Talk:NAFTA dismisses US claims of Canadian violation of Trade Agreement rules in softwood lumber dispute

Isn't the title (and angle) of this article a bit too US-centric? Krisjohn 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was worried it was a bit too Canada-centric. Please fix it if you see a problem. Double Blue  (Talk) 23:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My main problem is with the title, which I wouldn't want to change without a bit of discussion first. I would have thought that the convention is to express it in term of the winner, not the loser, like the CBC article. Phrasing it in terms of the loser is a bit like an Olympic sports commentator always playing to their home audience. Krisjohn 23:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to a move like that though I kind of see the US as the subject in this case as they were the ones to impose the duty and appeal it through all the commissions. It could also be completely rephrased to make the softwood lumber ruling be the subject, though I can't think of a particularly good title that way. Double  Blue  (Talk) 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for seeking consensus and opinion. Double  Blue  (Talk) 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How about "NAFTA dismisses US claims of Canada's violation of NAFTA rules in softwood lumber dispute"? Krisjohn 01:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How about "U.S.Gov. caught again"? :)Paulrevere2005 11:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I personally believe America's hypocritical trade protection policies are disgraceful. Preaching free trade then piling tariff upon subsidy upon quota is something that needs to be brought to people's attention at every opportunity.  But the article carries more weight if it's neutral and written for a global audience. Krisjohn 13:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Cdn. business press is saying the US will not comply with the ruling and that the whitehouse political juice is in play on this one. Paulrevere2005 16:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links: