Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership/Archive 1

message: Can you guess what it is and WHY it's the 800lb gorilla in the TPP room?  You can tell the TPP wikipedia article is probably tightly clamped down on by the TPP people themselves by the article not mentioning the gorilla AT ALL, the biggest controversy of the TPP, why it was formed in the first place, and why it has the hypocritical membership standards it does (aka Vietnam).  Anyone care to guess?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.177.183 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 800 pound Gorilla in the Room 

message: If the article includes a "Controversy over IP" section, it seems only fair to include the potential benefits to the U.S. economy of such a trade agreement.  Clearly needs information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.60.194 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information/Claims of Benefits 

message: The lobbyists call for among other things protection of biopharmaceutical and agrochemical companies test data, longer copyright terms and mandated software patents.  85.78.132.105 (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Industry IP memo for the TPP negotiations leaked 

message: Recent leaked documents show that the TPP is slated to be the next ACTA, with the US making excessive IP expansionism demands, such as 120-year length copyrights, and online IP enforcement by third parties like ISPs. This article needs more on this topic, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.219.209 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  I think it is vital that this is covered as it is clear that it is "another ACTA" like treaty. AVKent882 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will these proposals ever end?! 78.2.106.250 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, once they're all implemented. HTH. --188.100.152.61 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

text: OK, I added a section about the secrecy controversy. If the Yes Men actually interrupted the negotiations or interacted with Ron Kirk or the other negotiators, then it would be noteworthy for this article; interruption of the Australian negotiations is mentioned in the article lead. But if they just staged some kind of external stunt, then it's less notable, IMHO. Maybe we should start a section to cover public demonstrations? —mjb (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: There is also controversy over the lack of public transparency and the presence of corporate consultants at the talks. This has led to some suspicion there may be back door attempts at weakening regulation under the guise of synchronising regional practices. See this: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp  and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOokUdKYcM . It might also be worth noting that the Dallas conference was crashed by the notorious Yes Men, or does that go better on the yes men's page? I'm new.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.135.115.103 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added a section about the secrecy controversy. If the Yes Men actually interrupted the negotiations or interacted with Ron Kirk or the other negotiators, then it would be noteworthy for this article; interruption of the Australian negotiations is mentioned in the article lead. But if they just staged some kind of external stunt, then it's less notable, IMHO. Maybe we should start a section to cover public demonstrations? —mjb (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secrecy 

message: Why don't you guys use the Pacific-centered map like the Japanese page has:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:P-4_Countries_162E.svg
97.134.180.11 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Rise of China; What Japan Joining the TPP Means for the Region by Bernard K. Gordon Foreign Affairs November 7, 2011
99.19.44.155 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential resource 

message: Needs a properly weighted overview in intro of significant controversies, perhaps similar to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which recently underwent a nice intro update. Sloggerbum (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; a six-paragraph intro like the one in the ACTA article ventures too far into redundancy and encourages people to make edits that result in the intro falling out of sync with the body. I believe the lead should be as terse and detail-free as possible. If we were talking about one or two issues, it would be different, but there are just too many specific concerns that people have with the TPP to mention them all in the lead. So IMHO, a proper summary of them is not a prioritized list of everyone's gripes, but rather a more general mention of the existence of concern regarding certain aspects of the negotiations and the proposed expansions to the original agreement. I tried to address this in today's edits. —mjb (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro does not cover controversy

message: "A US-led proposal to tighten intellectual property rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement has been rebuffed at the latest round of negotiations in Melbourne."
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/293480,trans-pacific-partnership-talks-in-disarray.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.167.155 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Intellectual Property Provisions Rejected? 

message: At the G20 summit in Los Cabos, both were invited to join the TPP. It should be added to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.5.242 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico and Canada 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppV0tQ1hYww&feature=g-user-u
Lori Wallach, from Public Citizen, on the secret negotiations of the far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) "free trade" agreement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.26 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lori Wallach on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Secret Trade Pact

message: Someone added to the article a mention of U.S. trade policy analyst Edward Gresser's op-ed "Does U.S. Pacific Policy Need a Trade Policy?" along with a mention that China is "notably absent" from the TPP. Upon reading the piece, however, I found that this was just part of what Gresser was saying. On the one hand, he predicts the TPP will be relatively ineffective without including the three largest Asian economies (China, Japan and India), but he also speculates that if China and India were to join, it would spell trouble, given the deadlock in the WTO's Doha Round, with the United States on one side and India and China on the other. He basically says that a Pacific free trade agreement involving the U.S. is a good idea, but he implies that there's no way to make it work.
I've removed it for now; I'm not convinced that this is a worthy addition to the article. Why is this speculation by Gresser important? —mjb (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Gresser content 

message: An anonymous visitor removed the words "free trade" from the article intro without explanation. Is the TPP not a type of free trade agreement? If it technically isn't, then we need to explain this in the article, and mention that in the press, it's regarded as a free trade agreement. —mjb (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was discussed on TV some weeks ago that there is no such thing as 'free' trade, only less regulated trade. Using 'free' is misleading and loaded. 121.209.56.80 (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the TPP a free trade agreement? 

message: The lead of the article was recently edited by someone at a static IP address assigned to Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, a law firm and lobbying organization with significant ties to corporate clients and the governments of the U.S. and Japan, with a focus on international trade. I believe there is a conflict of interest here; any edits from this user should be closely scrutinized, and the user should raise concerns here on the article's discussion page before making any substantive changes to the article.
The recent edit was the deletion of a critical quote that someone had added to the article's lead a month prior. The quote pointed out that many parts of the TPP have less to do with trade and more to do with expanding corporate power and limiting accountability. The edit summary was somewhat correct in that the quote was certainly not as neutral as it could have been. It was also not ideal for inclusion in the lead. However, although it was clearly written from a skeptical point of view, I don't see any reason to believe it is factually inaccurate. Also, it is fairly representative of the issues that people have with the substance of the TPP. So instead of leaving it deleted, I have restored it, but moved it to a more appropriate location in the article, and added context so that it is clearly characterized as the views of an anti-globalization advocate. I also noticed that it had an inaccurate reference attached to it, so I fixed that by locating and citing the actual source of the quote.
If there is concern that the article under-represents pro-TPP views, please locate published sources for those views and add the info as needed. —mjb (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely conflict of interest 

message: I'm removing the "by whom?" tag (which was added 2 hours ago by a busy anonymous user), from the paragraph of §Membership and accession. The first two of the footnote references at the end of the sentence are to announcements on the official website of the Government of New Zealand. As the documentation for the tag template says, 
:Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph.
--Thnidu (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  By whom? By NZ 

message: It comes from TPSEP itself, and there have been many disputes about the aims of this treaty, therefore I'm putting a neutrality dispute tag in the text. Anonimski (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The aims of this treaty appear to be in the chain of treaties, NAFTA, Trans-Pacific, Trans-Atlantic, all revolving around the US and leaving China outside. For the Trans-Atlantic/EU one, I have read how a country could exit: All countries have to agree, so in practice there is no exit. If there is an exit clause for the Trans-Pacific one, it seems to be a secret. If it's secret, we are allowed to speculate, so the aims may well be to isolate China and Russia. 121.209.56.80 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of "liberalise" in the lead section. 

message: The article refers to TPP as a treaty multiple times.  However, in the article it says:
: In the United States, the majority of so-called free trade agreements are implemented as congressional-executive agreements.[60] Unlike treaties, congressional-executive agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass.[60] Under "Trade Promotion Authority" (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974, Fast track (trade) Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met."[60] In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is the renewal of "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority.[61] If "fast track" is renewed, then the normal treaty ratification and implementation procedure would be bypassed, and the United States Congress would instead be required to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days.[62]
I think that means that in the US, at least, TPP will not be a treaty, but just an agreement with no binding force and some laws that can be amended, repealed, etc. by Congress at any time.  I think this needs some clarification. 66.63.177.59 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is or is not a treaty is defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  Calling it something else to evade domestic constitutional requirements is irrelevant to its status in international law. M Carling 05:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is TPP a treaty? 

message: I don't believe references to the ongoing leaks of information pertaining to the agreement by Wikileaks belong in the intro to the article.  Wikileaks leaks information on a variety of topics.  The leaks themselves are not particularly noteworthy to TPP. CFredkin (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks 

message: Is an industry advocacy web site considered a reliable source? CFredkin (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime News Network 

message: This edit is sourced to Republic Report, which is not a wp:reliable source.  The fact that it was picked up by Bill Moyer's site doesn't make it reliable.  Please obtain consensus from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before using it in an article.CFredkin (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with CFredkin on this issue in particular.  We need a much more reliable source than this singular report. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Then you would be engaging in original research.  We need reliable secondary sources to report on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

text: In addition to being obscure, there's no evidence of editorial control or fact-checking.CFredkin (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic Report 

message: Neither "Media Matters" nor "FAIR" are reliable sources.  There is no evidence of editorial control or fact-checking for either.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: *Craig Harrington and Brian Powell (5 February 2014). STUDY: Media Leave Viewers In The Dark About Trans-Pacific Partnership. Media Matters for America. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
Using Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, please give more detail.  99.112.214.26 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication of editorial control or fact checking by the source.  These are factors which indicate reliability per wp:reliable.CFredkin (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Same issue.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid simply hand-waving at wiki policy titles does not qualify as a valid challenge, hence your revrt seems uncalled for and invalid. Quote: is "no indication of editorial control or fact checking by the source." Huh? The sources listed are well known third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy equal to or better than most other respected news sources. Being the watch dogs that watch our so-called Media watchdogs qains them Media unpopularity, not disrespect. Please be more specific, (Make a logical argument, or site exact wiki guideline) else your challenge be affirmed as invalid. Thank you.  --71.137.156.36 (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reasonable possibility that some sources may not be unbiased in presentation of facts -- mixing fact with opinion.  And where there is any doubt, it is safest to cite opinions as opinions.   MMFA and FAIR are, in fact, routinely cited as having specific POVs, thus it is safest to only assert that something is their opinion rather than simply cite it as undoubted fact in Wikipedia's voice.  For example, "ignored" may be a matter of opinion absent any measurement of time spend on mentions, or content of such mentions, and there may be still other variables making the term "ignored" into a straightforward opinion at best.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans-Pacific_Partnership&diff=prev&oldid=605917627 removed] by calling it "not from reliable sources", why? 

message: This is not a WP:reliable source for statements of fact.  Please provide a different source for this claim.  Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Canadians