Talk:North American Union/Archive 5

OR and Neutrality in history section

Since it seems there is no intent by those putting this biased section into the article to modify it I have tagged it. The section attempts to push a position that details of the concept originated with critics who are then identified primarily as conspiracy theorists. Since there is no evidence for the claim it constitutes original research and at worse is an outright falsehood since the critics are only repeating details in academic or government proposals. By saying these details do not originate from there and in fact originate with the people criticizing the idea of a North American Union the section serves to advance a POV which wants to paint the entire subject of the article as a baseless conspiracy theory or urban legend as the editors involved have made plenty clear is their personal opinion of the subject.

The entire section also serves this POV by being scant on details of the proposals cited by critics but being very detailed in describing the attacks on critics. It also does a lot to emphasize the various rebuttals of the allegation but seems intent on avoiding proposals for such a body by prominent individuals. Also it emphasizes right-wingers like Corsi and almost entirely ignores the role played by major trusted anchors like Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck, who have both discussed this and ultimately have a large viewing audience. It seems in general the motivation behind this section is to diminish people suggesting there are plans or an intent to create an NAU and support claims no such motivation exists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We both have differing views on this subject, Devil, but we also, it would seem, have differing views on how to properly and most appropriately present controversial material. I will show in the following that my approach is in fact the most neutral and sourced approach here, and that your previously promoted approach is not. Simply put, we may have a difference of opinion about the NAU, but I've done my homework in terms of researching the subject and you have not and further and more to the point, despite your protests to the contrary, you have failed to cite anyone who agrees with the "history" you have promoted, while I have. And, in case you fall back on the argument that, while sourced, my selection of citations reflects a bias, I will also show that both sides - the critics (Like Dobbs, Corsi etc.) and the skeptics (mainstream media etc.)- are in fact in agreement on most issues of fact, even if they have differing conclusions, and those agreed-upon issues of fact are the basis of most of the "origins" section.

The Issue of "Origin" - Devil objects to the approach here, viz The section attempts to push a position that details of the concept originated with critics who are then identified primarily as conspiracy theorists. Indeed, much discussion was done (see above) on the admissibility of text which described Fox's efforts on nafta-plus, and on the general disagreement over whether previous proposals for a NAU-like body truly were part of its origin. But in fact, the issue is not as complex as Devil makes it out to be. Simply put, all we have to ask at wikipedia is: What do the sources say on the subject? And the answer is: the skeptics identify people such as Corsi et la as being the source of discussion of "NAU," and when those people are located, and their articles read, you find exactly that - they identify the NAU as being the true goal of the SPP. Since these critics identify this as a subterfuge, that the NAU is being enacted in secret, (which is what the skeptics say these critics are saying as well) it seems clear there is little need to further search out the roots beyond what they claim. So what do they claim? That the NAU is the goal of the SPP, formed in 2005; that the Task Force confirms this and supplies specific goals; that Robert Pastor is a driving intellectual force and more details of the "true" goals of the SPP are to be found in a book he wrote in 2001. All of this is sourced and cited. Yet, Devil still objects to this, and still does not feel the need to find his own, sourced roots for the concept of "North American Union." Nowhere did I find anything that differed from the above, nowhere did I see a suggestion, for example, that Vicente Fox had proposals which were adopted and formed the basis for the Amero, or what have you. The important point to note is even if Fox suggested in 2001 elements which are now identified as part of the NAU, we need a source to state that his proposals formed the basis for those elements. It is not enough, as Devil has repeatedly suggested, to provide a synthesis of available information without supplying a source for the claim. To do so is in fact drawing original conclusions and is therefore original research.

The issue of "original research." Since there is no evidence for the claim it constitutes original research and at worse is an outright falsehood since the critics are only repeating details in academic or government proposals. Sorry, you are wrong, Devil. No one, before the critics, identified a NAU as they described. If you can find a source which says otherwise, let's see it. And, since they specifically described those various details found in academic or government proposals as being the foundation of the NAU, and this is cited, and skeptics say these ideas emerged from these critics, and this is cited, how you can claim this as "original research" is beyond me. What "original research" is to be found here? Have you read the sources? This is exactly what they say and claim! Again, what is "original research" here is to go to old proposals and identify certain elements as making up a "North American Union" or the basis for its proposals without any citation saying these elements formed a basis, which you have repeatedly attempted to do here.

The issue of "bias." By saying these details do not originate from there and in fact originate with the people criticizing the idea of a North American Union the section serves to advance a POV which wants to paint the entire subject of the article as a baseless conspiracy theory or urban legend as the editors involved have made plenty clear is their personal opinion of the subject. The problem with your assertion here is that this is what the sources in fact claim, both as to who started talking about the NAU, and what those "who" in fact described as being the source! Again, if you can find other sources which say something else, then let's see them! The further contention that the conclusion is inescapable that this is a baseless conspiracy theory is your view and is not supported by the structure of the section. Since the critics themselves claim these plans are going on behind closed doors, we can't know for certain if these claims are true or are false. There is nothing POV here, unless you insist on inserting unsourced material to suggest this movement towards an NAU is operating outside of what the critics or others claim. THAT would be POV as it seeks to buttress a contention that a NAU is in fact being planned or, perhaps, implemented. That is something which the section states no opinion on, yet you want to impose it, it instead states plainly the main opinions of whether the NAU is being planned or not.

The issue of emphasis. The entire section also serves this POV by being scant on details of the proposals cited by critics but being very detailed in describing the attacks on critics. The section is called "origins," Devil. The following sections describe the particulars of what is identified as being proposed for the NAU. The section is, by my count, 982 words long. Of those 982 words, a grand total of 97 are devoted to the views of skeptics. In contrast, some 465 words are devoted to describing: who the critics are, what they claim, what they say the goals of the NAU are. Other parts describe what the governments themselves claim are their goals. These claims are not "attacks on critics," they simply reflect what the governments in question describe as their goals.

The issue of credible and non-credible sources. Also it emphasizes right-wingers like Corsi and almost entirely ignores the role played by major trusted anchors like Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck, who have both discussed this and ultimately have a large viewing audience. That's because this is the "Origins" section and Corsi etc are the ones the sources describe as the ones who identified the NAU! I most certainly do mention Dobbs (we can insert Beck if you wish) but the reason the section doesn't lead off with what they say is because the sources don't say they started this discussion (which I would say is the most pertinent piece of information in a section entitled "origins"), it says they have publicized it. And, I'm sorry, but I fail to see how one concludes from the article that Corsi etc are to be considered unreliable cranks. Indeed, Dobbs has even talked with him on his show on this very subject![1] If Dobbs was the first to talk about this, why bring in Corsi to discuss the subject? To let him know about the NAU?

The issue of motivation. It seems in general the motivation behind this section is to diminish people suggesting there are plans or an intent to create an NAU and support claims no such motivation exists. The only motivation is to supply the origin that is best-sourced. If this is what the sources tell us, then I'm sorry you don't like it. But we can't make up scenarios to suit our pre-conceptions, which is what you seem bent on doing and which seem insistent on imagining I am doing, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

In sum, Devil has failed to identify any "bias," rather he exposes his POV by insisting his unsourced origins claims replace my sourced origins claims. IOW, he complains that his POV is not represented but fails to acknowledge there are no sources for what he contends.

He further has failed to explain how any of what is in the section is "original research," since all of what is claimed is sourced and, most importantly, both critics and skeptics are in agreement on many important aspects of the origin of the concept. There is nothing "original" here, it is a regurgitation of the views of both sides of the debate.

And, further, his claim that more time is spent debunking the NAU claims than explaining it is disingenuous because a) the specific claims are chiefly described in following sections and b) less than 1/10th of the text is in fact devoted to the opinions of skeptics while half of the text describe the views of the critics. The remainder is chiefly the descriptions of the governments' stated goals. Canada Jack (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is transparent. Your various comments in the past make it abundantly clear what your desire for this article is actually. The people who support you have the same bias. Every last one of you has been abundantly clear that not only do you think talk of an NAU is just the ramblings of insane or ignorant conspiracy theorists, but that you believe the article should reflect this as the "fact" and not as merely an opinion. Ironically, even though you attack me for being biased I'm the one who's shown the most objective analysis of the situation. You're like many self-proclaimed skeptics in that you call yourself a skeptic and claim your views are simply a result of such skepticism when in reality you're just being cynical and biased.

Since it is the biased version of events of your own conception that are at issue I don't consider your opinion very relevant. You have yet to address any of my major concerns over the past months.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So you have no interest in working toward consensus because the rest of us are wrong in our opinions? --Kralizec! (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in moving towards consensus. However, you and Jack show a reluctance to move towards such consensus because it would not satisfy your POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Devil: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone, however, is not entitled to their own facts. And that is what this boils down to: Not that you and I have different biases here on what the "truth" is - that is not and was never the issue, nor should it be - but on what the facts are and where they lead us. And, unfortunately for the approach you seek, the facts do not support your opinion.

And that is the ultimate challenge here - to create this section based on what can be supported by various sources, whatever our biases may be. Which is precisely what I have done. You have argued for a different approach in tracing the origin of the NAU but, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the sources I have found don't describe anything reassembling what you are talking about.

But more than that, it seems clear to me that for you the very mention that skeptics consider this a "conspiracy theory" somehow completely taints the article with a "bias" despite the fact the section otherwise heavily covers the views of those who see plans afoot. The reality is that many dismiss these ideas as rubbish, and to pretend they don't - as it seems you want to do - would seriously undermine the neutrality of the article. You seem to think this would only be achieved by a) omitting any dissenting views and b) focusing on only those NAU critics you deem most "credible." As I have repeatedly pointed out the structure of the section reflects what the sources tell us. And the sources a) identify the roots of the talk of the NAU in the manner I have in the section and b) chiefly focus on the mentioned critics as the source for this discussion. All of which is cited and sourced. I'm sorry you choose to see people like Corsi as "whacky conspiracy nuts" or whatever, but that is not what a reasonable reader of the section would read them as.

I also note, that despite my lengthy and specific refutation of your views, you have chosen to dismiss, with a wave of your hand, the fact that I have again specifically answered your concerns and you have, again, yet to explain how we can proceed with what you propose since you have not offered any sources to back what you claim. And, further, your tedious claims of "bias" without anything specific other than the mere mention of skeptical views on the NAU which take up about 1/10th of the section, can only now be seen as a mark that you won't tolerate the views of others and therefore label everything "biased." IOW, you are not making any credible arguments here, Devil, so it's time to put up or shut up: Supply sources which support your claims, or remove the tags. Canada Jack (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not your place to issue ultimatums. The neutrality is in dispute and unverified claims remain in the section. You did not give a lengthy and specific refutation of anything. You just continued to accuse me of pushing a POV, in spite of my efforts to resolve POV issues including most recently my proposal, which you rejected, to change this article into a subject which would allow the conspiracy theories to be specifically addressed independent of the general concept of North American integration and unification. One example of something you provide which is unverified is the claim that Vicente Fox said he was disappointed with the lack of progress towards a North American Union. He has in fact said no such thing in any of the sources provided and the source you provide has him only saying that "long-term" there could be a North American Union. The lack of progress he mentions is talking about immigration reform. This is just one case where you misrepresent the information in the sources used in this section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Advocate, you don't seem to be satisfied with any version which doesn't take the claims of the conspiracy theorists dead seriously. That ain't gonna happen, because to do so would not only constitute a NPOV and verifiability violation, but would constitute undue emphasis on their claims that it's real. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what my position is and I would hope that would be clear. The article intro makes it clear this is about the concept of a North American Union which is described as a continental union similar to the European Union sometimes including a single currency. It also says the proposals sometimes call it a North American Community. Yet, in spite of the scope being considerably broad in the intro, Jack insists on narrowing it to discussing the conspiracy theory. What's more Jack's version off the bat claims the details of the concept originated with the critics rather than the people who the critics cited. The name could probably be said to have originated or been popularized by them, but the concept itself certainly not, let alone the details. This has a serious impact on neutrality because it ultimately links the concept with conspiracy theories. However, the conspiracy theories are based on proposals from academics and officials. If I accurately said the details come from official and academic proposals, Jack would claim I was pushing a POV. However, that is by all neutral accounts what the facts are on the subject. Jack and others seem to think if you can find a major news source which has an article making a claim then you can cite it as fact in the article. I've noted that the articles being cited are clearly biased, but this has been ignored apparently under the clearly invalid argument that because there is verifiability neutrality concerns can be thrown out the window.

The details of the concept of a North American Union were taken from official and academic proposals which in many instances often proposed something similar to or identical to the North American Union as described by conspiracy theorists. Making this point clear is crucial, because it prevents the reader from coming away thinking any mention of a North American Union is just some fruit-loop conspiracy theory. I have no problem with pointing out the factual inaccuracies of the conspiracy theorists. I do have a problem with acting like the conspiracy theorists just made it all up when they do have sources which do at least partly justify their claims.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any mainstream newspapers or news magazines that have covered the NAU as being anything other than -to borrow your phrasing- a "fruit-loop conspiracy theory." --Kralizec! (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that was true it wouldn't constitute an argument for inserting blatant POV-pushing in the article as you suggest it does. The term "conspiracy theory" has a very negative connotation of which I'm sure you're well aware. Throwing it around constantly and putting out statements from Corsi about a "socialist mega-state" and describing how these are seen as part of a long line of conspiracy theories about a national or global cabal of political and corporate interest trying to erode national sovereignty only serves to further poison discussion of the actual topic of the article. A person reading this section who may be skeptical of the NAU talk but wants to know what truth there is to it, if any, will be convinced by these characterizations that it's just some crazy idea come up by xenophobic right-wingers who form militias to fight UN peacekeepers. That's the kind of image this section creates.

Your position seems to be that if it's verifiable it's ok to include. However, if the source is biased, inaccurate, or the information itself creates an image of bias with undue weight given to one side of that criticism, this section doesn't talk much of the lack of transparency in the SPP or the heavy influence of corporations in that body. It also doesn't mention how the groups who started the Task Force include prominent politicians and corporations. There's a lot of attention given to Corsi and a lot of effort in citing denials and criticism of views on the idea without focusing the actual subject itself. The subject, mind you, is the concept of a North American Union. The section is to deal with the history and/or origin of the concept. Yet this section goes on and on about the SPP and primarily deals with criticism of the SPP. As I said before, it reads like a criticism section for the SPP article. Not only that, but it hardly describes the concept at all or what is being cited from these proposals. Jack argued that the details are mentioned elsewhere, but it mainly cites NAFTA Superhighway and the amero, not the other issues which are far more relevant.

So while it lacks specifics on any of the proposals it does get specific on how people view the NAU talk and gets specific on what the people in the Task Force or government said they weren't proposing in that it gives their denials and even quotes their statements on that issue. Why does Jack consider the Task Force's statement that a North American Community shouldn't rely on "grand schem of confederation or union" relevant enough to directly quote, but not then President Vicente Fox's suggestion that integration of North America should lead to a point where the border can be erased? I would think both are relevant, but only the one suiting Jack's POV is directly cited. This section pushes a POV by inclusion of information which serves no purpose other than discrediting another POV while omitting information which may discredit Jack's POV. It also makes various inaccurate statements and unverified claims which further push this POV by suggesting, implicitly, the very idea came from conspiracy theorists who are so nationalistic any attempt at regional integration is seen as socialism and an attempt by a "cabal" to destroy their country. The reality is they cited details in reports and official actions and put those together under a concept that, while similar, is not quite the same. However, the similarity is important because by all means the formation of a common market and customs union is advanced by the SPP implicitly, though not explicitly. In fact, this is something which people like Lou Dobbs were saying before the term North American Union was used to describe it. It is important that the perspective on what was being pushed did not change in detail, but only changed in name. When NAU became popularized Dobbs used this term to refer to the same exact policies.

Wikipedia policy recognizes clearly that it is the details which matter, not the name itself. Since the concept of a North American Union itself really includes a common market and customs union and doesn't always include a monetary union or full economic union, the fact people saw the SPP and Task Force recommendations as advancing such a situation or in the case of the Task Force and other academic proposals outright called for such a thing is relevant. Indeed, you will find far more non-conspiratorial people commenting this matter which fits under what the concept is defined as in the intro. The European Union isn't a complete customs union or complete common market. It isn't even a currency union or have complete freedom of movement. So being similar to the EU doesn't mean it has to have a currency or completely erased borders in order to be similar since the EU itself doesn't have those. The section I proposed included the Technate idea, talk of a NAFTA Plus, and goes into the academic proposals and SPP because they do have relevance to telling the history of the concept. Not only because the academic proposals and the SPP are cited by some people as advancing a North American Union, but also because the various proposals have a variety of elements of the concept of a North American Union. You want to argue that talking about them in context of the history of the concept somehow claims they are part of such a thing or somehow connected, but they're not. There's not even anything implicitly connecting them. There certainly isn't anything that implicitly connected the Technate to anything after it. It only noted that such an idea was proposed a long time ago and is still proposed by that group, this is clearly separated from what follows and your desire and Jack's desire to find some ill motive in bringing it up is transparent. I only relocated one section at the bottom because it seemed important to describing the history of the concept. It then goes on to describe the calls for deeper integration including proposals prior to the SPP which certainly fit under the definition of the concept of a North American Union. That's the key. Just because something is not called the North American Union doesn't mean it won't fit under that definition. Wheel wasn't defined until after the wheel was invented so it clearly wasn't called wheel at first, but the article on wheel notes things which are similar or identical to what is now called the wheel. Just because it goes by another name doesn't mean it's something which shouldn't be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this fully in short order, but just a few points to note initially: First, the link to Vicente Fox, backing up the statement "However, he has also expressed frustration with the lack of progress towards that goal as issues such as immigration reform proved to be contentious within the United States" absolutely supports that claim. Not sure what you are talking about here, Devil, though I am having trouble loading the Daily Show clip here in Toronto as it redirects to the Comedy Network which carries the show here. Perhaps I need to find a better link. But in the clip, we hear Fox talking about the increased barriers to immigration with a tone which can best be described as frustrated, saying recent (October 2007) political actions are based on "fear," to loud applause from the audience. That was, let's recall, right in the middle of the collapse of attempts at immigration reform. He then extols the virtues of enhanced trade, etc.

Secondly, let's not forget that although the section is structured in reference to those who identify the "North American Union," the section nevertheless identifies the following related concepts/bodies: 1) The North American Technate; 2) the Free Trade Area of the Americas; 3) The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America; 4) the Independent Task Force of North America  ; 5) the book "Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New". So, to pretend, as you do, that the section narrowly focuses only on what a few describe as the NAU ignores the fact that five other distinct concepts are mentioned and partly described.

Finally, in reference to the quotes which describe the North American Union as "the latest example of a long line of misguided conspiracy theories," it is important to note that the concept is not what is the "conspiracy theory" according to these skeptics, it is the secret plans to implement the concept that is the "conspiracy theory." That's the nuance here you seem intent on glossing over, again and again. And, just in case the casual reader misses the nuance, in the very next sentence we read Some of these NAU skeptics, while expressing concern about the lack of transparency of the SPP, note that this is not evidence of a plot to create a North American Union. Explicitly, therefore, we are not suggesting the concept of a NAU is a "conspiracy theory" or that no one has ever suggested a NAU or its elements (how could we, since we describe or mention five related concepts, and mention that former Mexican president Fox favours such a concept), but that the claims there is a plot to implement it IS a "conspiracy theory," according to the skeptics. Canada Jack (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you not see how your claim on Fox's position is not supported by the source? I watched that episode when it first came on, I saw that interview and I have watched it several times on YouTube. He does not say or suggest that there has not been sufficient progress he only says "long-term yes" in response to Jon asking about the possibility of a North American Union. He does not say anything about progress towards that goal, he doesn't even suggest it's a goal. Right after Fox says yes Jon goes into asking about a South American Union as I recall. Fox's mention of an NAU isn't discussed in the slightest.

As far as other "concepts" mentioned I'm wondering why on earth you even include the FTAA. That would just be a FTA for the entire Americas and has no bearing on a North American Union. Also the key here is that you are arguing they are distinct. You are separating the Task Force recommendations and the book by Pastor from the idea of a North American Union even though the later includes a damn currency union and the former suggests setting up a common market with a common security perimeter. It just goes right back to your bias. You're distinguishing them from each other because you want this to be about the idea as a conspiracy theory or the result of musings by conspiracy theorists. The fact you have the term "NAU skeptics" proves that's what you're doing. They're not skeptical of the concept of an NAU, they're skeptical of the specific talk of one being secretly planned for implementation in a matter of years through the SPP. By suggesting people skeptical of the conspiracy theories are "NAU skeptics" you're conflating the two.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your ears are stuffed, Devil. In the interview, where Fox talks about the benefits of free trade, he bemoans the climate of "fear" which was driving the debate on immigration. For one who advocates opening the borders (at least eventually), this is a serious setback to those ultimate goals. All the line says is that Fox expresses frustration with political developments within America which serve to delay (at least) those ultimate goals. Not really sure what your problem here is. I mean, if he says "long-term" in regards to the NAU, well, this is one of the reasons why. Which is all the line in the text is saying.

As for your comments about other concepts, you reveal your bias. You at one hand dismiss other concepts as having "no bearing", like the FTA, yet you insisted on including the Technate which, clearly, has no bearing. All the line claims is that there had been various concepts floating around, the NAU was described by critics.

As for this: You are separating the Task Force recommendations and the book by Pastor from the idea of a North American Union even though the later includes a damn currency union and the former suggests setting up a common market with a common security perimeter. Uh.. so? The problem here, Devil, is that none of these other proposals - NONE - are identical with what has been suggested by those who describe a NAU. As for "separating" them, what are you talking about? They are separate proposals, and Pastor, who wrote the book and chaired the Task Force, has repeatedly said that what he suggested in his book would not be applicable for North America. But that's not even the point. The only people who are explicitly linking these two are those who are describing the NAU. They are the source suggesting that the goals are linked. No one else. Certainly not Pastor. All the section does is describe the claims of links here, yet you have this huge problem. I am at a loss to know why, which is why I suggested you do your homework on the subject.

It just goes right back to your bias. You're distinguishing them from each other because you want this to be about the idea as a conspiracy theory or the result of musings by conspiracy theorists.

If you can find a source which suggests that the elements as described being in the North American Union are an amalgam of those various sources, and that source is not Corsi etc., then supply the citations. What is your conceptual block here, Devil? Repeatedly I have said that when I've searched to discover the "source" of the NAU I find, on both the side of the critics and the skeptics this: The SPP's goals are "confirmed" by the Task Force; The Task Force describes some (but not all ) elements of the NAU; The NAU is further described by Pastor's book; Pastor, being chair of the Task Force therefore supplies the "true" goals of the Task Force and of the SPP. If you can find something different, SUPPLY THE SOURCES. That's all I have done here. I've not sought to make this into some "whacky conspiracy theory," I've simply gone to the sources, sought out what was claimed and reproduced those claims. I utterly fail to see what your problem is and have to conclude that you simply don't know this and haven't done your homework on the subject. I don't even supply skeptical readings of this scenario - the only time the skeptics are invoked is in expressing their lack of belief that all this is being implemented behind closed doors. Which is an opinion held by substantial numbers and therefore warrants inclusion. The mention of this in no way denies that proposals have been made, and, as I previously noted, can't as I've already mentioned some of those proposals(!).

The fact you have the term "NAU skeptics" proves that's what you're doing. They're not skeptical of the concept of an NAU, they're skeptical of the specific talk of one being secretly planned for implementation in a matter of years through the SPP. By suggesting people skeptical of the conspiracy theories are "NAU skeptics" you're conflating the two

??? The text quite clearly states that the skepticism extends to the issue of implementation. Not to the existence of the concept. How one can read this otherwise, given the mention of various proposals out there, some of which propose specific elements others identify as being part of the NAU - like the Amero - is beyond me. Yet, this seems to be one of your conceptual blocks.

Devil, let's be clear here: The text as written does NOT deny that proposals are out there which contain elements of the NAU. And it does not pretend that these "proposals" are merely the paranoid imaginings of some lunatics. However, when it comes to the implementation of these elements the skeptics say THAT is simply conspiracy nonsense.

If you feel that this is not apparent or too subtle, I can easily adjust a few lines to make it crystal-clear what the "conspiracy" the skeptics are talking about is. Canada Jack (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the end, Devil, the problem with your approach is that no one had proposed something called a "North American Union" by the time Corsi and crew came along. No one. Nor did anyone propose a NAU by another name, as described by folk like Dobbs. No one. What Corsi and others did was glean details of the "proposal" and its implementation from various other proposals and amalgamated them into what they called the "North American Union." Which is precisely what they, themselves, described. If this was not so, then why do they describe numerous sources from which this "proposal" comes? However, when we talk about the NAU, many, many people are asking: What is it? What are the plans? Since "what is it?" can't come from any of those other proposals as they didn't propose a "North American Union" by name or by another name, we are forced to go by what others identify as the "proposals." Which is why the section is structured in the manner it is.

You seem to have a great problem recognizing this simple reality, that what has been described as the NAU is an amalgam of various proposals. And that the implementation, which is what the skeptics describe as the "conspiracy theory" is what is claimed is going on behind closed doors. Where do these "implementation" claims come from? Chiefly, it would seem, from the timetables within the Task Force. Which is why, for example, despite no recommendation for the Amero or common currency by a different name in the Task Force, we nevertheless have the suggested goal date of 2010 found within the Task Force (for other measures) affixed to Pastor's proposals for an Amero found elsewhere.

IOW, if we don't structure the page in the manner I've done, then we rightly should be accused of Original Research as there is no such "origin" except what you've, seemingly, pulled out of your head. The "origins" I have found is sourced. You have yet - and this is probably the tenth time I've requested this - to supply an alternate sourced origin scenario. All you talk of "bias" is off-base, as what is clear here is that you simply will not accept a scenario which differs from your approach, which is unsourced and, more to the point, unsubstantiated. As I said before, we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. I've got the facts, you do not. Period. Therefore, your objections are unwarranted, so it's time to remove the tags. Canada Jack (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this theoretical?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&ei=GY7ySMvcKJe2qAPAt_gB&q=zeitgeist

Around 1h:42 they talk about how this agreement has already been signed by George Bush in 2005. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.128.110 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just another crackpot hoax. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a bunch of paranoid nonsense. Some commentators looked at the Security and Prosperity Initiative - which says nothing about implementing anything resembling a "North American Union" - and linked it to the Task Force on North America, an independent discussion group which praised the SPP and offered proposals for greater integration (far short of anything resembling a North American Union). In their paranoid ramblings, the commentators seemingly did not bother to closely read the Task Force report as they claimed it "confirmed" the goals spelled out in the Report were to be implemented by the SPP process by 2010. The Report says nothing of the sort. Further, some of these goals - like the adoption of the amero - aren't even in the recommendations. But since Robert Pastor headed the Task Force, and he had a few years earlier wrote a book suggesting a common currency, that, somehow, became a goal of the Task Force, and, somehow, became one of the goals "confirmed" by the Task Force of the SPP. And the "Zeitgeist" film irresponsibly repeats the same nonsense found in the initial comments on this. Now, so many people are convinced of this, and so few people have read the Task Force report, that this has become an Urban Legend. The fact that we are a mere 15 months from implementation doesn't seem to stop the talk, even though it is clear nothing is happening towards the supposed implementation of the NAU. Canada Jack (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Difference N.A.U. and Anglo-American Reunification

Probably what we will see in a decade will be the Reunification of Anglo-America with Canadian provinces like Ontario and British Columbia becoming American states and the Canadian Dollar integrating into the U.S. Dollar.

Even it is possible that both Puerto Rico and Quebec, which are not English-speaking but share a common History with Anglo-America, vote in a Referendum to join the U.S. too as states... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.58 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

America's economy and political structure is a shambles currently and it makes little sense to suppose that Canada or some of its provinces would want to join America. Simply put, we have it better than America in too many ways to want to do it. Besides, continental integration is in retrograde motion at the moment as witnessed by the almost paranoid ranting about the mere concept of further integration. Those fences going up in Mexico are no sign that unification is on anyone's agenda.

If Mexicans had a little bit of self-respect, they would be never wanting to join two countries who hate them. Alberto 189.106.8.8 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada has opened talks with the European Union, so it will be interesting to see how that develops. Some of the proposals would see a free trade agreement far more ambitious than what we see today in Nafta. As it stands, the most likely thing to happen in terms of free trade and integration is Europe and Canada extending their trade zones while America retreats somewhat into parochial concerns. Things may turn out different, but there seems to be a built-in resistance within America to these sort of changes. I predict America will be left behind as the world moves on without it. And that means America will be a great power, but no longer a dominant one. Like Britain and France, with influence and past glories, but lacking anything close to the influence it had in the past. Canada Jack (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I had suggested to politicians in the Caribbean that they should have teamed up with Canada to push for something trans-atlantic in nature. Anyway that fell on deaf-ears and the CARICOM bloc and the Dominican Republic instead signed a big huge sweeping deal that binds CARICOM+Dominican Republic (CARIFORUM) with the European Union (or more specifically the European Commission) when the CARICOM heads actually finished reading the text they realised it actually gave the EU courts far reaching powers over the even the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) even. I suspect Canada's might be as equally sweeping but Canada will probably put something in place with better dispute resolution. According to the deal which CARICOM+DR signed, persons who are in the media industry in the Caribbean can now have the right to access media jobs in in E.U. countries.

CaribDigita (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Omit quasi-official statements section

I omitted a section which was added that states Canadian officials have proposed to the new president a harmonized environmental policy. This relates in particular to Canadian concerns that talk of labeling Alberta tar sands oil as "dirty" oil would hinder trade, and Canadian officials are hoping a harmonized environmental plan could be a way to avoid a trade war over the issue.

However, how this relates to a North American Union is not established here. For inclusion, it has to be. International agreements and cooperation are not, per se, a form of denial of sovereignty, nor am I aware of claims that this is some aspect of what some have described as movement towards a NAU. At the very least, we need some references that some, indeed, are saying this is what the section claims here: Some Nationalist critics would argue that such a continental plan is but another example of quiet diplomatic movement towards a North American Union. If they "would" say that, then we can't include this here as this is some editor's opinion that others might feel that way. Either some do say this or they don't. Therefore the section has to be omitted. Canada Jack (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right you are on all counts. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC) wanted to vote N.D.P.

The last day or so, there seems to have been an effort to insert more material which suggests an incremental movement towards an NAU. The major problem with this is that as far as I know no one but those who have inserted the text have been claiming that this is part of that incremental movement. In regards to these efforts, the way the article is written, claims from those who see an incremental movement afoot can quite easily be inserted within the "origins" section with one basic proviso: That there is a source claiming that the particular initiative is part of a movement towards the NAU.

If we do not stick to this basic approach, then the page descends into a forum for claims which may or may not have any foundation in reality. Because of the nature of the controversy, we must ensure we identify a) what the claims are and b) who is making those claims. Canada Jack (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to remove "bias"/ "original research" tags

This is getting silly. Time to remove the "bias" and "original research" tags, Devil. Your arguments to the contrary were long-ago utterly demolished, and your minor points with merit were addressed. Your insistence on keeping the tags there are no longer defensible. Indeed, since the argument set out as to the origin of the concept come from several sources, how the "original research" tag and the "unverified claims" tag can still be there is beyond me.

I will at the least remove the "original research" tag unless you can identify what on the page falls under that description. I fail to see it, and, indeed, no one else but you believe this page deserves these tags. Canada Jack (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your arrogance and rudeness aside you seem to have a problem understanding Wikipedia policy. The tags are placed when a matter is disputed. The neutrality and verifiability of your version is very much disputed. You can argue all you like that you are simply right and have more people of your exact same mindset on your side but that isn't good enough. However, the truth is, what I'm saying would be plainly obvious to someone taking an objective approach to the subject but you come to this article with a bias. Your primary objection to my version was some nonsense about the structure of it, but not much about the substance or actual tone. Your version has problems in its structure, tone, and substance. You have failed to address my issues and until you or someone else do the tags will stay.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the character, Devil. Perhaps it's time for you to, for once, explore some of these Wikipedia policies you so pompously and sanctimoniously advise me to re-acquaint myself with (or, worse, introduce myself to). You might take a glance back at the page and see what I removed. I left intact the part about "bias" as though I think you are barking up the wrong tree, I at least acknowledge that my view on what is emphasized in the section I wrote may not be universally seen as "neutral" even though I feel it is.

As for removing the "verifiability" and "original research" tags, you have yet to explain any justification for these tags. As I repeatedly and patiently described, all the claims and the sequence of the emergence of the concept are not only as the skeptics have it, but as the critics have it as well. So, by reflecting the views of others, there is therefore no "original research." If I was to gather the views of several people and stitch together a sequence of events, THAT would be OR, but I've not done that. As for "verifiability," again, all claims are sourced. The sole objection you raised was with an interpretation of something Fox said on The Daily Stewart which I said reflected frustration with the failure of immigration reform and you said says no such thing. But the Fox quote is hardly a central issue or a central claim. At worst, that sentence could be removed. Other than that, NADA.

However, the truth is, what I'm saying would be plainly obvious to someone taking an objective approach to the subject but you come to this article with a bias. Your primary objection to my version was some nonsense about the structure of it, but not much about the substance or actual tone.

In a word, the above is bullshit. We ALL have biases, the one you harbour is clear. You view the NAU as a serious concept and any suggestion that it chiefly comes from the imaginations of, say, right wingers, is to be attacked. And I see it is a gross misreading of some actual North American initiatives, sprinkled with some old-time paranoia and fueled by a lot of people who haven't bothered to investigate the claims.

But the reality is I wrote the section keeping in mind that this could actually be true. Sure, the various denials are there, the various bodies aren't actually proposing what can be reasonably described as the NAU, but that doesn't mean it in fact is not being planned in secret. However, when writing on the "origins," all we can do is search out what various people say are its origins. And while the general idea of a more integrated north america has been around for ages, the specific claims about the NAU in fact have only existed since 2005. And that is what is reflected in the sources who, all agree, that various ideas have been floating around.

But you want to change this into an article which more properly should be called "proposals for North American integration," rather than the "North American Union," which, I am sorry to inform you, is not a generic catch-all phrase for ALL proposals, especially since the NAU has been described in some detail as entailing certain aspects.

THAT approach - to make this into the overall concept of integration - smacks of Original Research as, unless you have sources describing this as a source what people are saying about the NAU today, it is OR, otherwise, it is simply a laundry list of concepts and proposals which may or may not have an relation to one another, let alone to the NAU. And, no, it isn't "obvious" when politician A says "let's build a north american highway," that that led to that same proposal being part of the NAU. To suggest it is, without a citation, is OR. My approach sidesteps all those problems by briefly mentioning that various proposals have been floating around, then focussing on what people say where the concept of the NAU came from. And, guess what? That is not too hard to find.

Your proposed structure, and what you had before was ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You repeatedly claimed that what you wrote was "obvious," in terms of the root of what we are talking about, the NAU, yet you failed even after I repeatedly pointed this out to you, to supply ANY source which identifies the roots of the concept for the NAU as stemming from the places you said it stemmed from. IOW, you were indulging in the very "original research" you claimed I was! It is not enough for something to be "plainly obvious" as you seem to think. You HAVE to do what I did - and that is find a source which describes the origins of the concept of the NAU and then describe that history as they describe it. You would think that my approach - which found descriptions of the origins for this not only from the skeptics of the concept but from the critics of the concept - would satisfy any critiques on a) original research, b) verifiability and c) bias, but not for you, Devil. So what do you do? You make desperate attempts to call this OR, when it clearly isn't, cry that it is unverified, which tells me you haven't bothered to read the sources or done any research on your own, and then cry "biased" for petty reasons such as Schylafly being mentioned before Dobbs or Paul. In the normal course of events, the sort of substantive critiques you mention can be easily addressed with slight editing, say moving one name before another. But that is not acceptable to you, which leads me to conclude some other agenda is at play.

But in the end, I think what is going on here is that you have failed to do your homework on the subject and we are forced to point out to you that, uh, this is what the sources say when it comes to the origins of the NAU. If they said anything different, anything along the lines of what you said, then I'd have put that in the section. But they don't. So I didn't. Because that would be Original Research and/or Unverified. Canada Jack (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not biased to suggest the NAU is a serious concept because it IS a serious concept. You've actually been fortunate because I obviously haven't done my research well enough as I happened to miss this article: [2]. Of particular note are the following quotations:

Before assuming the presidency in December 2000,

Vicente Fox voiced support for a European Union of North America, an institutional arrangement that would eventually result in the creation of a common

market, the free movement of labor, and a common currency.

Based on historical sensitivities, a blueprint for “NAFTA

plus,” a customs union, a common market, or even an EU-style arrangement would initially have to be proposed by governments in Ottawa or Mexico City

and certainly not by the government in Washington, D.C.

In a recent survey, about a third of Canadian business leaders supported

an EU-style integration in North America, and the Canadian Council of Chief

Executives favors the creation of a North American security and prosperity zone.

In all honesty your argument is horribly flawed. You argue that because no one explicitly called for a North American Union or EU model for North America by name that it wasn't a serious concept and that no one had proposed it. Even if we ignore that the above just effectively proved your point wrong I still find your argument flawed. Here's a list of the pre-SPP proposals on NAFTA expansion: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_76.pdf. Several of the proposals involved creating continental laws, a continental court, continental institutions, limited or no immigration restrictions, and even North American defense. Even looking at Pastor's 2001 proposal through this I have a hard time seeing how your argument can have any legitimacy. He was definitely calling for a North American Union, even if he said he was just calling for a North American Community. Yet you want to continue asserting that a bunch of wacko conspiracy theorists made it up rather than it merely being an idea floating around for a long time with complex detailed proposals. Haven't you heard the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"? It doesn't matter what they call it a North American Union was clearly being talked about long before Corsi and his buddies started fretting about the "end of the United States" as a nation. The fact there is now an explicit source referring to this idea is enough. In fact, here's another: http://books.google.com/books?id=ofiW4Gv6kV8C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22north+american%22+EU-style&source=bl&ots=cFP8QQOVpu&sig=Psz-BljiIUXfg8_ZdCXuhs9axHo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result. This one is more explicit not only suggest an EU-style arrangement is a possible step, but further it talks about expanding North American integration to areas like foreign policy and creating common regulations for vehicle safety.

Suffice to say the idea of a North American Union was not conceived by Corsi or his ilk, but by intelligentsia throughout the region. Corsi and others only worked people up into a frenzy over them. Your desire to ignore the former and glorify the latter is absurd, just like journalists saying the NAFTA Superhighway is a "myth" when in reality people are referring to the very real proposal for a Supercorridor as a proposal for a Superhighway. Saying it isn't part of SPP is also wrong as the SPP explicitly states part of its objective is the creation of transcontinental supercorridors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read your "response" above and I just have to shake my head. Devil, are you incapable of reading and understanding what I've done here? Let's be clear:

1: CONCEPTS AKIN TO A NORTH AMERICAN UNION HAVE BEEN FLOATING AROUND FOR DECADES, which is EXPLICITLY in the "origins" text. viz: Since at least the mid-19th century, numerous concepts for a regional union between Canada, Mexico and the United States... have been proposed

2: VICENTE FOX HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED SOMETHING AKIN TO THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION, EVEN BEFORE HE WAS MEXICAN PRESIDENT. viz: ...Fox has voiced support for the ultimate goal of an entity like the North American Union. Before the SPP and since, he has noted the success countries like Ireland and Spain have had in modernizing their economies and bringing higher standards of living for their citizens by joining what is now the European Union and has expressed the hope that Mexico could have a similar experience in a trade body of comparable scope in North America.

3: A GREAT MANY BUSINESS LEADERS HAVE SUPPORTED VARIOUS CONCEPTS AKIN TO A NORTH AMERICAN UNION. While this is not explicit in the text, the links are explicit, especially the left-wing ones in Canada, in suggesting that the secrecy of the SPP is due to the efforts of business leaders to further integration goals against the interests of labour.

NONE OF THIS IS IN DISPUTE, AND NONE OF THIS IS DENIED. AND ALL OF THIS IS IN THE "ORIGINS" TEXT OR FOUND IN LINKS.

And, for the record, I NEVER suggested that just because no one called for a "North American Union" by name that that meant it only existed in the minds of paranoid right-wingers. What I DID write was that a great number of people believe something called a "North American Union" is being planned and implemented behind closed doors. And the plans for THAT were exposed by the right-wingers and others. YOU like to pretend this is otherwise. But that is what in fact has been claimed, and THOSE claims come from the sources I have mentioned, and the links there buttress those claims.

YOU, however, want to insert a lot of Original Research with various concepts floating around somehow pushing for something akin to a North American Union. That's fine. But the PROBLEM is that all you have done is located a concept here, a proposal there, none of which is connected to the claims we are reading about in terms of a North American Union. You respond: just because it isn't called "NAU" doesn;t mean it wasn't proposed. And I don't know how often this bears repeating but: WHEN CRITICS AND CRITICS TALK ABOUT THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE LIKE DOBBS ARE TALKING ABOUT - LIKE THE AMERO, NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY, ETC. AND THEY ARE EXPLICITLY SAYING THAT THOSE CONCEPTS EMERGE FROM THE SPP AND THE TASK FORCE, AND FROM PASTOR!!!!!

You pulled out a document from C.D Howe, the Canadian think-tank. But, AGAIN, who claims this has anything to do with the North American Union discussed in Congress and on Lou Dobbs? Who claims that after CD Howe published their report that the SPP was compelled to be guided by its recommendations?

The same goes for your other link. Who is saying that the concepts found therein made their way into the SPP which is claimed to be contemplating the NAU? It's all fine and dandy to mention these various concepts similar to the NAU which were floating about, and they could, for example, replace what is already in the intro paragraph. But if you want to suggest that when people are talking about the North American Union and suggest that that concept emerged with CD Howe, or what have you, then YOU MUST SUPPLY THE CITATIONS FOR THAT CLAIM OTHERWISE IT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

There are several ideas you are habitually conflating: the various concepts for continental union which have been floating around for decades, and the specific proposals which are said to be part of the North American Union. There are no sources other than ones I have already mentioned which describe the journey from a) concept/proposal to b) implementation. And, again, let's be clear - THE "WHACKOS" AS YOU CALL THEM ARE SAYING THE NAU IS BEING IMPLEMENTED; NO ONE DENIES THAT THE CONCEPTS IN VARIOUS FORMS HAVE BEEN AROUND. AND THAT IS EXPLICIT IN THE TEXT.

Which is why the text says : ...the specific claim that its [the SPP] true aim was to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into a North American Union analogous to the European Union (EU), with open borders and a common currency among other features, was being made by the fall of 2006...Canada Jack (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And, since you have so far refused to go beyond your general critique of "bias" and explain the reasons for the "Original research" and "unverified claims" tags, here is an opportunity to identify for our edification what in the section in question is guilty of those offences in your eyes:

The Origins section constitutes original research for the following reasons:

1....

2....

3....

The Origins section lacks verified claims for the following assertions:

1....

2....

3....

Canada Jack (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not biased to suggest the NAU is a serious concept because it IS a serious concept.

And no one, not least of all me, denies it has been seriously proposed, in various forms, by numerous groups and people. But there have been no serious moves to actually implement the concept, in the forms of which it is being claimed. And that is where, by far, most of the talk about the North American Union stems. Where do these claims come from? The "origins" section answers that. You seem to think that I am denying the former (I most certainly am not) and that noting the latter somehow constitutes "bias," "Original research" and "unverified claims." Which it doesn't. Canada Jack (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One more point, though I admit I may be being a bit cruel here. If there was any doubt that Devil was a) seriously misunderstanding what the text in dispute was in fact saying and b) not bothering to read either the text or the sources, here is something very interesting in one of the very links he offered above.

This one is more explicit not only suggest an EU-style arrangement is a possible step, but further it talks about expanding North American integration to areas like foreign policy and creating common regulations for vehicle safety. So says Devil. So, what does the text say? (from the book "The Future of North American Integration", By Peter Hakim, Robert E. Litan) "The most ambitious approach would be to adopt something like the EU model [in North America]." Fine. But when we actually go through the text to find any specific proposals (instead of a general discussion of an EU-like body in North America), who is the first person they start talking about, whose proposals are quoted? Why, Robert Pastor's!

In case anyone here misses the significance, while Devil screams that this is an example of a text which discusses the concept of an NAU outside the so-called "wackos," the text is talking about someone WHO IS MENTIONED IN THE VERY SECTION IN QUESTION AND WHOSE BOOK, REFERENCED IN DEVIL'S TEXT IS ALSO REFERENCED IN THE SO-CALLED "ORIGINAL RESEARCH," "BIASED" AND "UNVERIFIED" TEXT HE SO ROUNDLY DENOUNCES!! Viz: These critics claim the actual goals of the SPP were confirmed by the Task Force, [8] and by the Task Force’s co-chair American University professor Robert Pastor. [13] Critics often cite Pastor as being the “father” [9] of the NAU[5][10] and his 2001 book "Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New" has been called a blueprint [11] for the plan, and includes a suggestion to adopt a common North American currency called the amero.[5][12]

This demonstrates how ludicrous Devil's position is. He insists on references to "Origins" WHICH ARE ALREADY THERE.

But, and I feel like I am beating a dead horse here, what the above underlines is that proposals were out there well before 2005 (the first time any "wackos" started making this an issue) and the text as it stands quite obviously says that (a book published in 2001, for example, precedes 2005), but since we are talking about the North American Union and what is claimed is being enacted in contrast to what is being proposed, we are focusing on who makes those claims (that it is being enacted) and where the proposals for those claims emerged. And the proposals supposedly being enacted are explicitly identified by those who are making the claims, and are also identified by the skeptics. Devil's approach fails as he makes no link to concepts proposed and concepts allegedly being enacted. Instead making a largely irrelevant case to include a lot of proposals with no explicit link from anyone - politicians, talk-show hosts, journalists, political commentators, academics - to something actually said to be currently enacted or contemplated to being enacted as a North American Union by any name, or part of a process towards such an end.

Time to admit you are wrong, Devil, and remove the tags. Canada Jack (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition of North American parliament, etc

Rigimoni has seen fit to add a section on a North American parliament, etc. However, he seems not appreciate that as the article is structured, since no proposals for a North American Union per se exist and the focus is on what many people claim is being planned, to insert a section on a parliament, if it is not linked to those claims, is original research. Further, there seems to an effort here to talk about the general topic of "regionalism," and then to discuss aspects of this "regionalism." While the North American Union may indeed be an example of this regionalism, it does not follow that examples of regionalism - such as Pastor's parliament - have anything to do with what has been called the North American Union. Which is why I and other editors have removed this content.

IOW, most of this additional content is more appropriate on a separate page which deals with the general concept of regionalism in North America rather than on a page dealing with the specific concept of the North American Union. For example, Pastor, as head of the Task Force, calls for something more properly called a North American Community (in extending the European Union analogy). But including Pastor is only relevant in context to what is being claimed he has proposed or the Task Force proposed (or "confirmed") in relation to the North American Union and with specific citations linking same to the NAU. As written, Rigimoni, there is no connection to the NAU here, so it has to go. Canada Jack (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack, upon arriving at this NAU page, my impression was that it lacked academic content which I thought I would contribute. I see your point that the focus is to explain the concept of a NAU according to the assertions made by those who claim that one is being orchestrated. So I looked through the history of this talk page and did a quick look online for those making such claims and then again at the content that exists in the wiki article. My conclusion is that I'm surprised how lacking and narrowly defined this article is based on what I was able to come across in 20 minutes compared to the number of years this wiki article has been around. Problems I see offhand with this article are:

• Lack of representation of those making claims
  • Jerome Corsi and Phyllis Schlafly are mentioned on this talk page and/or wiki article as being players responsible for perpetuating the idea of a NAU amongst the public, yet I only see one reference to a Corsi article which is not even about the NAU concept (though of a peripheral nature). Corsi has a number of NAU articles published on World Net Daily (WND) which seems to have an endless supply of them, not only by Corsi.
  • Appearing in the top 5 Google search for 'North American Union' is Stop the North American Union whose site design screams bloody murder of a NAU, yet entirely absent in name or citation from the article. The site shows a schedule of radio appearances about the NAU dating back to at least 2006, so certainly played a role in disseminating and shaping the concept.
  • There are also others making the claim that are not mentioned. Of course, concepts are not stagnant and take on lives of their own, so to trying to define it strictly by those that initiated it would be erroneous.
• Lack of comprehensiveness of claims made about NAU
  • The article currently is limited to the 3 areas: the SPP, the Amero and the NAFTA Highway. Though I see numerous other claims.
  • One example is the content I inserted on a North American Parliament. This was claimed by Jerome Corsi,[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65582][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55596] WND[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52104] and Accuracy In Media (AIR).[3]
    • AIR further claimed:[4]
      • "The history of NAFTA is one reason why so many conservatives are concerned that a North American Community could be transformed into a North American Union that runs roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees."
      • In reference to a NAU, Pastor attended a "conference devoted to the development of a North American legal system" where literature was distributed about a "common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America"
      • "Marlon L. Brown, the first American University under-graduate to earn a minor in North American Studies, notes that Pastor has a "Vision of a North American Parliament" and a step-by-step process to create it. In a research paper submitted to Pastor, who serves as director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (AU), Brown notes that Pastor has proposed "the creation of a trilateral legislative workgroup that may resemble the early stages of a future North American Parliament.""
      • "Such talk does indeed raise the specter of a North American Union similar to the currently functioning European Union, a political and economic entity of 27 European states that includes a European Parliament and a European Court of Justice. The EU has been charged with usurping the sovereignty of member states"
      • "Indeed, the academic literature distributed to conference participants alluded to how the three countries of North America are "polarized" on "sensitive" cultural issues such as the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage and that it might take a long time to "harmonize" their legal systems on such matters."
• Lack of NPOV
  • There are a few statements in the article that give me pause. This one in the intro, for example, has a big brother overture that seems to want to be absolutely sure the reader doesn't believe it, "nothing approaching the integration suggested by a "North American Union" has ever been seriously considered by leaders of the three nations, and government officials from the nations say there are no plans to create such a union."
    • There's a couple of other more serious problems with this statement aside from the tone:
      • It's not possible to prove that the nations' leaders nor anyone have never "considered" a NAU or anything for that matter. This implies omnipresence and telepathy. Furthermore, this is not stated in the reference.
      • No where in the cited reference does it note a government official saying there are no plans to create such a union. There is someone from the Commerce Dept. that says there's no plans for a NAFTA Superhighway, but nothing about a NAU. The wiki article's Official Statements section, has a valid refutation and I had used it to substitute the false citation; however, Canada Jack, you undid that for whatever reason. (Note: Also under Official Statements, the citation for quotes by President Bush is not a valid link, so the link should be updated or remove the quote if it also isn't valid. The quotes are, "political scare tactics" and described as "comical" the "difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about.")

Rigimoni (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rigimoni - I don't have time right now to properly address your points, but in general just want to say that this is some fantastic stuff you've done here. I don't want to pretend that everything on the page now is perfect as there are some obvious defects (you are right, for example, to note that we can't truly say a NAU has "never" been considered). However, the problem in the past is that while I did a fair bit of work in bringing in material which was explicitly linked to the NAU, others sought to include material which had no clear, explicit connection. It would seem that, at least for the parliamentary aspect, you have got some good links, but from my reading, only the AIM link actually suggests this has anything at all to do with a North American Union. Some other points address citations which I thought were there (leaders of the countries in fact have explicitly said there are no plans for a NAU, I thought this was there, not just someone from the Commerce Dept on the highway or Bush's dismissive comments).

But one particular problem is that one site which you refer to frequently is not considered to be a reliable source by wikipedia. World Net Daily, in earlier iterations of this page, was a major source of claims, but because it is not considered a reliable, reputable source, the entire page was for a time removed (for that and other reasons). However, I and others felt that there had to be a page on this subject and some of these sites needed to be referenced to address the claims. Which is why the article is structured as it is. As a fringe belief, the challenge is to present what we know and what others believe.

One very important distinction has to be made here. And that is the "fringe belief" is NOT that there are serious, bona fide proposals for something ressembling the North American Union either by that name or in slightly different forms. (Though I have yet to see anyone actually promote something called the "North American Union.") The "fringe belief" is that the North American Union (or whatever you want to call it) is being ENACTED largely behind closed doors and without any public input.

In the end, there are probably a million voices out there expousing opinions on the NAU, but since the concept itself is an amalgalm of other proposals, government programs and commentator claims, the best we can do is describe what others claim the NAU to be than to simply declare that proposal "A" is part of the process. There is no "process," according to many as the concept exists only as an amalgalm of other proposals. The problem here has always to be to make the specific links from the numerous ideas floating out there to something called the North American Union. I see it as a challenge to make a very clear distinction between various continental proposals and those proposals/what have you which are specific to the North American Union. Cheers 159.33.10.92 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture"

Much as I like some of the works discussed in this section, none of these are relevant to the North American Union this article is about: the NAU of conspiracy theory, talk show rants, and Congressional resolutions. They are merely part of the broader history of continental integration as a concept. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't a fictional concept of a union relevant to real proposals such as NAFTA, as opposed to conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy

Where's the criticism and controversy section? There's been worldwide criticism of this plan being a plan for a New World Order, which it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.3.29 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for New World Order (conspiracy theory) ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "is" is meaningless when you are discussing a hoax. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Mexico is not a proposed member of the North American Union. It's only the United States and Canada.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the loudest conspiracy theorists in the U.S. Americans don't find Canadians scary enough; the anti-Hispanic stuff has to be in there to really scare them. Where did you hear otherwise? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the Canadians WAY scarier than the Mexicans. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On his show, Stephen Colbert said the NAU was a conspiracy by Canadians and Mexicans to make us (aka the Americans) eat moose tacos. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the term "begging the question" mean anything to you folks?

How does language like this make it into an "encyclopedia"? "In contrast, details of the North American Union concept emerged not from proponents, but from critics of the idea.[7]

These details emerged when critics identified what they perceived to be ... " etc etc.

The phrasing is assuming the existence of the conspiracy that is being alleged in the first place. Slick move. "Details emerged" -- love it! But really folks, this article would come across as unacceptably "in universe" even if it were part of an article on a science fiction trope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.211.134 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one involved in government actually proposed this, and critics started to denounce a concept that no one in power had proposed, the origin of the concept was from those critics who claimed it was being implemented behind closed doors. It is therefore, by definition, a conspiracy, whether true or not. Canada Jack (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no assumption there that the conspiracy exists, that the implementation is afoot. It simply states that critics believe the conspiracy to implement exists and have identified those details etc. Canada Jack (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)