Talk:List of areas disputed by Canada and the United States

Canada: New Brunswick / British Columbia / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Canada or the United States may be able to help!

Article name

I think that this article should be renamed "List of areas disputed by the United States and Canada".

When "dispute" is used as a noun, it is often paired with the preposition "over", e.g., "a dispute over territory" or "a dispute over ownership of a resource".

When "dispute" is used as a verb, on the other hand, the preposition is not used: "the lawyers for the defence disputed the judge's ruling", "The Phillipines disputes Malaysia's claim to Sabah", "ownership of the area is disputed by Canada and the United States".

Here is the entry on "dispute" from [http:\\www.m-w.com Merriam Webster]:

Main Entry: 1dis·pute

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): dis·put·ed; dis·put·ing

1 a : to make the subject of disputation b : to call into question <her honesty was never disputed>

2 a : to struggle against : OPPOSE <disputed the advance of the invaders> b : to contend over <both sides disputed the bridgehead>

I'll wait for a few days for comments, and if there are none, I'll make the change. Thanks. Kevintoronto 14:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. Kevintoronto 21:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- You're wrong - 220.253.229.254 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well argued, my friend. But your argument is easily defeated: "Yo' momma!" So there. Ground Zero | t 11:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

historical disputes

shouldn't the title/list reflect historical territorial disputes; the Aroostook War, the Oregon boundary dispute (OK, OK, Britain vs the US, not Canada vs the US), the Alaska boundary dispute, the Northwest Angle, the San Juans, control of the Inside Passage and Northwest Passage and ??? Skookum1 06:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be updated to reflect that it only covers *current* disputes. If it is expanded to cover historical disputes, that's fine, but at the moment, this only covers current/ongoing territorial disputes between the US and Canada.Moonsword 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you attempt to make this update rather than just complaining on the talk page? --The_stuart 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be list of USA-canada historical disputes that been resolved this way we have two difinate lists. this would be similar to the larger wikipedia topic which shows all international disputes both current and resolved. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that a Minnesota island located in the Lake of the Woods was pretty sharply disputed as belonging to Canada for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.135.185 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strait of Juan de Fuca disputed?

I did a heads-up when I saw this - Whuh?! Looking at the CIA factbook ref on the Strait of Juan de Fuca page it's not specific. I'd imagine it has to do with the route of the boundary, or how it diverges once it's off Cape Flattery/Port San Juan (Port Renfrew, on Vancouver Island). It could be that it's an issue of an equidistant boundary being preferred by one side or the other, and would have to do with potential drilling rights - fisheries are already shared in this zone, and navigation has been guaranteed since the Oregon Treaty of 1846. What that treaty does state is the route of the boundary from the 49th Parallel shall follow the deepest channel to the sea (hence the San Juans dispute) so it may be that the channel through the Strait of Juan de Fuca doesn't conform to the usual equidistant thing in maritime boundaries; I know that the US uses the same argument, in fact, in defiance of the Alaska Boundary Treaty, which is why they don't recognize the A-B Line in the Dixon Entrance and have surveyed/auctioned drilling leases down to the mid-point/equidistance line of the Entrance (which is supposed to be wholly Canadian, like the Portland Canal, under the terms of the treaties...).Skookum1 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]