Talk:Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Benefits and criticism

I've moved the section Benefits of TTIP to become a subsection of Criticism. After all, criticism covers both positive and negative claims. If people disagree with this move, I suggest my change be reverted, but the headline "Harms of TTIP" be used instead of Criticism so that it contrasts nicely (and fairly) with the other headline.--2001:984:5CB7:1:DC70:3AEA:DDB0:EFB4 (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Big error in table

In the table "Trade between the EU and the US (in € bn.)" in the section "Background" the numbers in the row "US to EU" do not add up. 128+180+5=313 and NOT 452! I do not have references to correct these numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.175.133 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Content from Raoul Marc Jennar

I'm reposting the content written by Raoul Marc Jennar for this wikipedia article, I would understand that the lack of sources posed a problem if it was particularly controversial but it is not. It is better to have an article with some content htan without IMHO. It is not clear to me whether User CFredkin is a reliable author or whether (s)he is biased though I do not think (s)he is a newby like me. Hence I am ignoring her or his changes.--Corne de brume (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Content in Criticism Section

Some of the content in this section is sourced to "consumersinternational.org' and 'In These Times'. These are not reliable sources of content per WP:reliable (see section on Questionable Sources.) If you would like to include them, please seek consensus at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. CFredkin (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In These Times, while left-leaning, qualifies as a reliable source. It is similar to The Nation for example.C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about "In These Times". However, the quote does not warrant the dramatic formatting. Also s2bnetwork.org is not a reliable source. CFredkin (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Who decides which source is reliable? 81.173.163.177 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a reliable sources noticeboard where consensus can be determined.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Criticism

On reflection, I think User:CFredkin may have been a little hasty in completely reverting User:KF Kaltenborn's contribution of two sources to the Criticism section. While Secondary Sources may be preferred, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad", per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and a Primary Source does seem suitable to document (without analysis or [[WP::Original Research]]) the existence of significant criticism from a range of academic sources, say. Primary sources may be used... with care. As it says: "The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does."

When dealing with fairly abtruse details of treaty negotiations, which are not particularly widely (or even well) treated in the press, a criterion of "must be covered in a secondary source" might tend to mask the very existence of debate, which I'm confident is not what we're trying to do here. When we find such a secondary source for these items, we will doubtless gain a better perspective on the arguments. In the meantime, I suggest we retain KF Kaltenborn's additions while improving them where necessary. - Paul (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Source on "food safety vs. free trade"

There’s a chapter in a publication called [1] "MeatAtlas" about “Free trade versus safe food”. It includes differnet takes on policy "The European Union bases its safety rules for food and chemicals on the “precautionary principle”…. The United States states that it makes decisions based on “sound science” and cost-benefit analysis… " Dribgons (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

POV

What's with the pro-TTIP POV on this article? The intro regurgitates all the corporate/government propaganda, and doesn't even mention the core points of the widespread criticism against TTIP. A few select POV warriors appear to be very active here, reducing mention of the various criticisms with the flimsiest justifications. --87.79.166.215 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be unhelpful to align this article with polemicists like Monbiot. That's not neutrality; it's the opposite. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be presenting both sides of the arguments, as used by typical representatives; to quote criticisms is not “to align this article” with them and a worse “opposite of neutrality” is presenting only one side. Nothing wrong with using George Monbiot for one side: he may argue with feeling, but he argues carefully and coherently, appears in a well regarded newspaper (The Guardian) and takes the trouble to source as much as he can (on his own site). PJTraill (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that criticism should be given due weight. If Monbiot has a justifiable argument that's relevant nothing wrong with mentioning it. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I reverted a number of edits by user:Wikidea which included unsourced statements. All statements must be sourced for WP:verifiability. I indicated that a couple of the edits I reverted were intermediate and that I would restore them later. However the intermediate edits were to content which were themselves reverted, so I was unable to restore them.CFredkin (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is the TEXT OF THE PROPOSED TREATY itself. Do not delete well referenced material. Wikidea 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits included statements that were not sourced.CFredkin (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so other users know, this is the content, and the sources are there in the draft text. It's amazing that this article said nothing of the content of the Treaty. Wikidea 17:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC):

“ This, and the EU's practices, allows the trade negotiations to continue in secret. After a proposed draft was leaked, in March 2014 the European Commission launched a public consultation on a limited set of clauses.

The leaked text of the proposed treaty sets out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run various economic sectors, particularly insurance and banking, telecommunications, and postal services. Any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation, plus compound interest. It would allow free movement of business managers, and other employees of a corporation, for temporary work purposes among all countries party to the agreement. Article 57, under the present draft, indicates that public sector social security or state pensions could be required to be partially privatised, as it gives corporations a right to compete to provide the service. It is proposed to allow corporations to bring actions against governments for breach of its rights. If the Treaty is terminated, article 17 of the draft further provides that the Treaty's provisions continue in force for a further 20 years from the date investments are made.

”

I don't believe any of the following content is sourced:

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP; also known as the Transatlantic Free Trade Area, abbreviated as TAFTA) is a proposed agreement between the European Union and the United States, which prohibits restrictions by the US and countries in Europe on the economic freedom of corporations. The TTIP is a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is also being negotiated by the US government under "fast track" trade promotion authority. This, and the EU's practices, allows the trade negotiations to continue in secret. After a proposed draft was leaked, in March 2014 the European Commission launched a public consultation on a limited set of clauses.

If the Treaty is terminated, article 17 of the draft further provides that the Treaty's provisions continue in force for a further 20 years from the date investments are made.

In addition, why does this paragraph belong in the lede:

The leaked text of the proposed treaty sets out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run various economic sectors, particularly insurance and banking,[1] telecommunications, and postal services.[2] Any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation, plus compound interest.[3] It would allow free movement of business managers, and other employees of a corporation, for temporary work purposes among all countries party to the agreement.[4] Article 57, under the present draft, indicates that public sector social security or state pensions could be required to be partially privatised, as it gives corporations a right to compete to provide the service.[5] It is proposed to allow corporations to bring actions against governments for breach of its rights.[6] If the Treaty is terminated, article 17 of the draft further provides that the Treaty's provisions continue in force for a further 20 years from the date investments are made.

Also, the following statement is WP:original research: Article 57, under the present draft, indicates that public sector social security or state pensions could be required to be partially privatised, as it gives corporations a right to compete to provide the service.CFredkin (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The following statement is WP:original research: The leaked text of the proposed treaty sets out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run various economic sectors, particularly insurance and banking, telecommunications, and postal services.

There is no reference to "compound interest" in source for the following statement: Any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation, plus compound interest.

The following statement is WP:original research: It would allow free movement of business managers, and other employees of a corporation, for temporary work purposes among all countries party to the agreement.

The following statement is redundant with existing content in the article: It is proposed to allow corporations to bring actions against governments for breach of its rights.CFredkin (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This stuff should be in the lead because it is important. Also, your claims of original research are basically nitpicking, the sources cover everything. 137.22.171.34 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has a big problem with editorialising and opinion. If it us to be respected, it needs to stick to just the bare bones, fully sourced facts. For example, the lede declares that the EC invited comment on 'limited' clauses of the draft, but nowhere in the body is this clarified: it should be deleted. [Minimally, as it is still a draft under negotiation long before there is a firm proposal, then obviously there will be genuinely unavailable material. The suggestion of underhand malfeasance is well below the standard we want for Wikipedia]. The facts can stand for themselves: I for one don't like being manipulated by selective reporting or being told what to think.

Any comments cited should be those of people notable in their own right. Ref wp:undue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin's apparent censorship of this article

After his reversions of my edits, I checked back through the history of this page to find that the user has been taking out additions by many editors that have put in either factual information or reports of criticism. This is concerning, and suggests an issue could exist over Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Wikidea 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The content you restored was discussed above. Please engage there to justify restoration. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, none of this was properly discussed. There was one of your reversions which did not contain references and I did not restore that. You need to explain what is wrong with individual references, and be specific. Wikipedia editors will not allow you to delete well referenced content. But also, as I indicate, your pattern of behaviour is very concerning. Wikidea 18:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed my comments in the previous section above. In addition,

The following sources have no indication of editorial control or fact-checking and as such are not WP:reliable:

Public Citizen

Electronic Frontier Foundation

ACTA Blog

CorporateEurope.org

There's no reference to transparency in the context of the following quote from the source: Given this lack of transparency, “it’s quite remarkable that in the United States there is no organised political opposition to TTIP”,[24] argued the Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University.

The following is not relevant to this article: ....the ratification of which (ACTA) has halted in many signatory countries in response to public outcry.

If the following is significant, it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source which mentions it: Germany oppositon to the TTIP from the electorate has been growing with a number of petitions to the Bundestag.[31] The negotiations and German ratification were postponed as reaction to the widespread opposition in this petition.

The source provided for the content in the Transparency section makes no mention of transparency.CFredkin (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Your editing behavior is unacceptable. If there are sections that require improvements, then work to improve them. If there are sections that need copy-editing, then copy edit. If there are sections that require sources, then add a {{cn}} or {{fact}} template and look for these sources and add them, or let others find them if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Unless there are blatant transgressions of Wikipedia editin policies, which is not the case here, don't go around just deleting content that editors have worked hard to add. Cwobeel (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:verifiability is one of the key policies of this project. It's totally unacceptable for you to restore content which is not sourced, without providing sources yourself. Your repeated insistence that I should be responsible for providing sources for content posted by other editors is ridiculous and is the very epitome of moral hazard. In addition, you didn't bother to respond to the specific issues that I posted above.CFredkin (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, just add {{citation needed}} to unsourced content and give others the chance to find sources if you don't want to be bothered by doing it yourself. Read again WP:V and become familiar with the process:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel, Thanks for the excerpt. It confirms my point. Here's a question for you: If I add contentious unsourced material to an article, will you agree to 1) not remove it, 2) add {{citation needed}}, and 3) defend it from removal by other editors?CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If the content is not controversial, and there is a high likelihood that there are sources available to support it, by all means add the template. If the content is blatantly OR then you can go ahead and delete, but have the decency to explain on talk why you did that if you remove lareg portions of the article without seeking consensus. Cwobeel (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I see a mass deletion, which is not acceptable. Wikidea 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issues specified above regarding the content in dispute.CFredkin (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a BLP in which the burden is on the editor wanting to add or restore content. So, in this article the burden is on you to justify massive deletion of content which was worked on previously. Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have. See my comments above.CFredkin (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If material is attributed:

• Electronic Frontier Foundation is a WP:RS
• ACTA Blog is a WP:RS
• CorporateEurope.org is a WP:RS

So, you can simply copy edit and attribute these views. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Also, my comments on the content span the previous section as well.CFredkin (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry man, I will not engage while you edit war; it's a waste of my time. If you want to discuss, self-revert and then we can engage. Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, no one has responded to my specific comments in this and the previous section.CFredkin (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So to respond to each of your points:

• The references in the article to Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACTA Blog, and CorporateEurope.org are all references to these community groups' opinions in criticising TTIP. They are therefore useful, and clearly referenced as such.

I said above that these sources are not reliable due to lack of editorial control and fact checking.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. These groups are notable and their own websites are reliable sources for the expression of their own views. They are not reliable sources for unbiased news, but that's not how they're being used. We can use a well-known person or group's own site to source their own ideas. See the policy on self-published sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The EFF and Public Citizen, at the very least, are well-established experts on these issues. The section you removed also contains a citation to Wired, which is an indisputable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I added a reference about the German petition - you were right to raise this, but you could have found the reference yourself rather than deleting it.

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the John Hopkins Uni quote, I'm really agnostic myself - if you want to change the sentence, that's fine, but again, you shouldn't simply delete things.

Overall this article DOES need work, but not mass deletions. It needs most of all analysis of its contents and then a summary of different groups informed opinions on it. Wikidea 11:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the bulk of my comments in this and the previous section.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Re-iterating issues with this article

Comment requested on alleged issues with original research and inaccurate content in article. CFredkin (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

1) The following tag is original research:

File:European Union United States Locator.svg|thumb|right|450px|The proposed agreement TTIP between the EU and the US, includes provisions to increase economic freedom for corporations, and allow them to sue governments for passing non-compliant laws.

2) The following statement is not only unsourced, but factually inaccurate. The TTIP is not being negotiated under fast track authority and is not a companion agreement to TPP:

The TTIP is a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is also being negotiated by the US government under "fast track" trade promotion authority. This, and the EU's practices, allows the trade negotiations to continue in secret.

3) The following statement is WP:original research: The leaked text of the proposed treaty sets out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run various economic sectors, particularly insurance and banking, telecommunications, and postal services.

4) There is no reference to "compound interest" in source for the following statement: Any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation, plus compound interest.

5) The following statement is WP:original research: It would allow free movement of business managers, and other employees of a corporation, for temporary work purposes among all countries party to the agreement.

6) The following is not relevant to this article: ....the ratification of which (ACTA) has halted in many signatory countries in response to public outcry.

7) The source provided for the content in the Transparency section makes no mention of transparency.CFredkin (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

8) The following statement is not supported by the source provided: Given this lack of transparency, “it’s quite remarkable that in the United States there is no organised political opposition to TTIP”,[32] argued the Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University.

9) The following statement is unsourced and potentially inaccurate: If the Treaty is terminated, article 17 of the draft further provides that the Treaty's provisions continue in force for a further 20 years from the date investments are made.CFredkin (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As to 2), I have rewrote to source — a public statement from a ranking State Department official that the U.S. government considers the TTIP a "companion piece" to the TPP. You are correct that it is not currently being negotiated under a fast-track authority, and I have removed that section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate what I wrote (late) in Unsourced content above. Let's let the facts speak for themselves; leave the opinions to notable outsiders. CFredkin is right. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to any (but #2 above) for over a month, I'll edit accordingly.CFredkin (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikidea has never addressed the points outlined above, despite the fact that they were the subject of an RfC that was open for a month. However he/she continues to edit war over this content.CFredkin (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

and consequently I've reverted his/her latest changes. There is a way on wp to resolve disputes and edit-warring is not it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

specifically, saying 'you keep raising the same issues' is NOT an acceptable reason on wp for edit-warring. You MUST respond point by point to the rfc in this talk page. Otherwise the editwar gets escalated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolving these issues

User:Wikidea, to just keep putting back the disputed material without having dealt with the issues raised above is utterly pointless. In Wikipedia, unsupported material is removed without further ado, and that is what will continue to happen here. Please read the wp:Dispute resolution policy and then decide how you want to go forward.
No one here is in the business of 'censorship' as you call it but rather we want to see an article that inspires confidence that it is properly researched and well-founded. It won't do that if it contains opinion or partial reporting of the sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 2872 bytes-worth of edit that is being wrangled over:

Removing any reference whatsoever to

can only be motivated by a desire to see this document go hidden. (i.e. censorship.) The justification for it can only be based on the source, which, given the (objective) relative confidentiality/secrecy of the negotiations, must be surely one of the most reliable primary sources we are privy to! Many of the sources which CFredkin seems not to object to are pure speculation; articles by journalists and predictions from proponents. In fact, the 'independent' CEPR is funded primarily by banks, to which the TTIP devotes various clauses - I won't object to this, since in the article it is presented in the context of "An economic assessment prepared by the Centre for Economic Policy Research", which goes just far enough to not present its opinions as fact. On the other hand, factual statements about the contents of the agreement, in the form that we presently know it, are (strongly) arguably far more reliable and verifiable, and CFredkin's blanket removal of so many is hardly justified.

Here are the cases where the content was very much present in the source:

1) The first edit, removing: "The proposed agreement TTIP between the EU and the US, includes provisions to increase economic freedom for corporations, and allow them to sue governments for passing non-compliant laws."

Where exactly does this text appear in the source provided?CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

page 46. BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

2) The removed paragraph:

"The leaked text of the proposed treaty sets out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run various economic sectors, particularly insurance and banking, telecommunications, and postal services. Any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation, plus compound interest. It would allow free movement of business managers and certain other workers among all signatory countries. It is proposed to allow corporations to bring actions against governments for breach of its rights."

In my opinion, a pedantic objection could be raised to the wording, in which case I propose:

"The text leaked by Die Zeit of the proposed treaty sets out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run various economic sectors, particularly insurance and banking, telecommunications, and postal services. Any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation, plus compound interest. It would allow free movement of business managers and certain other workers among all signatory countries. It contains proposals to allow corporations to bring actions against governments for breach of any of these new rights."

Where exactly does the above text appear in the source provided? When referencing a primary source, care needs to be taken that no interpretation is attempted.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the source? I don't know how to make it have a nice link like in the main page, but you can see the text of the references in the edit text for this discussion page, which list the relevant articles in the document. BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

3) Deletion of this statement: "Under article 14, any corporation which is "expropriated" from its existing investments becomes entitled to market value compensation" which is simply true.

Where exactly does this text appear in the source provided?CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Under article 14"! This is almost a word-for-word quotation! BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

4) Changing "Articles 51 to 59 set out limitations on the laws that any government can pass to regulate or publicly run insurance and banking. Any regulations that do not fall within the Treaty's terms and objectives would be unlawful." to "It is proposed to allow corporations to bring actions against governments for breach of its rights." is picky. I suggest a more neutral

"Articles 51 to 59 set out limitations on the laws a government can pass to regulate or publicly run insurance and banking, and the section "Negotiations on Investor-State Dispute Settlement" proposes to allow corporations to bring action against governments for breach of its new rights and interests."

Where exactly does this text appear in the source provided?CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what your question is - "Where exactly..." It is in articles 51 to 59, and in the section "Negotiations on Investor-State Dispute Settlement" BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the other changes:
1) Changing "The growth of the EU's economic power has led to" to "There are" is not wrong, but it seems quite petty. I have no strong preference, but the shorter one seems potentially more objective.

2) Another minor change of wording mentioning the nature of the average taken by sharing "equally among the populace" seems sensible to me.

3) Rather than (once again) utterly striking a perceived offending source from existence

Given this lack of transparency, "it’s quite remarkable that in the United States there is no organised political opposition to TTIP", argued the Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University

why not rephrase it?

The Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University has argued that given the perceived lack of transparency, "it’s quite remarkable that in the United States there is no organised political opposition to TTIP",

I think that presents it as opinion rather than necessarily fact, and I can not envisage any objections to the source itself, although please enlighten me if I am wrong.

Once again, there is no mention of transparency in the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right. I apologise. This is still a useful and credible source, so I recommend finding some way of working it into the article. BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

4) Once again, removal of "the ratification of which has halted in many signatory countries in response to public outcry" seems a fairly brutal tactic. Surely one of the joys of Wikipedia is the endless pursuit of knowledge it enables, and removing a link to another article, presumably subject to the same rigour CFredkin insists so nobly on, merely lessens that. I propose

"the ratification of which has halted in many signatory countries in response to public outcry"

This article is not about ACTA.CFredkin (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the fact that it is related. Correct; this article is about TTIP. Wikipedia cleverly uses inline links between related articles to better enable discovery and learning. BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

5) I have no idea what the objection to the middle of the paragraph about Koskenniemi can be.

Once again, the deleted content is not included in the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to step outside of discussing the rigour and reliability of this article and ask CFredkin to consider his/her motivation for these edits. I put forward the hypothesis that it is not out of an intent to increase rigour (which I have just, in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner, undertaken to attempt, in a few spare minutes, as a mere interested lay person), but stems from an intent to lazily manipulate opinion by ensuring certain sources are made less public, presumably out of a personal intent to see the TTIP ratified and accepted. If this truly is not the case, then I apologise, and suggest CFredkin make an attempt to modify his/her editing style to make this a less reasonable conclusion to draw, or risk appearing far more biased than he/she is! -- BemusedObserver (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of bias is really not going to help your cause. Don't expand the conspiracy theory even further. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No accusation - I'm just interested in justification. Do you have any input on the content of the article and my suggestions? Thanks, BemusedObserver (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

P.s. In case you're interested, my justification/motivation for taking an interest is that how I see it, the TTIP discussions do not have enough transparency, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of organisation which ought to PROMOTE the search for knowledge, if someone is embarking upon it. My justification/motivation for the specific suggestions I've made is to create a more informative, balanced article. You can accuse me of bias if you like, but I don't think it would be true. I slightly object to the use of the word "cause", like that, although I understand what you mean. "conspiracy theory" is taking it a bit far, though! BemusedObserver (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a very important topic, so it is critical that the content not be open to accusations of bias. For this reason, the content must be sourced with absolute rigour. Adding material with a citation, only for that material not actually to be in the citation, is the worst crime in the book - the word 'bias' doesn't even begin to cover it - because it cuts at the heart of the founding principles of Wikipedia. If you want to write like that, go get a job at the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read the sources before accepting CFredkin's suggestions that they do not contain the cited information! In the case of the draft TTIP, they most certainly do! This was the point of my original extensive input on the massive blanket editing that was happening in this article; edit appropriately each contentious section rather than simply recklessly deleting it. Please NEVER compare me to the Daily Mail again. BemusedObserver (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

References

References to Bulgarian report restored

I have restored two references to a report by the Institute of Modern Politics removed by User:Bobrayner in [2] & [3]. I feel that he did not provide sufficent justification, saying respectively “(fails WP:EL)” and “(Polemic, posted on a blog...)”. The IMP is, according to our article on it, a well-respected, the report is on its site, not in a blog and polemic is in the eye of the beholder until proven. I could see no respect in which it failed WP:EL. PJTraill (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, in order to prevent the article from becoming a collection of opinions on the agreement (which it appears to be at risk of at this point), I think we should consider only including statements which are significant enough to be referenced by secondary sources.CFredkin (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with CFredkin. Oh, and if Wordpress isn't a blog, what is? bobrayner (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Responses to criticism"

"Karel De Gucht responded to criticism in a Guardian article in December 2013, saying "The commission has regularly consulted a broad range of civil society organisations in writing and in person, and our most recent meeting had 350 participants from trade unions, NGOs and business".[75][76]"

Ah, yeah? Tell us more, Karel. -- ZweiterSternVonLinks (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

personnel comment (one line.)

What I loved most was the joke with the missing cancellation AND withdrawal clause and calling it a "contract". I LOVE SUCH JOKES. Yes, sure, go on, please, mr. send me your claim.

Feel free to do so, I am waiting, as I know as well as you know that they are ready and prepared.

The claims do even have a timeline.

Fünfjahresplan, ich gebe euch was. I thought Bologna 1999 was the best 5 years plan I ever have seen in my life, I never. Ever. Expected to be that suprised once in my life. (Because I made an expensive bet that Bologna 1999 was "the best 5 yrs plan I ever have seen" and I lost that bet.)

SO. I heard I already owe someone in the USA some MRD? Who is it? Is that guy editing in the wikipedia? Could you stand up please? What is your name? Your company? Show me your paper, honeybee. Have you counted the zeros? WHAT A PITY because the ZEROS are the only interesting detail in your - sheets. The only. Valuable information. Lots, really lots. of Zeros. In trousers and skirts. Secretly talking about how to screw people over. The guy should watch out, I will stumble over him. I make another bet now: of course they edit in the wiki. Of course. I will find him. He'll have bad luck as mighty and al will be both busy and not in the mood to help him out of the drama he will find himself in.

-- ZweiterSternVonLinks (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

While I share your apparent concern about the TTIP, I find this sort of comment unhelpful: there is enough to keep track of in serious comments as it is, so do you think you could stick to straight discussion? It would also help if you could stick to English, as I suspect the German speakers are in a minority among the editors, and more so among the the passive users. I hope I am right in assuming that the mass of empty lines (<br>) after your signature was a slip of the editor, and therefore removing them. PJTraill (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding language: usually I respect, but in THIS topic this is necessary. This "contract" is trying to put us into the same middle ages that some of those united states are, we know that, we do care and watch. We know how landscapes do look like after certain actions and wish not to be disturbed with how we work on solving it. We are damn loaded, this is important. We are loaded people. Absolutely unpredictable if anyone tries to put this idea into "reality". We do care and are sorry, we really think of the USA as of a very poor country. You have many, many many issues there. Trying to copy the issues here will, I think, not work. Let's see what I read when I open the newspaper tomorrow but we are armed. Not with weapons because this is a problem there, in your land. And simply just because we do not want to get this problem too (as of course weapon production lobbyists are HOT to get this "contract" running), we are ready to do -anything- necessary to prevent that. Resistance is reconnecting. Partisans are calling old colleagues, their children are alive. Their grandchildren are alive. We are preparing. We're sorry it will be against you this time, but we were left with no other options. -- ZweiterSternVonLinks (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is simply no need for this contract. No matter what lobbyists are trying to sell as their needs - cooperation on business level between USA and EU works just fine. Help their banks to return to a normal civilized working process, free bank wire payments (that is how money is sent here, including gas heating and telephone, and anything, we have no check fraud cases here usually - did not hear from any such fraud in RL in my neighbourhood, it happens where banks try to sell their clients that bank wire is "expensive". Here, in EU, it is actually only a side action, most interesting are the letters coming with the telephone payments or rents or gas or the Lichtblick power company that I like a bit too much for such dollar frauds as I observed in the last time. I like this company a bit too much to give that away just like that. I want to place solar collectors in the sahara, too. Not only where I placed them but also in the sahara. And while I actually sometimes laugh about the diplomatical joke with the drone (I am not totally humour-less - "well... at least it does not fly..."), I am looking at the bill and saying that I do not want to pay for stuff I did not order. The money is needed somewhere else. What did you think? These jokes are payed with taxes. And now show me the next one, the joke with the "contract".

There is no need for this contract, cooperation exists and works. Some companies like Amazon are whining. Pffff - and? Let them whine. "buuhuhuhuhh they have a Betriebsrat, we'll try to kill them with our legal department, we're trying as much as we can, but this is SOOOOO EXPENSIVE, buhuhuh they have a Betriebsrat."

WELL. Live with that. Amazon. Or be surprised about the newspaper tomorrow.

-- ZweiterSternVonLinks (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed percentage of 97 Percent are against it

This edit is what I have been waiting for to have confirmed what I have been absolutely sure about and expecting

No. If any sentence was not to be touched in this article, it was this.

So let's take that sentence to the next level. To the talk. Additionally, a confirmed percentage of 97% citizen in Europe are reportedly against TTIP

ZweiterSternVonLinks (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You were waiting for it to be challenged? Why did you knowingly add misleading content if you knew it would be challenged? Why do you believe that distorted, cherrypicked text is the only absolutely inviolable part of the article? I recognise that some people are angry about TTIP, but this encyclopædia article should reflect what reliable sources say - without putting undue weight on editorials, either. bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

References

"Broad range of civil."

So - while Karel claims to "consulted" a "broad range of civil" (and THOSE very secret, too),

the people were actually watching. "stuff."

TTIP of the Iceberg

“…The big concern is that foreign companies - including predatory US healthcare companies - would be able to demand that the NHS be opened up to them. The European Commission is adamant that the NHS can be exempted from the proposals, but it's hard to be sure until it's tested in court…” What is TTIP? Everything you need to know about the trade deal causing chaos in the EU, Mirror (on-line) 11 Jun 2015

And yet, the Wikipedia article does not have a section on the way TTIP could undermine the British National Health Service. WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.243.103 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeframe

• What is the current state of negotiations, and what is the timeframe envisioned by the negotiators? The article still states "The negotiators hope to conclude their work by the end of 2015".
• What is the expected time frame for the ratification process? Will there be a deadline?

--The very model of a minor general (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

POV content in lead

User:Der Golem please stop adding cherry-picked quotes and references to a petition, which is only mentioned in passing in the source provided, to the lead of the article. And the claim that the agreement has been criticized by "a wide variety of NGO's and activists" isn't supported by the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

All content in the lead that you deleted is completely backed by the "Criticism and opposition" section, which is one of the largest sections of the article. If you label a reliably sourced content from an entire section as POV, you clearly are having a POV view. WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the article "including any prominent controversies". You remove all content about criticism and opposition from the lead without any compromise, which clearly is violating WP:POV. The European Citizens' Initiative is not some random petition, it is an official EU tool that enables the public to propose policies to the European Comission, with a major impact on EU decision making. If you blatantly remove the sourced content again, you will be reported for disruptive editing immediately.--Der Golem (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There are currently four paragraphs in the lead, summarizing four largest sections of the article: "Proposed contents", "Negotiations", "Benefits of TTIP" and "Criticism and opposition" in a balanced and neutral manner, according to WP:NPOV representing proportionately "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". All the quotes in the text are from reliable sources, represent major views on the topic, and in short, precise sentences summarize specific reliably sourced important points, that are described in the article body. You are free to add more content to reflect any views that you believe are missing in the lead, but be aware that blatantly deleting content about "Criticism and opposition" from the lead, without finding a consensus on a neutral wording, is against Wikipedia policy.--Der Golem (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, your current version is much more balanced.CFredkin (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ISDS

User:BowlAndSpoon: Please paste below the specific text from the source for this content that references TTIP. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have already directed you to look at previous edits where this was discussed. This was, in fact, if you could be bothered to check, an edit-summary discussion between me and your very self. Since you are too lazy to do as I asked, and appear to have a faulty memory, here yet again is the relevant text: "ISDS first appeared in a bilateral trade agreement between Germany and Pakistan in 1959. The intention was to encourage foreign investment by protecting investors from discrimination or expropriation. But the implementation of this laudable idea has been disastrous. It has become so controversial that it threatens to scupper trade deals the European Union is negotiating with both America and Canada."

Tell me: what is the name of the trade deal that the European Union is negotiating with America? As I said, you yourself tried to remove this quote before, and under the same pretext. Rather suspicious? Please, do not waste my time with this again. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:BowlAndSpoon: Please provide the diff of our previous discussion on this content.CFredkin (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated the quote on the very simple logic that (at least an early draft of) TTIP contains ISDS, that this article contains a section on ISDS, that The Economist quote is about ISDS and is highly relevant to the debate. Therefore whether or not The Economist article explicitly mentions TTIP is irrelevant and certainly not a justification to remove cited and relevant content. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mutual recognition

Following addition was reverted:

"In 2014, the main negotiator (Karel De Gucht) insisted on Mutual recognition of standards -rather than say having products with higher standards (in this case EU products) be allowed on one market (US market in this example) but not vice versa-, despite the obvious difference in standards (the EU's being much higher than the US's at least on this issue). According to the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), this is the main reason on why the environment would suffer."

See this edit.

Appearantly, the reason for the revert was the source cited wasn't a good one, which I can relate to, but not saying anything about the issue of mutual recognition (on behalf of pesticide use, ...) seems to be a loss for the article. KVDP (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources which make it clear that the mutual recognition and harmonization are important differences and a problematic issue in TTIP:

• https://www.kan.de/en/publications/kanbrief/115/ttip-gegenseitige-anerkennung-von-normen-als-moeglicher-weg/
• http://ecostandard.org/?p=2715

The difference between the 2 is that mutual recognition would allow products officially allowed in europe to be sold in the USA and vice versa. Harmonization means that neither labelling is used, but rather a new label is used for both. The problem I think is that in most instances, the lowest standard label is used as the standard, in both regions, rather than using the highest standard of the 2, and excluding the sale of the lower standard products in the other region. This may not always be necessary, but on the issue of pesticides, ... it certainly is. KVDP (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either of those two would count as WP:RS, can you find a newspaper article that agrees with your statements? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Veto powers

In the section 'Ratification', sub-section 'Veto powers', "British writer" Adam Hamdy is quoted as making an assertion that the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union means that member states have no veto " if the international treaty was categorised as an exclusive treay.". I can find nothing in Article 3, section C to that says any such thing (it actually says that the Commission negotiates free trade agreements on behalf of the Union, but such agreements still need to be ratified - or not). If he had written such poppycock as a wikipedia editor, it would be buried under a hail of 'fact' tags. IMO, this single sourced section fails wp:RS [as it is an op ed piece for Huffington Post, not the H Post itself] and should be deleted. Can anyone defend it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this - could you link to this so others can check it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

USA pulling out of partnership deal is of high possibility

After President Donald Trump's inauguration in 2017 the White House removed all links and mentions of TTIP only two hours after he was sworn in as president. In the official White House statement still mentioning trade deals the following is written:

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. In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process. The President will direct the Commerce Secretary to identify all trade violations and to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal to end these abuses.

As such, the Trans-Pacific Partnership article can already be updated, while the TTIP situation still awaits more clarification.

Source:

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-foreign-policy
• http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/756970/donald-trump-ttip-eu-white-house

Yes I know Express is questionable, but all signs and the update of the White House articles point to the inforomation of Trump wanting to also quit TTIP as valid, although worth a part in the talk page, not clear enough yet to also implement in the actual wiki page (except for TPP) 37.191.5.234 (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision 886640950 by 37.30.7.213 (talk) Tendentious and poorly written, though possibly in good faith.

I have reverted the following addition:

One of the background was lost of the Europe and USA domination to China. TTIP will create market that can compete with Chinese growth. Protests against TTIP may be funded by China, because China is spending big amount of money to put the single countries into their economic orbit. However many problems occur - in Europe the main base(as with Brexit negotiations) are 4 values, including free movement of people. While in cases of Canada-Europe free trade the Europeans can easily visit Canada. In case of Europe-USA it is divided by countries, For example Poles(which have about 5 position by number of people in union) can't visit USA without visa. Without that, Poland can block TTIP in Europe, just because feeling angry of visas, and being afraid of lower prices of USA GMO food(the Poland have big food production for whole union).

References

Perhaps someone can salvage some of it, but as it stands it seems too poor to include. PJTraill (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)