Talk:Transatlantic Free Trade Area/Archive 1

Untitled
This article is a joke. Pure propaganda, no NPOV.--128.6.168.245 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added balancing point of view. Cerberus™ (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section?
The "criticism" section merely voices partisan opinions of very non-neutral voices on copyright law with no countervailing opinions or responses present. It cites to few facts, rather than partisan opinion statements by seemingly arbitrarily-selected organizations. Even in the section that describes the proposed economic benefits of TAFTA, criticism from the ubiquitous "others" is proposed without good citation and without good answer. Why are the economic benefits of a massive free-trade zone relegated to a couple of immediately-criticized sentences, where the criticism over nonspecific issues with the relatively esoteric field of copyright law are given a full, open-voice section? I recommend adding a disputed neutrality banner and will do so myself if there are no objections in the next few days. 76.118.24.132 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Investor-State dispute resolution
This part seems to be missing entirely?

1st leaked draft: http://insidetrade.com/Inside-Trade-General/Public-Content-Special-GACC-Promo/member-states-seek-more-specifics-in-us-eu-mandate-press-jurisdiction/menu-id-1040.html

Revised version, from 21st of May: https://netzpolitik.org/2013/leak-aktueller-entwurf-des-verhandlungsmandates-zum-eu-usa-freihandelsabkommen/

This information should be added and I'll do so in a few days if there are no objections or no one else did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.120.42 (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I added sourced criticism over the investor-state dispute resolution (arbitration) mechanism. The source is in Finnish, but translatable upon request. --hydrox (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)