Talk:The Nine Nations of North America

English, please

"One critic complained that Garreau did not take into account bioregionalism, but instead transhumanism;"

Could that last bit be re-written in English? GeneCallahan (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance

Forgive my ignorance, but I feel that this article doesn't really expand on the "point" of the book. There is information about what the contents of the book are but not what the author argues (does he support a move to this nation system?).

I stumbled upon this article and I will research it more; and the article is not bad per se, but simply lacking. Atinoda 02:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article: NOTE: This entry is an amusing and sometimes touching view of my work. But it offers a distinctly non-mainstream analysis and is loaded with factual errors – attributing to me views I have never held, and statements I have never written. If you are writing a research paper, I would strongly recommend you not rely on this information; if you do, it would not surprise me if you receive a failing grade. A more authoritative source can be found at www.garreau.com, wherein, among other things, the entire contents of my books can be found. Thank you. Respectfully -- Joel Garreau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.193.99.4 (talk • contribs) 03:33, July 7, 2004

I have to ask: is it better now? Brutannica 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Slammed by the author himself. That's gotta hurt. Brutannica 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Slammed by someone claiming to be the author. There's a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.11.84 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Moved from article: In the section on Ecotopia, the article stated that the boundaries of that region extended from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast. Wrong. They extend from the Pacific Crest in the Cascades and Sierras to the Pacific Coast. The Continental Divide is much farther east in the Rockies. -G.D. --thickslab 02:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Merge in the subarticles?

I think we should merge in the subarticles for the various nations. Of those linked only Empty Quarter (North America) and The Foundry (US) are the correct articles (and there's a sentence in The Breadbasket which is entirely redundant with this article). Of those two both are highly redundant with this article. We don't do the book any service by having it spread into a little archipelago of unadequate stubs, where instead we can merge them into a single strong article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, this article should include the concepts as discussed in Garreau's book, while linking to broader articles about generally-accepted analogue regions, i.e. the Rust Belt for "The Foundry".--Pharos 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mexico

The article equivocates on whether Mexamerica includes all of Mexico or only the northern states, and whether the capital is Los Angeles or Mexico City. But the book includes only the northern Mexican states (those within reception distance of US TV stations), and firmly makes Los Angeles the capital. What's the basis for this extension to Mexico City? Americans certainly do not consider Mexico City their capital. Maybe some Mexican immigrants do, but that's a highly POV position. Sluggoster (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bump this question. The map and descriptions ignore all of Mexico save the borderlands with the USA and Baja California. Where does the rest of Mexico fall? I would have guess maybe the author had excluded Mexico from his definition of "North America" if it weren't for Central America being included in the map as "The Islands". And speaking about "The Islands", what are they talking about with "parts of Venezuela"? Are they refering to Venezuelan islands like Isla Margarita in the Caribbean? -Krasnoludek (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find my copy and I don't remember exactly where Garreau cut off the Islands and Mexamerica, but the latter sure didn't include Central America, nor the latter more than 'northern Mexico'. So the map is wrong.

—WWoods (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mexamerica is deeper than just the border region for sure... Mexamerica at least comprise the whole northern mexican states, at least... the map should be corrected. kardrak (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The book was written in the late '70s – early '80s, long before NAFTA. Cross-border activity has deepened and spread since then.

—WWoods (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go to Amazon you can see the map on the cover of the book includes far more of Mexico than is shown on the map image for this article: http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859/ I'd definitely recommend expanding it, since it looks really odd (and apparently inaccurate) the way it does now.

The Foundry

Toronto should be the capital of the foundry. Just saying. Now I'll take my polite Canadian nationalism elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.172.220 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Back when the book was written, Detroit wasn't a hollow shell.

—WWoods (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And the book is about?

Currently the article gives little information about the topic. There is not even a synopsis of the work, pretty standard for most books, but rather it focuses on the regional descriptions. Is that the only merit the book has? If so, it is hardly notable of a WP article. Perhaps this article should be deleted. The refs are apparently primary source, again another reason for it to go AfD. Is the only in-line source actually "notes" from a class someone was taking? BTW - it seems to be a dead link. Is the book a work of fiction, non-fiction, a comic book, written in crayons, etc.? Who knows. --Trippz 15:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)