Talk:North American Union

message: The main problem with creating a North American Union is that North America already has a Union. It's called The United States of America. If Mexico wishes to join the Union, they only need to apply to congress.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main problem with North American Union 

message: Save for one section which was not connected to the NAU, the material Devil has added looks pretty good.
The basic problem here, however, is the fundamental issue of Original Research. Unlike the section which I largely wrote on the conspiracy theories, which was based on a sequence of events told by various authors, the earlier section on pre-2005 North American Union talk seems mostly to have emerged from various search engines and hits on the phrase "North american union".
Personally, I think the sequence here is more or less correct. However, it nags at me that no one, as far as I know, has actually spelled out a sequence of pre-SPP talk of the North American Union. And while the way it is currently written more or less avoids suggesting A led to B which led to C, it nevertheless would be better to have this "history" citable in terms of the sequence. For example, while it may seem "obvious" that NAU talk started after 1993 and the creation of the EU, and particularly with the introduction of the euro in 1999, it gets into OR territory to suggest that is when NAU talk "started" if we don't have someone saying "after Maastrict, North Americans started to wonder if something similar might be tried here." Devil has indeed found people who DO say "let's try it" or "no way!" but we ALSO need some historian or journalist to actually spell this out. 
I'm not suggesting we toss this out, but I am flagging a potential source of concern and how we can address it. Canada Jack (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any reason why we need a source to corroborate that discussion occurred when we have said discussion cited. Also, as it concerns the insertion of information regarding the NACC, I would say it is perfectly relevant as we are talking about a group which is regularly cited by conspiracy theorists and is under the SPP. Also, you are the one who made a big fuss about claiming the SPP was pushing for greater integration in the article and then you remove material about a group set up under the SPP explicitly for the purpose of pushing integration.--The Devil's Advocate  (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: *I maintain that the material added by the above editor is clearly and obviously Original Research, a synthesis of sourced material designed to create a sequence of events and imply a progression, when no source explicitly ties (or even implicitly ties) those sequence of events to a history of the North American Union. As I have often said, once we get to 2005 or so and the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the Task Force, Pastor etc., then we have clearly stated claims about the evolution of the concept via those entities and bodies, and those cited histories are all we have so far. And that is what appears in the article.I made an analogy with another similar entity and the page here on it - the European Union. Their history page quite clearly cites published histories when discussing the history of that body. Another similar example of an organized entity which had precursors and proposals also calling itself the same thing is the Olympic Games. Did the editors in this case use a similar technique as the above editor and simply search out any other material which mentions "olympic games" before its generally acknowledged revival in 1896? No, they cited published histories which described the history of previous attempted revivals of the Olympic Games in context to the games that eventually emerged in 1896 which also called themselves "the Olympic games" or similar names. The editor above maintains there is a history to the concept of the North American Union before recent (since c. 2005) claims by some (labelled by detractors as "conspiracy theorists"). He may be correct, but as I have repeatedly underlined, it is not for us to search out previous mentions of the idea without citing an already published history of the evolution of the concept, in particular, how it relates to the current concept (as described in the article). The article currently contains what has been published in terms of the concept's history. But he claims we need not cite published histories when going further back, so he has plucked instances of past mentions of the concept without citing an authority which states that this mention constitutes part of the evolution of the North American Union. This is clearly a synthesis of published material - past mentions of a "North American Union" concept - intended to decribe a "history" no source has described. Canada Jack (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: When editors disagree on an article, then a compromise, of the final wording, should be sought, per current policy WP:CONSENSUS. Note that the wording must meet restrictions from other policies:
* WP:UNDUE - limits the scope to reflect real-world popularity: a rare viewpoint could be placed in a subsection, as an alternate viewpoint, but not given equal weight in the main text.
* WP:NPOV - Alternate viewpoints must be allowed, in a article, as if the final decision had not been reached: Wikipedia cannot determine ultimate truth, but only report the events and opinions as noted by other people.
* WP:NOTCENSORED - even if a viewpoint is unpopular (murder was committed by someone not yet suspected), there should be, at least, one subsection which allows that view ("God made the atmosphere 78% nitrogen to keep people from over-amping on oxygen" +sources). If a conclusion is not original, it should be allowed, but only within WP:UNDUE limits, not as a 50-50% concept, with text equal to mainstream views.
In the past, many editors did not seek a true consensus (of all concerned), so not everyone is familiar with crafting article text that provides a compromise, about which all current editors can agree, as the consensus. Editors advocating an unusual viewpoint should be willing to accept moving text into a subsection, as part of the compromise solution. Remember, in 1927, dinosaurs were considered as relatives of birds, but by 1955, dinosaurs were considered reptiles, then later, by 1990 dinosaurs-as-birds was again a popular view. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a "rare" or "alternate" viewpoint on the history. It's a "personal" viewpoint. The history currently on the page is what has been published by sources. The one the editor wants to insert is his own, personal view of a "history." Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a personal viewpoint, but a neutral one. While no one has brought all of the historical information together in one source, it is still historical information about the concept this article is about.--The Devil's Advocate  (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus within WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV & WP:NOTCENSORED

message: Have stumbled across this article it seems very much against the idea of a union. should it not be evened out with a little facts about groups that support it. I was doing some research on the EU for a school project and got a little bored so I looked up North American Union and found a few groups in favor. seems this is information that would be of interest.MathewDill (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support? 

message: All but the first "official statement" relate only to the NAFTA superhighway.  As the relationship between the NAFTA superhighway and this NAU is fictional, even if the NAFTA superhighway would be factual, they shouldn't be in this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official statements 

message: Yes, NADS is a wingnut delusion, but so is the North American Union in general. This has hit multiple wingnut sources so why not include it?
http://www.jbs.org/the-john-birch-society/u-s-defense-department-announces-step-toward-the-north-american-union
Hcobb (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American Defense Structure 

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) 08:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: 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 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to be taken seriously, one would not copy and paste anonymously (and somewhat incoherently) on multiple talk pages. It's pretty amazing that now, almost 3 years after the Amero was to be introduced and the NAU to be a reality, that this dead horse is still being beaten. Where's the far more plausible talk about Canada joining the EU? The trade deal there being discussed would put us at a near par with admitted countries! First step to joining? Obviously, it won't happen, but I suppose the alternate reality that many of these people live in causes them to fail to see what is staring them in the face. Canada Jack (talk) 19:54, 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: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on North American Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415012744/http://www.spp.gov:80/myths_vs_facts.asp to http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www1.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/workingpaper2_celorio.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502205539/http://www.house.gov/list/speech/ca52_hunter/Nafta_hgwy_amendment.shtml to http://www.house.gov/list/speech/ca52_hunter/Nafta_hgwy_amendment.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on North American Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071218131513/http://teamtancredo.org:80/stands/ to http://teamtancredo.org/stands/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on North American Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080819213149/http://www.nascocorridor.com/admin/images/docs/NASCO%20CONGRESSIONAL%20-%20Myth%20vs%20%20Fact%20December%202007.pdf to http://www.nascocorridor.com/admin/images/docs/NASCO%20CONGRESSIONAL%20-%20Myth%20vs%20%20Fact%20December%202007.pdf
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 17:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on North American 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/20100608071258/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0728mexico_michaelidis.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0728mexico_michaelidis.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101105434/http://canadians.org:80/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/index.html to http://canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222044820/http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4 to http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4
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) 01:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest you keep up. It was just signed by all 3 leaders. Not so science fiction now is it? Smh No wonder this tool for the ptb is quickly becoming obsolete. 2600:8807:440A:C300:E843:6C3:7CB5:5210 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/10/declaration-of-north-america-dna/ 2600:8807:440A:C300:E843:6C3:7CB5:5210 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American union