Talk:North American Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject International relations (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Canada (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject North America (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Main problem with North American Union[edit]

The main problem with creating a North American Union is that North America already has a Union. It's called The United States of America. If Mexico wishes to join the Union, they only need to apply to congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest Canada Jack nonsense[edit]

Canada Jack is showing shades of Vanilla Ice in his most recent revert. Though I have two cited articles saying Fox suggested a North American Union he insists that because one has an uppercase "u" while the other is lowercase it should not be included. While there is a "difference" it is completely irrelevant as both refer to the same concept with the same words. I should not be expected to clarify that one used lowercase while the other used uppercase and that insignificant difference is nowhere near enough to justify removing the phrase.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are infinitely silly, Devil. If "Union" is lower case, it's NOT A PROPER NOUN. Therefore, it is a DESCRIPTION, not a title.(!)
In his never-ending desperation to build a case that a "North American Union" has been years in the making, has found proposals from Vicente Fox from 2000 that would end up with increased integration along the lines of a European Union. This is fine, but this is also old news, and it was one of his perpetual musings which went nowhere. As this page already quite plainly states, Fox has long advocated for this.

/// It HAS been years in the making: [1]

/// It IS HAPPENING now, Canada's MILITARY and POLICE are being merged; the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) consisting of 30 multinational corporations has already dictated changes to the REGULATIONS attached to ALL of Canada's, Mexico's and US's laws, which HARPER and the other two feds have put into effect. They did it with REGULATIONS because these don't have to pass Parliament, and radically altering the regulations effectively alters and "harmonizes" the LAWS of all three nations. YOU DON'T SEE IT OR FEEL IT, but it HAS been DONE. The "North American Forum on Integration" launched the Model Parliament for North America in the Canadian Senate in 2005, this is a COUP d'ETAT. The MODEL PARLIAMENT is a dry-run for the EU-style CONTINENTAL PARLIAMENT. Robert Pastor is aboard, same man aboard the "BUILDING A NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNTY" plan online at the Council on Foreign Relations web site since 2005, which elaborates on the SPP; however, NOT all the plan is spat out online. They also ad-lib.

/// The REFERENDUMS FOR QUEBEC TO SECEDE have all been parts of the FRONT to impose the EEC-EU system here:

AND:, GROUNDS page. Which you can download HERE:

You need to wake up; this is no joke, and incompetent reporting is one of the problems.

I suppose you also think 9/11 was Ben Ladin with box cutters? No basic physics in school?

Would you happen to have a credible source for any of these claims? Not as in "mediafire"- I've never even heard of it before. I'm talking about such credible sources as a government website, major newspaper or a quote that has been officially released by a member or employee of any of these three governments. If you seriously believe any of this. Lets see some real proof that wasn't made up by some conspiracy theorist. Do you have any? MrMonday1 (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


[1] [2] [3]!/group.php?gid=116430275057791 (Videos, Photos, Discussions) [4]!/group.php?gid=133732079978325 [5] [6] [7] [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Your naivete is on full display, Mr. Anonymous. According to these people, the NAU would be a done deal by 2010. Hey... that's now! Guess it was bullshit after all, eh? But on a more serious note, these sources you cite typically see ANY cooperation between governments and agencies as "evidence" of a NAU in the works. But this sort of stuff is routine government-to-government stuff. If we are talking about enacting a NAU-type body, we'd have to see a lot more than simple cooperation and coordination, we'd have to see a TREATY signed, we'd need an over-arching coordinating body, we'd need a set of standard laws for adherence. So, where are all these things? Don't waste your time looking, these things do not exist. Take a look at the European Union page to get an idea of the complexity involved in creating a body of this scope. This, simply put, could not be enacted behind closed doors. There is simply no way. And anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit. For example, on the Treaty alone, depending on the country, this would have to be a very public undertaking. The Senate in the United States would require a vote on this, after a long debate - like with NAFTA. Seeing you apparently believe it can be enacted notwithstanding the above, shows to me you are out of your depth on this subject and therefore more credulous when people tell you a line.

This is not to say that certain influential groups would love to see a NAU-type body enacted. But if there was ever a moment where Canada Mexico and the United States would do this, it has long passed as the political situation in the USA is such that it is currently inconceivable such a body could be negotiated. Canada Jack (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So, in a 2000 Brooking Institute, we find this phrase in describing Fox: "For example, his futurescape is already in Europe, where the European Union's elimination of barriers allows EU citizens freedom of movement among the member states. In Mr. Fox's view, a North American union similar to the EU would allow for such freedom."
What Devil is trying to claim is this is an example of what "some in the media" were calling Fox's proposal, i.e., the North American Union. The linked article, however, does not say this. It calls Fox's proposal NOTHING, merely DESCRIBING it is a "union" along the lines of the EU. If it was an example of the "media calling this a NAU," it would be worded "HIS North American Union," or, at a minimum, "a North American Union." The "Union," of course, being upper case to indicate a proper noun, NOT the adjective clause we have in the quote.
When we look at Pat Buchanan in 2003, we see that he, indeed, is not simply describing Fox's proposal as akin to the EU, a similar "union," but as a PROPOSAL called the "North American Union." And that is the distinction here.
So, the ONLY person so far calling the "proposal" (if we can so grandiose to call it that) the NAU is Pat Buchanan... who didn't even propose it! Which underlines what others have said - critics came up with this idea by name, not those who supposedly proposed it. Canada Jack (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you really not know how absurd that argument is man? Regardless of whether he was merely being descriptive or titling it he still called it a North American union. He used that exact term to refer to it. So do you want it to say "this proposal for a 'North American Union' or 'North American union', as some in the media called it" instead?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Devil. I can't believe you are claiming the above. It's the same distinction between talking about "these united states are declaring independence" and "the United States declared independence." If you don't understand the difference, you have absolutely no business inserting text onto this page. This truly has to top the list of inane contributions to this page from you. Wow.

But, instead of belabouring a point you clearly don't understand, how about simply stating something like... "by 2003, critics like Pat Buchanan were describing Fox's proposals as a "North American Union," and critiquing it..." Your source certainly says as much. You may have identified the first instance this term appears in print as a proper noun (unless Buchanan later rewrote the article to make it more relevant to the later critiques he and others had on the NAU). Canada Jack (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly not the same thing. This article, as much as you may hate it, is not about something narrow and specific, but a broad concept. Both articles clearly reference the concept, both using the exact same words for the concept, and as such the phrase I inserted is perfectly legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Devil, whatever you want to call it, it is plain as day that the 2000 article isn't talking about a SPECIFIC concept, just a general idea of union, as Fox had floated, which is already in the article. However, in contrast, Buchanan IS talking about something specific, called the North American Union. The FACT that no one actually had a proposal out there called that is not germane - in that case - as he identifies it. However, the 2000 article does not identify a specific concept. It DESCRIBES Fox's proposal in terms that happen to use the words "North American" and "union," as it compares it to the EU. It could just as easily - as many others at the time did - describe it as a "union" or "confederation" of "Mexico, Canada and the USA." This is no mere case of semantics.

Your main objection has always been that the specific NAU concept has been around for many years. But you have never found a citation which states as much. Finding someone who describes a concept in that manner is not the same as finding someone who NAMES the concept. The 2000 article DESCRIBES a similar concept; the Buchanan article NAMES it. It's an important and crucial distinction. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been around for years, however, you refuse to accept anything that does not explicitly use the term North American Union and apparently that includes capitalizing the word "union" despite the fact it is all referring to the same thing. I mean, both articles are referring to the exact same thing (Fox's comments in 2000) and using the exact same words, but you are imposing some baseless standard that unless it refers to the concept in the exact manner you demand it is not the same.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is more than a little ridiculous, Devil. I wrote most of the material on the pre-SPP concepts for integration. I ALSO wrote the initial material on Fox proposing something akin to the EU. NONE of this stuff is new - what, however, you tried to do was suggested that there was a PROPOSAL called the North American Union. Your sources simply don't back you up on this. That's merely what I am saying. The 2000 article DESCRIBES proposals along those lines from Fox - which is, in terms of the page, old news. We KNOW Fox wanted - wants - a NAU, and has wanted it from Day 1. But he didn't call his proposals that until much later.

A major problem with your approach has been your insistence on linking various concepts which have been floating around with what many have described as a North American Union. And, unfortunately for your approach, no one started to call the beast the NAU until guys like Buchanan started to critique, and subsequently describe, its elements. So, while it is fine to talk about past concepts, LINKING them to what we now call the NAU is problematic as there has never been a proposal which matches what the critics have identified as its elements, let alone a specific proposal from proponents called the NAU.

It makes eminent sense, therefore, to simply list as we have some of the ACTUAL proposals floating about, ie., Fox's proposals, the SPP, NAFTA, as not only are these proposals somewhat contemporary, they have been identified by critics and skeptics as the source for much of this talk of the NAU. But BECAUSE these proposals are SAID to form the basis of the NAU by some, and a source of over-heated speculation by others, we are straying into POV-land by declaring, as you did, that "NAU" proposals were being discussed in 2000 or 2003. Many claim there ARE no "proposals" per se. Others, like Buchanan, say otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop taking credit for edits I made? What you did is rewrite material I inserted to fit your own POV.
Your problem is you keep wanting to make this about the post-SPP conspiracy theories rather than the concept itself. When Vicente Fox says he wants to move the NAFTA area towards a continental union like the EU it stretches credulity to suggest that is anything but a North American Union. Amazingly, even when someone says having a "North American union similar to the EU" is a good idea you say it is not the same thing just because one word isn't capitalized. There is no rule saying something has to be referred to with the exact same name the article uses to be put in the article. Yet you're hear claiming it has to be exactly the same to be included. Who made you king of the article? Is there really any question as to whether they are talking about the subject of this article, which, I should remind you, is the overall concept and not some specific musing?
To be clear one way or the other the author did in fact call it a North American union, he was just not using it as a formal title, but instead as the general term for an unnamed concept.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop taking credit for edits I made? What you did is rewrite material I inserted to fit your own POV. Sorry, you put in the first edits about Fox's views about the NAU? You inserted later material about his book, etc., but I never claimed otherwise. As to the sequence of events in terms of the SPP etc., I'm rather amazed you are suggesting anything otherwise here.

Your problem is you keep wanting to make this about the post-SPP conspiracy theories rather than the concept itself. When Vicente Fox says he wants to move the NAFTA area towards a continental union like the EU it stretches credulity to suggest that is anything but a North American Union.

Uh, no, Devil. What I have done is simply insist on what the sources say - and the sources say the talk of the NAU emerged from the SPP and Task Force discussions. That's in both those who dismiss the NAU as a conspiracy theory, and those who claim it is being enacted behind closed doors.

So, after three years or so, we've finally had what I've always asked from you - something, ANYTHING, from a source which suggests this was being planned pre-2005. But, even there, we simply have Pat Buchanan referring as an aside to Fox pushing for a North American Union in 2000 - and nothing else.

What you don't seem to get is what we need to rise to the level of inclusion at wikipedia is not the "does it look like, does it feel like, does it smell like" whatever it is, we need SOURCES to say that, in this case, "The North American Union was proposed by x and emerged out of several integration processes..." etc. You ALMOST have it with Buchanan. But you don't. Why not do what you did with Fox - and get that book of Buchanan? He might actually explicitly claim that this thing was being enacted or whatever (instead of it being something vaguely suggested by Fox).

There is no rule saying something has to be referred to with the exact same name the article uses to be put in the article. Yet you're hear claiming it has to be exactly the same to be included.

!!! Devil, this is called the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. If "union" in this text is lower-case, that means the phrase is a noun modified by an adjective clause. What we need is a PROPER NOUN. AGain, by analogy, it's the same distinction as saying "united states" which means a plural group of states which are together for some cause, or "United States" which refers to a specific political entity found in North America. Because "union" is not capped, it CAN'T be referring to the same thing that Pat Buchanan and others are referring to because that is a specific entity being talked about.(!) Canada Jack (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe this nonsense? If a source said, "these united states, fifty in all consisting of Alaska, Alabama, (etc.), with the capital in Washington D.C. which declared their independence on July 4, 1776" would you honestly suggest the information in the source could not be included in an article about the United States just because they never used caps? This article should be considered like the articles on a prospective European federation. Just because the precise title used for the article is not used in a source does not mean it is not mentioned, because it is regarded as being an identical or similar concept. People use a variety of names to refer to something and sometimes do not even use names, but they are not taken to be referring to something else when it is obvious they are discussing the same subject. In this case even a five-year-old could see these are discussing the same subject.
Also, just because I'm tired of you taking credit for my significant contributions to this article: here, here, and here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Devil, the basic question is this - Does the phrase in the 2000 article "North American union" refer to a specific proposal by that name, or does it not? It's because the "u" is lower case that it doesn't. Your example about the 50 states entirely misses the point as obviously now there is something called "the United States," when I used examples from 1776 when the phrase "united states" had an ambiguous meaning, as a description AND as a proper noun. For our purposes in 2000 there wasn't even a proposal for something called the North American Union. And, even if there had been, the way it is written, it can't be referring to it.

Caps are everything in English. If the phrase was "north American union," that would HAVE to mean a union of some sort of the northern part of the United States. This is a complete no-brainer and I am frankly astounded at your ignorance here and your inane attempt to suggest this means there was something called the "North American Union" proposed in 2000.

You will note that I made no objection to Fox being there in the first place. Why? Because he clearly was proposing some sort of enhanced trade bloc in 2000, along the lines of the EU. When it comes to the specific entity, you have been running into the same brick wall for these past number of years - NO ONE EVER PROPOSED A NORTH AMERICAN UNION BY NAME. And your POV that the "concept" - which, I repeat, no one had ever proposed - had been floating around for years isn't explicitly linked by anyone to what the hue and cry in 2005 and afterwards was directed towards is your basic problem here. WIth Buchanan, you now have someone who actually seems to be referring to a "proposal" in 2003, even though it seems that it is Buchanan himself who is naming it that.

Again, why not make reference to Buchanan? I would have no objection if you said "by 2003, Pat Buchanan was calling Fox's proposal the 'North American Union' and heavily criticizing it" or something along those lines. Why? Because Buchanan refers to this BY NAME in the article. The earlier piece DOES NOT. Canada Jack (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One quick example which may be clearer to you. If we explored the history of, say, the National Hockey League (founded in 1917) and we found a letter from 1915 where a future principal says "we need to form a national hockey league to better...", that would NOT be an instance of where the league was first named as it is a generic description. If, however, he had written, "we should form a new league, say the National Hockey League, and it should have..." then that's something different. That IS a specific proper noun naming the entity. In both cases, these are instances which relate to the history of the league but only in the latter could we say that the name of the league is being discussed. Canada Jack (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You see the problem here is your examples would still be included in the article because they are clear references to the subject, especially if it the subject was just the idea or proposal for an NHL. The article calls it a North American union, which only means it is a generic term for it rather than a proper title. However, that article is still calling it a North American Union, it just doesn't use a formal name for the concept. Also, the reason I would not just have Buchanan's mention is because both are legitimate and I'm not going to bow to your POV-pushing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

However, that article is still calling it a North American Union, it just doesn't use a formal name for the concept.

God, Devil, how fucking dense are you? The difference here is THE North American Union verses A North American union. "A" union is a throwaway phrase for something like the EU. "The" Union is a specific proposal. What can't you grasp here?

As your sources now plainly spell out - and , btw, you've FINALLY got it right - "some saw this proposal as inevitable step etc...", there never was a specific proposal. Indeed, as the National Review from 2001 plainly spells out "A North American Union is the inescapable corollary of open borders..."

This is precisely what I've been arguing from day one - there is and never has been a specific proposal for anything resembling the EU in North America, at least not from anyone of any influence, and certainly not by that name. It's simply the paranoid imaginings of the consequences of applying some proposals like Fox's. Which is debatable, but that's all it is. And, most importantly, it's an opinion from these sources as what would inevitably happen here, not a response to any specific NAU proposal.

It would be OR to do this, but it is quite clear what is going on here. Fox muses about open borders, a political non-starter in the USA, as if we have to even mention that. Places like the National Review suggest this will lead to some situation like the EU, something which would be a North American Union. Buchanan starts to use the phrase too. Then, in 2005, their worst fears are seemingly realized - the SPP! The Task Force! Here comes the NAU! The FACT that no one has ever proposed this is any substantial way seems irrelevant. Nope. Because ANY tightening of the trade arrangement, ANY move beyond Nafta... leads to... the NAU! Which, in the end, is still an OPINION, not a fact.

What is truly remarkable here is you've actually done readers here a service by underlining what the skeptics have said all along - the move towards a or the NAU emerged completely out of paranoid fantasies from certain quarters. And we see now that those fantasies were based on some musings - a lot of wishful thinking - from Vicente Fox. Canada Jack (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Save for one section which was not connected to the NAU, the material Devil has added looks pretty good.

The basic problem here, however, is the fundamental issue of Original Research. Unlike the section which I largely wrote on the conspiracy theories, which was based on a sequence of events told by various authors, the earlier section on pre-2005 North American Union talk seems mostly to have emerged from various search engines and hits on the phrase "North american union".

Personally, I think the sequence here is more or less correct. However, it nags at me that no one, as far as I know, has actually spelled out a sequence of pre-SPP talk of the North American Union. And while the way it is currently written more or less avoids suggesting A led to B which led to C, it nevertheless would be better to have this "history" citable in terms of the sequence. For example, while it may seem "obvious" that NAU talk started after 1993 and the creation of the EU, and particularly with the introduction of the euro in 1999, it gets into OR territory to suggest that is when NAU talk "started" if we don't have someone saying "after Maastrict, North Americans started to wonder if something similar might be tried here." Devil has indeed found people who DO say "let's try it" or "no way!" but we ALSO need some historian or journalist to actually spell this out.

I'm not suggesting we toss this out, but I am flagging a potential source of concern and how we can address it. Canada Jack (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why we need a source to corroborate that discussion occurred when we have said discussion cited. Also, as it concerns the insertion of information regarding the NACC, I would say it is perfectly relevant as we are talking about a group which is regularly cited by conspiracy theorists and is under the SPP. Also, you are the one who made a big fuss about claiming the SPP was pushing for greater integration in the article and then you remove material about a group set up under the SPP explicitly for the purpose of pushing integration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Devil, I am getting sick and tired of your "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks" approach here. Here's what to do - discuss what you want to include BEFORE you add it. Since your inclusions are invariably irrelevant, POV, and poorly organized, I insist you do this.

Your laughable claims as being the main author on this page ignores the fact that the stuff you insert on this page invariably has to be rewritten or tossed out. Fox? In the past you inserted a lot of material on his various Nafta-plus proposals. Problem was, it was just plonked down with no connection cited to the subject of the article, the North American Union. And this is a constant problem with your material. Just this past week, you tried to imply that what Fox said in 2000 is what folk in 2005 were saying was the NAU, which, obviously, it was not.

Also, as it concerns the insertion of information regarding the NACC, I would say it is perfectly relevant as we are talking about a group which is regularly cited by conspiracy theorists and is under the SPP.

But why this is significant or relevant is not in the text! This is the sort of crap that a high-schooler would get a "D" on if they submitted this as an essay. Someone who had never read up on this subject would say "what does this have to do with the North American Union - or the SPP?" Are we supposed to psychically determine the significance of your contributions? It seems so.

Then, another section on a Canadian-American union? What the hell is this? On one hand we have Fox calling for open borders, and that is called a precursor or whatever for the NAU... then at the same time, and entirely separately, we have talk of a Canadian/American Union? This is getting extremely silly. And, more to the point, who is saying this is part of the history of the NAU? It sounds more and more like someone - you - is merely punching "NAU" into Google and writing up what you find. And then, as long as the words "north" "american" and "union" are there, then that suffices and you plonk it down.

Here's my new proposal. Since as I mentioned before the entire history of the NAU pre-2005 is not coming from any author or historian I am aware of, we should simply ditch this Original Research section called "history." We should START with the 2005 material, making a passing reference to various previous proposals in some circles for a NAU.

In a practical sense, all the stuff pre-2005 is by and large trivia as it does not guide or inform what happened from 2005 on - unless you can cite someone who claims otherwise. Indeed, this is basically the same reason why the Technate material was flagged by me as being of dubious relevance. Canada Jack (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research material[edit]

After reflecting and realizing it is indefensible to leave material purporting to be a "history" of a concept which in fact has no citations to sources who describe such a "history," I have removed the material which has not already been cited as being specifically linked to the North American Union as desecribed in the lede.

This is justified because a) no sequence of events has been published to my knowledge tracing the "origin" of the NAU to before the creation of the Task Force and the SPP, and some of the already cited "fathers" like Pastor, and if such a history has been published, no reference to it has been enclosed; b) people coming to this site will be misled into thinking various concepts mentioned in the 1990s and early part of the 2000s are directly linked to the NAU as described more fully in the latter part of the article when there are no sources cited which claim as much; c) while some of the material may be "obvious" - such as the NAU being inspired by the EU - no source has been supplied which actually states that the NAU as later described is in fact an outgrowth or inspired by the EU, or at least an evolving concept coming to some later form. As opposed to, for example, the Amero which has sources directly citing its inspiration from the euro, and which has sources explicitly describing this in context with the NAU as later described.

In short, while a valiant effort done in large part by Devil, as long as it does not reflect a published history of the North American Union, it is simply a haphazard collection of disparate sources who happen to mention "north american union" in a roughly chronological sequence implying a progression of ideas and concepts, and therefore it is Original Research.

This could go to a rfc, if needed, but if one looks at other similar articles, such as the ones for the European Union, Nafta, etc., there are clearly cited links to the historical evolution of those entities, links to those who describe those historical evolutions. That is what is lacking here. Canada Jack (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For a moment I thought perhaps this could be resolved by changing the name of the section, but as you are once again putting forward a distorted interpretation of WP:SYNTH then obviously it won't be enough. Nowhere was an origin purported and calling the section history does not require a citation explicitly stating the information is part of its history. There is no need to clarify that references taking place in the past of a subject constitute a part of its history. In other words, the fact the sources exist and reference a North American Union is enough to consider them part of the history. Nowhere in the lead is a North American Union defined as only referring to a specific reference at a specific time either. Your narrow interpretation of this article's subject is just that, an interpretation and ultimately it is a POV interpretation as the lead clearly establishes it as a much broader subject. Indeed, you have only made the lead broader, and more inaccurate, with your change.
I believe we should look to WP:PSTS as it concerns the use of these sources, which could be seen as primary sources. No interpretation of those sources is provided. They are only there to establish the existence of something in history and describe it. No original research is being made and as such there is no basis for the removal of all this material.
Also the NACC is an SPP working group and is explicitly included on the SPP site. To say it has nothing to do with the SPP is simply wrong especially considering the second source contained a series of recommendations by the NACC to the SPP, the precise reason for which the NACC was formed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is entitled "North American Union." There are sections describing details of this Union. There are official statements from governments explaining their positions on this Union, specifically referring to those described details. There are critics claiming those governments are enacting those specific features of the Union. And there are others who say those described elements are little more than a conspiracy theory.

Therefore, to include a "history" of the North American Union MUST be derived from a sequence of events which culminated as herein described. To pretend, as you do, that we can simply google "North American Union" and plonk down any mention you may find and imply that this somehow led to what the rest of the article is about is specious as best. And, if you claim that there is NO connection, then it has no place on this page as the page talks about that described entity. Indeed, if Robert Pastor and his book from 2001 is described as being the "bible" of the NAU, then where does Fox from 2000 and others from the 1990s fit in? Who claims any connection?

If you, as you constantly insist, want to talk about various proposals of expanding a trade bloc between Canada Mexico and the United States, them that properly should be included in a separate article discussing various concepts. This page, however, is on the North American Union, a concept more specifically described.

As for the NACC we had this same discussion months ago. This article is about the North American Union. It is not the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Such information belongs on that page, not on an article discussing the North American Union. It has relevance here if a) people claim the North American Union is being formed by the SPP and b) the SPP is being guided in forming the North American Union by the recommendations of the NACC. And that was never spelled out in the section you inserted. If it was, and it was sourced, then it is relevant. If not, it does not belong on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please quit abusing WP:SYNTH? Honestly, the rule has no relevance here as I already explained. The problem here is you are thinking backwards. You are looking at what is often said now regarding the idea of a North American Union and using that to decide what should be included from the past. The article is not just about the post-SPP fear-mongering of nationalists like Lou Dobbs and Corsi, it is about the actual legitimate concept of a North American Union that has been discussed long before conspiracy theorists made such a fuss about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line that you seem not to understand here is that it really doesn't matter what either of us believes is true, it only matters if the scenarios we present here are citable scenarios. The Lou Dobbs stuff is, because there are numerous sources which trace the European Union history to the SPP, to the Task Force and to Pastor. But there aren't for the ones you included. Indeed, if Fox was talking about the NAU in 2000, then why is Pastor, writing in 2001, called the father of the NAU be these later sources?

All this boils down to, Devil, is the requirement for you to supply sources which trace a history you describe. Nothing you inserted which I removed had any such citation. You seem to believe "synthesis" does not apply here. It most certainly does if you want to pretend this is a "history" of the concept. Well, who says this is the "history" of the NAU? Since you have previously cited other pages on supra-national federations, why not look at the one most relevant to this page - History of the European Union. There, you will see that the "history" thus spelled out is not simply a listing of various concepts for economic unions, a listing of various stages of integration, it also is a reflection of specific sequences of events as spelled out by numerous sources. That's what we need here. And that's why what you had is original research. Canada Jack (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That long-standing material you removed was definitely not synthesis. One could make a claim the information about the Canadian-American union had some OR, but no OR claim you can make justifies removing the entirety of any material I inserted and certainly not material you supported including for months. Despite what you may think synthesis is not a blank check to remove any material you don't like just because you think it implies something uncited and certainly not material which is fully cited. Like I said, look at the rules on the use of primary sources and you will see no conflict with any of the material you removed from the history section. You are saying this article is about one specific thing, when the lede clearly establishes it as being about a much broader subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the material is good material. However, I am forced to conclude that unless it is attached to a published history of the North American Union, it is clearly and obviously Original Research, a synthesis of sourced material designed to create a sequence of events and imply a progression, when no source explicitly ties those sequence of events to a history of the North American Union. As I have said, once we get to the SPP, the Task Force, Pastor etc., then we have clearly stated claims about the evolution of the concept.

You obviously didn't take a look at the European Union page which quite clearly cites published histories when discussing the history of that body. Well, here's another example of what I am talking about, an organized entity which had precursors and proposals also calling itself the same thing. The Olympic Games. Did the editors in this case simply search out any other material which mentions "olympic games" before its generally acknowledged revival in 1896? No, they cited published histories which described the history of previous attempted revivals of the Olympic Games. We must do likewise here. Canada Jack (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Subject of the article and synthesis claims[edit]

There are a number of crucial issues regarding this article which show little chance of being resolved through discussion amongst frequent editors and will likely serve as the basis for continued edit-warring unless they are resolved. Of most note is a fundamental dispute over the subject of the article. The lede defines the subject as "a theoretical economic union, in some instances also a political union, of Canada, Mexico, and the United States" and notes it is based on the European Union. As this article was first created to discuss a union as the subject of conspiracy theories a group of editors are of the opinion this remains the subject, but it has been argued the lede establishes the subject as being of a much broader scope. Additionally allegations are made that certain material was a violaton of WP:SYNTH as it made them part of a history without a source explicitly stating they constituted part of a history for the subject. The objection given to this is that the sources were used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY and only in a descriptive sense with their place in the subject's history established by their very existence. A further claim of synthesis is made alleging that including the material implies "a progression of ideas and concepts" which is not cited. This discussion occurred after the material was removed. Two questions exist here:

1. Does the subject pertain to a specific idea alleged by conspiracy theorists or a broader concept?
2. Did the removed material contain original research per WP:SYNTH?

As I said these are crucial issues with regard to the article and will greatly affect its appearance in the future so a great deal of input is encouraged.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


  • I maintain that the material added by the above editor is clearly and obviously Original Research, a synthesis of sourced material designed to create a sequence of events and imply a progression, when no source explicitly ties (or even implicitly ties) those sequence of events to a history of the North American Union. As I have often said, once we get to 2005 or so and the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the Task Force, Pastor etc., then we have clearly stated claims about the evolution of the concept via those entities and bodies, and those cited histories are all we have so far. And that is what appears in the article.

    I made an analogy with another similar entity and the page here on it - the European Union. Their history page quite clearly cites published histories when discussing the history of that body. Another similar example of an organized entity which had precursors and proposals also calling itself the same thing is the Olympic Games. Did the editors in this case use a similar technique as the above editor and simply search out any other material which mentions "olympic games" before its generally acknowledged revival in 1896? No, they cited published histories which described the history of previous attempted revivals of the Olympic Games in context to the games that eventually emerged in 1896 which also called themselves "the Olympic games" or similar names.

    The editor above maintains there is a history to the concept of the North American Union before recent (since c. 2005) claims by some (labelled by detractors as "conspiracy theorists"). He may be correct, but as I have repeatedly underlined, it is not for us to search out previous mentions of the idea without citing an already published history of the evolution of the concept, in particular, how it relates to the current concept (as described in the article). The article currently contains what has been published in terms of the concept's history. But he claims we need not cite published histories when going further back, so he has plucked instances of past mentions of the concept without citing an authority which states that this mention constitutes part of the evolution of the North American Union. This is clearly a synthesis of published material - past mentions of a "North American Union" concept - intended to decribe a "history" no source has described. Canada Jack (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 1. As it concerns the subject I would say it refers to something broader. The claim that the rest of the article defines the subject, rather than the lede is rather unusual and is not even particularly strong given the fact the amero is clearly and indisputably established as a serious proposal made long before the SPP or the subsequent conspiracy theories. I can think of no good reason to say this article does not refer to a broader concept, especially when the lede defines the subject in rather broad terms.

    2. This represents to me users gaming the system to exclude material that does not serve their POV. Synthesis refers to combining two facts to push a position or argument. The argument that this is synthesis claims it is pushing the existence of a history that is not corroborated. However, history would by definition refer to events in the past and so to establish the material as part of a subject's history requires only that it be from the past and about the subject. The further claim that it implies an evolution of the concept has no real basis as no connection between these concepts is implied. Indeed, in some instances it is only noted that these concepts existed, which hardly implies any connection to anything. I certainly cannot see how anyone can see it as implying a nefarious plot to bring about the imminent demise of the United States.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

"History" by definition is the study of the human past, it is not simply the listing of past events. From the wikipedia page on the subject: It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it sometimes attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events.

Therefore, to list a sequence of events which purports to be a history of the concept, or even simply a sequence of events related to the North American Union is Original Research unless it is part of a published history. You keep ascribing motive here, Devil. The problem here is while it is your opinion that there is some sort of history to the concept, a progression of ideas, as long as you include that here without linking to those who suggest such a sequence, it is Original Research, and a POV insertion on your part. (Why "POV"? Because skeptics don't buy there was ever a "concept" or "proposal" pre-2005 or so.) The difference with my opinion is that what I left on the page reflects published opinion. Your focus on my "motive" misses the bigger picture here - we need to reproduce what sources say about these concepts, NOT what we hold to our hearts as the "truth." Indeed, using some of the material you had posted, I could create a sequence of events to suggest that there was no "concept" at all, ideas about a North American Union being merely the creation of some right-wing paranoia. However, since I would not be reproducing the published opinion of those who argue that, I would be just as guilty of synthesizing disparate material to suggest a scenario as you were. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're reaching here my friend. Whether you use the term to refer to the study of the human past or "a narrative description of past events" it does not affect my argument either way. It all concerns the past of the subject and the sources establish themselves in the past pre-SPP making them a part of the subject's history whether you like it or not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the only one "reaching" is you, Devil. There may be a "history" to this concept, there may not be. The only thing we know so far is what has long been up here - the SPP, the Task Force, etc. THAT history has been published. What you have put up has not. It's really as simple as that. The Amero? That has been cited as it is part of the published history. Your stuff has not. You've tried to redefine "Original Research," you've tried to redefine "synthesis" and now you are trying to redefine "history." It would seem that the only one convinced by your increasingly desperate and specious arguments... is you. Canada Jack (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument would preclude us from covering current events because until someone included every detail as part of a history for the event you are claiming it would be synthesis. It is a completely absurd and unreasonable position.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

??? We aren't talking about how current events are handled, we are talking about how events from a decade or so are handled. Again, look at the History of the European Union as to how this very thing was handled there for a similar entity, or for an entity with multiple precursors with the same name, see Olympic Games. This is complete standard practice, your claims of "absurdity" notwithstanding. The only person who thinks otherwise is you. Canada Jack (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How currents events are handled is perfectly relevant as no established history exists for them either. However, clear references to the subject are included regardless of whether they are included in someone's history of the subject or not. It is not considered synthesis to say these are part of the current event's history because their very existence shows they are part of that history. The same applies here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We aren't talking about current events. Again, refer to the History of the European Union to see how this very thing was handled there for a similar entity. And, for a situation where there was an entity with multiple precursors with the same name, see Olympic Games. In both cases, discussion of previous incarnations/development of the concept were cited from reliable sources who published histories of the relevant entities. Canada Jack (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To say we aren't talking about current events is to miss the point entirely. If it is truly your contention that we can only include something as part of a subject's history, without violating WP:SYNTH, if we provide a source explicitly stating it is part of the subject's history, regardless of whether it clearly references the subject itself, then you would have to apply that standard everywhere, including with current events. As a result you would have to throw out a great deal of material concerning current events. Also, there is no precedent in Wikipedia outside established policy. The fact certain articles handle something a certain way does not mean all articles should handle it that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here about a possible WP:SYN violation, so without knowing anything about this specific subject, I'll state a couple of general points in the hope it helps. If we have a recent concept, and we have mentions of it (or something similar) in the past by reliable sources, but not as part of an established "history" by a reliable source which presents it as such, we shouldn't include those mentions in the modern concept's "history", in my view. On the other hand, I see no violation of SYN by simply creating a timeline of where the concept, or anything close to it, was mentioned by reliable sources in the past. As long as this represents all related mentions known to us, even if they are not part of some organized history by a reliable source, the timeline (perhaps in its own section) would serve like a Wikipedia list article. It would not be creating a "history" as such, simply a timeline of references to the general concept by reliable sources that readers can consult. The problem with SYN occurs when people use it to "advance a position". If the suspected "position" here is to show there was an old history of the concept when no reliable source says so, I can accept that using the term "history" could be seen as synthesis and SYN violation. But as long as all we do is present a reliably sourced chronological list, called "timeline" of references to the topic (even if they are not identical to the modern version), I see no particular agenda except to point out some past references to the general concept which could be of interest. I wouldn't include this in the lead, because I would see it as a secondary "see also" list, and not part of the core concept, except for the items mentioned in relation to the modern concept by a reliable source. Since I know nothing about this subject, I could be wrong, but this is my initial view. Crum375 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is synthesis refers to a position implied or stated that is not verifiable. As I said under WP:PRIMARY the fact the source exists is enough to establish it in the history of the subject. Including it as part of the history is doing nothing more than describing the material within the source. There is no claim or implication the past proposals led to the current ones and the material only notes these proposals have existed, it goes into no specific detail. Like I noted many articles on current events could not mention a subject's history if they could only include information from an already published history of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I read the article plus spent (only) 10 minutes reading the discussion vs the hours it would have taken to read all of it.

Regarding the topic, my advice would be to confine coverage to those contexts where it has notability.

Regarding Synth, WP:NOR and WP:VER as written causes some of the problems that you have been having. My recommendation is that the two of you agree before knocking out any material based on wp:nor/ wp:synth, that the person would also say that they feel that what is said / implied in the statement is incorrect. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability applies to whether there should be a separate article. You would be thinking of WP:UNDUE as it concerns the material and the only parts given considerable weight are the proposals from Vicente Fox, which makes perfect sense as he was at the time either in office as President of Mexico or about to enter office and is mentioned frequently as an advocate of said concept. The other mentions are reduced to just a sentence or part of a sentence simply saying other proposals existed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Notability applies to whether there should be a separate article." I know that; My only "thinking" was of a suggesting a way out of your pitched battle, not of any policies. If you follow the spirit and more ethereal wording of the policies you will find a way out of what you folks have dug yourselves into. If you look at the policies the means of warfare, you never will. The are not written well enough to do that. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

North, it would seem Devil has mislead you somewhat with what the material he included actually states. The problem here is that when it comes to Vicente Fox, he never proposed something called a "North American Union," yet Devil included some comments from him in regards to opening up the American/Mexican (and not, notably, the Canadian) border. Then, Devil included an article from the Wall Street Journal commenting favourably on Fox's ideas, but, again, not calling this a "North American Union." Finally, Patrick Buchanan published an article critisizing the Wall Street Journal's stance as, he said, these ideas would inevitably lead to a "North American Union."

Since Buchanan was the only one there naming the concept, and he was clear that Fox hadn't actually proposed it, but he felt that this is what would inevitavly result, how in God's name does this have anything to do with a so-called history of the NAU? If he had said the same thing about NAFTA in 1993, that this would "inevitably" lead to a NAU, then, by Devil's logic, this would also be part of the "history" of the North American Union. It doesn't wash. Canada Jack (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Per my intro, I don't know this situation well enough to "be" or allow myslef to be led or go anywhere on the specifics. I was just trying to give some general thoughts on the two question in the RFC, and also a few that might be helpful on the overall situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The opening comment I made in this section of the talk page does include a diff of the major material that was removed in case you didn't see it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion must be provably original[edit]

02-May-2010: I was asked to comment here, after extensive debate as to the scope of WP:SYNTH. For that policy to be used effectively, then any implied conclusion must be provably original: for the policy wording, I even insisted the United Nations example be removed, as confusing, because it is difficult to sell the concept (of "UN is a failure") as an original conclusion, after years of debate since 1946. I even noted if someone went to the United Nations and said "UN failure" is a novel idea, they would burst into laughter. Similarly, it would be invalid to reject, in a crime article, new evidence showing the murder weapon was actually manufactured after the crime, as WP:SYN claiming "he didn't do it" - neither conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty" is a novel idea, and no source needs to combine new evidence with stating either conclusion. Likewise, it would be incorrect for someone to claim, as original, the idea that the old League of Nations had some impact on forming the United Nations. You must prove that the idea is original, that almost no one would "connect the dots" to reach the same conclusion. To list organizations of similar intent or scope is not an "original view, advancing a cause" about another organization. Remember that WP:SYNTH must be balanced against WP:NOTCENSORED, which rejects deleting text even when it conflicts with someone's religious or moral views. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2010

Wikid77 - Your conclusion above would be applicable for this article if there did not already exist a cited, published history for the entity in question. So, while there may be no problem as you suggest in simply "connecting the dots" if the conclusion can't be proved to be original, there IS a problem here because there already IS a conclusion as to the origin here that HAS been published, that IS cited, and is in often direct contradiction to what the editor has included.
Specifically, he had inserted substantial material giving weight to proposals by Vicente Fox in 2000 (even though Fox never called these ideas a "North American Union") and various reactions to these proposals. However, this episode of "connect-the-dots" contradicts what others who traced the origin of the concept are saying. Those sources don't speak of it emerging from Fox in 2000, but from Robert Pastor around the same time.
Therefore, to insert as the above editor has, a slew of material which purports to be a sequence of events IS Original research as he has proposed an alternate scenario which contradicts what published sources have claimed and what no source, as far as I am aware, claims otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
See below: '"#Consensus within WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV & WP:NOTCENSORED". -Wikid77 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The sources you mention refer to where the conspiracy people got the idea and the authors of those sources mainly got that from the conspiracy people. It is rather ironic, you want to use the claims of the conspiracy theorists to define the scope of the article so that you can use this article as a hit piece against the conspiracy theorists. Your claim here is essentially that there is an implied connection between all the concepts mentioned, but I doubt you could give a satisfactory explanation for that position or for why it justified removing the material in its entirety.
The issue here is you are making connections because you are looking for connections. You are so convinced that I am a POV-pushing conspiracy wacko that you are scouring every edit I make for the slightest thing you could construe as a violation of Wikipedia policy to justify removing it or rewriting it in a manner you consider favorable to your position. None of the material itself is original research, it isn't POV, and so you have to use unpublished synthesis to assert an original conclusion is being implied through the material. Amazingly this implication is made simply by including cited material that establishes something as existing in the past. After all, nowhere is a connection between Fox and the Task Force stated or even conceivably implied. Certainly no connection is implied with the other proposals as they are mentioned in passing essentially to establish that they existed.
I do not see any reason why there is a need for a source to establish these in a published history of the subject. The fact we are talking about the concept, not the conspiracy theory means past mentions of a North American union comparable to the EU are definitely related to the topic, regardless of whether they are identical to the concept as it is widely known today. There is no requirement in any Wikipedia policy I can think of that information can only be included in an article if an article of a similar purpose already used that information. New or largely unknown reliably sourced information may not be included in any third reliable source or used in the same manner, but this does not mean it must be excluded, because in the end you still have the original source. If the original source of the information establishes a clear basis for its inclusion in the article, including the place or manner it is included, it seems absurd to suggest including it would be original research.
Think about it. Is it really original research to say past references to a concept of a North American Union that is like the European Union represent events that are related to or part of the history of a concept called a North American Union that is like the European Union? Were we referring to a single specific concept the second part might at least be original research, though in no instance would the first part be original research. However, there is no single specific concept, even amongst conspiracy theorists and certainly not among current advocates, so any discussion of this idea is part of its history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Devil, this isn't about checking every edit with a fine-tooth comb to push a POV, it's about demanding from you that your contributions conform to wiki policies. So far, most of the outside editors agree with my position, and have offered a solution, while the one right above agrees with you - but doesn't seem to realize we already have a history in contradiction to what you've inserted. I've had edit disputes on other contentious pages, but when it comes to published accounts, these are non-brainers. I've often written the position I happen not to believe in, as long as some published source has it.

How about doing as the above suggest and construct, in point form, the various mentions of the NAU you have located, and we can work on a satisfactory solution here. As I said at the beginning, a lot of this stuff is good, but constitutes synthesis. So the solution, sensibly, is to include the material in some form that doesn't constitute synthesis. And it's not a matter of simply changing the title of the section. Canada Jack (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If this was a no-brainer you would have made the point a long time ago, not after every other recourse you had for removing the material was exhausted. The reality is you are claiming original research where none exists to justify pushing your POV in this article just like you have countless times before. Seriously, explain to me where the original research lies. The source is clearly in the past and it references the topic or at least something strikingly similar enough so any educated person without specialist knowledge can verify that it is part of the topic's history. There is no requirement that information we include here from a reliable source must have been included in someone else's article. All that is required is that the sources we used can verify the information we include. Your argument that it is talking about a different subject is purely one of your own POV interpretation. All the material I included does is note past discussion of the same general concept. Even if this article was about the topic you want it to be about it would still be part of the history as it is a proposal for a nearly, if not exactly, identical concept. To suggest past suggestions for a nearly identical concept should not even be mentioned in a topic's history is quite absurd.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I read the diff more thoroughly. Hopefully, thoroughly enough to understand what's happening. First, in general, I think that wp:NOR (Synth) is misused to knock too much material out of Wikipedia. I have been a proponent that someone knocking material out in the name of NOR must be required to make at least a perfunctory challenge of what the material said or implied.
However..... North American Union is a specific term. Other types of ties within NA countries are not automatically related to it. Putting all of that other "relationship" material/ sppeches / proposals in along with sentences (or mere presence) which implies that such proposals / speeches were intended to be about North American Union specifically is indeed, a explicit or implied statement. Under my suggestion, Canada Jack would have to challenge that statement when knocking it out, and then Devils Advocate wold need to support it with references to put it back in. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This position would mean all the material removed should be included because every last source uses the term. Even the Fox proposal for erasing the border was called a proposal for a North American Union by three sources, one supporting and two against. Of course, Canada Jack argued that because one of the sources did not capitalize "union" it means it was talking about something else. Also the term refers to something and every definition of the term says it is an EU-style body of North American countries, which is how nearly all of these sources also identify the concept.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem I see with a lot of this material. The Fox stuff in particular. In 2000, Fox was advocating eventually opening the borders between Mexico and America - he made no mention of Canada and didn't call for a North American Union. So it is decidedly POV to suggest this is something to do with a NAU. Then The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece generally supporting what Fox said, but without saying this is or will be a NAU. Finally, Pat Buchanan in an opinion piece said that adopting what Fox proposed would, inevitably, lead to a North American Union. NONE of this material is about the "development" of a NAU, it's a proposal that ONE critic suggest would be a slippery slope to a NAU.

However, as I said above, the suggestion we list mentions of the NAU can be accommodated. For the above, for example, we could state something like "Pat Buchanan, in reacting to a Wall Street Journal editorial regarding proposals by Vicente Fox, said that adopting such proposals would inevitably result in what he called a North American Union." Canada Jack (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So because Vicente Fox says that the NAFTA region should have something like the EU, but does not actually call it a North American Union it is not the same thing? So he could describe exactly every element mentioned as part of a North American Union, hell he could even say "North American union" but because he did not say "North American Union" (caps, very important) it is not the same. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, explain to me where the original research lies. The source is clearly in the past and it references the topic or at least something strikingly similar enough so any educated person without specialist knowledge can verify that it is part of the topic's history.
Okay, the North American Union is, generically speaking, an enhanced (from Nafta) trade agreement adopting some of the further integration as in the European Union, and it involves Canada, Mexico and the United States. On this at least, we can agree.
So.... how do we conclude that Vicente Fox, in 2000, is advocating something akin to the NAU when he only discusses TWO countries here? Sounds to me he is seeking a bi-lateral arrangement. Canada is clearly and obviously part of the NAU discussion, yet Fox does not even mention Canada! Canada's involvement would NOT be automatic here, as Europe's experience in the Schengen Agreement makes clear. Secondly, you had a proposal between Canada and the United States. Again, how does a bi-lateral agreement translate into some development pointed towards the North American Union which is a tri-lateral arrangement? If Mexico is not part of this proposal, by definition, this is nothing to do with the North American Union! So, it is a) POV to suggest these bi-lateral discussions are connected to the tri-lateral North American Union if some published source is not claiming it and b) original research to suggest a progression of events leading to a NAU when we already have a progression covering the same time period which makes no mention of these developments.
Again, if someone claims as much, fine. But we don't have that. Even with Buchanan, he said that adopting Fox's proposals would "inevitably" lead to a NAU, but he doesn't say Fox's proposals are for a NAU. So, we can sure include what Buchanan says, but not Fox, as what Fox proposals isn't even claimed by Buchanan to be a NAU proposal. Canada Jack (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact Fox did not mention Canada does not mean it is not part of his proposal, the sources noting his position describes it as part of a broader reform for North America. Fox is just most explicitly advocating for his own country. Also, you are confusing what Buchanan said with what the National Review said. Buchanan actually called it a proposal for a North American Union.
Your point about a Canadian-American Union ignores that the sources suggested this as an intermediary step to later include Mexico.
Finally, thinking about it, there is no need to imply a progression of events as that is exactly what we see and is perfectly verifiable. You are referring to an alleged suggestion that the events have some connection other than referring to the same general concept. That is, you think there is an implication that these various proposals had some effect on each other. I do not see how you can reach this conclusion when the wording includes phrases like "several concepts" or "other proposals" that imply separate distinct concepts. The only connection that can be conceivably drawn is that these were concepts or proposals discussing a similar or identical concept as that of the topic. People might draw a deeper connection, but it would only be because they want to see a connection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So because Vicente Fox says that the NAFTA region should have something like the EU, but does not actually call it a North American Union it is not the same thing?

In 2000, he called for opening the borders between the United States and Mexico. Canada was not mentioned. Therefore, this is not a NAU proposal. Others described these sort of agreements as "inevitably" moving towards a NAU. Further underlining what he proposed as not being a North American Union proposal by that name or any other name. And the "union" mention by the academic talked of Fox's desire to have an enhanced trade agreement, though not by any specific name, and this is ALREADY clearly in the article as Fox has often expressed those hopes.

How about let's use those academic/editorial mentions, write something on this page and we can organize it and include it on the page? Canada Jack (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point about a Canadian-American Union ignores that the sources suggested this as an intermediary step to later include Mexico.

But that has to be explicit! And it wasn't! How that proposal has anything to do with a NAU is completely mysterious the way it was included, as, by definition, a NAU includes Mexico. This is the sort of high-school level stuff which we shouldn't have to repeatedly discuss here.

The fact Fox did not mention Canada does not mean it is not part of his proposal, the sources noting his position describes it as part of a broader reform for North America. So, let's get this straight. He doesn't discuss Canada. Canada, if this is a NAU proposal, HAS to be involved. You say it's part of "broader reform." Well, it may be. But how is this "broader reform" leading to the NAU if Canada is not part of a basic discussion on borders? Perhaps because this "broader reform" is not contemplated to be akin to a North American Union? Just asking. So whose "POV" is that "broader reform" is akin to the NAU?

My point here is that it is the commentators who say this, not Fox. So, as I have suggested, we can quote Buchanan. Fox, however, has generally praised the idea of a North American Union, which is already clearly underlined in the article. While we can certainly say that some describe what Fox said in 2000 as at least leading towards the NAU, it is harder to say that he was actually proposing that. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you mentioned it here is him explicitly saying this open borders proposal would be for NAFTA, not just between the U.S. and Mexico. Also, the part you removed about NAFTA-Plus is sourced to his book where he explicitly refers to that proposal as a North American Union. Your point about the Canadian-American Union insertion is incorrect. Indeed moving first with Canada then Mexico was explicitly mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Devil, this still doesn't suggest he is proposing a North American Union in 2000! 1) Does he say "I propose a North American Union"? No! 2) Is he proposing anything which would be a North American Union by any other name? No! He proposes an open border between two countries, not three. "So our proposal is to move to a second phase of NAFTA where in five to ten years that border will be open to free flow of people, workers, transiting in the border between our two countries..." Just because he says it would be part of Nafta is neither here nor there, as there are multiple bi-lateral arrangements possible. It doesn't suggest or imply that Canada is therefore a part of this proposed arrangement. Some, like Buchanan, feel a NAU is "inevitable" and, as I said, we should work together to include all that in a non-SYNTH manner.

Finally, and most closely to the point, Fox says this: In longer... On a 20- to 30-year period, we should try to look for a common market of North America ideas. I am pretty sure he means a "common market," but even so, it is clear that he thinks of something akin to a European Economic Market here - which was a common market - as opposed to the European Union - which is a SINGLE market, and he is thinking way past his proposals on borders. So, how can he be speaking of something akin to the North American Union with his "border" proposal when in the next breath he says a common market, a less ambitious economic entity, should be a further down-the-road goal?

Fox after leaving the presidency said he broached the NAU subject with Bush and was rejected and has frequently spoken more explicitly about being in favour of creating a North American Union. But in 2000, we can't yet make that case with the material at hand. Canada Jack (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you not pay attention when I said it was the National Review, not Buchanan, that said it would be an inevitable result? Buchanan just called it a proposal for a North American Union, and he was not the only one. The fact many called it a proposal for a union, supporting and opposing, is enough reason to include it. Also, your comment about a common market is mistaken. Fox was talking about a common market of ideas, not a step in economic integration. Also, when he talks about in the context of NAFTA every single time he is definitely not talking about just the U.S. and Mexico being included. It's just, no one cares about having open borders with Canada, certainly not Mexicans.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Devil - for the purposes of this article, in 2000, did Fox propose a "North American Union" or did he not? Quite clearly, HE DID NOT. However, others suggested his proposals would lead to one. THAT is what we can work together to include in this article. And, since you consistently claim source A claims B, when it most often does nothing of the sort, I insist you write what you want to insert HERE, then we can get it right and put it on the page.

Also, your comment about a common market is mistaken. Fox was talking about a common market of ideas, not a step in economic integration. Hmmm. So, in 20 or 30 years, maybe we will be ready to, hopefully, talk about common ideas? "Hey, America and Canada, maybe we can talk in 2030?" Makes little sense. He likely meant a common market, which is completely logical as a next step in integration. Which is what others claim he meant.(!) Whatever he meant, it is clear that since he made no mention of a "union," any claims that that is what he said are interpretative.

Also, when he talks about in the context of NAFTA every single time he is definitely not talking about just the U.S. and Mexico being included. It's just, no one cares about having open borders with Canada, certainly not Mexicans.

Your infinite naivety on the subject of international agreements is truly astonishing. If Canada is to be part of an open border situation, Canada will have to enter any proposed talks. It matters not one whit if Canada is already in Nafta. But, in the sources you have supplied he ONLY refers to the United States and Mexico. It is only your OPINION that by mentioning Nafta this somehow includes Canada. Canada has frequently engaged in discussions with America, via Nafta, on common issues not involving Mexico. So the claim that via Nafta Canada will be included is merely your opinion. Which is why we need to cite those who claim otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to mention his proposal if we include the comments about it. Also, several sources called it explicitly a proposal for an NAU or said it was a proposal for making the NAFTA area like the EU, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing.
Also his full comment was a "common market of North America ideas" so he was talking about what I said, not a step in integration. I believe this was most likely referring to the development of a North American identity where people think about tackling problems in terms of North America rather than the constituent members of NAFTA.
It is naive to think Vicente Fox was referring to anything other than an open border for all of NAFTA. He wouldn't have mentioned NAFTA if it was just between the U.S. and Mexico and every source commenting on his position says it refers to all of NAFTA having open borders. Hell, even if he actually were excluding Canada, which makes absolutely no sense given his comments or the status of the issue, the fact he placed it in the context of deepening NAFTA makes it part of a larger integration of the region. Not every EU member is part of the Schengen area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Devil. Read the goddam sources you tout. First, in 2000 Fox never proposed something akin to a North American Union. He proposed an open border between America and Mexico. He ALSO said it would be a good idea to move towards a common market in 20-30 years. But his PROPOSAL was with the border issue.

The Wall Street Journal? July 2001 They picked up on his latter suggestion on an goal here - Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union but his PROPOSAL was limited to the border issue, and THAT is what the Wall Street Journal talked about. But they conflated several things that Fox said - greater economic integration akin to the ECC/EU in 20/30 years - with his border proposal - 5-10 years, an extension of Nafta. How do we know this? Because his proposals for the border were far more ambitious in their time-frame.

Then, the National Review picks up on the Wall Street Journal and calls the idea of "open borders" and says this: A North American Union is the inescapable corollary of open borders then notes how Ambassodor Celluci was calling for a Nafta-plus process and suggest that the Wall Street Journal was part of the left-liberal vanguard (the Wall Street Journal!!) trying to enact these changes. An open border with Mexico would move us rapidly toward the kind of world sought by Bartley and his newspaper.

Then, Buchanan (yes, I had him in 2001, not 2003) writes opinion pieces which again conflate Fox's border proposal with his suggestion that an ambitious integration akin to the ECC/Eu would be a good thing, calling it all FOx's North Amerioan Union proposal.

The problem here, Devil, is FOX NEVER PROPOSED WHAT THEY SAID HE PROPOSED. His proposal was in terms of the border. His ultimate dream - which is already here in the article - is to see the three countries in a European-Union style body.

What is abundantly clear is that, at least in 2000, Fox wasn't saying "here's my proposal for a North American Union," he was saying "here's my proposal for open borders" and "it sure would be nice if somewhere down the road we had a integrated economic union of some sort."

As I have said repeatly, spell out how we are to present this, and we will do this together. The problem here is I don't think you are reading your own sources very carefully. Canada Jack (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, the real problem dealing with this article is that once you get something in your head discussion is essentially impossible. He mentioned a "common market of North America ideas" meaning it was not referring to a common market like for the economy, but for ideas. You look at the development of the EU and even when there was considerable economic integration it was difficult to get people to think of things in a European context as opposed to a national context. It is clear Fox was referring to that, rather than a common market, indeed it wouldn't make any sense otherwise as his proposal for open borders would be one incredibly critical element of a common market. I doubt he thought a common external tariff and common regulations would be a harder sell than open borders.
Also, you seem to have a habit of making a great deal of your own analysis. He clearly mentions his proposal for open borders as a part of a strategy for NAFTA, which includes further integration of the economy in the near term in addition to open borders. There is no conflating of his views because he puts it all in one big pot himself. Also one has to consider the precise context. The interviewer is a U.S. journalist talking to the Mexican President-Elect and questions him specifically about the U.S.-Mexican border and he responds to that question. The reason he does not refer to an open U.S.-Canadian border is because it was not part of the question, but even then he includes the opening of borders in his proposal for deepening integration of the NAFTA area. No one asks him about whether he thinks the U.S.-Canadian border should be opened up as well, mainly because the only people who would really care about that are Canadians, who were not represented there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

He mentioned a "common market of North America ideas" meaning it was not referring to a common market like for the economy, but for ideas.

Devil, you can't be serious. I am truly getting sick and tired of having to walk you through this stuff. If you truly think that all Mr Fox was thinking of 20-30 years down the road was the possibility of exchanging IDEAS, then I suggest you go back to sleep.

It is clear Fox was referring to that, rather than a common market, indeed it wouldn't make any sense otherwise as his proposal for open borders would be one incredibly critical element of a common market.

What is clear, Devil, is you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I simply can't believe the horseshit coming from you.

This is what we are going to do. Write ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE what you propose. I will fix the crap you no doubt will claim is being said with what ACTUALLY is being said. And then we will put it on the page.

THAT is what disinterested editors have said, and that is what we are going to do. Canada Jack (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not dictate terms to me and say you will decide what is appropriate. This article is not owned by anyone, including you. I made an attempt to explain what he was most likely saying, but you just seemed to blow over that. He was most likely thinking 20-30 years down the road of a time where people would think in terms of North America. Meaning there would be a common market of ideas, a situation where everyone in North America is coming up with ideas for North America, rather than their respective countries. At any rate, it is irrelevant, the point is his talk of opening up the border was part of a plan to deepen integration of NAFTA according to his own words.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus within WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV & WP:NOTCENSORED[edit]

When editors disagree on an article, then a compromise, of the final wording, should be sought, per current policy WP:CONSENSUS. Note that the wording must meet restrictions from other policies:

  • WP:UNDUE - limits the scope to reflect real-world popularity: a rare viewpoint could be placed in a subsection, as an alternate viewpoint, but not given equal weight in the main text.
  • WP:NPOV - Alternate viewpoints must be allowed, in a article, as if the final decision had not been reached: Wikipedia cannot determine ultimate truth, but only report the events and opinions as noted by other people.
  • WP:NOTCENSORED - even if a viewpoint is unpopular (murder was committed by someone not yet suspected), there should be, at least, one subsection which allows that view ("God made the atmosphere 78% nitrogen to keep people from over-amping on oxygen" +sources). If a conclusion is not original, it should be allowed, but only within WP:UNDUE limits, not as a 50-50% concept, with text equal to mainstream views.

In the past, many editors did not seek a true consensus (of all concerned), so not everyone is familiar with crafting article text that provides a compromise, about which all current editors can agree, as the consensus. Editors advocating an unusual viewpoint should be willing to accept moving text into a subsection, as part of the compromise solution. Remember, in 1927, dinosaurs were considered as relatives of birds, but by 1955, dinosaurs were considered reptiles, then later, by 1990 dinosaurs-as-birds was again a popular view. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a "rare" or "alternate" viewpoint on the history. It's a "personal" viewpoint. The history currently on the page is what has been published by sources. The one the editor wants to insert is his own, personal view of a "history." Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not a personal viewpoint, but a neutral one. While no one has brought all of the historical information together in one source, it is still historical information about the concept this article is about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

US-CARICOM deals - flew right under US media's radar[edit]

I'm seeing the US has signed like the 4th Military treaties with CARICOM in like the last 3 weeks. What is going on? This time they've paid to build a coast guard facility and a multi-million dollar sum for the upstart of a new Eastern Caribbean regional Coast Guard unit. New undersea electricity cables to integrate the region with power grid in Puerto Rico and the USVI?[1]

Business and investment
Energy cooperation and integration
Military and security

CaribDigita (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what all the above is trying to prove. America has been, especially since 911, highly concerned with its security, and most of the above-mentioned initiatives sound like they are under that umbrella. Similar efforts in terms of coordination initiatives have been going on in Central America for something like 100 years, most often with the United States simply imposing its will on those weak states. So, there is little here which is new or surprising or worrisome. However, a North American Union is a different beast entirely and would entail, from the American perspective, giving up some level of sovereignty to achieve, which quite understandably raises concerns for many in America.
But the above is what the United States is imposing, via numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements, to satisfy its concerns about security issues in the Caribbean. It's hard to see how these are examples of the United States giving up sovereignty via these agreements, which seems to be the implication from Carib. Coordinating policy is just that - coordinating policy. It doesn't mean that Barbados, for example, can start telling the United States how to run their affairs. Typically, the precise reverse is the normal course of events. Canada Jack (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The argument of a impeding NAU is that the current NAFTA agreement will fundamentally become a spring-board into a more deeply integrated North American Union. It is the contemplation of the deepening of security, monetary union, trade, and investment leading to an eventual centralised union. Many of the agreements being promulgated now in CARICOM cover these areas. The shiprider agreements, and expansion of US institutions (such as OAS, IMF, IRS, and World Bank, et al.) into the Caribbean region are a throwback to the 1990s under the Clinton administration. Interestingly enough, many of the people serving closes to Obama are persons from the Clinton era. (The chief architects of NAFTA if you will.) Early negotiations leading too NAFTA were carried out under the Clintons and at the time discussions were carried out between then President Bill Clinton and CARICOM nations on the terms of NAFTA entry.(COMMUNIQUÉ ISSUED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIFTH INTER-SESSIONAL MEETING OF CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY, 11-12 MARCH 1994, KINGSTOWN, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES). The Partnership for Prosperity and Security in the Caribbean similarly was an objective of the Clintons.
I don't think Barbados could ever start telling the United States what to do. To put into context CARICOM only has 15 million people (half of whom live in Haiti). CARICOM's small Banana producing countries have been trying to compel the United States and European Union to end their dispute over market access for Central American producers into the EU since the 1990s. On that front, only today has the start of an agreement been signed after 17 years.(US, EU sign deal to end long banana dispute) -- (history on that issue). The Caribbean countries also raised the issue of deportees with the United States as a contentious issue, similarly similarly some headway was made in the area as well. CaribDigita (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The argument of a impeding NAU is that the current NAFTA agreement will fundamentally become a spring-board into a more deeply integrated North American Union. Since the United States seems even less likely now to move beyond NAFTA, that argument is a rather hollow one. Is the border between Mexico and the United States easier to cross since NAFTA was enacted? Or is it harder? Do I, as a Canadian, find it easier to go to the United States since NAFTA, or is it harder? It seems to me that people who see some NAU in the works a) never travel outside of their country and b) have never been to the European Union to see what REAL economic union feels like. Parochial politics within the United States make any serious contemplation of a North American Union nearly impossible.

It is the contemplation of the deepening of security, monetary union, trade, and investment leading to an eventual centralised union.

Uh, no. While the "contemplation" of monetary union may be something along the lines of a NAU, we aren't seeing any "contemplation" of that here. Countries routinely and for decades have deepened their trade, security and investment ties. Further, if one looks at the European Union which the NAU is more or less supposed to be apeing, we see, in stark contrast to North America, border controls being removed.

If this was truly a process towards a NAU-style integration, we'd not see a unilateral effort by the United States to seek these agreements with CARICOM - we'd see NAFTA or a tri-lateral effort here. Further, we'd be talking about potentially opening up borders, not simply standardizing entry requirements, and we'd hear discussion about currencies, we'd hear discussion of a new multi-lateral entity to oversee these new arrangements. None of this seems to be contemplated. Canada Jack (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When I stated "contemplation" I wasn't referring to the heads of government. I was referring to the pressure groups which would likely seek to influence the relevant lower-houses of the separate legislatures to pursue their changes. Also, meetings have taken place between Mexico-CARICOM(in Feb. [2]), and both CARICOM-Canada [3]) and the CARICOM-USA in June. The recent meeting between CARICOM and the USA additionally has reactivated the Bill Clinton-era Partnership for Prosperity and Security between the USA and Anglophone Caribbean.[4], [5]. Interestingly enough, when CARICOM last made a big push to join NAFTA, it was when Bill Clinton was in office in 1994.[6], Now it's Hilary heading up this meeting.
As far as border security, there are levels of collaboration via the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and a handful of airports in Canada and the Caribbean have pre-clearance agreements in place. In terms of security even within CARICOM they have some kind of people tracking service that they don't divulge much about. It is known as IMPACS[7]. The various countries of CARICOM know who's about to arrive in their island (whether by air and sea) even while the person is in-route. CaribDigita (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories" seems a non-neutral section header...[edit]

Given that people often label material as "conspiracy theories" as a critique of that material, it seems to me that the title of the section now labeled as "Conspiracy Theories" should be made more neutral.

Having said that, though, I am not sure how to label it. It would not be entirely correct to label the section "Critiques", for example, because the information therein is not so much a critique of North American Union as it is a questioning of the factual truth and completeness of the "official version" of the subject.

I suggest moving Conspiracy theories from its present position (second in section) so that it follows Official Statements, and renaming it as "Critiques of Official Statements".Llewkcalbyram (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Numerous people claim that a North American Union is being planned - and enacted - behind closed doors, in connection with the SPP process. Officials from the countries involved specifically deny this is happening. Therefore, by definition, these claims are "conspiracy theories." As for the order, since the conspiracy claims preceded the denials of those claims, it makes more sense to have the order as is. Canada Jack (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral term, but rather a way of dismissing the points as "nutty" or "fringe." I wonder if there isn't simply a more objective way to refer to the material in this section, that is less categorical.

The statement "In 2005, claims emerged from critics of North American integration that a "North American Union" was not only being planned, but was being implemented by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. These critics ..." calls for specification of who the "critics" are and references to specific source material to backup the idea that these "critics" exist, beyond an article in the Seattle Times.

The double whammy of unspecified "critics" and marginalization of the critiques as "conspiracy theory" is an interpretation of evidence, not evidence per se. This section needs to be made more neutral and factual, and less opinionated. Don't say they are critics who believe in conspiracy theories. Say who they are, and what they said, and let people judge for themselves.

Llewkcalbyram (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there is a better heading to be used (it was something else before after all). As for the so-called "unspecified critics," there ARE numerous specified critics: Phyllis Schlafly, Jerome Corsi, Howard Phillips, Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul, left-wing groups in Canada, Internet blogs, the film "Zeitgeist".
Since the claims made by the critics - that behind closed doors, a new political and economic entity is being planned - are specifically denied by the bodies in question, then we have, BY DEFINITION, a "conspiracy theory." Besides, we have numerous sources describing these ideas as exactly that - conspiracy theories. Canada Jack (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am liking the new version. Satisfies my concerns. Thanks! Llewkcalbyram (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Have stumbled across this article it seems very much against the idea of a union. should it not be evened out with a little facts about groups that support it. I was doing some research on the EU for a school project and got a little bored so I looked up North American Union and found a few groups in favor. seems this is information that would be of interest.MathewDill (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely in favor of a NAU, it will happen sooner or later... new generations are more friendly to this idea at least in Mexico. kardrak (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks released info[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the reference to this leaked memo as someone had inserted this into the lede and body with the following claim... ""U.S. government officials were also discussing with their Canadian counterparts..." This claim is not supported by the text of leaked document, nor even by the text of the National Post article discussing this leak. What the document describes is what the US ambassador to Canada sees as the Canadian stand on various aspects of future integration and what process would best achieve some or all those aims. In other words, it is a DESCRIPTION of what Canada sees, and NONE of this material is anything new or previously unstated, even back in 2005.
The lede quite misleadingly takes this American-written description of where the Canadians stand on future integration and claims there are "discussions" with Canada. Bullshit.
The cable could be integrated into the page in some manner, though it describes in essence what we already know. That, for example, there was (and is) a split in terms of whether Canadians see adopting a common currency with the US as in the interests, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Official statements[edit]

All but the first "official statement" relate only to the NAFTA superhighway. As the relationship between the NAFTA superhighway and this NAU is fictional, even if the NAFTA superhighway would be factual, they shouldn't be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks material[edit]

The Wikileaks sources clearly indicate that there has been official discussion of the matter. U.S. diplomatic cables would amount to official discussion and it specifically references the opinions of Canadian policymakers in the cable so there has been discussion with Canadian officials about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The memo makes no mention - none - of "discussions" taking place between American and Canadian officials. It simply states the Canadian views on possible future integration and what pace of implementation that might work best, from the Canadian perspective. Indeed, those views included were widely known views, Mark Carney's views, for example. Anyone at the American Embassy who had been reading the Globe and Mail, or watched the National for a month could have gleaned these positions and made an assessment based on the perceived public attitude.
When we say "discussions," that typically entails meetings at a policy level hammering out positions. Here, the only "discussions" which may have taken place are one side asking "what are you policies?" and the other describing those policies. Canada Jack (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs here. American officials consulting Canadian economists and Canadian officials on their ideas about how to approach integration is clearly official discussion of integration. At one point the cable provides a direct, previously unknown, quote from the central bank governor of Canada suggesting that they should wait until having a single market before pursuing a monetary union. In the lede it is only stated that there has been official discussion of an incremental approach, and that much is apparent from the cable. The material I inserted into the body of the article mentions that U.S. officials were discussing with Canadian officials how to approach integration (clearly demonstrated by the cable), and after that statement all the material is explicitly backed by the sources I provided. Either way, removing the entirety of the material based on this is excessive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Jack, allow me to reiterate this more plainly do not remove the entirety of an edit based on a single objection. The material in the lede is clearly supported as the sources cited to the material demonstrate that U.S. officials and Canadian officials were both discussing this, in addition to the sources we have about Vicente Fox, President of Mexico at the time, explicitly discussing an incremental move towards an NAU with the U.S. and Canada. So your removal of the material from the lede is inappropriate. As it stands it seems your only legitimate objection is the statement that they were "discussing with their Canadian counterparts the best approach to integration" but that does not require removal of the entire paragraph by any measure. Please restore the rest of the material and focus on that particular objection in any edits you make to the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "single objection," Devil. The entire PREMISE of the section is that American and Canadian officials were "in discussions" over integration, over and beyond what then was publicly being discussed, a claim which is unsupported by the text AND unsupported by the National Post article.

Further, you claim that the quote from David Dodge, past Governor of the Bank of Canada (I misspoke when I said the current, Mark Carney) is "a direct, previously unknown, quote from the central bank governor of Canada suggesting that they should wait until having a single market before pursuing a monetary union." In fact, the quote comes from a PUBLIC speech he made in 2003, and it has been widely available on the internet for nearly TEN YEARS. [8]

It, like all the other points found within the cable are simple ASSESSMENTS of what the Canadian position is, positions which anyone paying attention to media and think tanks in Canada at the time could readily adduce, a point made EXPLICIT within the text itself: Canadian economists in business, academia and government have given extensive thought to the possible options for further North American integration. The cable gives its ASSESSMENT as to what aspects of further integration Canadians are most interested in and what would realistically be implemented in Canada.

To do this assessment IOW, one need only being paying attention to public policy debates within Canada, there'd be no need to "enter into discussions" to find out what Canada wants in terms of integration, one need only pay attention to what's being said in the media! There is NOTHING in the cable that a political science student writing in 2005 would not have known through readily available media, think tank and other sources in Canada.

Indeed, if anything, it supplies a pretty cogent summary of what Canada sees (even today) as most important vis a vis integration and what is feasible. If Canada had its way, we'd open up that American border for a free-flow of goods and services. For example, on Labour: Many Canadian economists point to labor markets - both within and among countries - as the factor market where more liberalization would deliver the greatest economic benefits for all three countries. They advocate freeing up professional licensing laws, and developing a quick, simple, low-cost work permit system, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens. OBVIOUSLY what Canada wants and what the United States would be willing to agree two are often two different things. To simply state the Canadian position does not indicate an embrace of that position as you seem to think.

What I object to here is that you make a claim for a document - "Canada and the United States in discussions over integration" - which is completely lacking in the document itself. Indeed, the National Post link makes NO claim that this leak indicates any "discussion" at all taking place. So, not only does the primary source say NOTHING about "discussions," neither does the secondary source in regards to the cable. Canada Jack (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response is a bit lengthy, but what I am seeing is that your objection zeroes in on describing it as being a "discussion" and that does not require removing the entirety of the material. I realized, upon giving the matter a second look, that Dodge did say this in a publicly-available speech so I erred in that, but it only strengthens the material in the lede. We can now document significant official discussion in all three countries about the idea of an economic union. The cable also goes beyond a mere assessment as it starts out by suggesting a course of action, and contrasting that suggested course with another possible course. Again, I ask that you restore the rest of the material so we can focus on the issue you are raising.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Devil, there is no dispute that these issues were being discussed as the SPP was being formed. Indeed the focus of the SPP was on the very issues flagged as most feasible in this cable. But, if there is no indication of bilateral discussions - and none are mentioned here- then the memo simply stands as an assessment of the Canadian position and the likelihood of movement on particular issues. Since the cable is not part of the actual negotiations it is hard to discern its relevance. The onus is on you to explain why an American assessment of Canada's trade position rises to inclusion in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it isn't a mere assessment as I just finished saying, it suggests certain actions that could be taken based on what those Canadian experts have said. This is an important point because it demonstrates discussion by U.S. government officials of how to move forward on these issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Devil, what don't you understand here? The cable describes what they view as what Canadian economists and policy leaders would want in terms of bilateral integration. It's a completely everyday, standard kind of assessment of a foreign country by the United States which potentially could inform policy vis a vis bilateral agreements. Indeed, at ALMOST THE SAME TIME, the SPP was enacted, which ended up focusing on some of the very issues mentioned here! OBVIOUSLY many of the items on the Canadian wish-list would be non-starters in the United States.

Enactment of some of these items would be incremental rather than with a big new treaty. And that is because most of the items here are achieved through bi-lateral agreements. Like border security. NONE of this stuff is in any way exceptional or incredible or an indication of some sinister back-channel North American Union implementation.

Except it isn't a mere assessment as I just finished saying, it suggests certain actions that could be taken based on what those Canadian experts have said. ??? Devil, you have got to be kidding. First, there are the lists of various concepts vis a vis integration. Then there is a political assessment of how some of these things might be enacted. Whether the United States would in fact AGREE to such changes is an entirely different matter, but American policy makers would take a look at an assessment like this, pick and choose what among Canadian wishes is anything THEY'D agree with, and stake out positions on what the United States might want and what the political realities are in Canada.

The timing of the cable suggests this was in reference to the SPP which was enacted at around the same time. If you go into negotiations with a country, you need this kind of assessment to understand where the other guys stand.

In the end, I'm not sure how this adds anything to the page. First, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no hint of "discussions" here at all, it's an assessment. And since we are truly only concerned with what initiatives were carried out, not on background papers which describe perceived positions of the other side, I'm at a loss to understand how there is any relevance here at all.

From my reading of what media sources say on this, the mainstream media, like the National Post, more or less shrugged their shoulders at this one. It provides a bit more detail on what the Americans saw as the Canadian position and their opinion on enactment, but what we read is entirely in line with what economists and politicians in Canada were saying for years, and the American take on it seems pretty accurate, in my view.

In some of the non-mainstream media, there seems to be an opinion that this is a "smoking gun" of some sort. I fail to see how, but if you really want to include this text, the best bet I see here is for you to find someone in the mainstream who sees this along those lines and make note within the body (not in the lede) somewhere along the lines of "a 2011 wikileaks release of a 2005 cable is seen by some as indicating discussions were going on behind closed doors of greater integration." But this is kinda like "so what" since we had the SPP, which had the same parties in 2005 behind closed doors discussing greater integration. Canada Jack (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are repeatedly letting your opinion about what you think the U.S. government desires get in the way of allowing information like this to be mentioned. We have this cable, and Fox's words on top of that. It all points to officials from all three countries discussing the possibility of incremental moves towards an economic union and even a common currency. Saying "it's an assessment" is inaccurate as only part of the cable focuses on explaining the Canadian view. Also, it is splitting hairs to say it does not represent "discussion" of these issues as that is exactly what this diplomatic cable is doing. I will change the part in the paragraph about "discussing with their Canadian counterparts" since it seems questionable whether the source states this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
To note further, the quote from the National Post article about the cable is pretty damned important as it describes the cable as "discussing" the issues in a manner similar to the European Union. In other words, that reliable source does describe it as "discussing" the issue and specifically connects it to something like the EU. You not only remove the material, but those sources. So, I see no reason why this material cannot be reinserted, with a modification like what I mentioned. If you have any issues with the wording, please try to address those by rewriting edits or discussing it here on the talk page, not by removing the entire edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

??? Devil, please read the actual content of the cable rather than the lathered rants from the conspiracy community. It says NOTHING about American views on the border, on a common currency! It details the CANADIAN views of that. It's an ASSESSMENT.

To note further, the quote from the National Post article about the cable is pretty damned important as it describes the cable as "discussing" the issues in a manner similar to the European Union. Bullshit. Read the article. It says NOTHING of the sort. The only "discussions" mentioned are the CURRENT discussions (ie., June 2011, the photo of Obama and Harper). AGAIN, the cable says NOTHING about discussions, explicit or implicit. Any claims of the sort have to be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I took it out of the lede as it isn't a "discussion" between countries being described, but it clearly describes issues which were picked up by the SPP, and with some slight rephrasing which I have done, I think the insert now is fine. Canada Jack (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This term is explicitly provided in the National Post article. Here is the quote:
Please restore the material to the lede. I am using material from a reliable source and citing it to that source. That the cable is explicitly discussing an incremental approach is self-evident and thus should remain in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

??? Devil, why the hell does a cable exploring the Canadian position and mentioning the obstacles to implementation as it stood in 2005 rate inclusion in the lede? For one, this an article on the North American Union. Where is the North American Union mentioned in the cable or the article on the cable? And where is there any mention of negotiations in the cable or in the article?

As I indicated, it reveals an American assessment of what Canada wants and what was feasible (in 2005) in terms of implementation. Which was borne out by the focus on border issues in the soon-after formed SPP. Now the text is in its proper context - as an indication that Americans were assessing the Canadian position in 2005 before the SPP and an insight to Canadian attitudes at that time.

IOW, you are arguing that a 2005 assessment by one side of another side's position and what could be implemented, which led to the SPP, which never even approached implementing what was claimed to be the main aspects of the North American Union - and which has now been disbanded - rises to being included in the lede? EVEN THOUGH THE SPP ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE LEDE(!)

This is NOT a "3RR" issue - the text is being massaged by you and me. You inserted several sections which did not match the sources. So they were removed, and I said the text would be appropriate if a mainstream source said the cable was significant for some reason. Now that that text is there, it can stand. Something like 75 per cent on the material you inserted is there. But the information does not belong in the lede as it isn't even discussing the North American Union, which this article is about. If the text WAS about "negotiations" it might warrant greater standing. And if those "negotiations" included aspects of the North American Union, then it might warrant inclusion. But none of that is here, the closest is assessing the Canadian attitude towards a common currency, which was (and is) strongly divided. If it included new information from the governor of the Bank of Canada, there might be more to this. But, despite your initial claims to the contrary, Dodge's comments were public since 2003. Canada Jack (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This term is explicitly provided in the National Post article. C'mon, Devil, don't be silly. The CABLE "discusses" the issues, not the COUNTRIES. "...discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies..." If the COUNTRIES were discussing these obstacles together, that would be different. You do see the distinction? THAT is why this doesn't belong in the lede, ESPECIALLY since you had misleading stated that the cable revealed "discussions" between the countries, a claim which is not to be found in the cable, or in the article on the cable. And an ASSESSMENT does NOT rise to level of policy, it's as simple as that. Which is why this entire discussion is rather silly. Canada Jack (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You have thrice removed the material from the lede, even when I rewrote it a bit, so that is an issue of edit-warring and bordering on a 3RR violation. The wording in the lede says there has been official discussion of an incremental approach towards a single market and currency union, nothing more (it never says this discussion was between countries, though we have sources already in the article to back that up too). We can clearly verify that with the cable and National Post article. For the lede, this is particularly important material to include. It demonstrates that this idea of incremental moves towards something like the NAU has been discussed in official documents. Saying they don't use the exact words "North American Union" is splitting hairs because common sense would dictate that the concept people describe when talking about an NAU is the same as the concept that cable is describing. We define the NAU as a "theoretical economic union" and that is what the cable suggests an incremental approach could move towards. That means it is relevant information as it concerns the subject of a theoretical union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Jack, your removal of "also discussing the best approach to North American integration" is the fourth revert you have made within 26 hours. Please restore that wording. The cable clearly backs up the material I inserted as you can see from this quote:
The cable goes on to say the initiative should not be "oversold" and clearly indicates the document is suggesting an action or idea based on what Canadian experts were saying. It was clearly discussing the best approach to integration and the National Post article several times describes the cable as "discussing" these ideas. This cable naturally was authored by U.S. government officials so they would be the ones doing the discussing. Not sure why you keep insisting that the cable only includes an "assessment" as it clearly includes more than that and it is not described as just an assessment at any time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

North American Defense Structure[edit]

Yes, NADS is a wingnut delusion, but so is the North American Union in general. This has hit multiple wingnut sources so why not include it?

Hcobb (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Anybody willing to contribute to wikipedia will take this seriously. Will post this on the NAU article's comment section as well for reform of generalities.[edit]

A fairly recent article (pub. approx. April/May, 2012) alleges the "theoretical" North American Union may be growing in tangibility and importance. Leaders of Canada, Mexico and USA spoke at the Leaders' Summit in regards to issues on narcotics and continent-wide vaccine to the trade industry as an aspect. The meeting was originally branded “Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America", but was soon changed to the Leaders' Summit shortly after. General rhetoric of past meetings were of "security" and "prosperity", including the most recent meeting's hopes of "foster[ed] gains" of the populace of the North American continent.

It'd save from the presumptions of "comment-gagging" for us to read in on the networking that is highly likely to be premised on the grounds of integration North American countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you expect to be taken seriously, you'll need to provide something from reliable sources. The New American doesn't even come close. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Or to be taken seriously, one would not copy and paste anonymously (and somewhat incoherently) on multiple talk pages. It's pretty amazing that now, almost 3 years after the Amero was to be introduced and the NAU to be a reality, that this dead horse is still being beaten. Where's the far more plausible talk about Canada joining the EU? The trade deal there being discussed would put us at a near par with admitted countries! First step to joining? Obviously, it won't happen, but I suppose the alternate reality that many of these people live in causes them to fail to see what is staring them in the face. Canada Jack (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on North American Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North American Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North American Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)