![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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, [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. |
” |
I don't believe any of the following content is sourced:
In addition, why does this paragraph belong in the lede:
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)
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. Wik idea 17:54, 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:
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)
Again, I see a mass deletion, which is not acceptable. Wik idea 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If material is attributed:
So, you can simply copy edit and attribute these views. Cwobeel ( talk) 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
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. Wik idea 11:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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:
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)
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)
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
[2]
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. [3]"
2) The removed paragraph:
In my opinion, a pedantic objection could be raised to the wording, in which case I propose:
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.
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
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
why not rephrase it?
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.
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
5) I have no idea what the objection to the middle of the paragraph about Koskenniemi can be.
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)
References
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)
"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)
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)
<br>
) after your signature was a slip of the editor, and therefore removing them.
PJTraill (
talk)
01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 [1]
ZweiterSternVonLinks ( talk) 09:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
References
So - while Karel claims to "consulted" a "broad range of civil" (and THOSE very secret, too),
the people were actually watching. " stuff."
“…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)
-- The very model of a minor general ( talk) 11:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. [1]"
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:
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)
References
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)
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:
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)
I have reverted the following addition:
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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, [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. |
” |
I don't believe any of the following content is sourced:
In addition, why does this paragraph belong in the lede:
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)
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. Wik idea 17:54, 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:
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)
Again, I see a mass deletion, which is not acceptable. Wik idea 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If material is attributed:
So, you can simply copy edit and attribute these views. Cwobeel ( talk) 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
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. Wik idea 11:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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:
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)
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)
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
[2]
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. [3]"
2) The removed paragraph:
In my opinion, a pedantic objection could be raised to the wording, in which case I propose:
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.
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
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
why not rephrase it?
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.
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
5) I have no idea what the objection to the middle of the paragraph about Koskenniemi can be.
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)
References
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)
"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)
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)
<br>
) after your signature was a slip of the editor, and therefore removing them.
PJTraill (
talk)
01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 [1]
ZweiterSternVonLinks ( talk) 09:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
References
So - while Karel claims to "consulted" a "broad range of civil" (and THOSE very secret, too),
the people were actually watching. " stuff."
“…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)
-- The very model of a minor general ( talk) 11:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. [1]"
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:
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)
References
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)
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:
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)
I have reverted the following addition:
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)