This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
As Good Day stated, there already is an article generally on annexationist movements. And much of the text of this article is already there, word for word. This seems an unnecessary fork.
Nor should this be renamed something like "2025 US-Canada disputes", which minimizes the existentialist threat to Canada now posed by a hostile United States. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy I see no reason to bloat that article any more than it already has been. Having a third of the article for annexation movements taken up by a two month span chronologically detached from most of the article by over a century is absurd. I'm in favor of either retaining this article as is or generalizing it into something more broadly regarding this period of Canadian-American relations. Kaotao (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.... we should cuddle the article and not have it a clickbait American journalistic style. The majority of article is a back and forth media junk. This whole narrative can be summarized into one paragraph.Moxy🍁02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy It can be summarized, yes, but there's proper encyclopedic value in providing more elaborate coverage. This article was primarily made with the future in mind, since post-inauguration these proposals will bleed into policy, further amplifying this specific period's distinct relevance and prominence, which I believe is already sufficient today to warrant its own article. Don't kill this article just because it hasn't lived long enough to be improved upon. Kaotao (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of article us long timers deal with all the time..... this is certainly not the first annexing article. Happens every other president or so since before our country was formed. Moxy🍁03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Could you link to one of these supposedly cyclic deleted articles? Or to any statement made by a US president in the past 50 years that comes even close to “You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like. And it would also be much better for national security. They’re great, but we’re spending hundreds of billions here to protect it.” preceded by an explicit admission of willingness to use economic force to annex Canada? Maybe Reagan's plan to outlaw Russia... which has its own article. Kaotao (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't have news headline articles in relation to Canada (that said I'm sure we can find many).... We deal with these all the time let's link to one that's ongoing Resignation of Justin Trudeau..... That like this article might be a paragraph or two in a biography.Moxy🍁04:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Yeah, of course, the resignation of the Prime Minister of a G7 country and the heir apparent to the most powerful position on Earth making annexationist comments are "news headlines" and of no substance whatsoever. I've noticed that you haven't provided any of the supposed annexation articles that "pop up every other election season", nor have you provided any evidence that Obama or Bush ever advocated for Anschluss. Something tells me you conducted some original research. Again, if you have suggestions for a rescoping/generalization of this article, you're welcome to float them. But don't expect us to neglect our responsibility to provide encyclopedic coverage just because you think it *feels* American. Kaotao (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Multiple editors have come here to improve the article instead of to complain about it. Again, it was just created, and again, you're free to suggest a broadening of scope. Kaotao (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz If you think that this constitutes an existential threat, it's definitely worth its own article, regardless of what its named. The section in the original article was way too large, and moving it here allowed for it to be trimmed to just a few small paragraphs. Kaotao (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All US annexationist movements have posed existentialist threats to Canada, from 1775 onwards. This one is no different. This is just another example of a hostile U.S. reasserting manifest destiny. It should be in the existing article, to show the pattern. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz It is in the existing article, in an appropriately succinct summary, going over the baselessness of Trump's comments and the magnitude of Canadian opposition. This article is for more elaborate coverage that it would be impractical to have in that article. Furthermore, while, yes, there is a pattern of American annexation attempts throughout history, it is exceedingly likely that readers will seek out this topic in particular, and I don't believe that situation will be any different 10 years down the line. This article already links to its parent; its literally at the top. Kaotao (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's pretty obvious that this is an extremely distinct topic from Canadian annexation movements in general that will be sought out for its own sake. Kaotao (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
