Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reliable Sources

For Wiki Education Foundation / POLI 160AA: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I've noted at least 4 major liberal new sources being cited more than once, such as: The Guardian, Huffington Post, and Washington Post. This does not necessarily discredit the article nor hinder it, but I think it is important to take note of. I did not find outright claims, but the sources used do point towards a certain viewpoint being expressed/showed in this article. — Jdaguiso (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the content sourced to EFF and Daily Kos with this edit because there is no evidence of editorial control at either site, and they are therefore of WP:QUESTIONABLE reliability for statements of fact. There is extensive discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the fact that Daily Kos in particular (as a self-published blog) is not a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The TPP should also be seen in the context with its 'sister' agreement proposal, the TTIP with the EU. In addition to that, the exit clauses need to be made public, or it looks like a one way road that one cannot get out of, should the TPP/TTIP network not perform to satisfaction. Maybe over time, someone can inform on the exit possibilities. 58.174.224.91 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted CFredkin's last two edits, who had based them on an assertion that there was a lack of RSS. One that editor CFredkin had modified was properly sourced, quoting a participant that there were protests at "twenty" locales, but CFredkin claimed the figure was not sourced. I reviewed the first two sources after that cited number and found named protests were in Nelson, Dunedin, Hamilton, Waikaio, Auckland, Christchurch, Napier/Hastings, New Plymouth, Tauranga, Golden Bay, Featherston, Katkia, Hoikanga, Wangerei, Colville, Wakatane, Timaru, Little River and Invercargill. In addition, multiple, disparate protests were cited in some of the larger cities in that list, in the two referenced sources I examined. So it appears that the protests were in all of the larger cities in New Zealand and many of the smaller ones. Activist (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to find any reference to there being twenty protests in the source provided. Before restoring, please provide the exact text from the source that mentions this. Also the claim regarding the # of protesters is clearly attributed to an activist in the source. This needs to be attributed per WP:attribution.CFredkin (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I noted that the figure was in the cited source. It's reference 181. I listed 19 cities in which protests had been held. The quote is here: "A month ago, over 25,000 people marched in over 20 towns and cities across New Zealand demanding their government walk away from these negotiations." Please do not undo it again. Activist (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I counted twin cities Napier-Hastings as a single city. It's actually two, with separate listings in Wikipedia, the fifth largest metropolis in the country. Activist (talk)

Lead paragraph does not indicate secrecy of the text of the TPP

Generally the lead paragraph of an article should state the most important facts.

The fact that the text of the TPP is completely secret (apart from leaks) is not disputed and is probably more important than the vague statement given here of its subject ("regional regulatory and investment treaty"). If it is known that it is secret, then a vague description of its contents can be more easily forgiven.

A better first paragraph would be something along the lines:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty. As of 2014, twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region have participated in secret negotiations on the TPP: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

That ties in better with the third paragraph (objections to the TPP), and also avoids leaving the quite POV impression that opponents of the TPP are making a questionable claim about whether the TPP is secret or not. The substance of what they say may or may not be questionable, but the secrecy of the negotiations is not.

(The word closed could also be used instead of secret, but is a little less forthright.)

Son of eugene (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Son of eugene: Agreed, see if the lead reads better now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

All trade agreements (and treaties) are negotiated behind closed doors. Also the terms will be published before Congress votes on them. This is not an accurate characterization.CFredkin (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that all trade agreements have been negotiated behind closed doors is no defence for this secrecy, because the trade network of TPP and TTIP affects everyone in that area so deeply that secrecy is not tolerable. Especially of interest would be an exit clause should we find the treaty does not perform to satisfaction. I saw a clip of Obama a few months ago, where he said 'we must write the rules, or China will'. It's about rivalry with China and we look like the meat in the sandwich. 'All terms will be published' you say, but then it's too late to change anything. Legislators are degraded to endorsers which they will be after the event, too. They will not be allowed to pass any legislation that might impede on any corporation's profit. Since all legislation impacts on somebody's profits, the TPP and TTIP abolishes democracy by degrading legislators to endorsers. Rumoprs have it that there isn't even an exit clause!!! 58.174.224.3 (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Can you provide a cite for all? I know it is a recent trend, but was it true few decades ago? Was, for example, NAFTA negotiated that way? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say "most" rather than "all".CFredkin (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin: :@Piotrus: Piotrus, thanks. CFredkin: I think i can understand your reluctance to use the word secret on the grounds that all such negotiations are conducted behind closed doors. But what is undisputed here is that the USTR is not informing even the Congress and its staffers of its positions, and that this is more secret than prior negotiations (such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas). This may be bad or it may be good, and the article rightly refrains from reaching an answer to that question. But it is significant, perhaps the most significant fact about the TPP. So some allusion to the undisputed nature of this additional secrecy, in the lead paragraph, would greatly enhance the value of the article. Wording it may be tricky to avoid leaving a misleading impression, but leaving it out entirely also leaves a misleading impression. Son of eugene (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the secrecy of the proceedings in the lede. Including such a reference in the first paragraph seems undue to me.CFredkin (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also it would be good to see support from a reliable source that the treaty is unusual in this regard.CFredkin (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's one, I would imagine.

LORI WALLACH: Well, first of all, this is extraordinarily secret. I’ve followed these negotiations since 1991 with NAFTA. And during NAFTA, any member of Congress could see any text. In fact, the whole agreement between negotiating rounds was put in the Capitol, accessible for them to look at. In 2001, the Bush administration published the entire Free Trade Area of the Americas text, when it was even in an earlier stage than TPP is right now, on government websites. They’ve even excluded members of Congress from observing the negotiations. I mean, this is extraordinary.[1]

Is there a reliable source other than democracynow?CFredkin (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong wit h democracynow? Just because you don't like the assertion doesn't make it false... 86.188.68.55 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: I see the Register claims that "The TPP is a classified document while it is being negotiated (as most international treaties are)." It's a good start, through I'd prefer a better source than what is, I think a tabloid-level newspaper. Here is a book reference that seems to confirm secrecy is a common element (Ralph Nader (1993). The Case Against Free Trade: GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power. North Atlantic Books. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-55643-169-2.), through it notes a trend of such negotiations being more and more secret (in this case, it's a 90s book calling NAFTA "the most secret" of such treaties up to date). Nonetheless I think the argument about omitting the word secret from the first sentence (as mundane) eems sound, through the controversy over that is certainly significant enough to warrant a dedicated sentence in the lead later on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That dated source is almost meaningless here except for possibly demonstrating a progressive trend to secrecy, reaching its peak in the TPP negotiations, but that seems somewhat unsupported, while Wallach's statement is clear and concise.

There is nothing wrong with the Wallach quote from the Democracy Now interview. If either of you intends to challenge that source, you know the routine.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an unverified claim made by Wallach in an interview. Any reference to it in the article would need to be attributed to her.CFredkin (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. It's not unusual for (parts of) draft agreements to be kept private among the people discussing them, if that's what's happening here, but it would be exceptional for important terms of a major international trade agreement to remain secret when enacted. Combining this with the hue and cry over businesses and dispute resolution, I'm wondering how the TPP's critics expect businesses to comply with - and courts to discuss possible failures to comply with - a standard that none of them are even allowed to read. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Senate Debate Reveals Absurd Level Of Trade Deal Secrecy
• US Republicans Block Bill on Public Disclosure of Trade Deal Details --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Added content from your first link. Edit semi-protected (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I tried to expand the secrecy section some using a link from Ubikwit. Thought it was placed in correct spot, paraphrased nicely and ended with a quote from Elizabeth Warren. (diff) It was reverted. (diff) Just would like to know what everybody thinks about that. I don't feel it was a bad edit and hope to have it restored. Unless I'm somehow wrong. Cheers! Edit semi-protected (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the disputed content is WP:undue as it's still not clear that the measures being taken to ensure confidentiality are unusual or unprecedented. The sources provided indicate that the commentators think they are excessive, but there's no indication that they are unprecedented.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly desperate to support this (highly questionable) bill. One has to wonder why? 86.188.68.55 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it was a good edit that just provides some detail about the nature of the secrecy, which is characterized as "absurd" by the article. Whether it is unprecedented or not seems besides the point of the coverage it is receiving. The quote could be trimmed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Without Elizabeth Warren quote is okay? Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I still think it's undue.CFredkin (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fine. In fact, I would integrate the above-posted quote (green box) by Wallach for her description of past Agreements to provide contrast to the details of the present secrecy measures.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin please discuss this unexplained content removal. i inserted info in the lede, to reflect the body. what do you not like about this passage? make an alternative proposal for this information. reading the above discussion it appears to me there was a majority of editors Son of eugene, User:Edit semi-protected, User:Ubikwit, and Piotrus to include something along that line 5 months ago already.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have rephrased a bit, taking into account the agreements has not been signed, and rephrasing the secrecy (that can mean too many things and is thus suggestive). Note that the criticism is now in twice: both in the first sentence, and in the criticisim part at the end of section.... L.tak (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights

Why is the entire copyright section about manga and cosplay, and why is it higher up in the article than things that actually matter? ldvhl (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree there are much better sources, but I do not think that this information was unreliable and the removal was justified. The controversy section should be expanded with discussion of non-Japanese specifics instead. Granted, the sources cited where not the best, but they were not blogs or other unreliable sources. For Japanese critical views on copyright, here is a reliable source [2]. For more global view, just see EFF discussion of TPP at [3], [4], [5], and [6], to name just a few. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed some (not all) of the content related to manga as WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but rather than removing it, it is better to move it to Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions (as I have now done). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

TPP and corruption

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ts5440 (talk •

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-30/how-little-it-cost-bribe-senates-fast-tracking-obamas-tpp-bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggi (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2015‎

Feel free to add more info on which companies/organizations support the TPP and how they support it, citing reliable sources.(blogs are usually dubious as citations) Be careful: labeling anything "corruption" needs to be attributed to a third-party source. Drawing that conclusion yourself is editorializing, which is not what wikipedia is about. Forbes72 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Define 'Original Signatory'

Can someone please define 'Original Signatory'? Does this mean that these countries have already approved the TPP? ie they cannot back out of the trade agreement even though final trade pact text hasn't been made yet? Sorry, just think it needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.192.229.98 (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This refers to the original P4 agreement, which was signed in 2006. I've added P4 to the table to clarify. Forbes72 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Obamatrade

I see that a user added "also known as Obamatrade" to the lead description of the TPP. Citation needed for certain.

63.155.192.85 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Why is there no mention of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is considered the companion agreement to TPP? Seems logical it should be mentioned in the article summary just as it is on the TTIP Wikpedia page? The only mention seems to be in 'see also'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny beets (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I do't know when TTIP was and was not mentioned, but it is mentioned now. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, a link to the NAFTA wikipedia page should be included in the "See Also" section. These trade agreements are relevant to each other.Jdurkee (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

needs some disambig

Why does this say it was signed ten years ago? Talks are still happening? WTF?? 222.154.79.246 (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the membership table with the words "original signatory"? This refers to the precursor P4 agreement signed 10 years ago, not the TPP itself. Fixed. Sorry for the confusion. Forbes72 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree the articles is based on two somewhat different viewpoints:

• i) TPP was concluded in 2005 by P4 and now being extended (infobox in the lede before today; members section)
• ii) TPP is being concluded now, and historically a predecessor exists (e.g. lede text, TPP is a proposed agreement ...)

The combination is a bit confusing and gives the suggestion that the article needs to be disambiguated. I have been bold, and followed the lede-structure and separated the 2005 agreement and the new proposed agreement a bit more, with the 2005 agreement infobox thus moved down. I have no problems moving things to viewpoint i, but then the lede should be something likel "TPP is an agreement entered into force in 2006. it does xxx, xxx and xxx. Currently negotiations are held to extend it." Additional views are welcome! L.tak (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Now it's signed: Trans-Pacific free trade deal agreed creating vast partnership, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34444799 --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Who am I to say BBC is wrong... But I think they are. The agreement is not public and will be tweaked; and such agreements are generally not signed before the text is final. Canadian media are picking that view up, as this is what I expect to be the case: Harper expects the full text of the agreement to be released in the next few days, with signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years; as well as Financial Times: the TPP must still be signed formally by the leaders of each country and ratified by their parliaments L.tak (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but just because TPP must still be signed "formally be the leaders of each country" and "ratified by their parliaments", does not mean that the outcome will be different as these nations are all puppets of the United states. I have my own views and just follow the media, not my fault that BBC did not a good job on this topic, thanks for correcting this. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's not your fault; especially since we have no primary source to check who was reading correctly; and it doesn't change the fact that the US is a dominant source in the negotiations. Anyway, I am a bit of a treaty-addict, so I always look for the signed/ratified/acceded/inforce/inforceprovisionally caveats, as the media do a notoriously bad job there.... L.tak (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, continue :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

National sovereignty subsection is needed in Criticism

A Criticism subsection on national sovereignty is needed. Eg, a quick search finds it in Transpacific Partnership will bring benefits to all's "Matters of controversy" section. Especially if it turns out that the topic was so contentious that the TPP's final ISDS section specifically excludes it from applying to the tobacco industry, because of Philip Morris v. Uruguay and v. Australia. JQRSmth (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

go for it , JQRSmth . as you may know the full text hasnt been made public, and may not be until November 2015. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cites: "A provision allowing multinational corporations to challenge regulations and court rulings before special tribunals is drawing intense opposition."Granville, Kevin (2015-10-05). "The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Accord Explained". New York Times. Retrieved 2015-10-08. "[C]ompanies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations." Weisman, Jonathan (2015-03-25). "Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S." New York Times. Retrieved 2015-10-08. JQRSmth (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Hi, Well, Indonesia signed in Feb: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/02/05/tpp-officially-signed-indonesia-amend-12-laws.html and already the goernment owes quarter of a billion dollars to one company and then had to change a law so that mining companies in the US could carry on with deforestation. Their sovereignity has been castrated by the TPP subsection of the ISDS: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/the-billion-dollar-ultimatum Rahman1708 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

History > new article?

The "History" section is rough 7 pages by itself in a print I just made to help me study this article. I propose to spin that off into a separate article with a title something like, "History of Trans-Pacific Trade Agreements" or "History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations" or "History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations and Agreements". After this is complete, I propose to replace the current "History" section by a brief summary and a link to that article.

This article is now roughly 83 kB (according to LibreOffice after I copied and pasted text only). Wikipedia:Article size says an article between 60 and 100 kB "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)".

If I don't hear any objections, I may attempt this proposed revision, probably entitling the new article, "History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations". DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, I disagree. The history section is far from too long. I just did a little bit of cleaning and it seems longer as it is. The table of negotiation rounds is long, but the info in it is meager and I wouldnt be surprised if in 5-10 years the table is summarized in 3 sentences....so hold your horses. Nice thought though.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I was NOT suggesting the elimination of anything, merely moving the existing history material "as is" to a separate article AND THEN replace the existing "History" section with a link to the new article and a brief summary of it.

The current article seems overly long and "probably should be divided", if I my method for estimating "prose size" is reasonably close to the method(s) recommended in Wikipedia:Article size.

I also think that now that final text of the TPP is officially available, most people will be more interested in the terms of the TPP than in how it came to be. That's why I think a separate history article would be important: People who want that history can easily find it from the link in this article, and people who aren't interested in that can more easily find what they want here.

Also, with the recent dramatic jump in page views (from almost 2,600 per day in the 87 days ending Oct. 4 to almost 50,000 per day Oct. 5-7), we might expect that other Wikipedians will want to add other material. We should be prepared to monitor the material added and suggest ways to split the article if it grows much, as it might. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy Re "now that final text of the TPP is officially available..." what is the link, please?--Wuerzele (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC) link please?

I don't know. I assumed it must be. Are they trying to start the "Fast Track" clock without making it public? DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You assumed wrongly, when you wrote "now that final text of the TPP is officially available...". Though "we might expect" and "We should be prepared to monitor" and "if it grows much, as it might", I see no response to my point that it is The table of negotiation rounds that is long, with meager info in it, and I see no need to split the history section off this article at all. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think reducing the size, without making a separate article is a more useful way. These articles grow because of newsy content becoming available. Now it is time for some copy editing and looking at what really matters. L.tak (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "copy editing and looking at what really matters" is always important and useful. However, I think it's harder to achieve substantive reductions in size with a collaborative effort like a major Wikipedia article than it would be with a single-author work by someone convinced of the need for a dramatic reduction in size.

Also, there is already a separate article on Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions. I think that's appropriate. I also think the current "History" section contains information that might interest some readers, and the contents of this section seem to be well researched and carefully thought out. It therefore, I think, would appropriately make a reasonable stand-alone article. I'm willing to create that article. I just didn't want to offend anyone by making a corresponding major change to the present article without a discussion like this on the Talk page. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

alternative: Separate article for tpep

An alternative might be to farm out the transpacific economic partnership. Although the that forms the roots for this tpp, in my view they are widely different subjects. That would also have an effect on history size, but achieve a more notable standalone article... L.tak (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Would this be in addition to or in lieu of an article on "History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations"? If "in lieu of" and you feel competent to do so, please do. I don't know enough to even start that. I think I know how to take the current "History" section and create a new article with that, then shrink the current "History" section to a link to the new article and a brief summary, which others can edit as they see fit. If your proposal would include this history as a subset AND could be used to reduce the size of the current "History" section as I suggested, please let me know. Otherwise, I propose to create such an alternative article tomorrow or Sunday -- unless someone else does it first. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be in lieu of, and it would remove (/reduce) the first section of the History chapter. I will do it next week, if noone objects. L.tak (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Might you find space in the new article for the existing history table? It seems to be well researched and provides information that people interested in relevant history would like to be able to access, but I think it would be better in a separate article. If you don't think it belongs in the article you envision, I propose to put this table in a history article like I originally mentioned. Then the "History" section here can link to both that new article and the new article you plan to create. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that history table has nothing to do with the TPEP; as that predates the negotiations... L.tak (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough to comment on your proposal for a new article on TPEP, though it sounds like it could be valuable and should be mentioned appropriately in this TPP article. I don't see how that contradicts my proposal for a new article on "History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations". I will attempt to create that soon. We can then judge the results rather than discuss in abstract. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly not my preference, for the reasons stated above, and I think it would be better to seek consensus first. I won't block you though from going ahead. My suggestion for a title would be Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, as trade negotiations is a much wider context (also interesting, but requires a lot more research). L.tak (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a difference between Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement and "Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement (TPEP)"? I see you added a link to an article entitled "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement", which was created in 2009 and discusses TPEP.  ??? DavidMCEddy (talk)

NOpe, I believe there is not. It is just my sloppy writing. In my understanding there is the 4-party agreement (that now has its own article -again-; actually, it had its own article, which slowly was "taken over" by the TPP discussion, then moved to TPP, and that's the page on which we are now discussing). L.tak (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Good job. Now can we put that section in the current article on a diet, and repeat the process for a new article on something like "Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations", as you suggested?

I just created a new article on History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations, which was immediate flagged as "being considered for deletion" by @I dream of horses:. It may be simplest to let the new article I created be deleted and then create a new one with the title you suggested transferring the ~7 pages of relevant content. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The new article is also being discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations process finally decided to keep the separate article, renamed as Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. I therefore deleted the tables here, as they are present in that new article. I think this newly revised and shortened "History" section could be shortened still further, but I won't attempt that right now. I hope that L.tak concurs with these edits. DavidMCEddy (talk)

Re deletion of section "non-party support"

Piotrus, you deleted the WP:RS section "non-party support" today with the edit summary "we don't have Party support section; that some politician praised the treaty is irrelevant - many politicians praised or criticized it, this belongs in a praise section if we were to have one".

It looks to me like you may have misunderstood the term "non party" in the section title, as you refer to politician as in political party. Is that possible ? The section had nothing to do with political party, but whether a country is party of the TPP vs "non party" (plse see table in Trans-Pacific Partnership#Membership). The section contained the viewpoint of the UK, which is no party of the TPP. Since we currently have a tag on the article that the page is not reflecting a world wide view, your deletion isnt really countering that geographical bias. Could you bring yourself to restore the section please ? And, I would not use a different name like Praise, but suggest the more neutral and explicit "reception by Non TPP-party countries", so it can contain criticism as well as support, what do you think?--Wuerzele (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding of the party here. However, this section consisted solely of one politician expressing an opinion (I am not convinced we can interpret his comment as that of the UK government). Therefore I do not see how it is neutral, or relevant to this article. Perhaps we could use a third opinion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus thanks for your reply and admitting your misunderstanding. you are not replying to the main issues: we currently have a tag on the article that the page is not reflecting a world wide view, so your section deletion is worsening that geographical bias. also, you were the one reverting the stable content. I should have reverted you, but instead I opened teh discussion, where you should have started it. you should have reverted yourself pending a 3rd opinion you want. the burden really is on you per wp:BRD to get a third opinion if you want this section deleted. your ping was malformed BTW.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The section is restored and expanded, and I don't feel the need to remove it again. Would be nice to think of a better title, but I was not able to do it so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Text of the agreement and questionable deletion

Where's the text of the agreement? I've heard that it has still not been released a week after the agreement was announced. I can think of only one reason for delay: Stifle dissent.

We rely on hearsay due to the absence of glasnost, hoops transparency. With that proviso I report that I heard the text will still be secret for another 2 years after coming into effect. Charming, isn't it. It ensures that the big corporations who have negotiated it (it wasn't the elected politicians) can get into gear and by the time the text gets published they are so strong that small business can never compete.

In addition I have now seen 'hearsay' that TPP will enforce payments in USD and thus create a monopoly in the trade block. We should not be forced into a monopoly and dependency on one country. It may be a matter of debate how good or bad it is to be dependent on the US (they look more like a failure every day), but all monopolies are bad. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My elected representative (Kevin Yoder) claimed that the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act ("Fast Track"?) "Requires that the President publish the text of the trade agreement after it is finished and allow 60 days for the public to review the deal before it is signed." (private email dated 2015-10-16) I would therefore tend to discount this hearsay as opposition sniping, though it becomes more credible each day that passes without publication of the text.

If you can find that "hearsay" in place(s) that can be cited, could you post such citation(s) here? Then others can help decide whether and how it should be mentioned in the text -- and can help ensure that an appropriate mention does not get instantly deleted without a trace. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted a change by User:CFredkin, who wanted to delete the following, because it's "not a reliable source": "According to Pfenex, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, the proposed terms in the Trans-Pacific Partnership would mean that all TPP partners would have to adopt the United States' lengthy drug patent exclusivity protection period of 12 years for biologics and specialty drugs."

Until we have public access to the final text, a source like this looks to me like it's as reliable as any other reasonable source. It certainly seems to be as credible as any claims by supporters of the agreement. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources indicate that the final deal will include somewhere between 5 and 8 years of exclusivity. I haven't seen any reliable sources indicating that the final deal was for 12 years. The US was pushing for 12 years. Opponents were pushing for 5 years. It appears now that the opponents won the negotiation.CFredkin (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. When deleting something like that from a major article like this, I think some justification like this on the "talk" page should be required.

What can you say about why the final text is apparently still an official secret, a full week after an agreement was announced? DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually based on the suggested WP:BRD protocol, a Talk discussion would be started by the editor restoring content.CFredkin (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did that -- and CFredkin kindly supplied a citation that seemed reasonable. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:CFredkin: I'm confused by your claim that the quote I added was "unsourced": It's extracted from the last 3 lines of the second paragraph after the figure in the link previously supplied: http://www.vox.com/cards/trans-pacific-partnership/what-is-the-trans-pacific-partnership. That paragraph ends with the following sentence: "The agreement could require countries to adopt stricter labor and environmental rules, provide stronger legal protections to drug companies, lengthen the term of copyright protection, give foreign investors a new way to challenge countries' laws and regulations, and much more." How can my excerpt be considered "unsourced"? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit that I said wasn't sourced.CFredkin (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That clarifies one point. However, two changed I made got reverted. The first was sourced as I just described. The second, which you just mentioned, provided links to other Wikipedia articles supporting the change I made.

Will you support reinstating the first edit so the phrase 'establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism" can read something like "establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (which gives "foreign investors a new way to challenge countries' laws and regulations")'? This edit seems to me to be clearly sourced and translates a phrase that sounds to me almost like gibberish (obscure legalese not easily understood by many) into terms that would likely be more widely understood -- making the article more readable.

I will split in two the second edit, which you mentioned, and provide adequate citations for the Philip Morris example. [I think it's interesting that Wikipedia is not considered a credible source, even within Wikipedia, even when the cited Wikipedia article cites credible sources for the cited claims. I understand, of course, that an editor can remove the supportive claim and accompanying citations from a Wikipedia article at any time.]

What do you think about the comment that, "It's unclear the extent to which ISDS provisions of TPP and other agreements will restrict the abilities of nations to promote the public welfare at the expense of companies like Philip Morris."? I think it's POV to discuss ISDS without a concrete example like these Philip Morris cases (obscure legalese hard for people to understand), but it's also POV to do so without an additional qualifier: We won't know for years whether and how much the TPP and similar "free trade" agreements actually "restrict the abilities of nations to promote the public welfare"; the best information we have on that point is the record of similar cases like this in the past, and some of this record is secret. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in looking more closely at the source, it makes no claim regarding the goals of TPP. The actual statement in the source is more speculative:

The agreement could require countries to adopt stricter labor and environmental rules, provide stronger legal protections to drug companies, lengthen the term of copyright protection, give foreign investors a new way to challenge countries' laws and regulations, and much more.

So I've removed this text from the lead.CFredkin (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I don't believe the first para of the lead is an appropriate place for speculation.CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This deserves to be removed, as it is important (labour laws, env standards etc), but the point on tariffs/trade bariers is something we know for sure (it is the raison d'être of those agreements). I think re-adding things when sourced will be a helpful approach and made a start. L.tak (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently the first para states:

....Among other things, the TPP seeks to lower trade barriers such as tariffs,[4] and establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (but states can opt out from tobacco related measures).[5][6] As of 2011, the agreement's goal had been to "enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, to promote innovation, economic growth and development, and to support the creation and retention of jobs."[7]

Once again, none of the sources provided state that ISDS is a goal of the agreement. Also, the first part of the first sentence (The TPP seeks to lower trade barriers...) is redundant with the next sentence. I think the whole first sentence should be removed.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

true, but it is an important mechanism within the agreemnt. I have rephrased a bit. I really like to have some content in the first paragraph, rather then the parties/history/contentious things. We should be able to introduce the subject of the agreement early in the lead, I'd say (although I agree the confidentiallity of negotiations doesn't make it easier)! L.tak (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Media Blackout

As long as (most of us) are dumping on this thing, someone should probably note that there was substantial media blackout of it in the US for most of its duration. Or would that truthsaying be considered editorializing?173.2.90.130 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, quoting a credible source asserting a media blackout would usually be appropriate but saying so directly would be unacceptable editorializing. We need to write from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If someone claims that organization or individual X said Y and gives a reference, someone else can check to confirm that the claim is supported by the reference: If a check confirms the claim, the addition usually stays. If the reference does NOT support the claim, it may be removed, preferably [I think] with a polite question on the talk page asking how they got that claim from that reference. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversions by User:CFredkin

User:CFredkin just reverted a discussion I added of comments by Joseph Stiglitz, claiming "not from reliable source". Stiglitz won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001, former chief economist at the World Bank, and a distinguished professor at Columbia. How can my edits be "not from a reliable source"? (User:CFredkin has reverted previous edits I've made on similarly questionable grounds.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The source provided for the content (Democracy Now) is not reliable. If the statement is significant, it will be mentioned in a reliable secondary source. In addition, there are already 2 quotes from Stiglitz in the article. In my opinion, adding more quotes by him would be WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I cited two sources, MarketWatch and Democracy Now!. The latter contained an interview with Stiglitz. I saw it live. It's clear that what I wrote is consistent with what he wrote. On what basis do you claim that Democracy Now! is "not reliable"? From my perspective, Democracy Now! is very professional. People with wealth and power don't like it, because it's listener sponsored and gives voice to people that major advertisers presumably don't want heard.

While Democracy Now! has nothing to gain financially from the approval or rejection of the TPP, that presumably is not true of the major media conglomerates: It would appear that they have a lot to gain a lot from the TPP and therefore can be expected to try to suppress contrary views. I don't object to quoting Fox, or CNN, etc., but I think it's entirely WP:undue to attack other sources like Democracy Now! as "not reliable".

I would agree with your concern about WP:undue if the quotes I added were redundant. They were not redundant, because they provided graphic illustration of the otherwise rather abstract discussion. Moreover, they seemed compelling to me in part because they were selected by one of the world's leading economists -- someone you would expect would be highly qualified to provide important perspectives on free trade. I believe these perspectives should be represented in this article if it is not to give WP:undue weight to the views of the major corporations, who by all accounts helped write the TPP.

Has the text of the TPP yet been released? If no, why not? DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that the major media conglomerates stand to gain a great deal from the TPP, which means that anything from them could similarly be claimed to be "not from a reliable source"? Their biases can be seen in their virtually universal refusal to provide air time to the single most frequently cited living author, Noam Chomsky. Does that mean that Chomsky "is not a reliable source"? DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Democracy Now! qualifies as a WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

After checking the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I'll stipulate that Democracy Now is considered reliable. However, my second point above remains... The following statements from the article are all attributed to Stiglitz. This is an WP:undue amount of consideration to give to statements from one person.

Of 5 October 2015 economists Joseph Stiglitz and Adam S. Hersh questioned the ISDS provisions of the TPP. "To be sure," they wrote, "investors — wherever they call home — deserve protection from expropriation or discriminatory regulations. But ISDS goes much further: The obligation to compensate investors for losses of expected profits can and has been applied even where rules are nondiscriminatory and profits are made from causing public harm. ... Imagine what would have happened if these provisions had been in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered. Rather than shutting down manufacturers and forcing them to compensate those who had been harmed, under ISDS, governments would have had to pay the manufacturers not to kill their citizens. Taxpayers would have been hit twice — first to pay for the health damage caused by asbestos, and then to compensate manufacturers for their lost profits when the government stepped in to regulate a dangerous product."[52]

On 27 October 2015 Stiglitz claimed that the TPP would give oil companies the right to sue governments for loss of profits due to efforts to reduce carbon emissions and global warming. Philip Morris has already sued Uruguay, Australia and Norway under similar provisions of other free trade agreements. Stiglitz said, "TPP carved out one little piece that was so, so outrageous that everybody was up in arms, and that was a provision about tobacco. ... [T]he view is, [companies] have the right to kill people, and if you want to take away that right, you have to pay them not to kill."[53]

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."[15][105] Organised labour in the U.S. argued that the trade deal would largely benefit corporations at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries.[106] The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research argued that the TPP could result in further job losses and declining wages.[107][108]

In addition, the second paragraph above (which is the specific content under dispute) is inappropriate for the following 2 reasons: In the first statement, Stiglitz claims knowledge of TPP, which hasn't been released yet. And the second sentence is moot.... Tobacco companies do not have access to ISDS in TPP. That much has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources (and is mentioned elsewhere in the article).CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I just removed reference to tobacco from that section and from the Protest section. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

New Zealand (and Malaysia?) reveals full text of TPP (TTPA?)

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) provides full access to the TTPA since today: full text with annexes --Cccefalon (talk • contribs) 11:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this link. It is quite valuable for anyone concerned about this. (Just for clarity: When I accessed the link you provided, it said it belongs to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and allows one to download a version of the text of the TPP; I'm not familiar with any TTPA. And the Ministry of International Trade and Industry is an arm of the Japanese government. Please do NOT take this as a criticism: Speed is important, and I'm very glad you did NOT delay your message until you had time to do more checks. ;-)

This website provides the TPP in the form 296 separate pdf files for 30 chapters and 266 annexes (if I counted correctly). It can take some work just to download it all unless you can easily download a complete website with all its accompanying files.

Though probably official, this text is still considered preliminary as, "The text will continue to undergo legal review and will be translated into French and Spanish language versions prior to signature."

Enjoy ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly; and I added that point. Note btw that the ISDS clause has one interesting novelty: decisions will be public! (except for confidential company info) L.tak (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

scribed vs. New Zealand as source for full text

I wish to thank the earlier editor for promptly adding a link to the full text.

I replaced "Trans-Pacific Partnership Full Text". Scribd. Retrieved 5 November 2015. with Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2015-11-05, retrieved 2015-11-05 as the source for the agreement, primarily because scribed wants people to sign up for their service before allowing them to download the text. When the document is available elsewhere without that, it creates an unnecessary barrier to someone following up on this. Secondarily, the government of New Zealand should be a more credible source for something like this.

It's fine with me if someone wants to add scribed as a secondary source. If it is available there as one document, that could make it easier for scribed subscribers to get it. I counted 296 distinct pdf files that one must download from govt.nz to get the full text. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversial?

It's hardly "controversial" or a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to claim that the TPP is "controversial". I don't know who inserted that word into the first sentence of the article, but I think it's appropriate. Indeed, I think it more accurately reflects the status of the TPP: It has already generated massive protests around the world. I therefore reverted the action by someone identified only by an IP address to revert that addition. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and it is neither untrue nor uncitable, and not a violation of NPOV. However I prefer not to mention the term controversial as one of the main characteristics of the TPP (next to the qualification "trade agreement") by placing it so prominently in the first sentence. The controversy is mentioned very clearly in the lede (as criticism) and we could add the term controversy/controversial there. But I personally prefer not to have it as a fact stated in the fist sentence, so people can decide for themselves whether -all in all- they consider this as one of the main characteristics... For me, the agreement is controversial , but so is any multilateral trade agreement nowadays (e.g. ACTA, TTIP)... L.tak (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are multiple opinions on the topic (and we have sources for them) means exactly that it is controversial. So the neutral point of view here is to mention that. In addition, the first paragraph should be a brief explanation of what the article is about. Users want to be able to get the gist without reading the whole article. People can always decide their own opinion about the agreement (that's one of the reasons we have the article). Martinkunev (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Heck yes, it is both controversial and proposed! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this to Martinkunev on my talk page but I'll leave it here as well. I feel that having the word controversial is politically charged. The controversy should be described in the article, not claimed in the lead, if that makes sense. People can make their own judgements on controversy, they don't need our charged words telling them what it is or is not.  DiscantX 12:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But how about "proposed" in the lead? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the agreement has been reached agreement and waits for ratification. If this state is still called "proposed agreement", I don't care to restore the word. However I think these states may not be called "proposed".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Proposed" might be a bit too in the past at this point if it's already been decided on. We already have the line "A number of global health professionals, internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organised labour, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticized and protested against the treaty, in large part because of the secrecy of negotiations, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public." I would think that this is more than enough to explain the controversy in the lead without explicitly calling it as such.  DiscantX 12:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think "proposed agreement" describes it pretty accurately. All of the countries need to ratify it (if they do, it will be just "agreement"). Martinkunev (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea signed in 1982 and effective 1994. However not all the 157 signatory parties but only 60 ratified the treaty. However we do not call the UNCLOS is a proposed treaty.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that UNCLOS was formally adopted in its final form by the UN general assembly, and here we "just"(?) have still a text still subject to legal review, and not signed by anyone yet. I'd say it is a treaty from the moment it is formally adopted or signed, not once the last almost final draft is released... But this is a bit of semantics...

My concern is that lots of people come on Wikipedia to find brief information on a certain topic (not read a whole article). Wikipedia has to be reliable and objective source of information. The agreement is controvercial without a doubt (lots of sources prove that). I am concerned that some people may not understand the nature of the agreement since the introductory paragraph relies on the fact that the people will have time to read the whole article. Martinkunev (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough too. I'll stay out of it. I didn't even read the above. Mine is just a drive-by comment that I shouldn't have made. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The TPP is "Historic. Landmark. Groundbreaking. Revolutionary".[7] So it may also be "controversial" for some parties. We should not mark the agreement as "controversial" in the lead.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Martinkunev, what's your opinion on my comment above, that we already have a paragraph at the end of the lead describing the controversy? Do you feel that's not enough? It doesn't come early enough in the article? Personally I feel it's fine. We don't need to babysit people who can't be bothered to read at the minimum the entire lead section. If they don't read it and miss out on information, then that's a fault of their own poor research skills, not ours. We just provide the information, it's up to them to read it. DiscantX 13:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to review it, but when I do, I'll make a suggestion. Martinkunev (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the text I propose (from the beginning to the Contents table). I have fixed some wordings, reordered some sentences, removed unsourced claims and a sentence that is already in the "Domestic approval" section. Martinkunev (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Actual text external link

I've just added http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text but if it exists elsewhere that I'm missing, please remove it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the full text from the US Government, so it should be public domain. I'd recommend putting it all together into one PDF for the whole world to read, and then putting it on the top of the page for the TPP, per easy search-ability suggestions by the Washington Post. Victor Grigas (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Search "Download a Zip file of all 30 Chapters (excluding Annexes)" at http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text. I think that's all of it. Of course, there are the side agreements too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Victor Grigas for the link to the searchable Washington Post version. I don't think it should go in the lede. What about creating a new (first) subsection under "Contents" with a pointer to that? DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the downloadable zip to ext links. Remove it if inappropriate. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded everything (I think everything) from the New Zealand site. It came to 296 files, if I counted correctly -- a Preamble plus 30 chapters plus 265 annexes. Lots of details in which devils can hide. (The Tax Foundation might say that the purpose of all those details is to provide ample opportunity for politicians to sell justice to the highest bidder.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the first and last chapter on wikisource. The preambule had already been handled. If we all do a few chapters, we have our own resource in wikistyle ;-) [note to editors: Articles like this: ==Article xx.xx==, numbered lists one tab down (with ":"), footnotes between ref and /ref with a ==Notes== at the end of each chapter. It is a lot but doable... L.tak (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, great job everyone. @L.tak, can you provide a link to the wiki source page(s) here in this thread so that anyone interested can copy from the NZ source and then paste to the wiki source post?Victor Grigas (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's at s:Trans-Pacific Partnership, and already (prematurely?) linked in the infobox in the lede... Let's see how far we get! L.tak (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am progressing, but could use some help at wikisource... (And for the conspiracy theorists, what happened wit Article 28.7 with provision 7? And will it be in the final version? Who is getting fired for this numbering catastrophe ;-))

Hi L.tak. Thanks for starting the wikisource files. I tried to add a section but didn't quite know how to make the pdf into the text. Also, the wikisource link at this article goes no where and may need fixing. Finally, should WMF have the pdf somewhere on file? It is public domain, right? Can't we grab the whole pdf and upload it to the project? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid it is not possible to get the pdfs in to wiki-style, without lots of manual editing (ctrl-A, ctrlC, ctrlV, removing page numbers, adding headers; outdenting etc), and there is no easy way to make the pdf into the wikitext, but I am comfident we'll get there... The whole thing is CC3.0 licenced (from the New Zealand website) and arguably also public domain as an edict of government (although: a draft edict of government may not qualify) so we can do whatever we want with it, but I don't see much added value in just uploading the pdfs, while I see the added value of having it all in a scrollable wiki-text: as far as I know it is not available anywhere outside the somewhat clumsy pile of pdfs... L.tak (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's write to New Zealand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea ;-). (But it is finished now, so let's do that when the final version comes on line in a few months...) L.tak (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it's done, I think we should make a new version that's all one document, that could then become a pdf, then it would be easily searchable? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good plan! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the best way to go about doing this? Victor Grigas (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

USTR external link

I've just removed https://ustr.gov/tpp/ because it is very POV. If this were some deal that US govt did not want, and that link was to a North Korean pro-deal cheerleading site, it would not be permitted, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed?

Just reacting here with regards to the term "proposed" in the First sentence (more comments in section #Controversial, but let's not mingle discussions). I put "proposed" in because the agreement has no formal status at all as the final text is still subject to change (see disclaimer at every single page of the document). It still needs to be signed (after which everyone agrees it is not proposed anymore, it is just not in effect) and ratified by most before it enters into force. Having said that, I d be ok with any other wording that would clarify (an agreement about which agreement in principle is reached? An agreement that is planned to be signed in 2016?) --L.tak (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The current first lead sentence clearly states "about which agreement was reached on 5 October 2015 after 7 years of negotiations." So I think the word "proposed" is unnecessary.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There's discussion of this in the Controversial? section above.  DiscantX 06:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The source is invalid. Also, the word "agreement" has two different meanings (see [8]). So "agreement" in "agreement is reached" is not the same as in "trade agreement". Martinkunev (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The source that is supposed to confirm that the agreement is reached on 5 October 2015 is from 29 June 2015 and doesn't claim anything about reached agreement (thus is invalid). In addition, the text currently released is not final. To me the wording "proposed trade agreement" describes the current state accurately. After the discussions about "controversial" and "proposed", I'm suggesting this text. Martinkunev (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

08:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Compatibility with the SDG

I added the following to the article:

Matthew Rimmer, Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law, Queensland University of Technology, regards the TPP as being incompatible with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, highlighting that if the development provisions clash with any other aspect of the TPP, the other aspect takes priority.

It was quickly removed by @DiscantX: with the edit summary "sorry but why exactly is his opinion important compared to the thousands of people who also hold an opinion on this subject?"

It is reliably sourced critical commentary by an expert in the field, from a non-US source (the article is noted as having a US slant up the top) which introduces the concept of the development provisions of the TPP being weak and ultimately incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals. I don't understand why DiscantX immediately removed what I had written. Please consider reinstating this sourced commentary. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My issue is mostly to do with the notability of Matthew Rimmer himself. Considering that this is an issue that has been discussed by many people from all fields, I feel we need to be very selective about whose opinions we put into this article. Yes, he is a professor in a relevant field, but the same can be said of many. The most I can really find about him is in bios about himself that he may have helped contribute to and in listings of his published works. Now, that he has published works does suggest reliability and knowledge in the area to be sure, but again, we can't include the opinion of every law professor on the matter, because they are all sure to have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscantX (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Why is it necessary for Rimmer to be notable as a person as well as reliable? The publication, The Conversation Australia, is notable - and another essay published there has been cited in the article already. If the issue of the TPP being incompatible with the SDG has been discussed by many people from all fields, then why hasn't it been in the article before I put it in? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's necessary because it's his name being mentioned. Look at the other people whose opinions are being mentioned in that section: Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, Noam Chomsky, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. These are all widely known people (who, to address your last point, were in the article before your edit), whereas if an article were created for Matthew Rimmer here, it probably would be deleted. The fact that he doesn't have an article here isn't really the issue, of course, but it's a good indication that his opinion isn't merited in this article.  DiscantX 05:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

However, none of the other people address the issue of the SDGs. At present, the SDGs are only mentioned in a see also down the bottom of the article, and the implications are not discussed. Thus, Rimmer's point is novel for the Wikipedia article. As far as I am aware, it is not considered important for reliable sources to also be notable - and is therefore not "a good indication that his opinion is not merited in this article". His article is a reliable source, covering a topic which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't think your argument from Rimmer's notability is a valid one for removing reliable, sourced, discussion of what the SDGs have to do with the TPP. I would like it to be reinstated. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, there are several people who do not have Wikipedia articles who are cited in this article, such as Amy Kapczynski, who has published a peer-reviewed article about the health implications of the TPP. (Who was in the article before, but I cited her again for another point.) Would you suggest that their commentary should also be removed? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the section "criticism" should discuss criticism and support it with reliable sources. I believe we have a reliable source for the claim under question. If the author is not considered so important, we should not mention his name (it's in the source anyway). I'd rather have information with relation to SDG than nothing (even more because it's from non-US source). If we start deleting things because the person who said them is not notable enough, we may need to delete half the wikipedia. Martinkunev (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose, as I said, my main objection was the inclusion of the opinion of one (marginally authoritative) person's opinion on the subject -- if there is no one else talking about this one aspect of the issue, then perhaps it is WP:UNDUE to talk about. That said, what I suppose should have been done was to see if it's been discussed elsewhere, by enough other people to give it due weight. So I've done a search and found some sources, just to name a few. So I'll concede that maybe I shouldn't have been so hasty to remove the edit in its entirety, though I still contend that Rimmer's name shouldn't be included in the article, but rather a statement along the lines of "critics have said..." and then list the refs. If an edit in that fashion is made, I won't argue.  DiscantX 09:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had another go at including the SDG information in the article using some of the additional references you've found. It could probably stand with improvement, as the criticism of the TPP-SDG interaction covers quite a few of the subsections in this article (medicine, environment and small business at a glance), but at least some of the interaction is explained in the article now, and with reliable sources for people to read if they're interested. Thank you for conceding that you shouldn't have removed the edit in its entirety so quickly (four minutes flat is a new record for me...) and for working with me in the discussion. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

US Bias

There has been a template on top of this page for some time regarding to focus on the US. In the past months that focus has been reduced, but there are two places where it is still very prominently present: At the domestic approval section and the section on the summary of the US of the agreement. I propose to change those to sections and will treat them below:

Domestic approval (-->Fast track (trade))

This section could eventually have a nice table with notes on how the domestic approval process is going in any country. Now it mainly deals with the US generic legislation. That is understandable, as it needed to be changed for TPP, but -as it will applies equally to TTIP etc- it should be at the generic location: Fast track (trade), where the legal history of subject currently is treated in a lot less detail. L.tak (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Trade Representative's summary

I don't think we need summaries of specific countries. Let's split main section ("content") into sections regarding the different chapters, and use multiple sources (including the US trade rep) to populate it. L.tak (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Content

I've removed content which was sourced to self-published material from the campaign manager of an advocacy organization, as well as content which was sourced with a wiki link. These are not reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV policy says, "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". In my judgment, the points made are significant and published by multiple reliable sources. Failure to mention those perspectives constitutes a breach of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I believe.

CFredkin cited two sources as "not reliable". I wish to discuss each:

1. The first source CFredkin mentioned was a position paper by Fight for the Future (FFTF). FFTF is, as CFredkin noted, an advocacy organization. The United States government is also an advocacy organization, with parts of it trying to promote the policies of incumbent politicians -- especially on an issue like this. The FFTF position paper I cited was carefully researched, citing section numbers in the agreement. I believe an interested reader can compare that position paper with the cited portions of the published agreement and evaluate for him- or herself the veracity of the claim. I did that before making these edits to satisfy myself that there actually was substance behind the allegations. I cited the FFTF paper over positions by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), because the comparable EFF position paper says much of the same thing but without citing section numbers. I plan to reintroduce a revision of these edits, citing also the EFF position paper to help make it clear that this is a significant perspective. Both FFTF and EFF have substantive histories and are sufficiently noteworthy to have earned Wikipedia articles based on careful research and responsible advocacy.

Reliable secondary sources should really be used. In addition to providing increased reliability, it also indicates that the content is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article.CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Otherwise, the article will become a collection of cherry-picked commentary from advocacy groups.CFredkin (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

1. The second source, which CFredkin claims is "not reliable" is the Wikisource version of the actual text of the agreement. That Wikisource version was created by L.tak, as noted elsewhere on this Talk page. I'm surprised that was considered "not reliable". I shall add a link to version published by a government to respond to this concern.

Extracting content from the Agreement itself to support commentary sourced elsewhere would be WP:original research.CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that CFredkin left my addition that, "Corporate law experts are concerned that this language does not push for civil penalties" but removed the comment that, 'Civil libertarians are concerned that “This is clearly intended to stifle whistleblowers and journalism covering the documents they expose"'. I hope I will be forgiven for wondering if this violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy cited different sources for each of these statements. I've explained above my concerns regarding the sourcing for the content I removed.CFredkin (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Actually, after looking at it again, it would support removing the other content as well based on the same rationale.CFredkin (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

From my reading, I see three major points of controversy about the TPP: (1) The potential threat to journalists and whistleblowers of the "trade secrets" provision with the overly broad definition of "trade secrets". (2) The potential threat to an open internet by the ability of a copyright holder to demand that an ISP take down content under nebulous claims of an infringement without reasonable recourse by a web site owner. (3) Overly broad ISDS provisions. In my judgment, the current text adequately covers the ISDS issue but not the first two. The second is not mentioned at all, and the first gets so few words that the magnitude of the controversy is not communicated. If there are responsible rebuttals to the concerns raised by FFTF and EFF, I'd like to hear them. Exposing these issues in an article like this is a responsible way to invite others to contribute such perspectives. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a classical wikipedia dilemma. I agree with David, the points he raised are legitimate, and should be treated. I also agree with CFredkin, that -especially when it comes to concerns/interpretations of facts- it is not up to us to "find" groups that voice those concerns as they are primary sources. The same goes btw for government sources, although indeed we tend to put the bar lower from them, and that creates an unequal playing field for arguments pro and contra... Let's find a pragmatic solution to this and spend the next weeks (no hurry!) source and possibly rephrase the concerns based on secondary sources. We can still mention EFF, as long as they are mentioned in those sources. A possible start could be this article, and I am sure we can find enough to make this a balanced section (and while doing that: an up to date one, because most is based on the non-finished text; based on leaked drafts). L.tak (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Much of the commentary is based on the leaked draft of the agreement, which I believe was a few years old by the time the final agreement was reached. I have no idea how much of that is still relevant. It would be good to update with commentary based on the final version.CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I object to the inclusion of this link in the External Links section based on this post.CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarity, CFredkin provided two links just now. I had difficulty parsing both. I believe the first mentioned the analysis by Greer of FFTF citing TPP section numbers to define his concerns. The second was an analysis by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). I agree with Anna Frodesiak that the USTR site "is very POV." However, I think it represents a significant view published by a reliable source consistent with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Indeed, the USTR is such a major player on this issue, I feel it is POV NOT to mention it, and it should appear among "External links". The analysis by Greer is especially good in providing citations to particular sections for each concern mentioned, so interested readers can easily evaluate Greer's claims for themselves. Tragically, the corresponding analysis by EFF does NOT provide section numbers. I favor mentioning both Greer's comments and the EFF analysis in "External links", because the two together make similar points and help establish that their views are "significant" -- and I think both FFTF and EFF have sufficient responsible history to be considered reliable. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to L.tak for providing the link to a discussion of TPP on abc.net.au. I am concerned that good secondary sources could be more difficult to find on this issue than they might be on other issues. The intellectual property and other provisions of the TPP can be expected to provide substantial economic benefits to many of the major secondary sources, especially the media conglomerates. Media Matters for America has already claimed that there has been a substantial media blackout on this issue. This is consistent with Manufacturing Consent and the role of the media in conflict: If the major commercial media expect to benefit from this agreement AND expect the public to oppose it, then we can expect them to cover it only if failing to do so would result in a loss of audience sufficient to erode the financial benefit they expect to gain from the TPP. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The commentary on TPP in the article currently is overwhelmingly negative. (In fact, I would argue that there is a NPOV bias in the negative direction currently.) So I don't believe there's a media blackout of negative coverage.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin: has brought up "cherry picking" in discussion with @DavidMCEddy: and @L.tak: and NPOV impropriety, but it is my impression that CFredkin has a years-long history of removing well sourced content that is possibly exclusively adversarial to the TPP agreement itself. I have restored content removed that was i.e., sourced to text and video (of a Sen. Elizabeth Warren speech on the floor) that can be found in other reliable sources while avoiding primary sources such as the recorded transcription of the Senate speech. Activist (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo of leaders of prospective member states from 2010 NOT 2011

User "128.243.2.31" added "and 2011" to the caption of the photo of "Leaders of prospective member states at a TPP summit in 2010". This addition makes no sense, as a photo like that can't be from two different years. I therefore reverted that addition. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

New article titled Fast track (trade)

As of 2016-02-01 the "United States" subsection of the "Domestic approval" section begins with a box stating, "There is a proposal that this section be split into a new article titled Fast track (trade). (Discuss) (November 2015)" I'm confused, because there is already a separate article on Fast track (trade).

I would support someone comparing this section with the Fast track (trade) article and expanding the latter, then reducing this section to only a few words about the implications of Fast track authority for the approval process. I think that would make this a better article, less to read; people interested in that history can go to theFast track (trade) article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Membership Chart Year

Under TPP membership, the signature date for all countries is listed as Feb. 4, 2015. The signature date is actually Feb. 4 2016. The year is wrong. Jgray29 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand's Maori Party

There seems to be some contention over whether the Maori Party of New Zealand deserves the label "right-wing nationalist". That label may be appropriate; I'm unfamiliar with New Zealand politics and am not qualified to rule on that question. If so, the article on the Maori Party should clearly support that potentially emotionally-charged label; my brief review of that article did not support the use of such a label.

For example, the Wikipedia article on the National Front (France) opens by saying it "is a socially conservative, nationalist political party in France." I don't see any such description anyplace in my brief review of the Wikipedia article on the Maori Party.

If User:Un chien fou believes such a label should be applied, s/he should first, I believe, make sure the article on the Maori Party clearly supports such a label. If it's there and I missed it, please document that here -- and probably make it more clear in that article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversy in lead

The lead section does not reflect what the media is depicting of this. What I read in the new is a bill that favours business more than people and is followed by protests in several states (including in Germany some months back) and during the New Zealand signing this week a sex toy thrown at a politician, a dance show defecting to protesters and arson of a minister's office. What I read in the lead is a quote "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections." In the talk there is a "controversial" section, where the conversation goes off topic, so I would like to restart it here.

• Regardless of whether it is controversial according to the general public or the media per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the content and I am pretty sure 1/4 of the article merits a passing mention.
• A lot of papers —not tabloids— call it controversial, which means that WP:FRINGE does not apply.
• I was surprised that this article is not only locked, but has the Discretionary sanctions tag —Scientology has that tag, but not even Jesus or Evolution have it— if that is not a sign that it is controversial, I am not sure what is.

I would like to propose that:

• a statement of the controversy be added in a logical place in the lead.
• the aforementioned quote be rewritten to reflect the actual goals as discussed in the article. --Squidonius (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Might you have time to attempt such a revision? Remember Wikipedia policy: Be bold but not reckless: Sensible edits may be refined by others but are not likely to be reverted. (Unsupported WP:POV edits are often reverted almost as quickly as obvious vandalism. However, if you write from a neutral point of view that's consistent with the rest of the article, your work should be retained. I just modified some text that described an early 2015 protest in Japan concerned with "the United States' already excessive length of copyright.” The term, "already excessive length of copyright" is now in quotes, because some people believe the current length in the US is NOT excessive. I added a parenthetical comment about 'The alleged “excessive length”'. People who think the current US length is NOT excessive must still agree that it is 'allegedly' so. Please excuse if I'm saying in 200 words what could better be said in 20 ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing word(s)

In the section Criticism>Intellectual Property, there appears to a word or words missing: "...to oppose requirements in the TPP that would require their country to expand their copyright scope and length to match the United States' [?] of copyright." Perhaps 'definition'? Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fortunately, there was a link to the source. I checked the source, identified the missing words, then checked the published agreement, and revised the text accordingly. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

I suggest the following changes to the third sentence of paragraph 1:

Among other things, the Agreement contains measures to lower trade barriers such as tariffs,[6] and establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (states can only opt out from tobacco-related measures).

Ts5440 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting this, but I'm confused: The current third sentence of paragraph 1 ends, "(but states can opt out from tobacco-related measures)." Are you requesting that "but states can" be changed to "states can only"? If yes, this seems like tighter verbiage to me and therefore should have a separate footnote justifying that stronger assertion, I think. The text of the agreement is available on Wikisource. I just looked briefly at the text and could not find "tobacco". It's doubtless there, but I don't know where. It would be great if someone could find that in the actual text -- not just in news reports. At this point, I see three possibilities:

1. The "tobacco carveout" was public relations, and tobacco could still be covered by the TPP. I doubt it, but it would be good to have it checked.
2. Tobacco is excluded and states can optionally exclude other goods or services. Again, this is probably not the case, but it's not clear to me without knowing the pertinent sections of the agreement.
3. Tobacco is the only allowed exclusion -- states must explicitly exercise that option if they want it. Even with this, there are subtle alternatives in exactly what states must do to "carveout" tobacco AND in what is covered as "tobacco"? Are e-cigarettes tobacco? What about synthetic nicotine?

I apologize for pushing for more work, but this article is getting lots of attention -- thousands of page views. To my mind, that helps justify more time spent making sure what appears here is as correct and well supported as possible. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's indeed nr 3, see article 29.5 here on the official text page of the depositary with a spec: tobacco control measure means a measure of a Party related to the production or consumption of manufactured tobacco products (including products made or derived from tobacco), their distribution, labelling, packaging, advertising, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, or use, as well as enforcement measures, such as inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. For greater certainty, a measure with respect to tobacco leaf that is not in the possession of a manufacturer of tobacco products or that is not part of a manufactured tobacco product is not a tobacco control measure. L.tak (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My skimming of chapter 29 seems to identify other possible exemptions beside tobacco. For example, Article 29.1: General Exceptions includes "environmental measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health." This would seem to provide a carveout for tobacco and any other substance or practice claimed to be a threat to the health of humans or other living things -- even without article 29.5. However, I'm not an attorney, and I would expect that the management of Investor-State Dispute Settlement could make it practically (though perhaps not theoretically) impossible for a party to get an exemption for anything other that tobacco. In any event, I think we'd need more legal savvy than I have before I'd be comfortable changing the wording to "states can only opt out from tobacco-related measures". DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused: I'm not sure what Ts5440 was proposing. It could have been a revision of 3 words or something larger that someone else effectively already completed, making this discussion moot. I don't know. Input from L.tak ultimately suggested to me that the 3-word revision may not be appropriate. However, Ts5440 has not answered my question about what concerned him or her about the current text. I'd like more discussion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)