Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership/Archive 1

The 800 pound Gorilla in the Room
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)

Missing Information/Claims of Benefits
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) The map should be replaced with a Pacific Ocean centered map. The Europe-Africa centered map is no good for a map depicting anything trans-Pacific. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.54.254 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Why
One thing that should be covered in the article is what the expected benefits are. What is hoped to be gained by the signers of the treaty? It is obvious what the poorer countries can get out of it. They can drive export-driven economies forward. It is less obvious what the rich countries gain, especially now that the law of comparative advantage has repeatedly been shown to have asymmetric effects by history.70.113.72.73 (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rich countries' IP-dependent industries, particularly pharmaceutical companies, telecommunications companies, content companies, etc, get assurance that their IP will be respected or, based on some of the provisions currently in the treaty, extended. It is debatable whether that protection will benefit the bulk of citizens in those rich countries, or simply benefit the companies themselves. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For the rich countries the profit seems to lie in pharamceuticals and influencing, even changing, legislation.


 * The evergreening of pharmaceuticals, although thrown out by an Indian court recently (Novartis) is extremely lucrative. According to SPIEGEL, cancer patients would pay more than 3000 Euros per month, while disallowing new patents for small changes and using generics mean patients' costs of 60 Euros per month. That would have been an enormous profit for Novartis had they won. I remember from the Australian negotiations that there was quite a fight about our use of generics, which big US pharma intended to reduce.


 * As the US now pursues a free trade agreement with the EU, Europeans have expressed fears that like with NAFTA in Canada, companies are awarded the status of a country and with that they can demand change of legislation. In essence that means to delete the legislative powers of people's representatives and insert company power. The Europeans will not fall for that, I don't think, because they have a different mentality. There it's the companies who are not trusted, in America it's the government that's not trusted. Writing legislation is obviously great for companies, so that's why the US government tries to smoothe that path.


 * I remember President Bill Clinton praising the creation of NAFTA in absolutely glorious terms. In reality, however, when you look at Mexico and the US today, what exactly was the big deal. It's usually the strongest partner who benefits by imposing his parameters on the smaller ones, so the belief that it would help the weaker partners to develop is probably just sales talk. But maybe I have overlooked something with regard to Mexico.


 * The Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like being grafted onto these countries. There are too many people who do not wish to adapt their patent and copyright legislation to the one partner USA. I remember reading that the Chinese threw these plans in the bin altogether, but can't remember where I read that. I have had plenty to do with copyrights. The big companies can exercise their rights with secretaries and attorneys, but for the creative little guy, stricter piracy laws do not mean a thing as he/she cannot enforce them. In the meantime, these plans seems to be superceded by all kinds of newer ideas. Let me be blunt, China rather spends their time and energy on cooperation with their neighbour Russia. It's all very well for Peru or places like that to be in the fold, but in the overall scheme of things they don't matter. China has got agreements with Brazil, which matter, and they're not on the Pacific.


 * In practice these free trade agreements are completely meaningless e.g. the US-Australian free trade agreement of about 2004. I have a self-published book on Amazon, in two languages. They (Amazon and the US tax regulations) make it practically impossible to get the royalties into Australia - there had even been a petition by many authors here some months ago and I never expect to see any of mine. What's a free trade agreement for, if not making life easier for you and me? Big Pharma, Big Chicken, Big Burger can look after themselves. In practice it's a charade.


 * Focussing on China, who are the biggest kid on the block, they have lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter time than anybody else. They would have to be ultra careful that such partnership agreements do not pan out so they'd have to change things domestically and then lose their edge, their grip, and create a really bad situation for all of us, given the fact that the after shocks of Wall Street's 2008 party will be with us for years to come. My bet is they will negotiate and mark time until the other structures they see as beneficial are in place and the Trans-Pacific Partnership can then be filed under 'looked like a good idea at the time'.

144.136.192.55 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

US Industry IP memo for the TPP negotiations leaked
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)

Controversy
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)
 * 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)
 * Will these proposals ever end?! 78.2.106.250 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, once they're all implemented. HTH. --188.100.152.61 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

An informative report on this issue can be viewed at democracynow: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.47.142.225 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Secrecy
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)
 * 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)

Map
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)

I came here to say the same thing. An Atlantic centered map makes no sense for a Pacific trade agreement.Langelgjm (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

potential resource
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)

Intro does not cover controversy
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)


 * 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)

Neutral Point of View
This article does not have a Neutral point of view, especially in the Controversy section, as it does not "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." or "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." or "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." What do proponents (people who are for the partnership's IP provisions) say is GOOD about it? Just because most wiki editors may be against it, does not mean most of the world is against it.

Even having "The proposals have been accused of being excessively restrictive, providing intellectual property restraints beyond those in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,[2] and could limit developing countries' access to affordable medication.[3]" in the first paragraph, even though it used weasel words "have been accused" with a reference, it makes the article not "Balanced" or "Giving "equal validity".

Please do research on balanced views and put on so viewers can make up their own mind, not only presenting one side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.249.230 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you see a problem, sometimes it is more useful if you edit the live entry and fix the problem you perceive yourself. It's a community page. Jump in, stop lurking.  Sloggerbum  ( talk ) 13:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... in what sense can the critical statements about the TPP be described as "not neutral" or "unbalanced"? I really don't see it. Given the broad rejection of ACTA by the public in Western Europe, the inclusion of even more far-reaching mandatory criminal penalties on copyright infringement in signatories laws in Asia by means of a treaty can only be expected to be a source of intense controversy. I think it would be much more unbalanced *not* to mention the controversy surrounding this treaty in the clearest possible terms.


 * Especially when one considers this treaty in the light of the broader context of continued efforts by copyright holders in the US to get this type of legislation passed, both in the US and abroad. A significant aspect is that this attempt is made through the medium of treaty negotiations instead of direct legislation. Overseas countries tend to be unable to find majorities for such measures in ordinary legislation. There is a very legitimate concern that such treaties are designed to bypass democratic opposition by framing such measures as part of vital trade negotiations, thus pushing through legislation through treaty negotiations for which there is no democratic support.


 * I find the text sufficiently factual as it is. If someone wishes to add a paragraph extolling the potential benefits of the TPP, why not? I just hope that whoever undertakes this will note that free-trade negotiations can be successfully implemented without the extreme copyright provisions found in ACTA and TPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.220.29 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to really adress this neutral-stance issue wiki wide, the entire place is falling into positivist logic that is the enabling logic of such laws in the first place, negating their criticism in the very establishing of the rules. I mean if we had an article about racism that condemned it, by this logic one would say that it is not neutral; the thing is, neutral is not neutral but silent, which is a very active political gesture. Put both stances on there if you'd like, but don't try to equate them artificially for some bizarre balance, one does not populate the racism article with pages of cases for racism to stand against all the negatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.62.87 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

US Intellectual Property Provisions Rejected?
"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)

Question about TPP
So just to clarify are the countries that are signed on to the TPP currently obligated to agree with whatever form the final deal takes or are they legally allowed to back out? Sorry, I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We're supposed to be discussing ways to improve the article. You are asking general questions about the subject matter.


 * The TPP is a free trade agreement, basically a type of treaty primarily aimed at eliminating tariffs. There's a 2006 edition, already in force, between Singapore, New Zealand, Chile and Brunei. Now there's a new edition being negotiated by those four plus the USA, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Four more countries—Japan, Canada, South Korea, and Mexico—are trying to get in on it as well.


 * If you read up on how treaties get negotiated, signed, ratified, and implemented, your questions probably will be answered; it's not really a topic for this article. Also, take a look at the 2006 treaty. It has no real penalties for failing to implement, and it said any country can withdraw from the TPP at any time, provided they file the right paperwork. I wouldn't expect the new treaty to be much different in this regard, as treaties don't usually have harsh penalties for a party's failure to live up to its obligations. —mjb (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about rejection (important, please answer)
If the TPP is passed and later found unconstitutional under American law can it, in any way, be rejected? Please, I am seriously worried about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not really a question that relates to improving the article, as the answer isn't really something that belongs in an article about what the TPP is. Nevertheless, I'll answer what I can, but is is all just based on my cursory understanding of civics and from skimming the previous TPP agreement:


 * The 2006 TPP contains pledges, some being vague statements of principle, others being specific policies for each country to implement. The new TPP probably will contain the same kind of thing. Like any other treaty, once negotiated, it has to be signed by the countries involved, and once signed, it would have to be ratified (approved) by each nation's legislature. It's likely all the countries negotiating it will sign it, but nothing is for certain. It's also likely that every country which signs it will also have it ratified, but that's also not an absolute certainty. Once ratified, implementation could begin, and this would require rule & policy changes in government administrative offices (many trade policy details are not matters of law, just bureaucracy), but it may also require that new laws be written, debated and passed. This could happen swiftly or it could take years; the 2006 TPP encouraged a two-year timeframe but didn't have any penalty for not meeting the deadline. Finally, the 2006 TPP says countries can withdraw from the agreement at any time, and I'm guessing the new one will say that, too.


 * In the U.S., Congress is obligated to only pass constitutional laws, so if they can't figure out a way to do that and still abide by the treaty, they'll either not ratify it, or if they've already ratified it, they'll ask the President to withdraw from the agreement because it can't be implemented. If they do pass an unconstitutional law, and the President signs it, then a test of the law's constitutionality will have to make its way through the federal courts, and if the law is struck down, then it is nullified and Congress has to decide whether to try again; they probably wouldn't bother, and the President would probably either withdraw from the agreement, or try to renegotiate it. —mjb (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power, not an answer but a discussion. No question of law is determined until there has been a final decision by the highest appeals court that has jurisdiction; this proposed treaty at present has not even been disclosed as to its final form and particulars, let alone be under consideration by the Senate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The analyis of Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power is irrelevant. If the Trans-Pacific Partner is submitted to Congress for approval it will be, as have other United States free trade agreements, as a Congressional-Executive Agreement not as a treaty. See Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements Rather Than as Treaties (January 19, 2011). David Trumbull (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it would simply be a law and could simply be repealed, or it could be unconstitutional if anyone has standing and any court has jurisdiction. Or could it? North American Free Trade Agreement seems to be a treaty. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The North American Free Trade Agreement was not ratified as a treaty. It was submitted to Congress as a Congression-Executive Agreement and was passed by simple majority as law, not treaty. The government was challenged on the interpretation of NAFTA as a law rather than treaty. In the case, Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, the federal district court ruled in favor of the government, finding that Congress and the President had Constitutional authority to enter such an agreement without a treaty. The case was appealed but the repeal rejected on the grounds that it was a politcal question on which the court defers to the other branches. David Trumbull (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. Congress has the power to regulate commerce and the President has the power to conduct international relations; "treaty" having no definitive definition, Congress and the President can use their discretion with respect to how to ratify an agreement so long as some other provision of the Constitution is not violated. So, whatever it is called, the agreement can be put into affect without ratification by 2/3rds of the Senate. The decision does not say it is not a treaty, just that "treaty" for the purpose of requiring ratification by 2/3rds of the Senate remains undefined. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Mexico and Canada
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)

Lori Wallach on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Secret Trade Pact
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)

Edward Gresser content
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)

Is the TPP a free trade agreement?
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)


 * 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)

Likely conflict of interest
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)

Major update/Separate IP provisions page?
I am a member of a law school group project that has spent the semester analyzing the TPP (especially the IP section) in-depth. We would like to add substantial (sourced) content to several areas including: whether the TPP will have a substantive effect on US law (likely not), how the TPP could be passed, and the benefits it could provide to the US. In addition, we have done a lot of work comparing the IP section with US IP law, TRIPS, ACTA and US Free-Trade Agreements. We believe there is enough material and interest in the IP section to form a separate page for it. Before making any changes, we would really like the community's feedback (we are all new to contributing here). We are happy to discuss the changes we would like to make in more detail as well. If we don't hear anything, we will go ahead and add to the page sometime next week (probably after 12/5). Ddoktori (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All that stuff really belongs in a separate article since it is so specific to the USA. The title of the present article is "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership", referring to an existing, in-force free trade agreement among four countries not including the USA. Mathew5000 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership_Intellectual_Property_Provisions#Article_4:_Copyright_and_Related_Rights. Thank you. I am only an interested amateur in Australia but had some experience with copyrights, the last one being a Michigan company claiming to be the publisher of my and many other people's works, including usurping tens of thousands of public domain works. These things are very big headaches and only the big companies have the means to stop the cheats.


 * On the agreement itself, here in Australia this agreement is seen as too one-sided, providing benefits only to the US, at our expense. This is most evident in the pharmaceutical sector. Our national health budget could be blown out of all proportions if big US pharma has their way - and that is even unlikely to benefit the general US population because the multinational companies bunker their profits in tax havens and their research is not on new antibiotics for instance but for lifestyle drugs like the blue pills. We also feel castrated, because we may no longer be able to disallow genetically modified foods, pest and weed killers from Mon.... - we simply lose our sovereignty over those issues and that's why I use the word castrated very intentionally. Once these international agreements and treaties are in place they become one-way culd-de-sacs, or could Mexico exit NAFTA so they can have millions of their own corn farmers again? This is not democracy when our legislature is put in the squeeze that they are unable to act because of international agreements. Another example is the World Health Organisation. No change can occur without changeing their international protocols and since you cannot get all to agree the result is always the end of the cul-de-sac.


 * I hope, my fellow Australians will fight tooth and nail against this, yet another new organisation, because there is no benefit to us. We actually feel conned and I breathed a sigh of relief when I read that some people in Asia had nixed it, but that was obviously not the case, since Obama revived the idea in his State of the Union address 2013. 144.136.192.70 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By whom? By NZ
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)

Usage of "liberalise" in the lead section.
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)


 * 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)

Is TPP a treaty?
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)
 * 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)

Wikileaks
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)

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

Republic Report
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 Reliable sources/Noticeboard before using it in an article.CFredkin (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nah, You can't do that because their reporting is based on documents. Look at the article and you will see more links to more documents.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I could always just base my edit on the documents.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

What exactly makes Republic Report unreliable? Especially since their reporting is based on documents? The fact that it's loyalty is to the public rather than advertisers, investors and the private interests of the owners?--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


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

Anyone been watching CNN lately? So much for editorial control.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "reliable sources" barely even mention the TPP so of course I'm not going to find anything there.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bah, this 'reliable source/original research' issue is essentially an unintentional loophole that benefits the central banks and multinationals at the public's expense. I can't use the article, so let this be a lesson to everyone *wags finger*.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources
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)

The problem with your fight to keep out "unreliable" sources is that the "reliable" ones are biased in favor of TPP and you know it.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This was removed by calling it "not from reliable sources", why?
Using Identifying reliable sources, please give more detail. 99.112.214.26 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)

And what of this one (I was attempting to add here, but you were faster)?

99.112.214.26 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "TPP TV Blackout" FAIR, April 24, 2014
 * "Leading Papers’ Sources Tilt Toward TPP" FAIR, April 1, 2014


 * Same issue.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)Doug Bashford


 * 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)

Council of Canadians
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)

Content section
I moved contents to top of the article, because it is the core info, but it was buried after endless details on membership, history and negotiation rounds etc.

you reverted it here with the edit summary "In [sic] think the previous order made more sense."

In order to understand you, please elaborate. How does it make more sense to have the content buried at the end, when the reader's head is whizzing with all the other details ?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, facts typically come before opinion.CFredkin (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, you say the 'content section' does not contain facts, and is opinion.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I saw you edited the page today, would you mind responding plse?
 * I'm saying that the IP and Investor-State Arbitration sections are largely opinion-based response to a very limited set of content which is sourced to a leaked document which is over 2 years old and which may or may not have been accurate to begin with.CFredkin (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)