This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

TradeMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTrade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. EconomicsMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEconomics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

A related topic,spice trade, is currently nominated onWP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice09:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is suppose to be about international trade, yet it is a polemic mostly for free trade and it's history. This article should be merged withFree Trade. --Northmeister01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a polemic this article needs to beedited to remove POV, not be merged.Intangible17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This chronology completely leaves out much of America's and Germany's tariff history, in regards to both countries use of protective tariffs to stimulate domestic industrial growth during the 19th Century - America listened to and embraced Hamilton's principles (see American System) especially from 1861 (with the Morrill Tariff of 48% - where is mention of this?) whereas Germany embraced Friedrich List's ideas based on America's policy (he called National System) under Bismarck. Hence America did not embrace Free Trade, literally until 1973 - prior to this until 1932 we embraced in regards to tariff policy protectionism (see the platforms of the GOP who governed mostly from 1861-1932 with the exceptions of Cleveland and Wilson) as did Germany under Bismarck on through to WWI. Further this chronology states protectionism caused WWI or WWII, that is simply not true; after 1932 America embraced the New Deal system of Reciprocity (30% or so tariffs) with Subsidy of industry until 1973. In fact, Germany's largest trading partner was Britain before WWII. A lot of bias POV has slipped into this chronology which if it is to speak of International Trade, should include the Spice Routes of Marco Polo's day, the Mercantilist Trade system, etc. If it is to be only about Free Trade, it should be merged with the article of the same name. --Northmeister02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes. The article is not about a history of "international trade," it is about the "history of international trade." Some events pertaining to the history of "international trade" can be added of course, like publications that shaped political economy etc.Intangible18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added the globalize template, since this article only deals with the european history of international trade, and not the world wide. Theres nothing wrong with that, but then it should be dealt with under a different article (such as "History of international trade in Europe") or different headers (such as "Trade in Europe"). Some examples of things focused a bit to much of Europe:

• "1498 Vasco da Gama opens up the Spice trade" The spice trade had been going on for some thousand years over the Indian ocean before Vasco da Gama "opened it up".
• "In the sixteenth century Antwerp was the centre of trade." Antwerpen might have been the center of European trade, but it wasnt the center of world trade.

All this is relevant and well written information when dealing with European trade, the problem is that as it is written know it makes the reader think that nothing at all was going on in other parts of the world before the Europeans came there, wich is off course not true.

--Screensaver17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is atrocious. Why is it in a complete bulleted-list style? This is not very encyclopedic, considering how this article is not labeled as atimeline. This article will need plenty of work.--Pericles of Athens^Talk21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid the {{rewrite}} template, I have changed the name of this article.תחי מדינת ישראל (talk)04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion may not have much sway, but I think this is a fairly important article, and the subject rather interesting. Something like this should probably be a full article, rather than a simple timeline with little detail.76.85.144.126 (talk)21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Sheila Hurtado Piña. I am from Mexico City and I am studying Bachelor in International Business, I am part of a WikiProject at my school, this consists on translating English to Spanish articles so there could be more, due to the lack of them. The reason why I am writing to you is because I am interested in translating your article to Spanish. I will be posting it up on Wednesday and I will tell you how to find it so you could check it out. Please tell me what you think about it. Thanks! :)--Sheila Piña (talk)17:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is ambitious in scope, addressing a wide range of possible events, which is currently a weakness in the article as there is much more information to cover. While my edits tried to improve information on areas outside of Eurasia, my edits focused on the ancient to early modern periods, so that there is still a dearth of information on trade and related events outside of Eurasia from the Early Modern to Contemporary Periods, such as the Saltpeter War, Triangular Trade, or American cotton plantations. The article also lacks references to key technologies that facilitated trade, such as the compass, triangular sail, or cargo plane, or the Suez, Panama, or Grand Canals. There are also some major trading powers missing, such as reference to Carthage, Venice, the Vikings, or the Asian Tigers. There are also no direct references to the development of philosophies of trade like bullionism, Adam Smith, or the Iron Curtain. Illegal activity, like drug smuggling, prohibition, or piracy, could also be expanded on. Despite this missing information, I think the article's scope and ambition make it intriguing.Goatmanatee (talk)06:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List-Class Trade articles
• Mid-importance Trade articles
• WikiProject Trade articles
• List-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles