Talk:North American Union/Archive 7

Jamaica, Greenland, Cuba and other islands?

Hello, I've noticed that Jamaica, Greenland, Cuba and other islands near by are not included on here, but I raise this point as they are in the 'North American' continent. Thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

That's a good question. If the NAU forms it could very well expand to include all or most of North America (just as the European Union is with most of Europe). But I believe the reason why Jamaica and Cuba are not mentioned is more or less why when the European Union first formed as the European Communities, the only ones which could join were those who were democratic. So Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria could not join. Today their governments changed and now are part of the EU. But North America is similar, I do not believe Cuba could join a NAU until it settles all of its issues, but most of North America are democratic. Maybe there should be a section on possible expansion. —NuclearVacuum 15:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I understand that Cuba is a 'Socialist Republic', but Jamaica is democratic and so is Purto Rico and other surrounding islands. If there was a ' North American Union', would that mean they may make a new currency (Like the Euro in Europe) and have MNAPs(Member of the North American parlimaent)? Maybe we should include Jamaica, Greenland, Purto rico and the other surrounding islands. Thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Extra: Also, would that create new political parties in this NAU parliament like as they do in the EU? For example North American Conservative group, North American Socialist group and North American Liberal and Democrats group, for example?

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Well since the NAU hasn't formed yet, most ideas are speculation. But I don't see why the NAU wouldn't become something like the European Union with a US touch. As for the currency, haven't you heard of the proposed amero? If you haven't, check it out. —NuclearVacuum 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Three important things have come to the light.

In my talk page post above. About a prominent Caribbean-American lawyer, he pitched the idea for the Democrat party to have the Caribbean join NAFTA.

• Calls for Caribbean plank in US Democratic Party platform

A Stanford University professor has pitched a plan called a "Cities charter" where smaller islands in the Caribbean should seek to work out an agreement with such nations as the United States and Canada to become (temporarily) a "Charter city" of these larger countries.

• A Caribbean charter city idea?

And lastly, some politicians are asking if CARICOM isn't effectively dead now due to it being in a continual stalled date and deadlines continually being missed. Several events have also made CARICOM partly redundant.

1) CARICOM has been permanently merged with the Dominican Republic by trade deal with the EU as a bloc known as CARIFORUM. There remains very little support of a full "CARIFORUM" bloc among states of CARICOM which as there is a huge cultural and language divide between Dominican Republic and other countries of CARICOM. They've hardly handled this same issue when Haiti joined as it stands now.

2) Several schemes such as: PetroCaribe, ALBA and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States have further made CARICOM redundant. Furthermore Trinidad and Tobago is creating a spliter group trying to form the "United States of the Southern Caribbean" which is attempting to form a deep economic union by 2011 and political union by 2013. (Involving: Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. (Barbados is playing a 'watch and see what happens' stance. And both Jamaica, and the British Virgin Islands who for now ruled out any idea of political unions in the Caribbean involving them.

3) Britain will not allow its current territory (Montserrat) to join the Caribbean Single Market and Economy.

4) Haitians have largely been opted out of the CARICOM "Free movement", as almost every other country maintains their Visa stipulation for Haitians to move to their country.

5) The Bahamas have very publicly told their government that they want very limited involvement in CARICOM due to a sentiment that persons from Haiti would flock to their country.

6) Guyana and Suriname have already join the USAN as associate members (which competes in some ways with CARICOM.)

7) Belize is implementing nation building with Guatemala and has signed several competing deal with central America that have again made CARICOM redundant.

IMHO. CARICOM is close to a tipping point.

This is partly covered in the following article.

• An ugly place for Caricom states

CaribDigita (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all gravely irrelevant, since there is no serious discussion of creating any kind of North American Union whatsoever. Personally, I'm among those in the American left who would be delighted to welcome Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and other democracies as new states of the U.S.; but my understanding is that most folks in those countries are not interested, thank you! (And I can respect that.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Orange Mike, we are discussing it because one day, it may happen with in our lifetimes. Thanks. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

One day, but that day, if it ever comes, is far, far away. Orange is right - this is exceedingly irrelevant as there are some rather massive impediments, particularly within the USA, to an enhancement of NAFTA, which is a minimum first step. In the current political climate, we are far, far more likely to see more free trade agreements between individual countries than to see an expansion of NAFTA - or supposed successors - to other countries. The USA has negotiated numerous FTAs in recent years, with the Central American bloc, with Mercorsur, negotiating with South Korea, etc. Canada is also negotiating FTAs, notably coming to an arrangement with the EFTA and now negotiating with the EU. It would indeed be an historical irony if Canada ends up closer to the EU trade-wise owing to some of the near-paranoid opposition in America to enhancing NAFTA, paranoia in no small part due to the nonsense surrounding the NAU. Canada Jack (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada and CARICOM are currently working on FTA. The Caribbean governments are pushing for a development-aid component within it. The following article sums up CARICOM/USA/Canada's current trade relationship.

• Trade with North America in a state of flux

CaribDigita (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Devil's changes

Devil just introduced some substantial changes and I must say, aside from a minor point here and there which I may suggest be changed, these changes improve the article. Unless of course you add some junk after I say this... Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to what Devil had added, which more properly reflect what was actually added. First, the header "History of the concept", with a separate "conspiracy theories" no longer made much sense, as there was no proposed "North American Union" per se, just a number of proposed expanded regional trade pacts, etc., such as "nafta-plus." So the header should more properly reflect that various concepts were floating about, not that these concepts "led" to the North American Union. But the "context" is that from 2005, some of these concepts were identified as elements of the NAU.

This line The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was formed at the meeting as a result of efforts for greater integration, though the goals fell short of most proposals is unattributed and unsubstantiated. The leaders of the SPP say they came up with the concepts, and they make no explicit link to the various previous initiatives and proposals. If, Devil, you argue that we have that article from d'Aquino who says his group's efforts led to the SPP, (which I showed earlier is not what he actually said) that is not good enough. Just as we can't say that Al Gore created the internet because he said so, or that Oprah Winfrey deserves most credit for Obama's election, because she has expressed that opinion, we can't ascribe the creation of the SPP to a particular group's efforts unless the leaders of the SPP actually say so, or reliable observers say so.

If you want to change the line to something akin to "the SPP emerged from various initiatives..." we need that to a) either be explicitly stated by the leaders of the SPP (I am unaware of such a claim, though now you have the Fox book, perhaps there is something there you can cite) or b) explicitly stated by commentators from what are "reliable sources", i.e., not one of the conspiracy sites. Canada Jack (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everything has to be specifically cited if it is an obvious conclusion from other facts presented. Agreements do not appear out of mist and so clearly the SPP did result from efforts for greater integration. You are also using what Jerome Corsi built in his head as a way to judge what is about the North American Union concept and what isn't, even though the concept predated his conspiracy theory. To say there is no history is just historical revisionism on your part. What was proposed by the Task Force had many elements of a continental union including elements of a continental legal system. It was more of an economic union than a political union, but that is enough to consider it a continental union. As such these represent a history of the concept. Never mind that all these things are crucial to the conspiracy theories which assert such a union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious conclusions" are prime examples of the synthesis and original research that we are not allowed to enter into articles. If it ain't sourced to a proper reliable source, it ain't staying in. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of the rules, including that one. I also know from looking through that it is meant to pertain to advancing a position or analysis. It on several occasions refers to an argument. Making a simple "2+2" observation is not original research. Nothing in government appears out of thin air. Thus there had to be efforts to achieve the policy or initiative being discussed and with everything pertaining to the issue beforehand being explicitly about greater integration than it is a simple observation that the SPP resulted from such efforts. The leader of one of the countries explicitly said he pushed for greater integration so it is not original research to say that such pressures led to the SPP. Of course, you don't seem to care if something that is actually false or misleading is inserted if it fits in with your view and that is clearly against the rules.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we still come back to the basic problem of what the North American Union "is." Since no one proposed it in the form that critics have described it as, it's pretty hard to get a "history" of a "concept" which has never been proposed. As for the line in question on the emergence of the SPP, fair enough. You've convinced me. Canada Jack (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orange Mike and I made a few changes, chiefly being some clarification on the SPP - it wasn't a proposal at all to move towards a "Nafta-plus" arrangement, as the SPP specifically states, it was an attempt to streamline current regulations etc on a tri-lateral basis. As it was written, the section implies that the SPP arose out of efforts towards further integration, that "further integration" being defined as "nafta-plus" and other EU/ECC-style goals. But the SPP isn't that at all and can hardly be said to have "arose" from those calls for further integration when it fails to even contemplate further integration, at least as it is self-described (and, nearly five years later, as experience has demonstrated). Canada Jack (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the cause of my constant frustration with you. I make very clear efforts towards balancing the article and right after that you take effort to sway it towards your POV. The SPP clearly set out goals for greater integration. What the SPP site says is that it does not create any "NAFTA-Plus" legal status which is just a dressed-up way of saying what is said at the very beginning of the article, that there was no treaty or legal document. Inserting the official SPP double-speak just pushes your POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the cause of my constant frustration with you. I make very clear efforts towards balancing the article and right after that you take effort to sway it towards your POV.

Problem is, Devil, your idea of "balance" is to pretend there was something called the NAU outside the heated imaginations of critics, and to somehow insert that. This has been going on for two years and we ate STILL waiting for a cited history of the NAU that precedes the Task Force/SPP and the paranoid imaginations that those things spawned. You've utterly failed to come up with anything as there is nothing there. The only "problem" is that you can't admit this, not only to us, but to yourself.

The SPP clearly set out goals for greater integration. Actually, Devil, it doesn't. Maybe in you POV interpretation it does. But the SPP itself asserts the SPP simply coordinates many aspects of the tri-lateral relationship within the bounds of the treaties which already exist. Therefore, it is NOT a step towards the "further integration" as proposed by many other entities. So, to assert otherwise without citation, is Original Research. At first, it seemed reasonable that the SPP emerged out of various movements towards further integration. Problem is, the SPP doesn't even contemplate "further integration", it contemplates "further coordination," which is not the same thing. And this is no mere semantic difference.

One needs only to look at the European Union's integration process, each step upon the way requiring a new treaty, the most recent of which, the Lisbon Treaty, was recently ratified. To enact the changes contemplated by the Task Force, for example, would require a new treaty, whether you call it "Nafta-plus," or what have you. Since the SPP specifically says this is not contemplated, you must source those who claim otherwise.

You reveal your bias when you say SPP "doublespeak." Five years have passed since the SPP was created. Are we witness to this "greater integration" you speak of?

So, let alone "falling short" of the goals of, say, the Task Force, the SPP doesn't even propose ammending the treaties required for even the more modest integration goals. And, just to put a finer point on it, having the three countries, for example, coordinate their border systems is not "further integration," as that would entail eliminating those borders, which would be accomplished via a new treaty, much as the European Shwengen Agreement. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)\

If there is any clearer indication that Devil is attempting to create a POV-laced article, it is his ludicrous contention that the following text, which he omitted, is "POV": [The SPP] was described by the leaders as being a dialog, not an agreement nor a treaty and that the SPP "does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status."

That's not Canada Jack making stuff up, it's directly from the SPP site, including the "not an agreement, not a treaty" part. So, it seems, in Devil's mind, the SPP itself is not a "reliable source" when discussing the intentions and motivations of the SPP but his uncited history of how the SPP came about is. It is, in his mind it seems, completely irrelevant and "POV" that the SPP itself says there is no further integration contemplated. No, what I have done is simply cite the SPP and, unfortunately for Devil's argument, my citations tend to negate what he is desperately trying to assert. Canada Jack (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My major revision to the article preceding this and your general approval of it, should be an indicator that I am not pushing any point-of-view. Indeed you initially approved of the very part you are now suggesting is biased. However, it seems the only time you make changes it is to sway the article towards your POV. Once again you claim that because it is cited that it is therefore ok to include. The quote is wrapped in legalese that would be confusing to many readers. Even you do not seem to actually understand what it says. It says the SPP does not create a "NAFTA-Plus legal status" which basically means exactly what has been said in the beginning of the article, that no agreement was signed. As the SPP is a dialog rather than a treaty or a "convention" it does not create any legal status, because it is not a law in any way, shape, or form. That does not change the fact it looks to achieve several goals of those proposing a NAFTA-Plus agreement. It is just a dialog that seeks to achieve such goals through less obvious means. To suggest the SPP was not a response to the pressure for more integration is just intellectually dishonest.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty is as ephemeral of a concept as is the trust. Regardless, official Wikipedia policy states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is another consideration and the fact the quote is deliberately confusing to the average reader should be enough reason to keep it out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First the SPP mentions things like creating common standards and rationalizing minor differences in external tariffs. What do you think "rationalizing minor differences in external tariffs" means? One of the accomplishments listed on the SPP site is the Open-Skies agreement which definitely represents economic integration. As for calling it doublespeak I am simply highly critical of government and do not blindly accept what the government says, especially when I can read through the crap. As I noted the quote is deliberately misleading, much like the entire SPP. NAFTA has seen decreasing popularity so trying to push another trade agreement through was not going to happen. Much like the actual formation of NAFTA, they didn't call it a treaty because that requires a greater number of votes, the SPP attempts to go with the easier legal route. The comments from the various leaders clearly indicate the SPP is meant to deepen integration as one who carefully reads the SPP site can also see. Prime Minister Steve Harper's sarcastic comment about jelly beans is revealing in that creating common standards and common regulations is an element of a common market. The EU passes such measures all the time through public legislation. Here they try to sneak it in using regulatory adjustments which can occur without legislative approval. Am I critical of that? Yes, and anyone should be critical of government seeking to sneak in changes which would otherwise be unwanted by the people. Just like I am critical of Congress tacking unpopular measures onto defense appropriations bills.

I should also note this phrase that people keep insisting on inserting is poorly written, in keeping with other POV edits made to this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well. If there has ever been a more clearer example of someone seeking to push an agenda forward, I don't think I've seen it in a long time. Devil, to be blunt, no one gives a flying f--- what your personal opinion on what the SPP is or isn't trying to do. All we are concerned with here is, as Kralizec so succinctly put it, the official Wikipedia policy which "states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Simply put, whether you are right or wrong is and never was the issue, the issue is whether you can cite someone who suggests the "history" here is what you suggest it is.

Which is what after all your blathering on about POV and bias and whatnot comes down to. It's your opinion that the NAU has its roots in many things pre-2005. It's your opinion that the SPP emerged out of a process whereby further integration was sought. And it's your opinion that the SPP is a dishonest process and more is here than meets the eye. But if you want your opinion represented in the article it must match representative opinions which are cited from verifiable sources who say as much.

I was the one who largely wrote the section on the reaction to the SPP/Task Force. And what did I base that on? Canada Jack's personal opinion that the NAU stuff was a crock? No, on the cited opinions on the origins of the NAU from both those who believe the NAU is happening and those who consider it to be a conspiracy theory. The problem is, though some suggest this is part of a long process to integration, there is almost nothing pre-2005 which these people suggest form the "roots" of the NAU.

However, you have consistently suggested otherwise, that the NAU is a result of a long process of previous efforts towards integration. So, I have suggested, also consistently, that to assert that, you must also cite that. Yet though you added some good stuff about Fox, upon closer examination of the origin of the SPP, you simply have asserted that it is "obvious" that the process emerged from these other Nafta-plus initiatives. This despite the clear statement from the SPP itself that this is a) nothing but a dialog and b) there is no contemplation of any "Nafta-plus" arrangement.

Now, you declare that that is bullshit: As for calling it doublespeak I am simply highly critical of government and do not blindly accept what the government says, especially when I can read through the crap. As I noted the quote is deliberately misleading, much like the entire SPP.

It's like we are banging our head against the wall when discussing this with you. You may be 100 per cent correct in saying the SPP is "deliberately misleading." But it is NOT within your right, if the SPP declares one thing, to simply write, as if it is a given, with the premise they are lying and in fact this is part of a more ambitious integration plan! To do so, you MUST cite critics who say something like, "However, critics of the SPP suggest that in fact the SPP is effecting a "NAFTA-plus" agreement outside the bounds of a normal treaty process behind closed doors." But, this is what we say in the "conspiracy" section anyway!

Let's take a look at what your above statements reveal:

Neutrality is another consideration and the fact the quote is deliberately confusing to the average reader should be enough reason to keep it out. The quote is a direct quote from the SPP and it is described as being what the SPP says about its goals, and it is cited. The only "fact" at issue is whether they actually said as much. Devils opinion is that it is misleading, it is not "fact" that it is misleading. This is called pushing a POV.

One of the accomplishments listed on the SPP site is the Open-Skies agreement which definitely represents economic integration. Open skies agreements are common arrangements between countries which have no goals of "economic integration." By your logic, since the USA and EU signed an Open Skies agreement in 2008, that means the USA is considering joining the EU. Again, your opinion on what consitutes "economic integration" is all we are seeing here. This is called pushing a POV.

As I noted the quote is deliberately misleading, much like the entire SPP. This is simply your opinion, it is not a "fact." This is called pushing a POV.

The comments from the various leaders clearly indicate the SPP is meant to deepen integration as one who carefully reads the SPP site can also see. Prime Minister Steve Harper's sarcastic comment about jelly beans is revealing in that creating common standards and common regulations is an element of a common market. Countries routinely create common standards and common regulations without engaging in a common market. This goes on all the time, and is a constant feature of trade negotiations and trade pacts between countries and blocs. So, once again, it is simply your opinion that common standards etc and Harper's comments are indicative of movement towards a common market. This is called pushing a POV.

In the end, Devil, your are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Too often here, you are portraying your opinions as being facts. While I have my own opinion on what the truth here is - and in regards to the SPP, I actually share some of your critiques - that does not mean I have some right to make that opinion the underlying premise of what is written. But that is what you repeatedly are attempting to do here.

So, again, if you can find some readily citable history of the NAU pre-2005, and some citable histories of the SPP (again, I suggest you consult the Fox biography for some insight to the creation of the SPP), then that should be included - as was the Fox material on the NAU and Bush. But don't try to suggest that what is here now is "POV" when it is only because your opinion is not represented. All that has been done in terms of the SPP is quoting what they say about their purpose, some of which is dismissed in the next section by critics (and which I also chiefly wrote). Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Devil removed the SPP quotes which declare the SPP is not intended to go "Nafta-plus." While Devil can certainly rework any text which he finds clumsy or poorly written, which is what he claims to be doing, what he has in fact done is remove a key claim by the SPP which gives the casual reader the strong impression that the SPP is part of the Nafta-plus process mentioned previously in the section. Indeed, he seeks to explicitly say as much, without citation.

I have no objection to Devil better expressing what was there, I do have an objection to the SPP's own stated intentions being censored by someone who has stated they are lying. That's called pushing a POV. And, as I earlier pointed out, those who claim there is more afoot with the SPP have their views expressed in the following section. Canada Jack (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say they were lying. I said that they were technically telling the truth, but using language deliberately meant to confuse the reader. Like I said before technically the SPP does not create any new legal status, because it is not a law in any sense. However, the SPP seeks to deliberately confuse the reader into thinking the SPP does not seek to implement some of the same things as those NAFTA-Plus proposals. It does in fact initiate many of the same policies only through a piecemeal approach that requires little to no legislative approval. For instance, the Task Force suggested an advisory council be set up and then a year later the North American Competitiveness Council is formed as part of the SPP. They request establishing a common external tariff and the SPP calls for "rationalizing minor differences in external tariffs" which is a nice vague way of saying "implement a common external tariff" without most people catching on. Creating a common external tariff is very much a form of integration.

Your denials of the reality are only getting increasingly absurd. First it was that because no one proposed anything that they called the North American Union no one had actually proposed a North American Union. Now it is apparently that the SPP was not actually pushing integration because "the SPP said so" when in fact they didn't actually say anything of the sort. It is not the first time you have claimed someone said something they actually didn't because it advanced your POV either.

My version explicitly states the SPP fell short of most proposals. Also if you happen to notice I had modified the original version to say that it was "to continue efforts for greater integration" which creates an impression that it was simply continuing integration on from NAFTA. That is definitely something the leaders have claimed. In that sense it can not be misconstrued to imply anything like what you are saying.

I am only seeking to have this article be accurate and not subject to denial by certain individuals who seem to be interested only in advancing the party line. The fact this all centers on such a small portion of my changes demonstrates this clearly. Need I remind you that you proudly supported the earlier versions of this article that were blatantly biased?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say they were lying. I said that they were technically telling the truth, but using language deliberately meant to confuse the reader. This is your opinion, Devil, not a fact.

However, the SPP seeks to deliberately confuse the reader into thinking the SPP does not seek to implement some of the same things as those NAFTA-Plus proposals. This is your opinion, Devil, not a fact.

They request establishing a common external tariff and the SPP calls for "rationalizing minor differences in external tariffs" which is a nice vague way of saying "implement a common external tariff" without most people catching on. This is your opinion, Devil, not a fact. And, while certain external tariffs are being "rationalized," to pretend that that means the continent is anywhere close to a common external tariff via the SPP is, to put it gently, ludicrous. Unless you have sources which claim otherwise.

Your denials of the reality are only getting increasingly absurd. First it was that because no one proposed anything that they called the North American Union no one had actually proposed a North American Union. Your inability to answer a simple, basic question for two years is what is "absurd," Devil. I'll ask it again: Who proposed a body akin to the North American Union before 2005, Devil? You have yet to supply an answer. Your attempts to insert a "history" reflect your uncited opinion that the NAU existed in a planned state before, as are your attempts to link this "history" to the SPP, which is called pushing an uncited POV.

Now it is apparently that the SPP was not actually pushing integration because "the SPP said so" when in fact they didn't actually say anything of the sort. They in fact said quite precisely that the sort of integration mentioned in the section - "Nafta-plus," etc - is NOT what they contemplate. So, to say "integration" in that context is highly misleading. And if they "say so," that this sort of integration is not contemplated, I am quite astounded that you assert this is some sort of "biased" insertion. Again, you are attempting to link the various integration proposals to the SPP, as it is your opinion that there is a link, and further attempting to censor the SPP's own words on this very point. Why? Because you are pushing your POV, which is not permitted. Don't know why you don't get this, Devil.

It is not the first time you have claimed someone said something they actually didn't because it advanced your POV either. My "POV" is that the SPP is, indeed, pushing further integration behind closed doors. However, that being said, I can't ignore the SPP's own words on the subject if we lay the premise of various integration proposals out, then suggest the SPP is part of the process, when they EXPLICITLY deny such a thing. However, while we mention the various proposals, etc in that section, in the next section, we have some rather pointed critiques on the SPP itself. And one need not be a conspiracy theorist to doubt the SPP's words.

I had modified the original version to say that it was "to continue efforts for greater integration" which creates an impression that it was simply continuing integration on from NAFTA. The issue here is we are conflating several ways of looking at "integration." If two countries agree to both use, say, trilingual signs at border stops, which would only require departmental decrees, is that "integration,"? Or is it the removal of border stations themselves, a common external tariff, etc., which usually require specific new laws or treaties? In terms of the article, we are talking about the sort of integration of the latter type in the section, but the SPP is talking about integration of the former sort. THAT'S the problem here, we imply unless this is worded correctly, that the SPP is indeed moving in the "Nafta-plus" direction when that's not what they in fact are saying.

Which is why we have to be explicit on this, as I have been, notwithstanding the suspicions that the SPP isn't being entirely honest about their true intentions. I understand quite plainly your view on their mendacity, but we have to be clear here, since they have said otherwise, it is only your opinion that they truly intend otherwise. Those opinions get their day in the next section where critiques are aired.

I am only seeking to have this article be accurate and not subject to denial by certain individuals who seem to be interested only in advancing the party line. The only "party line" being advanced is yours, Devil. We have to neutrally present the information. That is the "accuracy" required here at wikipedia, not your self-serving attempts to suppress statements which directly contradict your opinion of the SPP's intentions. The opinions on the SPP arise in the following section.

Need I remind you that you proudly supported the earlier versions of this article that were blatantly biased? The only "blantantly biased" person here is you, Devil. Your removal of the SPP's own words denying the very link you were suggesting existed should put to rest any question of who is pushing a POV. And your perpetual complaints about calling the NAU stuff "misguided conspiracy theories" lays bare your claim to fairly present the main opinions on this subject. Indeed, the history here is mainly we editors reverting your POV insertions to create the impression of something we have yet to see you cite or source - that the North American Union is a bona fide proposal which arose out of various other proposals. Canada Jack (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This pissing match is tiresome. The quote you insist on inserting does not say what you say it does. I have noted on several occasions what it actually says, which is not opinion but simply looking at the words and what those words mean, and you have ignored me. Nowhere, does the SPP say they are not pushing integration nor do they say they are, they only say the SPP does not create "a NAFTA-Plus legal status" which is true because it does not create any legal status whatsoever. The SPP is a dialog not a treaty or piece of legislation. However, all over the site and in speeches it is made clear that they are pushing greater integration through the SPP. So while they may say it does not create any legal status it is continuing efforts for greater integration. Your splitting hairs by saying it isn't the same integration is typical of the little dance you do on this article. It is not my opinion that the SPP is pushing more integration, it is a fact. It is also not my opinion that the SPP never says they are not implementing a NAFTA-Plus, it is a fact. The quote you keep inserting also makes a factual statement, but one that is phrased in a manner which easily leads to the false conclusion you have reached.

Also it does not say "rationalize minor differences in certain external tariffs" it says "rationalize minor differences in external tariffs" period. The only conceivable meaning in context is to eliminate minor differences, meaning make all their tariffs the same. In other words, create common external tariffs. That means forming a customs union as the only trait of a customs union is that of a free trade area with a common external tariff. In other words the SPP seeks to move the NAFTA region from one level of economic integration to another. This is without considering that it openly talks about reducing barriers to movement of people and capital within the NAFTA trade area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Devil, this is getting tiresome. Tiresome because you clearly seem to think you don't have to play by the rules here at wikipedia. Tiresome because you insist that as long as something is "obvious" that even if a primary source - in this case the SPP - says the precise opposite of what you interpret to be the real story, it's fine to ignore it and insert your own POV.

Here is what the SPP "fact vs myth" page states: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Later: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.

Since that is what they say, we need to include that lest readers be led into believing, via the context of the section, that the SPP is considering a Nafta-plus status. But what do we get from you? Some of the following:

Also it does not say "rationalize minor differences in certain external tariffs" it says "rationalize minor differences in external tariffs" period. The only conceivable meaning in context is to eliminate minor differences, meaning make all their tariffs the same.

I expect intelligence discussions here, Devil. What you have written above tells me you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about when it comes to international trade agreements, tarrifs and what have you. To accomplish a uniform tarrif means creating a customs union. And how does one do that? Via a treaty. One does not do it via departmental agreements on various sectors. On some areas countries can come to agency agreements, but to actually enforce a customs union REQUIRES a treaty. Why? Because there is nothing legally binding otherwise which would prevent a party to simply decide to change their tarrif! In the USA, such a treaty would have to be put into law via the Congress.

But the SPP is on record as saying there is no Naft-plus status being created here. Of course. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do, without Congress' involvement. This is a no-brainer, but because of the nonsense and bullshit spread by so many on the subject, the SPP and others are forced to be explicit about their intentions, even if those "intentions" are meaningless without a legislative process.(!)

Sorry, to put it this way, Devil, but on two major issues here, you seem to be way out of your depth:

Number one: How to write a NPOV article on a controversial subject, properly citing statements of fact, and properly citing statements of opinion, and the importance of distinguishing between the two for the purposes of the article. I've patiently explained the distinctions to you on numerous occassions, but you are stuck in some sort of mental block where you think if your opinion isn't represented front and centre, I and others are creating "bias." This despite the numerous times I've suggested a route on how to make statements of opinion be included, and further suggested other sources - like the Fox biography - which may have citable information which can be included.

Number two: Understanding the legal and institutional changes required for creating even a relatively modest "Nafta-plus" agreement between the three countries. This colours your entire approach to how you see the SPP. Because of your lack of depth on the subject, you seem to think that by merely cherry-picking lines that this can somehow "prove" that more ambitious plans are afoot. There indeed may be more ambitious plans afoot. But the bottom line here is that to move the process to what we've seen mentioned in terms of a "Nafta-plus" or what have you requires a very public legislative approval process. And there's no getting around that, your reading of various SPP documents notwithstanding. Your comments on the external tarrif issue shows your complete ignorance on the subject as your semantic argument, clearly in your mind, trumps the rather large legal problems such an approach would entail.

This doesn't mean a customs union won't be considered or isn't being considered by some parties. What it does mean is that for it to become reality, it MUST be in the form of a very public process.

In sum, I am through countering your largely inane, ill-informed and generally insulting arguments. But as long as you insist on inserting POV text, ignoring basic wikipedia tenents on dealing with contentious subjects, I and other editors will fix any nonsense you may in the future insert. Canada Jack (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Creating common tariffs does not require a treaty or any sort of agreement because it only means that each country has the same tariffs with regards to other countries. This requires legislation, but no treaties or agreements need be signed to achieve it. Asserting that it can not be a customs union because the countries can leave it is just plain wrong. In retrospect, the SPP does not even say how such minor differences would be rationalized. It could be through each country taking coordinated non-binding action, through a series of binding agreements, or one big agreement. No specific method for rationalizing minor differences is presented.

The SPP only says it does not create a NAFTA-Plus legal status, not that it does not seek to implement one. Creating such a status would require legally binding measures and the SPP is simply a dialog. It also never at any point says it is not pushing integration. You are trying to make it say something it does not actually say. Not seeking to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA is also quite meaningless as there is no need to do this. Other agreements can just as easily implement all these changes in addition to NAFTA.

Also, please stop revising history, I was the first person to suggest including information from Fox's book.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I should make this a little clearer. Regardless of whether the officials say they are deepening integration of the NAFTA region or not it is exactly what they are doing and this is not a matter of opinion. The SPP was formed to continue integration of the region, primarily by pursuing a piece-by-piece approach rather than a single comprehensive agreement. Whether such common regulations or common external tariffs are binding is irrelevant as the economies become integrated in either event. As it concerns the phrase that is being so strongly defended, the wording is confusing. I say it is almost certainly meant to be confusing. If the response was simply that the SPP is not an agreement or treaty and therefore can not create any legal status that instead any legal changes will be implemented as a result of negotiations the desires of those writing the section would not be satisfied. Saying it in a way that anyone can understand means people will also understand there is nothing to preclude a de-facto NAFTA-Plus state from being implemented through a series of agreements or an actual status through a single comprehensive one as a result of negotiations through the SPP. The wording is meant to dupe the reader into thinking that a NAFTA-Plus, or something like it, is not on the table. It is already well-established that no agreement is signed and that the SPP is just a dialog so why insist on including this quote? It says absolutely nothing of integration and any objective individual reviewing the facts would agree the SPP pursues deepening integration of the NAFTA region. Then there is the fact that the sentence including this quote describes the SPP as "a dialog, not an agreement nor a treaty" which is phrased more like an argument. It is clear this part was written to persuade the reader rather than inform them.

I would love to incorporate the different views and all facts, but only if it can be done in a way that does not harm the neutrality of the article. This phrase being so heavily debated seems irredeemable to me and thus can only be addressed by removing it. The quote is definitely irredeemable. Being verifiable is not the same as being neutral. It comes off as a denial of a connection with NAFTA-Plus and a denial that a NAFTA-Plus is the goal, but it only denies that the SPP itself creates such a thing. Never mind it gives the impression that the leaders said this when it is contained in the myths and facts section with uncertain authorship.

Understand that I was not claiming in any way that the SPP was implementing a NAFTA-plus and it has only ever been interpreted as such because certain users will jump to any conclusions they need to accuse me of pushing a POV. NAFTA-Plus is only mentioned in the context of Fox's proposal. Some are not given any descriptor and the Task Force refers to a North American Community, not a NAFTA-Plus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit POV insertions, Devil. Your changes have been flagged by numerous editors as POV. Please cease editing the page without first gaining consensus. Canada Jack (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the quote only mentioned whether SPP itself would create a NAFTA-Plus legal status and does not talk about integration in general I have made changes which accommodate those issues and provides a citation with regards to the SPP and integration. I still feel it is unnecessary to mention the legal status matter as it was established at the beginning that no legal status was created by the SPP and the fact a dialogue is not a legal agreement needs no explanation as far as I am concerned. However, I hope these changes help resolve the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason why it is needed is the preceding section speaks of Nafta-plus initiatives as being the "greater integration," while the SPP made that statement on Nafta-plus. To me, it says they are not contemplating what the others meant by "nafta-plus," you contend they are being manipulative. Whatever the interpretation, I hardly see how including those words mislead anyone. It's simply what they said. We don't even offer an interpretation. So, the words are back in. As for your "academics" insertion, that's more like it, though I added "then" as the paper was written in 2006, and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (unless this is still what is being said about the SPP). Canada Jack (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It said the SPP did not create a legal status. That is true because it is not a law in any sense. However, you are trying to use the quote to say the SPP is not pushing integration when nowhere is this said by anyone connected with the SPP. Also I made a note of mentioning the North American Economic and Security Community proposed weeks before the SPP was formed because it addresses your ludicrous concern that somehow people will connect it to NAFTA-Plus. In reality as that report was in 2005 and the part that mentions NAFTA-Plus explicitly says "early 2000s" there is no reason to even be concerned by that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's simply the SPP quote, Devil. Verbatim. Nowhere is integration "denied." The only issue here is verifiabilty, not truth, however one sees that "truth." Your comments about Nafta-plus are not relevant, since the SPP is in my reading referring to ALL proposals for post-Nafta integration concepts (not just ones self-described as "Nafta-plus"). Besides, it's not up to you or me to supply the "correct" (read "POV") opinion on what they "really" mean. Which forms the premise for your objections as they are in your view deliberatly misleading. Since you have already declared the SPP a bunch of lies, your impartiality on this subject is suspect. Canada Jack (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You have seriously stepped over the line here. There was absolutely no reason to revert my changes and I see here that you have provided none. Rather than making accusations because of my candid expression of my own personal views you should provide a legitimate reason for your actions. Even if it was "perfectly fine", it was not, there was no reason to insist on your version. I paraphrased what was said, which is just good practice, and corrected a few errors in what you inserted. I fail to see any reason to revert it. This better be a joke or some other farce.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is not necessary in this case; you seem to want to paraphrase only in order to introduce your idiosyncratic interpretation of what was "really" meant. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My "interpretation" is simply saying exactly what is said on the site. Seriously, what do you think my change did that made it so unacceptable? I fought hard against including this and I finally make a change that keeps it there yet it gets reverted. You accused me of insisting on my "own" version, which was nonsense, yet when someone you agree with does it for real you back them up. I want to paraphrase because the line is poorly-written and I finally worked out a way to salvage the line, yet you both are resisting it. To be clearer on one important point, the phrase mistakenly says "the leaders stated" when the source is simply a page on a site that attributes the quote to no particular party.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your issue here is, Devil. Seems logical and sensible to have the SPP stuff together rather than split up by some comments from academics. For one, the way you had it, it implied that the SPP response was to the particular academic comments. Which it isn't. Indeed, the document you posted is so dated and has so little to do with "integration" - it has much more to do with what and where the SPP could go, and whether it was truly a tri-later process rather than several bi-lateral processes cobbled together to look good by the USA, and the view of that in 2006 - I'd say we should remove it as it is only very peripherally saying what you claim it to say. But in the interest of allowing the idea "some saw it as further integration" however defined, it is nonetheless accurate.

As to "leaders say," yes, I saw that and that should reflect what the "SPP" said - however it properly should be stated.

My issue is that you seem to be pulling excuses out of your ass to justify keeping your exact version. So far you have not given a decent reason for reverting my changes. I at least gave good decent reasons when I reverted something you did, regardless of whether you accepted those reasons. Here you seem to just be reverting my changes because you want it your way and making up the reasons as you go along.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Give us a break, Devil. You've been screaming "biased" for two years now and have YET to produce a cited history of the NAU pre-SPP, which has ALWAYS been our main issue with your edits. Yet you've repeatedly tried to link non-related proposals to the SPP, despite the complete absence of any cited links. And I, and others, have repeatedly had to edit them down. Why? Not for some ever-moving target, but because you refuse to play by wikipedia's rules. If anything, we've bent over backwards to accomodate your tiresome POV edits. The above is another example, where you expect us to "reward" you for finally accepting the words from the SPP itself - as if there was ANY justification for leaving those words out other than it makes your uncited POV edits silly and directly contradicted by what we can verify.

As for the text you refer to, I gave a damn good reason as to why it had to change. Two, in fact. First, you broke up a paragraph on the SPP for no discernible reason, and made it appear that the SPP was reacting to the specific academics' point, WHICH IT WASN'T. Second, as others have pointed out, your edit was designed to underline your contention that the SPP was the sort of "integration" discussed earlier in the section. Which it quite clearly is not, even if you believe the SPP are lying through their teeth. But, I didn't change that even though I should have.

Indeed, why is the statement from the Task Force March 2005 even there? YOU inserted it, yet it establishes no logical link to the SPP - it seems designed by you to be there to imply that, somehow, the SPP was guided by the Task Force, when there is nothing cited anywhere to establish that this is so!

Bottom line, if you want an edit to stick, you have to CITE THE CONNECTION TO THE CLAIM IN QUESTION. The SPP "arose" out of these efforts for integration? CITE THE SOURCE WHO SAYS IT. I even gave you a suggestion as to who may in fact have that information or made such a claim.

Unfortunately for your above argument, you have fully admitted and acknowledged your bias, calling the SPP liars. Which is fine, but your mistake is attempting to insert your bias into the text. Worse, you cite YOUR OPINION as being enough to justify editing out the very words from the SPP who make an important claim on an issue germane to this page - further integration. And, what you don't seem to get EVEN IF THEY ARE LYING, THERE IS NO JUSTIFACTION FOR OMITTING THE TEXT. And your repeated attempts to exise those words means one thing and one thing only: You have no business lecturing other on "biased" edits and you should have no right to edit this page as long as you insist on POV edits, which is at odds with the very foundation of what these wikipedia pages should be. Canada Jack (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "designed to underline"? I am only paraphrasing and removing an unnecessary portion, the bit about rewriting NAFTA. As your primary objection, though illogical, is simply about the order I reinserted the phrase right after the line about the formation of the SPP. You have expressed your opinion here and on your user page, but I have only suggested you are biased because your edits seem to primarily serve your POV. How does this most recent change in any way push my opinion?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You think it is irrelevant - or POV - to include the SPP's statement that they do not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA!?! If there was a single line in the section more pertinent, especially given claims that the SPP is back-dooring the NAU, it would be that quote. And you call it "unnecessary." Time to take your POV blinkers off, Devil. Again, whether the SPP is lying or not is not an issue.

As for your horseshit about "POV," you are the one trying to excise anything from the SPP which suggests the lack of scope of the initiative, you are the one insisting without citation there is a link to broader expansion initiatives... and those edits have been dealt with because you've failed to establish a verifiable link! It's really as simply as that, Devil. As I said before, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. And in this case, the facts are not on your side. Sorry you feel that is "POV" but if claims can't be verified, they have to be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that line pertinent? No one who sees a North American Union occurring has suggested the SPP does rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. As I noted there is no need to alter NAFTA at all. Another agreement can be signed or a series of agreements that implement these changes. Since this much has been stated by myself constantly the notion you would think removing the line is about me pushing a POV is mind-boggling. However, you are once again reverting the entirety for what can be satisfied with a few simple changes. Though I should say criticism is shorter than your bit about concerns and just as valid. It is not logical to revert the entire thing because of your objections.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that line pertinent?

The entire section discusses proposals to move beyond Nafta. Most of those proposals require a new agreement. So, for the SPP to state no such new agreements are contemplated makes the text, uh, relevant.

No one who sees a North American Union occurring has suggested the SPP does rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA.

So fucking what? The section is about proposals to go beyond Nafta. The SPP says it does not contemplate going beyond Nafta. Therefore the quote is pertinent and relevant. When one moves to the following section about the NAU and the claims made about the SPP, it becomes even more relevant as the SPP denies even contemplating the smallest baby-steps towards the NAU.

Just because some NAU critics somehow are under the bizarre impression that one can have a NAU without Nafta being amended is not particularly relevant as many skeptics point out precisely that - that a NAU would require new treaties, etc. And the SPP denial is written under the presumption that, paranoid no-nothings notwithstanding, one cannot move in any substantial way towards further integration without new treaties.

What makes its exclusion POV? The SPP and others argue that an extended integration, call it NAFTA-plus, NAU, what have you, cannot occur without amending NAFTA and/or creating a new legal status. Those who see the NAU being enacted clearly don't believe that. So to censor the SPP's view on amending Nafta etc is to accept one side of the argument - that no such mechanism is required and the comment is therefore irrelevant. But to those well-versed enough in international law and trade between countries know that no Nafta renegotiate or no new treaty means no customs union, for example. Which is why most people who know what they are talking about ignore the nonsense about the NAU. It can't be done outside of a public process. Canada Jack (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not say no new agreements are contemplated. It says it does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. Nowhere does it say that changes would require amending NAFTA or that it does not contemplate going beyond NAFTA. In fact it contemplates that very thing as it desires changes which are not part of NAFTA. Nowhere does it contemplate how those changes would be implemented. It could be regulatory fiat or new agreements where necessary. You are trying to push a position that is completely uncited and can not be reasonably inferred from any sources you provide.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Devil, are you obtuse? It's not up to us to decide "what" the SPP is in fact saying. It is up to us to include representative statements from them. Since the section is about integration proposals Nafta-plus and more, it is obviously pertinent and relevant to include statements from the SPP as to those subjects, since they directly address them.

You keep harping on whether this is a bunch of legalese, if in fact there is a "denial" or not, or if in fact, by their wording, they could still be contemplating extensive changes beyond Nafta. Which is utterly and completely beside the point! It is not our place to decide the "true" meaning on what they are saying, we are merely reporting the statement, a statement we can verify was made by the body in question.

As for me "pushing a position," I am simply including the goddamn quotes! How one interprets the quotes is up to them. The quotes are in no way "framed" to suggest a favoured interpretation. But it is very hard to argue, as you do, that they should be excluded for the simple reason you feel they are biased in some manner. Of course they are! They come from the bloody source! Others are quoted later who feel more is afoot. What do you not get here? Canada Jack (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not me saying what the SPP says, but you saying the SPP says something it doesn't. You said here several times it is a denial, that it refutes the fact of the SPP pushing for greater integration. However, it does no such thing and so your insistence on including these quotes when your reason is fallacious is very questionable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You fail to see a crucial distinction here, Devil. I may indeed see it as a denial. But I don't frame the quotes in a manner to suggest that conclusion. I simply inserted the quote. You, however, not only don't see the quote that way, you insisted on either omitting it or framing it in a manner to suggest the door is open to integration. Which is POV. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You stated rather clearly several times that you felt the quote was needed in its entirety because it denies the SPP seeks integration. It does not in fact do this in any way and if you can be so easily misled by reading it then clearly it should not be included as you sought to include it. My effort was to help the reader understand the quote only pertains to what the SPP itself does, not what can be done through it, and that ultimately what it does itself is severely limited as it is not a legal agreement.

Just so we get this straight you are insisting on your version because you feel it serves your POV and I am insisting on a different version because that version serves no POV. At any rate, though I did include the bit about rewriting NAFTA I see little reason to include it here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Devil: Give it a rest, okay? If you think the quote doesn't close the door on integration, then how the hell does it "serve my POV"? Your unwillingness to drop this debate over a direct quote which speaks to the very subject discussed in the section - however you interpret the meaning of the quote - tells me you don't get wikipedia. It's not "truth" we seek but "verifiability." Canada Jack (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes may be verifiable but that does not mean they are neutral when put into the article. As I noted the quote is misleading as you have so clearly been misled by their clever wording. All this said, though I find the NAFTA portion to be completely unnecessary, as it stands now I am satisfied. The fact the current version remains suggests you are also satisfied. So there is little reason to continue debating it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the quote is misleading is entirely beside the point, Devil. And you clearly misunderstand what is meant by "neutral" if you assert the above. It's because you don't understand those crucial distinctions that we have been wasting a lot of time here. Canada Jack (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the "above" are you talking about? I do understand what is meant by neutral and it does not simply mean you present the facts, but that you present them in a way that does not sway the reader to one POV or the other. Sometimes you have to consider whether a direct quote is better than paraphrasing. In this case the wording is convoluted and meant to mislead as such just dropping it down has a detrimental effect on the neutrality of the article. That is why the current version is better than your version, it serves to remove the confusion so that the reader understands exactly what is being said.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Devil, if I had inserted the quotes and said something like "The SPP ruled out any integration beyond that which already exists in NAFTA and which can be achieved through agency coordination," which is an entirely reasonable reading of what they said, you'd scream blue bloody murder wouldn't you? And, you'd be right to do so, as that is a POV reading of what they said. But I never included such phrasing, I simply inerted their quotes. However, your approach is precisely the same - to argue a position, without citation, based on YOUR interpretation of what the SPP is in fact saying. The wikipedia approach is to allow the body in question to describe in their words their mandate. If there is something contentious, then that ARGUMENT can be referred to, but the ARGUMENT should not rest within the verifiable description of the body in question. Which is what we have done here. Take the Warren Commission as an example. The highly controversial body is described as the government described it. We don't insert words to the effect "but they misleading suggest a fair presentation of facts which say Oswald did it despite a) b) and c) found in their own report," even though it would be no exageration to note that most people believe that to be so. No, the CONTROVERSY is later described. So, at wikipedia, we a) describe the various proposals and entities. Then, b), in the next section, describe the controversy. Your approach is to introduce the argument as we introduce the body. Which is POV, pure and simple.

There is no need - none - to direct the reader to the OPINION of some that the wording is misleading and intentionally convoluted. You conclude the SPP's statements are "misleading." That is, prima facie, a POV. EVEN IF YOUR CONCLUSION IS CORRECT. In the later section, when the opinions of those who describe plans for a NAU via the SPP, we most certainly describe the OPINIONS (and they MUST be described as "opinions") that the SPP is lying about its true intent. But just because some believe the SPP is lying, does NOT mean we have to flag that when we initially have the SPP self-described. And that is what you, repeatedly, do not get. Canada Jack (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that you don't understand just because you read it that way does not mean it is a reasonable reading. You read it that way because you are biased. All I did was paraphrase what was said. I at no point direct anyone to any opinion. You keep saying I did, but you never explained why. I did note that your desire to include the quote as you did misleads the reader by pointing out your own confusion over what was said.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it, Devil. Either you are a troll or an idiot. I'm done walking you through this. Do us a favour and leave the page alone. Canada Jack (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Mexamericanada

The article Mexamericanada has been proposed for merging into this one, as it covers essentially the same topic. Please comment on this merger below. (It seems like a sensible idea to me.) Robofish (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that the material in Mexamericanada would be lost if the article is deleted outright. It is of interest to Canadians (C'est moi!), if no one else. Merger is fine if one distinguishes the separate "conspiracy concept" from the more "normal" concept of a union of North American mainland countries roughly on the model of the Europen Union. Okay, I admit I want to keep the conspiracy aspect partly because I find it funny since it is so outlandish, and this is probably not consistent with the Wikipedia concept. Whatever.--FurnaldHall (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Continental union

Ok, there have been some pretty ridiculous disputes on this page, but this one takes the cake. Apparently the fact the North American Union is claimed most specifically to include the overwhelming majority of the continent of North America rather the entire continent is reason enough to say it is not a continental union. This is just absurd and it should be called what it is, a continental union. A regional union would be something like the EAC or the proposed East Asian Union. The fact a North American Union is seen most immediately as a union of the three countries that compose the vast majority of the continent but not the small remaining bits like Central America is hardly justification for saying it not a continental union. That this is even a matter of debate is mind-boggling.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More inanity from Devil. The European Union explicitly opens the door to encompass expansion to other countries within that continent. And has denied entry to several countries as they are not part of the continent of Europe. Some of the opposition to Turkey's accession is the fact it largely lies outside of what is normally seen as "Europe." It is therefore a continental union, much more than a regional union.

In contrast, even putting aside the fact there is no proposal per se for something called the "North American Union," let alone any over-arching continental goals described, there are some 23 countries in North America, yet only THREE are discussed in anything I've seen in terms of the NAU. It is therefore, despite the name, a regional union, not a continental union. Only in Devil's books would a body which doesn't even contemplate including 20 of 23 countries found within the continent rise above "regional" to "continental." Canada Jack (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problem involving those 23 countries in the NAU, is that 20 of those countries seem themselves as Central Americans or Caribbeans, but not as North Americans.Jcmenal (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

They can consider themselves Martians for all it matters. The fact is geographically, they are part of North America. So, when one speaks of the continent, as opposed to the region, then we are speaking geographically. One cannot simply brush aside 20 of 23 countries. Canada Jack (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Those 20 other countries could each fit inside most of the states and provinces of the remaining three. You could actually fit several of those countries in some. In fact, I think you could fit all of them inside Alaska. Does anyone honestly think Russia is going to join the EU or that it is even an option? So should we just argue that the EU is a regional union because a small part of Europe won't be included? There is no region of North America except if one is referring to the continent. I'm beginning to think that you just want to pick a fight, Canada Jack.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok these three countries take up 85.8% of the population of North America and 88.2% of the territory of North America. The fact 20 other countries are not mentioned as being part of it does not mean it is a regional union. These three countries are nearly 90% of the continent. To suggest this is anything but a continental union is absurd.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A "continental" union would, logically, at least contemplate the inclusion of all territory of the continent. A significant region of the continent - those countries found within the Caribbean Sea, which is normally considered part of the continent of North America - is not included in concepts included on this page on the North American Union. Therefore, the concept is "regional," not "continental." It's as simple as that, Devil. Your notes on population can be easily be countered by noting that the Caribbean countries which comprise 86 % of the continent by nations are not mentioned in this "continental" union.

Besides, the point is that there is no contemplation of expanding this to a true "continental" union, unlike the EU. Your, as usual, complete ignorance on the subject is exposed by your comments on Russia. The Copenhagen criteria opens the door for all European states to enter the EU once they pass the criteria. The EU, in theory, could one day encompass the entire territory of continental Europe. That doesn't mean it will or is likely to do so, just that that contemplation and the mechanism is in place. The accession of Russia has in fact been discussed informally, but most observers see that as being "decades" away. The point is not will Russia join but could they join. The answer is YES.

As for your comments about "picking a fight," YOU were the one who objected to the word "regional" for no discernible reason. I simply pointed out that that is a more accurate description of the NAU than "continental." Hell, I wasn't even the editor who changed it, I just agreed with that editor that they were correct. I honestly don't see what your problem is here. As usual, much ado over nothing from Devil. Canada Jack (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not getting into this. I think there is little reason for you to change my version as it is consistent with articles on similar subjects. The page for the EU, Unasur, and African Union, never use the term regional union and only in an infobox and the related articles section is the term continental union used. So I think it is consistent to simply leave out the term altogether.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to indicate why including the words "regional" "continental" or "hemispheric" in any way detracts from this article. The terms in my view more accurately describe some of the various concepts herein described. Indeed, you have indicated other articles on trade blocs in fact use these terms. Unless these terms somehow violate a wiki policy, which you have yet to claim, the terms should stand. Canada Jack (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I think you misread. I said they never use these terms except for continental union used in the infobox and related articles and nothing else. The EU page doesn't use any of these terms. They are not used at all in the main body of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Q1 - Are the terms ever used in other articles? A - Yes.

Q2 - Has Devil identified a reason why those terms are misleading or irrelevant or incorrect in this article? A- No.

Q3 - Has Devil identified a wiki policy which is violated by usage of these terms in this article? A - No.

What, precisely, is your problem, Devil? I agree that the distinction is pedantic, but so what? Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is all hypothetical and depends on who is proposing the Union. Are there not different versions some including just Mex, Can & US and others most or all of the North American countries? To be honest I can't see that this topic is worth all that much aggro.

However, I'd probably plump for "Regional" for the current configuration of the article. The size of population and landmass of the other 20 states irrelevant - if they are not included as potential members then it is a proposed regional rather than a continent union. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a change that involved no geographic adjective being tacked on. Amazingly the only one used on articles concerning other unions of this nature use the term continental union. However, in the main body of the article such adjectives are never used. It either mentions a union by itself or the type meaning political and/or economic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)