Jump to content

Talk:Canada–United States border

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 6 March 2018 (OneClickArchiver archived Another possible 49th parallel exclave near Antler, ND). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You can (legally) walk across the border only at legal Customs ports of entry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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:

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment - Two distinct borders? What about Point Roberts, Washington? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada–United_States_border&oldid=829040637"