This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are 12 yr old discussions on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Done – Thjarkur (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to North American Free Trade Agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is not known as USMCA in Canada anywhere unless referring to what Americans have said. 198.103.152.51 ( talk) 18:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear what edit you want to be made, we just use the common name, see United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't NAFTA now officially replaced by USMCA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.167.53 ( talk) 01:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge NAFTA's effect on United States employment into North American Free Trade Agreement. I think that the content in former article can easily be covered in the 'impact' section of the latter article (it kind of already is). The latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

NAFTA is no longer in force, so I think the article should be updated to reflect that, such as making present tense descriptions past tense, and elaborating more on developments after the 2018 signing of USMCA. - Bokmanrocks01 ( talk) 20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the same problem just now. In particular, the present->past tense shift would be both straightforward (albeit admittedly tedious) and worthwhile, IMO.

- 89.183.221.3 ( talk) 12:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Whew! Hope I didn't miss any! ◢  Ganbaruby!  ( Say hi!) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Outstanding, thanks!! :)

- 89.183.221.3 ( talk) 14:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

NAFTA is no longer in force, so I think the article should be updated to reflect that, such as making present tense descriptions past tense, and elaborating more on developments after the 2018 signing of USMCA. - Bokmanrocks01 ( talk) 20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the same problem just now. In particular, the present->past tense shift would be both straightforward (albeit admittedly tedious) and worthwhile, IMO.

- 89.183.221.3 ( talk) 12:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Whew! Hope I didn't miss any! ◢  Ganbaruby!  ( Say hi!) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Outstanding, thanks!! :)

- 89.183.221.3 ( talk) 14:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge NAFTA's effect on United States employment into North American Free Trade Agreement. I think that the content in former article can easily be covered in the 'impact' section of the latter article (it kind of already is). The latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Under Impact, United states, Mobility of Persons, the line: "According to the International Organization for Migration, deaths of migrants have been on the rise worldwide with 5,604 deaths in 2016." appears. However such a statistic is far too broad to be appropriate. If a source exists that believes a significant part of the rise or a significant portion of that statistic is due to NAFTA, then it would be far more appropriate to use that aspect and put it into the article. As it is written, it comes across as irrelevant and without connection to anything being discussed. Unless evidence shows that said statistic is impacted by NAFTA, the complexities and sources of migration deaths are such that just placing that statistic there gives the implication deaths were caused by NAFTA. But its a rather underhanded way of doing such. -- GalacticKiss ( talk) 06:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YoalliAlfaro. Peer reviewers: Vidurb, YoalliAlfaro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have edited this line if the page wasn't protected, but basically in the section of how the agreement was ratified by the US, there is a line repeated twice about how the US "requires it's partners to have similar protections". The first time the line is stated, it has no citation, and the second time it is stated, it is inserted randomly in the article with a citation. OrmanRedwood ( talk) 21:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qtzctl ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LettuceBegin ( talk) 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is an issue with footnote 2 in the document about the Canada-US Freetrade Agreement, the link sends to a suspicious site 77.138.248.214 ( talk) 12:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed with usurped tag per WP:USURPURL. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 15:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to North American Free Trade Agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?conID=775 URL which seems to point to a gambling website now. 70.112.235.190 ( talk) 01:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. Jamedeus ( talk) 02:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)