Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aravedis, Jdaguiso, Lamannie, Corhux909. Peer reviewers: Aravedis, Jdaguiso, Jdurkee, Corhux909.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmaleejordan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Qualification in lead
My rationale for adding the qualifier "Some" to the statement in the lead was that the primary source states: 'Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor, but are adamantly supported by American corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.'  The use of the term "among" in the source indicates that not all global health experts, Internet freedom activists,... have expressed alarm.CFredkin (talk)

Voluntary export restraints
TPP doesn't prevent Voluntary export restraints. Where would be best to include this point and the effects of it?Johnragla (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased deletions
I reverted the latest of several deletions by User:Volunteer Marek. This one deleted the following claiming it was "fringe":

"On 12 April 2016, former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Gord Miller argued that TPP's ISDS would allow foreign corporations to sue the Canadian government over environmental regulations that the government imposed, and if the corporations won their cases the government would be forced to pay compensations to the corporations from public coffers. Pointing out that Canada was sued multiple times under NAFTA's ISDS and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, Miller explained that paying such compensation was like a hidden tax imposed on Canadians by multinational corporations. Green Party of Canada argues that Canadians should not be taxed by corporations for regulations that protect Canadians and Canada's environment. Miller, who is the Green Party of Canada's Infrastructure & Community Development Critic, concluded that TPP should not be ratified. "

What's "fringe" about this? DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Green Party is a fringe political party. I see no reason why their views should be given prominence in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with Miller that he's not an expert and the problem with his statement is that it's simplistic to the point of being incorrect. TPP's ISDS are fairly clear in that signatories can't be sued and cases lost for just implementing any regulation, but specifically regulations that discriminate against foreign companies and investors. If an environmental regulation is found to specifically discriminate against a foreign company and not to be sincere in its intentions, then yes, the Canadian government can be sued. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Gord Miller (environmental commissioner) served as Environment Commissioner of Ontario from 2000–2015. The population of Ontario is roughly 13,000,000, approximately a third of the Canadian population of roughly 36,000,000.


 * Independent of the source, if it's true "that Canada was sued multiple times under NAFTA's ISDS and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation," then that fact should be part of the present article. I would expect a person who was Environment Commissioner of Ontario from 2000 to 2015 to have some expertise about this.


 * Joseph Stiglitz on 10 January 2016, wrote, "The problem [with the TPP] is not so much with the agreement’s trade provisions, but with the “investment” chapter, which severely constrains environmental, health, and safety regulation, and even financial regulations with significant macroeconomic impacts. In particular, the chapter gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international tribunals [emphasis added] when they believe government regulations contravene the TPP’s terms ... . In the past, such tribunals have interpreted the requirement that foreign investors receive “fair and equitable treatment” as grounds for striking down new government regulations – even if they are non-discriminatory and are adopted simply to protect citizens from newly discovered egregious harms ... even regulations protecting the planet from greenhouse gas emissions are vulnerable. The only regulations that appear safe are those involving cigarettes (lawsuits filed against Uruguay and Australia for requiring modest labeling about health hazards had drawn too much negative attention). But there remain a host of questions about the possibility of lawsuits in myriad other areas."


 * I think that these comments by Miller and Stiglitz both belong in this article. Miller does not have the international reputation of Stiglitz, but he's hardly a novice on these issues.  Moreover, if I read his bio correctly, he was a member of the Conservative Party of Canada when he was Environment Commissioner;  that Conservative Party is currently the number 2 party in the House of Commons of Canada and the number one in the Senate of Canada.  He switched to the Green Party of Canada in 2015.  He is hardly "fringe".  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again discounting a source you disagree with because you personally don't consider them "experts". Galestar (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be better if Stiglitz had cited specific cases, but he didn't. Miller comes closer, but he didn't either.  However, what level of secrecy has surrounded Investor-state dispute settlement in the past?  I'm not an expert on this, but it's my understanding that some though not all of these proceedings have been secret under previous trade agreements, and the TPP is different in this regard?  The Wikipedia article on Investor-state dispute settlement includes a box claiming to quote an Economist article that allegedly said that, "thousands of trade and investment treaties over the past half century have" given "foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever a government passes a law to, say, discourage smoking, protect the environment or prevent a nuclear catastrophe."  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce denies this.  However, if many such proceedings have been secret, it could make it practically impossible for people to get specifics and even know what's been done, apart from much publicized cases like tobacco.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Tufts paper
Re. I guess that's a good point. As long as the sources are secondary sources discussing this working paper rather than the working paper itself I think this is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think working papers alone are good enough for a recent topic such as this one. There is simply not going to be any research peer-reviewed in academic journals on TPP before TPP is ratified or rejected (it can take many years to publish in the top econ journals). It is consequently necessary to rely on working papers, such as the Tufts analysis. The page has a fairly good discussion about the contents of the Tufts paper and whether and how its consistent with good economic practices (there wasn't one before I started editing this page a few weeks ago). Since the Tufts paper is covered in every media discussion about TPP, it's necessary to include it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree but with some qualifications. We can't use just ANY working paper even if the topic is recent. In this case, I'm willing to accept it precisely because this particular paper has been discussed by prominent economists (even if it's in blogs and the like). Hence we just got to make sure that we cover the *discussion* about the paper rather than just the paper itself (and that model is sketchy as hell, but nm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting 4.1. Economic impact
I'm concerned that the current [as of 2016-07-09] section "4.1. Economic impact" reads with it was written by a committee, with each person concerned that their perspective appears but nobody editing the result for clarity. I think it's confusing without, e.g., an adequate description of the meaning of numbers quoted. For example, the current article says, 'the TPP "agreement could raise GDP in member countries by an average of 1.1 percent by 2030.'" Is this increasing GDP by 1.1 percent per year or cumulative over the 14 or so years remaining until 2030? I felt a need to read references like those cited to find out. Also, there's no discussion of the uncertainty in these numbers -- and the accuracy of comparable forecasts associated with previous trade agreements. From what I've found, the published numbers are tiny compared to the uncertainty in previous forecasts.

What do you think about creating a new article on, e.g., "Economic Analyses of the Trans-Pacific Partnership", where the current text would be revised and other recent sources would be discussed? My preference would be to consider only material that has been published since the text of the TPP became officially available, 5 November 2015. After we have an article on that, we can then replace the current text with a summary that is as clear and concise as we can make it while still preserving the diversity of views.

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about how the section reads, but it's basically just summarizing the results of different economic modeling efforts, each of which use different stylized approaches and assumptions. Unfortunately there's no concise way to bring them into conversation with each other and pin down exactly where the disagreements are. But there is a consensus that the TPP will have smaller economic impacts than previous trade agreements, because most of the low-hanging fruit (in terms of tariff reduction, barriers to capital, etc) is already gone. The TPP's raison d'etre is that it addresses trade issues that weren't dealt with under WTO, like IP and emerging economic sectors (e.g. digital economy). Those impacts are much harder to measure and predict than the trade gains from tariff reduction, but they're a much more important motivating factor for the countries involved. So it doesn't make much sense to compare the estimates in this article with those from previous trade deals, which were relatively more straightforward to predict.


 * I'd definitely agree with taking out any analysis from before the text was officially released. But I'd also suggest not putting too much weight on economists' predictions of what the impacts on employment and GDP will be. If the article focuses too much on disagreements about whether it'll boost GDP by a little bit or lower employment by a little bit, it obscures the more important stories about the TPP, which is that it's the first big multi-party trade deal since the Doha round stalled, it supercedes a bunch of smaller trade agreements and brings a little more regulatory harmony, it addresses emerging economic issues, and so on. Jfsupeene (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I wrote large parts of the economic impact section (it was basically only about the results of the Tufts and PIIE studies before I edited it), so it definitely wasn't written by committee. If you believe it could be clearer, feel free to edit it. I don't think there's a need for a specific page about the economic impact of TPP. This page should be sufficient. I don't think anyone would mind a more extensive economic impact section on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't want to delete a lot of references from before the agreement was published unless those references were wrong or of poor quality or have been entirely superseded by more recent references. I haven't seen any credible sources that say that any of the claims before official publication were wrong.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * but there should be a preference in additions for sources published since the text was officially available. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Thorbecke's comment on this article
Dr. Thorbecke has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Good discussion"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Thorbecke has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Thorbecke, Willem & Komoto, Ginalyn, 2010. "Investigating the Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Transpacific Rebalancing," ADBI Working Papers 247, Asian Development Bank Institute.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Independent sourcing issues
This article has taken on too much first-party sourcing. Specifically, the United States Trade Representative's statements are over-represented here:
 * "According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the "TPP includes the most robust enforceable environment commitments of any trade agreement in history".[49] The USTR notes that the TPP requires signatories to fulfill their obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to protect and conserve iconic species.[49] According to the USTR, TPP is the first trade agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, such as those that contribute to overfishing.[49] The USTR asserts that TPP signatories are required to "combat illegal fishing", "promote sustainable fisheries management practices", and "protect wetlands and important natural areas"."combat wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing" and "protect the marine environment from ship pollution, including by implementing their obligations under MARPOL (an international agreement to prevent marine pollution)".[49]"
 * "According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, signatories are required to join the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC); criminalize bribery of public officials; have in place a code of conduct for public officials; take measures to decrease conflicts of interest; effectively enforce anti-corruption laws and regulations; and involve private organizations in the fight against corruption.[60]"
 * "According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the TPP prohibiting exploitative child labor and forced labor; ensures the right to collective bargaining; and prohibits employment discrimination.[61] The USTR asserts that "research by the International Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization finds that combining expanded trade opportunities with strong protections for workers can help workers move from informal-sector jobs into formal work in wage-paying, regulated export industries which offer a minimum wage, benefits, and safety programs".[61] The USTR asserts that "research also shows that trade improves human rights conditions by fostering pluralistic institutions and increasing open exchanges of information."[61]"
 * "According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the TPP will spur innovation by requiring signatories to establish strong patentability standard and adopt strong copyright protections.[64]"
 * "The Office of the United States Trade Representative notes that the TPP "aligns with the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health", which allows developing countries to circumvent patent rights for better access to essential medicines.[64]"

Etc.

Some sections have content solely sourced from USTR. Per WP:THIRDPARTY, we should work on removing these and replacing them where possible with independent sources. Forbes72 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree that we should try and find reliable, secondary sources (I think these sources need to be held to a higher standard on this page than most pages, given the exceptional level of misinformation in much news coverage... e.g. "lost profits" myths in the Guardian and the Independent, regurgitation of critiques from NGOs without independent verification by the news sources, the lack of thorough analysis of the contents of each chapter) for many of these claims (does TPP require signatories to join UNCAC?). I do think it's right to keep USTR statements when in response to critiques, especially when the critiques are vague and does not address the actual contents of the TPP specifically (e.g. does not address the environmental standards, labor standards, TRIPS consistency on drugs, repeats myths about "lost profits" and so forth). Otherwise the page gives undue weight to the criticisms.


 * Good job on fixing the page with a set of edits the other day. I hope we can further improve the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from here. The TPP is fairly complex, and we certainly want to avoid repeating popular criticism that oversimplifies the issues. Unfortunately we cannot just quote USTR to fact-check sources here. We really do need to find a third-party explanations instead.


 * There's other solutions too. For example, with the source talking about suing for "lost profits" actually never said "sue for lost profits alone", so on closer reading we can rephrase how the criticism is presented so that we don't need a USTR statement to disagree with what was never claimed. Forbes72 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of Date?
A lot of the discussion seems to focus on the draft agreement, rather than the one that was actually signed. For example, the ISDS section seems to assume wording that is quite different from the final version. Notably, the final version appears to include much of the wording recommended here

http://www.citizen.org/documents/MST-Memo.pdf

I worry that the reliance on the draft document may make this page highly misleading to people who rely on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4401:1740:413A:C353:2821:CC3D (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Which parts of the ISDS section are specifically out of date? I made two-three changes to reflect statements during TPP negotiations and after the release of the final agreement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be better to have newer references and more on more recent events. However, how different is the final text from the leaked versions?  From what I've hear, the parts of the agreement that people (e.g., Stiglitz) found most objectionable were relatively unchanged or even made worse in the final.  We need more documentation on whether that's true.
 * In any event, the TPP is highly controversial, with many page views and "watchers". Any change must be written from a neutral point of view citing credible sources.  DavidMCEddy (talk)

The second paragraph of section 3.2 (Ratification-->United States) can be updated. The second sentence can be deleted (as it is now obsolete). Jdurkee (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, it might be beneficial to add potential actions Presidential nominees Clinton and Trump might take pending their election. Once there is a President-Elect, information regarding their stance towards the TPP would enhance the article. Jdurkee (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad sources
> The Venezuelan-backed TeleSUR reported that, when a deal was struck on 5 October 2015, the Sierra Club, NRDC, Greenpeace, 350.org, and Food & Water Watch raised warnings against the deal.

Citing TeleSUR on Wikipedia? Seriously?

> In 2013, Nobel Memorial prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that based on leaked drafts of the TPP, it presented "grave risks" and "serves the interests of the wealthiest."

Grave risks to who/what? Stiglitz is a distinguished economist and worthy of citing, but this non-specific to the point of meaninglessness.

> Organised labour in the U.S. argued, during the negotiations, that the trade deal would largely benefit corporations at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries.

What organized labour? Again, worthy of citing, but more specific details required.

> The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research have argued that the TPP could result in further job losses and declining wages.

The use of the word "further" implies there is currently "a lot of job losses and declining wages". Fact is US unemployment (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) is trending down, and while wages aren't accelerating as much as they have in the past, they aren't declining, and net compensation roughly tracks productivity. (https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone)

> In 2014, linguist Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximise profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity." Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argues that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations." Economist Robert Reich contends that the TPP is a "Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom."

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not an economist, and his statement is ridiculous conspiracy theories. Sanders is also not an economist, and he's demonstrably wrong as trade agreements like NAFTA etc have not done what he claims. Robert Reich is also not an economist, and is also demonstrably wrong as there is no global race to the bottom. See eg http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty for data on word poverty.

Chomsky, Sanders and Reich are about as cite worthy on trade agreements and economics as Donald Trump on climate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.209.246 (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * These are legitimate criticisms from prominent intellectuals and academics. you can't delete them because you don't agree with them. Your comments about "conspiracy theories" demonstrates your bias on this matter. I am restoring these long-standing additions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The headings of the section are Economic effects | Effects on economic equality. Plenty of actual economists have offered plenty of legitimate and specific criticism against the TPP. (eg Stiglitz- you'll note that, as such, the Stiglitz section wasn't removed) Such criticism isn't hard to find and I'd welcome if more was added. The sections that were removed are 1) not legitimate criticisms 2) not one of the people cited is an economist 3) in at least one case, plain conspiracy theories. If you want to keep them in the article, at the very least move them under a different heading that indicates they aren't economists. Being prominent or popular doesn't mean the people cited are qualified- Donald Trump isn't worthy of citing on climate change. Also, invalid additions aren't immune from removal just because they are long-standing. Finally, your own User Page makes explicit your extreme bias on the subject, and it's clear you've been involved in edit warring on related topics in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.209.246 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is your assertion that these are "invalid additions" is not accurate, given they are prominent individuals who are regularly featured in mainstream and other media, and two of them are professors. And by the way, I've been a legitimate editor at Wikipedia for nearly 10 years, while you're nothing but an IP address with a handful of edits. Oh and another thing, new topics start at the bottom of the page, not the top.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is saying they aren't prominent individuals, aren't regularly featured in mainstream media, that two of them aren't professors (not in economics), or that you aren't a legitimate editor of 10 years. I realize you are "a socialist and loathes the current neoliberal hegemony that places corporate greed and profitability above human life, the environment and the collective well being of society" and "a fan of Noam Chomsky". My question to you is why you think any of that qualifies any of them to feature in articles about economics and trade agreements, let alone alongside actual economists like Stiglitz in a section headlined Economic effects | Effects on economic equality. Again, I welcome legitimate and specific criticism from actual economists- more could easily be added. (see eg critical comments on the TPP by Krugman, Rodrik etc) Finally, note that there is an overwhelming, universal consensus amongst economists about trade and similar past trade agreements. In IGM polls, literally 0% disagree "Past major trade deals have benefited most Americans", "Trade with China makes most Americans better off because, among other advantages, they can buy goods that are made or assembled more cheaply in China", "Freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment", "On average, citizens of the U.S. have been better off with the North American Free Trade Agreement than they would have been if the trade rules for the U.S., Canada and Mexico prior to NAFTA had remained in place".

In this case, the IP is correct. TeleSur is not a reliable source. Chomsky is a linguist, not an economist. Stiglitz would qualify but his statements are vague.

Also, how in the world does this work: we have text cited to an unreliable source (TeleSur) and attributed to it. Someone points out that this source is unreliable. So the source and the attribution gets removed but the text is left in place? Huh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * By all means, remove them. I would remove them myself but I fear any removals would just be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.209.246 (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

TPP is a trade agreement
An IP editor has cited for the proposition that the TPP is not a trade agreement. I understand the point that the opinion piece is trying to make, but the reality is, this is what is generally known as a trade agreement. That's what we ought to call it on Wikipedia. A change of this magnitude would require consensus (that I don't think is there). agt x 04:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because its authors call it a trade agreement, or you say "reality is..." doesn't make it one. There are plenty of sources that explicitly call it out as not a trade agreement.  There is no consensus in sources, therefore there cannot be consensus here.  Mentions of it being a trade agreement should either be deleted or rewritten to indicate that there is controversy here. Galestar (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Every single reliable news source calls TPP a trade agreement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There are several sources (one is linked above if you care to actually read this discussion) that state it is not a trade agreement. Galestar (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That opinion piece (which only cites opinion pieces) by a non-expert is rife with misunderstandings of the contents of TPP. TPP lowers tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, and is described by every single reliable news source as a "trade agreement" or "trade deal". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that everytime you find a source you disagree with you call them a "non-expert" and discount the source. This talk page is riddled with examples of you doing this.   You cannot pick and choose sources based solely on whether or not they agree with you.  Galestar (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The TPP is a trade agreement just like the Greater East Asia Co-Propserity Sphere :)116.231.75.71 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It says in the article "Critics complained that while Trump has worked to contain the economic and geostrategic influence of China, withdrawing from the TPP reduced the effectiveness of a treaty that was designed to do exactly that. (77)"
 * It has an element of Trojan; exercise political influence through trade. My objection as an Australian was that we did not know who was negotiating and what exactly. We did not even know this was in preparation until very late. Then we were not allowed to see the text before signing. It's all been done in secret and nothing could be changed. That was too much behind our backs for my taste. I was glad, Trump refused to sign. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C1DB:EAB2:6DA:F1B2 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bogus deletion
On 23:51, 8 October 2016 user:Snooganssnoogans undid a revision, stating, "please use a citation that can be checked".

This revision cited the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a blog by Evan Greer from last November shortly after the official text became publicly available. My revision is the following:

In particular, article 18.78 on "Trade Secrets" criminalizes the “unauthorized and willful disclosure of a trade secret". Part of the problem here is that "trade secret" is defined so broadly that this provision could subject to prosecution anyone who releases documents exposing violations of the law by business or governmental officials, e.g., The Guardian’s reporting on the documents they received from Edward Snowden.

What part of this cannot be checked?

In a previous contribution on this Talk page (above), I mention "three major points of controversy about the TPP". This is one of them: 'The potential threat to journalists and whistleblowers of the "trade secrets" provision with the overly broad definition of "trade secrets".'

Does user:Snooganssnoogans object to citing the text of the agreement and this particular objection? DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The only source you provided was "Greer ((5 November 2015)". No links to anything. No description of the author or the publication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I also provided a link to the Wikisource -- and the Greer citation is in the "External links" section of the article. I'll put them both in the references.  Thanks.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The link I provided to Wikisource was to the actual text of the TPP. The Greer citation said essentially the same thing as Jeremy Malcolm, who is an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, except that Greer noted that this issue was discussed in article 18.78 of the TPP, and Malcolm did not cite that article.
 * Have you read the text of article 18.78 of the TPP? It's not very long, and it supports what Malcolm and Greer said.  I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand that.
 * It's clear that neither Malcolm nor Greer, the EFF, nor FFTF, are unbiased sources.
 * Their concern is already vaguely expressed in the existing text. However, the current text is almost impossible to understand without these other sources.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this Greer, who is not an international lawyer or expert on this, interprets article 18.78, with absolutely nothing to back it up, to mean that TPP bans whistleblowing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to decide the source has made a mistake. For such an active editor, I thought you would know that by now.  Galestar (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW as a third party who's studied TPP, the Tumblr blog that was linked as a source is engaged in some pretty wild speculation. It obviously can't be proven or disproven since the treaty won't take effect for years, if ever. I've read many academic articles that are critical of the TPP and none of them raise this as an issue. Even if this article was starved for content, this wouldn't merit inclusion. Jfsupeene (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-TPP party opinions
For Wiki Education Foundation / POLI 160AA: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I think this section is misleading, confusing, and not necessary. If this section was changed to talk about non-party affiliated opinions, it would be clearer and make more sense, but as it is, the section name makes it seem as if the TPP is a political party or is being controlled by a political party. The content in that section describes opinions from European leaders only, specifically only three. It is not a well-rounded review, and it creates for bias since it only shows European opinions of a very short list of a selective few. It would be helpful to change the name of the section and to provide more opinions from countries who are not involved with the trade agreement or whatever "Non-TPP party" is referencing to. Jdaguiso (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms from politicians and activists
This section is severely underrepresented, and overall appears to lean more toward the pros of TPP, rather than the cons. While it refers to  Noam Chomsky warning against TPP from 2014, the only major recent opposition it mentions is Senator Bernie Sanders. [140]  Many of the other candidates in the 2016 Presidential election criticized the TPP.

Aravedis (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Aravedis


 * No encyclopedic purpose is served by representing the fringe views of misinformed politicians more than they need to be. TPP opponents all push the same misinformation.


 * The TPP was examined in great detail by economists who concluded, near unanimously, that the "cons" of the deal are so trivial they're hardly compelling reasons to withdraw. Economists basically said that it would cause some worker displacement, as is the case with all trade deals, and that the government should enforce worker protections and programs to retrain displaced workers in growing sectors of the economy. They also said that a failure to ratify this deal would be detrimental to US economic interests and result in less inward foreign direct investment, along with significant job loss.

https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-5.pdf


 * "A failure to ratify the TPP is estimated to result in $128 billion

less inward FDI stocks in the United States over the next decade and a half (Petri and Plummer 2016), meaning fewer highpaying jobs, less capital investment, and lower levels of R&D in the US economy"


 * Thanks to Trump, we've already seen some of this impact:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/cptpp-american-farmers-set-for-pain-as-pacific-trade-deal-kicks-in.html


 * Support for protectionism has no standing in mainstream economics. Free trade articles on Wiki should give no more space to protectionist views than climate change articles give to deniers, or evolution articles give to creationists.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Too little on Ratification
The Ratification section as a whole is underrepresented, while it may not be done, the nations are all having sigificant debates. Take Japan for instance Prime Minister Abe has enough supporting the Diet to pass it, but he is facing challenges. Obama intended to bring it to congress once the election was over, what's going to happen now. 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Aravedis (talk)
 * Speaking of which, the Diet just passed the bill ratifying the TPP pact despite massive opposition. ルーカス２００５ 06:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember the debate in Australia as a farce. For a while we were not allowed to see the texts and when we were allowed it was 'it's alright to debate, but there can be no change'. That attitude alone was a reason for me to express my dislike. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C1DB:EAB2:6DA:F1B2 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Law Enforcement
Ratifying the TPP would increase trade among member nations, and while the issue of intellectual property is in the page, there is no mention of piracy, and jurisdiction authority on law enforcement. Increase in trade would need increase security in international waters especially since an expanding trade industry is sure to cause an influx of contraband band. US maritime law insure that US ships need certificate to bring in goods, but oversight is an issue that has not been addressed or represented on this page. 02:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Aravedis (talk)

Potential countries
In the potential country listed, Taiwan was a part of it. But in fact, Taiwan was never a country and it's still not a country. So it shouldn't be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.223.206 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A page with most 'China's for a partnership without China, Isn't it paradox? Haojian (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

America's Potential withdrawal.
I know that Trump has declared his intention to withdraw, however, like the European Union situation with the UK planning on leaving, the US is STILL a member and a part of the deal until the President Elect officially notifies them with the authority of the office of president. Therefore the list of members should stay the same with no edit, other than has already commented on and added to the article explaining Trump's intentions. -- MisterShiney ✉ 00:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This Australian had observed the topic at the time and remembers it thus: All that was needed to come into force was the US President's signature. It had gone through Congress and I believe had all countries' approvals. But Trump was against it. He had been elected in November 2016 and said no. Congress's approvals were valid til 1st January 2017, so when Trump was inaugurated, that approval had expired.
 * This Australian was upset about this agreement which seemed to sign over our sovereignty. Over many years the negotiations were held - but we did not know. We never knew who the negotiators were and were suspicious that it could have been delegates of business modelling laws for their own benefit. We had no knowledge or influence - once such agreements reach parliaments for approval they cannot change one iota. That is just too much behind our backs. I am eternally grateful to Trump that he saved Australia from the TPP.
 * I had come here to see if the Solomon Islands had been a party to TPP. There is a controversy currently about the Solomon Islands, where they say they have an important strategic position. Strange that they were not included, but maybe they were taken for granted. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:DD71:517A:98D7:C393 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

US pulling out is now official
''For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base.

''With a lifetime of negotiating experience, the President understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade. With tough and fair agreements, international trade can be used to grow our economy, return millions of jobs to America’s shores, and revitalize our nation’s suffering communities.''

''This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.''

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-foreign-policy 37.191.5.234 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Update 23rd of January
Trump will be officially be signing an executive order today (23rd of January) to withdraw from the TPP.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal-trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/index.html?adkey=bn LordMathe2 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2017 (CET)

Executive order pulling U.S. out more important
The executive order signed today by President Trump is far more important than a talking point mentioned while he was President-elect. Something akin to this: "On January 23, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order formally withdrawing the United States from TPP." - with additional context for his position since the campaign if that is necessary - would be more appropriate than mentioning his comment while President-elect. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal of the United States
The United States withdrew from the TPP today, when will the map on the article be modified to portray the US as country who withdrew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.171.126 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the United States section there is vandalism which I attempted to remove but resulted in a conflict. I think this page should be at least partially protected. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Repeated attempts to add inaccuracies to the article. Should be temporarily protected. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have put in a request for temporary protection. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Galestar is vandalising the article: replacing "trade agreement" with "corporate welfare"
The user has repeatedly replaced any mention that TPP is a "trade agreement" with the phrase "corporate welfare". Every single reliable news source refers to TPP as a "trade agreement" or "trade deal". Here are a few (in case the editor is actually editing in good faith, as opposed to just disruptively editing):


 * BBC News: Trump executive order pulls out of TPP trade deal
 * Reuters: Trump pulls U.S. out of Pacific trade deal, loosening Asia ties
 * NPR: Trump Signs 3 Memoranda, Including Withdrawal From Pacific Trade Deal
 * PBS: President Trump signs memo to leave TPP trade pact

"Corporate welfare" is a term that some critics of the agreement have adopted, and should be in the criticism section of the article when appropriate and when reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When sources disagree, you cannot simply relegate one point of view to the "criticism" section and then write the entire rest of the article from the other POV. I have added the NPOV marker to this article - your bias has clearly polluted it.  Galestar (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, reliable news sources unanimously refer to TPP as a trade agreement, whereas opinion pieces by critics refer to it as "corporate welfare" and use other negative phrases. Wikipedia voice should reflect the reliable news sources, whereas critical op-ed pieces belong in the reception or criticism section of the article and should be attributed to the writers of the op-eds. Also, consider yourself warned that you have surpassed the three-revert rule in your efforts to delete reliably sourced long-standing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not unanimous. You are blinded by your bias.  Also consider yourself warned that you have surpassed the three-revert rule - age of content does not matter.  Galestar (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and link to reliable news sources (read: not op-ed pieces) describing TPP as "corporate welfare" or as something other than a trade deal/pact/agreement. And please do not edit my comments as you did here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

TTP and TTIP are both trade agreements, before Trump deleted their pages the White House officially also referred to them as such, the official sources (for TPP) in Japan and other 'Pacific' nations also refer to it as a trade agreement, and (for TTIP) you can also easily find how EU, Hungarian, German, and other official sources in Europe refer to it as a trade agreement. In Hungarian as example both TTIP & TPP are usually referred to officially as szabadkereskedelmi megállapodás which roughly means free-trade agreement. I never heard anyone call it "corporate welfare" which is as I find intentionally insulting and nonsense. One direct official quote from Australia on TPP is a regional free trade agreement, source - http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/Pages/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp.aspx and I hope this debate is clearly ended by it finally. 37.191.5.234 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is vandalising the article
He violated 3RR in vandalizing the contents of the article in order to enforce his long-standing bias. Galestar (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one is going to care that anyone violated 3RR to revert your idiotic edits. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm currently sitting at three reverts. That's why I took to the talk page to address your edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about three reverts. No admin will ever block you for reverting this rubbish. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to all involved about personal attacks. It's not constructive to name call other editors. That includes edit summaries. -- ferret (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I usually find it quite constructive to remind bad editors just how bad their editing is. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you actually have a pattern of doing this, rather than it only being a one-time mistake? Galestar (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Galestar I suggest you stop your childish behaviour and stop these article damaging edits before someone comes in with a suspension or banhammer. This is a polite warning of what is likely to happen, and not a threat. 37.191.5.234 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

TPP "was" or "is"
I think we should use the term "is" until reliable sources confirm that TPP is dead. This is how BBC News speculates on the TPP's future:


 * "To take effect, the deal would have had to be ratified by February 2018 by at least six countries that account for 85% of the group's economic output. The US would need to be on board to meet that last condition. Some countries, including New Zealand, have suggested some sort of alternative deal may be possible without the US. But Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said a TPP without the US - and its market of 250 million consumers - would be "meaningless"."

I think we should wait until the TPP is actually dead before describing it in the past tense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But an "alternative deal" is not the agreement this article covers. So far all the talk I've seen about "resurrecting" the TPP is really talk about a separate deal entirely. Here is one broadsheet calling the TPP "dead". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think, given the mixed views about TPP's future, that we should wait on "was" until all signatories or most reliable sources describe TPP as dead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep the 'is' for now, as the fate of TPP is not doomed for sure, so to speak. One example of trying to salvage it is what a source in EU parliament mentioned, an attempt to combine TPP and TTIP without the US involvement, but with a clause to allow a later US administration to join it easily. (Let's face it, while TTIP is not officially dead, Trump is pretty likely to also stop that agreement, but even without the USA all those European nations in combined economy outweight that of the US and as such it would still be possible to create a merged Euro-Pacific agreement based on the frame of TTIP-TPP without the White House) 37.191.5.234 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,,I think we should wait until the TPP is actually dead before describing it in the past tense." - And how/when we will know if it is actually dead?! 5.12.111.165 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This needs a major rewrite downplaying US data
Its my view that a lot of the information on this entry talks about US perspectives, in spite of the US withdrawing from TPP. Its my view that entries should be limited to:
 * 1) Negotiations where the US has made important contributions or has swayed other members' positions.
 * 2) Their withdrawal.

Sideline commentaries which do not really make a material difference to the current TPP11 negotiations should be removed. The participation of the US is an important sidenote of this Regulated Trade Agreement that no longer includes them.

The timing of this major rewrite needs to be after Canada's position becomes known and has been reacted to by the other 10 nations.

I believe that the TPP will be renegotiated with Canada's participation, or move forward more rapidly as the TPP10 without. (I have been following this agreement since TPSEP / P4 days and have some familiarity with the processes and the documents. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia's editing processes though wish to remain respectful to all protocols.) Bruce Hudson(Enzman) (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that coverage of TPP's impact on the US should be dropped. That coverage is notable and relevant even if (1) nothing becomes of TPP, (2) the other TPP signatories make an agreement without US participation, (3) the US participates again in re-writing TPP or re-joining TPP (such as in 2021 with new administration). Existing content can of course be tweaked in the event of #1, #2 or #3, and new text can be added to take account of updates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that the TPP's "impact on the US should be dropped," but that it should not be the main focus of the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that the 11 parties have agreed to proceed without the US, things have changed. Take the introduction for example. I agree the impact of the TPP on the US is legitimate. What seems strange now is using a non member's description to describe what the TPP is. For example "According to the Obama Administration, the agreement aimed to". Also, it uses the past tense, which is clearly incorrect. The entire entry has many examples which are in need of correcting and updating. Bruce Hudson(Enzman) (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I tagged the article because this concern has not been addressed. In fact, the US bias has increased since Bruce Hudson(Enzman) voiced concerns, and appears to continue unabated. Comparing the November 2017 version to the current version: I could go on. Other significant changes include an additional section United States considerations as if most of the article wasn't already about US considerations. This article still needs a major re-write to accord with Wikipedia fundamental principle WP:NPOV and to provide WP:DUE weight to other countries, particularly the countries that are signatories or have announced interest, beyond how it affects their relationship or trade with one specific country that is not a party to the agreement. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * New section on United States withdrawal
 * Section on New negotiations on the CPTPP that commences with "The TPP's future was uncertain after the United States' withdrawal" and citation of a US-based source
 * "The contents of the TPP go far beyond the standards drafted by the World Trade Organization..." - not specifically US (thank you!)
 * Morin and Baumier of the Canada Research Chair in International Political Economy - a Canadian source, but discussing US influence on drafting the TPP
 * US-based Reuters report claiming US decision influencing human rights in Vietnam - irrelevant US-biased opinion
 * US source reporting US-based economics professor's opinion - dubious
 * Additional citation of a US-based opinion blog - why?
 * Additional citation of a US government publication about the effect on the US economy - superfluous
 * Additional Canadian-based citation - OK, not US, but still North America

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Trans-Pacific Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130210151458/http://mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/0-history.php to http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/0-history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514005708/http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf to http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514005708/http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf to http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118232341/https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership to https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trans-Pacific Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151010083924/https://ustr.gov/tpp/ to https://ustr.gov/tpp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo is wrong
America is not a part of the TPP as of Jan 23, 2018. A new picture without Obama is needed. I.e. a picture with the actual signatories, or none at all.

Proposed merge with Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
This was prematurely split from Trans-Pacific Partnership. Despite the change of name, and the withdrawal of one party (the USA), this is still substantially the same agreement, with apparently minimal changes. The present split does a disservice to readers who want to know about the content and history of the agreement as it is now set to take effect, because this content was left behind in the article about the TPP. We can well cover the evolution of the agreement in a single article.  Sandstein  09:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, I don't see the need for two articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that these articles should be merged. Also merge Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and any other forks. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh lord, yes. Looks like a lot of material in that article could just be scrapped. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support YES! I agree. Check out... https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180228_20180228_24  The CPATPPA is an OUTCOME of the TPPA. Saying that that the "TPPA is defunct", is not a correct timeline, since the TPPA progressed into CPATPPA. We should merge the two articles. How else will students learn?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.161.36 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I agree. We should merge the two articles. They're basically the same agreement. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose. We have different negotiations with different parties. Furhtermore TPP is in a status of ratification, whereas the new pact is now being negotiated. An added problem is that the present article is longand the status of the TPP were being removed in favour of the newer material, which made us loosing the info... The new version has just recently been split off, so it is clearly not up to standard yet L.tak (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I originally created that other page as a redirect to this page, so I support a merge. At this point, there's not enough difference to merit a spin off article at this point in time. The only thing that's different about the parties is that the US is out. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. For most meanings it is the same one. Also in the vernacular and in the news it is being referred as the same. There is no point in confusing readers. Jazi  Zilber (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. I think it makes sense to merge them, on the condition that there is a section regarding the TPP in its original state, and some of the changes that were made. theZcuber (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indifferent But if they are not merged, they really needs the discussion of the differences between the two on both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.76.140 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead. Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is another agreement (no matter how minor the changes are) with a different title. How can it be merged into a dead agreement? Keep them separate. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is a proper subject, now in the process of being ratified. The TPP is prior history, now living in a suspended state, perhaps to be resuscitated. Separate for now makes sense. Time will tell if the story of these two trade pacts are best covered as one story or two. It may well be a few years before we know. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is a content fork with little content. Almost all news reports refer it simply as TPP or TPP minus the US, e.g. . -Zanhe (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - very much same. No need for a separate article. Störm   (talk)  19:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - we can easily have a reference to TPP in the new article. Almost the same agreement but minus a country and a different name.  smrgeog (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Although TPP and CPTPP are two different agreements, A large part of CPTPP is based on TPP. --Fauzty (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is a different treaty. How on earth do you not have an article dedicated to it... 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:52E1:AC00:45D5:4CD:EE95:8803 (talk)
 * Oppose - Different treaties with a different set of parties. Now that the U.S. has raised the possibility of rejoining, revisit the question after that plays out. Bilofsky (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree that these articles should be merged. I also agree that the various forks should be merged. See Jack N. Stock's comment. Heliozoan (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Different treaties with a different set of parties. CGBoas (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger should happen, as the vote is strongly in favour. User:Sandstein can you look into merging it? Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: The merger tags propose that CPTPP be merged into TPP. As CPTPP is active and has received its first ratification, and the TPP is now historical context, any merger should likely do the reverse of the proposal. - Tulchan (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - the TPP is history. The CPTPP is a new treaty that incorporates the TPP, but they have set aside various provisions that were previously introduced by the USA (but opposed by other Members). The CPATPP should remain a separate article, because the economic, political, and legal analysis for this treaty will not be the same with the previous TPP (although they are indeed interrelated). Mimihitam (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, these are 2 different treaties, and the TPP is now defunct Abequinn14 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Public Opinion on the TPP
A section on the public's opinion on the TPP could be used, as there is a wealth of polling data and scholarly journals discussing public opinion on the trade agreement. I think this section could be added after the criticisms section, and is essential in covering the topic, as it is so controversial. I have included some polls below that could be used to create this subsection.


 * Any section about opinions on TPP would need to be much less biased than those articles, per WP:WORLDVIEW (if you dislike essays, there is a guideline WP:BIASED and policy WP:NPOV). The US is not even part of the TPP, so the emphasis in these articles on American opinions would be inappropriate here. I'm sure there are sources from the countries that are actually part of the agreement: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Defunct or Proposed?
There's no deadline for ratification in the treaty. If the next US administration (or this one, if it changes its mind) and pretty much any three other original signatories ratify it in addition to Japan and New Zealand, it goes into effect sixty days later. Is that really "defunct"? Ehrbar (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article calls it both. Until one of those hypotheticals happen to resurrect it, defunct seems accurate. Galestar (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource link
I removed an infobox linking to the What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)? page on Wikisource in the Contents section of this article because it's a propaganda piece by the EFF that was presented without context (including authorship information). Giving it the template treatment makes it look like an impartial, "explainer"-like source similar to something that Vox would publish. If we want to link to it, we should present it for what it is. Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 06:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing Sputnik International
I'm reverting your deletion of the reference to Sputnik International, because it would seem to be reliable for the point in question.

The general policy on WP:DEPREC does NOT say that such sources cannot be used, only that they should be used with care. I'm also changing the text from saying "Medvedev has been critical" to "Medvedev was reportedly critical".

If Sputnik (news agency) had claimed that certain figures in the US "had been critical", we may want to remove such comments from the article without an independent source, moving them to the Talk page, where others are invited to provide such a source if they feel the comment belongs.

Does this make sense? Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please reply to my earlier comments.  WP:DEPREC is NOT a blanket ban -- and it should not be.  I'm reverting your deletion of that source.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes
Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

'''One of the longest-lasting conflicts involving negotiations about the Trans-Pacific Partnership involve those related to environmental issues. . Issues with balancing trade interests and concerns regarding environmental harms persisted throughout the negotiations. ''' Cf2022 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022


 * It isn't clear where you want this to go. Ping me when you are available to discuss. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Membership / "Potential members" sub-section after started CPTPP (2018) should be reviewed

 * Recent 2020 topics are listed in the table. They are also listed in Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership page. If this sub-clause is to be kept in this article, the text should be reviewed.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)