Talk:Canada–United States border/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Undefended?

Part of the US Coast Guard's core values is a duty to national defense. And they've armed their boats in the Great Lakes with machine guns. As well, DHS has three air bases which patrol parts of the border. It might be time to stop calling this undefended. kris 08:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of title

Is there an specfic reason it is entitled United State-Canada border, and not Canda-United States border?--Jjcarroll 22:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but it seems we've got to pick one (and, with everything, by sheer weight of population, it's likely that the article was named by someone in the US). There should be a redirect from Canada-United States border, if there isn't already. CDC (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
If there is a need to pick one, perhaps ordering by alphabetical order will be far less contentious in the long run. I note this when noticing User:Aiman abmajid creating Malaysia-biased articles such as Malaysia-Thailand Border, along with his intentions to create Malaysia-Brunei Border, Malaysia-Indonesia Border, etc if one goes by the content in the first article.--Huaiwei 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this to the alphabetical Canada-United States border. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Page move rationale

I've moved this page from United States-Canadian Border to United States-Canada border to make "border" lowercase, because it's not a proper noun, and to make "United States" and "Canada" match; "United States-Canadian" mixes a noun and an adjective. CDC (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree there are other "international boundaries" in the world besides this border, the official name is the "International Boundary", as established in various laws in both countries, and by the establishment of the "International Boundary Commission". Are any other "international boundaries" in the world established in similar ways, giving the formal and legal name to their border "International Boundary"?
Furthermore, most cadastral systems and official surveys of property in states and provinces bordering the International Boundary, refer to it by its official name. Why not call it International Boundary (Canada-United States) (keeping the countries in alphabetical order, or adopting the current naming order International Boundary (United States-Canada)? Another option would be to have a disambiguation page for International boundary (disambiguation) or International Boundary (disambiguation). Just some of the many options we have available.
Why borrow trouble? There's already an International Boundary page which seemingly doesn't need disambiguation. RussNelson 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's highly educational for many uninformed readers to see that the "United States-Canada border" or "Canada-United States border" so popularly referred to in media and pop culture actually has a historic legal name. Plasma east 18:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does International Boundary redirect here? "International Boundary" could refer to any boundary between nations, not just the US/Canada border, and therefore should re-direct to border. TiffaF 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Longest period?

I realize that "Longest undefended border" is a well-known phrase, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Can-U.S. border is in fact the largest in the world? From the CIA factbook:

Rus-Kazakh 6,846 km,

Rus-Mongolia 3,485 km

Rus-China (southeast) 3,605 km,

China-Mongolia 4,677 km,

China-India 3,380 km

India-Bangladesh 4,053 km

Couldn't think of anything else that comes close. If you subtract Alaska from the Can-US total, Russia-Kazakhstan is longest. But surely there are no other countries that share the same total amount as do Canada and the United States. Marskell 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. The only one I could think of that is in the range of the ones you cited is Argentina-Chile 5,150 km. I've always heard that the Canada-US border is the longest undefended border, but it never occured to me that it may be the longest. Pfly 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support as proponent. Cogito ergo sumo 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Alphabetization is the least POV. Altho' I believe the en dash ("%E2%80%93" in the URL, rendered –) in the article title should be retained over the hyphen. --SigPig 07:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mu! I unask the question, since I think it's better to use the official name of International Boundary, and have redirects from US-C and C-US. As it currently stands, International Boundary redirects here. RussNelson 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a very good point – not only is it neutral, this should actually appear in the article lead (and I will make this change). As the article title, though, I wonder if this might pose mild confusion (particularly for newbies) with the usual term of 'international boundary/border': would the title not have to be suffixed somehow (e.g., International Boundary (Canada-United States))?. (On another note: I'm also indifferent regarding the dash, with mild preference for the simpler dash (-) only for simplicity.) If a consensus supports a move to alternates, though, who am I to argue? :) Cogito ergo sumo 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Since there's already a International Boundary article which so far hasn't needed disambiguation, I suggest that we let sleeping articles lie. RussNelson 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. That article was awakened and is now a redirect to "United States-Canada border". --SigPig 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Húsönd 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest UNITED STATES-canada Border just to show who's boss. Marskell 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Either title is the same. Passer-by 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC

Whoever suggested the alphabetical order, was this really and truly done to be neutral, or because "Canada" conveniently comes out to be first? Perhaps rather than alphabetical, it should be "left to right", as both countries read; thus, Alaska trumps Canada? Or north to south, so here Canada trumps the US. Except that on old maps, south was up, so the US trumps Canada. Why not, even, "Great White North" and "Great Satan". Silliness, all. Flip a coin already. Bejmark (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This issue of "some say this is racist" when comparing Canada/US to Canada/Mexico is not cited. Not only that, but Canadians come in a wide variety of colours, especially in the major urban centres where the largest border crossings are. I've never heard anyone say that the differences are racist, and I think it should be taken down. 142.103.207.10 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Ian Cromwell, Canada

Strait of Juan de Fuca

What exactly is the dispute here? Can't find any information on it anywhere. --Lukobe 09:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it.--Planetary 00:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for not pre-screening Canadian-bound passengers

Regarding this statement: "Canada does not maintain equivalent personnel at U.S. airports due to the sheer number of destinations served by Canadian airlines and the limited number of flights compared to the number of US-bound flights that depart major Canadian airports."

Is this statement hinting that it doesn't make financial sense to do this? Even if that is the case why wouldn't Canada Customs maintain staff in for example, the top 3 airports with Canadian departures? I think the section "Other border crossings (airports, seaports)" needs at least one reference to back up this statement. DRead 19:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain?

This article references Great Britain which is a big island off the coast of Western Europe. I believe the reference ought to be to the United Kingdom: more specifically, for the purposes of this document, the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I have changed the text accordingly. Bazza 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But the United Kingdom isn't an island - it's the country on the island. Check the wiki articles on United Kingdom and Great Britain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frognsausage (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be a list of land crossings

There sould be a list by Province and/or State of the land border crossings between the two countries. All of the major entry points and the smaller ones should be included. Maybe the ten biggest can be ranked as such in terms of taffic passing through them. Sirtrebuchet 23:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the minor crossings or deleting the crossings that happen to not contain a bridge or tunnel, perhaps a separate article listing the crossings would be appropriate. For instance, the I-29/MB 75(MB 29) crossing near Pembina is probably the most significant crossing between the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge and at least the Interstate 15/Alberta provincial highway 4 crossing near Sweetgrass, Montana, if not western Washington/British Columbia. If crossings are to be listed, the major ones should be considered, and if no one objects, all road crossings can be listed elsewhere. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


There does exsist a list on just this subject. See List of Canada-United States border crossings. I added a list of the Canadian names of all the border crossings between Canada and the U.S. to the talk page on this article. It could use some help in the completion of the list. It could use some help in being devoloped. Sirtrebuchet 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition

I'm surprised the article doesn't define the border. River borders of U.S. states and this site have information on this should someone want to describe the border. Calbaer 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

International Boundary Commission should have its own article

I think that the International Boundary Commission is important enough to have its own article and not simply be mentioned here. See here for details on the International Boundary Commission Sirtrebuchet 20:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I actually came to this page looking for info about the IBC and was disappointed to see that it was only mentioned in this article about the border and did not have it's own page. Vbidez 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Correcting the meme.

Two things:

  • Per long-standing precedent that simple calculations are not OR, I think we are able to state that the Canada-US border is the longest in the world; see thread a few up with Factbook info.
  • Is it the longest "unmilitarized" border in the world? This claims the Rus-Khazak border is now "transparent". This, meanwhile, claims the Rus-Khazak border is also the "largest land border" in the world. Both note 7,500 km, which is 650km more than CIA figure. The Can-US total (incl. Alaska) is larger in either case, but the Rus-Khazak border is the largest contiguous boundary near as I can tell; thus it could be called the longest undefended border as well. Marskell 11:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I don't want to step on any toes here, but we have three out of three photographs (as well as a graphic) depicting the border between British Columbia and Washington. That is the sum of the visual content Might we not throw in the Ambassador Bridge or some other evidence of a border east of the Continental Divide and remove the Peace Arch photo? If I hear no objections, I will be bold. Fishhead64 07:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the Peace Arch but replacing the photo of the boundary markers.Dtbrown 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Airports

I could not find evidence stating that Saskatoon and Kelowna airports had U.S Preclearance, so I deleted them from the article.

X% of Canadians live within Y km or mi or hours of the US border

E.g. "90% of Canadians live within 100 mi of the US border." The numbers quoted seem to vary quite a bit between different web pages. Can we find an authoritative source for this?

Some notes trying to estimate by myself:

  • 1 degree of latitude = 111 km = 69 miles
  • As a very quick approximation, most residents of BC, MA, ON, QC, NB live within this distance of the border, and most residents of AB, SK, NS, PE, NL, NT, NU, YT do not. About 18.5% of the population live in the second group.
  • Doubling the distance only adds Regina, SK among major cities. Calgary and Halifax are just beyond this distance and should be within 250 km or 150 miles. (straight line)
  • 200 mi probably excludes half of AB and SK, and all of NT, NU, NL, but very little of other provinces' population. This is around 7.5%.
  • Edmonton is about 4.5 degrees (500 km, 310 mi) north of the border, and its metro area has a population just over 1 million. Only NT, NU, NL are farther away than this, and they total around 580,000 people. This is about 5.0% outside a distance just excluding Edmonton, and about 1.7% outside a distance just including Edmonton. Biggest Alberta town north of Edmonton CMA is Grande Prairie with about 50,000 or 0.15% of national population.

--JWB 06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was checkY Done. El_C 03:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Move due to bad style concerns

According to the Manual of Style's section about en-dashes,

"All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; July 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but July–August 1940)."

The title of this article, "Canada–United States border", is is in clear violation of this guideline, which is followed by the Naming conventions and which makes perfect sense regarding the good appearance of text anyway. I have thus decided to move the article, as well as several others suffering from the same problem, in this case to "Canada – United States border". A redirect shall be created and properly tagged, so that the article will still be searchable and linkable in its previous version, and I will change as many incoming links as possible. Waltham, The Duke of 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is strange... I posted this message so that my moving the article to the correct location would be clear... There was nothing to be done. I have re-moved the article to the version with the spaced en dash. Waltham, The Duke of 08:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Map error or length error?

In the "border lengths" section, New York and Washington are reversed in either the map or the list. I have no idea which order is correct, and cannot find the border lengths in the states' articles. Can anyone please sort this? Waltham, The Duke of 08:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Map was incorrect, now fixed. Phizzy (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Busiest commercial crossing

The page states that the Ambassador Bridge is the "busiest commercial crossing" between Canada and the US. Is this correct?. And what measurement tool is being used, tonnage, or value of goods? There is, after all, the railroad tunnel from Detroit to Windsor (formerly Michigan Central); a similar one, recently double-tracked, in Port Huron-Sarnia; and the railroad suspension bridge in Fort Erie-Buffalo. All are much less evident to the general public than a road bridge upon which one can take one's private vehicle. Has someone checked the tonnage rates for these crossings vis-à-vis the Ambassador? Bejmark (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Possibly "road crossing' is what was meant. You may want to hang a {{cn}} template after the unclear assertion. Kablammo (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Janet Napolitano

Could someone write somthing about her and her false comments about the Canadian border —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.212.110 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Security section - strange sentence.

"The actual number of U.S. and Canadian border security personnel is classified. In comparison, there are in excess of 11,000 U.S. Border Patrol personnel on the Mexico–U.S. border alone."

It's not really a comparison of number if one of them is unknown/classified - there's nothing to compare it to. It either needs a number for the US-Canadian border or needs to put the stress on the classified/unclassified idea. The second sentence seems to be assuming there are fewer personnel at the US-Canadian border. The emphasis of "in excess off" would sound odd if there were infact 50,000 personell at the canadian border! - Just a thought! Frognsausage (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit making Imperial units primary

I disagree with this edit. Making Imperial units (miles, feet, pounds) primary is appropriate in articles dealing exclusively with the United States. It is also appropriate to list Imperial conversions of Metric units where the US is a part of the topic, as with this article. But the US is the only place in the English-speaking world (the audience for Wikipedia in English) indeed the only place in the world, that uses these units. Where the article does not deal exclusively with the US, Metric units should be primary.Don Argus jr (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where Imperial units were used in the definition of the boundary (such as the 10 foot width of the cleared swath on either side of the border), then it's appropriate to make that unit primary, especially as the Metric conversion is approximate. Otherwise, Metric is the appropriate system to use.Don Argus jr (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) on units of measurement, I reverted the two edits to restore consistency with the MOS. Don Argus jr (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with and support your decision to revert. --JBC3 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Same here. --Makaristos (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Title punctuation

The n-dash (–) only takes spaces when being used as punctuation in a sentence. When connecting to words, such as Roe–Wade, there should be no space. This article should be titled Canada–United States border. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (February 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada – United States border → Canada–United States border — A spaced n-dash is used in sentences (as in, The MiQ can't move this page on his own – it's locked). When two nouns are joined, but do not create a new word like the surname Howard-Snyder, they are not spaced. For example, Polish–Soviet War, Roman–Persian Wars, M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland), State Route 74 (New York–Vermont), Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo, Shackleton–Rowett Expedition, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy, and Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector (all featured articles). — the Man in Question (in question) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See above, and the edit history of September 2008. (it makes no difference to me, but has to others before.) Kablammo (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In the examples given, the US 40 Alternate, State Route 74 examples, and this article should have space en dashes according to the MOS. Any page moves should kindly be reverted. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. It's been pointed out that this is to align the title with the manual of style, which indeed does state there shouldn't be a space around the dash. Issues about this really should be brought up at the MOS talk page, not here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Canada – United States border → Canada–United States border –

  • Remove space around dash per MOS. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; removing the spaces makes the title unclear: does the hyphen join "Canada" and "United" or "Canada" and "United States"? Powers T 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone will assume there's a Canada-United bordering with States. Just move it already, this is a trivial spelling detail, not a major policy question. --vuo (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it is in conformity with the MOS to remove the spaces around the endash. No ambiguity because a) it's an endash, b)'Canada-United' obviously makes no sense. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I admit this specific usage is not a very good example, but the general principle applies. Powers T 02:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Put me (and most other users who aren't obsessed with dashes) down for an extra large helping of not giving a shit. The point is if users can find the content they are looking for. Whether we use one little line or another or put spaces around it is not important. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To many people a dash is a hyphen is a minus sign. OK, 'Canada-United' makes no sense, therefore etc, but readers should not have to deduce "this therefore that" to find what text means. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, wow, I didn't even think there could be a reason not to move this page. It's quite common to use en dash compounds of countries here, so this one shouldn't be an exception. And per the recent MOS change, there should be no spaces between the endash. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS. If you don't like it, take up the issue there. —danhash (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - the reason why we have a Manual of Style is to avoid having these little technical discussions over and over. 109.154.71.251 (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:DASH. This is why we had this huge discussion in the middle of the year and the resulting consensus that's relevant to this discussion was that we should not space en dashes (personally I was neutral on the issue). If you want to change this, bring it up at WT:MOS, don't argue about it at every single RM. Jenks24 (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seeing as International Boundary redirects to this article, and its the common name...

Not to mention the official name... does it not make sense to move this to International Boundary, or is there a desire to keep the formatting in line with other political borders? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are other borders with official names, I think in this case the consistency criterion takes precedence over officialness. Powers T 02:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
So does WP:COMMONNAME. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One border

What about Hans Island the Canadian-Danish border? --Kuzwa (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If by that you mean why does the article claim Canada shares it's border with only one country, if you read carefully you will see it actually says it shares a land border with only one country. Interesting article though, I'd never heard of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
But it does technically share a land border with Danmark there, although it's disputed. The Canadian position is that the border runs straight through the Island bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.182.191 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the water borders between the United States of America and Canada (at the Great Lakes) are unclear.108.85.152.134 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Another possible 49th parallel exclave near Antler, ND

While looking at the border on Google maps near the known exclave in North Dakota, I came across this smaller candidate: http://goo.gl/maps/oPPz1
Compare maps and satellite view, would be about 100ft x 40ft in size. Would need to be investigated on the ground to verify. Miasmic (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There are several others if you are willing to use rivers and creeks, not just lakes. The best ones I have found are:
1) Just south of Midway, B.C. A farm field is in the U.S., but accessible only from Canada (or by wading across the creek).
2) The junction of the North Fork of the Flathead and Sage Creek, in Montana. The point is in the U.S. but only accessible by land from Canada.
3) Along the Milk River in northern Montana.
There are quite a few others if you want to use even smaller creeks. I did not look the whole way along the border. There are probably more.Dunncon13 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're scouring Google Maps looking for border exclaves that haven't already been identified as such in reliable sources, then you're engaging in original research. For one thing, Google Maps is not infallible, and where it marks the boundary as being could just be wrong. So if a place hasn't already been identified as a border exclave by a published secondary source, it may not be added here just because you found that the border is marked on Google Maps as passing through it. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Things across the border

So what happens if someone lives or works in one of the buildings sited across the border? Do they have to report to customs every time they walk or move one of their possentions from one end of their house to the other? Is there some kind of special status for such people and their premisis? Plugwash (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it legal to cross the border outside border control, if you have a correct document? It not written in the article, except for the photo of the sign "WARNING". --BIL (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not legal to cross the border without reporting in. The rules are so stringent that it is very rare for a person to work on the other side. Rjensen (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there some kind of special status for crossborder buildings? Are people allowed to walk across the border? Are they allowed to walk to a certain distance from the border? --BIL (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You can (legally) walk across the border only at legal Customs ports of entry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

History, further info

Dawson report (1872-1876)

  • Dawson, George Mercer (1875). "Report on the Geology and Resources of the Region in the Vicinity of the Forty-ninth Parallel, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains (Google eBook)". North American Boundary Commission, 1872-1876. Dawson Brothers, Montreal. Retrieved 2013-Sept-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
As far as I can tell, this article makes no mention of this 1872-1876 boundary commission. This seems to be a valid part of the history section. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The 1872 resolution of the Pig War dispute is mentioned. As for the Northwest boundary, there was no Boundary Commission, there was only a proposal for one in 1872 which was rejected by the United States as unnecessary as the the land was too remote and of marginal value. It wasn't until the Klondike Gold Rush in 1898 that the US took any interest in surveying the Canada - Alaska boundary. This is covered in the article on the Alaska boundary dispute.
This Wikipedia article is entitled Canada-United States border. The North American Boundary Commission 1872-1876 was an international commission covering from Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains. An earlier commission covering the Pacific Coast area of Surrey took place between 1857-1859. (See some of the sources given below.) This is a different area than the Alaska frontier. Archibald Campbell represented the United States in both of these commissions. Mountains named in honor of the participants provides further testament to the work of these commissions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Mount Rowe citation (1872-1876)

Mount Rowe

http://www.peakfinder.com/peakfinder.asp?PeakName=Mount+Rowe
Summary of info:
  1. Lieut. Rowe was the Surveying Officer for the International Boundary Commission (1872-1876) which deliniated the international border from Lake of the Woods to the Continental Divide.
  2. Differences of opinion between Canada and the United States concerning the placement of the international boundary through the islands in the Strait of Georgia between the mainland and Vancouver Island had been settled cordially by an international boundary survey commission that existed from 1858 to 1862.
  3. This success led to the formation of a similar commission in 1870 that was given the task of marking the boundary from Lake of the Woods, Manitoba to the Continental Divide.
  4. Archibald Campbell, who had been the American chief commissioner for the 1858-1862 survey, was chosen to be the United States Commissioner of the survey.
  5. Prime Minister John A. Macdonald recommended a Scottish-born officer of the Royal Artillery, Capt. Donald Cameron to be the Campbell's Canadian counterpart.
  6. Note, This source states that the United States representative in the 1872-1876 Commission was Archibald Campbell. We need to find more info on him.
  7. The two commissioners, Campbell and Cameron, first met in 1872 and the following year saw the beginning of the long trek westward.
  8. The contrast in policy towards the continent's native population was evident as the American surveyors were supported by 230 armed men, two companies of cavalry and a company of infantry, as a precaution against possible Indian hostility.
  9. The British did not consider an armed escort necessary. In Cameron's opinion, the British flag was all the protection they required.
  10. Through 1874 and 1875 the survey continued, extending the cairn marked boundary line across the three prairie steppes to the mountains and finally to the Continental Divide.
  11. By the time the final meeting of the Commissioners Campbell and Cameron was held in London in 1876, 388 survey monuments such as iron pillars, stone cairns, earth mounds, timber marks, and mounds of mixed earth and stone had been established along the 49th Parallel of latitude.
  12. The now visible evidence of an international border was quickly put to use by the Northwest Mounted Police.
  13. The bootlegging of liquor by Americans to the Canadian Indians could now be controled.
  14. One of the first to make effective use of the newly marked border was Sitting Bull and his Sioux warriors who fled to safety in Canada after the massacre at Little Big Horn in Montana.
  15. The Americans honoured their commissioner, naming a peak just south of the border on the western side of Waterton Lake Mount Campbell.
  • This is a lot of information. If this is factual, the 1872-1876 border commission was international in makeup. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasting Papers on Archibald Campbell (1857-59)

Camp Semiahmoo 1857-59, Hasting Papers

Source: Papers of W.W. Hastings
http://www.surreyhistory.ca/campsemi.html

Campbell and Hawkins (1857-1862)

Campbell versus Hawkins: The Sometimes Stormy Relationship between the American & British Commissioners to the 1857-1862 Northwest Boundary Survey

http://www.lsawhistorical.org/documents/articles_CampbellvrsHawkinPOB.pdf

Archibald Campbell's Report of the 1872-1876 Commission

The Title page of Archibald Campbell's International Border Commission Report, 1872-1876

Source:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canada–United States border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 03:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Canada–United States border → Canada-United States borders – There are 2 distinct borders this article is about, the border between Canada and Alaska and the border between Canada and the contiguous United States. These are not the same line, so they're not a single border Georgia guy (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The plurality of "border" is implied by its use as a noun; a political border as much as a line in the sand (or tundra). Plus, "borders" sounds wonky. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Two distinct borders? What about Point Roberts, Washington? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Border" (singular) in this situation is a term of common use. For example, the China–Russia border also consists of two non-contiguous sections. Jeff in CA (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – in addition to the unneeded plural, changing the en dash to a hyphen makes no sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in common and legal usage there is one border. the term does not assume continuity. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SINGULAR we cover cars at car, not cars. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's one border, just in two parts. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Practical Exclaves"

I question the value of listing every water-bounded speck of rock on the border. Are they any more exclaved than Vancouver Island, or Martha's Vineyard?
Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In regard to your question only (without commenting on your statements), if an island has an international border between two countries on it, then there are two pene-exclaves. If one stipulates that the concept of "pene-exclave" lacks credence, then your question has added merit, in my opinion.
Jeff in CA 14:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
These are not exclaves or pene-exclaves: the territory is continuous even if the land is not. They are not practical exclaves, in my infallible opinion, because it's not necessarily any more practical to reach one half of the sandbar by going through the other half. —Tamfang (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Enough historical information for separate article

It seems as though there is enough historical information for a separate article to be developed eventually. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Usage of Canada-United States border in Wikipedia

I noticed that some (about 20) articles used [[Canada|Canadian]] border and I've changed those to [[Canada-United States border|Canada–US]] border. I think it is more appropriate to use Canada–US than to use Canadian, as it is a joint border. I'm not sure where policy lands on this sort of thing. The majority of links use some form of Canada-US, e.g. United States-Canadian. To see what I mean, look at what links to this article. I consider it to be an improvement to use both countries in the name, but I understand that using Canadian by itself is common usage also. What do you think? Alaney2k (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Changing the link was a good thing, and I support that because it links to the specific subject being discussed, but the displayed text does not always need to changed. If the context of the article is clear, there's no need to list both countries. In many articles on highways, the first sentence does, or should, include a statement similar to "the US state of X" or "the Canadian province of Y", for example. In those cases, we can leave the second country involved out of describing the border at the terminus of the highway. Otherwise we run into the same formulaic approaches in our writing that produce something like "US Highway 2 (US 2) is a United States Numbered Highway in the US state of Michigan."

    In short, when the context previously makes it clear that the subject of an article is connected with one of the two countries involved at the border, using only the one to name the border is sufficient, especially when a reader can click or hover his cursor over the link to get the full name. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Using the same logic, shouldn't we also always list both states or provinces when referring to those borders, even when context makes it clear we're already talking about one of the states or provinces? If that's the case, I have 10 years' worth of writing to fix. –Fredddie™ 11:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • But, what if I said, maybe you should? Are we being clear to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject? Would it be good practice to use brackets like "the Canadian (Canada-US) border" and use Canadian the rest of the way? I feel like it's more encyclopedic to use both countries, but who wants to write both countries each time? Is it being lazy? Are we using shorthand? Are we just being in a hurry? My concern comes from seeing how many serious (aka non-entertainment or sports) articles need work. In some of the articles that reference the border, you see more than one version of the link used, too. Which means it's not really been gone over (edited). Might be nice to take more care. I will try to find some Manual of Style references on the net. Alaney2k (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This depends on context. "The person suspected of robbing a bank in Minneapolis was pursued by police almost to the Wisconsin border." It's the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin, but the context makes it clear that it's about an event in Minnesota, so it's appropriate to phrase it that way. When there is no context of that kind, both states would be named. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada–United States border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This could not have been before the boundary was delineated

This article currently says this:

The border [ . . . ] even divides some buildings found in communities in Vermont and Quebec whose construction pre-dated the border's delineation.

That part of the southern boundary of Quebec was "delineated" – marked by survey monuments – in 1771–3 by Collins and Valentine, but the buildings through which the border passes are plainly a lot newer than that, as may be seen via Google maps in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line Vermont, at the site of the Haskell Free Library and the house east of it through which the border passes, and some other buildings about two miles west of there. In particular, the Haskell Free Library was deliberately located so that the boundary passes through the building – hardly something that could have been done before the boundary was "delineated". Might it not better say that it was before authorities became fastidious about preventing construction in such locations? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A border can be officially surveyed, and yet not actually confirmed for exactly where it's located. Just within the past five years, for example, the border between North Carolina and South Carolina was shifted about 150 feet southward at Lake Wylie by efforts to clarify the precise location of the border with modern GPS technology — and the effects included at least one property that got split by the new state line, so that the guy's house is in one state and his back deck is in the other. And that's a border that had survey markers on it too — but some of the markers turned out to have been off.
We could potentially stand to be more precise about how the buildings in Vermont/Quebec came to be divided by the border, if we can find proper sourcing to clarify it better, but we can't just presume that the logical explanation is that the authorities just weren't "fastidious" enough to prevent construction of a building that was already known to be divided by the border. 18th-century survey markers, for example, are known in a lot of locations to veer off from the proper straight line that officially demarcates the border — even in the west where the Canada-US border is officially the 49th parallel of latitude, the actual border is not a perfectly straight line that exactly matches the precise GPS location of the 49th parallel, but a spaghetti-like line that wobbles up and down across the 49th parallel. It looks like a perfectly straight line on a map, because the map scale is too small to actually catch the wobbles, but on the ground it is not a perfectly straight line — and guess what the reason is: surveyor error.
So in reality, it's far more likely that the border was roughly surveyed but not carefully or precisely verified until after many of the divided buildings were already on top of it, rather than everybody knowing exactly what the builders were doing and the government just being too lazy to stop them. It's entirely possible for Haskell to have been intentional without meaning that all divided buildings were equally intended to be located smack on the borderline. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken about this particular border. The Collins–Valentine line surveyed in the early 1770s was indeed "rough" in that they intended it to be the 45th parallel and it is in some places well over a thousand feet north of there, _but_ in 1842 the Webster–Ashburton Treaty said the border is to be where Collins and Valentine put the markers and _not_ at the actual 45th parallel. The Haskell Free Library and Opera House was deliberately located so that the border passes through the building, as required by Haskell's last will and testament, and the other buildings were very obviously built long after the treaty of 1842, as you will see from Google Maps.
I have sent an email to the two International Boundary Commissioners, in Ottawa and Washington, asking if they can clarify all of this and directing their attention to this present Wikipedia discussion page. I await their response.
And I wasn't alleging laziness; rather I was suggesting that standards of behavior were different during an earlier time, and it was not considered necessary to forbid putting buildings on the boundary. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
People putting houses up
On the border louses up
Our ability to boss
Everyone who tries to cross.
    — John Joseph Enright
Michael Hardy (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit and some other recent edits seem to be based on deductions from ASSUMPTIONS that appear reasonable only until one knows certain facts. The lack of accuracy of the Collins and Valentine survey of the 1770s cannot explain the location of houses through which the boundary passes because when the inaccuracy was discovered it was decided NOT to correct it but to leave the border at the position where Collins and Valentine marked it with survey monuments. The border that passes through the buildings on the boundary between Vermont and Quebec is NOT a more accurately marked border established later; it is the inaccurately marked border establish by the survey of the 1770s, and it is officially still the border. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, then find a proper source for what did happen. Because trust me, "everybody knew the houses were right smack on the border but nobody cared enough to do anything about it" is most certainly absolutely ten thousand per cent guaranteed not what happened either. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
They certainly cared in the case of the Haskell Library, where the building was deliberatly built on the border. That may have been the case with others too. Probably there was a time in the past when putting buildings astride the border was not illegal and not frowned on. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I received a reply from the International Boundary Commission, and it consisted of saying I might find the information here. To be continued . . . Michael Hardy (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Border exclaves

Just a reminder, once again, that the "exclave" list in this article is only for listing places that have already been identified as exclaves in reliable sources. It is not an invitation to go scanning Google Maps or Wikimapia yourself to look for unnamed or unpopulated peninsulas that happen to be hanging off the wrong side of a riverbank, but have never been written about or identified as exclaves by external sources before — that is original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Your source for adding an entry to the list must be a reliable media source which explicitly identifies the location, either verbally or in writing, as an exclave; it cannot simply be an online map of the location, because online maps can be wrong. (Trust me, I once had to submit a correction to Google Maps because the house my grandmother lived in when I was a kid was not and still isn't a WalMart.) Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Schornack?

The material about the dispute involving Dennis Schornack is entertaining, but seems tangential to the topic of this article. I may create a separate article titled International Boundary Commission and if it gets long enough, include that material there. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

. . . . . and now I've created the new article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Notable Crossings

I noticed that the list of "Notable Crossings" was seemingly a list of crossings in Ontario. I did add the Peace Arch, which as the biggest crossing by traffic west of Ambassedor Bridge, is probably more notable, then the crossing in Sault Ste. Marie. I think that this list should probably be gutted maybe to two the five or six biggest ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.210.213 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The list should include crossings that have their own articles -- primarily bridges. That's how we define "notable". Powers T 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
At some point this section became retitled "Notable bridge/tunnel crossings", so I removed Peace Arch and Blackpool.Wbaron (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The TEXT of this article does not even mention the Rainy River (Minnesota–Ontario) between Ontario and Minnesota. Nor does it mention the Detroit River, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Niagara River, nor the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 47.215.180.7 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Kilometres, yet mi?

Why is kilometres spelled fully, whereas miles isn't? Also, what's about other places that put the length at 5,527 mi?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What other places? Alaney2k (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
As for spelling, take a look at :Template:convert. Alaney2k (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE, land crossings to close March 20, 2020

Canada-U.S. border closure amid coronavirus likely to start Friday night https://globalnews.ca/news/6701112/coronavirus-canada-us-canada-border/?fbclid=IwAR1BsZHfilI3Ab3EZoAIK0NC0QAUJCt2kHSyc4lp_V4PBe2qi2LGi2xbfXY

Freight will continue to cross; essential travel will still be allowed, e.g. Canadians going home. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada–United_States_border/Archive_1&oldid=1153030834"