Talk:Canada–United States relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	To-do list for Canada–United States relations:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

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?
• 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)

Contents 1 Environmental Issues 2 US is larger than Canada? 3 Northwest Angle 4 Conflict with Canada and the Vietnam War page 5 Statement on Environmental Issues 6 NPOV 7 More personal issues please

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?