Talk:Independent Task Force on North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independent Task Force on North America article.
Article policies

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page

Contents

[edit] Lets keep this article clean

Dont let biased fanatics of conspiracy theories to make propaganda in this article. Just facts and clean information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kardrak (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 April 2007.

Let's start by encouraging all to sign their comments! Bustter 09:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As on the United States of Europe discussion page

If there is going to be such a union, hopefully they can come up with a more original name. Chiss Boy 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This will not go over well for Canada

To have all it's fresh water and huge resources grabbed to fuel the power hungry U.S. Oh Canada... when this Union happens, i'll feel sorry for you :( -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 March 2007.

And the United States will be surrounded by poor socialists. Chiss Boy 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, Chiss - I'm sure there will still be a McDonald's on every corner... CanadianMist 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
McDonalds is as prevalent in Canada as it is in the United States already. Don't kid yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.178.138 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 August 2007
Lol, don't worry Canada; it will NEVER happen :) Travis Cleveland 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the quite literal sense, that's where a big portion of our fuel comes from anyhow, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.37.141 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

The related article "North American Union" was previously deleted after being inaccurately characterized as a hoax/conspiracy theory in its AFD debate. While it is true that some WP editors did add questionable or biased material to the article, it is a very real proposal which does merit a properly-written article. The key here is to keep the fact and the fiction separated, not to falsely characterize the whole thing as fiction. Accordingly, I'm going to list this for NPOV review to ensure that the article sticks to the relevant and verifiable facts. Bearcat 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of use of the passive voice: "has been suggested", "this is seen as", etc. I think we would do better to replace these by references to who exactly says so. Tom Harrison Talk 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

North American Union is the only topic I've searched at Wikipedia that was deleted and locked.

I find it strange that a topic COULD be locked in that way. I don't know the history and didn't see the entries that caused it to be locked, as even the discussion was deleted and locked--wtf is up with that?--stopping discussion? On the surface, it makes it appear that a conspiracy exists to prevent there being a North American Union entry.

My experience with Wikipedia is limited, but my understanding is that if someone finds inacurate information, they can correct it. I fail to see the purpose in deleting and locking a topic, and I will be very concerned if this happens again. Thorson 04:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was also surprised that a topic like this could be deleted and locked. There are other stories on hoaxes or on proposals that will probably never happen. Who locked it, and where is his explanation? This is very strange. Roger 08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The AFD debate inaccurately characterized the topic as a conspiracy theory rather than the reality, which is that a few people had added some POV or conspiracist elements to an article about a genuine policy proposal. It wasn't particularly about judging the likelihood of the proposal coming to fruition or not; it was inaccurately described as a nonexistent proposal to begin with. Bearcat 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is real.

Lou Dobbs on CNN has reported on this many times. Just do a search for "North American Union" on YouTube to watch his reports. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.246.46 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 October 2006.

Is a real fact that is being pumped by many entrepreneur leaders as well as politicians all over North America with tangible actions like the SPP. Kardrak 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since most of what Lou Dobbs talks about on CNN is absolute twaddle, the fact that he believes in it is more like confirmation that there is no such thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.14.29 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 March 2007.

[edit] It's a crying shame

They got rid of the North American Union article. It was showing real promise! Manic Hispanic 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North American union plan headed to Congress in fall

Powerful think tank prepares report on benefits of integration between U.S., Mexico, Canada (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55830)

I know WND is not an unbiased source, but it has citations, exceprts from reports, etc. which are verifiable. This new information (in the linked material) needs to get incorporated into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikilled007 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Here is some more info about the proposed North American Union

The WorldNetDaily interviewed Robert Pastor in an article titled North American Union leader says merger just crisis away, from December 15, 2006.

Another article, titled Professor Robert Pastor: North American Merger Just a Crisis Away, gives an analysis of the previous article. Cited here not because of it's unbiased POV, but to give credit that the NAU is REAL on paper and in planning. The only thing making it not real is the actual merging of the three countries. Does that have to happen before anyone will believe it exists?

Maybe this video clip where Lou Dobbs interviews Professor Robert Pastor about the North American Union will help to make people believe this is real?

You know who Professor Robert Pastor is, right?

Even though these articles are from last December, I thought they would be of interest in light of the new dictatorial powers President Bush is trying to give the Office of the President. (This article has gotten over 6,000 Diggs)

There is a LOT of information in the actual undeleted North American Union article. Please help me fix some minor problems so that it can be restored to "article" status.

Here's a bit more very recent news:


Wisepiglet 10:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive PowerPoint section removed

The following PowerPoint notes had already been commented out of the article, so I went ahead and removed them altogether. Why someone would try to insert the text from a PowerPoint presentation into a Wikipedia article, I have no idea. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

North American Union Debate

PowerPoint notes by Henry Lamb, Executive Vice President of Environmental Conservation Organization.

1. The North American Union is a grand vision to dissolve national borders between Mexico, the United States, and Canada and merge the three nations into a single political, economic, cultural region.

2. This vision has evolved quietly over the decades, but emerged into public view with the signing of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, by President George W. Bush, Mexico’s President, Vicente Fox, and Canada’s Prime Minister.

3. The Security & Prosperity Partnership is one of many political agreements, which, like building blocks, are constructing the North American Union. Here’s how Lou Dobbs describes what is to become – a borderless nation

4. Robert Pastor has been called the “Father of the North American Union.” His book, “Toward a North American Community,” and his research papers for the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, describe his vision of the North American Union.

5. Pastor says the three nations of the North American Union should: • Adopt a common external tariff. • Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation • Establish a common security perimeter by 2010. • Establish a North American investment fund • Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution. • An annual North American Summit meeting • Establish minister-led working groups • Create a North American Advisory Council • Create a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group.

6. Pastor’s vision has been under construction for decades. In 1975, Pastor was executive director of the Linowitz Commission on U.S./Latin American Relations. He then was appointed Director of the Office of Latin American Affairs in the Carter administration. He maneuvered the Panama Canal Treaty through the Senate in 1978. He was nominated by Bill Clinton, to be Ambassador to Panama, but not confirmed. He has been advisor to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1976. And in 2002, he became Vice President of International Affairs and Professor of International Relations at American University.

7. Among the many political agreements that are constructing the North American Union, are the (1983) La Paz Agreement, in which the U.S. and Mexico agree to cooperate on environmental issues. (In 1993,) the agreement was expanded to include Agenda 21's “Sustainable Development” principles through the “Border Region XXI” program. Then comes the North American Free Trade Agreement (in 1994), as well as the first Summit on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. (In 1996,) the North American SuperCorridor Coalition was organized. (In 1998,) The Second FTAA Summit was held in Santiago. (In 2001,) Robert Pastor published “Toward A North American Community,” the Kansas City Smart Port was organized, and the Third FTAA Summit was held in Quebec. The Central American Free Trade Agreement was approved (in 2005,) by just one vote in the House of Representatives. These are just some of the agreements and events that are building the North American Union.

8. NAFTA is one of the most important building blocks of the North American Union. In fact, Robert Pastor says: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America” (Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2004). Let’s take a closer look at the North American Free Trade Agreement.

9. NAFTA became effective January 1, 1994. It is governed by a Commission consisting of a cabinet level appointee from each country. It is implemented by a Secretariat, consisting of appointees of the Commission. http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=175#A2002

10. For dispute settlement, NAFTA offers two primary options: the procedures of the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); or the procedures of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

11. NAFTA’s Article 511 requires that each nation conform its laws to the “Uniform Regulations” adopted by the appointed policy makers, and that any modifications or additions to the Uniform Regulations, be adopted by the member nations within 180 days.

12. CAFTA, too, is governed by a Commission consisting of “Cabinet level appointees,” who, in turn, appoint “Committees and Working Groups” to implement the Agreement.

13. Both NAFTA and CAFTA are the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative, but the Department of Commerce also has responsibilities for implementation. The USTR is an agency within the Executive Offices of the President.

13. Both NAFTA and CAFTA are the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative, but the Department of Commerce also has responsibilities for implementation. The USTR is an agency within the Executive Offices of the President.

15. NAFTA brought more building blocks. The “Ports-to-Plains” Trade Corridor Coalition was organized to promote a trade route from Mexico through central Texas and Denver. The North America SuperCorridor Coalition was formed to promote a corridor through East Texas and Kansas City. And the Texas Department of Transportation created the Trans-Texas Corridor.

16. The Trans-Texas Corridor is a project within the Texas Department of Transportation. They are studying expansion of the I-35 corridor through the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and the I-69 corridor, through the Houston area. The preferred I-35 corridor alone, is 521 miles long, and includes 5,307 square miles.

17. The Texas concept is truly a super corridor, that could be up to 1200 feet wide; that’s four football fields end-to-end. Six lanes of auto traffic. Four lanes of truck traffic. Rail lines for freight. Rail lines for people. And a Utility corridor for oil and gas pipelines, electricity transmission, and telecommunications.

18. Work on the super corridor has been underway since February, 2004. The first public meetings were held between April and June, 2004. More public meetings were held in 2005. The draft Environmental Impact Statement was completed in April, 2006. Fifty-six public meetings were held in July and August, 2006. In all, 173 public meetings have been held, and more than 4000 public comments have been collected. The final Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2006, and final federal approval is expected in the Summer of 2007.

19. At a public meeting in San Antonio, 1200 people showed up; 300 had to be turned away. In Temple, 1600 people showed up. Here how the meeting was reported by local television.

20. In the Professional community, the super corridor concept has been well received by both government and business. The North American super corridor Coalition has received a $2.5 million grant from the federal government, and has members in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, who have paid from $2,500 to $50,000 for the privilege.

21. Among those members are the Kansas City Southern Lines, and the Kansas City Smart Port. In 2005, Kansas City Southern acquired a Mexican Railroad Company, and the Panama Canal Railroad. Now they control the rail lines from Mexico’s southernmost ports of Lazaro Cardenas and Veracruz, to Kansas City, where Kansas City Smart Port expects to build an inland “super port.”

22. Kansas City is working to become the nation’s Super Inland Port, through a non-profit economic development organization called Kansas City Smart Port, formed in 2001.

23. By Resolution No. 060343, (April, 2006) the Kansas City Council is allowing the construction of a Mexican Customs facility on land that the city owns. The facility will be named: Kansas City Customs Port.

24. Preparations are being made for container freight offloaded in Mexico’s ports, to move by rail and truck directly to the Kansas City SuperPort. New technology is expected to reduce the U.S./Mexico border to nothing more than an electronic speed bump.

25. Along with the new SuperCorridor concept, comes a new concept in financing: Public/Private Partnerships. In December of 2004, The Texas Department of Transportation “partnered” with Cintra-Zachry, which will invest $6 billion dollars in the construction of the first segment of the SuperCorridor, and then give it to TxDOT, along with another $1.2 billion for the right to build and operate the Trans-Texas Corridor for the next 50 years. Cintra is a Spanish company that partnered with the Australian Macquarie Infrastructure Group, to acquire a 99-year lease to operate the Chicago Skyway. This public/private partnership paid the City of Chicago $1.83 billion for the privilege. They also acquire the 157-mile Indiana Tollway for 75 years, and paid Indiana $3.85 billion.

26. This new method of financing infrastructure has generated a lot of excitement among public officials. Greg Carey, Managing Director of Goldman, Sachs & Company told the Texas Transportation Forum, that virtually all public infrastructure assets should be available for financing, or refinancing using this method of public/private partnership arrangement. Why are private investors willing to spend such staggering sums? Tolls and fees provide a long-term, reliable income stream they cannot resist. Let’s look at what’s in store for the Indiana Toll Road users. Commercial fees will nearly double in the first four years, while auto tolls remain flat. Then in 2010, auto tolls will “catch up” with the commercial rates, and both will increase each year thereafter.

27. Carey says that all but 14 states have already changed their laws, or are currently considering legislation, to allow this public/private partnership method of financing with foreign investors.

28. Foreign investment also dominates the ports that will be handling the freight loaded onto Kansas City Southern Lines in Veracruz, and Lazaro Cardenas. These ports that are owned, or operated by the Chinese Holding company, Hutchinson Whampoa Limited.

29. This mega-corporation is capitalized at more than $700 billion dollars, has operations in 54 countries, and more than 200,000 employees worldwide. They own 43 port facilities in 21 countries, which includes the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.

30. Another ominous building block toward the North American Union is the “North American Cooperative Security Act,” introduced in the Senate (S-853) by Indiana’s Richard Lugar, and in the House by Florida’s Katherine Harris (HR-2672). This bill does not create the North American Union. But it does provide a legislative underpinning for activities that are now underway by several “committees” and “working groups.” If enacted, the State Department will be required to provide semi-annual reports to Congress on the progress toward implementation of virtually all the goals set forth by the Security and Prosperity Partnership. These goals are virtually all of the elements Robert Pastor said were necessary to create the North American Union. These elements include: a common external tariff; a common security perimeter; an electronic “speed bump” called SENTRI; and a biometric-based tri-national database.

31. In an effort to counter some of the adverse publicity, the official White House Security and Prosperity Partnership web pages posted a “Myth-Fact” page, which claims “The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure....”

32. The events and facts on the ground, however, strongly suggest that just the opposite is true.

33. NAFTA provides the legal foundation. CAFTA expands the foundation to Central America. The SuperCorridor opens the flood gate. And the Security and Prosperity Partnership provides guidance to Congress. Regardless of the denials and claims to the contrary, the major elements for a North American Union are in place, and progressing rapidly. This may be progress toward a much larger picture.

34. When NAFTA went into force in 1994, the Free Trade Area of the Americas was launched with a Summit in Miami. These negotiations have continued over the years, in an effort to expand the “Union” concept to the continent.

35. This fits nicely into the United Nations’ organization chart, which divides the world into five administrative regions. Of course, any relationship to the United Nations will also be denied, and may be purely coincidental.

36. There can be no question that NAFTA, CAFTA, the Trans-Texas Corridor, and related activities, are changing America dramatically. Proponents contend that these changes will strengthen the nation; others contend that our national sovereignty is being erased. The transfer of policy-making power to appointed officials, committees and working groups, advisory boards and tri-lateral parliamentary councils - is not the form of government described in the U.S. Constitution. The only power on earth strong enough to redirect this rush toward Robert Pastor’s vision of a North American Community, is the power of the people who choose to exercise it at the ballot box.

37. The North American Union was produced by the Environmental Conservation Organization, publishers of the Eco-logic Powerhouse.

[edit] Historical inaccuracy

There has never been such a thing as a "Red Party" in Canada. What there was was a "Parti rouge". The name is not supposed to be translated.

Moreover, while the Parti rouge did eventually evolve into the modern day Liberal Party of Canada, the Parti rouge as it existed in the 19th Century cannot be placed on the modern left/right spectrum as they held many policies (such as advocating minimal governmental projects) which appear by today's standards as right-wing.

Ottawastudent 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

thumb|Unsourced, made up flag that was removed.

Is the "hypothetical flag" linked to in the article the product of anything more than an over-active imagination? I can't seem to find an illustration of this flag on any websites that aren't, ahem, conspiracy-related. If this flag was not part of the Task Force's report, which it doesn't appear to be, I'd be inclined to file it under "speculative"/"original work" and remove it. Loremipsum 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to second the deletion of WP:OR work. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Word. (third) - Crockspot 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the flag as it has no reference, origin or anything else. If anyone would like to readd it, the flag's source / origin / design must be disclosed. --Dual Freq 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kardrak (talk · contribs), the uploader of Image:NAU flag.jpg, re-inserted [1] the hypothetical flag back into the article with the "rvv" notation. As per our consensus here, I am re-removing the flag. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North American Union Merger / Redirect

Either put back the North American Union article, or get rid of this ridiculous redirect. The target article really has nothing to do with the subject of a 'North American Union'.

In fact, the only place this phrase is mentioned is in a un-cited paragraph beginning with the words "Some internet sources claim...". It gives the wrong impression to a casual visitor arriving via the redirect that this union is already in open negotiation.--72.143.180.213 08:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this from Talk:North American Union --Dual Freq 11:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


I find it very suspicious that there is no page that directly describes the North American Union. It had been mentioned repeatedly by national media sources, televised and otherwise. It is a socially relevant, current event topic.
I believe this is the first time I have used Wikipedia fruitlessly. Just because the mass media of the world is failing to educate the populace on this topic, I still hold faith that this "free" source is not unduly influenced in its presentation of the facts. But, if this is indeed the case, then I fear that The American Constitution, or entries like "Lysander Spooner" may someday cease to be accessible in any factual form.
And no, i don't feel like I'm over-reacting. Everyone should be wary of a website this powerful.
Corruption is like a vulture, hovering patiently.
75.139.220.234 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who said the US$ was based on "Spanish" currency?

Where's the source for this???? Wouldn't the US have had the British currency before ??? They could of just as easily gotten the idea for money or "currency" from there too, no? Or even the Roman empire, they too had a system of money. Most of the US system is actually modeled after the Roman Empire with a "Senate", and such... I think there should be a source to say that the US concept of money came from Spain as opposed to the overall Roman system that the United States Government is widely known to be derived from. My first example "E pluribus unum" -- CaribDigita 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the dollar article ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The relevant claims in the dollar article lack attribution. For example, the sentence in dollar that connects the U.S. dollar" with the Spanish dollar features a [citation needed] flag. There are also unsourced claims in the dollar article that contradict the idea that the U.S. dollar derives from the Spanish dollar. —Kanodin 08:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
While I see that is indeed the case now, it was not when I posted the above answer. The edit history on dollar shows that the {{fact}} tag was added [2] by CaribDigita (talk · contribs) after I made my August 20th post. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "dollar" in part as "any of numerous coins patterned after the taler (as a Spanish peso)" [3], and Wikipedia's Spanish dollar article states "Prior to the American Revolution there was, due to British mercantilist policies, a chronic shortage of British currency in its colonies. Trade was often conducted using Spanish dollars. Spanish coinage was legal tender in the United States until an Act of Congress discontinued the practice in 1857." --Kralizec! (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship Of Wikipedia: North American Union Article

I see the North American Union article has been deleted now and searches redirect to here. This is nothing but politically biased censorhip of Wikipedia and has grossly devalued Wikipedia. The subject of the North American Union won't go away simply becuase wikipedia has censored it. Oh well. So much for NPOV Vexorg 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Various articles on the NAU have been deleted many times in the past because they are a magnet for conspiracy theories and are generally made up of un-referenced original research, neither of which belong on Wikipedia. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
None the less Wikiedia is censored under the excuses of un-referenced original research - Deleting the whole page rather than improving it is huge evidence for this, as is trying to censor links to the NAU page. The North American Union Page isn't the first article to be deleted because of censorship. Wiki is getting a reputation for being politically censored which is a crying shame as on the whole it one of the Web's best resources. Vexorg 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
How long would Wikipedia remain "one of the Web's best resources" if anyone could write anything they wanted here? Wikipedia's official policies on no original research and verifiability exist solely to maintain the integrity of the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Please give me a little credit :) It's obvious that a free for all would result in chaos. I'm saying the censorship is obvious and hides behind the subjective application of the guidelines/rules.Vexorg 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is your idea of "censorship," Vexorg, you'd best check out other places like Conservapedia where entire viewpoints and subjects are simply omitted. Not so here - though obviously you don't agree with the emphasis the page has on this subject.

The subject of "North American Union" is quite easily found by typing in same, whereupon this page pops up. Then, under "From Community to Union" the concept - and the phrase - "North American Union" is found. While you may feel this deserves a lot more attention, the problem is that this is an idea which for the moment mainly rests within the minds who believe that a lot more integration is afoot than actually being contemplated in Washington, Ottawa and Mexico City.

I personally believe that this is one of those instances, like with the JFK assassination theories, or the Roswell UFO theories, or the 911 conspiracy theories, where those who disagree with the editorial decisions not to elevate their personal beliefs to front-and-centre resort to calls of "censorship" and what have you. The truth is what we know as "fact" exists on this page on what was proposed in the past in terms of integration, what is actually occuring, what proposals are out there, and what might possibly come in the future (the North American Union being in the latter category).

As the section quite clearly states, what is on the table right now would lead to something far short of the Union - but with a common currency and greater political integration, we'd have something akin to that. But to pretend that this exists as anything more than wishful thinking on the part of some and fearful extrapolations of the part of others, would be a complete misrepresentation of what actually is out there, IMHO. Canada Jack 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Conservapedia has the deletion of the NAU article listed [4] as the #1 proof in their "Bias in Wikipedia" page! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's illuminating to compare what Conservapedia has on the subject compared to wikipedia.
Here is what they have: "The North American Union is a planned union of the economic and governmental systems of North America similar to how the European Union merged important aspects of the nations of Europe. American University Professor Robert Pastor has been a driving intellectual force for moving towards Europe's structure for North America. He co-chaired a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2005 the provided a blueprint entitled "Toward a North American Community." Professor Pastor also directs the Center for North American Studies, where he teaches a course entitled "North America: A Union, A Community, or Just Three Nations?" In 2005, the heads of the United States, Canada and Mexico met in Waco, Texas and agreed on a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which could serve as a stepping stone towards a union.[1]
There is a single reference cited: to the Security and Prosperity Partnership page which says nothing about the "North American Union."
This is what wiki has at the moment: "If this task force's recommended five-year goals are achieved, then they would establish a North American Community similar to the European Community that preceded the European Union. If this North American Community were further integrated by adding to it both a monetary union and a political union, then it would become a fully-integrated North American Union. Robert Pastor, one of this task force's vice-chairmen, has advocated such a monetary union and has suggested that North America's common currency might be called the "amero", which would be similar in concept to the EU's euro.[3] Another possible name for a North American currency could be the North American Dollar (NAD). The third major country, Mexico, uses the peso, which, although it is currently trading at an exchange rate significantly lower relative to the dollar currencies of both Canada and the USA, was originally equal to exactly one silver dollar. Both the dollar and the peso were based on the Spanish dollar."
The reference here is to an article which talks explicitly about the "plans" to form a North American Union.
What is amazing to me is that, far from "censorship" on the issue, as Conservapedia claims, there is actually MORE information here at wikipedia than at conservapedia, as here there is a link which more explicitly spells out the beliefs of those who see dark intent here. Wikipedia neutrally describes how plans could lead to a Union, if ever adopted, and cite one who advocates that. Conservapedia, on the other hand, says this is actually PLANNED without citing a source for this statement. Then implies that that the SPP is the first step in this "plan." IMHO, wikipedia is handling this issue properly and actually provides more ways for those who care to to explore the issue while that alternate site accuses wiki of "censorship" while providing less information. Canada Jack 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No criticisms section?

As far as I know, there is plenty enough criticism of this article's topic for a criticism section to be placed. So why not? --209.247.5.131 08:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there ought to be a criticism section. The North American Union page redirects here, and from what I've seen there are many people who are critical of it. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to write the section, but someone ought to write one.Ricree101 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be best to work criticism into the "Reception" section so as not to burden the article with too many sections.-- Exitmoose 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omit Fox's "confirmation" of common currency

Someone inserted this:

"In an interview with Larry King on October 8, 2007, former Mexican president Vincente Fox acknowledged the plan for a North American single currency, referring to his and President Bush's support for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) as a "first step" toward "a new vision" for the Americas, "like we are trying to do with NAFTA."[4]"

However, the transcript of the interview reveals he in fact did not "acknowledge the plan" for a common currency, instead he said that it was "long, long term," comparing it to the attempts to make a free trade zone for the Americas. Accordingly, I am omitting the misleading claim.

KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...

KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?

FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.

Canada Jack 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, it is not misleading. He stated that is was a long term plan. 217.134.119.205 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no he didn't. He was asked about the POSSIBILITY of having a LATIN AMERICA united with one currency. He replied "Long term, very long term."

Where is a plan for a North American currency even mentioned?

Revert stands Canada Jack 15:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He continues... "like we are trying to do with NAFTA." 217.134.119.205 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps English is not your first language. He wasn't asked about a common North American currency. He was asked about his opinion whether a common Latin American currency was possible. Read the transcript. He "confirmed" nothing - he said that the POSSIBILITY of a common LATIN AMERICAN currency was "long, long term." And he briefly described how that might come about. To come to a common LATIN AMERICAN currency would first require "first step... trading agreement... then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA."
It's an enormous step to assume - as you are doing - that "like we are trying to do with NAFTA" is referring to currency plans. You'd have to first establish that he is involved with "plans" to create a common currency. You haven't. Canada Jack 16:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what are "[they] trying to do" Jack? 217.134.119.205 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know, 217. And, more to the point, my OPINION or your OPINION on what "they are trying to do" is not what matters here, it is what is stated and verified. If you can find Fox saying "we plan to introduce a common currency," then that would be pertinent. Alas, that is not what is here.

One could easily read his comments as simply discussing the general approach towards creating a closer economic integration as per those discussions several years ago. Trade blocs have been created without common currencies, so to suggest that talk of NAFTA or enhancing it therefore "confirms" somehow a currency union is afoot is a huge stretch. Indeed, a common currency - Latin American - is "long, long term" and after a long process of integration. That DOESN'T mean that the process itself requires in the end a common currency, just that the steps to get there are long, and start with something like NAFTA which is further integrated. But though further integration has certainly been discussed at high levels in terms of NAFTA, and some have talked about a common north american currency, he's not actually saying that a common currency is something in the works here. Canada Jack 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We will defeat you criminals. May G-d have mercy on your soul. 217.134.119.205 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

??? Uh, no one is touching OUR currency here in Canada. Might better spend your energy asking why the US dollar is being devaluated so drastically than focusing on what are best possible future scenarios which have nearly nil political chance of seeing the light of day. Sometimes I think that Americans are their own worst enemies. Canada Jack 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a red-blooded American, I have a more than healthy respect for Canada. After all Canada is the only nation in the world to have kicked our asses ... which also makes our northern neighbour the only country to have ever beaten a superpower during a declared war. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear you have the correct view on 1812... But to be fair, America was nowhere close to being a superpower back then, and "Canada" was a bunch of colonies with a common British connection. But just be thankful we are here, your cousins, to remind you to keep in line... (though you seldom listen...)Canada Jack 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well, look what I found. Seems that Conservapedia has decided that Fox indeed "admit[ed]" plans for the "North American Union."
From Conservapedia: "Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico, admits to television talk-show host Larry King that he (Fox) and President George W. Bush were working on a plan that included introducing a common currency to all North American countries. Fox blames Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for getting in the way. WorldNetDaily [2] View a CNN transcript here. Watch a YouTube one-minute video clip here. (Note: unconfirmed reports state that CNN is scrubbing this dialogue from transcripts of the Larry King show--but they couldn't do it before other Web activists had already begun to cache it.)"
I have the transcript above from the CNN site which, incidentally, matches the CNN video I watched. SO much for the "unconfirmed reports" of CNN "scrubbing" the dialogue. Seems no one at Conservapedia has bothered to even do the simple step of verifying the claim. Yet this nonsense is sitting on their home page today. Also, "blam[ing] Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for getting in the way" misleading conflates efforts towards a "trade union" with all countries in the hemisphere which Fox says Chavez got in the way of with specific plans to bring a common currency to "all" North American countries (all three of them, one would suppose), a "plan" Fox never mentions.Canada Jack 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
OMG. All these "rumours" should no be included in this article. I find it very dangerous that this conservative "encyclopedia" is featuring such a misleading information. Fox was talking about the Americas Free Trade Agreement, wasn't he? AlexC. ( Talk? ) 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creation of a North American Union article, instead of a redirect

Why is the redirect locked, and why does "North American Union" even redirect to this article, as though they are one in the same? Why has wikipedia been so staunchly opposed to this article, which, written properly, could be factual and cited properly without conspiracy theories and biased information? Surely this information is notable and important, and while I understand the need to protect wikipedia from vandals, other controversial topics have been preserved despite edit warring and disagreements. I find this omission on Wikipedia to be extremely alarming, and I for one am strongly in favor of the article's re-instation.LBEAR (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the redirect but I believe the answer to your question is that in terms of a factually based article, what is here is what there is. There are no plans for something called a "North American Union" per se, that entity exists in the minds of some commentators on the left and right who seem convinced it is being planned. Something along the lines of an enhanced NAFTA certainly HAS been proposed and that is what the meeting several years ago was about but beyond security enhancements, these proposals have not gone anywhere, let alone anything close to what is being said the NAE would entail.
In the current climate it seems hard to believe that something akin to the European Union could take off in North America, given the current dropping American currency, large deficit and debt. Why would Canada, for example, want to in effect adopt the American dollar under those circumstances? And even less likely would be a North American version of the Schwegen Accord which sees open borders and a free-flow of people. Does anyone believe THAT idea would fly given the current concerns over terrorism and the anti-immigrant sentiment currently brewing in America?
So, to have an article entitled "North American Union" would, be definition, be largely the product of the very "conspiracy theories" and "biased information" you speak of since it is precisely those people who are suggesting this entity is in the planning stages. Beyond occasional proposals for enhanced EU-lie entities, nothing official has happened. But these proposals have been around for more than a century. What source would you have from officials? "We aren't planning this," is what you'd get, and that's about it, or "Plans on enhanced security have been proposed, but nothing has been implemented." Canada Jack (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of evidence that suggests that officials are working toward a North American Union, and to ignore the steps that have already been made toward a consolidated US, Mexico, and Canada, whatever you might call it, is an egregious oversight. I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia does play host to a variety of "Conspiracy Theories" such as the idea of a New World Order- so long as such articles differentiate between what is speculation and what is completely factual and are properly sourced and cited, I don't see the problem with their inclusion in Wikipedia. The North American Union is notable enough to warrant inclusion, and I believe I have enough information to create a proper article that goes beyond a mere conspiracy theory. The many arguments above include notable persons discussing this idea (and using the name North American Union to refer to it). I'd like the opportunity to create this article, and the fact that the redirect is -locked- is frightening to me.LBEAR (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Create it in userspace at User:LBEAR/North American Union, and once you're done it can be reviewed and moved into article space if it's appropriate. There's nothing "frightening" about locking up a redirect that's continually used to violate encylopedic standards of verifiability and NPOV. I'm a raving left-loony activist who'd be one of the first ones signing up for the revolution if NAU ever actually happened, and I still can't support any version of the NAU article that's been created to date as it's all been POV theorizing. So it has nothing to do with a political bias in favour of hiding anything. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"There is plenty of evidence that suggests that officials are working toward a North American Union, and to ignore the steps that have already been made toward a consolidated US, Mexico, and Canada, whatever you might call it, is an egregious oversight."

With all due respect, LBear, it seems you are highly misinformed. The difference between what some say are in the works for the "North American Union" and what plans are in actually place for an enhanced security perimeter etc are as wide as the Grand Canyon. Here in Canada, for example, any proposal to merge our currencies would be seen by most as completely nuts and decidedly against the interests of this country (though some think it is a good idea).

That being said, I personally agree that there SHOULD be a bit more said here on this concept - even if it is largely the byproduct of over-heated imaginations of many on the right and left. Instead of a new page on this subject I think it would be most appropriate to add a section to THIS page. After all, it is the proposals said to be in the process of enactment here to which much of this stems. Indeed, the "official" name for this is what lies on this page, the very phrase "North American Union" is said, even by Lou Dobbs, to be the "so-called" NAU.

I propose a section called "Accusations of 'North American Union' plans" or something a bit less inelegant, with note that many commentators are accusing the various governments of enacting a much more highly integrated trade bloc along the lines of the European Union, though no plans of such have been introduced by any of the three governments in question and officials state much more modest plans are the only ones currently on the table.

Why not post a text for this section on the discussion page and see if there is consensus for its inclusion? Personally, I think the page could use it. Canada Jack (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is North American Union create-protected and redirected to this page? In addition to the excellent perspective given by Canada Jack, I will add that to date, there has been very little citable information published by reliable sources. As our official policy on verifiability states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," the thrice-deleted NAU article served as little more than a magnet for original research, conspiracy theories, and rumour ... none of which belong on Wikipedia. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree with Kralizec! This is a popular right-wing conspiracy theory. POV and OR and crackpot to boot.--Cberlet (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree with the above-stated sentiments, I nevertheless feel there should be some more reference to what is being called the "North American Union." Clearly, there is nothing "official" as this entity largely exists as a paranoid fantasy. But there are certainly an ample number of sources to establish it from THAT perspective, the perspective that a great many are convinced that something is being planned.

How about a section as I suggested above which the young lady has apparently not decided to attempt to write with text something along the lines of: "Numerous individuals claim that a far more ambitious economic and political union is being planned behind closed doors to be somewhat similar to the European Union, with a common currency, open borders and a super-national government.[supply sources to those claims] Some call this entity the North American Union. [links to Lou Dobbs claims, other claims] However, while numerous proposals over the years have suggested elements which might constitute a North American Union-type body, no evidence has been produced to establish that plans of such ambition are in fact being enacted, nor how such a scheme could overcome the numerous political, economic and constitutional roadblocks which presumably would be in place. [might cite a critic here]

I think the real issue is not whether this is real or not, it is whether there is or isn't a belief that something sinister is afoot and whether that warrants a mention here. I personally believe it DOES warrant mention. As long as it is in context with this page and how it deals with the Independent Task Force - where much of the paranoia stems - that a paragraph or two would suffice to describe that reaction. Canada Jack (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bound by the core content guidelines of neutral point of view, reliable sources and verifiability; to date, every attempt to create an article on the concept of a "North American Union" has essentially been a speculative piece of original research with overtones of conspiracy theory. That doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be made into a valid encyclopedia article, but to date it hasn't been.

LBEAR, if you'd like to try writing up the objective, neutral and factual article you say can be written, I'd invite you to do it in userspace at User:LBEAR/North American Union, and once you're done it can be reviewed and moved into article space if it's appropriate. That's the usual procedure for proposing a new draft of a problematic article. But nobody's purposely trying to censor a topic here for political reasons; the issue has to do with the fact that there's never been a prior version of the article which met the purely objective standards for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd welcome such an article if it could be written as Bearcat describes. As it is, this article draws too many links and cruft only peripherally related to its topic, which would be more appropriate at a NAU article. That said, verifiability is key. -- Exitmoose 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the idea of a serious effort to create a North American Union is a right-wing paranoid conspiracy theory, and if you want to write such an article, it belongs on the Jeff Rense conspiracy webiste, not on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it amazingly telling that people would rather complain about a locked redirect than actually follow proper procedure to create the real article that they claim can be written about this. Kinda says something about what's really going on here, methinks. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion pages are not alternative entries

Please stop turning this discussion page into an alternate entry by expanding the links and text here. If it does not belong in the entry it does not belong here. And please post new comments at the bottom of the page. --Cberlet (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eventual inclusion of Central America in North American Union

With the establishment of the Union of South American Nations on 8 December 2004, it seems inevitable that if a North American Union is established that is will need to expand soon after its establishment to also include the nations of Central America, which are now linked with the United States in CAFTA. Keraunos (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not the place to post sweeping statements about what seems inevitable to you. It's a place for sourced objective facts only. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)