Talk:North American Union/Archive 1

You can't be serious
"Pros for Mexico" "Current Mexicans would have a much better team to cheer for in the Winter Olympics."

Is this meant to be taken seriously? Jvlm.123 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha. Canadian conpiracy theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.105.130 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay this is ridiculous, I didn't start this page but I've done alot of the work on it, and first i have to deal with a crazy canadian conspiracy nut, and then I have a mexico basher. Seriously, do other wiki pages have this problem, I've had to do alot of editing because of vandals. Anyone else think we should close it off to only registered members? I mean I hate to cause someone to not be able to post valuable information because of two idiots. TBH 06:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation
Is this page for real? It almost looks like it should be deleted. No references are given, not even a website. It looks like pure speculation on the part of the original editor.208.138.38.56 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's just an idea, kind of like a theory. There aren't any references because no one, has taken the time to publish any figures or facts about it.TBH 06:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case this is surely original research and not for Wikipedia. Driller thriller 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * this is not a new idea, it has been proposed in the past and although some of the things that have been/are on the page have been/are a little ridiculous, it deserves to stay. 137.186.145.102 18:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources
Assuming the article survives afd (which it may not,) please be sure to cite sources with authoritative references. Blogs are not authoritative. Ardenn 18:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds Unworkable and Unfair to the U.S.A.
By theses, figures the USA would make up 69.8% of the total population of NAU.

(297,550,259/426,054,771)*100 = 69.838

According to the CIA, facts book figures

for the U.S.A.: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Canada: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html

Mexico: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

U.S.A.: $12.36 trillion (2005 est.) (PPP) Official rate: $12.49 trillion (2005 est.)

Canada: $1.114 trillion (2005 est.) (PPP) Official rate: $1.035 trillion (2005 est.)

Mexico: $1.067 trillion (2005 est.) (PPP) Official rate: $693 billion (2005 est.)

I am using the PPP number as it is the one which has the lowest values the United States of America and most value for both Mexico’s and Canada’s total economic output/worth.

Our combine economic worth would be $14.541 trillion dollars (U.S.) (PPP)

Of that the current U.S.A is producing over 85% leaving the remaining 15% (actually more like 14.9989684%) being the combined production capacity of both Canada and Mexico. So if there is to be some “international government” the USA will either run it via the practical means (Via controlling the vast majority of both population and economic resources) or if we can not pull out of it as being unfair to us, as it would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monorprise (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting facts, but the talk page is for improving the article, not original research. 24.18.35.120 11:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a good contribution and appropriate for the discussion page. Monorprise's analysis is actually not original research at all, as credible sources are cited for the data used as the basis for the analysis. Even so, the original research restriction applies to the main article, not to the discussion page, where ideas which could lead to improvements in the article should be freely discussed and allowed. Albanaco 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The real question before us is the structure of the government, will it be a democracy by elevating the constitution of the U.S to cover all of the population, is a new document in the works to replace our constitutions or is it a layer of government to be paved over our countries possibly an unelected dictatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.6.208 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a future NAU is democratic, depending on the exact form it takes, might be open to debate. For example, our elected officials from all three countries have the power to make international treaties on matters of common interest (which is why we're technically a republic, not a "pure" democracy where all matters must be put to a public vote). Insofar as a future hypothetical NAU would be primarily a vehicle for promoting international questions, then it could easily exist as a layer on top of all three countries (just as the constituent countries in the EU retain full control over matters of strictly domestic concern). Regardless, it behooves all of us to be up to speed on what might or might not be underway in our collective name. Albanaco 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mercator projection
Can there be a map of the NAU that is not in the Mercator projection? -Acjelen 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

dollar-like currency
"Mexico, uses the peso, which is also a dollar-like currency", "two of the three countries (Canada and the USA) already use a dollar-based currency" What does this mean? AFAIK the only commonality is the name and none are based on the "dollar" (or metals) but on market speculations? Which other currencies are "dollar-like"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.181.212 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "dollar" and "peso" are both names for units of monetary value which are intended to have roughly equivalent values in terms of goods and services. (The complexity of the mix of such goods and services, as well as the continually expanding value of the world economy as a whole, is why attempts to peg currency value to one commodity or other of fixed value are doomed to failure...it is widely believed that the imposition of the gold standard in the 1920s might have directly led to the Great Depression, in that the flow of money was unduly restricted.) At any rate, the intent is for one unit of currency (US dollar, Canadian dollar, Mexican peso) in all three countries to be able to purchase about the same amount of goods and services, which it does...a loaf of bread which costs two dollars in the United States typically costs about two pesos in Mexico. The problem is that the cost of labor and raw materials is so much less in Mexico (due to the problems they have been having with their economy) that the relative value of the peso is reduced relative to the US dollar, leading to the poor exchange rate. Monetary policy is one of the most difficult areas of economics to get a handle on, and there is a real art to it; the job of the Federal Reserve Board, for example, is to ensure that the total available supply of money (cash and credit combined) roughly equals the total value of available goods and services. As the economy grows, so must the money supply (usually through increases in credit...i.e., borrowing); as the economy contracts, likewise credit needs to be tightened, as well. Albanaco 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

North America Map
The North America map is all good, and I know the format is used elsewhere to illustrate country location, but the North American Union is a theoretical country that would encompass Canada, the US, and Mexico, not the whole continent. Thus, this map is incorrect and unnecessary.-Andrew 18:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobar?
Could it be possible to have infobar to show the theoretical geography, popluation, economy? The EU does have one --Scott3 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a hoax or just a conspiracy theory?
I have added a hoax tag to this article because the article fails to distinguish between the actual proposals which inspired the article and the conspiracy theory aspects. Note that the report which supposedly proposes the North American Union is just a report issued by a task force of a private organization -- not a government document. Lots of proposals like this never come to pass, so why is this proposal entitled to such a big article? Anyway, the report never mentions the phrase "North American Union" anywhere. See also this series of blog items. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Remarks that follow are those of Jan Allen
 * I object very stongly to the marker placed on this web page which states: "The authenticity of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax."


 * I do agree that the term North American Union is a "construct"; nevertheless, a construct is necessary as there are those who are working furtively behind the scenes to radically change the governance of the North American Continent. I am sure that this may sound "conspiratorial" to many, and as such might only be extra reason to continue with the marker or question placed on the page.


 * I believe that history is being written and that the facts will soon justify the validity of this web page and the CON (the oppositional) articles written.


 * So please do not delete this web page! In fact please remove the question or marker.


 * If there are those who do not want to be responsible for this web page, I will gladly be responsible for it. Jan Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.12.57 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason for deletion
THERE was absolutely no reason for this article to be deleted. There wasn't even a vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash Virus (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/North American Union. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I guess when it happens we'll have to start it new. Chadlupkes 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) REDIRECT Talk:Independent Task Force on North America (moving discussion to other page since it will have more traffic) [ Dual Freq 11:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ]

Should be restored
I understand that this page was deleted. I would just like to express my opinion that it should be restored. Although it may or may not be true, it at least deserves recognition as a "conspiracy theory". It has notability and should be a place for people to learn about the North American Union (or the theory of).

As for the delete discussion, it was over a year ago and was split at the time. It might be time to reconsider.

I have no affiliation with anybody of this content; just an interested user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.8.210 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Presentation
Prominent politicians in the US have spoken about the desires of many to create a North American Union, including Ron Paul, TX congressman. The way in which this topic is presented should be handled carefully, however I do believe it should be presented. 71.61.81.160 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted
The article on North American Union has been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexorg (talk • contribs) 20:16, 30 September 2007

Puzzled
why isnt Wisepiglet's article here? User:Wisepiglet/North American Union

it links the links the Independent Task Force on North America article that is only redirected here.. im puzzled --84.144.80.157 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That particular article is un-referenced to say the least, which is unacceptable considering how this heated topic is a magnet for original research and conspiracy theories. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help restore the North American Union article
PLEASE HELP restore the North American Union article in Wikipedia This is my plea for assistance. Wisepiglet (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The North American Union has a project page. Here is a long list of references for the article and some additional info that I found. Wisepiglet (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious? If so, I can offer some practical suggestions.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the Caribbean getting involved too?
Hi, has anyone seen any documents mentioning the Caribbean region??? I have some coincidences listed below. --CaribDigita (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Documents listed at User:CaribDigita/temp)
 * First of all, that seems like original research. Second, that information might be more appropriate in the NAFTA and CARICOM articles. And third, all the NAU conspiracy theories that I've seen involve only Canada, Mexico and the U.S., and not the Caribbean. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but why all the secret meetings of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security in the Caribbean? Seems like that Dept. was kind of a far distance from "homeland"... CaribDigita (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask them, I guess. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly is all this for? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It goes back to the first paragraph I stated. Has anyone seen any other documents stating that the Caribbean could be getting involved into this too?


 * In 1997-1998, the governments of Caribbean region signed with the USA a Security and Prosperity Partnership. These so called Partnership for Prosperity and Security agreements are Wikipedia's argumentative basis for this "North American Union" listed here.
 * "As far as the 'secret meetings' The Washington Post dated Jun-2007 link which I provided said it best. -- 'This week leaders of 14 Caribbean countries will meet in Washington, D.C. to discuss the future of the region and its relationship with the United States. For U.S. leaders, the Caribbean 20/20 Vision conference is a low priority on the foreign policy agenda. The media silence on this event underscores the lack of understanding that exists about the region. Although the Caribbean states vary in size, (most are small), wealth and population, we underestimate the region's geopolitical potential. These states represent votes at the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS), and make it possible for the U.S. to advance its agenda in multilateral organizations. And the Diaspora population that resides in the U.S. provides sizeable portions of national GDPs in the form of remittances.'"
 * However in the Caribbean the heads of government will not state what their meetings with Homeland Security were about and it is one of many- controversial issues that is playing out in the elections this year for example in Barbados. As can be seen on the Barbados Free Press and other sites, we are pressing the government to adopt Freedom of Information legislation to get rid of secrecy on things. So basically the U.S. Media hasn't really- been looking as the Washington Post admits and the Caribbean heads wont say what their talks were about. That equals secrecy. CaribDigita (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That opinion column does not contain any of the words: "North American Union", "Homeland Security" or "secret" and has nothing to do with this article. It does mention "fighting drug traffickers and preventing terrorists from advancing to U.S. shores", things that the department of homeland security is publicly funded to do. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please userfy all of these disconnected items. This is something for a user subpage, not to dump in a talk page. Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." I don't see any of this stuff helping to improve the article since it makes no mention of the Caribbean and none of the linked articles seem to mention the subject of this article. (And by the way, if the meetings were "secret" why do you know about them?) --Dual Freq (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I userfied the content to here. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait. "These so called Partnership for Prosperity and Security agreements are Wikipedia's argumentative basis for this "North American Union" listed here"? Wikipedia's not arguing anything. If you read the article more closely you'll see that it talks about the conspiracy THEORY not the supposed conspiracy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is kinda going around in a loop. It is not just me. You can check the track record of such U.S. based groups as Manchester Trade which wants the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries to enter a political union of some sort with the U.S. office of the U.S. President.  (Push on Capitol Hill to boost US-Caricom tie) -- You know once U.S. think tanks throw it out there someone tries to pick up the idea and run with it. CaribDigita (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
Is this a neutral non biased article on the North American Union ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 December 2007
 * Yes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first sentence reads... The North American Union or NAU is a conspiracy theory...(Is) means that for sure 100% this is a conspiracy theory.. No one can say this will never happen.. So this is not a neutral non biased article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.1 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All the reliable sources linked say it's a conspiracy theory. Unless you have reliable sources countering that, it should stay as-is. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not necessarily a conspiracy theory. There are certainly influential individuals who make it clear that they are for an NAU, and operate in that capacity in an open fashion (such as fmr. President of Mexico Vincente Fox). 137.131.130.84 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This point has been addressed. The concept of a North American Union-style body has been discussed, for years in fact. But it is a conspiracy theory to suggest, as many do, that it is being enacted in secret by the governments in question. Vicente Fox's support for the concept is noted on the "amero" page, which is unsurprising as for Mexico entry in such a body would only have benefits. What many whose knees start to quake when they point at Fox's various comments on the subject seem to forget is that while for Mexico this is a no-brainer, the same is not necessarily true for Canadians or for Americans. Fox at no time has suggested that the NAU is in fact being enacted, in fact he has noted that the debate on immigration in America has made the concept less likely to become a reality. Canada Jack (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is in need of a radical overhaul, because right now it is a disgrace. There is no mention at all in the article's main body of House Resolution 40, introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode on January 22, 2007 (and now cosponsored by 43 legislators), opposing the NAU and the NAFTA Superhighway. The article implies that 44 members of the U.S Congress are a bunch of fantasists. These legislators obviously see the NAU as a real threat, so calling it a "conspiracy theory" is blatantly derogatory and POV. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability? In part it states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  As "conspiracy theory" is properly cited to a reliable, third-party, published source, it is perfectly appropriate for this article.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These sources may be verifiable, but they are not neutral. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the formation of a North American Union is a policy of the United States, Canada and Mexico, then those who claim as much should furnish the official confirmation that such plans are indeed in the works. Unfortunately, all three governments say that no such plans are in place, and in fact specifically deny that a "North American Union" is being planned.


 * Therefore, given official denials etc., those who claim that plans are indeed in place are suggesting that these governments are conspiring to enact such plans outside of public scrutiny. This is what we call a "conspiracy theory." It is a THEORY because these plans are CONJECTURE and HAVE to be since the governments deny the existence of such plans. IF and when these governments "fess up", then this is no longer a "conspiracy theory," but a FACT. But we have not yet reached that point. And, by the way, House resolutions to stop the NAU do not confirm the existence of such plans, they merely confirm the BELIEF that these plans are in place. And politicians are noted for playing to the fears and beliefs of their constituents. (!)


 * Here is how wikipedia defines "conspiracy theory": A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.


 * Please note the lines about "concealment... from public knowledge... deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people..." This is in fact was in being claimed in terms of the NAU and as long as the denials from officials continue, this is a "conspiracy theory."


 * Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Members of the U.S Congress are elected officials and their opinions do carry weight on this issue, not just those of government officials. Dismissing their views as "conspiracy theories" is biased and derogatory. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets try a different approach; how would you like to see the article changed? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, please tell your fellow administrator to stop deleting the sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution 40. His action makes Wikipedia look even more biased. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, to call something a "conspiracy theory" is not a pejorative, Hereward. For example, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1978 that JFK was killed as the result of a "conspiracy," thus OFFICIALLY a body of elected officials subscribed to a "conspiracy theory."


 * When we talk about "conspiracy theory" we are simply noting that lacking official confirmation of the EXISTENCE of a claimed thing (in this case plans for the NAU) it must ipso facto be a "conspiracy theory." Making the point that "officials" believe it exists is a case of semantics - these officials BELIEVE one is being planned (or maybe not, given the aversion most politicians have on taking a stand), but their BELIEF does not CONFIRM its existence. Only those who are accused of actually planning a NAU can confirm its existence. Until such time as they do, this is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory."


 * As long as governments deny these plans are in work, that is how this is properly defined - as long of course we have reputable sources saying as much. If, for example, officals CONFIRMED that these plans were in work, yet others were calling it a "conspiracy theory," those calling it a "conspiracy theory" would in fact be in error as, by definition, if a plan is confirmed by those who are making the plans, it no longer is a "conspiracy" as plans are in the open. Canada Jack (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about a "confirmed plan", it is about an idea, and the idea exists, as put forward by Professor Robert Pastor of the CFR. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it's about a "plan" to implement changes to the relationships between three countries and to do so without meaningful - or any - input from their citizens, with specific plans to implement a common currency, build massive transportation corridors and eliminate border controls among the three.


 * Which is why the congressmen you note voted against implementation of such. But this isn't just the rejection of a concept - a great many people are convinced these concepts are on the verge of being enacted. And, lacking confirmation of same, this must therefore be described as a "conspiracy theory." Canada Jack (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Resolution's summary reads: "(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States."


 * There is no mention here of a "confirmed plan" to create a North American Union, it is a warning not to create one. You are making assumptions here. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling it a warning is rather disingenuous as it was a proposed non-binding resolution that never made it out of committee, was never debated on the floor, and was never voted on. It should also be noted that had this resolution even passed, it would have joined the likes of previous non-binding resolutions such as the one that renamed french fried potatoes or that broccoli is good.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless there is no mention of a "confirmed plan" to create a North American Union, therefore it is not a "conspiracy theory". --Hereward77 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what you quote above. The presumption by those who are promoting the conspiracy theory is that the NAU is an extension of the SPP. What official source in fact suggests any plans to extend the SPP, to "implement further regulations that would create a North American Union"? The answer is NONE. Indeed, who coined the phrase "North American Union" in the first place? It certainly wasn't the governments of Canada, the United States or Mexico. The fact that members of Congress voted on this resolution does not mean the plans are in fact in place, nor more than a resolution stating the Elvis is alive would cause him to emerge from his crypt. Canada Jack (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase "North American Union" was coined by Professor Robert Pastor of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, who's members include leading members of the Bush Administration and of the wider American political establishment. It is therefore not a "conspiracy theory". --Hereward77 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless there is no mention of a "confirmed plan" to create a North American Union, therefore it is not a "conspiracy theory".
 * Let me try to understand your logic. If there is no "confirmed plan" there is no "conspiracy." But how does one "confirm" a "conspiracy" if it is hidden? It would seem to me that, by your logic, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a "conspiracy theory" on ANY subject! For example, the theory that JFK was killed by the mob has not been "confirmed," therefore it can't be, by your definition, a "conspiracy theory." Canada Jack (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the North American Union is an idea (put forward by Professor Pastor). It is not Professor Pastor's "conspiracy theory". The argument as to whether it is conspiracy or not should by all means be discussed at length in the article. One side of an argument should not form the basis of an Wikipedia article. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there published sources meeting WP:RS that describe the NAU as anything other than (1) an idea proposed by Pastor, or (2) a conspiracy theory? I have yet to see a reliable, published source claim that the government is following a plan for the implementation of the NAU, or that such a plan has even been devised.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase "North American Union" was coined by Professor Robert Pastor of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, who's members include leading members of the Bush Administration and of the wider American political establishment. It is therefore not a "conspiracy theory".


 * I fail to see your point. If Bush himself had coined the phrase would that negate that it was a "conspiracy theory"? And, if so, in what way? It seems you are failing to grasp some salient points here: The contention is that there are plans to enact something called the North American Union. You seem to be focussed like a laser beam on the House resolution wording as if this is the sole source we should be concerned with. It isn't. And, it really matters not one whit what it is called, nor who coined the term. What matters is if a) those who are claimed to be enacting these changes, or are poised to, in fact ARE doing so or not. And whether they deny this. Not only are there no visible signs of this being enacted, those with the power to implement or introduce such plans categorically deny plans for such actions! So, the next question becomes b) are people claiming these plans, despite official denials from the relevant parties, are in fact being enacted or are "in the works" to being enacted despite the denials? The answer to b) is YES. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, this is a "conspiracy theory." Canada Jack (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have dismally failed to see my point. The title is "North American Union", it was coined by Professor Pastor, who to my knowledge is not a "conspiracy theorist" - therefore it exists as an idea. The resolution was introduced to oppose this idea of a North American Union. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hereward, with all due respect, the key here is whether something is being enacted or not. Many, many people claim that there are plans to enact this concept. Where it comes from is BESIDE THE POINT. AS I said, if Bush himself said " it might be a good idea some day to get the good folk from Canada and Mexico together in something like the European Union - why we could call it the North American Union!" - even THAT would not negate the fact that this is a conspiracy theory!


 * There is a MASSIVE leap from concept to implementation in this case. Indeed, concepts for continental unions have been around since at least the 1850s! You are conflating two entirely different things - the origin of the concept of the North American Union - and the plans in place to actually enact the North American Union. Mr Pastor may have well been one of those instrumental in articulating the concept. But the critics are the ones who are elevating this into a question of this being enacted. And THAT is what the page is about in chief.


 * If you are trying to pretend that this simply goes down to a question of where the idea comes from, you are being disingenuous, I submit. By FAR the most discussion on the North American Union is in terms of plans to implement such a creature. And THAT stands as a conspiracy theory for the simple fact that officials deny it is in the works and a great many say that plans are being enacted, in secret. Canada Jack (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a clause to the opening paragraph to state that it has been discussed within scholarly and academic circles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I rewrote the opening paragraph to be more NPOV. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

''The North American Union or NAU is a theoretical continental union of Canada, Mexico and the United States similar in structure to the European Union, including a common currency called the amero. There are no governmental proposals to create such a union,[1][2] although the idea has been discussed and proposed in academic and scholarly circles. As it is related to United States politics, government activity towards creating such a union is considered a conspiracy theory.[3][4][5]''

I think this is pretty good. It addresses it as a concept and as a political controversy. I might be a bit more picky in noting that NAU is ONE name for the concept and that a common coin called an "amero" is one name for that as well. Might be better to say... common currency some have called the amero. I don't believe that Pastor actually went so far as to name a currency, nor am I entirely convinced NAU was what he insisted on this thing to be called - might get that one verified. Canada Jack (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pastor's article refers to it as a "North American Community". I'll add that. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

House Concurrent Resolution 40
While this non-binding resolution failed to make it out of committe and as such was never debated by or voted on by Congress, I feel that it is notable and warrants mention in the NAU article. That said, listing all forty-four of the resolution's co-sponsors in this article strikes me as being rather excessive considering such respected members of the fourth branch of government as the Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Economist, Newsweek, and the International Herald Tribune have all said that there are no proposals to create such a union and/or that the NAU itself is just a conspiracy theory. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Certainly mention the resolution, but listing the members who voted for it is over the top. Canada Jack (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be based on the opinions of certain journalists, and the views of members of Congress on this issue are far more notable. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't list those who deny the existence of these plans. What, prey tell, is the point of listing those who voted in favour of the resolution? Canada Jack (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It shows the substantial political opposition in the United States to the idea of a North American Union, and this is notable enough to be included in the article. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Substantial political opposition? You are kidding right? How could anyone describe a proposed non-binding resolution that failed to make it out of committee as being "substantial"? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not "kidding", and I don't like your tone. I would say 44 sponsors of a resolution is substantial, given the lack of mass media coverage. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure how closely you follow the machinations of Congress, Hereward, but if this resolution couldn't even get to the floor of the House, that says a lot. And you have not yet justified your contention that a 44-deep list of members warrants inclusion here. It's a no-brainer there is resistance to the NAU, but this is an article about the NAU, not an article about resistance to the NAU. I'm kinda at a loss as to why you would insist on this sort of a list. On the JFK page, for example, the committee which concluded there had been a conspiracy - a FAR more substantive statement from the US government than a resolution which didn't even reach the floor - doesn't warrant a listing of all those members who supported the conclusion. Why is it so different here?


 * As far as I can tell, at least two editors here who describe this as a "conspiracy" nevertheless agree that mention of the resolution is warranted, but listing of all those who supported it is not. I think that is a reasonable stance. Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The NAU is a controversial ongoing issue, and it would be appropriate to mention the high profile politicians who oppose it. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about creating a separate article on the resolution itself? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support the creation of such an article. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is going to be a North American Union....
For the United States:
 * 1) Its national flag should remain the same, along with the flags of every U.S. city, state and territory.
 * 2) The Star-Spangled Banner should remain the official national anthem of the United States of America.
 * 3) Its national symbol, animal, as well as every symbol, animal, flower of all 50 U.S. states (and the symbols, animals, and flowers of every U.S. city) and territories should remain the same.
 * 4) All U.S. holidays--including the 4th of July--should remain the same.
 * 5) All braches of the U.S. Armed Forces should remain the same.
 * 6) Hail to the Chief should remain the presidential anthem of the United States of America.

For Canada:
 * 1) Its national flag, and all flags of all Canadian provinces and territories should remain the same, along with their symbols, animals, etc.
 * 2) O Canada should remain the official national anthem of Canada, while God Save the Queen should remain the royal anthem of Canada.
 * 3) All Canadian holidays--including Canada Day--should remain the same.
 * 4) Canada should remain with the Commonwealth of Nations.
 * 5) All braches of the Canadian Forces should remain the same.
 * 6) The Canadian Vice Regal Salute should remain the same.

For the United Mexican States:
 * 1) Its national flag, and all flags of all Mexican states, and symbols, animals, etc., should remain the same.
 * 2) The national anthem of Mexico should remain the official national anthem of Mexico.
 * 3) All Mexican holidays--including Cinco de Mayo and Mexican Independence Day--should remain the same.
 * 4) All branches of the Mexican Armed Forces should remain the same.

I might write the music and words to a new official anthem for the North American Union. A new anthem will not replace each respectful national anthem of each respectful North American country, since the European Union anthem Ode to Joy didn't replace each respectful national anthem of each respectful European country (not even God Save the Queen, which remains the British national anthem and the Commonwealth royal anthem). Don-Don (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but what does this have to do with the article? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but it's just a suggeston, anyhow. Don-Don (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm agree with Don-Don, by the way I propose to include this on the article so this would be the "hypothetical" regional division stated in the most of conspiracy theories, cause this is a conspiracy theory, nothing else. kardrak 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * kardrak's proposed addition

The North American Union would currently (as of 2006) have a total population of around 436,020,884 citizens. For comparison, the European Union currently (as of 2006) has an estimated population of 457,514,494.

The NAU population would be divided among the three constituent nations as follows:

The NAU would collectively have 97 states and provinces. For comparison, the EU currently includes 25 member states; note that some of the EU states themselves have major regional divisions (for example, the United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, all of which (especially Scotland) exercise a certain degree of regional autonomy and Germany is a federal republic with 16 states much like the US and Mexico).

The NAU states and provinces would be ordered by population as follows:


 * Having a list of the NAU's "population" is both original research and somewhat misleading. It should not be included. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of thing this article included when it was deleted as uncited original research. It won't be long until it is filled with the same OR it had when it was deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and original research is what always gets this article deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While administrators take care of their duties, this article will be save of being deleted for the convenience of those who oppose this idea. kardrak 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article will be safe from deletion since it's a real article as opposed to the stew of paranoia, original research and conspiracy theories that was this article's first incarnation. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you count the G4-criteria deletions, this article has been deleted six times from Wikipedia. Certainly the absence of a NAU article was ... embarrassing.  I for one much prefer the current, well referenced version.  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)