Talk:Canada–United States relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ideas for improvement

This seems to be the first page on bi-national relations (I'm working on Canada-France). I think it would be good then to establish some standard practices.

For example:

• Should the title be in the form U.S.-Canada relations or American-Canadian relations?
  • you need both. One is about governments, one is about the populations. Could be in same article for now, I suppose. Jethero^Talk 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• How do we decide which country is listed first? (E.g. Alphabetical? - in which case I need to change this ones name)

Also, it would be good to agree on what top-level headings are needed (e.g. History, Defence, etc.).

Any other ideas?

1. Sign and date your comments.
2. Add some red meat - the US claim that the eastern Artic is international waters, Maher Arar, the softwood lumber dispute, the James Sabzali affair.

GreatWhiteNortherner 04:22, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

• I have moved this article to Canada-United States relations, swapping the order of the entries and thereby rendering them alphabetically. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Issues

I don't understand this passage: "Frequently, in US-Canadian relations, environmental relations have served as the lynchpin for all other relations. This fact is due to in part to differing cultural and political emphases. The Canadian government places a higher premium on energy and the environment then the U.S. government." How have environmental relations been a "lynchpin for all other relations"? What evidence is there that energy is more important to Canada than the United States? HistoryBA 16:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two words: Kyoto Accord 24.86.59.67 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few more words. To show equal concern for the environment, all the US need do is ratify the Kyoto Accord and then ignore it just like Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.228.98 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really clear cut evidence. perhaps Americans just care about their economy more than Canadians? Rds865 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the footnote (13) on Kyoto link to an article about canadian sextuplets? Remefaso (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

US is larger than Canada?

The article states: "...Canada is overshadowed by its much larger neighbour...". I do understand that the United States might be more visible on the world stage than Canada, but to say that something is "much larger" is to me something that is connected to area. From other articles:

Canada: 9,984,670 km² (2nd) United_States: Area 9,631,418 km² (3rd)

Could someone (who is better at English than I am) rephrase that please? --Kdehl July 6, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is in reference to population size. -- Kmsiever 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

• • 'More populous' would better reference population size. Jethero^Talk

Perhaps they're refering to the land mass. Cited here: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/area/3d.html;_ylt=As1XMsN8kgSx746VWazy_s7PecYF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.199.117 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Land mass isn't much larger, more like barely larger.--Ramdrake 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I know this is resolved, but the person obviously meant it has an insult, saying The United States overshadows Canada because it's better, not based on size or population 72.140.80.212 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't be so sure, sometimes people just don't read through their work. The most likely motive is that the author intended to reference population or economy. Aerillious (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the intention of the statement on the page refers to the fact that the United States dwarfs Canada in population, economics, politics, and military on the wider world stage. --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Angle

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but is it really accurate to describe the Northwest Angle as a territorial dispute? Its more of an oddity than anything else; dispute implies that there has been some form of tension. --Bletch 01:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with Canada and the Vietnam War page

The Canada and the Vietnam War page says that Canada supported the US (diplomatically.) This page says the opposite. Which one is correct?

Roughly speaking, the Vietnam War page. Of course, there are subtleties. WilyD 13:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

In the opening sentence 'quipped' is implying the statement was witty. Unless you are humour challenged, the statement was anything but funny. And given the mouse-elephant reaction, it was not well thought through either. Would someone change it to something objective. Thank you -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.39.213 (talk • contribs).

The statement in question comes from a transcript of a speech. It's how THEY wrote it, not us, so that's why it's there. -WarthogDemon 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"guipped" isn't part of the speech. I agree with the first editor, quipped is an opinion and inappropiately used. it should be changed to a neutral description. 142.165.3.43 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it to a quotes section; it makes no sense as the opening. Marskell 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More personal issues please

Could something be included about the numbers of citizens of each country who choose to reside in the other - or take its citizenship? Doubtful. Well I mean theoretically someone *could*, but once people figured out that more Americans are moving up than Canucks moving down, someone would deem it unimportant. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey 7070. Check out articles on immigration right here in Wiki. They'll also direct you to external sites that will show just how wrong you are. Tough isn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.228.98 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion! Why? I'm a recent immigrant to Canada from USA. How did I come to this site? I typed in "Canada is USA" just to see what would come up...and this Wiki entry came up! No, I don't think Canada is USA per se, but I do think that it is pretty darn close--in terms of business and trade. In terms of job culture, corporate everything (sadly), Toronto for example sure reminds me of any big city in USA. There isn't even a detectable Canadian accent (well...most of the time). So what I'm trying to say is this: Canada has the same multi-national corporations that have their tentacles everywhere else in USA, and other parts of the world: Wendy's, McDonalds, Sears, KFC, Public Storage, Ford, GM, etc. Corporate America owning and operating it's franchises everywhere--especially in Canada--makes everyday life in Canada seem just like conducting business in USA.

OK...I know I'm pissing off some Canadians...so now I have to say this very important difference between Canada and USA: aside from the trade/business aspects being virtual mirror images, socially and culturally Canadians seem much more civil to each other than Americans. There is a better, healthier community spirit. Canada does not seem like the "got mine f*ck you" rat race that America sadly has become. And America has this toxic, DEEP, longrunning "liberal vs. neocon" cultural war going on and on and on that has really ruined the social fabric of the USA. I mean, even families are divided and split based on whether they like or hate Bush! It's ridiculous. It dominates everybody's thoughts to the point that people won't know another person if they are liberal/democrat or conservative/republican.

For example: take the current financial market meltdown: instead of everybody setting aside their partisan bickering (for once!) Republicans just keep yammering away, blaming the Democrats and the democrats do the same back at the repubs. It's much more important to keep screaming at the opposite side, blaming them and trashing them with both barrels, instead of pulling together and finding solutions. It's really sad. Fox News, a neo-con "news" channel, yammers away 24-7, fomenting pure, vitriolic hatred of any American who doesn't love Bush, the Iraq War and the Republican Party. Fox News commonly refers to Canada as a hopelessly lost, commie-pinko country of liberals and lefties. Fox is a Rupert Murdoch GOP propoganda channel that has as it's sole mission the "neo-con republicanization" if you will, of all of USA. Here in Canada I don't notice this type of nastiness and it's WONDERFUL. Hence as a former US citizen I choose to reside in Canada and so far am really liking it. Yes I'm "green behind the ears" here, but so far it's very nice--nicer than USA because of this key social and cultural difference I've described here.

...sorry this is so long...just delete it if you think it takes up too much space :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.223.26 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I would like to point out that the majority of what you say is correct, except that the main reason the citizens don't fight over the politics is because the only time they pay attention to them is to make fun of our leaders. And the majority of people over here think Bush is an idiot but love him because he provides tasty soundbites. 24.141.132.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC). Plus he didn't really let the power go to his head. He enjoyed his press conferences and such, although that's personal opinion.

Provincially Regulated, not Federal

Just a note that part of the trade section should be changed. The current article states "Due to the Canadian government's price controls as part of their state-run medical system, prices for prescription drugs can be a fraction of the price paid by consumers in the unregulated U.S. market." However, under the Canadian constitution... I think section 95 a) but it's been a while since I read it, Health Care is regulated by the provinces, and thus each province is different. For example, Alberta due to its oil wealth has an almost entirely free health care system while Ontario tends to just be subsidized. Another example: there is no CHIP (Canadian Health Insurance Plan) but there is an OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Thanks Crisco 1492 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian/American spellings

An anon editor has been switching Canadian spellings to American ones, which I have reverted as per WP:ENGVAR. However, I subsequently noted that the article actually contains a mix of Canadian and American spellings (mostly "defense" on the American side, with the rest being Canadian as far as I can tell), and the anon was likely simply trying to achieve some sense of order. However, before making any further changes to the spelling, there should be consensus as to the appropriate course of action. Skeezix1000 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, the usual solution (where the article does not have strong ties to one particular English-speaking nation) is to stick to the variety of English first used by the article's creator. However, even the first version of this article contains both Canadian and American spellings. Skeezix1000 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A tricky one, this one. On the one hand, as "defense" was the only American spelling, and the rest were Canadian (as it seems to me) then I would say go with the majority version and change "defense" to "defence" (which I note one was in any case). In addition, the anon editor's other edits e.g. [1] lead me to question his/her good faith in this matter. On the other hand, so many Canadians use American spellings (e.g. neighbor), that those may be a reasonable common denominator (however much it pains me to say so!). --Slp1 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there's no real need to switch to the U.S. variant, as the Canadian spellings seem to outnumber the American ones. (One could also probably argue that the article probably has closer ties to Canada, as the relationship has more of a direct impact on the smaller nation.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was covered at the top of this page. Stop calling Canada the "smaller" nation people we're less populous, not smaller.Imperialconqueror 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd, i've been to 3 different High Schools and i've never seen use of U.S. english spellings over Canadian (except some exceptions of colour). I say go with the creators spellings, Canadian or U.S., not both. Bretonnia 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no uniform US or Canadian spelling standard that can be applied. Where possible we should use those spellings that might be acceptable in both countries. For instance I've seen "centre", "color", "-ize" spelling (vs "ise"), "neighbor", "sulfur", and "aluminum" on both sides of the border. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any common usage for several others like "defence/defense" or "labour/labor".Zebulin (talk)

Dominion of Newfoundland

I have clarified that Newfoundland was a separate country at the time, which was under direct British rule.

Brief Timeline: 1867 - UK creates Dominion of Canada 1901 - UK creates Commonwealth of Australia 1907 - UK creates Dominion of New Zealand and Dominion of Newfoundland 1910 - UK creates Union of South Africa 1919 - Canada signs Versailles Treaty separately, though under the banner "British Empire" 1921 - Northern Ireland created; Irish Free State created (formal existence, 1922); a boundary dispute between Canada and Newfoundland (Labrador) is settled in favour of Newfoundland. 1931 - Statute of Westminster: All dominions are made independent of UK upon ratification of the Statute of Westminster, except Canada (at Canada's request, because federal and provincial governments could not agree on an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution - until 1982!) 1935 - The Dominion of Newfoundland, having *not* ratified the Statute of Westminster, is brought under direct rule from London following upon the total economic collapse of the country. Meanwhile, next door in Canada, knighthoods and peers are abolished. 1947 - Canada becomes the first dominion within the Empire/Commonwealth to create its own citizenship, replacing the label "British Subject"; right of appeal to the Privy Council in London is abolished, making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal. 1948 - The famous or infamous referenda. The first referendum had three options - "Responsible Government" (i.e., return to independence), "Union with Canada" or "Continued Direct Rule"; the result was a plurality in favour of Responsible Government. A second referendum removed the third option. The result was slightly in favour of joining Canada. Conspiracy theorists posit the result was rigged owing to fears that an independent Newfoundland might join the United States, economically or physically, thus cutting off Canada at the mouth of the St. Lawrence. The campaign for the Responsible Government option ran newsreel ads featuring the claim, "You can enjoy economic union with the United States by voting 'Responsible Government'. 1949 - The Dominion of Newfoundland joins Canada as the Province of Newfoundland; the 1921 boundary dispute is re-settled in favour of Canada (specifically, Quebec, which continues to claim the whole of Labrador as its rightful territory) 2001 - The Province of Newfoundland officially changes its name to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Quebec continues to maintain that it is the rightful owner of Labrador.

"In World War II the U.S. built large military bases in Newfoundland (then a British colony), ..." should it be "a former british colony"? Jackzhp 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Arar affair

I would like to see a source on this. And is there certainty that there was in fact torture (from a source)? 65.27.139.162 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can look at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/ which gives you links to the inquiry and other things. The inquiry found it likely that Arar was tortured while in Syrian custody. Personally I think the sticky point was that USA refused to recognize his Canadian citizenship and passport.

Its common knowledge that this happened, there was a huge case on it and Arar got a settlement out of it (not nearly compensation enough). I also met a man who was in the same Syrian toture camp as him as a political prisoner.

Toture was a certain fact in this case, when he wasnt being tortured he was being held in a cell to small to stand up in and barely kept alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.238.81 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "acting upon a tip from Canadian law enforcement," the American Ambassador in the Ottawa has already stated that the US did NOT act on a tip from the Canadian Government or any Canadian Body. Second of all, Where are the sources in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.175.143 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts

The un-sourced statement at the beginning is incorrect. The BRITISH burned down Washington D.C. Study some history before editing please. Contralya 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Some words are changed, but it still needs confirmation. I have never heard of Canada sending any troops south during the war, though it could well of happened. It needs a source. Weren't Canada's military considered part of the British military? I know the British moved in from the north, but I am not sure the nation of Canada existed yet back then. Contralya 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC) There were indeed Canadians whom were part of the greater military of the British; you must realise that Canadian was a term the French-Canadians called themselves since the beginning of New France- when the English took over, the new colonists wished the term extended to them. I cite my History textbook, but it is in French, so ya... (voix et visions c'est le nom)

"Canadians often view the war as a successful resistance against an outside aggressor as well as the burning of the White House." bold part is poor grammar. No, Canada as a nation did not exist as a country at this time. The current version is good besides the poor grammar as it implies credit. I could dig through military records to find out if any resident-of-the-land-soon-to-be-Canada was involved but my time is limited. Also,I do believe there was a military incursion into New York state(which was taken back by the cowardice of a local British commander). That being said, it is unwise to get into National myths,as someone(not I) might start an edit war.--Wilson 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a grammatical technicality.
Nation A made two colonies named Colony B and C. Then Colony C got pissed off and became Nation C. Around 1812 Nation C attacked Colony B. Colony B used their troops (As a colony these troops technically belonged to Nation A), and some troops sent from Nation A, to fight back Nation C and burn down their capitol. After awhile Nation A decided to let all of their Colonies become independant, so Colony B became Nation B.
So really it was -Colony B-, not -Nation B- that fought back Nation C. But since changing one's name from John to Bob doesn't mean John didn't do all the thing Bob did, Nation B feels that the're entitled to saying they fouhgt back Nation C.
I should also note that nothing in this article is sourced. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812

You're ALL wrong. The War of 1812 was the North American wing of the Napoleonic Wars. It, along with the rest, was formally concluded by the 1815 Congress of Vienna, which decreed the outcome to be "Status Quo Ante Bellum" - everything after the war was taken back to being the same as it was before the war. The United States and the United Kingdom got nothing out of the War of 1812 except a load of war debts.

---

Oh my...this whole article relating a continuation of history false balance is sadly disturbing. Vietnam never attacked the US, but the US did invade Vietnam and eventually pulled out...so why would that be considered a loss and the War of 1812 against BNA (British North America = Upper/Lower Canada) be considered a win on any front. How did the US lose the battle and win the negotiations? The British not in NA were more focused on and weary from the major battles against France...the BNA (aka Canada) had no interest in territory or any such thing from the US and was only interested in keeping the US from invading BNA(aka Canadian territory). What did BNA (aka Canada) "lose" in these negotiations? Where's a native when I need one too...if you check the wiki 1812 link you see the following comment: "The US ended the Indian threat on its western and southern borders." The British or BNA had nothing to do with the Southern border issues...Canada still has nothing to do with it...that was Spain then and Mexico now. The Native (aka "Indian") threat was that they were being slaughtered in a huge act of genocide and tried to fight back and keep their land and culture. And many of the Native tribes allied with BNA (aka Canada) against the US and this relationship went on long past 1812. See the "Dakota War of 1862" and "Sitting Bull" wiki. Don't get me wrong...BNA (aka Canada) did a lot of bad things to the Natives, and other groups, but we are still using the archives in Ottawa to settle land claims from hundreds of years ago. I would hope most natives would consider us the lesser of evils, but we can always do better by them. So honestly...please give one other example of a country that unilaterally declared war, invaded and was then repulsed at at the end of the war that aggressor kept the original territory it had when it started and was judged a victory by history? I would agree as is mentioned that this war was sold as a victory by the US Politicians back home who were embarrassed at how wrong they were as recorded in congress. Revisionist history "Mission Accomplished"! By the time the Bicentennial hits...the documents easily proving what happened will be published by someone...very likely a Canadian...from the best source in the World...the Library of Congress. My suggestion is either be incredibly careful to be neutral and/or show that there is a disagreement on the history...or cite specific records in US Congress or BNA Parliament that can be confirmed. Newspaper articles from the time do not constitute proof Citizen Kan. --Thehighlndr (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The war of 1812 is not seen as a "clear victory" for the Americans. The 'result' of the war is still disputed today, although neither America or Britain managed to take over any land. If anything it was a stalemate. And to play Devil's advocate, America declared war on Britain with intent to conquer Canada. Since they didn't manage an acre, one could say that Britain/Canada won. And of course this position is made sketchy by the Brits attempting some invasion in the States. In conclusion, I think it's best if this article remains neutral on the subject. 144.32.56.221 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, I hate to say it but the U.S. won(woah, i feel the condemnation of Canada decending upon me) but let me explain. From a military point of view Canada/Britain won, wasn't even close. However; The negotiations following confirmed most of what the Americans wanted to get out of the scuffle(except canada's annexation,thank heavens). Canada pulls even, U.S. pulls +1. Canada won the war and lost the negotiations.--Wilson 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it stand to reason that the difference be mentioned in the article? It's something not everyone really understands, although Ontarian children spend a year learning about it. It's an important part of American/Canadian history and I think it should be clarified here. What Wilson said backs up the first statement that its not a clear victory, since the US lost in the warfare and the Brits lost the negotiations. 144.32.126.12 12:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The war was a stalemate (tipped slightly on the British side, since the U.S. failed on their attacks in my opinion, but that would screech bias). Let's not go with general opinion but what is fact, since this is an encyclopedia. Stalemate, that way nobody's patriotism is hurt and the needs of the encyclopedia are sufficed. Bretonnia 16:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "While the War of 1812 is seen as a clear victory by Americans, as American Indian raids against western settlements were ended and the British seizure of American shipping ceased" as this statement has not had a source cited in at least three months, if it can be found in a source that also disproves statements of a Canadian or British win then it should be placed back into the text at that point and not before. Lyynn 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we go to the article directly related to 1812. I'm sure by now they've come to a rational decision amongast level-headed peers.

• Starts laughing hysterically* Sorry I can't hold it in! No, seriously, go look. It's like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off. If they can't find an answer, we won't be able to. Personally I'd say that since the American objective was to conquer Canada, and Canada's was to, you know, not be conquered, those should be seen as terms of victory/loss.
  

Canada Taken Over? No checkmark.
Canada not taken over? Checkmark.
I don't know about "America winning in the negotiations", but I'm pretty sure that the Commonwealth/Empire won the war.
But once again *Points to 1812 article*. So let's just not mention it. At all. Just state the facts and never the outcome of these facts. Sound good? 70.70.97.117 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The US goal was to stop British bullying (esp impressment on the high seas asnd attacks on US ships), and British-sponsored Indian attacks in the US west. The plan was to win a land war (which of necessity was in canada), while the Brits won the war at sea. The invasion was not of the main part of Canada but of the lightly populated remote far-western parts of Canada (ie the area from Niagara Falls to Detroit) Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps I did simplify the US goals a bit more than neccessary. Well if the impressment was, indeed, the reason of the war, then the US seemed to miss soemthing. Because the war kept on after the British won the war against the French (Forgive me; I can't remember which one. European history is far from my strong suite). And the British were only taking US sailors for their navy to fight the french. War ends, British stop taking sailors. In fact, the reason thatthe war went on so long is that the Brits were focused on their war more than the war of one of their colonies. Once their war was over they could look into NA, send over support and end the war there.
So yes, had the Yanks won the war against Soviet Canuckistan the Brits may have stopped taking in US sailors, but we don't know because they no longer needed the sailors. It was a moot point by the time the war ended.
All of this, btw, is some random junk I remember from reading the talk section of the 1812 article. So go argue over there if you feel the need to.
Once again, I say we don't state who won the war or if it was a tie until the main article can come to a consensus. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Invasions" in 1812

I am very saddened by the complete 1984/Big Brotherish revisionist history on US-Canadian relations in general, but especially the War of 1812. You state this completely unsubstantiated claim of "...which saw both sides try to invade the other, and both failed, leaving the status quo." This is contradicted by the 1812 Wiki page and even worse by documents from the US Congress (and Library of Congress) and Canadian Parliament still available to non-lazy people. The US declared War on Britain (see navy blockade that was lifted before declaration, but not notification) and by extension BNA officially...transcripts clearly show the US WarHawks wanted to annex Canada, the US troops invaded Canadian Soil and Canada only attacked US soil in retaliation and gave up attempting to hold any territory. (incl. the embarrassing defeat of US at Fort Detroit) I would assume that those that continually rewrite history will fail to learn from it. Ironically this was the first and most major time in US history where the WarHawks claimed that the US Invasion force would be "Greeted as Liberators" and were dead wrong. BTW: Quoting current people is not a valid historical reference. I really want to know what person wrote the original overview. That us Canadians became best friends with US after attempted invasion is the most important and amazing lost lesson of history. --Thehighlndr (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand well that the British mounted a campaign against the U.S. and achieved some small victories on its home soil, but how does this constitute an "invasion?" Particularly given the U.S. simply declared war with the obvious intention of annexing British Canada? The phrasing "both countries attempted invasions of each other" is both disingenuous and extremely forgiving of American history. Alyoshenka 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Action occured on both sides of the U.S. border. I happen to have a timeline handy so...here it is: 1812 june 18-War declared by America july 12-General hull invades upper canada july 17-natives,british,canadian voyageurs capture Mackinac august 16-brock and tecumseh capture detroit october 13-queenston hieghts-american loss, brocks death 1813 april 27-americans capture york(toronto) june 1-hms shannon defeats uss chesapeake june 6&24-americans turned back july 31-toronto retaken oct. 25-american invasion force defeated nov. 11- battle of crysler's farm-americans defeated 1814 july 3-americans capture fort erie july 25-Lundy's lane-stalemate august-british capture and burn washington,D.C. september 11-americans defeat larger british force september 12-british attack baltimore december 24-treaty of ghent ends war january 8-americans win battle of new orleans Also, the Americans had other reasons to go to war with britain besides the prospect of gaining canada, britain's shipping policy comes to mind. --Wilson 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

49th parallel

You're thinking of Lake-in-the-Woods, Minnesota. It's not actually a peninsula - it just looks like one because of the way the border's drawn. The Treaty of Paris, 1783, made the northwestmost boundary of the nascent USA the northwest corner of Lake in the Woods. This was taken to mean all of the land on the northwest corner of the lake shore that was not owned by the Hudson's Bay Company.

It is not administered by or from Canada, but the only way to get from LITW to the rest of Minnesota is to drive through Manitoba; and if you want to watch any American television or listen to American radio, you need a *very* powerful antenna, because it's less than half the distance to Winnipeg as it is to Minneapolis-St. Paul. Even Fargo may be further away.

---

Mention should be made of a town that is technically in the US (if I recall correctly, it is at the very bottom of a small peninsula) because of the 49th parallel agreement, but which is in effect administered entirely by Canada. I can't remember for the life of me what the name of the town is, but it is just barely outside Canadian territory and cut off by water for several miles from any US territory, so people regularly move at will between the two countries, almost all employment for the Americans there is technically in Canada, and the kids even go to Canadian schools. It's a weird but quite notable case. The town does have an article here; I read it about 6 mo. ago.

I also think this article in general is lacking in info on the 49th parllel agreement and what it means, as well as information on US-to-Canada immigration both during the Vietnam era and more recently with the Bush ascendancy. While this aspect of the .us/.ca relations is covered somewhat, it seems a little spotty. The fact that emigrating to Canada from the US is difficult and expensive seems worth covering. I actually tried it myself and failed. The amount of paperwork that has to be done is pretty huge, though in Canada's favor it should also be added that Immigration Canada's director fairly recently, I believe in 2005 or perhaps 2006, issued an internal order relaxing some controls, specifically to account for non-traditional couples such as gay couples and those with common-law unions, such that they are treated like marriages for immigration purposes. It's not in the law books, but was an internal agency memo of some kind; I've read it, and it is for real, though at this point I'd be hard-pressed to find it again.

Some other stuff that seems like it needs more detailed coverage in this article are a) Ill will toward Canada on the part of particularly jingoistic Americans who condemn the country for being a haven for "unpatriotic" US draft dodgers (this was important during Clinton's US presidency, if we recall), and b) Canadian national pride in the sacking of the US White House, which actually not only runs quite high in my experience, is also virtually unknown to most Americans, because our public school history textbooks barely mention the episode; the average US citizen has no idea at all that Canada razed one of our national landmarks, but I can guarantee you that every Canadian knows this story very well. C) Passports. At least as late as Sept. 2006, it was easy to travel to and from Canada without a US passport. I got into Canada in 2005 with a fairly minimal amount of hassle with only a US driver's license (their chief concern was that the US might not let me back in), but also got back into the US in late 2006 with the same, after answering some silly questions to "prove" I was really an American. The questions were really basic, like "Who was the first President of the United States?", and "How many stripes are there on the US flag and what do they stand for?". For all the talk of the US being concerned about terrorists getting into the US via Canada (another thing this article could cover in more detail), the border controls are incredibly lax. I drove back into the US with a U-Haul truck full of stuff and it was only examined for about 30 seconds; opened, looked at with a comment of "yep, looks like household goods", and waved on through. It would be trivial to get people or a suitcase nuke or whatever across that border. Nevermind that there are numerous border points that are not controlled in any noticeable way. A rowboat will get you back and forth with ease.

I believe you are referring to Point Roberts, Washington, but it is not administered by canada, and american children do not attend canadian schools, it is mostly a vacation town for Vancouver. Knowledgeum :  Talk  05:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be refering to Hyder Alaska where until a few years ago the kids did go to school in Canada (Alaska has since built a school in Hyder). It is technically on a peninsula, and on the Canada/US border although nowhere near the 49th paralell. But it is also not administered by Canada, although most business transactions are in Canadian dollars as the only accessible bank is in Canada (the only place in Hyder you can't use Canadian money is the Post Office) or may be confusing/conflating the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.249.51 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

"Most French Canadians understood that the British Empire already enshrined their rights in the Quebec Act, which the Americans declared as being one of the Intolerable Acts. French Canadians thus could see that within the British Empire their language, law, customs, interests and religion would be protected, while within the United States these would all be opposed" Seems pro-British and has no sources, is there evidence of opposition to French Canadian culture in the US? Also, more than just French Canadians were allowed to join the Union. Since this is about US-Canadian relations, it should be noted, that the right to join given to Canada was a unique privilege. Rds865 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"...that the right to join given to Canada was a unique privilege." right...

• [2] -Modern example of anti-french opposition.
• Catholicism and American politics -opposition towards catholics in 1830s
• Quebec Act -actual act in question.

As for the rest being "allowed to join" if memory serves me correctly, the Tories had just fled there. What, would they be allowed to stay in the 51st state? return to their former homes? expelled again? Besides, the french had what they wanted, why risk that on supporting a risky war and risk losing aformentioned rights. --Wilson (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pig War

It strikes me that a sentence on the Pig War is merited. I would do it myself but the wording for that period seems delicate and I'm not enough of an expert to get it right. 72.95.148.202 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote Bias

I feel (and perhaps its just me) that the quotes section is extremely bias towards the United States, there is a great quote by the Kennedy about Canada, but it is followed by 3 harsh quotes by Canada towards the US. It is laid out in a way that seems Canada has nothing nice to say about the US, despite the fact that (IMHO) Americans are, in reality, more derogatory about Canadians than this article would suggest (see Anti-Canadianism#United_States for some very clear examples. I would suggest either remove the spiteful Canadian quotes or counter-act with some good ones, or I can find some extremely offensive American quotes about Canada and put them in to balance it out a little ;). Taifarious1 06:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Here are a few examples - Ann Coulter - "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.", "We could have taken them [Canada] over so easily", "We like the English-speaking Canadians.", Tucker Carlson "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting.", "Canada needs the United States. The United States does not need Canada.", "Canada's essentially -- essentially a made-in-Taiwan version of the United States." from [3]

Ann Coulter is a hatemonger, & her opinions are not representative of what even a statistically significant number of US citizens think about Canada -- even those who are negative about that country. Come to think about it, I'm having a hard time finding an example of anyone I personally know who dislikes Canada for any reason. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to quotes US presidents have said about Canada, from the US embassy in Ottawa. [4]. That should help --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

To be frank, this page appears to be written largely from a Canadian perspective. For instance, British policies on native peoples are presented entirely as good-faith policies, and possible strategic motives are simply not explored. In another instance, which I have already changes, French Canadians "could see that [such and such]". This is non-neutral language, implying that such and such is a fact, rather than an opinion or belief. And so on. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the Trade portion, it goes to great lengths to show a giant chart detailing the number of jobs CANADA brings to the U.S. It is not neutral if you do not mention all of the jobs America creates in Canada. -- Timmy Winters 11 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.196.168 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Canadianism

According to the Anti-Canadianism article, some people in the United States have strong hostility against Canada. Why is this if the two countries have significant relations? This seems a bit discouraged and is currently not discussed in the article. Black Tusk (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada! America's hat! Saw that on a T-Shirt Once :)--Conor Fallon (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ass hat. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aroostook War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War This is a conflict worth mentioning if I do say so my self--Cono Fallon (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry missed that under Territory disputes.--Conor Fallon (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for sub-articles?

This article is getting very long. Is it time for some sub-articles? We already have some sub-aricles based around particular topics, Canada - United States trade relations or Canada - United States border for example, and more may be needed, such as Canada - United States environmental relations (dealing with the Great Lakes Commission, Acid Rain Treaty, etc.) or Canada - United States military relations (dealing with the Permanent Joint Commitee, Norad, etc). I also think there is the potential to deal with the relations between the poltical executives of both countries in more depth, especially in more recent years. This would follow a pattern we already have to its logical conclusion. Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration and Foreign policy of the Stephen Harper government would overlap to create Harper - Obama relations or similar. This can go back in time, Bush - Harper relations, Bush - Martin relations, Bush - Chretien relations, Chretien - Clinton relations, etc. all the way back to King - Truman relations (WW2). Before that it gets murky because Canada didn't have full independence of action from the British Empire, and because leaders travelled so infrequenty and communications were poorer; relations in that era relied more on ambassasdors and other people "on-the-ground". Anyway, if not seperate articles, these topics at least warrant some new sections on this page. It's something to think about. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Indian" - Politically Correct?

Please bear with me if this has already been discussed or is against regular format. I just made an account and this is my first contribution of any kind.

To my point, from what I understand, Native Americans/Canadians seem to find the term "Indian" degrading and offensive. They prefer to be named as "Native Canadian/American" or simply "Native"

Is there any reason as to why the article uses the term "Indian"?

Aerillious (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The proper identification of the natives should be "Native American", as referenced to the natives who originate and live in the United States. And the natives who originate and live in what is known as Canada should be referenced as "First Nations" people. This distinguishes the "natives" who live in these two countries. --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I looked into it some more an I realize now that you're correct. Thank you for pointing that out. However, my question still remains. Does anybody know the answer? Aerillious (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe because that section was written by someone from the US? (There is a long story over the usage of that word in the US.) If the word bothers you, feel free to change it. And if you can find a cite for these Native Canadian/American opinions, it would be great if you could add that information to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that Native American would be fine for either. The Americas include both North and South America and thus Native Americans are simply people indigenous to the Americas. Rainpat (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have it on good account from many First Nations people of Canada that it's "First Nations". Further, being called "Native American" is considered about on par with being called Indian--though only slightly better. Rekutyn (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: Amerindian. But regardless, could we have the context it is used in(im tired, I don't want to search through the article) as "Indian" is still used in Canada as the official government designation. I'd also like to point out that the term Native American is now considered rude as political correct terms tend to fall on a sliding Euphemism treadmill of appropriateness over time. --Wilson (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, registered Indians are governed by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs under the Indian Act. It's certainly correct. WilyD 19:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Canada has the "Indian Act," but the act is regarded by many as being discriminatory, and the term a reflection of an earlier time in First Nations-White relations when First Nations Peoples, or "aboriginals", or "natives", were not regarded on an equal footing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.38.131 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Relations

Why is the American Revolution and the War of 1812 discussed in this article? These are wars fought between the United Statea and Great Britain. Canada, as a nation did not exist since Canada is a young nation with little history to speak of. Not until 1867 did Canada formally exist as a nation. Likewise, the American Revolution and the War of 1812 are already discussed in United Kingdom-United States relations. It's outlandish to even mention such in this article since relations between the U.S. and Canada did not begin until 1867. --74.47.101.56 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadians--meaning people born in or living in Canada-- actually fought in both the Revolution and the War of 1812. Several hundred Canadiens contributed to the war effort against the British in the United States and during the American invasion of 1775 when Montreal was captured. Others fought with the British garrisons against the invaders. In 1812 Canadians (francophone, anglophone and First Nations) fought alongside the British; some 'late Loyalists' who were really American settlers who had moved north to find land, supported the American invasion. I suspect (but haven't checked) that some Canadiens also joined the American invaders. There were relations between the US and colonial governments. The Fenian raiders that invaded Canada in the 1860s from the US (before 'Canada' confederated) were met by loyal militia as well as British troops. The intro to the article states it reasonably as expressing the span as 'more than two centuries'. Canadians haven't completely forgotten their pre-Confederation history. European Canadian history is every bit as old as US history. Annapolis Royal was founded (as Port Royal) in 1605, 2 years before Jamestown. Quebec City was founded the year after Jamestown. The Cuper's Cove colony was founded in Newfoundland in 1610, 3 years before the first Dutch settlements in New Netherlands and 10 years before the Puritans founded Plymouth Colony. So Canadians are the equal of Americans in history dated from European settlement, and by no means inferior if one includes indigenous peoples either. "Young nation with little history to speak of"? Not really, it's just a lot less well known. Corlyon (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

Reading over this article, I can see that it was written entirely in the Canadian POV and clearly bias against the U.S. So I have put a template at the head of the article so that better consensus can be made with Americans and the harsh level of Canadian bias can be toned down in this article.

1.) The entire history section is Canadian-centric, based on their history and in their perspective. "As part of the British Empire", "As Dominion" etc..... Seems egotistical and quite arrogant for such headings as it excludes and was non-representational of the U.S. during Canada's history.

2.) Negligently referring to the United States in the article as "America" which is quite inaccurate. The country's name is the United States and not America.

3.) The War in Afghanistan written as if Canada is the only country involved in the war whereas in reality, the war is a US-led war where American troops far outnumber Canadian troops.

4.) Irrelevant information added to the article which has no bearing on Canada-US relations... "Canada finally achieved independence from Britain when it took control of its own diplomatic and military affairs in the 1920s." Again, written in a Canadian POV.

5.) Sentences such as.... "American defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country." Where is there verifiable proof or citations??? As it is to my understanding, the United Kingdom is the United States preferred miulitary ally which if you look at articles such as The Special Relationship and United Kingdom-United States relations, this is proven with inline citations to support such.

6.) Charts showing Canadian jobs created in the U.S. whereas no charts are shown of U.S. jobs created in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.179.21 (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, i think the article is very well written but it is too much from a Canadian perspective which should be changed. Although things like when Canada became independent is most certainly not irrelevant, but a vital part of the development in relations. The trouble is ofcourse the United States constitutional status (despite growing in size as a country) has not changed since independence from Britain unlike Canada which has gone through several phases.

On American defense arrangements, i would say that is true. Whilst the USA / UK operate closely on a military level nothing really can counter NORAD which binds Canada / USA defensively in the security of North America. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with these issues above. What I am concerned about is that what has been written in this article reflects a total view of Canadians whereas Americans are not having an edge in other wise. For instance.... "Canada has created 5.2 million jobs in the United States" yet there is no information on how many jobs Americans have created in Canada.

I am not anti-Canadian. But why does the historical sections have to be titled "During the British Empire" or "As a Dominion"???? The United States was not always a part of the British Empire when Canada remained a part of the British Empire.

Likewise, there are some big and obnoxious claims made in this article, which have no verifiable proof or citations to back up such claims. British Watcher, I would be interested to know how this should be fixed and how it can provide a balanced perspective which as of right now, is unfavorable to the U.S. --173.87.179.21 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To the IP, a question: can you please outline your POV with regards to this matter? You have raised some reasonable concerns with regards to the article, points which certainly can be discussed and addressed. However, some of your contributions to United Kingdom – United States relations appear to demonstrate comparable issues with regards to adding POV to articles. For example, you have changed the point about Manifest Destiny from "the United States wanted territorial expansion" to "the question remained on whether or not the United States sought territorial expansion", a distinct change that appears contrary to the references. You have also misquoted the CTV poll by saying "a majority responded in the firm belief that the United Kingdom is their country's 'most valuable ally.'" and "Canada came in a distant second place." The actual results (per the source) indicated that Britain had 35% support as most valuable ally, with Canada receiving 29% support. That is neither a "majority" not a "distant second". (The survey also indicated that US residents feel Canada is their most important trading partner, and that 90% of US reisdents view Canada favourably compared to 89% for the UK.) Again, please explain your motivations here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if information can be found about US job creation in Canada and those sort of things ofcourse they should be added to balance out the article. But like i said before the trouble is Canadas status has changed and developed over time whilst the USA has always remained the same since independence. So in the history section it does make sense to have that format and is probably more useful then if an attempt was made to put it all into periods of time which would mix alot of issues.

One thing that could be done is better headings for the history section, so it is more neutral. Cleary it shouldnt just say Dominion status, independence but state that Canada becomes a dominion / Canada independence. Also the British Empire part of the history section should be split in two, with a second header as War of 1812. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, how would you feel if the history section titles were renamed to something along the lines of .. American independence, War of 1812, Canada becomes a dominion , Canadian Independence, Something like that. The article certainly is not anti american it just comes across too much from the Canadian perspective (a fair one though). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, may I remind you that the United States went to war with Great Britain due to restrictions of Franco-American trade during the Napoleonic Wars and the impressment of American sailors by the British Royal Navy. The issue of expansionism into British North America has never outright been proven to be the war hawks primary motivation for waging war. The War of 1812 revolved around trade and the right for a neutral country to conduct such trade with Britain's enemy, France. Pure and simple.

In United Kingdom-United States relations, it isn't an article dedicated to how Americans view Canadians are their most lucrative trading partner. The essence of that citation utilized for United Kingdom-United States relations is purely on the fact that Americans view the British as their most "valuable ally in the world." Being a trading partner and an ally are two entirely different aspects. It's cited, verified, and indisputable.

As for the word "distant". That choice of word was indeed changed.

Nevertheless, let's stick to the issue at hand. And that is, why this article, Canada-United States relations is bias against an American viewpoint. --173.87.179.21 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned IP poster on here. This article is written horribly and drastically which favors a Canadian POV. It needs a re-write. Otherwise I do believe that this article is a good candidate for being semi-locked until an agreement can be made as to changes. --Yoganate79 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, i dont think its horribly written. The article is very informative its just in parts it comes across far too much as from a Canadian prospective. Theres certainly no need for semilock. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And your defense for the sentence "American defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country." It is unsourced, not cited, and has not been verfiable. It needs to go unless it can be cited. And I agree about the jobs charts. If US jobs in Canada are not included into this article, then there should not be anything mentioned at all since it is incomplete and POV. --Yoganate79 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont argue with britishWatcher and Ckatz, they arrogantly think that they "own" this page and any changes which they dont make deserve an automatic undo. --173.87.179.21 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a direct source for the defense arrangements, from the American state department website itself. [5] its word for word from that article, that could be a problem, but its clearly sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And you've just researched this after the fact since up to now, that sentence has never been properly cited by the user who wrote and posted it. Well then it should be sourced and cited.

And about the jobs graphs. It leaves the impression that only Canada is producing American jobs whereas there is no mentioning of the US creating Canadian jobs. What gives Canada special privileges in this article whereas American jobs are excluded? Either list both sides of the spectrum or neither. The section is incomplete. Therefore, it should be researched in its entirety or else it should not be included at all due to the fact that it is POV for Canada in how many jobs are created. --Yoganate79 (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that sentence is now sourced, although it is obvious considering it goes on to talk about NORAD. The United States of America / Canada share the defence of North American airspace, that clearly cant be matched by any other countrys relations with the USA when it comes to "defense".

I agree fully about adding more information to match that of information about Canada like Jobs created in Canada because of the USA. If data can be found it should be added BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Another point I will add about the history sections. I think they should be broken up into periods of hsitry shared by the US and Canada.

Here are some ideas...

1.) Colonies of British America 2.) American Revolution 3.) British North America and the U.S. 4.) 1815-1867 Disputes 5.) Canadian Confederation and the U.S. 6.) Nixon Shock 1971

Good idea yes? Seems reasonable to me. --Yoganate79 (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive tried renaming the sections slightly so its clear its talking about Canadas change in status in two of the sections and to balance it out made the first about the American revolution and made another section for War of 1812. It could be put into a better format along the lines you suggest but that would take changing the text aswell.. so i think the current version is slightly better that before but if people can think of some better section titles then is ok with me. Just saying Independence / dominion status clearly was only about canada so needed to be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon me in my next comment. Under the section entitled "Canadian Independence" this era seems historically innaccurate since we know in fact that Canadian Confederation occured between Upper and Lower Canada in 1867. And finally, full independence and royal assent was not given by the Queen until 1982. So therefore, how can "independence" be proclaimed in the 1920's given a.) The British Parliament still had final say over legislation introduced in Ottawa until 1982 and b.) the United Kingdom did not establish equality between the UK and Canada until 1931 via the Statute of Westminister, thus preceding the 1920's as alleged in the article. In otherwords, what is the basis of independence in the 1920's when royal assent was not given until 1982? --Yoganate79 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That section does needs sources to back up the text, im not sure if whats there is accurate but having the title for the section Canadian Independence rather than just Independence makes clearler. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian independence

Easier to introduce a new talk section, since it is relevant to the article and Canadian independence is weird by most either-or standards. There are so many markers, but here are a few major ones which may help in dividing sections.

Representative government and responsible government

1791 - Constitutional Act, dividing Québec (different then than now) into Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Québec) and granting each their own elected Legislative Assembly - arguably an action to preempt an American-style revolt by granting representative government to the northern colonies

1840 - Upper Canada and Lower Canada were merged by the Act of Union into a United Province of Canada, prelude to responsible government (1849)

Domestic limited self-government

1867 - confederation of United Province of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia grants dominion and self-government, but Great Britain still negotiates for Canada on the world stage and approves all legislation - Canada has only a lobbyist in London

1874 - a Canadian representative with no real power is sent to Washington to represent Canada during British-American trade talks

1878 - Canada sends equally powerless representatives to France and Spain

1880 - for the first time a Canadian is named to a British post (High Commissioner)

1894 - High Commissioner Charles Tupper helps negotiate an agreement with France, but what makes it official is its countersigning by the British ambassador to France

1903 - Alaska boundary dispute resolved by a joint American-British board in the United States' favour, Canadian judges refuse to sign the agreement but can't alter its legality

The road to autonomy and self-government on the international stage

1914 - entry into WW1 with Great Britain's entry, not automatic but taken for granted - for the first time, Canadians fight in their own Canadian military units and not as part of British military units

1918 - Canada becomes a separate signatory to the Treaty of Versailles, rather than being included as part of Great Britain

1923 - Halibut Treaty signed only by Canada and US, first time a treaty was not countersigned by British on behalf of Canada

1925 - King-Byng Affair - arguably the incident which turned British approval of Canadian governments and legislation into a rubber stamp - also a true Canadian ambassador is sent to the League of Nations

Autonomy

1931 - Statute of Westminster (as noted above)

1982 - repatriation of the BNA Act, replaced by the Constitution Act. Fully independent country.

1999 - creation of Nunavut recognizes Inuit self-government in this territory

As you can see, there is no clear point at which Canada acquires all the markers of independence until 1982, and the creation of Nunavut makes even that problematic. - Cameron Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.56 (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Area of U.S.

"The total area is claimed as 9,826,630 km2 (3,794,080 sq mi) by the CIA World Factbook, which additionally includes territorial waters."

This is not the actual area of the United States, this is a false representation of information by the United States government. According to an impartial source, the UN, the U.S. has an area of 9,629,091 km2 (3,717,813sq mi). This is what should be listed. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

why was imf data listed for the gdp numbers

the cia factbook has their nominal gdp a lot closer. Canada 1564 billion per capita 46,254 USA 14260 billion per capita 46,341 Grmike (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)grmike

The IMF is a global institution which is generally more reliable than the CIA World Fact Book-- which is more or less with an American perspective and US-biased. Likewise as with all countries around the world, if you refer to the Wiki pages for both Canada and the United States, both pages strictly use the IMF figures. ALso, if CIA World Fact Book figures were to be used, then the figures for area and military expenditures in the table would have to be changed as well since they do not use the CIA figures. Thus, consistency is appropriate. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the gdp numbers according to cia actually undervalues the US economy when compared to imf data so that should take care of any concerns about it being us centric. as for the rest of the data i'm not sure but the world bank is just as reputable as the imf and they have their own lists as well.Grmike (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)grmike

The fact remains, both the Wiki page Canada and the United States use economic figures from the IMF. Likewise, there is no call for such a change, we only require interarticle consistency and in any case, you should go through the process at WP:RM before making changes without consensus. --Yoganate79 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Canada – United States relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Canada – United States relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "imf2":

• From Australia: "Australia". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
• From Tunisia: "Tunisia". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
• From New Zealand: "New Zealand". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
• From Canada: "Canada". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2009-10-01.
• From Sierra Leone: "Sierra Leone". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2009-10-01.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I like the picture that was there. Please stop changing it. I looks much better. I makes more sense too so please stop changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your like of the picture is noted. However, it appears that more than one person disagrees with you, and Wikipedia operates on consensus, not what you like. I, for one, find that the present image is superior because it shows the American head of state and the Canadian head of state's personal representative; the other image shows the American and Canadian heads of government; the subject of this article is the relationship between Canada and the US as countries, not simply as governments. Hence, in this context, the President/GG image is superior. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) PS- Thank you for starting a discussion, though; please stop reverting until a consensus for change is reached here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Miesianiacal on the choice of lead image, although for completely different reasons. I think the GG photo (with the Mountie honour guard, and Obama having just disembarked from Air Force One) is a far more interesting image than the cliched photo op of Obama and Harper.

To be fair to the anon, however, the Harper image was used for some time as the lead image for this article, from a few weeks after Obama's inauguration until about a month and a half ago, when Miesianiacal replaced it with the GG image (as he was perfectly entitled to do). And before that, a Harper/Bush image was used. So it's not as if there is some long-standing consensus that we should prefer images of the GG over the PM. The anon simply prefers the status quo from before Miesianiacal's edit. And there is no evidence in the article's recent edit history to suggest that "more than one person disagrees with [the anon]" - given the edit summaries, at best one can presume that the other editors disagreed with the anon's methods (none of the editors expressed an actual preference for the lead image, although hopefully some of them will contribute to this discussion).

Having said all that, no one objected to Miesianiacal's change to the lead image at the time he made it, and given the current dispute, he and others have correctly pointed out that we should seek consensus before making any new changes to the lead image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If the decision is made to keep the GG shot, then the Harper/Obama image can be used elsewhere in the article. At the moment, there is a fairly pointless image of Harper under the "The current state of relations" heading, and that might be a good place to stick the Obama/Harper shot. Just a suggestion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just on a point of order, as far as I can see, the following editors, besides myself, reverted the anon's change of the picture: Marek69, 4twenty42o, and Ramdrake. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The reverts could just as likely have been due to the anon's methods (unexplained significant change to the article, followed by edit warring) rather than a preference either way for the lead image. Absent indications to the contrary in the edit summaries, or a comment here, you can't make assumptions about their opinions for the purpose of canvassing consensus. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cavassing consensus"? Good grief, you make me sound like some malicious propagandist. I noticed he'd been reverted multiple times by more users than myself; that obviously means more than one person disagreed with his change. I didn't say exactly with what these people disagreed; I'm sorry if that insinuated that they preferred one image over the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. And I certainly am sorry if I seemed to be indicating that you were malicious - I didn't mean to. I was really just trying to convey to the anon (probably naively, given subsequent events) that in any discussions for the purpose of achieving consensus, (s)he didn't automatically have a row of other editors lined up against him/her on the substantive issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I didn't look at it from that perspective. My apologies for the confusion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents in reply to a comment at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, I think that the Harper/Obama image is better. I think the GG would be more appropriate for Canada/UK relations, but I'm pretty sure that the Harper/Obama relationship is much stronger than GG/Obama. It's the GG's mandate to represent the monarch, but it's the PM's mandate to represent Canada.

I also think that the Harper/Obama image is a far better image for this use, in that it clearly shows the two subjects and also has the flags in the background (representing the Canada/US relationship, not just Harper/Obama personally). The GG and Obama don't particularly stand out from their image, and the image does not convey the idea of Canada/US relations at first glance. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with M.Nelson, the Harper image is nicer and more appropriate for the top of the page. I recommend putting the GG image in either "Diplomacy" or "The current state of relations" --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's "more appropriate"; M.Nelson is completely incorrect in his assertions about the roles of the Governor General and Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, as head of government, represents a faction of voters; the GG represents the sovereign, who, in turn, represents Canada as its living embodiment. A meeting between the PM and President means something on a political level; a meeting between GG and President means something on a national level.

On another note, I'm inclined to oppose that anon purely on the basis of his anti-Wikipedian behaviour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with reverting the anon's unilateral edits, but I stand by my reasoning. Though I may have my roles wrong, I still believe that a meeting between PM and President is more relevant to the relationship between the two countries than with the GG, as the PM is the decision-maker (the GG essentially rubber-stamps the government's decisions).

Furthermore, regardless of who's role is more important, the Harper/Obama image illustrates the concept of "Canada – United States relations" far better than the other one (and is better photographically-speaking (in my opinion), with more emphasis on the subjects, better colours, etc). -M.Nelson (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I guess it all comes down to what part of international relations one wants to highlight: the political or the national. G8 and G20 meetings are pratcially important, but are bureaucratic and don't hold the prestige accorded to state visits. I merely adhere to the international practice of giving precedence to meetings between heads of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the photo with GG Jean at the top of the article, and we need a better photo of Harper and Obama. PKT(alk) 02:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - international relations are a political matter, and the GG is outside politics in the same way the monarch is; her role in US-Canada relations is purely p.r. It should be heads of government rather than heads of state; the US President happens to be both, but the facts on the ground in Canada are that it's the Prime Minister that's in charge of international relations; i.e. the Governor General in Cuuncil is the mechanims of relations with the US, but not the Governor General; and the PM is the president/spokesman of the Governor General in Council. I don't see a point in having Michaelle Jean's picture on this article, at least not in a lede position. If she were the person in charge of US relations/negotiations, it would be different; but she's not.Skookum1 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet, the pinnacle of international relations is not the government visit between heads of government but the state visit between heads of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

the article is about relations, which are determined by the president and the prime minister. the Governor General has a trivial role in that regard.Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if one considers heads of state to be trivial. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentionned above, the PM is the decision-maker, and the GG's role can easily be considered trivial (Rubber stamp (politics)). I would also argue that "the pinnacle of international relations" is the visit between heads of government rather than heads of state; why is it that the heads of government attend meetings such as G8 and G20 (meetings I would describe precisely as "the pinnacle of international relations")?-M.Nelson (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

isn't the Queen the head of state? Obama already met her. Rjensen (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I did think for a moment about the possibility of putting an image of Obama meeting the Queen; it would technically be applicable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

From a purely Canadian perspective, the GG picture would look to me more typically Canadian, but that's just a gut feeling. On a separate note, the anon IP should be reminded he's not allowed to edit war and shouldn't throw tantrums, as that doesn't help his cause.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

well it seems pretty clear to me: the Queen is the head of state and Harper is the head of government. Obama is both; the GG is neither and has no practical or theoretical role to play in relations. As for visibility in the US, the Queen has been in the US with very high publicity over the years but I can't remember Michaëlle Jean ever visiting the US in an official capacity. So she's not really a player for this article. Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with using an image of the GG (as I stated above, putting the role of the GG and PM aside, I actually prefer the photograph of the GG to that of Harper), but I'd object to using an image of the Queen. She may be Canada's head of state, but she's way too far removed from Canada - U.S. relations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the intro of Foreign relations of Canada says that "Canadian governments have traditionally maintained active relations with other nations", implying that the 'government' is most notable with respect to foreign relations. That article also says that "Traditionally the Prime Minister has played a prominent role in foreign affairs decisions" (Foreign relations of Canada#Administration); though it mentions "Governor General" only twice, referring to 1885 and 1909, there are 8 mentions of "prime minister" (including five prior to 1921). -M.Nelson (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: United Kingdom – United States relations features the UK's PM (head of government), not the monarch (head of state), in a similar "photo-op"-style image to the Harper/Obama image (which I prefer, as above). -M.Nelson (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see... Lots of people agree with me so I think the picture of the PM and the President is better. It's better and more important so I advice you stop chaning it back because most poeple do agreee with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you would be well-advised to leave the picture alone for now, until the community has made up its mind which of the two pictures is better.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if 'lots of people' agreed with you, if there is no consensus for change then the picture will remain at the status quo. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Feel free to contribute to this discussion if you have constructive points, but note that "I like it" is not a valid argument. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How do we decide this, then? I know polls are evil, but...

PS- would someone please block that anon IP for two weeks? He's causing all the disruption in the article by revert warring, was just 2 weeks ago blocked for a week for vandalism, and has basicly asked to be again, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I reported the IP at WP:AIV, and an admin "will certainly watch" the situation; currently, the protection makes a block moot.

I'm fine with continuing discussion as before, but perhaps the discussion should be structured better (in more of a WP:AFD discussion style), so that it could include both discussion and poll (through !votes). As consensus needs to be reached to make a change to the status quo, perhaps I'll write up a bit of a proposal with my rationale. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been blocked. I am willing to take a poll on who thinks which photo is better. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should count yourself very bloody lucky. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

# of Christians in Canada

Sorry, this is my first edit, but I have reason to believe that the data for the number of Christians in Canada (vs non-religious) is not correct. For example this source says something completely different: http://www.religioustolerance.org/canus_rel.htm and I've heard the atheist/non-religious figure placed as high as 30% in Canada. In any case I'm pretty sure the country is less Christian than the US. Can someone who's smarter/better at data gathering source this for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.46 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The statistics for 2001 are available directly from Statistics Canada; see this. They clearly indicate a rate of about 16-17% for non-religious (atheist, agnostic, et al). The 2006 rate is higher, but by no more than 4-6%. I think the 30% figure is an estimate based on the assumption that since 2001, a consistent yearly increase of about 1% is expected. I don't think this is a valid way to estimate the data. Michael Adams has done some analysis of the issue, and his books may contain some information about this. Mindmatrix 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed image change

Current consensus ("GG"): Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean (right) and US President Barack Obama meet in Ottawa in February 2009

Proposed image ("PM"): Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) and US President Barack Obama (left) meet in Ottawa in February 2009

In response to discussion above, it is proposed that the lead image of this article be changed from one with Canadian Governor General (GG) Michaëlle Jean and United States President Barack Obama to one with Canadian Prime Minister (PM) Stephen Harper and Barack Obama (both images pictured, right). Though currently the article displays the Harper/Obama image, the GG image has been stable at this article for "about a month and a half", prior to which the PM image was displayed. Since there was no disputing the bold change of image to GG from PM, it is assumed that that image has gathered consensus. As switching back to the PM image is disputed, a change from GG must reflect consensus, otherwise the GG image will remain. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

4 Supports; 1 Oppose

---

• Support the PM image, as nominator, for the following reasons:
  • The Prime Minister is a more relevant position with respect to foreign relations, as the GG, it can be argued, plays a trivial role and makes no decisions:
    • The introduction to Foreign relations of Canada states that "Canadian governments have traditionally maintained active relations with other nations", implying that the 'government' is most notable with respect to foreign relations (PM is head of government, GG is (the representative of) head of state). That article also says that "Traditionally the Prime Minister has played a prominent role in foreign affairs decisions" (Foreign relations of Canada#Administration); though it mentions "Governor General" only twice, referring to 1885 and 1909, there are 8 mentions of "prime minister" (including five prior to 1921).
    • Also note that the PM, not GG, attends major international relations events such as G8 and G20 meetings.
  • The PM image far better conveys the idea of "Canada – United States relations". The flags in the background ensure that even if a user didn't recognise Harper and/or Obama (a foreign user, particularly non-commonwealth, may not likely identify Jean as Canada's GG), the idea of "Canada – United States relations" is obvious at first glance. Additionally, I would argue that the PM image is photographically superior, in having a better colour composition, being far sharper (the GG image is fuzzy), and having a better emphasis on the subjects of the image.
  • There is currently consensus at United Kingdom – United States relations to feature the UK's head of government (PM) rather than head of state (in this case, the Queen), and at Canada – New Zealand relations to show both PMs (Harper and John Key). -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. Let's reflect the reality of international relations - that formal heads of state play almost no role - not formalistic interpretations of state power. --Padraic 21:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose International interactions at the head of state level are given higher precedence in common practice; heads of state embody nations, whereas heads of government embody politics. While politics play a significant role in international relations, they are not supreme; ergo, the Harper/Obama image has relevance to this page, it just shouldn't be the lead illustration. The Jean/Obama image (which isn't in the least bit "fuzzy") is far superior for that spot; similarly, Spain – United States relations uses as its head image one of Obama and King Juan Carlos and Norway - United States relations shows Bush and King Harald. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support the PM image.
  • For an article on "XX - YY state ceremony", the GG image would be excellent. It shows the honour guard of Mounties and the local representative of the head of state (or however Mes would term it, which I would agree with because the formal term escapes me now). However we are considering here an article on relations between countries and so the relationship between those who wield actual executive power and political influence is more relevant.
  • The PM image shows two leaders as equals, which is appropriate. The flags of both countries are displayed, which lends distinctiveness and recognition to the image.
  • And the far more important relationship anyway is between the US prez and the Canadian PM, and has been for at least 100 years. Reciprocity was between those two (Laurier and Taft?); LBJ (?) grabbed Diefenbaker by the lapels; Nixon called Trudeau an asshole (?); Dief turned down the Bomarc missiles; Mulroney sang "Irish Eyes" while Reagan mostly smiled; Bush called Chretien looking for troops for Afghanistan; Mulroney and Reagan agreed on SO2 reductions; Harper was termed "Bush-lite". Clearly this is the key relationship (although the way US politics works, the Senate majority leader might be better for the US part of the image :).
• For all these reasons, I think the PM image is the way to go. Image quality is a minor factor but still favours PM. The GG image should definitely be included if there is a "pomp and ceremony" section for it, but as the lede, PM is a better illustration of the article contents. Franamax (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the image with the Prime Minister is much better.^{emphasis added by M.Nelson} The Governor General picture has a low resolution and if you go to many other relations pages, you can see that usually the Heads of Government are displayed together. The picture of the Prime Minister and Barack Obama to be is much more significant also because Canadians know more about the PM than the GG. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your sentiment but not your semantics. Mes says (correctly) that GG is the actual head of state/government (standing in lieu of the real head of state, QEII). Pretty much everyone agrees with Mes, but many wish to observe the reality of where effective power lies. Also, we're not writing for just Canadians here, many Europeans know GG better 'cause they've seen the pic of her eating raw seal meat for instance. Every single person in Haiti knows who Michaelle Jean is too. Recognition for Canadians is not a big issue here, but representation of Canadians is. Franamax (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ya, I understand what you are saying but I still think that the Prime Minister is a much more well-known person around the world. He is the one that attends all the summits, talks and discuses relations with other foreign leaders. The GG is mainly a symbolic role but the PM is the one who really does the real work. That's why I think he is more well-known, maybe not in Europe, but other parts of the world. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close

Discussion above has been stagnant for a week, so I closed and archived it. Since I'm involved, I'm not going to make any final judgements, but the 4–1 !voting in support of the PM image seems like enough to display the PM image. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)