Talk:Canada–United States relations/Archive 2

Country comparison
The numbers for Ethnic groups in the US, add up to well over 100%. Is this a case of people self-identifying, on a mass scale, with more than one ethnic group? If so, I don't think that's allowed during a Canadian census, so clarification is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.29.241 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-US relations
There's a rather glaring problem with this article. It implies that Canada existed as an autonomous region long before it did. The war of 1812 was a war between the United States and the British Empire, not between the United States and Canada. It could not have been part of US-Canada relations because Canada did not exist in 1812.

This article should cover the relationship between the Canadian and American governments, from the time that Canada gained independence. Other aspects of this article should be moved to articles about the cultural relationship between the peoples of Canada and the US.

Canada as a sovereign nation didn't really exist until 1931, and it wasn't completely sovereign until 1982. If we want to be as generous as possible, the article can cover relations between the United States and the Canadian Confederation which started in 1862 (Independence was a process for Canada, not an event.)

But it's misleading to have the war of 1812 and other things that are pre-canadian in an article about Canada-US Relations.

Again, Canada didn't exist to have relations until 1862. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.105.82 (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree... Canada doesn't really have any history nor does it still have any identity on its own since it had only become a country since 1867. What is now considered Canada, their foreign relations were handled by Britain prior to 1867 and even up to 1931 and 1982 respectively, the British still retained a great deal of legislative control from Westminster.

I think that it should be considered that any history before 1867 should be deleted from this article since it is already covered in United Kingdom-United States relations. The War of 1812 was a war fought between the US and the UK. Canada had no relations with the US because Canada did not exist until 1867.--Yoganate79 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * better keep it--every textbook on the history of Canada covers the pre-1867 period--and they all cover topics like the war of 1812--so the RS seem to be in agreement to keep. Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

use of 'The British'
Can we please avoid using the British on its own as it's gramatically incorrect (British is an adjective) and its mildly offensive in that form, It should be either followed with something like People, Colonists, Crown, Army, ect. I've altered a few in this article, and In many cases Britain seems to be the form that should be there. Refering to Britain, her subjects or her forces as 'The British' is a direct equivelent of refering to the US counter part as 'The American'. (188.28.145.77 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
 * "Gramatically" incorrect? "Equivelent?" "Refering?" "Ect?" I'd venture to say you're in no position to criticize the article's "gramar."  C1k3 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how incorrect spellings on a talk page are all that relevent, the issue here is that the article (The bit people read) was wrong in a way that is offensive, If you want to go around spell checking talk pages thats up to you. (92.40.212.44 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Not true --Webster's 3rd Unabridged says it's a noun, and thousands of scholars use it that way. "BRITISH, noun: plural in construction  a : the people native to or naturalized in Great Britain" Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: "British" is indeed a proper noun according to Webster's Dictionary, and I'd be willing to bet that the Oxford English Dictionary lists it so as well. Also, "gramar" aside, who considers "British" in its noun form offensive?  C1k3 (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, no spell check was needed; so many misspellings in such a short blurb should raise the hackles of any Wikipedian. C1k3 (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotations section
I removed the section, but it was reverted, so per WP:BRD I'm bringing it here.

This section shouldn't exist. Per WP:QUOTEFARM there should never be a section of an article devoted to quotations, as this is considered overuse. Any useful quotations should be integrated elsewhere in the article, and the other ones should go.  elektrik SHOOS  16:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the quotes be moved to Wikiquote and a relevant template such as Wikiquote be placed in the article.  elektrik SHOOS  16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem by putting these high level statements in context. Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing the name of the section and reordering the quotations doesn't change the fact that it's a section of just quotations.  elektrik SHOOS  17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was never really a selection of miscellaneous quotations.  Rather, these were statements by presidents and prime ministers that proved  at the time, and to historians ever since, highly revealing of the attitude and tone of the international relationships.  Miscellaneous statements by miscellaneous people--what the Wiki guideline warned against -- are not involved here. Instead, what we have are insights into the very top leaders.  Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that. What I am doubting is that they're all placed into their own section. If they're really that important to the article they should be integrated into the other sections. Otherwise, they should be moved to Wikiquote. I'm not saying they should be deleted. But as it is right now, a section of just quotes, regardless of who said them, is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  elektrik SHOOS  17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a misreading of the Wiki guideline. These are not the miscellaneous quotations that the guideline warned about, there are important policy statements. Pulling them together allows the reader to see changes over 100+ years. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG now hes added POV statements like "with his usualy hype" and "sharply at odds with".......pls read Neutral point of view i will move this to wikiquotes over the next few days and will remove the pov cometary. Moxy (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "sharply at odds with" reflects the source (Piroutte)--and indeed every study of Trudeau makes the point that his Cold War policy was sharply at odds with the United States. It is not POV, it is the overwhelming consensus of the scholars and RS; I'll take out the "usual hype". :)  The section closely follows the Wikipedia guidelines which say that the quotations must be relevant to the article and put into context. Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assuming that readers know that scholars and RS say this (its not in the references you provide)...And the guidelines which say that the "quotations must be relevant to the article and put into context" ...this mean not just in its own section but rather " Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text. and in templates pls and we need publishers of books and isbn numbed cause as of now i cant fine your books to check... " Moxy (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The text makes clear as does the citation (Piroutte) that Trudeau disagreed on cold war policy with USA. The ISBN are optional, as the Wiki guidelines clearly state. Indeed the section closely follows the WP:Cite guidelines: All the presidential/PM statements deal with US-Canada relations in a major way; all are explicitly put into context, and all are cited. All the quotes are short--less than 50 words. Paraphrasing is not easily done when analyzing historical rhetoric (try to paraphrase the JFK quote and see what happens). The actual words matter, and the readers deserve to see them and to see how the rhetoric changes over 120 years of time.  I did NOT select any of the quotes--other editors did--but I think they're excellent for this article.Rjensen (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its clear you dont realy understand policies... I have great concerns over your edits in general..but as metioned before will leave you alone...and simply fix any Canadian articel you come into contact with POV and Undue weight POV and Undue weight POV and Undue weight ..be very careful to correctly interpret the "influential-ness" of any individual author.Moxy (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the last three items are summaries of recent and classic scholarly articles in leading journals and books--with full citations, and deal directly with the topics. What problem do you see? Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, how many historians accept McKay's thesis in regards to Canadian history? you say it was an "influential interpretation"..But hes the only one i can find with this views.Moxy (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Media
The two lists under Media vastly understates the cultural impact the two nations have had on each other in the media age. How about a list of Canadian media personalities active in the United States? Hcobb (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statements on Culture Clash (In Introduction)
This is a long post, but the subject matter of US-Canadian relations is very significant and extensive, and deserves a thoughtful editing process to accurately address the facts we present to the general public who read the Wikipedia entry. I will be careful not to state personal opinions.

The following two statements in the article's introduction, while not explicitly biased or incorrect, are not clear and mislead the everyday reader:

"A high volume of trade and migration between the United States and Canada has generated closer ties, despite continued Canadian fears of being overwhelmed by its neighbor, which is ten times larger in terms of population and economy. James Tagg reports that Canadian university students have a profound fear that "Canadian culture, and likely Canadian sovereignty, will be overwhelmed."[1] The two economies have increasingly merged since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994."

The word "despite" makes it seem the fear of being "overwhelmed" is some form of unsuccessful resistance by Canada to having ties with the US; fears which are overwhelmed by the power of trade. This may reflect some truth, but requires support through more background about US-Canadian cultural ties, since that’s what’s accused of being overwhelmed. The information preceding this “overwhelmed” quotation references the volume of trade and migration without stating anything specific about who the trade favors, which nation receives/loses the migrants and therefore benefits/suffers, and makes the notion of being “overwhelmed” an ambiguous one. There isn’t a universally obvious link between culture and economy to support including these two statements in the same paragraph, yet alone the same sentence.

The quoted statements are biased against both nations. They give off the impression that Canada's decision to trade with the United States very well may result in a symbolic loss of sovereignty and in the meantime will cause fears of such an occurrence, which seems insulting to the strength and dignity of the Canadian culture and the Canadian people. This is an extreme and narrowly represented opinion, and while it can be supported by some Canadians, it still has no place being mentioned in the introduction of this article without proper qualifications. Even then, it would be emphasizing something that doesn't demand it, and makes this issue seem like it’s a far greater point of contention between the US and Canada than it actually is.

This is not the impression Canada deserves to have representing them in this Wikipedia entry. The "fear" is better characterized as a “concern”. The inclusion of the adjective "profound", to make the term "profound fear", is clear bias. The "profound fear" is cited from a publication by James Tagg, who is mentioned by name in the entry as though people should know who he is. His article is well written but it can't be given a status of authority without a great deal more sources to back it up-- not in the introduction, anyway.

Canadian university students are not the sole representatives of this cultural clash matter, since the concern (at any level of intensity) isn't theirs' exclusively, nor is the “overwhelmed” view a unanimous opinion as the wording of this entry suggests. I read the James Tagg article, and find it to be inappropriately generalized to a point where it becomes an exaggeration in the context of this entry. Tagg’s article connects Canadians’ fears with the perceived "ignorance" of the United States, who worry the US might be too massive and uninterested to care about the affects of their actions on Canadian sovereignty. This isn't really what's stated as a reason in the current entry, and would be unacceptably biased for this introduction if it was. Canadian students are cited because James Tagg is a history professor. But just because his research observes students doesn't justify linking all Canadian students to this "profound fear".

The last sentence quoted mentions that the economies have been "merging". Economies of independent nations don't really "merge”. This is a misleading word choice, and seems to advance the idea that the US is "overwhelming"-- or in the case of an economy “merging” with another that is one tenth its size-- absorbing the nation of Canada. "Merging” is sometimes used in economic circles to denote similar economic policies adopted for moving forward, as opposed to the more common definition of a literal merger. This "merging" statement follows immediately after the “overwhelmed” commentary and perceptions of the “merger” will likely be perceived with those ideas still in mind. In the Tagg article, there is material citing how Canadians, on the whole, are extremely receptive to many aspects of American culture. But I see no mention of the cultural similarities between the US and Canada in this introduction-- similarities which are widely visible-- though the cultural ties are much more fitting to include in an introduction about US-Canadian relations. If anything needs to be mentioned, it's something about what is shared between these two cultures, not what is feared to be "overwhelmed" or negatively impacted.

To address bias against the US in the cited portion of the entry, the notion that a nation inflicts into people of another nation via its size and economic power can symbolize and stereotype the US as something of an unstoppable Giant. It is true that there are economic and cultural disputes between the US and Canada, but to portray the US in this light in the introduction of the article—before presenting a two-sided argument— threatens to persuade the reader towards beliefs on certain issues that I believe are seriously misrepresented in terms of the magnitude of their importance. The United States and Canada have excellent relations overall and the way these sentences are worded create a tone that is unrealistically negative.

In the few paragraphs following those already quoted, we read: “The foreign policies of the neighbors have been closely aligned since the Cold War and after. Canada has disagreed with American policies regarding the Vietnam War, the status of Cuba, the Iraq War, Missile Defense, and the War on Terrorism. A serious diplomatic debate is whether the Northwest Passage is in international waters or under Canadian jurisdiction.” Canada remains Americans' favorite foreign nation according to a recent Gallup poll”.

This says that policies have been closely aligned, but then states that Canada has disagreed on almost every unpopular action of the US. This is mostly true, but it is biased to disconnect the two nations so that the entry examines what Canada disagrees with, rather than stating that there have been disagreements between the two nations over certain policies. The last sentence quoted, which we read after we’ve been told about Canadian disagreements over unpopular wars and a dispute over the Northwest Passage, says that Americans still view Canada as their favorite foreign nation. Out of context, this is a fine thing to include-- relevant and statistically supported. But this sentence seems oddly placed after both portions of the introduction previously cited. There is none of the necessary material that a reader should have to draw from which would inform them of how close these nations actually are on a cultural level. A relatively quiet, opinionated juxtaposition is manifested through the selection and order of the facts stated: a nation (Canada) which fears it will be overwhelmed by its massive neighbor (US)—a neighbor who provokes “profound fear” and may be trespassing into its neighbors waters—is still the most beloved nation amongst the citizens of the imposing country. This is too lopsided for introduction material. These issues should be brought up later on in the article where there is room to review multiple viewpoints in further depth.

Given this bizarre bias— which seems, except in the case of the previous paragraph, to create an unsupported and negative portrayal of both countries— it’s easiest to just remove the “overwhelmed” portion from this article. The Gallup poll then becomes more of a significant piece of data as it should be, and I’ll look for an actual poll on Canadian views of the US. The “overwhelmed” portion will be replaced with a short statement that recognizes the cultural and ancestral ties between the US and Canada, and also a need for the nations to develop cultural independence from one another in the international spotlight, specifically Canada. This will also reflect the cultural identity issues that more commonly emerge in mainstream media, rather than those cited prior to the editing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.204.6 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * we should keep as is and not try to be simplistic. This is not an article about the people of Canada or the US, it's about the relationship of the two countries. It's a very complex relationship and the complexity and paradoxes should not be suppressed. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

--Rjensen, I'm completely agreed on the fact that this article is not about the people of Canada and the US. Not specifically, anyway. It's a wider article, about political/historical connections, up to the present, but culture plays some role in this. As the article was, there was already a mention of culture, but it only talked about the US "overwhelming" Canadian culture, and was out of place and without a solid explanation which would require more space than we want to dedicate to the introduction, which should be concise. Keeping it as it was would mean we'd need to establish both viewpoints in the introduction, but I don't find research indicates the idea that Canadians feeling the United States will overwhelm them is a wide enough perspective (it's too exaggerated), and it is probably better explored in its own section, do you agree? I hope all that I wrote above (using different computer now) isn't coming across as simplistic or like simplifying things more so than they should be in an introduction... there are plenty of things we can discuss about US-Canadian relations, and we can bring this up if we properly qualify why there are Canadian fears over their culture being overshadowed, and who commonly holds standpoint in a cultural argument... just not in the introduction, at least not in any format similar to how it was. Because you are right, it's really not about the people of the US and Canada, though we can mention culture a bit because they share enough common heritage. The introduction of an entry is a preface and a filter for the rest of the article, depending on what a reader already knows/believes, and bringing up what seems to be minority viewpoint, without a counter viewpoint, seems to be out of place and downplays the reality of US-Canadian relations. Relations are definitely complicated, but are strong overall, and that seems heavily downplayed in the original version of the introduction (well, in the parts I edited anyway, not at the very beginning of the intro). I'm not trying to downplay/play up anything, simply keep a neutral tone to introduce a reader to the major issues surrounding the topic. I hope you don't view my edits as "suppression", as that certainly isn't the intention. I just don't think the pre-edited version was an accurate representation of US-Canadian relations by any means, especially given the narrow source that had been used in support (Tagg) and the even narrower demographic sourced. If anything was suppressed, it was the reality of the general closeness of the cultures, despite their individuality. At the risk of sounding too biased myself-- the term "profound fear" that was used? That's ridiculously biased. I've lived and studied in both nations and have never heard anyone put it this strongly. Apologies for my wordiness... I know it's ironic my edits are aiming to keep the intro concise and yet I can't seem to make my explanations that way... I probably won't be back on for a while so if it's the consensus that my edits be changed, be my guest, but I hope my case is sound enough here to at least properly justify what I have removed as of yesterday evening from the introduction to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Month's Edits (November 2010)
Clear POV edits, for the most part, being added to this article. Completely breaks Wikipedia's rules of neutrality, specifically the rule which I'll post below. No counter-arguments presented, extremely uncommon viewpoints given heavy weight to create bias. I don't have time to fix all these at the moment, can someone review this and do so, or explain to me why we would accept these edits? There's a theme of "fear" under construction...

Wiki Rule of Neutrality: "Accurately indicate the RELATIVE PROMINENCE of OPPOSING VIEWS. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately REFLECTS THE RELATIVE LEVELS OF SUPPORT FOR THESE VIEWS, and that it does not give a FALSE IMPRESSION of parity, or give UNDUE WEIGHT to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but DAVID IRVING disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent PARITY between the SUPERMAJORITY view and a TINY MINORITY VIEW by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

In the above, "David Irving" is the equivalent of "James Tagg" in the introduction. The supermajority view is just completely downplayed to the extent that it is present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.204.6 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Aligned / Disagreement
"The foreign policies of the neighbours have been closely aligned since the Cold War and after. Canada has disagreed with American policies regarding the Vietnam War, the status of Cuba, the Iraq War, Missile Defense, and the War on Terrorism. A serious diplomatic debate is whether the Northwest Passage is in international waters or under Canadian jurisdiction."

The paragraph starts saying that the foreign policies are "aligned," however the rest of the paragraph cites disagreements. I think either the first sentence should be reworded or there should be a "however" preceding the rest of the text. There could also be an elaboration on issues where the countries agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.252.61 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fears of Being Overwhelmed" -- In the Intro??
There is still no coherent explanation of why this minority opinion, citing a single demographic of Canadians, reported by an obscure figure ("James Tagg") should belong in the introduction to the article, rather than somewhere else. It is clear POV pushing. For many readers unfamiliar with the subject, it can filter all subsequent material through a biased lens.

I tried to remove this for at least the second time yesterday. The user "rjensen" has already reverted my edits, as he has done before, with an abbreviated explanation that does not make sense to me. Does anyone agree with his opinion that we should keep this bit about the USA overwhelming Canada in the introduction to the article, rather than deleting it, or moving it elsewhere? I suggested the latter originally. I explained all my edits of the article extensively, when I originally made them over a year ago. See Archive 2, "Statements on Culture Clash" for my take on the matter.

Just because there is one reliable source that reflect the facts that some Canadian students think they will be overwhelmed by the USA, it does not mean that this idea belongs in the introduction, especially without a proper counterargument. Furthermore, I feel that if any opinion related to the "overwhelmed" idea is to be cited, it should reflect the wider sentiment of Canadians, which generally seems to be that the USA overshadows Canadian culture on the international stage, but it does not "overwhelm" it in the sense that it will be destroyed. The part about how sovereignty is threatened makes the opinion a relatively extreme one. I cannot find reliable evidence that any significant minority of people think this way. At the least, more sources need to be cited. The common heritage of USA and Canadian need to be considered, of course, because the two countries have always shared a number of culture elements.

Any contributing editors of this article, please let me know your thoughts. I have no problem mentioning the James Tagg study, but it does not belong in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Culture is hard to define in any community, and is intrinsically much more a matter of POV than hard fact. Before you can even begin to discuss culture clash you need to be able to define the differences between "American culture" and "Canadian culture, and then proceed with defining how one has affected the other and in what way this is detrimental to either. Such a topic could well become a target of considerable POV venting rather than fact based analysis. Perhaps such discussion would be better suited to a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 February 2012 (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.


 * That line does not appear anywhere in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Military and Security section?
The first 4 sentences of the second paragraph under the Military and Security section are nearly a word for word copy of a paragraph appearing on the U.S. Department of State website page at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm#relations.

State department text:

U.S. defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country. The Permanent Joint Board on Defense, established in 1940, provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defense matters and the United States and Canada share NATO mutual security commitments. In addition, U.S. and Canadian military forces have cooperated since 1958 on continental air defense within the framework of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

Wikipedia text:

American defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country.[36] The Permanent Joint Board of Defense, established in 1940, provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defense matters. The United States and Canada share North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mutual security commitments. In addition, American and Canadian military forces have cooperated since 1958 on continental air defense within the framework of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

While the article does cite the specific State Dept's website page as a source, I don't think that authors are supposed to copy original text directly and change a couple of words - assuming the State Dept's text IS the original. It is possible that the plagiarism has occurred in the opposite direction.

Sykobabul (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * US government documents are not copyright and there is no copyvio. (Wiki: "public domain resources can be copied without permission.") With a full citation credit is given and there is no plagiarism violation either. Rjensen (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's Just Getting Worse.
The POV pushing and bias in this article, continuing on my post above ("Fears of Being Overwhelmed" -- In the Intro??") is just getting WORSE. I know that on Wikipedia we are all meant to have respect for one another and our opinions, but honestly, who the heck is editing this thing? Now, in the introduction to the article, we not only have a one-sided story, but we now have the citizens of Canada being referred to as the "cultural corrective" of Americans. How is this not blatantly biased? I understand it's referring to Canadians (possible) perceptions of themselves, but it still only tells one side of the story. A few people have said this is a legitimate issue, but after scouring over Google, I barely even see buzz about it, yet alone legitimate concerns that belong in the introduction of an article. Would someone please comment on this, or perhaps change it? This article reads as though it's been written with an unsubstantiated anti-American tone. Because there is a particular user that constantly reverts my edits, I hesitate to change it myself, but will do so if I do not get any responses to this post.

And, once again, we have an obscure writer, "Jennifer MacLennan", quoted in the introduction. This is just like "James Tagg". Whoever is writing this, please remember: this is meant to be a public encyclopedia, not a college essay, and we should not give credit to almost unheard of scholars as though what they say is monumentally important. It creates a bad filter for the article and is misinforming a lot of people. I understand she may be an accomplished professor, but to plainly say her name as though we are supposed to know who she is, creates a distraction from the fact that what she is saying is a minority opinion. It's really no different than the idea that Canadians fear there sovereignty will be overwhelmed by the USA, which is a tiny minority opinion. The source quotes only a small group of Canadian students, written by a single author, and there is little support elsewhere on the web.

I am going to quote again the Wikipedia rules of neutrality:

Wiki Rule of Neutrality: "Accurately indicate the RELATIVE PROMINENCE of OPPOSING VIEWS. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately REFLECTS THE RELATIVE LEVELS OF SUPPORT FOR THESE VIEWS, and that it does not give a FALSE IMPRESSION of parity, or give UNDUE WEIGHT to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but DAVID IRVING disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent PARITY between the SUPERMAJORITY view and a TINY MINORITY VIEW by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

The supermajority view is just completely downplayed to the extent that it is present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.68.56 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Anon wants parity with his own personal POV--he has been unable to cite any reliable sources that support his views. Wiki articles are based on reliable secondary sources, as in journals and major books. Take a look at Yankee Go Home: Canadians and Anti-Americanism by a leading Canadian historian J.L. Granatstein (1997). Also look at biographies of Trudeau, when the phenomenon reached a peak. As for using google-- ok here are 7000 google-scholar citations from books on the subject of Canadian anti-Americanism: these are all found on the first two pages of first 20 titles in a Google book search, and all appear in reliable secondary sources. (1) "Anti-Americanism is alive and well in Canada today, strengthened by, among other things, disputes related to nafta, American involvement in the Middle East, and the ever-increasing Americanization of Canadian culture." (2) "More than anything else, Diefenbaker became the tragic victim of Canadian anti-Americanism, a sentiment the prime minister had fully embraced by 1962." (3--page 2 of listing) "In its most extreme form, Canadian suspicion of the United States has led to outbreaks of overt anti-Americanism, usually spilling over against Americans resident in Canada." (4) "In no respect is this defensive posture more salient than in Canadian anti-Americanism. "  (5) "The adjective “anti-American” is bandied about very readily by Canadian mini-cons and theocons" (6) [from The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics 2010] "anti-Americanism is deeply ingrained in Canadian society"; (7) "Despite the magnitude of Canadian trade with the United States, there remains a reflexive anti-Americanism among many" and (8) "But at the heart of Canadian anti-Americanism lies a cultural bitterness that takes an American expatriate unawares. Canadians fear the American media's influence on their culture and talk critically about how Americans are exporting ..." etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Response: Obviously there is some anti-Americanism in Canada. This means nothing, necessarily, with regards to the structure of this article. I was referring to the specific idea that Canadian students fear their sovereignty will be overwhelmed, or that Canadians consider themselves cultural correctives to Americans. And I asked for another side of the story, and questioned how big of a deal this was to put in the introduction. Your response here is confusing. As far as "citing my sources", I am questioning your views and whether they belong in the article, not making additions to the article. Several of your quotes are very weak examples... many countries could claim anti-Americanism on the basis of involvement in the Middle-East... that doesn't mean it's a relevant enough addition to put into the INTRODUCTION of an article on one of the most trafficked websites in the world, that is meant to specifically talk about the MAJOR issues between two specific countries.

As far as your sources go, you did not comment on the obscurity of them. You have still not properly defended James Tagg (yes, that was me who removed that a year ago). I don't see why you get to just dub a source "reliable", when I thoroughly explained why I determined it "unreliable" (or, rather, inappropriate to add). I read that source, left you detailed comments, and you said something like "Don't POV push" and reverted my edits. You are not making an argument here. (re: Culture Clash in Archive 2)

Again, there are two sides to every story. Please try to tell both if you are going to edit this article. Many Canadians would laugh at the idea that the USA causes a "profound fear" that their sovereignty will be overwhelmed (and why do students' opinions have so much weight, by the way?). But there likely won't be many sources to support this, because the initial premise-- that it even might be the case-- is so rare that such sources wouldn't exist for a counter argument. Nevertheless, I'll take a look...

One last time... this is about obscurity clouding neutrality, and onesidedness breaching neutrality. I am not trying to say that what you're saying is not true at all. I'm sure it is true the the extent that it is. But how much is that? The points in question fall so far below the relevance required to be in the introduction to an article, that they should be immediately moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.68.56 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * we edit Wikipedia using reliable sources. I have cited a dozen including famous Canadian historians (Bumsted and Granatstein), and the critic has not found a single source that supports his position. He has not indeed clearly stated his position, but I think he's arguing that evidence of anti-Americanism should be suppressed because it's an unhappy topic. The critic lives in Los Angeles, so perhaps he wants to protect the local movie-TV industry which Canadians say is too violent. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Picking on my location is very obvious evidence of how blatant your POV pushing is. That seemed like a discriminatory comment. I was trying to be tactful about this, and that was completely uncalled for. Referring to me as a "critic" is equally uncalled for, and condescending. You have cited a dozen famous Canadians? No you haven't. Do you even read the comments you respond to? I am talking about the INTRODUCTION of the article, NOT whatever section of the article has these sources you speak of. I mentioned, by name, both sources I was challenging, and their placement in the article. You have once against ignored this, and ignored my argument against their obscurity. My "position" is that your position belongs elsewhere in the article, or should be removed. It is inappropriate if left as is. An introduction is meant to highlight the MOST MAJOR of concerns. I don't understand this constant use of the word "suppression" from you. I have said a number of times that it would be fine if you moved these points to their own section.

We edit Wikipedia using reliable sources. Obscure sources in introductions are clear violations of the neutrality conduct expected of editors on this site. You need to support the specific sources and placement I am challenging. It is very difficult to include sources to challenge yours because, again, I am talking about their obscurity with regards to their specific points, i.e. what you quote from them. My issue here is these specific sources and their relevance. I guess I just have to keep saying this. It's not like your saying Canadians hate America and I'm saying Canadians love America. I'm saying you can't tell a one-sided story. Tell both sides or mention it later on, but the introduction to an article is an important filter for a reader and a lot of people read what's written here. It's very important we work these matters out. I don't care if you think a source is "reliable" that supports your points, it still doesn't mean that source is reliable with regards to their RELEVANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * unsigned simply has not cited any reliable sources, and he does not even live in Canada. So why depend on his credibility? But in any case his POV is useless because of the Wikipedia rules requiring RS, of which I have provided a dozen and given links to thousands of books at first 20 titles in a Google book search For example, the The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics (2010) p 391 says "anti-Americanism is deeply ingrained in Canadian society"...is that an obscure source? is that not relevant? Please read Granatstein's book.  Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer you don't even respond to this if you don't have time to read what I write. I was referring to Tagg and quotations in the introduction to the article. I have said this over and over and pointed out that I have said this over and over. You are completely ignoring my argument and looking for a back door. I openly admitted that there was obviously some anti-Americanism in Canada and you have ignored that as well. I don't know what sort of source I could possibly cite to prove that yours is obscure. What we're talking about here is the relative weight of your the POV of your sources in the intro, re: 'profound fears' and 'cultural correctives'. This involves observation of politics, buzz, news articles, etc., as well as prominence in the media. The introduction of an article is for captioning major issues.

"And he does not even live in Canada". Wow, you don't even try to hide your bias, do you? Why do I need to live in Canada? I can't think of a more obvious way of you admitting that you are forcing a Canadian POV (albeit a minority POV) into this article (though I have no clue if you're Canadian yourself). Where I live has absolutely no bearing on the structure or credibility of this article. I have asked you to defend two specific sources and their placement in the introduction of the article. You have now responded 3+ times and completely disregarded this argument. You are operating under the belief that the only way to prove your sources are obscure is to do so with other sources, which wouldn't likely exist for combating obscure arguments. And you've ignored my complaint about your discriminatory attitude and gone on further, but that's fine. But you cannot disregard a person's argument because of their location.

You either have no idea what I'm saying or you're choosing to brush off what I'm saying to push your own POV. Wikipedia's rules requiring RS are not free of Wikipedia's rules of neutrality, of which you are in violation. But let me know if you genuinely believe something I am saying unclear. There is no need to be disrespectful over such a small and contained argument. I haven't reverted the article back to the version that it should be, because I didn't want to be disrespectful to you, especially because I generally yield to someone with such a strong education. But you have not supported your position against my challenges at all. It's like you're arguing against something I'm not even mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.68.56 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * still no sources--who wants to believe this California kid who does not read Canadian history? Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me where I would cite a source when removing content on the basis that it does not have enough weight to be in the introduction, or why I would need to cite a source if I moved your introduction comments to a section later in the article. "Californian kid"? You're way out of line. You have not supported your sources and their placement, which was the only real issue at hand here. You're trying to change the subject by acting as though there is going to be a source that says "Canadian students do NOT have a profound fear..." when your original sources were too obscure for such sources to exist. I don't see why you have any right to edit this article with this dismissive attitude you employ. And I don't see how reading Canadian history has anything to do with the RELEVANCE of putting these points in the introduction to the article, but once again, I'm wasting my words, you're not listening to anything I'm saying.

Of course, if I was ADDING to the article, I would automatically cite a source, but not all instances of removing content neccessitate sources, especially when the issue is a challenge to a sources obscurity, re: Wikipedia Rules of Neutrality.

Also, I'm not a "kid". Discrimination is a common substitute for an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.68.56 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * anon thinks he knows the Canadian mind, but does not live in canada and does not read (or cite) books or other RS on Canada. When confronted with multiple sources that can be (partly) read online he ignores them. deleting sourced material violates the WP:NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

RJensen blatantly ignores everything I'm saying. I told you specifically that I read the Tagg source a year ago and I repeated that today. I had plenty of justification for removing that quotation from Tagg. You have glossed over everything I have written today. "Knowing the Canadian mind" is a very vague concept and has very little to do with the relevance and weight of your points in the overall spectrum of the relationships between the USA and Canada, and their placement in the introduction of article. You are very quick to dismiss me as a "Californian kid", which is probably WP misconduct. You are clearly POV pushing and making major issues out of minor issues. Your defense of your points is highly presumptuous. You need to defend why the two sources mentioned in the introduction belong at the beginning of this article as opposed to being entirely contained in the "anti-Americanism" section which is a much more appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.68.56 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anon argued that the "supermajority" of reliable sources contradicted the three scholarly sources listed in notes 4-5. I provided another 8 RS making the point. As for his supermajority, it turns out to be zero. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is "anon" logged in. The only issue at hand here is the weight and relative prominence of your sources. That means the challenge is to the placement and relevance of your sources, particularly Tagg. This has nothing to do with my sources, it's a structural issue regarding weight. I understand that there is anti-Americanism in Canada and that there are sources to support that. It still doesn't mean that citing those sources elsewhere justifies the claims of "profound fear" and "cultural correctives" going into the introduction of an article, which are highly specific.

Quote from Tagg:

"Complicating these "anti" emotions is a still more profound yet not always well articulated fear that Canadian culture, and likely Canadian sovereignty, will be overwhelmed by a United States too ignorant and too uninterested to even notice the consequences of their actions."

"NOT ALWAYS WELL ARTICULATED". Read that again and ask yourself if Tagg would agree that this "profound fear" is a big enough issue to, say, go into the introduction of an article on US-Canadian relations. It doesn't even bother me that Tagg does not cite a source for this claim, like he does nearly everything else in the article, because it's a very measured statement and in direct conflict, placement wise, with what you've done in this article. Please move the claim from the introduction and put it elsewhere.

This will be my last post on the matter for now. I do not have the time or energy to continue this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Outside view
I was asked to take a look at this situation. First we must all keep in mind civility is paramount in moving conversations forward (I myself sometimes have a problem with this main point). I see some undue weight in the article and what looks like some original research here on the talk page since no sources have been provided. Both sides are making good points but but only one is providing sources for there point - I believe this is simply a lack of understanding Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I do agree that there is a bit much on anti American statement. It is correct information but its presented as a real social problem. I would say the lead is a bit overwhelmed - however removal is not the answer - addition of a counter point(s) would be best I think. The article should mention more clearly that the culture clash has influenced legislation like CRTC content in more detail. Were it should also mention how Canadian laws such as " publicly funded health care, higher taxation to distribute wealth, outlawing capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, an emphasis on multiculturalism, stricter gun control, and legalization of same-sex marriage are very different thus showing a vast cultural separation that has evolved. This would all be related to how Canadians view how they are different and have laws that are NON America in nature and are not in danger of being Americanized any time soon.... unlike Canadian media that we here in Canada (and most of Europe aswell) try to help and protect from outside influences. Anti Americanism  is not dominate for the  average Canadian resulting  in limited outcry or media coverage. Tat is not to say its not been a concern for the Government as a whole. Moxy (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate this response. I agree with most of what you said, though I'm still confused as to how one could bring in sources to prove the relative obscurity of other sources. It seems like proving the argument against their usage in the introduction would actually require a lack of sources that assert the points in question (other than those challenged). Your suggestions are very good and the point about the difference between Canadian and American laws would be particularly effective. But I'm not sure the sources in question belong in the introduction and not in the anti-Americanism section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was not clear - what should happen is mention perhaps even a section to balance it all out stating - showing - Canadian support and admiration   for Americans and there culture. This is were sources would have to be obtained. They do not need to contradicted persay the other material - but simply show another side/view point. Like how many Canadians have participated (joined the American army) in conflicts, despite official or neutral  position by the Canadian Government to no join the conflicts.Moxy (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Academic and Business Ethics
What Canadians fear is called cultural encroachment. It is not an overwhelming fear. Rather, it is a belief that, if left unchecked, American influence will encroach upon Canadian culture. Canadians have taken steps to protect themselves, such as levying tariffs on Time Warner to protect Canadian Broadcast and publication rights. See the following lengthy passage from the source I found:


 * "For the purpose of this study, cultural encroachment is defined by the level at which managers within NAFTA countries perceive the advancement of external business cultures to be unacceptable as to influencing sustainable business endeavors within their country’s borders. For example, the fear of cultural encroachment has been a concern for Canadians for some time and has influenced various regulations. Canadians have feared being overwhelmed by the much larger United States’ (US) culture. The US is ten times the size of Canada in population and gross domestic product. Thus, the Canadian population’s strong sense of identity is believed to have lead to engagement in cultural protectionism. For example, the Canadian government believed that Time Warner, a US firm, was engaging in cultural dumping and thus imposed an excise tax on all foreign magazines sold in Canada that contain less than 80% Canadian facts. The Canadian government utilized formal institutional resources to enacted local content regulations to promote Canadian ownership of several industries specifically film distribution, radio, and television (Fergusson 2008)." - predatory open access

You must realize, though, that it is NOT specifically the USA that Canadians fear. It is the encroachment of other cultures upon itself. If it were a country south of the border called Anycountry, then Canadians would fear encroachment by Anycountry. This is just as true as if Canada were ten times the population of the USA. Americans would fear cultural encroachment from their northern neighbor. This is not controversial or hard to understand.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * every RS says it's the American culture they fear--not that of Britain or France or China or Russia or India or Mexico or Japan--examples include the culture of violence in American TV and movies (and in American streets).  Rjensen (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That *IS** specifically American culture encroachment that Canadians fear. This is due to the same reasons given (huge border contact). The States is the only neighbour sharing a border with Canada. Look at the rampant fear of other dominating their economy after the NAFTA agreement. Americans have more culture encroachments in their country to fear due to many borders shared. Canadian (British influence), Mexican, and Cuban via the bridge, but that is a horse, of a different colo(u)r, (a)i(s)n't it? We need to get a more compact accent to identify optional letters if we are going to have common spelling. :) 99.251.114.120 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * it's not so much the geographical closeness, it's the cultural closenesss that is the issue, added to the long-term draw that pulls lots of Canadians to the USA. Hollywood is a major factor not because it's close to Toronto but because movies/TV/music makes a difference. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

anti-Canadianism
There is a section on anti-Americanism. There should also be a section on anti-Canadianism. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have any reliable data on that topic then please provide it. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Another ref
For those who have a little time, The Globe and Mail has an article title Obama ‘jilted’ Canada, leading U.S. journal says that may be used as a ref or to extend the article somewhat. Mind matrix  19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fears of being overwhelmed & Advocators of Unification
in the top section where it is mentioned that there are fears in canada "to be ultimately be overwhelmed" among some canadians/students (my personal perception and experience is that that has happened long ago already anyway) and a name is cited, i have added that there are also voices active in canada who openly and very actively (increasingly so in recent times) advocate a unification, naming one of the most prominent and broadly known in that field (Mr. Les Horswill). for source i have added a link to an extensive interview about that topic, it is on youtube and i hope this is an accepted link this time knowing that youtube contributions may not be valid otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.32.61 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) hmm i have provided my entry with several different links to it, yet it has always been deleted, i guess canada will be annexed either way :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.52.29 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, while the article statement is cited, it seems poorly representative of actual (or at least current) Canadian attitude where the topic could hardly be called a "fear", much less a "thing" at all, and if when it is a "thing" it seems the viewpoint is the opposite, preferring to discuss unification in a positive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.125.58 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mingling of Peoples and Mormons
The Following Statement can use clarification or rewrite, as it is misleading:
 * In the 1890s some Mormons went north to form communities in Alberta after the LDS Church rejected plural marriage.

Members of the LDS church began to move to southern Alberta before the LDS declaration in 1890, with the first few people being settled in 1886, resulting in the establishment of Cardston Alberta. information can be found on the LDS website with a ton of sources And mention of some Mormons moving to Alberta as early as 1883

The LDS Church was involved with several different endeavors in Canada, as early as 1830, where people both came to and left Canada influenced by their involvement with the LDS Church.

Although some members were involved in plural marriage (i.e. Charles Ora Card ) to have the content written as if it was the sole reason, and then reference a date that happened after people were settled, would be incorrect.

As such, how to correctly include this point in this article I am unsure of so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.245.108 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Currency
We seem to be missing a statement that affects trade: currency fluctuations. It could be mentioned at a high level here. At a lower level article elsewhere. This is a serious concern for businesses near the border, specifically (and elsewhere as well). Diminished in importance with the advent of credit cards, which facilitates currency exchange. But before credit cards, and even now, business people must make decisions regarding exchange. At various times in the past, both sides accepted each other's currency at face value when they didn't deviate too much, say 10% or so. Coins sometimes circulated with ease on either side. With the introduction of "loonies" and "twonies", this easy acceptance of coins has diminished in the US. Student7 (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Canada–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324005525/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2003/05/02/us_pot_rxn030502.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/05/02/us_pot_rxn030502.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Treaties
It was my understanding that the United States and Canada have had a long and good partnership I also know that Canada has some of the best horseman there is and do a good job of training United States Troops in mountain riding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calevingston (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Canada–United States relations. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406092452/https://www.histori.ca:80/prodev/article.do;jsessionid=8D3831D48EE489EBCF46813C8427E685.tomcat1?id=15356 to http://www.histori.ca/prodev/article.do;jsessionid=8D3831D48EE489EBCF46813C8427E685.tomcat1?id=15356

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canada–United States relations. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.histori.ca/prodev/article.do%3Bjsessionid%3D8D3831D48EE489EBCF46813C8427E685.tomcat1?id=15356
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505162220/http://canada.usembassy.gov/ to http://canada.usembassy.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505162220/http://canada.usembassy.gov/ to http://canada.usembassy.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canada–United States relations. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606040521/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090128/canada_obama_090128/20090128?hub=Politics to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090128/canada_obama_090128/20090128?hub=Politics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318171615/http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/obama-on-growing-friendship-with-trudeauwhat-s-not-to-like--/42014494 to http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/obama-on-growing-friendship-with-trudeauwhat-s-not-to-like--/42014494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Internal vs. External
Presently, p5 of the lede reads:
 * Today there are close cultural ties, many similar and identical traits   and according to Gallup's annual public opinion polls, Canada has consistently been Americans' favorite nation, with 96% of Americans viewing Canada favorably in 2012.  According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, 84% of Americans view their northern neighbor's influence positively, with only 5% expressing a negative view, the most favorable perception of Canada in the world. As of spring 2013, 64% of Canadians had a favorable view of the U.S. and 81% expressed confidence in then-US President Obama to do the right thing in international matters. According to the same poll, 30% viewed the U.S. negatively. Also, according to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 86% of Americans view Canada's influence positively, with only 5% expressing a negative view. However, according to the same poll, 43% of Canadians view U.S. influence positively, with 52% expressing a negative view. In addition, according to Spring 2017 Global Attitudes Survey, 43% of Canadians view U.S. positively, while 51% hold a negative view.

................ This is interesting and all, but I think the article could be enhanced, beyond my means to do so (so please forego any thought of -bombing me), by providing comparative figures showing what percentage of Americans have a favorable perception of the US in the world, and so on. The way the article reads at present, I think, presents a dichotomy that does not exist. Cannuckistanis and Americans have broadly shared ideas of what is favorable and unfavorable, sometimes conflicting, but often broadly concordant, and the notion that unfavorable views on one side or the other are evidence of discord is masked by not presenting simultaneous ideas about dis/approval of each other's countries and their governing politicos on the other side of the border...sometimes in opposite directions, as is so clearly the case right now with the opposite poles demonstrated by the Harper vs. Obama administrations and the now Trump vs. Trudeau régimes. ....please excuse the references... 68.113.225.4 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing all entries from PrinceForPeace
I will begin removing the false fictional pieces of writing by PrinceForPeace created in March. None of the users comments are correct in any way and should not be in this article.

Tigernike1 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing is complete. Removed all contributions from PrinceForPeace.

Tigernike1 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)