Talk:North American monetary union

message: There are two different things going on in this article: one is a hypothetical discussion of what a North American currency union might look like, based on descriptions in obscure white papers from think tanks and science fiction books. The other is the origin and debunking of the conspiracy theory that such a union actually is being planned by some sort of powerful forces. The two have little to do with each other, for one. Additionally, by keeping the two in one article, the citations for the first look like evidence for the latter--which they are not, and which some of the people who provide them probably do not want them used as. The first article should be the place for discussing serious economic and futurologist viewpoints about what an NACU might be; the second should be devoted largely to a sociological analysis of why people believe in the conspiracy theory--not to details of the theory itself, as that lends undue weight to the idea that said theory is true. I suggest that the two articles be: North American currency union (concept in literature) and North American currency union (conspiracy theory). Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with this proposal. By necessity, if we have an article discussing the conspiracy aspect of it, the article will first have to discuss WHAT is being planned, if anything, which is largely here on this page. SO we'd be repeating a lot of information. As to sociological reasons for the belief of these theories, that surely falls under the heading of "conspiracy theories" and there is already an article on that. Since the amount of unique information - spelling out the beliefs of those who think this is already in the works - is rather thin, it makes sense to keep that aspect of it here. As has been oft-stated on this and the NAU page, once you start to talk about these theories, it becomes a lot of unsourced nonsense and debate back and forth over which fantasy is the "real" agenda etc. Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also object to splitting the article, as doing so would likely lead to a WP:POVFORK.  Not to mention the fact that virtually all of the non-WND references we have on this topic focus on the hypothetical union, rather than the conspiracy theory.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not "idiocracy" to say that "some suggest" it might violate the us constitution, since we don't have a proposal for a North American Union to base a judgment on! All we have are what some in the conspiracy community say is being planned. But the closest any of these pundits have come to supplying evidence is to a) point to the SPP which has nothing to do with those stated goals, b) point to a Task Force which proposed similar concepts to the NAU but has had no influence on policy makers and c) note that Vicente Fox has voiced approval for the concept. Well, duh. He's Mexican. So the only "idiocracy" is from those who can't seem to accept that nothing like the NAU is gonna happen in the foreseeable future as a) no government proposals for anything like this exist b) the current political climate in America forestalls any such thoughts, even if they existed (take a look at the attempts to bring in a free trade agreement with Columbia... Columbia!) and c) Canada and America's economies are on different tracks and the last thing Canada would likely do is hitch a ride on America's sinking ship. Canada Jack (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NAU is the EU equivalent in North-America. Same will be done with the African Union and the other unions. This is a facilitation route towards one global government. There are officials talking about the Amero (or considering the internet buzz about it, whatever name it will end up with): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.96.116.14 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to be split into two

message: The section paragrapth is WAY too POV and unencyclopediac. Zazaban 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  united states arguments for 

message: Recently, there have been large amounts of text added without any sources cited. Each paragraph is to have at least one cite for the info in it, and more if the info within one paragraph is from different pages within a source. This is NOT a guideline or suggestion - proper sources are REQUIRED per WP:ATTR and WP:V POLICIES. Even with proper sourcing, text must adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of View policy. - BillCJ 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV additions 

message: The Council on Foreign Relations also has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies.
In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "The End of National Currency," CFR economist Benn Steil asserted the dollar is a temporary currency.
Steil concluded "countries should abandon monetary nationalism," moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global "one world currency."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.252.127 (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFR 

message: There is no such thing as the "North American Monetary Union" - it is merely a concept and proposal. As such, I have moved the article to "North American monetary union". In addition, the article is not about the "North American Union", which also does not exist. It is striclty to discuss ideas on a monetary unification of North Amaerica, not ideas for further economic or political unions of the continent. Such material, with proper sourcing, could go to North American Union, which is currently vacant. However, remember that Wikipedia is not the venue for one-sided presentations of anti-CFR/-Bilderberg propoganda, or any other kind of propoganda! - BillCJ 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name and subject

message: See Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears, Seattle Times, May 19 2007. Moonriddengirl 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the current version is based on urban legend. However, please see the versions before the POV user's edits, which are based (somewhat) on sourced material, and deal with the monetary union specifically, as addressed above. - BillCJ 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy dispute

message: I've semi-protected the article, which will allow signed-in editors to edit the page free of the disruptive IP. Bucketsofg 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I really don't know anything about the topic, but I am interested in the matter, and will do my best to improve it with verifiable sources. - BillCJ 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protect 

message: I can include sources but they will only be deleted (ex.Corsi's Late Great USA) . By disruptive you mean people who don't agree with you. Wikipedia is a farce. Find real alternative media/news. IT would seem that the article was generated by people who don't know much about the topic - and then we are not allowed to delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How irrational. 
http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-U-S-Coming-Merger/dp/0979045142
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.82.52 (talk • contribs) 
:You were being disruptive because:
:#You added large chunks of uncited text into the article. THis may not seem like much to you, but Wikipedia takes copyright LAWS very seriously. Without proper sources, we have no way of knowing if you've copied text verbatim, or written it yourself from other material. 
:#You decided, without prior (or any since then) discusion, to change the focus of the article from the idea of having a single currency for North America to a criticism of the SPP, and its supposed preparation for an NAU. The fact that there already is an article on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which might be better for such a topic doesn't seem to mattr to you - you just decided on your own to change this one!
:#You continually reverted contrustive changes to the article, and requests for discussion. In fact, you're very lucky you've not been blocked for violating the Three-revert Rule.
:#You were adding content from a single point-of-view as if it were gospel truth, with no attempt to represent other views, or give a balanced presentation. This violates the Neutral Point of VIew policy.
:#If you want to dicsuss the so-called North American Union (NAU), then create an article on it. Don't hijack some other page and insist on rewriting it without any discussion beforehand. But if you do create such an article on the NAU, it needs credible, verifiable sources, and it needs to be written from a neutral point-of-view. You have to present the view of people in all 3 countries who are for or against the idea (it's not even a proposal yet). If you aren't willing do do those things, then you aren't writing an encylopedia article, and you'd be better off just writing a blog somewhere. - BillCJ 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive

message: This hardly sounds like an unbaised sentence: "The C.D. Howe Institute, one of Canada's right-wing conservative economic think tanks". Can we get a neutral description of what C.D. Howe Institute is? --216.145.49.15 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple direct language is not biased, I think we need to be cautious of wiki's progression toward runaway political correctness.  Just because this is an encyclopedia doesnt not mean it should be full of grotesque grammatical evasions and orwellian newspeak.  "Right-wing conservative economic think tank" is not biased, however "Right-wing conservative" is redundant, which isnt becoming of an encyclopedia, mabye eliminating one of the adjectives would alleviate your concerns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.90.2 (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: <--- Differing cultural and social/economic objectives amongst the other western nations would be another point of contention[citation needed]. ---> Just wondering if a citation is really needed here? I would think this point to be obvious in any situation like this? - 74.119.209.113
:thanks. I'm putting a fact tag in. — robbiemuﬃn page talk 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the fact tags.  The third paragraph is particularly glarring to me because, that characterization of the US economy hasn't been accurate for almost 2 decades now.  I hope sources come in and the necessary rewrite along with it :) — robbiemuﬃn page talk 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: This article is too Canada-centric. We should revise it for a "worldwide view." -RedBlade7 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada-centric? 

message: This article is inconsistent in its use of political ideological adjectives.  The article describes the Fraser Institute as "conservative" but fails to mention that the C.D. Howe Institute is also right-wing.
The article then goes on to describe the moderately social democratic Council of Canadians as left-wing when the Council does not oppose the fundamentals of capitalist economics in any serious fashion and thus is left-of-centre by any starndards (and even centrist by European standards).
For the time being, I'm going to insert the adjective "conservative" to describe the C.D. Howe Institute and I'm changing the "left-wing" adjective for the Council of Canadians to "left of centre".
If somebody has a better way of working this problem, it'd be great to come up with a more permanent solution which will flow and sound better than my solution. 
Ottawastudent 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent use of ideological adjectives 

message: While I appreciate your attempt to improve Wikipedia, all our content needs to be verifiable and come from reliable sources, I'm afraid a couple of blog postings don't qualify. - SimonP 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that the links should not be included. From WP:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories: "The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability.....If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." --SirEditALot 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia sources need not be limited to the "media." However, as per WP:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories, if a fringe theory is so unnotable that the only people who have commented on it are its adherants (or other fringe theorists), then it is not significant. Mentioning non-significant views violates NPOV so, if no other sources can be found, the information should not be included in this article. Perhaps it can be included in another article dedicated to such conspiracy theories (e.g. New_World_Order_(conspiracy)). It is not, however, necessary for the "mainstream media" per se to have reported on it to qualify it for inclusion here. All that's necessary is that any non-fringe source has commented about it. --SirEditALot 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New World Order

message: North American monetary union and American currency union → North American currency union 
:(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.) 
* Both topics overlap considerably. American currency union has much better sourcing, but focuses primarily on North America. North American monetary union has better detailed discussions, but from fewer sources, and is currently under an ill-advised AfD in liue of proper discussions. Merge would solve the problem of few balanced sources, and improve the resulting artilce. Final article name fully negotiable. - BillCJ 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
====Survey - Support votes====
* Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested merger

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
====Survey - Support votes====
* Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: No contest. I'll be removing most unsourced items unless I think they are crucial to the article, or very likely to be true. I'll also be moving the article to North American currency union, as we did not have any other proposals, but again, I am open to other titles. - BillCJ 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: plz add more  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.66.206 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a few people here adding stuff which flatly declares any such talk as "unconstitutional." Seems to me it is best to present that as a contention and to add a few links - which I have done.Canada Jack 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added constitutionality aspect 

message: Canada's economy is far more centred around commodities than the United States (I believe around 12% to 1% of GDP). As such, and given future demand for commodities, a separate Canadian dollar allows it to fluctuate based on the price of resources. This has positive and negative implications. The recent rise in Oil price (Canada being a net exporter) allows the price to increase and take "potential" gains from this. We're the currencies to be merged, this could not happen. This issue is far more complex but I certainly believe that "response to commodity prices" needs to be included as an argument, maybe more a criticism. Canking 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be more on the Canadian aspect of critism of a proposed united currency. As the article stands, it is decidedly American in terms of the arguments against it. In some quarters, it seems that it is seen as a "given" that Canada and Mexico would leap at the chance to piggy-back on the US dollar, when for reasons such as you state that is not the case at all. In fact, there is a lot of resistance to the notion in Canada that we should join the US dollar or create an Amero-type currency. It IS more welcomed, the concept, in Quebec, but I doubt most Canadians would favour the idea, peso included or not. Canada Jack 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodities 

message: The best way to complain about a nonexistent, vague plan to do something you can't define is to post your boring opinions on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that the existence of any "North American currency union" is part of a larger insane conspiracy theory involving Jews, aliens, and Bush doing WTC--go ahead and have a furious debate about something imaginary, muck like two nerds standing outside a comic book store arguing about whether the Hulk can beat up Superman. Under no circumstances should you worry about the war in Iraq, the repressive enforcement of American drug laws, cronyism in the Justice Department, or discrimination against homosexuals in marriage laws--issues with actual relevance to justice and prosperity in America have no place in Fictitious Debate Land. It's important that the people who obsess enough about politics to put unreadable chunks of diarrhea into Wikipedia articles about their pet political theories be the most uninformed and uninsightful people in the world regarding actual political issues.
In all seriousness: there is no North American currency union, there is no plan to create one, the only place it exists is in science fiction. It is unworthy of an article at all, and having one just shows how far Wikipedia is gone into the thrall of conspiracy theorists and obsessive autistic nerds who can't figure out what is and is not important.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Blackamoor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard it stated so well. Thanks Randy Blackamoor.99.240.207.130 (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree with the contention that a common currency for North America will not happen, but it's not true that this hasn't been discussed. As such, the concept deserves a page. But, agreed, the level of paranoia and misinformation over this issue is astounding. Even if the concept was brought to the various parliaments for enactment, does anyone believe that it would pass muster in Canada and America? Not for a second. Yet, in a sign of how frivolous some websites are, Conservapedia had a front-page reference to the supposed "admission" by Vincente Fox that this is a "plan" being worked upon by the three countries. I suppose black helicopters are going to swoop down at night, enter every house in North America via the chimneys, and replace the US/Canadian/Mexican pennies in the coin jars with Amero coins... Canada Jack 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, fuck this shit. 65.95.79.36 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tips on vandalizing this article

message: The North American currency union is an actual proposal not just a conspiracy theory. I feel the first sentence should mention it is a controversial proposal there is no doubt that it has been proposed. The conspiracy aspect of it is whether the US, Canada, and Mexico are currently in the process of implementing it behind the backs of their citizens. --Cab88 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what you or I believe the respective governments of Canada, Mexico, and the US are doing, original research and un-sourced conspiracy theories do not belong on Wikipedia.  As such, these sorts of changes to the lead section should be cited and verified via a reliable, published source.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed!  However this article is still 1000% (or at least eleven citations) better than the festering pile of WP:OR formerly known as the NAU article prior to its deletion and create-protection.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro changes 

message: Is it just me, or does the last half of this edit look like something that belongs in either the North American SuperCorridor Coalition or NAU article?  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more like a propaganda piece for the Fraser institute and the scores of big-L internet Libertarians.99.240.207.130 (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong article? 

message: Some editors seem to object to claims that a North American currency union are in the works are described as a "conspiracy theory." First, as others have pointed out, reliable sources have described these plans as exactly that - a conspiracy theory. Second, in the face of official denials as to the existence of such plans, ie., those who would implement the plans, the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States, have all stated that no such plans are in work, means that therefore the source for these claims are, by definition, unofficial and the plans themselves are, therefore, by definition a conspiracy theory.  
And, just to be more to the point: It doesn't matter if those who claim these plans are afoot have PhDs from every university on the planet. The salient point is whether they are in official positions to make such claims. Those mentioned are not. As long as they are not officials from those bodies who would implement the changes, and as long as those officials say no plans are afoot, any claims made otherwise are, by definition, conspiracy theories. Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theory

message: One must admit that "conspiracy theorists" is a politically loaded term and therefore doesn't meet with Wikipedia's stated purpose of striving for bias free articles.
And yeah, if it's only the "conspiracy theorists" who contend that the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico are already taking steps to implement such a currency are you saying then that Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is a conspiracy theorist?  For he did state in an October 8th, 2007 interview on CNNs Larry King Live that he and Bush discussed that very thing.
:He has stated no such thing. He stated then as he has stated many times that for Mexico, the idea of a NAU would be a good thing, as would a common currency. He has spoken many times optimistically about the eventual culmination of such a plan, but he has also expressed frustration at the political climate in America which makes such plans more remote. He has also spoken about the experience of Spain in joining what became the EU in 1986 as an example of the potential benefit for Mexico, with a per-capita income something around US$8,000, in such a trade body.  Canada Jack (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "b.s. baffles brains" has never been more apt. I encourage everyone who wants a good laugh to click on the above. You'd think that once Communism collapsed that the wind would go out of the sails of those who see plots all around. Nope. If more people knew the history of these paranoid conspiracy movements, they'd realize that despite 100+ years of plots etc., the predicted results never happen, and the sinister players, once they disappear or are forgotten, are simply replaced by a new cabal to fit the same old scenario. By why deal in facts when you have a good yarn? It's a round world they try to shove into their square holes... Canada Jack (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicente Fox - Conspiracy theorist?

message: What is the conspiracy theory behind it? I am not getting it..
There has been several projects coming from NAFTA about introducing a currency union.. There is no conspiracy...
Please, let's make Wikipedia less scandalous...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.182 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even know what NAFTA is? How can a treaty propose anything? There is no group called NAFTA. There is a NAFTA secretariat which resolves disputes over the implementation of the treaty, that's the closest thing. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conpiracy theory? 

message: The following was first written on User talk:Kralizec!‎ regarding this edit.  It is replicated here for reference and further discussion.
The source for the statement that a NA currency union is a conspiracy theory given is the article on IHT.com, which actually states:
And:
The conspiracy theory is that there is a supranational organization being formed from Canada, the United States, and Mexico that would subvert national sovereignties.  The currency union is only one component of this supposed organization, which would also implement unimpeded trade and expand continental road frameworks (given the opportunity).  The current opening sentence excessively emphasizes one possible means of implementing the currency union (through a secret conspiracy) without any consideration of the purely academic discussion on the pros and cons of the matter.
Kelvinc (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up a very valid point.  I have restructured the lead to reflect the fact that the NACU was proposed by the Fraser Institute first, then conspiracy theorist began flocking to it later.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Haha exactly.  As a Canadian as well, I've heard talk of a common currency as a serious and not-so-serious suggestion over the years, and I'm sure many of the proponents would be surprised to find themselves labelled as part of a conspiracy theory.  It looks from the history that there's been a push to suggest there's a serious belief that this is all being implemented under the cover, and a reaction pull away to de-emphasize the idea, but the weird result was that both sides seemed to not realize that talk about this has been going on for ages before any (legit or conspiracy) economic integration actually took place. Kelvinc (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[North American currency union]] versus [[North American Union]]  

message: A lot of North American and Caribbean countries use dollars as the currency, and many Latin American countries use US dollars as a second currency - and so it would make sense for any unified North American currency to be called a "dollar", especially given the existence of Spanish dollars in days of old. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there is some sense to that, but we are simply reporting what has been suggested, not trying to come up with a better idea. Seems to me that "amero" was just pulled out of the air in reference to the euro, it was never a serious suggestion as to an actual name, it just easily conveyed the idea of a euro-style common currency. But many have adopted the name as their catch-all for a unified currency. Indeed, conspiracy theorists maintain that we will soon be using a currency called an "amero," though the 2010 implementation date seems rather unlikely to be met. If one looks at the euro, ignoring the fact that all countries signed something called the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which obligated them to adopt what would eventually be called the euro, (save for Britain and Denmark who chose not to adopt the euro), countries who adopted the euro first had to lock their currency into a tight band to a common currency for a minimum of two years, then meet the economic criteria (low debt, inflation, budget deficit, etc.), THEN apply to adopt, then be approved. Cyprus and Malta, for example, entered the EU in May 2004, entered the ERM II which locked their currency into a narrow band in May 2005, applied for entry in ERM III (i.e., exchanging their currency for the euro) in 2007, were approved in July 2007 as the European Council had determined they had met the criteria for entry, then adopted the euro on January 1, 2008. But, it would seem if some conspiracy theorists are correct, we will wake up one day and see not only that Canada Mexico and the United States have converted to something called the "amero," but we'd no doubt have to pay for the paper with ameros to read about it. Presumably black helicopters will have swooped over chimneys across North America and the jack-booted types will have taken a page out of Santa Claus's book and replaced our change jars with ameros. Actually, when you think about what some say is in the works with the "amero," one wonders if these same people also believe in Santa Claus... Canada Jack (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It especially would make sense given that any such currency union would be primarily the US and Canada. Both of which already use dollars that both historically and currently have almost identical value (aside from that anomylous period in the 80s & 90s when the Canadian dollar was substantially less valuable than the US dollar). Combining the two wouldn't even require an adjustment in prices, like Eurozone countries have to deal with, since so little would actually change. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why call it an Amero? Why not just call it a dollar? 

message: I don't think there is really an argument here for money being printed by the federal reserve as unconsitutional. The Congress has the power to coin money, and they created/fund the Federal Reserve to do the task for them. It's not as if the Federal Reserve operates completely independently of Congress they still have to answer to them. Flproject131 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutionality 

message: Canadian Laws and Constitution would never allow the use of notes and coins that aren't bilingual (English and French). Americans would most probably feel uneasy with the idea of using notes that are "half-french" only to accommodate 8 million Canadian Franch (francophones). Francophones would accounts for only 2.4% of the combined US+Canadian populations (33 million, 331 million). Language issues, which shouldn't be dismissed, would most probably delay the adoption of such a currency. The issue and resulting debate would also boost the Quebec sovereignty movement, which would either advocate creating a national currency or join the Euro zone with a special status. Currently, popular support for Quebec's independence is stagnating at 40-45%. Hugo Dufort (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those would be difficult issues to overcome.  However it is kind of a moot point as proposals for a North American currency union have yet to make it out of think-tank and academic circles.  --Kralizec! (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language(s) on the Amero banknotes and coins 

message: here in mexico we are just a few months away in replacing our peso with silver ounces. the mexican pure silver ounce coins "libertad" will come into circultaion here before the end of this year, so that's a big step away from the "amero".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.50.77 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, San Antonio does feel a lot like Mexico, doesn't it?  :)  You know those ounces have been out since the 80s? — robbiemuffin page talk 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: sh... you will anger the evil people in the choppers if you say that. --Jakezing (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Amero is becoming a thing of the past 

message: El Salvador does not have its own currency, so I am correcting the statement. Nicaragua and Honduras also accept the dollar alongside their official currencies. --74.167.157.95 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing Statements about Currency of El Salvador and Other Central American Countries

message: I looked at the "Effectivity" section and decided that, as it stood, it had to go. Before someone's nose gets too seriously out of joint, here is why I felt that was necessary.
I can see a place for this section, as a discussion over the utility of a common currency here would make up for the only slight discussion of this topic elsewhere. However, the section as written appears to be someone's personal essay on the subject, and seems to have been simply plonked down here without regard to the various standards here at wikipedia. So, my choice was to a) try to rewrite the section b) insert a ton of citation etc tags or c) omit. I chose, obviously, the latter.
Instead of simply re-inserting the text, and I don't know who did so, that person should ensure that all the assertions are properly cited. For example "The type of flexible exchange has not brought to Canada the macroeconomic benefits that were promised by who proposed that policy." Something like this needs a citation to someone who actually states as much. ( I have no doubt that someone has said as much, but we need the citation). There are literally dozens of statements of fact/opinion which all lack any citation. One POV statement is this: "In this same tradition, the United States can well find that it is worth to add itself to the proposed monetary union." Well, okay, that's fine. But that's also someone's editorial position on what America should do here. Which is not the place of wikipedia to state. And has no place in an article describing monetary union and it's potential risks/benefits. We can certainly describe opinions, though they clearly must be flagged as such, and balanced with representative opinions if the subject is contentious.
Finally, the language here is quite opaque and I suspect that the writer is not a native english speaker as words and phrases are employed which few native speakers would use. The title itself "effectivity" doesn't properly describe the section. It should properly be something along the lines  of "Monetary union and macroeconomic policies" or some such thing. I don't think that "effectivity" is even a word. Further: The described profits in the economic efficiency of the member countries must be hefted towards the possible losses in their macroeconomic performance. "Hefted" really has no meaning here and sounds very awkward when words like "compared to" would suffice. Or there prevails a very high inflation, of around 9 percent in 2000, with interest rates that stay near the 15 percent, that turn to be prohibitive for an appreciable reactivation of the credit. I'm sorry, but I've read that phrase five times now and I still don't understand what is meant by "an appreciable reactivation of the credit." 
In short, this needs to be written in a much clearer style with language that is not so opaque. Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  Looking at the edit history, it appears that I missed this section's insertion  when I reverted the addition of a bunch of un-sourced content  last week.  Sorry!  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Effectivity" section omitted

message: If this were to take place, where there would be some sort of "union" or "zone," wouldn't it make sense to make the map just one solid color instead of making it two-toned? Either that, or make Mexico or Canada a different shade of blue? The fact that they are the same kind of defeats the purpose of supporting North American unity, in my opinion. 209.89.19.168 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "purpose of supporting North American unity" involved. I think the present map is quite adequate. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 05:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map used focuses on USA

message: In the Rumors of "Amero coins" section it would appear as if some guy posted a self-promotion link (A Citizen calls the lower level employees of the Denver Mint about existence of Amero [2].)
That 'paragraph' is terribly worded, should someone rewrite it so it actually includes information, it would be fine, you may as well delete it since it is non-sense or you may move it to the links section, whatever.
190.103.69.30 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What the?

message: This edit added text about "Global Government" and "New World Order" to the article's lede section.  Since the sentence in question was already directly sourced and cited to the International Herald Tribune's article "The Amero Conspiracy," this strikes me as being rather misleading as neither of the additions appear in the listed source.  — Kralizec! (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New World Order addition in lede 

message: Why would Unasur have an opinion on a North American currency union, and where is it written that they want to use a North American dollar? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion if any place on Earth is going to have a currency called Amero I would bet on South-American countries and/or possibly the whole of Latin America (or at least Iberian America). The United States nor Canada would never go for this in a million years. -- sion8  talk page 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNASUR 

message: Amero? why the f*** would they call it that, peso means dollar, so dollar would be fine, amero sounds like a disease, also there is no o in america and plurals of -o words is major problem. More to the point why would US want mexico freeloading on it's economy. The US is too obsessed with symbolism to abolish the penny which is worthless and costs more to make than it's worth. as if they'd abolish their currency for some amero bs. 203.217.59.87 (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term was used simply to evoke what the Europeans were doing with the euro, it's not a proposal to name that theoretical currency, just as when one talks of the "United States of Europe," one is evoking an American-style concept of European integration, not suggesting we actually CALL a European entity that name. Of course, once the seriously deluded among us got wind of the academic argument for an "amero," the term took on a life of its own, even though no leader in North America for the past decade seriously proposes it, save for Vicente Fox. One supposes that if there ever WAS a three-country agreement to have a currency, we'd have some distinctly North American name for it, like a "Columbia" or a "Norto" or, quite simply, a "dollar." Canada Jack (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a colossal load of bullshit. 

message: This article is far too focused on conspiracies and not enough on the economics. Here's a good article that introduces this. 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/the-case-for-a-canada-us-monetary-union-is-dead/article2016314/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.96.69 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: A fairly recent article (pub. approx. April/May, 2012) alleges the "theoretical" North American Union may be growing in tangibility and importance. Leaders of Canada, Mexico and USA spoke at the Leaders' Summit in regards to issues on narcotics and continent-wide vaccine to the trade industry as an aspect. The meeting was originally branded “Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America", but was soon changed to the Leaders' Summit shortly after. General rhetoric of past meetings were of "security" and "prosperity", including the most recent meeting's hopes of "foster[ed] gains" of the populace of the North American continent. 
It'd save from the presumptions of "comment-gagging" for us to read in on the networking that is highly likely to be premised on the grounds of integration North American countries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.162.212 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Closer economic cooperation does not necessarily mean a currency union.  Who would want a currency union anyway??  For Canada and Mexico, it would mean giving up many aspects of the ability to set their own economic policies to fit the local conditions in their own countries, while for the United States, it would mean giving Canada and Mexico a voice in setting U.S. economic policies.  Trying to bring radically disparate economies like those of the United States and Mexico under a single currency is likely to cause more problems than it solves (as seen from bringing both Germany and Greece into the Euro ten years ago, and its results). AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: If you expect to be taken seriously, you'll need to provide something from reliable sources. The New American doesn't even come close. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody willing to contribute to wikipedia will take this seriously. Will post this on the NAU article's comment section as well for reform of generalities. 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: North American currency union →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME.  "North American currency union" mostly seems to show Wikipedia mirrors on Google, even if searching with "-Wikipedia". Also for consistency with "European Monetary Union" and "African Monetary Union". ANDROS1337TALK 22:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
*This is going to require a histmerge, which I've never done before. Bear with me, but feel free to pester me if I haven't done it by the end of the day. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on North American monetary union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dc-coin.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on North American monetary union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030075229/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-30-08-410/EN/KS-30-08-410-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-30-08-410/EN/KS-30-08-410-EN.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207080118/http://www.spp.gov/ to http://spp.gov/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220122409/http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx to http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216061557/http://www.aspan.gob.mx/ to http://aspan.gob.mx/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on North American monetary union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219141544/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CasefortheAmero.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CasefortheAmero.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208190107/http://www.currency-converter.io/show?amount=1&from=USD&to=CAD&view=5years to http://www.currency-converter.io/show?amount=1&from=USD&to=CAD&view=5years
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified