Talk:Free Trade Area of the Americas/Archives/2012

Ye olde talk

The 1 sentence paragraph concerning the Washington Times seems a little suspect, any other opinions on it? 68.39.174.39 22:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV. Some of the paragraphs are written in a vaguely dismissive manner, and the 'references' provided definately have an axe to grind against the FTAA. It could use a good reorganization and content added, anyhow. Almafeta 04:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apr 19 Update

I gave the article a crack... tried to move it closer to encyclopedia-style, clarified some factual errors, removed outdated info, and wikilinked where possible. The article needs a big update of info, don't have time to do it right now. Feco 08:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History

Added history up to 1994. References and history post 1994 still to come. --Niku 23:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

Thanks Tequendamia for the section on oppositions and critics. However, some sources would be nice to have, specially when Chávez is quoted as saying this or that, and about the specifics of the ALBA. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Last part on "opposition"

How reliable is "ratical.com" as a source? Fairly decent alexa ranking (120K) [1] but certainly I think we can find some better critics/criticism of the FTAA (maybe even some of Chomsky's work or other well-known intellectuals). I'll look up some sources to add to the opposition section a little later, tired right now.--Jersey Devil 03:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Countries

Shouldn't the article mention which countries would be part of this? It seem like that would be an importent part of the article. TJ Spyke 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this website is already listed under links, however here's the direct link to a list of the countries included in FTAA: http://www.ftaa-alca.org/busfac/clist_e.asp

Hope someone will use it to edit the article.

invalid source

"A vocal critic of the FTAA is Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who has described it as an "annexation plan"[2] and a "tool of imperialism""

There is no actual source for this. The paragraph needs to be re-written. The invalid source is:

http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/international/2005/noviembre/07-11-05a.htm Contralya 04:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing attributed to Chávez should be considered a reliable source (with or without a valid link) --Lacarids (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't know anything about FTAA other than what has been said in the article. Even without outside knowledge I can see that the article is lacking. Where are the counter arguments to imperialism? Where are the arguments FOR patents and copyrights? There is not one sentence in favor of either of these points. AzureFury (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical opposition section and its lack of NPOV

There are so many flaws with this section that I’m not really sure where to begin. It is little more than a lengthy, poorly written anti-American trade diatribe that doesn’t even bother to put up the pretense of being neutral. Hammersbach (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's terrible. It's poorly sourced. What does William Taft have to do with FTAA? What does some long passed marine general have to do with FTAA? Very few of the examples mentioned "where both North American and British companies have used their influential powers and government powers to bend hosting countries decisions in their favor" are sourced. Regardless, no connection is shown between the conspiracy theory and an effect that would supposedly occur should there be a free trade agreement. I think a better lens to look through to determine whether or not these conspiracy theories would come to pass again would be NAFTA / TLCAN. --Lacarids (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hopeless. Just delete the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.6.82 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can really justify the value of this section, and I don't believe it can be done, I am going to delete the entire section. It just reeks of POV. Hammersbach (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)