Talk:Oregon Treaty

message: Lots of POV terminology and syntax/lexicon that's subtle maybe, and taken for granted, but obvious as an issue of accuracy to a non-Yank, OK?  I'll be back; this is just my note about stuff like Vancouver Island being "given" to the British.  By whom?  The Songhees and Comox and Nuu-chah-nulth who lived there, or the fur trade colonists already there?  It's not as if the US had some kind of ownership to "give" anything; I made one minor edit here of a similar context.  From our perspective, using the same language, Southern Columbia was "given" to the United States.  There's more here that needs work, as was also the case in Oregon boundary dispute, which at some point I still have stuff to do in.  The "given" thing is only one of many things overleaf; but it's late and tomorrow's Monday.Skookum1 08:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huge POV problems here

message: Please see 
RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest.  If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on.  Thoughts?  Other contributions are welcome, i.e. in the nature of out-of-print materials and excerpts from sources/histories re given topics, including this treaty.Skookum1
:I have recently added a maps section to the resources sandbox; currently it has a series of NASA Aerial Earth images linked which may be useful in drawing a better map of the competing claims, focussing on the core area of the various boundary proposals north of the Columbia to its Big Bend, and a wider view could show the New Caledonia boundary (New Caledonia would have been "partitioned" the way the Columbia District was by the Treaty).  Additions of other public-domain map resources are welcome, and I'll be adding considerably more from my own collection as well as even more once I get my scanner working again ;- Skookum1 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory|BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum]]

message: I have a photocopy of the treaty which would be useful to have online, if it's not already somewhere.  It's not (that I know of) in Wikisource; I gather source documents are supposed to be posted there, not in Wikipedia per se - ?? Skookum1 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please put in WikiSource; it's online somewhere already, though in PDF maybe, haven't looked at it in awhile.  Kinda hard to type the whole fam ding, though....have fun.Skookum1 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text of Oregon Treaty - best in Wikisource?

message: I reversed the recent edit where a redlinked "Northwest Boundary Survey" was placed....but it, too, had an official name, and also a common name as well - Border Commission,in the form "Border Commission troops" (if that seems too vague, I think I've seen Northwest Border Commission but that was only in a history, not in a source) - and it's an article which does need writing), whether referring to the US or the British contingents.  It was after doing that undo that I noticed the changes in the opening paragraph:
:The Oregon Treaty, officially known as the Treaty with Great Britain, in Regard to Limits Westward of the Rocky Mountains, Buchanan-Packenham Treaty and also known as the Treaty of Washington
It's pretty obvious that in Britian it's not known as "the Treaty With Great Britain etc." and this would appear to be the US Congressional or State Department wording; inherently USPOV.  Is the British version only titled "Treaty with the United States, in Regard to Limits Westward of the Rocky Mountains", perhaps?  Or is there a name that both use "officially".  In diplomatic history, and in references in PacNW and BC history, it's usually referred to as the Treaty of Washington when not referred to as the Oregon Treaty or the Treaty of 1846.  Here's my preferred wording, as I think the common Treaty of Washington usage should be mentioned before the cumbersom official name (whatever it really is) and/or the US/British variants of same:
:The Oregon Treaty, commonly known as the Treaty of Washington, also known as the Buchanan-Packehname Treaty and officially as [whateve] etc....."
Re the previous section, the WikiSource version if created should try and have the joint title, not an "official" title used by the one side only.Skookum1 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Official" name in intro

message: This is clearly not a definition in the treaty:
:Due to difference in the location of the major shipping channel, both the British and the Americans had settled on the same islands.
And as far as 1846 goes, it's entirely untrue; the only US resident in the Puget Sound basin at the time of the treaty was GW Bush at Olympia; no islands had been settled at all ( the aregion was still native-domainted and had not yet been subjected to genocidal warfare....).and the risk of attacks by Tongass and Haida and others would be borne out in the meantime; it was not until that threat was ended (granted, by the US navy) that American settlers dared to challenge the British (or the local natives, or the northern ones) over the San Juans.  So I took it out....and it's not part of the treaty anyway...as it should be if it's in this section.  it also seesm to me that the AFtermath section should include a precis on the era of US vs. native warfare resulting frmo the treaty; the Pig War may have ben bloodless; the Yakima, Cayuse, Puget Sound, and other post-Treaty wars were not....Skookum1 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of item from "definitions"

message: I just happened to notice this, which is in the first ref:
 | last = LexUM
 | year = 2000
 | url = http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1818.15.en.html
 | title = Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the United States of America.--Signed at London, 20th October, 1818
 | work = Canado-American Treaties
 | publisher = Université de Montréal
First off a treaty does not come from a "work" and while the treaty is hosted on the U.de M. website they're not by any means its "publisher".  As for "work", the term - perhaps not available in the template's design? - is properly "collection" as "Canado-American Treaties" is how the U. de M. classifies the document (even though it's properly British-American...) and is not a common term in Englsh; from a quick google it seems that when it does occur it's a pastiche from the French coinage canado-américain .... in my view it's not properly an English construction and, while it's poliically fashionable to foist new terms into English that are un-translations from other language, I find it weird-looking and somewhat wrong.  But I'm also uncomfortable with treating the university as if it were the publisher, which it's not (the respective Foreign Offices/State Dept in Britain and the US were...).  Not visible in the text, and thankfully "Canado-American" doesn't occur in many other articles.  It's not an English usage; it's a French usage that the U.deM. types (a notoriously political bunch) have transferred to English because they donl't like the term "Canadian" (which is "too English"....I know the logic, you have to have debated this stuff with pequistes to fully appreciate the absurdities/hostilities involved....You'll note they didn't try "Amero-Canadian" as an alternative....Skookum1 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Canado-American" in webcite

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oregon Treaty. 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.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1818.15.en.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1846.28.en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't it be explained at first that the Webster-Ashburton Treaty had defined most parts of the Canadian-American border a few years before, to some extent making the Oregon Treaty the final step of the determination of the Canadian-American border? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other treaties