Talk:Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States

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

Comments[edit]

This article is just horrible. I cannot comprehend half of it. And it talks of all these attempts to annex Canada (both pre and post confederation) yet excludes the War of 1812? THis article appears o not even be worth fixing in my opinion.say1988 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebellions of 1837 and the short lived Republic of Canada on Navy Island[edit]

I also agree, plus the two Rebellions of 1837 were NOT annexationist in nature, they were launched with a goal of creating either one or two Canadian Republics sovereign of Britain, not bringing Canada into the United States. Please change that! - Chris Gilmore

I introduced some changes, but I still think that this article is CRAP! Any reader who knows nothing of Canada reading this before I made some changes may have actually thought that annexationism was a serious political movement within Canada! I am not well educated enough and free of time to add in an indepth article regarding the War of 1812 so I'll leave that up to someone else.

In all actuality despite the work fixing this stupid article that I have done, I still think it should be deleted, just because it is not really relavant to Canadian politics or Canada-U.S. relations. Practically no Canadians take this idea seriously or want it, no Americans are interested either and an annexationist "party" has not only ever garnered any popular support but I dont even think an annexationist party has ever run for office in Canada! I think this article is about as silly as an article about Catholic orangemen or Israeli neo nazis! - Chris Gilmore

HOWEVER, the American Articles of Confederation allowed for the possible future inclusion of Canada into the United Colonies, et al. Tomtom9041--68.80.207.22 14:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article is needed because there is massive misinformation inside Canada to the effect that Americans wanted to annex the country. That is the reason for the books and articles on the topic. It also helps answer another question, why did not the countries ever merge. Rjensen 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources need work[edit]

The sources cited in this article do not conform with wikipedia standards. Someone should take the time to properly fix them. Sirtrebuchet 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to e-mail the Nova Scotia Statehood reference and got a _permanent_ bounce. I suggest it be noted as no longer active. If someone from that group disagrees, please speak up. 24.89.232.179 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?[edit]

I mean, besides a few fringe groups, no one in Canada takes annexation seriously at all. It is far from a pressing political issue. It is POV, very pro-annexation (i.e. the "anti-annexationist rhetoric" or whatever). Also, the graphic representing Canadians' opinions is out of date. It comes from August of 2001, before 9/11, the war in Iraq, the slowing US economy, etc. In my opinion, this whole article needs to be completely re-written or deleted. --Lesouris (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of the map. I tried to make it clear in the title that it's 2001 data, so that nobody gets the impression that it's current. If you can point me to more recent polling that includes regional numbers, please let me know and I will make another version. Thanks!
Artist60 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does the black mean on the chart? Are those "uncertains" or are they interested in something else (e.g., independence)? --71.244.81.26 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it would change much. The fundamentals of annexation is that there are so many americans living in canada, and so many canadians living in america (not to mention international famlies), that it spawned this movement. It does exsist, and is is not 'fringe' by any standard method of measurement. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A survey from 2004 by the same company lists 7% in favour of the US and Canada joining. [1] I think these polls are rather dubious in general, but at least can we get a more recent figure here? That 20% pie-chart image is really misleading. 72.194.71.174 (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantica Party[edit]

Does this party support joining the US?

If not, then it might not belong in an article on Annexationist movements...

Artist60 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Looked through the Atlantica Party website but saw no evidence that they support joining the US. Perhaps the Atlantica Party would be a better fit on these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_Canadian_provinces_and_territories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Union
Artist60 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Claims Regarding Annexationist Movements Ideology and Public Salience / Support[edit]

The article makes four broad claims in the discussion of modern annexationist movements:

1. That they are generally libertarian in ideological orientation, or else 2. That they are generally neoconservative in ideological orientation.

&

3. That their general aims are usually unsupported by the relevant publics (which, though not defined, I assume to be American and Canadian citizens), and 4. That the relevant publics are usually unaware of the existence of such movements (which, I suppose, doesn't necessarily contradict #3, since you can be opposed to something once you learn about it despite your lack of prior knowledge, although it would be nice to see this discussed a bit more, but I digress).

The specific text reads: "Modern groups, which generally have a neoconservative or libertarian political stance[citation needed], do not typically enjoy much public support or awareness[citation needed]."

As far as I can tell, there is zero discussion of neoconservative or libertarian ideologies with respect to annexationist movements anywhere else in the article except for the general statement at the start of the modern movement section.

There are many references to polls, but I'm not finding any source discussed or linked within the article that actually comes out and says, from either a meta-analysis standpoint or a looser 'synthesis of results' standpoint that annexationist movements are low-salience issues or that they are broadly unpopular.

Hence, I added citation-needed tags to each claim. If there is evidence for these claims, clearly written and sourced, elsewhere in the article, such that the statements are merely summary narrations of previously established points, then please show them, either here in this discussion point, or via an internal-to-article reference link. Again, I fail to see the points established.

Please note, I'm in no way arguing about the claims themselves. I came to investigte annexationist movements. I saw the statements. I thought 'that's interesting, but I wonder where they're getting that information from.' I observed no citations for either statement, and I failed to find support for such statements elsewhere in the article. Hence, I added the tags

I don't really view my request as controversial, and I'm troubled that it might be seen as such--based on a quick review of the edit history for this page, I'm wondering if there are 'ownership issues' which are affecting the quality of the content.

In short: I'm not arguing about the claims themselves, but I'm asking the community to put up or shut up: if these claims are factually accurate, then source them. If they can't be sourced (or can't be established based on in-article analysis), then remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.1.254 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that every single modern annexationist group — every known one is referenced in the very same section — explicitly advocates a neoconservative or libertarian agenda, which can be quite clearly seen by simply looking at their own platforms. And the fact is that not a single one of them has any actual prominence as a political movement; the very lack of outside sources about them, apart from their own web pages, in and of itself constitutes proof of that fact. If they were actually attracting sufficient support that they could be considered a significant phenomenon in contemporary Canadian politics, then they'd be getting actual media attention — but they aren't, which means that they're not attracting significant support. The simple reality is that if the statement you're disputing goes, the entire section goes with it, because the statement is a simple summary of what the references already present in the section already demonstrate, not a separate statement that demands separate referencing to an additional source beyond what's already present.
Taking the statement in question out altogether would actually distort the proper context of the section, because it would create the misleading impression that the modern annexation movement is far more widespread and popular than it actually is. Accordingly, without such a statement to place it in its proper context, the entire section would have to be removed. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the disputed text goes, the whole section goes. And that's exactly what we must do: remove the entire section. There's no third-party reliable sources. There's no reliable sources giving a serious overview of the situation. Having the section at all, gives substantial overweight to a virtually non-existant political position. The existance of the section serves as a a nice excuse for linkspam, which we're improperly using as sources. If a political group isn't mentioned in any third-party sources, we should not be linking to the group's web site (e.g. annexation.ca). If/when good third-party sources appear, than the section can be-added with proper sourced content. --Rob (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added media sources for the groups that have actually been registered political parties, and canned all the one-man web movements. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You delete all the references to recent websites that promote a modern annexation and then you go about claiming that they are "neo-conservative and libertarian"? The poster is right. I'm from Annexation.ca and my website is mentioned in Fortune CNN and the Globe & Mail. Those are bad third-party sources because they are not anti-annexation? --Americalex
The citation by Fortune on the forum's front page links to a brief passing mention in a single blog entry by one blogger; it isn't substantial coverage about the forum. And in case you haven't noticed, the citation by The Globe and Mail is a dead link. That's why they're bad third-party sources — one is just a glancing mention, and the other one can't be verified at all until you provide a title and publication date so somebody can check print archives to see what the reference even says. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology — my personal opinion of the topic, for what it's worth, is quite different than you appear to think. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, can you please try the globe and mail link again? Because it's working for me I'm not sure how you got a dead link. It's a Jesusland article, just like the one you include on this page for "Reverse Annexation". The fortune article is not from a random blog, it's writer is the Executive VP of CBS Corporation! And the writer of the globe and mail article, is a senior advisor to premier McGuity of Ontario! He refers to Annexation.ca as "the active movement for the annexation of Canada to the USA". It's not like some random blog. It's important poeople from reputed sources. Also there is a feature film documentary being produced that will discuss this website and it's 800+ and growing community. Sincerely, --Americalex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.164.95 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just pulled up the Globe and Mail article "Sex, sloth, anarchy: Fringe has it all" dated Thursday, April 21, 2005 on LexisNexis. It's an 851 word soft news piece that mentions annexationism only obliquely in one sentence, in the context of fringe political parties in British Columbia in general; "Then there is the Annexation Party of B.C., which posits that British Columbia would thrive better as the 51st state of the United States." That's all the information that the Globe article contains regarding the topic, which of course means that even the claims already being made in this article (apart from the idea of the party merely existing) are in fact unsupported by that particular reference. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This particular discussion pertains to a Globe article that's being linked to (in dead-link 404/"oops!" fashion) from the front page of annexation.ca, not to an article that's currently present as a reference here. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the complete removal of the paragraph about the Annexation Party of British Columbia, I need to point out that as a political party duly registered with Elections BC, the party is notable enough for Wikipedia and thus needs to be noted in this article. Whatever this discussion identifies regarding minor web-based campaigns, any group that has actually organized itself into a registered political party must be reflected here whether it's actually taken all that seriously by anybody in politics or not, because registration with an appropriate electoral body is an inherent mark of notability for a political party regardless of its degree of electoral success or failure. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion over the reference. I agree that if the Annexation Party of British Columbia is in fact a registered political party, it meets at least minimal notability criteria, but I'd suggest that claims contained in material re added to the article should not exceed those contained in the reference provided. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flaws with the poll[edit]

I'm a little concerned with our use of the poll. It's fine to quote Leger for a Canada wide figure, which they claim a 2.5% margin on. But, they don't make any claim about the error rate at a provincial level. They polled 1508 people nationally. The numbers on a provincial level, are well below what's considered an adequate sample. If we use the poll, there should be some indepndent sources that either support or refute the poll's legitimacy. Take Alberta, with about 10% of the population, they presumably asked about 151 Albertans. How accurate of results do you get from that? And how can you compare different provinces? The graphic used at the top appears far more authoritative than it is. --Rob (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both with the inanity of such polls (based on such low numbers, from an existing selection group of subjects) and also with the presentation of the poll on the map, which does not show the percentages against (which are obviously much higher); me, I'm going to be bold and just delete it; it's way too POV and looks to me like a sell-job. And that's coming from somebody who's always considered the 49th Parallel a nuisance and, while not a rightist, has some sympathies for annexation (I'm "half American" on both sides, though my parents gave up their duality before I was born).Skookum1 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues[edit]

After reading the article, I'd say that pretty much everything so far discussed on the talk page has yet to be addressed. Therefore, I have added the Multiple Issues template to the article until it is improved. Zaldax (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annexation movements of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annexation movements of Canada. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced content cleanup[edit]

This article has significant unsourced content. I have marked the most obviously for referencing or removal. Per WP:BURDEN tags should only be removed if the content is referenced or if the content is removed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movements_for_the_annexation_of_Canada_to_the_United_States&oldid=1208038561"