Talk:Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute/Archives/2015
 | 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. |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Manhattanville College/International Trade (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
Hello to all editors. I hope to make a few contributions to this particular article, as I am working on it for one of my courses. I want to expand on some of the sections as well as provide new information on the more recent developments of this dispute. Below are some sources I have found to allow me to do this. Please feel free to reflect and comment so together we can create a better page. Thank you
http://trade.gov/press/publications/newsletters/ita_0506/lumber_0506.asp http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/the-granddaddy-of-all-canadian-u-s-trade-disputes-is-about-to-rear-its-ugly-head-again http://customstoday.com.pk/us-canada-softwood-lumber-agreement-to-expires-october-2015-2/ http://www.biv.com/article/2014/11/canada-us-loggerheads-again-over-lumber/ http://www.randomlengths.com/in-depth/us-canada-lumber-trade-dispute/ http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Uncertainty+hangs+over+lumber+industry/10658628/story.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/producers-brace-for-end-of-long-truce-in-us-canada-lumber-wars/article23352017/ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/11/canada-us-lumber-dispute_n_1418932.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/softwood-lumber-victory-unlikely-to-halt-conflict-between-canada-and-us/article4425659/ http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/softwood-bois_oeuvre/background-generalites.aspx?lang=eng
ISWikiUser550 (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Overall this article is really well written and very informative! Great job! I just have a few suggestions. 1. The very first sentence of the article comes off a little bias; maybe change it to something more factual or add the reference of someone who claims how controversial the dispute was. 2. Section Lumber II and Lumber III doesn't have any references to articles or sources--adding them in would make the information more reputable.
Charissa Michelel (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)