Talk:US president Bush visits Canada

I think it's well-written and accurate. --119 04:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not to keen on the Indymedia links, but otherwise this is fine to be published, I think Lankiveil 12:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to have a refernce or two. Lyellin 04:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should there be any references to the various trade disputes (ie lumber)? --Elysianacres 06:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is well written as well, but I wonder if maybe more than one article should be used as a source. --kmsiever 17:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a few examples of letters to the editor should be added. More than one source would improve credibility... --OMouse 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added links to imc sites, which might have blown the neutrality a bit..... what is 'neutral' anyway?.... Also not sure about the validity of my sources- the collectives are 'identifyable'- ie not anonomous, but collective rather than individual. - my first time edit -mayler

It seems ok to me. Anyway other opinions/suggestions are worth here. ---Carlosar 02:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did the user sign his nom de plume at the bottom of the article? --Xanadu 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I go to Ottawa University so I've followed most of this. This article seems accurate, although I'd be in favor of pointing out just how important the beef and soft wood lumber trade issues are to Canadians. The article, as it stands, make them seem like very secondary issues while they were near the top of the priority list for most Canadians. MikeCapone 19:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This really bugs me. This happened SIX DAYS AGO and it's STILL NOT APPROVED! This is why the process should be changed... we're not supposed to be for old news. (good article though) Cap'n Refsmmat 00:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)