Talk:Canada–United States relations

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)

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)

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)

Statement on Environmental Issues

"The Canadian government places a higher premium on energy and the environment than the U.S. government."

This is a totally biased statement. While I may agree with it, I don't think it's appropriate for an encylopedia article. It should be deleted to for NPOV purposes.

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?

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)

Northwest Passage

The article claims Canadians were "incensed" over the Manhattan navigating the Northwest passage but the article on the Northwest passage claims:

"In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker John A. Macdonald."

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)

????

"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)

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)

"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)

War of 1812

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)

"Invasions" in 1812

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)