Talk:Free trade agreements of the United States

Trade Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Biased, does Not meet Wiki standards.

So called "free" trade agreements are highly controversial, both in the US and world wide. Not a hint of that here. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section):
"It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ...consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more...
--71.137.156.36 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Free trade area which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Free trade agreement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highly questionable (biased?) language in introduction

The introduction says that the US "is party to many free trade agreements" and "the United States has become a leader of the free trade movement". There is a citation needed attached to the sentence the second quote is from, but this is more than a citation needed problem. By the table, the US has free trade agreements with 21 countries. That's the same number as Australia has, except the sizes of Australia's economy and population are 6.4% and 8%, respectively, of America's. Mexico has FTAs with 44 countries, Canada with 51 countries. If we are going to use subjective, qualitative language to describe the US's participation in FTAs, phrases like "is party to many" and "a leader of" are inaccurate at best, wildly misleading at worst. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to make the same comment. The US has fewer free trade agreements than most other industrialized economies, both candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election promised not to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and as of 2023 both the Democratic and Republican parties skew heavily toward protectionism. Flashpanner (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]