Talk:North American Union/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"Urban legend" reference

This was just a completely biased addition. My issue isn't with the actual article, though it seems to be an op-ed with glaring inaccuracies and a clear slant, but how it is used in the article. The line "and is considered an urban legend by the mass media" is completely inappropriate where it is and suggests an attempt to further swing the article to dispel any talk of an NAU as kooky conspiracy nonsense which shouldn't be respected. The fact the same editor would not allow the phrase "there are no government proposals" to include "public" so the article isn't asserting something it can't prove just further proves this apparent bias. What's crucial here is that verifiability does not negate neutrality. Just because something can be verified by a reliable source doesn't mean it can be allowed under neutrality policy.

Not only that, but the actual claim is not substantiated by the source. One journalist from the St. Louis Post Dispatch called it an urban legend. That is hardly the "mass media" and actually fits under WP:FRINGE as something that should not be allowed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted in Wikipedia's official Verifiability policy,
“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ... All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ”
My addition to the article,
“ and is considered to be an urban legend by the mass media ”

is properly sourced and cited to the following reliable, third-party, published sources:

Both the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Seattle Times newspapers published an article titled,
“ Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears ”
that noted[1]:
“ Michael Barkun, a Syracuse University political scientist who specializes in conspiracy theories, said a major theme long has been "that schemes are being hatched to destroy American sovereignty." "The only thing that's new here is that it appears in the guise of a North American Union," he said. "Previously it appeared in the guise of U.N. domination. I think whatever appeal this has may derive from the fact that there are pre-existing concerns about trade that have been around since the creation of NAFTA, and even more strongly the immigration issue in the sense of border security. So in a way it becomes an issue onto which all kinds of anxieties and concerns can be projected." ”
In its article "Diverted by jelly-beans", The Economist news magazine stated[2]:
“ TWO years ago George Bush agreed with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to set up a so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership to look at ways of deepening the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that links their countries. Some detected a conspiracy to create a North American Union. They can relax ”
After Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke of the purported NAFTA highway and the Trilateral Commission, the Los Angeles Times newspaper researched his claims and in their article "Paul believes in threat of North American superhighway" reported that[3]:
“ Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said. "There is no such superhighway like the one he's talking about," said Ian Grossman, a spokesman with the Federal Highway Administration. "It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else." "It's complete fiction," said Tiffany Melvin, executive director of NASCO, a consortium of transportation agencies and business interests caught in the cross hairs of anti-highway activists. "This is the work of fringe groups that have wrapped a couple of separate projects together into one big paranoid fantasy." ”
In addition to the above, the International Herald Tribune newspaper published an article titled:
“ The amero conspiracy ”

where it stated[4]:

“ If you haven't heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU - that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence - has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe ”
It also unabashedly refers to it the "mythical NAU" and goes on to say,
“ The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan, and gives a glimpse of where, politically, many Americans are right now: alarmed over immigration, worried about globalization, and - on both sides of the partisan divide - suspicious of the Bush administration's expansive understanding of executive power. The belief in an imminent North American Union, says Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of a 2001 book on conspiracy theories, "reflects the particular ways in which Americans feel besieged economically, powerless politically, and alienated socially." ”
Finally in the Newsweek article "Highway To Hell?", the magazine reports[5]:
“ [in 2006 Ron Paul wrote that] "The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union—complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union." Only it's not true. ... Like all good conspiracies, the NAFTA superhighway is a strange stew of fact and fiction, fired by paranoia ”
So in summery, here we have five reliable, third-party, published sources that have described the NAU, amero, and NAFTA superhighway as being "not true," an "urban legend," a "conspiracy, "the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time," and "complete fiction."
How can you continue to claim that my edits are unsubstantiated in the face of all of this properly sourced and cited evidence? Or do you just intend to ignore everything that does not suit your own POV? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Only one of those explicitly uses the term "urban legend" and taking the title of an article by one journalist and attaching that opinion to the mass media as a whole is completely inappropriate by itself. This is not considering other problems with the line.
Let's consider what the policy says on verfiability:
“ A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.
In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.
Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.
 ”
So your point about verifiability is moot as it concerns neutrality. Let me repeat this in case I haven't made it clear enough. The issue is NEUTRALITY, not verifiability. It is not only biased to include the line, but inaccurate to say the mass media considers the formation of an NAU an urban legend. Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck are both prominent members of the mass media with their own cable tv shows and they do not consider it an urban legend, but instead talk about it on their shows. Fact is, the original line was perfectly neutral and there was no reason to add on to it. When considering neutrality, the question you have to ask yourself is, "How will the uninformed reader react to this information?" A reader may not pay mind to the mass media point or look at the source to see it is only one person calling it that, but instead see "considered an urban legend" and decide the whole thing is nonsense. The fact you attach this to a broad unidentifiable group, the mass media, as opposed to some individual or a specific paper, doesn't make it better. A person seeing "was called an urban legend by an article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch" is going to have a far different reaction than one seeing "is considered an urban legend by the mass media" and the former is not sufficient to justify its inclusion, least of all in the intro to the article. Basically, you took liberty to make the addition as broad and definite as possible without reliably sourcing the broader and more definite position and made it as prominent in the article as possible. The fact you continually revert any edit to the definitive statement "there are no government proposals" which makes an unproven assertion even if the edit is just to add the word public so a reader understands this is not absolute while making this addition just illustrates the bias you hold on this subject. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that your claim that the mass media considers the formation of an NAU an urban legend is original research and may even be synthesis. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt that a real union between these three countries would be a popular move among the populations living in each nation. None of the leaders of these three countries could ever expect it to come to fruition in the near future. My impression is that this is an anti-globalization urban legend...and one that is very fringe, even among hardcore anti-globalization advocates. --MONGO 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Devil`s Advocate, thank you for quoting and highlighting the relevant sections of WP:NPOV; I now have a better understanding of your perspective. So that you may better understand mine, I fear that "the NAU conspiracy" is a fringe theory that should not be given undue weight in the article. While you are absolutely correct that some well known figures in the media such as Messrs Beck, Corsi, and Dobbs advocate the position that the NAU is fact rather than fiction, the vast majority of articles published by the mainstream media describes the NAU in tones ranging from "urban legend" to "the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time."
Keeping our two widely divergent views in mind, how would you propose we re-write the sentence in question? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, the example I often use is the one where we have 100 references. 90 of those references say one thing and 10 say the opposite. If an article only emphasizes the 10 that are divergent and fails to make it clear that this is a minority opinion, then that is a violation of undue weight and the neutral point of view. We're not here to prove anything... we're here simply to write an encyclopedia based on the preponderance of evidence, ensuring we give each attributable and reliable reference it's due weight. --MONGO 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely and the wording of one journalist has no due weight. It's referred to widely as a conspiracy theory, though not by the mass media as a whole, and the article already says the formation of an NAU is the subject of certain conspiracy theories in the intro.
Remove it because the description by one journalist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is not notable enough to warrant the line or its inclusion in the introduction to the article. It has been referred to as an "urban legend" by one person. It's inclusion there impacts the neutrality of the article. It already talks about conspiracy theories suggesting the formation of a North American Union. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Devil to an extent here on this issue. To say "and is considered to be an urban legend by the mass media" to me is somewhat all-encompassing as it suggests that only a few fringe sources actually believe this is happening. AS noted above, Lou Dobbs has repeatedly stated his belief that there is a process afoot here, as have some other right-wing sites in the United States and left-wing sites here in Canada. I do think it is fair to suggest many in the mass media do consider this an urban legend, and that this is relevant to have in the opening paragraph, but I think this needs to be reworked.

Here's a suggest about how this can be better presented:

"The concept of a North American Union has a wide spectrum of interpretations: From the belief by some on the political fringes that it is now being enacted outside of normal political scrutiny by a cabal of corporate and political insiders, to more main-stream beliefs that the governments are operating in secret to establish it, to the belief from many in the mass media that talk of the Union is little more than an urban legend, and exists only as think-tank proposals."

Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-uh, that's actually worse by saying such people are on the "political fringes" it's more like an attempt to discredit them. I would hardly say Lou Dobbs is on the political fringe. I'd say the exact opposite is true. Fact is, the article already says the NAU is the subject of some conspiracy theories and includes more information in the article on that as well as the comments of people involved in the projects pointed to saying it's untrue and a conspiracy theory. Just because an opinion is given doesn't mean it should be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Read it again, Devil. I say there are those on the fringes who believe this, there are those in the main stream who believe this. And there are those who say this is an urban legend. Lou Dobbs would reasonably have to be placed in the "main stream" as I have put it. This can be rephrased of course, but I think my approach here shows that a) "conspiracy" types believe this, b) "main stream" types believe this, c) others call it an "urban legend." I'd say my approach removes the suggestion that anyone who believes this is some rabid whacko. Canada Jack (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck believe what you put on "the fringes" not just what you say is "more mainstream" so you're wrong on that one. We already have it established that people have formed conspiracy theories around this and the article establishes that main stream types believe. The article also establishes that people think it's nutso. The introduction is not the place to include all of that and it already mentions that it is part of some conspiracy theories in the intro. Basically there's no point in including any of this. I said before my issue is not with the information in the article, but where it is put and the wording used. Addressing one won't address the other. One article calling it an urban legend is also not sufficient to include the wording. It seems more like you are just looking for a new label to discredit the opinion since the conspiracy mention no longer does so.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping MONGO`s excellent point in mind, how about this:

“ The concept of a North American Union has a wide spectrum of interpretations: From the belief by some on the political fringes that it is now being enacted outside of normal political scrutiny by a cabal of corporate and political insiders¹, to more main-stream beliefs that the governments are operating in secret to establish it², to the belief from many in the mass media that talk of the Union is little more than an "urban legend"³ or "the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time"† that exists only as think tank proposals. ”

Where the following are cited:

¹ - the International Herald Tribune article "The amero conspiracy" for its reporting on Dr. Corsi
² - the Newsweek article "Highway To Hell?" for its coverage of Ron Paul's political beliefs; likewise the statements of Mr. Dobbs and Beck (or even Marcy Kaptur, the Congressional Representative for the district I live in) could probably be used to support this
³ - the "Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears" article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Seattle Times
† - "The amero conspiracy" again

However I feel we should link "political fringes" to something ... but I have no idea what one Wikipedia article would encapsulate the fact that this group includes far-right views like WorldNetDaily as well as those from the far-left. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The line presently on the article is fine as it is and it should be kept as it is. Your rewriting gives undue emphasis to a rather negative opinion. In particular the use of the term "urban legend" is not a major opinion as most do not call it an urban legend. Most call it a conspiracy theory and this is already mentioned plenty of times so there's no need to mention it again. Given the present version is incredibly neutral towards both sides, your additions are only weighting it on one side, even the paragraph you give weights it on one side. It is simply not acceptable. You can argue undue weight towards conspiracy theories but it won't ring true because there is no weight towards either side. The intro gives the NAU as a concept and notes it has been proposed by scholars and academics. The intro also notes there are conspiracy theories centered around an NAU forming. Most of that is acceptable and neutral. Most of the article is fairly neutral and deals with questions of where certain concepts or ideas originate and then mentions related conspiracy theories somewhat fleetingly. So really you're not balancing the scales, you're just tipping them towards your POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Creator's response

As the creator and writer of the bulk of the article, I was the one who included the references to the NAU as a conspiracy theory. I did so because that's how the sources described it. Later it was pointed out that the idea of a North American Union has been present in academia for some time, so other editors and I adjusted the phrasing of the intro to make the dichotomy more clear. Yes, the North American Union is a conspiracy theory. But like all conspiracy theories, it has at least some root in fact - in this case, the academic proposals. Any attempts to say that there are governmental proposals runs contrary to the sources and to WP:OR. Including the word "public" hints that there are proposals, and we just don't know about them - phrasing that is both inaccurate, unverifiable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I hope this clears things up a bit. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't clear things up. The word "public" here doesn't imply there are proposals it takes an unproven assertion and makes it accurate. Saying "there are no public government proposals to create such a union" is stated in a matter of fact manner because it is a matter of fact. The key issue here is phrasing. I agree with the reverts of edits saying "there are no governmental proposals to create such a union which have been made public" because that actually implies such proposals exist. It's actually the kind of phrase used for something that does exist but isn't available. On the other hand having "public" as a qualifier for the phrase "government proposals" simply makes a negative statement which can reasonably be taken as fact. There are no public proposals from the government, because we'd reasonably be able to find a reliable source verifying this. There might be proposals which are not public and there might not be any such proposals at all. It is something that can not reasonably be proven. Extreme caution should be used before asserting something does not exist and generally such assertions should be avoided.
Also, you're wrong on the NAU concept as it does not just have a basis in academic proposals as sources provided in the article show. The most explicit proposals have in fact come from former President Vicente Fox. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
First, you're also confusing proposals with support. Fox does support the idea of a North American Union, but I see no indication he has ever proposed anything of the sort.
Second, there are no government proposals to create such a union. Period. The article has reliable, third-party sources indicating such, meeting the threshold for WP:V - verifiability, not truth. Anything else is speculation on your part. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On this formal/informal nonsense it is an appropriate wording given the line in it's entirety. It says, "Officials from all three nations have said there are no formal plans to create such a union, although the idea has been discussed and proposed in academic and scholarly circles". When one reads this as a sentence the average reader isn't going to come away saying, "Oh so informal plans exist" they're going to come away thinking that while the government doesn't have any plans some groups have given plans, which is the basic thrust of the article cited.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of saying "there are no formal plans", it would be better to say "there are no government plans". That would significantly clear up any confusion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I went ahead and made the change as this is quite close to what our sources say. I also wonder if we should include a quote to the International Herald Tribune article. Their statement that "government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes" is quite unequivocal and meshes nicely with what all the rest of the mainstream media sources have said. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't know if those are exact quotes and the article saying this is very opinionated. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As noted in WP:WEIGHT, "we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view," and WP:FRINGE, "an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." So far we have a half-dozen reliable, third-party, published mainstream sources that all describe the NAU as existing solely in think-tank or academic circles, and anything else is either an urban legend or conspiracy theory. After spending a good chunk of yesterday searching, I still cannot find anything supporting the formation of a NAU that is not a far-left or far-right wing self-published web site. The article should reflect these facts. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this "opinion" vs "fact" issue on the part of Devil won't go away. This was not an issue until Corsi started to research he Minuteman book and wondered why the government wasn't doing more to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, then he concluded that the SPP in fact represented a subterfuge to bring in a NAU. But it's one thing to note the concept of something like the NAU, to note that in Mexico's case it would be something far more desirable than for very rich countries (like why Romania and Bulgaria were falling over themselves to join the EU while Norway and Switzerland are not); it is quite another thing to suppose that therefore plans are actually in place.
I say the above simply to point out that this was a non-issue until Corsi made it an issue, and it remains a non-issue to most in the mainstream as they recognize that even if there was a desire to create a NAU, there is no political momentum to do so, in fact there is far more resistance to the plan.
In the end, we have to fall back on what are generally seen as reliable sources, and what they say, not keep open the possibilty that they are lying or embrace those in the extremes who insist otherwise thus elevating dubious theories to respectablity. As Kralizec indicates, there are no mainstream or official sources to back up the claims made that aren't themselves based on the claims from people like Corsi, or from sources out of the "Protocols of Zion" mold like "Zeitgeist." If we avoid these rules, then we could go onto Barack Obama's page and where it says he is a Christian, we could add the qualification that he "claims" to be a Christian as some muckrakers are trying to sow disinformation, and others actually believe him to be a closet Muslim. Or we could go to the Moon Landing pages and insert text such as "claimed moon landings" which sows doubts on the achievements merely because a vocal few believe otherwise. We can't ever know the truth absolutely here, but we can apply standards, and in this case, we are not going out on a limb in my view in accepting mainstream views on the NAU, especially since they match repeated denials from governments, and claims otherwise seem to stem from Corsi. Even Fox has been quoted as saying the current American political situation in terms of immigration makes his dreams of a NAU far more distant than he hoped back in 2001. Canada Jack (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept the current changes. However, I think you do have some misunderstandings. When the SPP was first started I thought, "ah, we're moving towards a North American Union" more because I just saw this as one step further in the process of economic and political integration. When I first found out about Corsi and such I just thought, "well, I'm not the only one thinking this" though I thought he was overly alarmist. That being said, I have no doubt Bush, and the other leaders involved in the SPP realize this is a step towards a North American Union, even if the dialog itself may not lead to such a union. I generally believe Fox is correct in saying a union would be long term. At the same time the SPP would move it along quite a bit by making the NAFTA trade bloc into a common market and likely lead to a common security perimeter. However, my view is not based off anything Jerome Corsi said, but my own thoughts on where things are headed, which is somewhat different from Corsi's views.

All the same, I'm never one to discount a possibility just because it doesn't make sense to me and I have no evidence for it. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a step, but taking a walk doesn't mean you are going to walk a marathon, it could just mean you are going to the end of the block, and many seem to not appreciate that distinction. Entering into SPP would be a "step" towards a NAU, but it also could be the final step taken, ending with the SPP! Indeed, given current realities, it is exceedingly hard to see how a NAU could emerge from this process, and that is all I am saying.
I started to wonder about a NAU for the Americas around the time Austria and Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995 (which is also when it started to be called the "European Union"). But what I thought then largely holds true now: It is hard to see America ceding the kind of authority it would have to to join a similar body. And, what wasn't as true back in 1995 is more true now than ever - though Canadians might benefit from some aspects of closer integration, our economies are going in different directions and we'd be loath to hitch our well-managed train to the mess that is America's political system and economy teetering at the edge of a recession at this moment. We also seriously doubt that such a body would reflect the needs of the Canadian economy more than it America's. And why should it? America would still have the bulk of the combined economy. While it makes sense to tap into it from Canada's point of view, it makes less sense to be stuck to the vagaries of the American economic and political ebbs and flows more so than we need to. That seems to be the overwhelming consensus here.
I think it is instructive when comparing the EU to this NAU proposal to look at Britain, which somewhat like America, is loath to refuse to cede much authority to outside entities. It, along with Denmark, opted out of adopting the euro, and it is hard to see them changing their minds for the time being. Indeed, it is entirely foreseeable to see all the countries of the EU using the euro by about 2020 - except Britain. Britain also has opted out of the open borders of the Swchengen Accord, choosing to be outside of an open border which also will include countries like Switzerland and Norway who aren't even part of the EU. Though it should be noted their work rules are more open than other countries which accounts for the growth of Central Europeans within London and elsewhere in Britain (and Ireland, also outside the accord and with similar work rules). But all this euroskeptism doesn't even come close to what America's exceptionalism is like, and yet we are to believe that somehow America is simply going to toss out its sovereignty to some Brussels-style faceless bureaucrats after 230 years of "Don't Tread On Me" and after seven years of a president which more than any in recent memory has sneered at the authority of outside bodies and foreign consensus? It really makes no sense, and I am the sort willing to assume the worst of the spectacularly inept current president. Even if this were up his sleeve, even if he was some uber-Machiavellian, he has the brains to know this would go precisely nowhere with perhaps 90 per cent of Americans. (There would be a similar response in most of Canada, I'd suspect. NAFTA was a very hard sell here.) And therein lies the rub. This sort of deal can't by it's nature be snuck in the backdoor, despite what some seem to want to let us believe. It simply can't.
But even given that, I've never discounted the possibility that this could happen. Just that a great deal has to change, and people like Fox have to hope for changes to go the right way. That's the difference. I personally think that even when Fox talks of "20 years" for this to happen he is being wildly optimistic, even assuming all the necessary preconditions line up. Even if a political goal was set, it'd still be years before this could come to fruition, and we aren't even close to having this be a stated goal of Canada and the United States. Not even close.
We don't know what the future will hold, but I can imagine some of the scenarios possible here for this to actually happen: America's dollar loses status as world's reserve currency; America perceives the strength and unity of the European Union as a model to challenge the strength and unity of them and other blocs, perhaps in Asia; Mexico emerging as a modern and rich state.
In short, if America starts to decline seriously from its position of pre-eminence (may be happening now), and most importantly perceives the need to enhance its position, then something like a Free Trade Zone for the Americas would make some sense, a lot more sense than a rather narrow NAU, though that could be a body others might join, like how the EU was six members which slowly expanded.
But, as it stands, there is little to embrace in terms of actual progress towards a North American Union, and Fox's realization and frustration of that was evident on some of the talk shows he appeared on. And since that is the reality which must be addressed here, that is what he need to stick to on the page, not to the wide-eyed idealism of some, nor the wild-eyed paranoia of others. Canada Jack (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Line from Vicente Fox's book

World Net Daily has a quote in one of their articles which they say comes from Fox's book "Revolution of Hope" the quote reads:

“ I proposed a 'NAFTA Plus' plan to President Bush and Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to move us toward a single continental economic union, modeled on the European example. ”

I was wanting to include this, but I'm none too trusting of World Net Daily, however they do cite the page number and book. No other online source I could find cites this, so I thought about getting the book or checking it out, but it doesn't appear to be in my area. If someone can verify this quote by finding a copy of the book and checking to see if the quote is accurate then it could be included in the article. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps as they also probably fail the WP:RS test, but AmericanSov.org and RightWingNews.com list the same quote ([6], [7]). My wife and I normally take the kids to our local library for Wednesday night story time, so maybe I can check and see if they have Revolution of Hope. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins section redo

When Devil earlier had added stuff about Vicente Fox and I suggested a link was required to establish the relevance of the insertion, I realized that much of the section as it stood really was a bunch of disconnected events with nothing to link them in particular. So I have redone some of this - added more than anything - to more firmly make the links.

So, we now go from Fox, to 911 changing political realties, to the SPP, to the Task Force. And I make the explicit link of these elements as evidence towards the NAU as cited by the conspiracy people. Before, it wasn't particularly obvious how the SPP was connected to the North American Union, nor the task force, even as I insisted that Fox had to be linked. Actually, Devil, I'm surprised you didn't point this out. I apologize for insisting on the link when the others in the section weren't so explicitly linked. My footnoting is always crap, I hope someone can clean that up for me... Canada Jack (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed flag design

In June 2007, a Brazillian college student in Rio de Janiero named Guilherme Paula created a proposed design for a flag for the North American Union which is shown at right. Keraunos (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research is verboten on Wikipedia. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If Central America joins a future North American Union, then the nation of Panama will have to decide whether to join the North American Union or the Union of South American Nations. It seems likely that they would choose to join the Union of South American Nations because Panamanians generally regard themselves as South Americans because Panama used to be part of Colombia before it was detached by the United States from that country in order to construct the Panama Canal. Keraunos (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why stop there? Why not assume a "World Union"? Or even better, how about a "Federation of Planets"? Since Nafta-plus seems increasingly likely to be limited to issues of security, and fine-tuning trade issues, making the concept of a North American Union an even more distant dream - or nightmare, depending on your point of view - it is, to put it politely, premature to start talking about trade groups which barely even exist on paper and how they might on day unite. Canada Jack (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I’m a futurist. It’s my job to think ahead! Keraunos (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)