Talk:North American Union/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ron Paul

Are the references to Rep. Paul really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.143.8 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is infobox appropriate?

While I appreciate the bold edits Supaman89 (talk · contribs) made in adding the {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} to this article, I have concerns regarding its propriety. Since the NAU is -at best- just a theorized organization, virtually all of the information listed in the infobox fails either WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, and should be removed. Does anyone else have thoughts they would like to share on the matter? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, OR/SYN. I concur with removal. Certainly there is no place for a fictional flag made up by a wikipedia user, so I have removed it. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand but really the box is just representative, the whole article is this theorical union, the box simply gives some facts indicators that the union would have (like land mass, economy, etc.), all the other union-articles have one, I think it only improves the article's quality. Supaman89 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive. It is not our place to determine such things. The infobox may mislead readers into believing it actually exists. The infobox is in articles about unions that actually exist, like the European Union or UNASUR. I've removed it from the Pacific Union article for the same reasons above. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would think that a possible solution would be to include the info box, but change the name to "Theoretical North American Union"--that way, people could see the stats if the NAU was formed, but they'd see that it is purely theoretical at this point in time.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. It's one thing to, say, post a theoretical map of the European Union as it would look like with its applicant (failed and current etc) countries, as these countries are currently involved in a process towards accession, so this or something very similar to it stands a good chance of coming to pass. However, it is quite another thing to insert a "theoretical" map of something that none of the attendant countries have made any moves towards implementing, and for which any serious proposals are completely lacking. In other words, all we have are the claims from some that this is being implemented, yet people coming to the page might be given the impression that this is in fact a serious proposal being considered by the governments in question. It isn't. It's "theoretical" just as the Federation of Planets from Star Trek is "theoretical" - it's pure fiction. Canada Jack (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Which version would you use: US+Canada? US+Canada+Mexico? US+Canada+Mexico+Bahamas? US+Canada+Mexico+Puerto Rico? ad infinitum.... --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Map Change

I propose that shaded portion of the the map here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Map_of_NAFTA.png/250px-Map_of_NAFTA.png

be changed to the same color as the map here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/North_America_Map.svg/250px-North_America_Map.svg.png

This is an attempt to create greater color unison for the "continental union" page--I have proposals there as well to match the colors of the South American Union and the African Union, and for the European Union's color to be changed completely as well.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text for "origins" section redux

I am hereby proposing a complete rewrite of the "origins" section as there are several problems (as I had earlier indentified) and my attempt at a previous rewrite did not address all of them.

First off, the "Technate" paragraph is utterly irrelevant as there is no link to the NAU, other than the general point that there have been previous proposals for continental union. My rewrite for this basically mirrors what I did on my first attempt.

Next, to suggest that "Most mainstream interest in a North American Union" focuses on the SPP is misleading. It is far more accurate to state that there was no one claiming a NAU was being planned until critics seized on the SPP, and cited other reports and comments which "confirmed" for them the "true" plans for a NAU which lay behind the SPP. So, instead of searching for various proposals of an amero, or trying to figure out what Fox was proposing in 2001 is straying from the issue here - and this issue is: Where and when did the concept of the NAU actually emerge? And the answer to that, both from skeptics and from critics, is when the SPP was proposed in 2005. So to go on about "Nafta-plus" proposals etc (as I did, admittedly) misses the mark as nothing akin to the NAU was talked about then. It only emerged once the SPP and the Task Force started talking about enhancing trade and security for the NAFTA bloc. And once critics saw the goals of the Task Force as spelling out the goals of the SPP.

So, here follows is my new text for the section:

Since at least the mid-19th century, numerous concepts for a continental union between Canada, Mexico and the United States, often including South American, Central American and Caribbean countries, have been proposed, such as the North American Technate and the Free Trade Zone of the Americas. In contrast, details of the North American Union concept emerged not from proponents, but from critics of the idea.

These details emerged when critics identified what they perceived to be the true goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). When the SPP was founded by the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States in March, 2005, some critics claimed it was an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures, a critique heightened by the subsequent publication in May 2005 by the Independent Task Force on North America of a report which praised the SPP initiative and called for greater economic integration by 2010.[1][2] [3].

While a broad spectrum of observers criticize the secrecy of the SPP and its dominance by business groups, the specific claim that its true aim was to create a North American Union analogous to the European Union (EU), with open borders and a common currency among other features, was being made by the fall of 2006, when right-wing commentators Phyllis Schlafly, Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips started a website dedicated to quashing the what they perceived as the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."

These critics claim the actual goals of the SPP were confirmed by the Task Force, [4] and by the Task Force’s co-chair American University professor Robert Pastor. [5] Critics often cite Pastor as being the “father” of the NAU [6][7] and his 2001 book "Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New" has been called a blueprint for the plan,[8] and includes a suggestion to adopt a common North American currency called the amero.[9]

The SPP was described by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States as being designed to provide greater cooperation on security and economic issues, while the Task Force recommended the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter." All three governments deny that there are plans to implement a NAU via the SPP, and the Task Force report said that a North American Community, which would be similar to the European Community which preceded the EU, should not rely on "grand schemes of confederation or union" nor did it suggest a regional government or a common currency. The Task Force’s recommendations included developing a North American customs union, common market, investment fund, energy strategy, set of regulatory standards, security perimeter, border pass, and advisory council, among other common goals.

While the SPP was an initiative carried out at the highest levels of government of the three countries in question, the Task Force was an independent project with no government affiliation organized by the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations.

Nevertheless, the belief that a North American Union is currently being planned and implemented in secret has become widespread, so much so that the NAU has become a topic of debate during the 2008 American presidential campaigns and the subject of various U.S. Congressional resolutions designed to thwart its implementation. Prominent critics such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul denounced the concept, joined by left-wing groups in Canada, internet blogs, and widely viewed videos and films such as “Zeitgeist.” Corsi’s 2007 book “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” also helped bring the NAU discussion into the mainstream. Others who dismiss these beliefs maintain they are the latest example of a long line of misguided conspiracy theories which suggest the United States’ sovereignty is being eroded by a secret cabal of foreign and domestic players.[10][11]

Some of these NAU skeptics, while expressing concern about the lack of transparency of the SPP, note that this is not evidence of a plot to create a North American Union. “The idea of a regional union that effaces U.S. sovereignty is light-years away from George W. Bush's foreign policy of unilateral action and disdain for international law and institutions.” [12]

Of the three leaders at the 2005 founding of the SPP (American president George W. Bush, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin and Mexican president Vicente Fox), and the two subsequent leaders (Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper and Mexican president Felipe Calderon), only Fox has voiced support for the ultimate goal of an entity like the North American Union. Before the SPP and since, he has noted the success countries like Ireland and Spain have had in modernizing their economies and bringing higher standards of living for their citizens by joining what is now the European Union and has expressed the hope that Mexico could have a similar experience in a trade body of comparable scope in North America.[13] [14] However, he has also expressed frustration with the lack of progress towards that goal as issues such as immigration reform proved to be contentious within the United States.[15] Various positive comments about a North American Union concept and an eventual common currency for the Americas by Vicente Fox, in particular some made during a promotional tour for a book in 2007, have been cited by critics as evidence that the body is in fact being enacted or planned.[16]

However, the three current leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States have all characterized the goals of the SPP as being far more modest than the goals Vicente Fox has expressed and what critics have alleged is actually being contemplated.[17]

Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that after a week, there are no objections posted for this rewrite of the section, I will insert the new text soon. Canada Jack (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed in you. It seems you had no honest interest in honoring consensus or improving the section, but instead were only wanting to bide your time until you got an opportunity to re-insert your own proposal. This is unacceptable for the series of reasons I gave before. You're distorting the historical record here, not to mention approaching it with your own bias on the subject. If you want to expand on the popularization of the NAU concept then by all means do so, but what you're doing is just trying to bring this back to what you and other "skeptics" had, an article treating the very concept as a conspiracy theory propagated mainly by lunatics on the fringe of politics and ignoring the strong support of this at some of the highest offices in the nations concerned and in highly influential groups in all countries concerned. You give far more weight to the former than the latter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about sanctimonious nonsense. Four months ago, I wrote a proposed change to the "origins" section pointing out that as it stood, the section was full of original research drawing a connection, for example, the push by Vicente Fox for a NAFTA-plus in the early years of the decades to the SPP, despite the fact that no sources were ever cited for this assertion. Please read the pertinent section on using cited information a) and cited information b) to come to uncited conclusion c). Which is what stood before I proposed the change.

Of those expressing an opinion, three of four agreed with the changes I made. You strongly disagreed, even while ignoring the issue of uncited content. But did I insert the text anyway? No! Three months later, I rewrote the section again, this time keeping in mind the various criticisms you had. I posted the section, and, after a week of no comments on it, I inserted the text.

Now, without a single syllable from you, Devil, indicating any problem with the text I inserted, you, before discussion, re-inserted the uncited and clumsy "origins" section which I had replaced. And, guess what? Where I had a fully cited section, which drew no original conclusions, you saw fit to put back a section with a lot of detail of dubious relevance to the NAU, and claim my version was "biased."

If you want to expand on the popularization of the NAU concept then by all means do so, but what you're doing is just trying to bring this back to what you and other "skeptics" had, an article treating the very concept as a conspiracy theory propagated mainly by lunatics on the fringe of politics and ignoring the strong support of this at some of the highest offices in the nations concerned and in highly influential groups in all countries concerned. You give far more weight to the former than the latter.

You have utterly failed to address how the "redux" section is biased. If you can point to any part here which paints those who believe the NAU as a bunch of "lunatics on the fringe of politics," I am waiting breathlessly to learn how the new section does this. Canada Jack (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Three of four agreed with you because those three of four all had the same bias you had. They all view the North American Union as a conspiracy theory deserving rebuke and debunking, rather than a concept that needs objective explanation. I explained all of my objections before and your "redux" has no significant difference. You're using Wikipedia to push an agenda, which is simply unacceptable. Now you're seeking to use the fact that your version, which you clearly intended to sneak in when you felt there would not be any attention on it, has been there for a month to keep it there forever and maintain this ridiculous biased version. You talked of it as a compromise, but this is only a compromise if you think getting your way is a compromise (hint: it isn't).
You retained one of the things which was clearly intended to sway the article against those suggesting the NAU is a legitimate concept being pursued by certain influential interests and supported by government officials. This bit of gold:
Corsi’s 2007 book “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” also helped bring the NAU discussion into the mainstream. Others who dismiss these beliefs maintain they are the latest example of a long line of misguided conspiracy theories which suggest the United States’ sovereignty is being eroded by a secret cabal of foreign and domestic players.
I know you think it is somehow ok because that is a statement of what people actually believe, but it's completely unnecessary. It seems more like a reminder to readers, "Hey these people are crazy, don't believe them." I also noted in the past that your version was incongruent with what the topic is supposedly about, the concept of a North American Union, this problem has not been addressed with your redux. I thought that much should be apparent, especially considering you hardly changed it at all, two paragraphs are basically word-for-word, the only difference being the correction of a spelling error and the replacement of a comma with the word "and". It seems you only moved some stuff around and reworded other parts while largely keeping it the same way. Honestly I think the only major objection you addressed in any significant sense was that various parts were just plain wrong, but it still maintains an inaccurate portrayal of the subject. In fact as I look through your new version more thoroughly it seems you just created new problems like this:
Some of these NAU skeptics, while expressing concern about the lack of transparency of the SPP, note that this is not evidence of a plot to create a North American Union. “The idea of a regional union that effaces U.S. sovereignty is light-years away from George W. Bush's foreign policy of unilateral action and disdain for international law and institutions.”
Ignoring the floating quote the fact the first sentence says some of these NAU skeptics "note that is not evidence of a plot to create a North American Union" referring to a lack of transparency just pushes even further this depiction of the idea as a lunatic fringe issue. Honestly it should go without saying that a lack of transparency is not evidence of a specific agenda so like the comment about the "secret cabal" this is just another one of those little pointers so that readers can form an opinion consistent with yours, that talk about a North American Union is itself a crazy conspiracy theory which should be shunned by intelligence people. Just in general this "new" version doesn't actually fix any of the old problems with bias.
The Only thing Corsi did is popularize the term "North American Union" because various people were talking about the SPP and North American Community as causing some form of unwelcome merger before Corsi's book or site. Yet you make it seem like Corsi was the instigator of the entire thing. Actually one of my objections, that you deal first with Corsi and second with Dobbs, is not only unadressed, you actually made it worse by talking about Corsi in the third paragraph with Dobbs being down in the seventh. In fact, have the first paragrahp and the two following paragraphs talk about the NAU as coming primarily from Corsi.
Honestly, it also now deals so much with the SPP it seems like it should be in that article, not this one. It doesn't deal with the concept of a North American Union, it primarily is honestly just a criticism section for the SPP article. The fact you even think this somehow is acceptable boggles the mind.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Canada Jack is trying to "sneak" content into this article is disingenuous at best. The content in question was added 34 days prior to your objection, which is a lifetime under WP:SILENCE. While I understand and appreciate the fact that the four or five of us most involved with this article do not always see eye-to-eye, the compromise revision by Canada Jack adequately addressed the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE concerns that several of us had. Even though pundits and news media on the far-left and far-right may see the NAU as a looming threat, the majority of reliable, third-party, published sources see it as little more than a conspiracy theory or fear mongering. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Jack probably wants to put on an air of innocence but this was a pretty naked attempt to get it snuck in. Your concerns about "fringe" and "undue weight" were misplaced and ultimately tinged with your own blatant and obvious bias. In fact, the version I had still referred to Corsi's book as "forming the core of NAU conspiracy theories" yet you think that version was weighted towards conspiracy theories. The reality is it treated it like any other concept of continental union giving it some air of legitimacy and you just plain didn't want that. You wanted to treat it like it is just a fiction invented by wackos with tinfoil hats, which ignores the widespread support the idea has among very influential interests in business and politics.
The "reliable" sources you talk about are basically hit pieces. Just some "skeptic" railing about crazy right-wingers and radical Lou Dobbs without even seriously addressing where North American integration efforts will likely lead. I for one think they likely will lead to a North American Union though in a much longer time period than people like Corsi and Dobbs talk about. I'm not alone in thinking that either and Vicente Fox, who was one of the leaders who started the SPP, thinks the same thing and supports such a move. Yet you want to downplay the concept and treat it like an irrational conspiracy theory which should not be legitimized in anyway. That is plain and simple bias.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly resent the accusation that I was waiting until things got quiet before I "snuck in" this text. If anything, I've bent over backwards to accommodate your views, and let me remind you, delicately, that you are the only one here with substantial objections to anything I have done. Further, not only did I post my proposed text, I rewrote it with your objections in mind.

You did change some things I objected to, but there's plenty you left the same. The only other people who've given an opinion have all been expressing one thing in common, they hold the very same bias you do. All of them have supported having this topic deal with the NAU as a conspiracy theory and "urban legend" ultimately looking to invalidate the very idea. You raised no serious objections to calling the NAU a conspiracy theory, you only raise objections when it suggests there's some legitimacy to the idea of people pushing for a union and that the SPP could be or is a step towards such a body. We will likely have comprehensive immigration reform under the next President which will greatly reduce immigration restrictions. I'm not against that, mind you, I'm eagerly for it, but I also recognize that would advance this idea of a North American Union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the longer this goes on, the clearer the underlying problem here is with you on this subject: You fail to see how the old version of "origins" and how omitting the text you find objectionable would make the piece biased. Indeed, you perceive any acknowledgment within the text of critiques of the entire notion of the NAU as "biased," and are not shy about accusing anyone who agrees with me, with no evidence I am aware of, of being "biased." Gee, Devil, maybe some here agree with my approach to describing the subject even if they may not agree with my particular views on the subject! But, no, Devil "knows" that anyone who disagrees with him must be, by definition, it seems, "biased."

Actually I have no problem with including critiques of the notion of a plan to institute an NAU. Corsi and Lou Dobbs do make a lot of inaccurate statements about the SPP and their ideas can be properly labeled as conspiracy theories. My objection is you seem to have a problem disassociating the NAU as a concept and these conspiracy theories. In fact, your proposal basically says there is no difference that "details of the concept" emerged from critics instead of proponents, which is ridiculous because the critics are looking at the proposals of the proponents for the basis of their theories. So in fact the details do emerge from proponents, but the specific term "North American Union" was popularized by critics like Dobbs and Corsi.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But my entire premise in writing this in as neutral a way as possible was that it already was highly biased in the first place! For one, the emphasis on the "technate." Devil had always defended this as providing a "context" to discussion of the NAU. But that "context" presupposes the truth of the NAU in the first place! What "context" would it be establishing otherwise? It suggests that concepts of a continental union are commonplace, and this is simply the latest one, the NAU. That's not bias? Imagine if I used the same approach in providing "context" by starting with descriptions of past discredited conspiracy theories which suggested American sovereignty was being eroded, like the various Communist conspiracies, illuminata, One World Order, etc., etc., then proceeded with this "context" to discuss the NAU? Rest assured, Devil would scream blue bloody murder, and he would be right to do so.

Concepts of a continental union are not necessarily commonplace but they occur at several points in North American history. Namely after the formation of the United States. There were a lot of people who wanted to eventually bring Canada into the United States, which I'm sure you are aware of, and there were also many who wanted to bring in most of modern Mexico during the Mexican-American war. If ambitions for Canada and Mexico were satisfied this would have left something akin to a North American Union. Just like the European Union and Union of South American Nations there is some historical ambition for a North American Union. Acknowledging this isn't pushing a POV, but just acknowledging that the idea isn't some recent aberration as you and others want to assert through Wikipedia. Readers should be informed and aware of the fact that what a lot of people like Dobbs are talking about is not something new and there are people who have pushed for this unsuccessfully in the past.
Also that bit about a "secret cabal" does hint at past conspiracy theories in fact.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My solution? To mention this technate thing as an example of plans with proponents. The NAU, in contrast, was not proposed so much as it was exposed, or subject to exposure by critics.

But, since the NAU concept is something which has not been expounded by proponents, it is subject to the valid criticism, given denials from the bodies in question, that it in fact is a fiction. Since the first discussions of the NAU emerged in response to the SPP and the Task Force, and the governments in question have repeatedly and consistently denied its existence, it is entirely appropriate, indeed it is our responsibility and obligation here at wikipedia, to expose this critique. And this critique is not a tiny element. Critiques appear in some of the world's leading publications. To pretend, as you seem to wish to, that it exposes "bias" to mention these critques, simply exposes your unwillingness to approach this from any other direction than the one that starts with the premise that this NAU is a real thing.

The problem is you seem to be focusing on the term North American Union rather than the concept itself. The term is just a new name for an old concept which has proponents throughout history. Your desire to focus on the NAU solely on the basis of the usage of the term is in fact motivated by your desire to pass it off as just an unreasonable conspiracy theory rather than focus on what the concept entails and the legitimacy of that concept among proponents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Which leads me to Vicente Fox. You've had four months since I first flagged this, Devil, and if you go above here, you will see my detailed and specific critques on this: Vicente Fox as a "source" for the SPP or the NAU is not claimed by any of the sources we can find. Yet you insist on a long-winded explanation of where the SPP comes from, when it is only the premise of the NAU-believers that this has anything to do with a NAU. If you don't believe the NAU is real, Fox as a source for the purported plans within the SPP to make a NAU are nonsensical. Indeed, Fox while embracing the concept of the NAU (which I mention and which I also mention forms a basis for the belief this is being enacted) also says that these goals are not being enacted, indeed he says nearly the precise opposite.

Except what Fox is in many ways identical to the concept of a North American Union, he even talks about eventually removing the borders entirely. If that's not a North American Union I don't know what is. That's the point. It shows the concept had traction before the SPP and before all this hysteria about the SPP. It challenges the "skeptic" notion that this really was just a fiction invented by some crazy conspiracy theorists. The version I had actually says Mexico's concerns about immigration were rejected in favor of a more limited reduction in restrictions on immigration proposed by Canada. It actually provides a factual challenge to this notion that by 2010 the borders will be eliminated. It presents the history of the NAU concept to show that not only is this is an old idea, but also challenges some of the modern claims made by figures like Dobbs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

IOW, as the old text read, to trace the "history" of the NAU pre-SPP is biased as it accepts as a premise the notion that the NAU grew out of the plans of Fox and others. The best we have is that Fox wanted an enhanced Nafta, would like to see something like the NAU down the road, but he doesn't see any progress towards that, nor does he believe the SPP will be anything like that.

Where does the old version in any way suggest the North American Technate had any influence on the SPP? It doesn't. It does acknowledge Fox's role in the SPP and NAFTA-Plus negotiations and shows some of the ambitions he had for that particular idea, but at the same time clearly shows that his goals were not met in the SPP in preference for a more moderate stance. If you wanted to clarify this you were free to, but instead you wanted to replace it with your own biased version of events.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All I have done is carefully read the skeptics on where the NAU comes from, and gone to the folks like Corsi, Shylafly, Dobbs and Paul to see where they all think this comes from. And what I have read is that this all started with the SPP, and that the Task Force "confirmed" these beliefs (Shylafly said this by the summer of 2005) and that Pastor of the Task Force additionally had published works which called for elements of the NAU which are now identified, even though these elements were not part of the Task Force recommendations. All of this is in the sources, Devil. All of this is beyond dispute. Whether you believe the contentions or not, this sequence is what the sources tell us happened in terms of when the concept of the NAU emerged, and therefore this is what we should have on the page.

But these views are controversial, to put it politely. Therefore it is our responsibility to note the controversy. In the same way that on the JFK assassination page the mere mention of "conspiracy" does not embrace or deny such a thing, the mention that many here consider the NAU views as a misguided conspiracy theory does not embrace or deny any view. It simply reports that wide-spread opinion.

You apparently just don't get that there is a difference between treating the NAU as a conspiracy theory and looking at it as a concept. No one says JFK's assassination is a conspiracy theory, because it's ultimately separate from the conspiracy theories and no one denies the assassinations of JFK happened, at least no one reasonable. So too the NAU as a concept is separate from the conspiracy theories about it. You instead claim the "details of the concept" emerged from the conspiracy theorists, basically saying they came up with the concept which ignores the long history of the concept. The North American Technate is really just a North American Union with a different name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I said: Others who dismiss these beliefs maintain they are the latest example of a long line of misguided conspiracy theories which suggest the United States’ sovereignty is being eroded by a secret cabal of foreign and domestic players.

You said: I know you think it is somehow ok because that is a statement of what people actually believe, but it's completely unnecessary. It seems more like a reminder to readers, "Hey these people are crazy, don't believe them."

You cannot be more far off base than you are with that comment, Devil. To not include reference to those who dismiss the existence of the NAU - and why they dismiss them - would be in itself "biased" and irresponsible as it ignores a large segment of opinion. If I characterized the NAU beliefs as "whacky" and "crazy," you might have a point. Instead, I simply note the opinion of others here, without descending to characterization.

It doesn't have to include those who dismiss it just like it doesn't have to include those who don't, and it doesn't. The version I had did not include the opinions of those who thought there was a plan or those who thought there wasn't except to say there are people who thought there were ongoing plans. That's it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also noted in the past that your version was incongruent with what the topic is supposedly about, the concept of a North American Union, this problem has not been addressed with your redux.

And here we get to the nub of the problem. Devil, you apparently are not willing, or not able, to address the "origins" in any NPOV fashion as you clearly embrace the premise that this is real and was in the works before the SPP. But to write the article in that fashion, and this you clearly don't get, embraces that premise! Do either of us know whether the NAU is real or not? I know NAFTA is real. I know the EU is real. But I don't know that the NAU is real. And neither do a lot of others. The article has to reflect that opinion, the concensus, that the NAU's existence is not established as a true thing. It may be true, but the sources differ strongly on that. And that is what the rewrite attempted to address and which I feel does address.

No one actually thinks there is an NAU presently, it's not like the New World Order. There are people who think it is being planned and the version I had did not favor or disfavor this, but your version certainly does the latter. I think there are people who do want a North American Union and they have wanted one before the SPP, I would be right in that assessment too. Some of these people could help bring about such a thing and I think they want to use the SPP for that purpose, to move forward their agenda for North American integration, ultimately resulting in a North American Union. However, I'm not suggesting this article should deal much with talk about plans to build a North American Union. I think this should focus much more on the concept itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it also now deals so much with the SPP it seems like it should be in that article, not this one. It doesn't deal with the concept of a North American Union, it primarily is honestly just a criticism section for the SPP article. The fact you even think this somehow is acceptable boggles the mind.

!!! And you want to rewrite this? The SPP is the vehicle for the NAU, and that is the major claim here. Hell, you were the one insistent on delineating Fox's contributions to the process which led to the SPP, so it "boggles the mind" that you suddenly object to discussion of the SPP here. Indeed, there is far less discussion of where the SPP came from than before!

You seem to be misunderstanding my objection. My objection is that this is basically a criticism section for the article on the SPP as it deals primarily with "critics" of the NAU, which really just means critics of the SPP as that is primarilly what they are criticizing. The Task Force report is actually linked to that criticism of the SPP rather than treated as an independent thing being criticized. In fact, before the SPP became a major issue Dobbs was criticizing this report and claiming it wanted to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada. So it wasn't simply connected to criticism of the SPP, but criticism in its own right. So basically the entire section on the history of the concept of a North American Union deals with criticism of the SPP and responses to that criticism, rather than dealing with the concept itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Only thing Corsi did is popularize the term "North American Union" because various people were talking about the SPP and North American Community as causing some form of unwelcome merger before Corsi's book or site. Yet you make it seem like Corsi was the instigator of the entire thing. Actually one of my objections, that you deal first with Corsi and second with Dobbs, is not only unadressed, you actually made it worse by talking about Corsi in the third paragraph with Dobbs being down in the seventh. In fact, have the first paragrahp and the two following paragraphs talk about the NAU as coming primarily from Corsi.

You seem utterly confused. I state that the phrase NAU and the specific elements it entailed were being described by the time Corsi, Shylafly and Phillips started their website in 2006, but that the critiques came soon after the Task Force report and the SPP. If you go to the links, you will see that quite clearly. If you see the earlier Shylafly stuff from 2005, she has not called this a NAU yet. I didn't say who coined the term as I didn't have the source. But the critiques clearly emerged from where I said they did and, indeed, one of the three who founded the site was one of the first to talk about the supposed goals of the SPP.

The specific critique you mentioned was "an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures" not something about a North American Union. However, this is not about criticism and saying the idea of an NAU came from the critics is simply part of your attempt to basically poison the wells. By painting the NAU as something originating from critics who believe it was a plot and associate it with a long of conspiracies about a "secret cabal" trying to destroy the U.S. you create an image of people who talk about the NAU in a negative light as being crazy conspiracy wackos.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your concern here seems to be to give proper "credit," to who started this, when all I say in the article is where the belief is being spread and some of the major players in the discussion. I would say to do this would be to suggest an "author" of the plan which would also suggest that, well, this sprung from the heads of these critics and not from the government in question, no? Canada Jack (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying there, but my concern is by tying so much of the idea of a North American Union to people like Corsi the article is misleading readers into thinking this is some fringe concept when you actually have major news commentator like Dobbs talking about this a lot.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you really calling articles published in three major newspapers and two major news magazines "hit pieces" because you disagree with them? Since when is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a valid reason for ignoring valid sources? On the topic of valid references, refresh my memory ... which reliable, third-party, published sources support the claim that there really is a conspiracy to foist a North American Union upon us all? Likewise, as much as my wife and I enjoy watching Lou Dobbs Tonight, I have yet to see Mr. Dobbs present any NAU evidence on the program that is not accurately described by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Seattle Times articles on the topic: "Urban legend of `North American Union` feeds on fears." --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm calling them hit pieces because they were basically written to attack and demean people. The bias in those articles is so pervasive the fact you think these are reliable sources for what to call people believing there's a plan for an NAU just boggles the mind. It's like citing an evolutionist saying Intelligent Design is superstition and presenting it as a factual representation of Intelligent Design. This article shouldn't spend much time bogged down over whether there are plans for a union or not, but be more concerned with accurately describing the concept and its history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of the above betrays a basic ignorance about what this article is about and should be about. It is not an article about a general concept of a North American version of the European Union, or proposals for greater integration per se. It is about a specific concept called the "North American Union." And while the lede includes ideas of greater continental integration as recommended by the Task Force, the specific critiques don't focus on those recommendations as much as they do on numerous specific elements elsewhere described. For example, the amero is not part of the Task Force, nor mentioned by the SPP. But this is a common element supposed to be included in the North American Union.

All of them have supported having this topic deal with the NAU as a conspiracy theory and "urban legend" ultimately looking to invalidate the very idea. You raised no serious objections to calling the NAU a conspiracy theory, you only raise objections when it suggests there's some legitimacy to the idea of people pushing for a union and that the SPP could be or is a step towards such a body.

The problem here, Devil, is we must reflect what the sources tell us. You seem to have an another agenda here, and that is to promote the premise that the North American Union is a concept worthy of serious consideration, either pro or con. That much is fine. However, a quick check of various sources reveals a stark cleavage here, and that is a lot of passionate people warning of the dangers of the NAU on one side, and on the other side, not supporters of the concept but those who dismiss the very premise that there is any proposal out there to be considered. And they go further - to suggest that the concept is in fact nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

AS for the idea that I "only raise objections when it suggests there's some legitimacy to the idea of people pushing for a union and that the SPP could be or is a step towards such a body," the "objection" I have is there is no evidence for this! There is evidence of some support for the notion - as with Fox - and that is duly noted. However, that is more a general goal than a specific policy direction, which is what we are talking about if we want to include material about this. I am unaware of any movement towards implementing a policy which includes the oft-mentioned goals of no borders and a common currency. Some in the past have proposed concepts like the amero, but no one in a position of power is talking about this. SO what are we left with? Contentions from critics that a) these are the concepts and b) they are being implemented. I am careful not to characterize these notions in a manner which would disparage them, but it is completely appropriate given the complete lack of official movement on these plans to note that others maintain that is because these plans do not exist.

My objection is you seem to have a problem disassociating the NAU as a concept and these conspiracy theories. In fact, your proposal basically says there is no difference that "details of the concept" emerged from critics instead of proponents, which is ridiculous because the critics are looking at the proposals of the proponents for the basis of their theories. So in fact the details do emerge from proponents, but the specific term "North American Union" was popularized by critics like Dobbs and Corsi

This betrays what I see on your part confusion on what this page is about. When we talk about specific concepts for integration, what are we talking about? The stated goals of the SPP? The goals of the Task Force (which sounds like an ECC-style body, not a EU-style body)? About what Pastor was talking about in 2001 with his book (which sounds something more akin to the EU)? The problem is, when we talk about the specific thing called the NAU, as I carefully noted in the text, those elements do not come from any particular proponent! Pastor included some stuff in his book, but he never used the term "North American Union," and he (since the Task Force) proposes nothing like the NAU now and has repeatedly stated as much.

IOW, to state that individual elements come from person a or person b, is not enough. A "proponent" would have to be saying we must do this (all the elements) and create a NAU (or something near-identical). The problem is, and I searched up and down, there are no proponents for the NAU. The closest thing I have seen is comments by Fox stating he is in favour of something like that down the road, but he also seems to be in favour of the all-Americas free trade zone. Pastor, as noted, is now in favour of something like the ECC, which specifically excludes some of the elements cited for the NAU. But he, and others who generally support the concept note that the political reality is that this is a no-go. So no one is proposing it!

And, just to clarify, we aren't quibbling here about nomenclature. Nothing resembling the North American Union by any other name is currently being pushed by any proponents. And no one who might favour such an entity is on record as saying the SPP is the first step towards this. Indeed, the one person who would embrace a NAU is on record as saying current American politics makes such an ultimate goal less likely.

Just like the European Union and Union of South American Nations there is some historical ambition for a North American Union. Acknowledging this isn't pushing a POV, but just acknowledging that the idea isn't some recent aberration as you and others want to assert through Wikipedia. Readers should be informed and aware of the fact that what a lot of people like Dobbs are talking about is not something new and there are people who have pushed for this unsuccessfully in the past.

Which is why I retain the fact that other proposals have been made historically. The problem with it before was it went into unnecessary detail on a past concept that had no stated bearing on the NAU. Mentioning the existence of past proposals is sufficient, but the contrast here is that it was made public not by proponents, but critics. The first mention that something was afoot that I could find came from Shylafly in, I think, July 2005. No one had previously suggested a continental union was being envisioned by the governments in question until that point.

The problem is you seem to be focusing on the term North American Union rather than the concept itself. The term is just a new name for an old concept which has proponents throughout history. Your desire to focus on the NAU solely on the basis of the usage of the term is in fact motivated by your desire to pass it off as just an unreasonable conspiracy theory rather than focus on what the concept entails and the legitimacy of that concept among proponents.

That's simply not so. You could just as easily say "the European Union is nothing new. There's been 'unions' by many other names in the past, such as Nazi Germany, the Napoleonic Empire, the Roman Empire." In fact, what was unique about the EU is the creation of a supranational entity with legislative and executive power over member nations. And the way the NAU is described envisions something similar, which is the source of the chief objections from critics. I am unaware of any past proposal to make a North American economic union with a supranational body making decisions overriding the national governments. This is far, far more than the much more modest proposals made by the Task Force, for instance. The Technate proposes in essence a single nation, which is more in line with what previous mergers entail, and most of those past merger proposals typically featured essentially a USA expanded or at least dominating.

Except what Fox is in many ways identical to the concept of a North American Union, he even talks about eventually removing the borders entirely. If that's not a North American Union I don't know what is. That's the point. It shows the concept had traction before the SPP and before all this hysteria about the SPP.

Where is his proposal for a single currency? Where is his proposal for a supranational decision-making body? Opening borders is only a single thing and not necessarily part of a NAU-style body. In Europe, Switzerland and Norway, not part of the EU, have open borders as well. Further, you have suggested that his "open borders" concept is part of the SPP. But it isn't. The only people who are suggesting it is are the critics. So how does Fox's talk of open borders lead to the SPP when open borders aren't part of the SPP?

Where does the old version in any way suggest the North American Technate had any influence on the SPP? It doesn't. Which is why it had no place there as written. It was irrelevant.

It does acknowledge Fox's role in the SPP and NAFTA-Plus negotiations and shows some of the ambitions he had for that particular idea, but at the same time clearly shows that his goals were not met in the SPP in preference for a more moderate stance.

But you have supplied nothing nor have I found anything which specifies Fox's role in the creation and impetus for the SPP! That was my point! The way it stood, there was stuff about various Fox proposals, then the SPP, but no indication as to how they were connected. And it is not enough to note similarities etc. There has to be a specific reference to Fox's role in what emerged with the SPP. I have seen some stuff on Canadian proposals and business proposals as they related to the SPP, but not on Fox. As it stood, it was original research. Besides, it seemed to be more of an effort to conflate Fox's NAU-friendly comments with other stuff which supposedly formed a basis for the SPP, but it failed to back any of that up with specific citations.

You apparently just don't get that there is a difference between treating the NAU as a conspiracy theory and looking at it as a concept.

The problem which you seem utterly incapable of acknowledging is that there is no one - no one - who proposed what these people describe as a North American Union! The "concept" as we know it comes from the critics! Fox didn't put forward a concept, the three governments haven't, the Task Force hasn't, the SPP makes no mention of it, and even Pastor who wrote about something similar says, since the Task Force, that it is not something he proposes!

Answer me this, Devil: Who is proposing a supra-national entity with Mexico Canada and America which includes open borders and a common currency and networks of transportation corridors? I sure know a long list of people who take exception to such an entity, the problem is, I can find no one who actually proposes this!

It doesn't have to include those who dismiss it just like it doesn't have to include those who don't, and it doesn't. The version I had did not include the opinions of those who thought there was a plan or those who thought there wasn't except to say there are people who thought there were ongoing plans. That's it.

The problem is, given my previous statement, is there is no one proposing a North American Union. So, given that, we have critics of the concept, but no proponents. However, there are many out there who say the concept is a paranoid fiction. As I have stated, it is our responsibilty to reflect that large body of opinion. Your approach - to censor that large body of mainstrean opinion - is not an acceptable approach for an encyclopedia.

You seem to be misunderstanding my objection. My objection is that this is basically a criticism section for the article on the SPP as it deals primarily with "critics" of the NAU, which really just means critics of the SPP as that is primarilly what they are criticizing.

I understand your objection, I simply contend that it emerges from you inability to admit that the concept emerges from the critics of the proposal. This was not an issue until, as far as I can determine, July 2005, when critics seized on the SPP. Some critics believe the genesis of the NAU came from before that, but in terms of it being known, that is when we heard of it. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to have as a start point those critiques. It is only their contention that the NAU has its genesis elsewhere and that it is being planned. It is that contention which is denied. Therefore we can not write the article from the premise that the concept was well-established or in the works as that is POV. What I did is simply reflect what the sources say - one, the critics that the SPP is a vehicle for the NAU and here are the elements they describe and who they say is behind it, and - two, what skeptics say about those premises. Those are the only things which we can confidently source with reliable citations. Inasmuch the various "conspiracy" sites can't be considered "reliable" as a true representation of factual reality (which for your point of view is a serious impediment to sourcing a lot of this), they nevertheless are an appropriate source to deliniate their various claims. Which I have done.

The specific critique you mentioned was "an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures" not something about a North American Union

The claim is that the NAU is being enacted in secret via the SPP outside legislative authority. Which is indeed what is being claimed by the critics and explains why, for example, several Congressional motions were introduced to block such machinations by the SPP.

By painting the NAU as something originating from critics who believe it was a plot and associate it with a long of conspiracies about a "secret cabal" trying to destroy the U.S. you create an image of people who talk about the NAU in a negative light as being crazy conspiracy wackos.

Unfortunately for your point of view, the sources in fact reflect this. The skeptics say this, and once you explore the sources of the critics' complaints, that is what is found. What I found most illuminating came from the earliest critique of the SPP I could find, [18] well before the term NAU was coined. In it, Phyliss Schlafly says this: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [i.e. the Task Force] has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Then, here is the moment, I believe, where the NAU was born in the mind of critics: This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

However, when you actually read the document in question,[19] this is what it says: At their meeting in Waco Texas at the end of March 2005 [the leaders] committed their government to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

Yet, as recently as April 2008, [20] Schlafly is still repeating the conflation of these two separate things - the commitment of the governments to work together with the recommendations of the task force: The CFR report explains that the three SPP amigos at Waco "committed their governments" to "Building a North American Community" by 2010 with a common "outer security perimeter," "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" of illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, and "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."

In further describing the authors of the Task Force report, Schlafly and others zone in on Robert Pastor and further conflate things he said before participating in the Task Force as indicating the "true" goals of the Task Force. Obviously, this is all original research on my part, but once you accept the notion that the Task Force informs the goals of the SPP - which Schlafly was saying explicitly in July 2005 - you can see how this idea has grown. Indeed, I've heard Dobbs make the same connection between the Task Force/CFR and SPP when denouncing the NAU. Canada Jack (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again you ignore the central issue and central problem preferring instead to go aroud debunking things that I'm not even asserting here or in the article. I'm not gonna bother with you, I'll simply get rid of your horribly biased version and replace it with something far more neutral and appropriate, I don't expect you'll be happy because it won't satisfy your bias. However, that isn't my concern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you have made what seems to be a sincere effort to amalgamate the stuff I inserted with the older version. The problem here is that what you have reinserted simply brings up the old problems which we had discussed. I will revert this change and we can discuss the following aspects before we consider inserting what you have just added:

1: An irrelevant paragraph on the Technate. I quite honestly fail to understand your obsession with this entity. It bears little resemblance to the North American Union, indeed it includes some 30 countries! Further, and more to the point here at wikipedia, as far as I am aware no person who discusses the NAU makes reference to this body. The way it is worded, it is completely irrelevant, and unless there is some explicit connection to the NAU, it must be omitted.

2: NAFTA Plus. This sounds like a history of the SPP. Which is fine and dandy, but this is an article about the origins of the North American Union, not about the origins of the SPP. The only way this might have any relevance is if it is connected to an argument that this was part of the process towards the NAU. And since we have two sides here, one convinced the NAU is under way, the other which dismisses its reality, to start in this manner is turning this into a POV article.

3: Vicente Fox. He had some ideas for Nafta-plus. But how this led to the SPP is something which has to be explicitly sourced. And, again, since this is an article on the NAU, its relevance is questionable. I've been making this point since March, Devil, and you continue to ignore me on this.

4: Pastor's book. Pastor's book doesn't call for the North American Union. Something similar. But there The only ones who claim it does are those who are convinced a conspiracy is afoot. Therefore, the mention of this book in this manner is POV. It is only relevant in context of those who claim it is relevant, but to include this outside of that context is embracing that argument when we at wikipedia must employ NPOV.

5: The Task Force. This body did not call for the formation of a NAU. It called for something a lot closer to the old ECC, the precursor of the EU. Since this is an article about the NAU, how is this relevant? It is only relevant to those who consider a conspiracy is afoot, therefore it must be discussed in context of that belief. To do as you have done here is to employ a POV approach by implicity suggesting this is relevant to the NAU when only one faction believes as much.

6: The SPP. Again, this is not the NAU, only some claim it is, so to include it in this manner presumes that it is part of a process towards the NAU which is the view of one faction. That point comes later, but the way it is presented, we are given the impression that there is a process is afoot here, when that is only the belief of some.

7: General comment. The entire approach to this "history" is in fact original research as you have, as far as I can tell, simply inserted all recent proposals for economic integration, nafta-plus etc without citing a source which in fact embraces this evolutionary process. While all the entries seem to be cited, the problem is that you have a sequence here which seems to be your personal reconstruction of this. Which was my major issue in the first place. We can't do that, Devil, unless you can find a reliable source which says as much. That is what I accomplished with my rewrite of this section - the sequence of events which led to the discussion of the NAU is described in multiple sources, and can be traced in the scenarios painted by those who believe this is being enacted. You, in contrast, have simply mapped a sequence of events, suggesting by implication that they are all connected, when you have failed to say who says this, then accused me of "bias" for pointing out this fallacy. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Except this article, again, is not about simply the North American Union as it is more often referred to today. The intro alone makes this point clear as it includes the North American Community and says "similar concepts" to a North American Union. Considering the intro specifically says the NAU is a theoretical continental union as well, including the Technate is more than suitable as that would fit quite aptly the definition of a continental union. When discussing the history of the concept of a theoretical continental union of North America focusing entirely on 21st Century conspiracy theorists and their skeptics is just plain ridiculous. That's why I insist on including it. The way your version is written it is basically trying to attack the claims of conspiracy theorists.
2. It's about what the section is about, history of the concept. The concept is a theoretical continental union. That can be something like the European Union or it can be something far more advanced like a federation or even unitary state. It can also be less advanced like the African Union or Union of South American Nations. Fox's proposal, Pastro's proposal, the Task Force proposal, and the technate idea would all fit in the idea of a continental union.
3. I don't ignore you on it, you ignore me on it because I keep telling you it isn't about the SPP or the notions of some conspiracy theorists. I think it also helps to combat this insistence from people with your POV that somehow it's all just made up by conspiracy theorists. Certainly what Fox talked about sounds a lot like a North American Union so the notion that this whole idea originated with conspiracy theorists is just inaccurate and continuing to assert it only serves a certain POV.
4 & 5. This goes back to what this article is about, a continental union. What Pastor and the Task Force propose is in some ways more advanced than the African Union or Unasur.
6. Are you saying the SPP has no role in the history of the NAU concept? It's hard to talk about the North American Union concept without bringing up the SPP since it has sparked most of the mainstream discussion about it.
7. Evolutionary approach? It's a chronological description of the history of the concept of a continental union of North America. Talk about some sort of continental union was sparked by a desire for greater integration following NAFTA and these proposals were just part of that talk about integration. The SPP was another step in the integration process and it sparked more discussion about a North American Union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to lack a basic understanding of what the scope of wikipedia is, Devil. You continually argue that we have to establish a context and that is simply what you are doing, and that my attempts to focus more closely on the "conspiracy" aspect has the effect of turning this article into a "biased" piece by ignoring the history of movements towards continental union, or less ambitious goals such as "Nafta-plus," etc.

I recognize that you have a lot of good arguments, and I even agree that there is some truth to what you say, inasmuch as these ideas didn't suddenly pop into existence. However, and this is the main point you are not addressing - it is not our place to make those arguments on these pages if sources do not already make those arguments.

The fundamental point you seem either do not grasp or are ignoring is this: YOUR APPROACH CONSTITUTES ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Here is what I am talking about: Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

So, by inserting material on the technate, by including material on the evolution of the SPP, or various proposals for continental union that is not explicitly linked to the North American Union, you are engaging in original research. If, in context of the NAU, someone says it has its inspiration in, say, the technate, or someone says that the SPP is a vehicle for the NAU, etc. that is perfectly fine. We can paraphrase what sources say, but we can't supply a sequence of events, "context," unless someone else explicitly describes that "context" (someone says "the NAU is an outgrowth of things like the Technate...").

For example, a while ago I was having a dispute about a witness to the Roswell UFO incident whose testimony was called into question, even by many pro-ufo researchers. On the page for this witness, I had his testimony, then the critiques from the various sources. However, another editor wanted to add "context" by supplying a raft of reports from other witnesses which described incidents which he felt tended to corroborate the testimony from the questionable witness. Those reports may have in fact backed up the witness's story, the problem is no one but the editor himself was making the case that these other accounts corroborated the witness's account! So, it all had to go, except for the one cited passage from one author who did suggest some of the disputed testimony was given years earlier and therefore valid.

So, now we get to your responses:

Point 1: When discussing the history of the concept of a theoretical continental union of North America focusing entirely on 21st Century conspiracy theorists and their skeptics is just plain ridiculous. That's why I insist on including it. The way your version is written it is basically trying to attack the claims of conspiracy theorists.

But that is what the sources tell us Devil. By providing unsourced context (i.e., "context" that a source does not explicitly link to the entity in question), you are engaging in unacceptable original research. If you can find sources which claim otherwise, which suggest this "context," then we can include it. In terms of what I put in, we can include the Pastor book stuff, the SPP stuff, the comments from Fox, etc., as the various sources cite these things. No one, as far as I know, refers to the technate, or discusses any of the "Nafta-plus" movements by Fox as providing a basis for the NAU, which is the subject of the article here.

Point 2: It's about what the section is about, history of the concept. The concept is a theoretical continental union. That can be something like the European Union or it can be something far more advanced like a federation or even unitary state. It can also be less advanced like the African Union or Union of South American Nations. Fox's proposal, Pastro's proposal, the Task Force proposal, and the technate idea would all fit in the idea of a continental union.

You are wrong, Devil. We are limited at wikipedia in providing a history of a "concept" from those who describe that history of that concept. And those who define the concept of a "North American Union" are chiefly those on the far right and those on the far left. If they suggest a history, then we can describe that history, but in reference to who makes that claim as the "history" is contentious. A contrast with the European Union is illustrative. There, there is no dispute over the history of that body, but we still have to source the sequence of events which led to it, and if you go to the EU history page you will note that the links are not just to points of fact, but to those who explicitly link historical events etc which led to the European Union.

Point 3: I don't ignore you on it, you ignore me on it because I keep telling you it isn't about the SPP or the notions of some conspiracy theorists. I think it also helps to combat this insistence from people with your POV that somehow it's all just made up by conspiracy theorists. Certainly what Fox talked about sounds a lot like a North American Union so the notion that this whole idea originated with conspiracy theorists is just inaccurate and continuing to assert it only serves a certain POV.

Again, we have to go with the sources and what they tell us about where it comes from. It is not enough for you to say what Fox was saying "sounds a lot like a North American Union," as that is, by definition, your POV. You have to link this to someone who says that Fox was talking about sounds like the North American Union. When I referenced Fox, I note that critics cited his favourable comments in regards to the NAU as evidence that it was being planned or enacted. Which is exactly what they said. I didn't say "but what Fox was really talking about was..." as that would be POV.

Point 4 & 5. This goes back to what this article is about, a continental union. What Pastor and the Task Force propose is in some ways more advanced than the African Union or Unasur.

The article is about the North American Union, not about continental unions per se. The title and the lede are quite clear on that, even though they mention that other concepts have been proposed. Therefore, mention of those things are only relevant in reference to the NAU.

Point 6: Are you saying the SPP has no role in the history of the NAU concept? It's hard to talk about the North American Union concept without bringing up the SPP since it has sparked most of the mainstream discussion about it.

No, I am saying that the way you presented this does not link the SPP to the NAU, until later in the text. From the sources I have seen, the NAU emerges from the discussion of the SPP, but the way you present it, it seems that a sequence of proposals, of which the SPP is only the latest, leads to the NAU. Which is highly misleading.

Point 7: Evolutionary approach? It's a chronological description of the history of the concept of a continental union of North America. Talk about some sort of continental union was sparked by a desire for greater integration following NAFTA and these proposals were just part of that talk about integration. The SPP was another step in the integration process and it sparked more discussion about a North American Union

It's original research, Devil, as I am aware of no one who describes the "evolution" you describe, and, since the very existence of the concept is contentious - many mainstream observers see no "plan" at all here, but the paranoid imaginings of some - there is a fundamental question as to whether a figment of some people's imagination (as some contend) can have an evolution.

Therefore, even if you find someone who does describe this "evolution," since it is contentious, it has to be framed as the opinions of some, rather than a straight-forward history. And, since those sources you may find are not considered "reliable sources," this "framing" has to be all the more explicit. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are really starting to piss me off Jack. You're once again ignoring my very basic point. This is what it says in the intro:
The intro clearly sets up the North American Union as being a broader concept and rightly so since focusing it solely on what has been outright called a North American Union would be to force an incredibly narrow subject. You seem to think any unsourced statement is original research or any unsourced argument following from two sources is synthesis, which shows you don't understand what isn't original research and what is original research. If two sources describe something that is different in name only considering them the same idea is not synthesis, it's basic logic. Since this article is about more of a broad concept it doesn't even have to be that strict. The intro widens the scope quite a bit so that anything which fits in that loose idea of continental union, something similar in structure to the European Union, or the North American Community as described by the Task Force would be included in this idea of a North American Union.
If that's not good enough for you we could always make all this talk fit perfectly well by changing this article into one discussing the concept of North American unification in general rather than simply talking about the specific idea of a North American Union. I would have absolutely no objections to that since it would not even be debatable whether this information could be included without linking it to a specific proposal called a North American Union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite frankly don't know just who the hell you think you are, Devil. Where do you get off saying "you are really starting to piss me off"!?!

Let's get a few things straight. #1. The North American Union, like it or not, is a fringe belief. It exists because groups of people are convinced it exists and are convinced it is being planned and implemented behind closed doors. As such, this article's very existence was called into question as by its very existence, it would imply that the North American Union has some sort of legitimate existence. I've got news for you: It doesn't. If you still think it does than simply tell me this: Who proposes a supranational body, with a common currency, open borders and a series of super-highways? If you try to pretend again, as you have done before, that the idea in fact exists outside of the realm of what people like Dobbs and Corsi describe, you are being, and I am being polite here, dense.

The ONLY reason people want to come to wikipedia to read about the "North American Union" is to understand what this beast is that those above-named people describe. You seem to want to pretend that the North American Union has existed at least in proposed forms, for many years. However, as the sources themselves state, this is not the case.

Your continued witless attempt to turn this into some inane "history" of continental unions fools no one here, Devil, unless the sad possibilty is that, in fact, you are fooling yourself.

Frankly, I could give a rat's ass what you think or believe on this now, as you clearly are little more than a troll. You've accused me of every back-handed tactic around while avoiding the obvious - the North American Union emerged in the minds of several over-heated commentators and has come into a life of its own. And you desperately have been trying to justify your naivety in this subject with a bunch of personal speculation which I've gently informed you is not backed by the sources. Not so gently, I will tell you you've been handed a line of bullshit and you've swallowed it whole.

I've bent over backwards to ensure we have something here on the NAU as I feel there is a need to explore this. However, given the consensus at wikipedia that this is a fringe belief, any discussion on its history has to come from that perspective. That is the basic thing here you have not grasped, and your witless bleatings otherwise won't change that reality.

Simply put, your approach here is not only rejected by everyone else, it is wrong, it is against the approaches of wikipedia, and will not be accepted on this page. I've explained why, very patiently, but you seem either unwilling or unable to comprehend. And everyone else here agrees with me.

I personally don't think you are stupid, but I think you are seriously misguided. Hopefully you can channel your intelligence on to something else worthwhile here at wikipedia, because you are so off the mark here that it's becoming embarassing. Canada Jack (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for saying such a thing, but you've just shown why I've gotten so annoyed with your arguments. Rather than actually address my concerns you've gone on some tirade about the practicality of a North American Union and made a bunch of baseless accusations against me. I've said time and again that I have considered an NAU a likelihood before the SPP and before all these people like Dobbs and Corsi started talking about it. I have made an honest effort in trying to balance this article between the "skeptic" side and the conspiracist side. I think the talk about the NAU can not be approached the way you approach because it is misleading, in many ways wrong, and slants the article towards a certain POV. You have never accepted a change in that desire to slant this article and that is the one major objection you have never addressed or sought a compromise on.
Your version is written in an adversarial context which just comparing it to other parts of the article reveals the underlying bias within it. The article deals seriously and objectively with both the NAFTA Superhighway and the amero and I don't think there are any needed changes there. What this section on the origin and history should do is approach the issue with the same level of objectivity. I don't see how Fox's talk about eliminating the borders between the three NAFTA nations, having a common market, North American policies on energy and security, and creating new supranational institutions is not relevant to this concept as those are many of the same elements associated with a North American Union. There's a group called the North American Forum on Integration that actually has organized a mock North American parliament and yet you say the idea of a North American Union originated in the heads of conspiracy theorists, theorists who cite think tank proposals and government programs when forming their theories in the first place.
Fact is, this idea of bringing Canada, Mexico, and the United States into some form of political union is not new and while most of the attention the idea has gotten is due to conspiracy theorists, it has been around for decades, centuries even. Noting that isn't to lend significant credence to conspiracy theories, it's just acknowledging the facts and the reality. There is a historical precedent for this idea of uniting North America into a single nation or union. Not only is this highly relevant to any topic on the concept of an NAU it also acknowledges there is some legitimate basis for the conspiracy theories. That's not to back up their specific claims but just acknowledge that there are important people who want to create such a body.
I reiterate that I would be more than satisfied if this whole article was redone to be about the general concept of North American unification and integration rather than specifically a North American Union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"North American Union" or "North American union"

This is getting long, so here is a break as this discussion is turning elsewhere.

First, I want to apologize for my remarks above, Devil. No excuse here for saying such things.

But I feel the nub of our differences can be found here: I reiterate that I would be more than satisfied if this whole article was redone to be about the general concept of North American unification and integration rather than specifically a North American Union.

And: I've said time and again that I have considered an NAU a likelihood before the SPP and before all these people like Dobbs and Corsi started talking about it.

Which explains why my explanations for what I have done have fallen on deaf ears. I follow with the premise that the NAU is the particular thing talked about by Corsi, Dobbs etc., and you, Devil, see it is a general concept which has taken various forms over the years and while those others think there is a secret process to implement a NAU, the concept has in fact been around for years.

So, while you feel I am ignoring your arguments and not addressing your concerns, I feel that I have been, but my approach means that your entries are not relevant. It is therefore not surprising you take strong issue with my approach.

So the real question is: Is this article about the North American Union, or the general concept of a North American union? I think an unbiased reading of what lies elsewhere on the page suggests very strongly that this page is not about the general concept of North American union, but a particular body called the North American Union. The intro, for example, is not talking about a generalized union here, it only references other proposals in context of the denials of the three governments in question, saying there have been various concepts of enhanced integration etc for years. But what are these governments denying? They are denying the specific charges that a North American Union is being contemplated. They are not denying that the SPP, for example, contemplates elements which exist elsewhere, including some enhanced integration, for example Nafta-plus. To pretend otherwise, as you do, implies that the governments are lying as, clearly there are elements towards (modest) integration, more to do with regulatory reform which have definite precursors.

Further, the sections on the Amero and highways are specific charges as to what the NAU encompases, and those are the ones identified by Corsi and Dobbs etc and specifically denied by the governments in question.

You suggest that you believe - have believed - that the NAU is a likelihood before the SPP and the critics emerged. But that is "union" with a small "U" as the specific thing called the NAU had not come into existence (real or imagined). I don't believe continental union will happen, not because there are no plans or proposals, but because there is simply no political momentum for such a body's existence. Mexico would be likely very interested in this, Canada less so as we'd be in effect under American domination, and America seems pathologically disinclined to cede any real decision-making power to anyone outside their borders. So, the NAU as described won't happen in the foreseeable future. And even beyond that, even if it becomes achingly obvious that the EU and other foreign powers have found a better pan-national approach than the national approach to world trade etc., America's poltics are too parochrial and short-sighted to seize such an opportunity even if it is in their advantage to do so. That's my opinion. But that opinion isn't even very relevant here. What is relevant is whether we keep to the subject or not. And that subject, clearly, is the NOrth American Union, not a generalized concept of "union."

In terms of the article: given the clear aim of the article to describe what has been described as the "North American Union" (as opposed to "union") in the intro and elsewhere; given the past controversy about the article as it was slated for deletion as it gave prominence to a "fringe belief"; given that this "fringe belief" must be therefore described in strong reference to those who expound it to ensure the article's continued existence; given that therefore we must describe the controversy over this "fringe belief" and include the counter-arguments to that belief...

We therefore must in the "origins" section stick to the "North American Union" as described by Corsi and Dobbs etc as it is their belief in not only the existence of such a proposal, but its active implementation which gives rise to interest in the concept, so we therefore must describe the Union (not "union") in their terms. Further, your idea of "union" is, as far as I can tell, unique as I have failed to see anywhere else a description of something else called a "North American Union," nor a sequence of various proposals which became this, other than those particular ones I have already identified, as the sources specifically cite those origins of the concept.

The Fox stuff is only related to this "union" talk of yours by your view that it relates. I fail to see much if any similarity between what we hear about "Union" and what he talked about. His "suprantional" proposals, for example, are far more modest than anything I've read the NAU supposedly entails, and bears only a superficial similarity via name, such as "nafta-plus," which can include any proposal which seeks to take nafta to the next level. It's a semantic similarity, IOW. Besides, despite your arguments to the contrary, unless we have a source suggesting this is part of an evolution in concepts, it is original research.

This is what we find on other pages on similar bodies. On the EU page, for example, no one there takes similar leaps in suggesting "obvious" precursors to that body: Instead, the evolution of the concepts and bodies are all from histories which are cited and sourced. Which is precisely what I have done in describing the history of the concept.

You can't avoid this basic stricture, Devil, and to pretend that I am being obstinant, that I am making specious arguments to make this a "biased" article, is to pretend that at wikipedia we have a choice to dispense with citable information when it suits our purpose. We can't, and you can't.

There is a partial solution. If you want a separate article on general concepts for union within North America, I don't see why this can't be done. It could be linked to the words "numerous concepts" which is found in the opening line of the "origins" section which is causing all this grief. But to change this article to a general one about these histories is clearly steering away from the thrust of what this is - an article about this thing described by Dobbs and others as a North American Union. When people come here, they will want to know what Dobbs and company are talking about, not some article about the general topic of North American union. Canada Jack (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NAFTA Superhighway

I fixed the link to the reference saying that the government of Alberta "displays a diagram on their website that labels I-29 and I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway'"... and then I noticed the actual title of the diagram: "Government of Alberta: NAFTA Trade Corridors & State Truck Standards". It does not call it a superhighway but a trade corridor. Should this bit be deleted as inaccurate and irrelevant? Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this you seem to be misreading what Alberta's site says. The actual highway in question is indeed called "Nafta Superhighway"; the diagram includes other trade corridors such as "Interstate 5" and "CANAMEX" and is called "NAFTA Trade Corridors." Canada Jack (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link?

There is an external link for United North America describing it as "a non-profit organization that advocates the admittance of Canadian provinces into the United States as new states of the Union." Is this link relevant to this article? This webpage is not interested so much in a North American Union so much as getting Canada to join the United States, with Washington DC remaining its capital. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Message from Orange mike about my Obama reference.

I put up some info that Barack Obama wants to "open border' the USA and allow all people in no matter what. Look who deleted/censored my topic in this discussion page! Amazingly poor taste. Message below.


"July 2008

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:North American Union for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to North American Union. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)"

--Ericg33 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you are unaware that wikipedia doesn't generally publish politically motivated unsubstantiated speculations, also known as bullshit, in its articles. You may believe the substance of what you added, but without substantiation by a reliable source, your submission must be excised.Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it bullshit? Barack wants thinks the current system is racist. He wants to do away with immigration limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason this was removed the first time is that talk pages are not general forums and discussion is about the North American Union article. Nothing you have proposed appears to have anything to do with this article. Also new sections go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Please consult WP:Talk to properly utilize article talk pages. See the article Immigration to the United States for immigration issues. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Eric has a history of soapboxing in talk pages about international trade issues. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this skewed?

There's a lot of discussion of the NAU as if it's an actual entity, especially in the "history of the concept" section which seems to be an original synthesis of sources about general US-Canada-Mexico relations, rather than about the NAU conspiracy theory. Conversely, there is almost no discussion of the NAU as a cultural phenomenon / urban legend / conspiracy theory. This article really ought to be about where the NAU panic came from, who invented it, who's spreading it, etc, rather than treating the concept as a serious proposal. <eleland/talkedits> 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been tried before, but could not gain much consensus. See Talk:North American Union/Archive 3#"Urban legend" reference for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you read it that way. That was what was here before, as if the NAU was a serious proposal which emerged out of movements by Vicente Fox and Canada to enhance NAFTA, etc. So I rewrote it to reflect what sources seem to agree on - that the concept emerged out of critiques of the SPP process. The skeptics point to those critiques, and the conspiracy-minded folks explicitly describe the SPP as a cover for enacting the NAU. Reread the "Origins" section again and tell me whether what you feel should be here isn't already here in large part. Canada Jack (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean-American lawyer calls for US to include Caribbean

Article: Calls for Caribbean plank in US Democratic Party platform Date: Friday, August 1st, 2008 Source: www.cbc.bb - Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation - Barbados

Link: http://www.cbc.bb/index.pl/article?id=1905374

A Guyanese lawyer and prominent community activist in New York has called on the United States Democratic Party to incorporate a Caribbean plank in its 2008 election platform.

[ . . . ]

CaribDigita (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Added The Trojan Horse and other external links

I added the following text to the external links section.

Wisepiglet (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also added this text because there is a lot on info in there.

Wisepiglet (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)