Lambden. I was not clear on why it was added, nor was there any explanation given in the edit summary or on the talk page. From what I can tell, the section just has a number of sentences sourced to reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's clear in the section above:

• The bigger issue is this article's neutrality. It's hardly more than a collection of every cite-able criticism (see WP:ATTACK.) My search turned up sources with more favorable views of his policies: [14] [15]. These (and others) should be incorporated. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be better to review the talk page before reverting. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: (i) There are plenty of academics who support "getting tough on China" in a broad vague sense (which is the only thing the CNBC source supports), (ii) There are plenty of academics who support Navarro's statement on Germany; (iii) there are nearly no economists who support Navarro's economically illiterate view that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves; and (iv) most economists strongly disagree that VAT is a tariff (this last point was removed at some point in all the back-and-forth). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither (iii) nor (iv) is sufficient to support the previous text ("Economists widely reject Navarro's views on trade, which they describe as riddled with basic errors") even with adequate sourcing. If sources support those specific claims they can be added. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the NPOV tag is not to indicate current sources are invalid – invalid sources must be removed immediately. It's to indicate that despite several sources agreeing with his positions and several (objectively more) disagreeing the article only includes those that disagree, making it non-neutral. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So these two sources are why you added the POV tag? The CNBC article has two quotes, one of which is a person saying "He's not a crazy person. He does believe there's something deeply imbalanced." Not exactly effusive praise. The FT barely mentions him except for a sentence that says he has a point that "implicit Deutsche Mark . . . is grossly undervalued." I'm not really sure how these two articles show that the criticism section is unbalanced. If there's more out there it should be added, but I'm not really seeing the section as unfair. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So these two sources are why you added the POV tag? No. I don't think you're taking the time to read my comments. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to explain then. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Views?

I was looking for his views but I don't see any exposition in our article. Oddly enough, I see quite a bit of copy devoted to summary judgments rejecting his views but little on what he says and why it is wrong. I looked at some of the sources and there is a discussion of his views or at least the principles which the authors ascribe to him. Few seem to have read his books. It would be useful to have more on his views and perhaps even reviews of his books. I'll try to find time to return and help but a whole section on "Criticism" without the description of his views and their failings seems silly. He is such an important person and we have so little here explaining his thought. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I added one line about his policy views from an economist who actually read his books. More is needed. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the article needs more of this. I plan to assist with your effort when I have time. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonexistent/invalid sources

Content sourced to nonexistent or invalid sources was restored in this diff. Per the BLP warning at the top of the edit page I removed the invalid references and statements sourced to them. I believe valid sources can be found for some of them but I don't have time right now to sort the good from the bad. I'd urge anyone adding content, especially criticism, to ensure the content is accompanied by valid sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out which sources are "nonexistent" and which ones you consider "invalid"? It looks like there were some formatting issues with the inline citation which created the appearance of additional refs but the sources that were included were both "existent" and "valid".

This source exists and is valid (actually, it's really good)

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid, although perhaps a bit off topic

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is valid

This source exists and is pretty much valid]

etc., etc., etc.,

So.... it sort of looks like you're using the fact that a couple inline citations were malformatted to remove text from the article which actually has impeccable sourcing. I mean, how the hell did you miss the two dozen valid and existent sources there? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Can you point out which sources are 'nonexistent'?" – I hope you see the problem with that question.

You confuse two separate points, in separate edits:

1. My first edit removed the statement "widely characterized..." It was not supported by the existing sources and a BLP violation. That's being discussed above. You're welcome to participate. In the meantime leave it out.
2. My subsequent edits removed unsourced statements. Feel free to restore them with proper sourcing. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There may be a couple sources there which are superflous - in the sense that they're not needed because there's plenty of other sources which say the exact same thing. But that's an argument for removing some of these sources, not the text itself.

Also, I'd like to note that whoever added this to the article in the first place went to great lengths to document how these sources support the text, including the relevant quotes and all. To claim that these sources are "nonexistent" when you got the freakin' quotes right there is... well, you think of the appropriate word for that kind of disruptive behavior.

And given that these are top notch financial publications, claiming that these sources are "invalid" is equally ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The quality of the publications is not at issue. This has been discussed at length, above. Participate there or take it to BLPN. In the meantime, leave it out. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess their "existence" is, despite all the links and extensive quotes provided. And if their quality is "not at issue" why are you referring to them as "invalid"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And I think you're still confused. The content I removed in these diffs can be restored with working sources. I don't object. That's seperate from the "widely characterized..." BLP issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Which I did, and you reverted anyway. Who's confused? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

""Can you point out which sources are 'nonexistent'?" – I hope you see the problem with that question. " Well, it's your words, quote: "Content sourced to nonexistent or invalid sources".

"My subsequent edits removed unsourced statements" - maybe, but the big edit removed the whole thing, sourced statements and all. So why are you misrepresenting your own edits?

One more time. There's almost two dozen sources there which both exists and are valid. You are making the completely false claim that these don't exist or that they are invalid. Please stop it.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"My first edit removed the statement "widely characterized..." It was not supported by the existing sources and a BLP violation."

Yes it was! By almost two dozen sources! You just removed them because you claimed they were "non-existent". Not a BLP violation at all.

"That's being discussed above."

You mean in the section where everyone clearly disagrees with you? Why are you edit warring then (in addition to making absurd claims about sources which have an obvious corporeal form not existing)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears you've stalked me to this article simply to frustrate me. I will say it again: These are two separate issues.

• My first edit removed the following text

Navarro's views on trade have been widely characterized by economists as fringe and riddled with basic errors

The sources were usable sourced but not for the statement. This issue is being discussed above. Please participate. Providing 25 sources and saying some of them or all of them (apparently) support the claim is not helpful without citing the specific article and the specific text.

• My second edit removed statements supported by source references which did not exist. You're welcome to restore those statements provided you restore actual references. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

" My first edit removed the following text..."

What? No! Jesus Christ, I'm gonna get completely lost in all the false statements you made. Your "first edit", the one you're edit warring over (and just broke 3RR) is this one. That edit DOES NOT remove the text "Navarro is a proponent of the notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves". That's still in there. How am I suppose to have a decent conversation with someone who doesn't even know what they're edit warring over? Or making stuff up about what it is they're doing?

"Providing 25 sources and saying some of them or all of them (apparently) support the claim is not helpful without citing the specific article and the specific text."

This is more "wtf???". Um, providing 25 sources IS helpful. And the freakin' quotes were provided. They were right there. In the little ref thingies. The specific articles. And the specific text. You removed them! What in the cassava are you talking about???

"You're welcome to restore those statements provided you restore actual references. " - THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I TORO DID AND YOU REVERTED IT REPEATEDLY!!!!

I feel like you're just trying to fuck with me or something. Honestly. I'm having trouble finding single accurate and non-false thing you've written in everything you said. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: James J. Lambden, after I pointed out that his statement about what he removed was completely false, went and changed it <his initial false statement> to make it something else. This is disruptive talk page behavior. What you're suppose to do in that case is *strike* your initial comment but leave it in, since otherwise it looks like the other person in the conversation is responding to something other than what they're responding to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Incorrect My initial post and subsequent correction were sequential – there were no intervening edits. Please strike your inaccurate accusation. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflicts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So we're clear: your complaint is that my correction of a cut-and-paste error on this talk page before anyone replied to it, is disruptive? Noted. I will try to be more careful. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

My complaint is that I replied to something you wrote which you then changed, apparently as I was typing. You should've stuck <struck> and reworded (like I did above) instead. I have other complaints about your disruptive behavior as well, which should be obvious from this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I apologize for my lack of psychic abilities, which could have informed me you were typing. As well for editing my comment at all, which is apparently prohibited under any circumstances. Who knew? I'm sure your other complaints are just as substantive but if we could pause the bickering and engage on content I'd prefer that: Do you claim all 19 sources support the "widely characterized" statement or are some misrepresented? James J. Lambden (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're making a substantial change to your comment, then yeah, you should record it properly. I don't know about "prohibited" but it's polite and it keeps the conversation honest. Anyway, as I indicated, out of those 19 there may be a couple which are superfluous but there certainly are enough to support the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As of 10 June 2018, the link in Footnote 9, which cites Navarro's CV, yields a 404 Page Not Found error.

Navarro, Peter (August 2016). "Peter Navarro Curriculum Vitae" (PDF). UCI Paul Merage School of Business. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved January 6, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:984:9396:1:F521:E689:E2C5:27DE (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Finding agreement on lede

One half of the article is devoted to Navarro's views on trade, which makes sense given that he's the top official in the Trump administration on trade issues. It therefore feels uncontroversial to add to the lede (i) a brief summary of his views on trade and (ii) a brief mention that Navarro's views on trade are fringe among economists. I therefore propose the following text for the lede:

Navarro has been a staunch critic of trade with China and strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits. He has attacked Germany, Japan and China for currency manipulation. He has called for increasing the size of the American manufacturing sector, setting high tariffs, and repatriating global supply chains. He was a fierce opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. His views on trade are widely considered fringe by other economists.

The last sentence can also be some variation of the following descriptions: "Navarro's economic theories are considered "considered fringe" by his fellow economists.[24] Al-Jazeera notes that "few other economists have endorsed Navarro's ideas."[25] A New Yorker reporter described Navarro's views on trade and China as so radical "that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them."[26] According to the George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen has praised him as “one of the most versatile and productive American economists of the last few decades”, but Cowen noted that he disagreed with his views on trade, which he claimed go "against a strong professional consensus."[24] University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers described Navarro's views as "far outside the mainstream," noting that "he endorses few of the key tenets of" the economics profession.[27]"

Thoughts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't add, as undue weight as the lead currently reads. Isn't this being discussed above? --Malerooster (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you disagree that an extensive part of Navarro's article covers his views on trade? Do you disagree that the top official in the US government's views on trade are notable? If no, why on Earth should his views on trade be excluded from the lede? Explain yourself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There has to be something in the lede regarding his views on trade as the lede needs to be representative of the body. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"widely considered fringe by other economists" does not seem to accurately reflect the article or sources in it. Removed. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is literally a quote from a Politico description of him. It completely reflects the content of the "views on trade" section. If you disagree, please suggest an alternative wording on the basis of the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit of an exaggeration of what one published commentary said, and the language in source 44 ("Once viewed as fringe thinking from a strident economic nationalist, Mr Navarro’s oeuvre is drawing urgent new scrutiny") makes clear that your proffered "summary" is not a fair assessment. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a joke? There are dozens of sources, many of them straight-up news reporting sources, that describe him as fringe among economists in one way or another. I have no idea what you believe that sentence in source 44 you quoted says that is otherwise. I thought you were somewhat reasonable and genuine with your edits. Now I see how misguided I was. Shame on you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also original research to dismiss and remove coverage by reliable sources as "a bit of an exaggeration" when there is nothing in the source to suggest that its an exaggeration. Especially when there are dozens of sources making the exact same point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me understand your argument, amigo. If his views are firmly and widely viewed as fringe, why does the Financial Times article say that his views were "once viewed as fringe thinking" (emphasis added)? Factchecker_atyourservice 19:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

He was once fringe in the sense of public discourse and in terms of power - he's now the top trade official in the Trump administration. That has no relation to being considered fringe among economists, which is amply supported by the dozens of sources. Source 44 even says that his views on trade are considered misguided by "mainstream economists". Not "some mainstream economists", but "mainstream economists". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Just so we are clear: You're arguing that the designation "considered fringe by economists" does not reflect the content of the article even though it is supported by dozens of sources (many of which are straight-up news reporting sources) because one of the sources accurately notes that Navarro is no longer "fringe" in the sense of outside-of-mainstream-politics (as he's now the top trade official in the US) before that very same source says that his views on trade are rejected by economists? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• "misguided" is not "fringe". The first word has 9 letters, the second word has 6 letters, and they mean two completely different things.
• your insistence that the Financial Times article—which says his views were formerly viewed as fringe thinking—somehow fails to capture the mainstream view of economists needs a whole lot more explanation.

Factchecker_atyourservice 19:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you then agree that the lede should say "Navarro's views on trade are widely regarded as misguided by economists"? I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say with your second bullet point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what I'm saying. Financial Times article dated less than two weeks ago said Navarro's views were formerly viewed as fringe thinking. Formerly means not currently.

I take no position on how to describe Navarro's views in the lead other than refusing to allow the "fringe" descriptor unless it is firmly established by the sources (so far it would seem that it is not firmly established). Factchecker_atyourservice 20:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy shit. The FT article is literally about how "trade hawks" have taken over the White House, with Navarro at the center. It's about how Navarro, once at the fringe, is now at the center of power and how he "is drawing urgent new scrutiny from those seeking clues into how Donald Trump and his administration are about to rewrite the rules of global trade, take on China and transform the world’s most important bilateral economic relationship." You do understand that holding fringe views in academia and in Washington are two different things? Do you think that the whole field of economics drastically changed at the precise time that Navarro happened to become the top trade official? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you just disagree with the "fringe" description (even though it is abundantly supported by reliable sources), can I add "misguided" to the lede (which is also abundantly sourced, including from the source among dozens that you happened to be so fond of). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any clear divide between academics and Capitol Hill policy wonks. You do realize that economics is not a natural science and that there are competing theories, yes? Anyway, I have looked for any sign that Navarro is widely considered fringe by economists, and I keep coming up with lefty blog posts. It's an important claim, and if accurate you shouldn't have trouble finding multiple high quality reliable sources that clearly state it, as required by policy.

As I said, I don't take a position on how to describe Navarro's views in the lead, but I do suggest you make a case for any major changes here on the talk page. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There are competing theories, sure, but this isn't a case of two equal "competing theories". This is a case of a basic theory that almost every economist starts off with vs. a completely fringe view. It's Navarro vs. the profession pretty much. And the multiple high quality reliable sources have already been provided, you're just obfuscating.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And a big "lol" on "lefty blog posts". Like what, Tyler Cowen, from George Mason, one of the most conservative econ depts in the country? Nah, sorry, nice try, but that's not going to work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This sentence in the lede is not well written by standards of pages with regular designations like C-class articles: "His views on trade are widely considered fringe by other economists." One suggestion would be to either remove it and let the article speak for itself or to at least put into neutral format such as: "His views on trade have been both criticized and endorsed". ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Which economists have endorsed his views on trade? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Navarro's book The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought, How They Can Be Won is published by FT Press in (2006). A review in Publishers Weekly describes the book as "comprehensive" and "contemporary" and concludes that it "will teach readers to understand the dragon, just not how to vanquish it". Publishers Weekly review of The Coming China Wars, Publishers Weekly publishersweekly.com, October 30, 2006. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) Those are not economists, (2) That's not a peer-reviewed book, (3) Your Publishers Weekly link doesn't work, (4) There are literally dozens of sources that say in explicit terms that Navarro's views are considered fringe in the econ profession. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You appear not to have read any of the reviews of his academic books which included many endorsements aside from the critiques. These sections were completely undeveloped in this article. Your own response appears to be with regard to the 4 page presidential endorsement blurb essay which received very bad press. If you have not read his books, and if you do not understand the difference between him as an author of academic books in economics on the one hand, and as a voter writing a short 4-page presidential endorsement blurb, then at least read the reviews of his books which are reprinted on many of his books' dust jackets. You appear to have done neither. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be extremely confused about how Wikipedia works. The text on this and other Wikipedia pages reflects that of reliable sources. If you can't find reliable sources for your text, the text doesn't belong (it would be WP:OR. In fact due to WP:UNDUE, even if you were to find one or two economists that endorsed Navarro, that would not be enough to change the language of the lede due to the abundance of sources which declare that he holds fringe views in the econ profession. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

My edits only follow the reliable sources on this, and I have added another one which mentions economist Peter Morici of UMaryland. Once again, if you have not read any of the many books Navarro has written, then at least start reading the many positive reviews among the critiques which have been written about his many, many books. I know that his short 4-page presidential endorsement blurb was very poorly received, however, that one essay does not define the entire career of Navarro who has written eleven books over a thirty year career. To be encyclopedic means to be neutral in the examination of a scholar and not to be super-focused on one poorly received essay. I have started to add some of this material since no one else has done it, and if you are serious about this article then you can start by adding some further material on his other 11 (eleven) book length studies in economics in order to be encyclopedic in the presentation of his biography. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker piece that you added either demonstrates incompetence or bad faith. The New Yorker asked Navarro to name some economists that agreed with him (because he's fringe), and Navarro brought up Morici. The New Yorker then looked up Morici who said that Navarro's views were too extreme for him. And no, I'm not going to read Navarro's books nor am I required to. This is very simple: source your text. Don't ask editors to hunt down some sources that you believe exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be admitting that you have not read any, not a single one, of Navorro's eleven books. If you have read any then I need to ask you to name it. Navarro has only been asked to write more books because of their success. If you have not read any of his books then I need to ask that keep your comments on this Talk page until consensus is obtained. You are now deleting reliable source citations I have added because you do not appear to like the contents. The New Yorker magazine is a reliable source and Morici is free to make qualified endorsements or qualified critiques of Navarro as he pleases. Many economists agree on balance of trade issues with fully endorsing all of each other views and opinions. Navarro and Morici have similar though not identical views on balance of trade and trade deficits. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool story. Please find those economists. And no, Morici did not endorse Navarro. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a well-written story for the New Yorker. You have already quoted the Morici quote in the section below, who says that he agrees with a significant part of Navarro's position. See below section. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The most blatant violation of WP:UNDUE that I've seen

One editor who keeps edit warring WP:OR and all kinds of misrepresentations of sources into the article has now written this ludicrous statement at the start of a section on Navarro's views on trade:

• In an article for The New Yorker magazine, Navarro cited such economists as Peter Morici of the University of Maryland as representing one of many economists who agree with his views on balance of trade even though Morici does not subsribe to all of Navarro's views.

This is now how a section that through the use of dozens of sources (incl. the New Yorker piece above) demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that Navarro's views on trade are considered fringe among his fellow economists. The reason why the statement above is so ludicrous is that the entire New Yorker piece is basically about how fringe Navarro is, and the Morici episode is an example of it. The New Yorker asked Navarro to mention any economists who shared his views on trade, and Navarro mentioned Morici. The New Yorker then looked up Morici and asked him. This is what the New Yorker then says: "I then spoke at length with Morici, who said that he agrees with Navarro that there are deep problems with our trade relationship with China, but that Navarro “has a rather severe position. That zero-sum statement, I have a problem with that. Where’s his proof?”" So, Navarro was asked to name any economists in the world that actually agree with his views on trade. Even the person that Navarro mentioned says that Navarro's position is "rather severe" and that he has problems with it. Also, the source absolutely nothing about Morici agreeing with Navarro on 'balance of trade'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No edit warring here, and I have asked you to stay on the Talk page until consensus is reached. You appear not to have read any of the books by Navarro, and you have been removing reliable sources when I add them. When I ask you to even look at the dust jacket of any one of his books you balk at it. Keep you edits here on the Talk page until consensus is reached. I have stated plainly that you appear not to have read a single book by Navarro, and if you have not read a single one of them then it is pretty much time to say so. You have just quoted the New Yorker as stating: "...who said that he (Morici) agrees with Navarro that there are deep problems with our trade relationship with China". That is you quoting the New Yorker. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

None of the text on this Wikipedia page says that it's fringe to believe there are problems in US-China trade relations. That's a view held by lots of economists. What's fringe is Navarro's crackpot views on how severe the problems are and the remedies for those alleged problems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether I've read Navarro's nutty books has nothing to do with anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether you have read Navarro's book is very relevant, and your calling his books "nutty" when you appear not to have read a single one of them is odd and generally considered poor form for editors to claim about material you have not read. If your reference to "nutty" is to his short 4-page presidential endorsement blurb, then I have already stated that it has been very poorly received. His book length studies, and his Harvard PhD, were not given to him because he was "nutty". His degree from Harvard was granted in part because of his book-length dissertation and ability to do doctoral-level research in economics for which he was awarded his PhD. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

None of the text in this Wikipedia article talks about Navarro holding fringe views on the economics of charity, which is something that Navarro is an expert on. Navarro holds fringe views on the economics of trade, a topic he has no peer-reviewed publications on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The article consistently criticizes the points in his short 4-page presidential endorsement which was very poorly received. In fact, Navarro's strong views on balance of trade are endorsed by many economists and not only Morici at UMaryland. The opposing camps among economist on balance of trade issues is addressed on the Wikipedia article for it which you might look at. Its time to let others have some say on all this discussion to see if any others have something to add. I think it would make sense to allow this discussion some overnight time to see what others have to say. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the past discussions, introducing the paragraph with the bit about Morici seems to misrepresent the source, is undue, and undermines the pov of the source and the others used in the paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"President Trump endorses his views on economics and trade" does not belong in lede

The lede already notes that Navarro works in the administration. Sources and text on this Wikipedia page also dispute that Navarro actually has any real influence in the administration, which brings into question to what extent Trump agrees with Navarro. This is more WP:OR from someone who has been making awful edits to this page all day long. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are forcing your edit about there being only oppnents of Navarro's position, then npov requires that his endorsements be given similar weight. The endorsement of the president is significant and notable. It should be included. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not how WP:NPOV works. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, it's unsourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The president appointed him because of his views on economics and trade. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The President also appointed people who have different views on trade. In fact, Navarro's office now answers to Gary Cohn, who does not hold Navarro's views. That said, this is WP:OR, that's the problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to allow this discussion some overnight time to see what others have to say. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Disputed content should not remain in the article while seeking consensus per WP:BURDEN, BLP, and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

As for resolving the dispute, a source needs to be provided for any mention of an endorsement. Multiple sources may be required to demonstrate it deserves mention in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

LATINO?

No mention of heritage. Latino? Portugese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.212.202 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

His father was born in Massachusetts, to Italian parents. This is him on the census. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hit Job

Whether the citations are right or not, this article is clearly a hit job, probably by ppl who love Hamilton on stage and film. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.57 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing "to"

This place is missing a "to": Navarro said that he is there "provide the underlying analytics -- 176.94.112.129 (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Navarro's self-description of his role in the WH

Navarro's self-description of his role in the White House belongs in the lede[16]. It's a great quote, and fits perfectly with the sentence "His views on trade are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists", as well as the body of the article (which is overwhelmingly about Navarro's uninformed views on trade). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What sources tie the quote to his views on trade, which were established well before his association with Trump? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The one at the end of the quote for one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please point out where in the source that is claimed and whether there are additional sources that make the claim or just the one. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Barring a response to my objection with clear citations in the near future I will proceed with an RfC. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Phase-out of Incandescent Bulbs

Under the politics section, this article attributes phase-out of incandescent bulbs to President Barack Obama, when in fact the phaseout was signed into law by President George W. Bush with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; additional information is on the United States lighting energy policy page. Suggest change to "U.S. phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs" or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.155.89 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Quote on "confirm[ing] Trump's intuition"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the text of this edit:

Navarro said that he is there to "provide the underlying analytics that confirm [Trump's] intuition [on trade]. And his intuition is always right in these matters."

• A – Belong in the lede of the article
• B – Belong in the body of the article but not the lede
• C – Not belong in the article

James J. Lambden (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support B. UNDUE for lede, but WP:NOTEWORTHY for text. Be sure to date-time the quote in relation to his appointment. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A The most famous quote from the man. He'll be remembered for and is currently mostly known for, that quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A. It's a great quote that has long-term encyclopedic value. It's already famous among academics. The quote is also a good representation of the body of the article, which overwhelmingly focuses on Navarro's fringe beliefs on economic matters and his embarrassingly shoddy "analyses" on the economics of trade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• C or possibly B. Can the supporters of inclusion provide some relaiable independent sources referring to this quote that they say is so famous / infamous? FloridaArmy (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support B, followed by A - The quote should be included in the article but it is too detailed for the lede. It is not terrible in the lede, but a shorter more general note about his relation to Trump would be better. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A - it's a good part of his notability, and it's very concise in helping provide a summary of the man and his work. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• B. Quotes are almost never appropriate for lead sections, as lead sections are supposed to summarize, not highlight. Quotes like this one are often cherry-picked and create neutrality problems, which should be especially avoided in BLPs. The quote has been readily summarized by a number of sources. And if you look at the news coverage the quote hasn't received as much attention as other stuff in his lead section. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• B - summoned by bot. I agree with S. Rich. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• C - this is not a notable event or effect in his life, so BLP terms it does not suit much attention and is not a major part of the article content so by WP:LEAD does not belong in the lead summary. This line is also not something that a google of him finds very prominent -- even adding 'intuition', I came up with it mixed with other items and not particularly prominent in the items Google found, so I feel it does not have WP:WEIGHT. I would not be horrible if it gets a minor include "b", but to me it looks more like an item to skip "C". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• B - Would seem very unusual to quote someone in their lede. NickCT (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• B - (invited randomly by a bot) Quote is newsworthy but we're NOTNEWS. Let history decide if this is (was) any great part of Navarro's legacy. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• B (Summoned by bot) - I can understand the argument that this quote speaks to Navarro's over-arching approach to his office, but it still feels WP:UNDUE for the purposes of the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• B - Agreeing with consensus above. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• A Washington Post article about the death of expertise in the Trump administration starts off with Navarro's quote.[17] A brief list of the many academics chastising Navarro over this quote[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have now seen several articles in the Washington Post's "style" section that fall below the paper's typical editorial standards. From their own description [25]:

STYLE presents a unique blend of news and features with timely and factual articles offering readers a more descriptive, informal “behind the scenes” coverage of the arts, personalities and lifestyles, as well as social trends, interviews, previews and reviews — all in one concise section. Add to the mix highlights and grids on broadcast (TV and radio).

Published seven days a week, STYLE’s got the hottest hits, hemlines and hearty features. Advice, how-to and comics provide another dimension to the lively content.

The STYLE section offers the unity and continuity of the language process of listening, speaking, reading and writing. The variety of the section lends itself to developing strategic readers and can demonstrate the ability to write for various audiences and purposes.

We should consider whether to treat "style" differently than their main news sections, but that question is better for RSN. If the twitter criticisms are published in RS we can consider them. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

When Lambden complains about the 'Style' section of the Washington Post and claims that it falls below the "typical editorial standards", it is because the style section often contains great in-depth stories about the media landscape and news media figures, and accurately describes the rubbish hoax-filled news outlets and fringe figures that Lambden ardently follows as such. Note that Lambden has never identified errors in the style section's reporting. The goal is just to keep accurate and pertinent information out; what makes this so lame and transparent is that the 'Style' section articles that he's fought to scrub from the Sean Hannity page[26] and One America News page[27] have been nothing short of fantastic.[28][29] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:Snooganssnoogans -- Perhaps WP needs to write new guidances WP:NOT_TWITTER and WP:ENOUGH_TRUMP_COMPLAINTS or WP:NOT_TRUMPOPEDIA. Seriously, one opinion article and a dozen tweets ??? Not worthy of note. The readiness for going off into Trump trivia in articles not even about Trump needs to get some higher entrance criteria to show some measure of restraint. Markbassett (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"a member of Democratic party"

None of the sources given for this claim actually state that. It's as simple as that. At most a few of them state that he ran for office as a democrat ... in 1992! This is a BLP and without actual sources we can't put that in the article, much less the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read the sources before edit warring. One I picked at random said he ran as a Democrat in 1996. Many refer to him as a Democrat. We follow RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make insulting accusations about whether I read the sources or not. Especially when in the very next sentence you pretty much admit that you yourself didn't bother reading them before reverting, but only "picked one at random". Which pretty much reveals that you were just making revenge edits and engaging in your usual campaign of harassment and stalking, which you immediately resumed upon the removal of your indef block.

Please stop using false edit summaries as you did here

Show me the quotes which say he is a member of the Democratic party.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I've removed this (as a BLP matter) - the language used was not supported by the sources. The text used the present tense ("is a member"; "A liberal...") is misleading. The sources date to the early 1990s. The sources out there clearly indicate the Navarro's politics and affiliations have shifted over time, sometimes dramatically (e.g., San Diego Union Tribune: "At various points, he became a Democrat, registered as a nonpartisan, joined the GOP, re-registered as nonpartisan, and then turned to the Democratic Party again. It’s not surprising people were uncertain about his politics. When a San Diego City Council member in 1991 called him a 'liberal,' Navarro shot back that he was a 'conservative Republican.' These shifts sometimes came in conjunction with running for a particular office.'" So no, it's inaccurate (and violates BLP) to describe him as "a Democrat" with no regard to this vacillation over time. Neutrality^talk 05:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether San Diego Union Tribune is RS but Reuters and CNBC are, and both agree he is (present tense) a Democrat. NR goes further with "lifelong Democrat." The Reuters piece is from March 2018.

• Reuters: "Navarro, 68, has a Harvard doctorate in economics and is a Democrat"
• CNBC: "Navarro, a Democrat, is a professor at the University of California-Irvine and has written commentary on China with Trump's pick for commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross."
• National Review: "Although he is serving in a Republican administration, Navarro is a lifelong democrat"

This resolves the BLP issue. Your edit also removed an unrelated claim ("environmental activist") without explanation which I intend to restore. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Do the sources above specifically Reuters and CNBC satisfy your BLP objections? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not really. The CNBC article is from December 2016, so is insufficient to label him "a Democrat" now. The Reuters article is more up-to-date, mentions his affiliation only in passing. My position is that we should describe Navarro's party affiliation history in a comprehensive narrative way, similar to the San Diego Union-Tribune article does. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"In passing" is an argument against weight not accuracy. The San Diego Union-Tribune article you mention confirms his present status as Democrat: "At various points, he became a Democrat, registered as a nonpartisan, joined the GOP, re-registered as nonpartisan, and then turned to the Democratic Party again." I would not object to expanding on his history of affiliations but you removed this content specifically on BLP grounds and we now have four sources from the recent past confirming its accuracy. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Terribly Slanted

This article is terribly slanted. It is an opinion piece, not an objective survey of the person as it is supposed to be. At times the editors begin listing source after source that disagree with Navarro, while never citing evidence in his favor. I've never commented on a Wiki article before, but I had to say something here since this page is so blatantly skewed. Cite criticisms under a section titled "Criticisms" or something, rather than turning the entire article into a dump of anti-Navarro sources. If you don't like him or agree with him, fine. I didn't even know who the man was before I read this page, but I was so taken aback at how obviously one-sided this page is that I had to say something. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with him--you still have to give him an objective treatment in the composition of this page. Rather than filling every section with quotations against Navarro, opinions from and objections from BOTH sides must be voiced. I have no personal stake in Navarro, but I was so appalled by the unfairness of this article that I had to say something. Wikipedia is better than this. For the sake of treating the subject fairly, please balance this article by including some quotations or statistics in Navarro's favor, and eliminate the less-than-thinly-veiled prejudice that pervades every section. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.68.80 (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUEWEIGHT. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The criticisms in the article do seem failing WP:DUEWEIGHT and note the complaint it is failing WP:TONE or WP:NPOV. But I'd like to add they are WP:OFFTOPIC for his BLP since they are not an action or event of his life. Described briefly as "Criticized" or "Partisan attacks" would be fine -- but going into long WP:QUOTEFARM of unrelated people giving comments should at limit itself to critiques that got secondary mentions. Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree, terribly, terribly slanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPhillipsIII (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@John PhillipsIII and Markbassett: Is this still an issue with this article? Your last edits where months ago? CodexJustin (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:CodexJustin looks like yes, the issues seem still there. The OP wanted to add material in his favor. I suggested instead to delete some of the Items where not-BLP or UNDUE. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thanks for the ping. If the answer is 'yes' then it might be useful if you could start to list the items that need to be attended to. I am brought here from another economist's Wikipedia page and it would be nice if this article could be moved away from being called "Terribly slanted" by other Wikipedia editors. It would be nice to hear more about the items you are indicating as needing to be looked at here. CodexJustin (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As I have often stated, the solution to perceived slant is not to remove content, but rather to add content to counter the perceived slant. Sometimes the evidence about a person or topic, whether favorable or unfavorable, is overwhelming and reflects reality. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:CodexJustin Listing items of concern would be a lot - I think systemically the ones of TONE or POV are in anything OFFTOPIC (not BLP) or UNDUE. Any judgemental or emotional language vice fact statements. Any quotes. But I’ll scan and provide several suggestions. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lead judgements - the starting with judgements “widely considered fringe and misguided” has been removed before, but is back. WP has a special attitude for the word WP:FRINGE. Leading with it for any article seems biased and prejudicial, not really supported in the body, and there just seems no BLP reason to go there. The “significantly outside the mainstream” is also unnecessary.

• This item is supported by Mainrooster in the section below. CodexJustin (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Career/Policy analysis - the second line quote isn’t appropriate. In a section of his 1970s job is jammed a 2016 commentator quote of no particular note nor effect to his life. Not particularly offensive, but nothing to do with his DOE work.
• Career/Publications - the quote in para 1 re “no publications in top-tier academic journals” isn’t due a mention, seems like just sniping. Would do better to say ‘his two biggest successes are’ to show why the next two paras are about those books.
• Career/Publications - the quote “fervently anti-Chinese” seems emotional and vague, and draws from a now-critique instead of something of the time.
• Political /campaign - the quotefarm should go. What someone said about the Trump plan just isn’t part of his BLP, and his quote back isn’t noteworthy.
• Appointment to Director - the end 3 paras with quotes mildly negative are not BLP material nor notable, these are bits about Trump.
• Infrastructure — commentary about Trump plan, not the version Peter did, and the final quote is overly dramatic.
• Views on trade - the first para looks OK, but the next 3 paras seem a quotefarm just collection of critics that are UNDUE and just is non-BLP, nothing to do with him or affecting his life.

That help ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thanks for getting back to me on this, and thanks for putting your comments in a neutral tone. There appear to be multiple editors who are agreeing with you here such as Mainrooster in the section below, and Soibangla above. Wikipedia is supposed to be Neutral in its tone of discussion and Encyclopedic in style of presentation. The Quotefarm issues you cite above should be done and you have, I think, all of us supporting you to go ahead with this. Also the issue you mention that the lede looks very non-neutral and that it should be repaired; again, since there are multiple editors supporting you on this you can do this with their support. Wikipedia is not meant to be a "drama" stage as you correctly put it; that final quote you mention there ought to be dropped as not being useful to the article. My support for your doing these edits and ping me with your follow-up thoughts for more improvements which would enhance the encyclopedic tone of this article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

CodexJustin I did not agree, I flatly disagreed, please strike soibangla (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Strike is added for Soibangla. Are you saying that you disagree with each and every point raised by Mark? It seems that Mainrooster is supporting him to take the reverted sentence out of the lede. Do you oppose each item raised by Mark? CodexJustin (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

OC Register source

I don't know what to make of this source: https://www.ocregister.com/2016/12/21/most-influential-2016-peter-navarro/ Is it excerpts of an interview, a survey response, the author's opinion? For example:

Biggest challenge: Helping to convince a divided Congress that tough tariffs on China and Mexico won’t ignite a trade war and that easing taxes on the wealthy will benefit the economy.

Is Navarro or the author claiming that "convincing a divided Congress..." will be his biggest challenge? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"environmentalist"

While it may be true that he was once involved in some environmental causes, this seems to be 1) very long time ago (hell, he was a free trader once [30]), and 2) motivated by a desire to... put a tariffs on things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the source and don't see anything about his environmental position beyond his criticism of China's polluting. Barring sources that contradict the book I'm inclined to keep it. The Economist article looks to be a usable for other claims however.

The additional sources you provided to support the claim "Navarro believes that environmental regulations are bad" similarly do not support it. The first, Hoover, only says he is critical of China's lax environmental regulations. The second, The Guardian, doesn't discuss environmental regulation. Why did you cite these sources? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Those sources sourced his views on taxes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, you added the text "Navarro believes that environmental regulations are bad" citing those sources. Was that unintentional? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"...as are taxes on corporations".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try again: What sources did you add to support the text ("Navarro believes that environmental regulations are bad") in the lede, which had previously been sourced to an opinion piece and was removed per BLP? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not my problem if you're having problems with reading comprehension. Go harass someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems a bit of an environmentalist — I do see support mentioned to environmental positions of Obama within the section of his political career, academic research on wind energy, his books were critical of China polluting, and he started out long ago with Harvard’s Energy and Environmental Policy Center (1980s). Seems a minor aspect of his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead section including "His views on trade are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists."

I have removed this since it was recently added and there has been back and forth. --Malerooster (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Malerooster: Someone appears to have reverted you again. Since your version looked better, I support your version of this. CodexJustin (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

His fringe views on economics are a major part of his notability. When RS cover his views on trade and economics (including in in-depth profiles), they always highlight how fringe they are and that mainstream economists reject his claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You are reverting against agreement between three editors that this statement is biased and should be removed from the lede. Make consensus on Talk page prior to further reverts. Your next revert puts you at 3RR and please stop edit warring. Also, personal attacks and accusations for a strike which I promptly added are not policy at Wikipedia. Please stop edit warring and make consensus on Talk. You also appear to be ignoring the other section above which explicitly states this as being a bias in the lede section. I am in agreement with both editors above that this raises a BLP violation for a currently serving administrator whom you appear to oppose. CodexJustin (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the content soibangla (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Heterodox economics" is a sufficient descriptive. Including the pejorative "fringe" is POV (both from the sources & WP editors). Putting "fringe" in the lede is WP:UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"is POV (both from the sources" <-- this doesn't make sense. Sources are not subject to Wikipedia's policies. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, the sources who say "legit", "mainstream", "fringe", etc are expressing their opinions. Editors who want to use such various sources may be pushing their own POVs. The WP policy is to make our articles NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So what? Sources are allowed to have opinions. And actually out of those three, only "legit" is an opinion. "Mainstream" and "fringe" as defined by some objective metric that sources may or may not be explicit about, are not opinions. Volunteer Marek 16:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Reality check: Navarro’s views on trade and China are so radical, however, that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them. "Trump’s Muse on U.S. Trade with China, Adam Davidson, The New Yorker, October 12, 2016 --Calton | Talk 23:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Calton, that's still one person's opinion, and it's qualified ("fully" agrees with him, which means they "partially" agree with him). "Widely considered fringe" is a very strong negative statement, and extraordinary statements need–bah, you know all this. Come on. – Levivich 23:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any consensus in this thread, we could take it to BLPN. Or, what I think would be preferable, is if those in favor of including the content provided multiple WP:RSes that use the words "fringe", "misguided", or whatever words are to be included. Or, incorporate The New Yorker source in the body somewhere. Personally, I think the preceding sentence, saying he is a heterodox economist, is sufficient to get the point across in the lead. Despite having removed this sentence, I have no objection to changes to the lead, including expansion on this point, but it's got to be sourced and faithful to the sources, in line with BLP policy. – Levivich 23:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is well sourced in the article body. In fact, technically, we don't even need a citation in the lede. There used to be a lot more (more than a dozen) citations for it but they got removed either for legit (tagbomb) reasons or not so legit reasons. Volunteer Marek 00:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

One Politico reporter using the word fringe to describe his theories in one article does not substantiate "widely considered fringe". A citation is needed in the lead, for challenged or likely to be challenged content in a BLP. WP:LEADCITE ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.") Per WP:BLPRS, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This is contentious material ("widely considered fringe") that is not sourced (no source says "widely considered fringe", only one source says "fringe"). This has been brought up numerous times on this talk page for two years; there has never been consensus for inclusion. I'm removing the sentence from the lead per WP:3RRNO #7 and I have asked for editors to review my 3RRNO7 reversion at WP:BLPN#Peter Navarro. – Levivich 01:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not just "One Politico reporter". There was literally more than a dozen sources for this, but we removed it because they weren't all necessary per WP:TAGBOMB. This always happens. You source the hell out of something. Someone says "you don't need that many citations". You say "ok, cool". Then someone else comes along and says "you only got one source!". This has indeed been brought up numerous times on this talk page for two years and everytime oodles of sources were presented to back it up. Since you seem to be aware that this has been discussed before and lots of sources have been provided, why are you now claiming that there's only one source? Volunteer Marek 17:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• This treatment has sadly become standard operating procedure at wikipedia. All conservatives/ people in Trump's administration need to be labeled as "fringe". So let's find an opinion piece written by a liberal commentator in a liberal publication that says the person's views are radical, fringe, out of mainstream, etc. and then put the label in the lead. This is an WP:UNDUE issue. Just because one or two obscure "journalists" write opinion pieces does not mean their opinions get placement anywhere in the article, especially the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

standard response by you when someone says something you don't like. My comment was completely on-topic and didn't violate NOTAFORUM. I was merely pointing out a trend in the behavior of certain editors here. The word "fringe" is used in so many biographical articles here, its ridiculous. Especially when in this case the word fringe doesn't even appear in the source, how is the use of the word justifiable?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Lol, you can't make this shit up. Free trade used to be a staple of conservative thinking, yet now that one Republican administration is filled anti-trade characters, it's "liberal bias" and "smears against conservatism" to note that hostility towards free trade is fringe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(not to mention that Politico isn't exactly a "liberal publication" unless you're sitting way out on the ... fringes) Volunteer Marek 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I also posted this on the BLPN thread, but it seems pretty easy to verify that Navarro is frequently described as "fringe". For example:

• Reuters: "Navarro's economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe' and 'oddball'"
• Politico: "[H]is colleagues painted a picture of a charismatic personality whose telegenic presence helped him launch a political career and later find an audience for economic theories that were considered fringe even by the confrontational standards of the field."
• Financial Times: "Once viewed as fringe thinking from a strident economic nationalist, Mr Navarro's oeuvre is drawing urgent new scrutiny from those seeking clues into how Donald Trump and his administration are about to rewrite the rules of global trade..."
• Australian: "When Donald Trump was elected US President, Peter Navarro was viewed as a fringe character even by the standards of the other misfit advisers in the White House."
• NY Magazine Intelligencer: "the fringe, protectionist economist Peter Navarro"
• NPR: "Peter Navarro says foreign companies buying up U.S. corporations are posing a threat to national security. That might sound bad, but it's a fringe view that puts him at odds with the vast majority of economists."

Based on a quick Google search. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. We should get one of those "perennial issues" banners and put it at the top of the page. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I would support a discussion to see if there's consensus for a banner that says "widely considered fringe and misguided by economists" is either in, or out, based on X sources, and should not be revisited in the absence of significant new sourcing (or whatever the usual rule is). I invite you or anyone to post a formulated sentence with cites and see if there's consensus for it. Either way, we should settle this so it's not revisited every year. – Levivich 18:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It WAS "settled" until you decided to come here (for some reason) and kick over the consensus like a bird's nest. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Isolated bards by journalists ought to be out. Navarro is part of the current Trump administration and represents a position consistent with the current Trump administration. None of them (fellow administration economists and trade advisors) consider him 'fringe' or similar barbs. His position is consistent with multiple members of Trump's administration such as Robert Lighthizer, Lawrence Kudlow, and Wilbur Ross, all of whom support his position. The only phrase I have seen used consistently by both the liberal press and the conservative press in reference to Navarro is of his being hawkish on China trade. Because of BLP related issues, I do not think that it is neutral at Wikipedia to single out isolated barbs in the press to bias the presentation of his views in the lede or the article on Wikipedia. Keep the lede and article neutral for a living person serving as an active member of the current Trump administration who is consistent with multiple members of Trump's staff as I have already listed them. CodexJustin (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Isolated bards? I guess when you really get into that strumming of the lute you kind of get absent minded, don't watch where you going, and the song takes you deep into unknown, isolated lands, huh?

Anyway. Assuming you mean "isolated BARBS", NO, these aren't "isolated" and they aren't "barbs" and they aren't "from journalists". These are widespread, common opinions and objective evaluations of the man's views within economics, by economists. And seeing as he's the trade adviser the fact that he believes in wacky fringe stuff is most certainly pertinent. The info stays and the stuff about his views being fringe are going back in as this is widely, well, sourced and has been the subject of several previous discussions. Volunteer Marek 19:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll thank you to tone down your WP:BATTLEGROUNDy comments. You don't need to attack everyone you disagree with. And please hold the pepper. – Levivich 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And I'll thank you for refraining from making false accusations against others. There's no "attack" here (though I did make light of a mispelling because I found it funny but it's not something that is being held against anyone). Please remember that making false accusations of personal attacks constitutes WP:NPA a personal attack itself. My comment is focused on content: these aren't "isolated" and they aren't "barbs" and they aren't "from journalists". These are widespread, common opinions and objective evaluations of the man's views within economics, by economists. And seeing as he's the trade adviser the fact that he believes in wacky fringe stuff is most certainly pertinent. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Easily done lead improvement

Right now, a sentence in the second paragraph reads: "A strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits, Navarro is well known as a critic of Germany and China and has accused both nations of currency manipulation."

The sentence should read: "A strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits, Navarro is well known as a critic of China and Germany and has accused both nations of currency manipulation."

Why the change? Two reasons: 1) His views on China are more well-known than his views on Germany. 2) The USA/China are in a trade war.

I would make the simple change myself, but the article is locked.Knox490 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead improvement - second suggestion

A second paragraph sentence now reads, "Navarro's views are significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought, and he is generally considered a heterodox economist."

Suggestion revision, "Among economists, Navarro's views are significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought, and he is generally considered a heterodox economist."

A subsequent sentence could note that anti-China and anti-free trade beliefs among the public is growing in the United States and Europe due to growing populist political sentiments. [31][32]

We live in an era of growing populism and a time where social media has a strong influence on politics. In other words, for better or for worse, economists now have a smaller influence upon culture. Those who maintain economics is a "dysmal science" obviously rejoice in economists having less cultural influence.Knox490 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is especially relevant because economics is a social science and the social sciences are less respected among scientists and the general public. And there is a long tradition of economics being called the "dysmal science". Even today, it is extremely difficult for economists to predict recessions.

In a post social media world, distrusts of experts is more powerful.[33] For example, 88 percent of scientists think that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, 37 percent of the public agree.[34] The public is losing confidence in most institutions and academia is no exception.

To not note that anti-China/anti-free trade sentiment is growing in the world, would fail to explain why Navarro and other anti-free trade proponents are more influential.Knox490 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This article could also link to the Anti-China sentiment article. Anti-China sentiment is definitely growing in the world and that obviously strengthens Navarro's hand and the hands of anti-free traders.Knox490 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, it could be noted that China does not really practice free trade. China does the following: it has subsidized state owned enterprises that engage in mercantilism, it has restrictive trade with other nations via government policy, it has forced technology transfers, it has poor intellectual property protection and if memory serves its government engages in intellectual property theft.Knox490 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

All of this appears to be based on your own original research. Lede is fine as is. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2021

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)

There are far more sources than that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question is: "Navarro's views on trade are significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought, and are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists." The three articles referenced were the three references cited at the end of the sentence that I found may not be accurate/potentially slanderous. karagory (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons states: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Karagory (talk) 03:36, 7 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. 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)

The principles laid out in Wikipedia's 'Biographies of living persons' could be better followed in this instance. karagory (talk) 21:30, 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)

The sentence as it is/was is a fair summation of the sources and the Peter_Navarro#Views_on_trade section in the body of the article. Please get consensus before continuing to revert. - MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor initially gave no reason for the edit, thus I reverted. Editor should have given a reason for the edit. Maybe the sentence in question should have been better referenced; that is what was missing. karagory (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, It is extensively referenced and expanded upon in the body of the article. Wikipedia practice is not to reproduce all of the citations from the article body in the lead section. MrOllie (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did the editor not give any reason for your initial edit even though you knew that a dialog was attempting to occur? I do not understand.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)

karagory, it doesn't matter what you, MrOllie, me, or any other WP editor thinks about whether Navarro's, Sanders', Biden's or anyone else's views are fringe. What matters are whether reliable sources refer to them that way. We have sources cited in this article that do exactly that with respect to Navarro's views. Whether Sanders' or Biden's views are just as fringe is not relevant here, but might be in the respective articles about them, if there are reliable sources that refer to their views that way. --В²C ☎ 05:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can find articles that find Bernie Sanders views "fringe" but when 40% or so of Democrat voters will vote for him his views cannot be considered "fringe." We are not talking about Global Warming where 98% , or greater, of the scientists consider real; in which case those with alternative views can legitimately be considered fringe. Even soon to be President Biden shares some of Mr. Navarro's concerns with China trade. Can someone please state what specifically of Mr. Navarro's economic views that they consider "fringe;" that would be a good starting point for some meaningful discussion. Up until now I have been referred to articles that happen to coincide with views Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden also hold. More than 2%, if not much greater, of reasonable economists hold these views thus are not fringe irrespective of what some given amount of articles (opinion pieces) hold. karagory (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If Bernie Sanders were an economist in charge of trade policy in the Biden administration and had done next to nothing of notability aside from that, then his article would certainly note that his views on trade are out of sync with economists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If Bernie Sanders (the same definitely goes for soon to be President Biden) were President of the United States it would not matter if he holds "fringe" economic views? That does not make sense. It matters more if a President of the U.S. holds these "fringe" views. You have failed to show that a less than very small minority of economists holds Mr. Navarro's and Mr. Sanders' view on China trade. karagory (talk) 14:10, 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)

Karagory, All that matters is what the sources say about him. We're not supposed to substitute our own judgment for that of the sources by comparing him to other people or by attempting to count support for his views in the population ourselves. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. The term "fringe" is being used as a pejorative. Thus, to meet the principles laid out in Wikipedia's 'Biographies of living persons' the common definition of fringe must also be met so as to not be be slanderous. The definition of fringe includes a purely number requirement. That requirement of "peripheral" has not been met as evidenced as both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden (and multiple other individuals; the aforementioned being the most prominent) hold similar views as Mr. Navarro regarding China trade. karagory (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It does matter how the term is used. It should not be used in an editorializing way. It needs to be clearly associated with the sources using the term. Teishin (talk) 18:42, 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)

So what? Politicians will sometimes support fringe ideas, see for example Climate change denial. What matters is that sources we have (which are already in the article) indicate that other economists believe Navarro's views are on the fringe. - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have provided up to date (2020-21) Reliable Sources that state that Mr. Navarro's and Mr. Sander's views (and soon to be President Biden's evolving view) on China Trade are no longer considered fringe. Can you provide updated Reliable Sources that state that their China views are still considered fringe? I believe that your viewpoint is failing to keep up with the times. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

Can the article present the opposing view that Mr. Navarro's view on China Trade is not considered "fringe?" Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." I have presented multiple, current Reliable Sources stating that the view is no longer considered "fringe" on China Trade.

Side note: Mr. Navarro has long warned of the threats of Climate Change. Karagory (talk) 15:41, 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 article

To add to this article: Navarro is Italian American. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Many businesspeople agree with him"

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.[35] 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[36]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed this challenged content. As you say, the statement inserted in text is not supported by the cited source (and even if it was, it would be undue weight in the lead section). Neutrality^talk 15:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word "inane" violates Principles of Wikipedia etiquette to be polite. Could you please use a different term? Karagory (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2021 - Part 2

"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)

These sources don't mention Navarro, so we can't use them for this article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How can Mr. Navarro's actions/policies be considered fridge if the Biden administration is behaving in an identical manner? Karagory (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comparing Navarro and Biden is original research. We would need a source explicitly stating this. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

President Trump enacted tariffs A; President Biden did not make changes to tariffs A. ("Katherine Tai, Biden’s top trade nominee, says tariffs are ‘legitimate tools’ to counter China" - CNBC February 25, 2021); hence their responses are identical. That is not original research. What are the recent, since President Biden became president, justification(s) that Mr. Navarro's views on China (tariff's as referenced in the outdated sources) are "fringe" since President Biden's actions are identical to those of President Trump? Karagory (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, this source does not mention Navarro, so we cannot use it for anything here. Assuming that any use of tariffs is 'identical' to Trump's actions is unsupported by the sources and absolutely is OR on your part, as is assuming that Trump's actions completely matched Navarro's views. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not "assuming" that the use of tariffs is identical. The sources state that the tariff's were left in place; nothing changed in regards to China tariff's, hence identical. Biden administration officials have stated that they are keeping the tariffs as they currently stand. I don't understand your logic? If your argument is Navarro is not directly mentioned in the source, please do not conflate it with unsourced and unfounded claims that President Biden's China tariffs are somehow different than President Trump's China tariffs. Karagory (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

My argument is that we follow what the sources say, and everything else here is WP:OR, and that no one (either you or myself) should be attempting to use logic to infer anything not directly stated in a source. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources state that the tariff's were not removed after a change of Presidential administrations, hence, they are identical. Logic dictates that if A did not change, then A is the same as before. That is not original research, that is what the sources state. Maybe a better term than "logic" can be used, however, it doesn't change that sources state that the tariffs were not changed under the Biden administration for the same reason the Trump administration imposed the tariffs originally. I understand your argument not to include because the source does not specifically mention Navarro; but, to claim my statements are original research (when supported by sources) is extremely weak to say the least. Karagory (talk) 21:37, 3 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)

Karagory, This continues to be OR. You can link as many articles about 'Trump's China tariffs' as you like on this talk page, but they do nothing to contradict the sources we already have, which, -again - are about Navarro's views, not about the tariffs the Trump administration implemented. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the Original Research exactly? The source states that President Biden as left the tariffs in place for a reason; the statement is about President Biden keeping Navarro's tariffs in place. Karagory (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, The original research is 1) the implication that the tariffs exactly reflect Navarro's views, and 2) that Biden hasn't removed them means that they weren't (and aren't) considered to be based on fringe views by econonimsts. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Blatant WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If it is so blatant as you state, can you please be a little more specific in your criticism. What is the statement that I made that is Original Research that has not been explicitly stated in the aforementioned reliable sources?

The statement I wish to include is: "Biden has left Trump's China tariffs in place."

I believe that Biographies of Living Persons demands a NPOV -- "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints"; President Biden's actions and views on Tariffs are definitely "significant" and should be included in the article to balance the claims that Mr. Navarro's tariffs are "fringe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs)

It's a Non sequitur. It has nothing to do with Navarro. Implying that it has anything to do with Navarro is OR for the reasons I just gave you a couple lines above this comment. - MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for being a little more specific. Karagory (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I implied nothing. The editor is miss characterizing the statement that I proposed. Balance in not being given to the Living Person; neutrality requires that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Where is the opposing significant viewpoint to the pejorative "fringe"? Karagory (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, These sources you're listing don't even mention Navarro. Using them for anything on this article would create a false implication - the implication that they are at all relevant to economist's views of Navarro's ideas. Neutrality explicitly does not require us to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 1 May 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)

It's not that 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)

What does that have to do with Navarro's views? You just removed long-standing content from the lead[37] after making that comment, as if the comment had anything to do with the content. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with Navarro's economic views. There's nothing about Navarro holding the view that tariffs reduce inflation. This is pure original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

But the Trump tariffs were intended to bolster American jobs, not reduce prices. soibangla (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Biden's view 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?" The "long standing" content has been repeatedly and consistently objected to by editors. There is no original research; what did I state that is original research? I stated nothing. Karagory (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, As detailed multiple times previously in the discussion, juxtaposing Navarro's views with anyone else's is WP:SYNTHESIS (a type of original research). To make this comparison in the article we need a reliable source that explicitly makes this comparison. Also, you're trying to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE here. A neutral article on Wikipedia reflects how the sources characterize the subject, we don't try to split the difference ourselves by bringing in unrelated sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the balance as required by Biographies of living persons? What is the editor's justification for no balance? Karagory (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, By faithfully reflecting the tone of the sources and the views of mainstream economists, this article is already balanced. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it has been repeatedly and consistently objected to by editors based 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)

The editor is mischaracterizing my discussion on this page. Why does the editor bring up "pandemic" if the discussion is about economics and tariff's? "Please provide reliable sources showing reputable people praising his expertise." - That is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of the editor claiming "fringe" to show balance (which is not being done in this case). Karagory (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this Talk page is to improve the article, often by persuading others that you're right and they're wrong. If editors can produce reliable sources showing reputable people praising Navarro as an economist, such that they counter the many reliable sources showing reputable people calling his views fringe, then those editors will prevail in the debate and the passage will be modified or removed. But in all the many months I have seen this matter argued here, I have not seen you or any other editor do that. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

His views may (past tense) have been considered "fringe." I object to no balance given to the pejorative (Wikipedia defines "fringe" theory as a pejorative). I have never sought to praise Mr. Navarro as you state - mischaracterization of my position. Secondly, this article is failing to keep up with the times. The editors appear stuck in their rigidly held beliefs that tariff's are bad despite the very, very recent references to the contrary; the Reliable Sources state Mr. Navarro's views are "fringe" because he believes in China tariffs (Reliable Sources state this -- not me). However, I concede that I have not prevailed in this debate. I still do not understand why you brought up the pandemic??? Karagory (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not see WP:FRINGEBLP says it's perjorative, nor do I see I have said you have sought to praise "Mr." Navarro, which is a mischaracterization of my position. Once again, if editors insist this article is failing to keep up with the times then 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 debate I 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)

I disagree with the assertion made by the editor. Mr. Navarro's views of China tariffs (part of the basis for the term "fringe" as stated by Reliable Sources) are becoming more mainstream as my references have documented throughout the recent months. Times appear to be changing and this article, I am afraid, is failing to keep up to date. Karagory (talk) 21:52, 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) Karagory (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Fringe Economic Views 2021 - Biden Administration

"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)

Navarro's views are largely considered to be fringe because of his disagreements with essentially every other living economist about the impacts of trade deficits. (see for example the economist) The fact that he has employed 'anti-China rhetoric', and Biden has also employed 'anti-China rhetoric' has nothing to do with the fringe-ness of his economic views - this source is silent on the actual issue. Also, again, WP:BLP does not require us to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Marek is right, this is really WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. - MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor is failing to acknowledge the recent dates of my references. I am well within acceptability to bring recent references to this talk page. The editor's claim of IDIDNTHEARTHAT fails to take into account changing nature of the rhetoric and is incorrect. Karagory (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Comparing Navarro and Biden is original research. We would need a source explicitly stating this. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)" -- I provided a source explicitly stating: "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) 02:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Karagory, Apples and oranges. Navarro's economic views are considered fringe by economists. You can't contradict that with a source that talks about rhetoric, especially when the source is not about economists! This has been the common theme of your talk page comments and the root of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. One more time: we cannot use sources that make different points (or are about different people entirely) to undercut the fact that Navarro's economic views are regarded as fringe by other economists. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears as though the editor WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to new references. I have provided at least 4 new references from this year and one in the last month citing both President Biden and Mr. Navarro. The editor points to references years old. I do not contest the use of the would "fringe;" reliable sources state the use of the word. I do dispute that lack of balance. The statement that President Biden's economic views are irrelevant is laughable. If discussing policing issues, does one only cite the academics and not the police officers actually doing the work? I do not think so... Karagory (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Fringe theory says it "is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative," that is, it can be used as a pejorative, but not necessarily, and IIRC I cited at least four RS describing his views as quote-unquote "fringe" in your DRN filing.

Few across the economic and political spectrum dispute that China poses an economic challenge, and everybody hollers about it, but few economists agree that a hostile trade war centered around tariffs is the correct solution, as they point out the extensive historical evidence, approaching proof, showing such trade wars hurt both sides and result in an escalating, unwinnable stalemate. And that's exactly what played out with Trump's trade war, as he called a truce in January 2020 after realizing China would not quickly capitulate as predicted, and after the tariffs raised costs for American manufacturers (yes, they paid the tariffs, not China) and manufacturing hiring flatlined in 2019, and tariffs cost the typical American household ~$1000 a year, wiping out any benefit from the Trump tax cut, and China retaliated against farmers (a large part of Trump's base) such that he had to give them about $30 billion in cash aid from a New Deal program to prop them up. He basically wrecked one of the major export markets for farmers that they'd spent decades building and put farmers on welfare, as China shifted their farm imports to Canada, Brazil, Turkey and elsewhere, and it remains to be seen if they'll ever come back. Of course, Team Trump blames China for this, as if China has no sovereign right to assert its own economic interests and retaliation wasn't playing fair, but it wouldn't have happened if Trump hadn't declared economic war on China. It was a fiasco, and credible economists knew this all along. So the rhetoric isn't the issue, it's the policy. A fringe policy, akin to returning to the gold standard. And even then, Biden's rhetoric isn't nearly close to the outright demonization of China by Team Trump, despite what Hirsh asserts without providing much of a persuasive argument.

This will be the last time I engage you on this topic. soibangla (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor's statements are all original research. Also, it is not up to the editor to redefine Fringe theory to now claim "fringe" is not a pejorative; simply follow the link. I would recommend removing the link and thus the claim of "pejorative" (and disagreement) would be eliminated. Karagory (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)