Talk:Pacific Northwest/Archive 1

message: Suggestion: "Cascadia is a proposed name..." -- we should say *who* proposed it.  (I don't understand it entirely, myself, and I've never heard of it before, or I would.)
Well, there was probably a person or a group at some point of time which have had that idea... Scriberius 01:51, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
:It was a university professor, I think at U.Wash or maybe it was another school.  He was a geography professor and (I remember seeing him gushing over it on TV, when it was in the news a few years back) he had this rationalization about it not being just based on the name of the Cascade Range, but on how all the streams of the coastal flank of the corilldera "cascaded" into the sea, and of course there's all those waterfalls over the place (cascades).  Well, the name never washed in B.C. and it's viewed as a bit of a joke - or a frustrating impossibility with a bad name - on this side of the border.  Only a bit of BC applies to the ecotopian formula however (Ecotopia was another name suggested for the area, only in that version we'd have to let the Bay Area in); the Cascade Range ends less than a 100 miles inside BC, only the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver) and Victoria have any affinity for Seattle-Portland (though our Interior has affinities with your Interior; more than they do with us down here on the Coast, in fact).
:Many years ago Harper's Magazine sent someone west from Manhattan to investigate the Cascadia thing; their Manhattanite, who would have gotten lost in a New Jersey train station, drove out of Seattle on I-90 to Montana, down I-15 into Idaho and back out I-84 to Portland, then got back on the plane and wrote this meaningless article about "Cascadia", which he thought he'd driven around in; he missed the point entirely, which was/is I-5 from Vancouver to Portland (outer poles Whistler to Eugene).
Skookum1 18:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Cascadia]]" 

message: Quote:
This arrangement ended as U.S. settlement grew and Polk was elected on a platform of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight"; after a war scare with the United Kingdom, the two nations negotiated the 1846 Oregon Treaty, partitioning the region along the 49th parallel and resolving most (but not all) of the border disputes.
Not quite accurate; will be rewording this in near future.Skookum1 22:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  54-40 

message: I've always thought of the Pacific Northwest states to necessarily be Oregon, Washington AND Idaho, not just the first two. --Faustus37 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: also includes Western Montana; but I was surprised to see the debate about whether or not BC is in the Pacific Northwest; it's a no-brainer as this is not only an American term, i.e. referring only to American territory.  The Pacific Northwest also includes northernmost California, also and the Alaska Panhandle.Skookum1 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idaho 

message: "Culturally, the PNW is somewhat of a mix of West Coast and Midwest culture."
Midwest culture?  Really?  "Rocky Mountain West" culture, sure, but Washington's a long way from Illinois. 130.132.199.75 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whoever changed it to "similar to California" was not quite on the right track either; what's the point in saying that a region's culture is like the culture of another region? This seems pretty meaningless to me, not to mention that the PNW includes part of California, and that California does not have just one culture.  Let's try to use terms that describe places on their own merit, rather than resorting to vague comparisons. Romarin 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps what was meant there was the source of a lot of the people who lived there; their background/origin, their lifestyle and values, their ways of talking; the Okie inheritance from the '30s, the Scandinavian connections to Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin (including my own, albeit on my side of the border, and tpyically in BC connections to forebears-setters on the Prairies and shared ways of speaking/thinking; not purely West Coast; BC had more of a direct-California connection for a long time, than WA or OR did, until after the Second World War anyway.  Long discussion why, but without qualification/explanation that terminology/comparison is a little on the vague side.  But what the hell is West Coast culture anyway?  Here in BC we've been rebranded "Westcoast" by the national-Canadian dominated media; a purely eastern perception/name, especially when it's put "Seriously Westcoast since 1916" as on the banner of the Vancouver Sun; as if we were Toront's beach or something; Seattle's always been as much "West Coast" as California, and "West Coast" shouldn't be assumed to be modelled on California, culture/worldview-wise; but there is, as said, a strong and positive link to Cali from BC, apposite to the "don't californicate Oregon/Washington" attitudeSkookum1 05:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is a historic connection between Oregon, at least, and the Oregon Trail, which began in Missouri and supposedly drew a lot of Midwesterns as well as upper Southeners.  Oregon's Willamette Valley was, as I understand it, settled in the 19th century primarily from Missouri origins, while New Englanders came by ship and founded many the the region's towns.  However, this cultural historical scenario pertains mainly to Oregon and not as much to the Pacific Northwest as a whole.  On the other hand, I do think there is a recognizable PNW culture, from Oregon to BC, but a culture that is not entirely distinct from other regions; one might say a culture in its infancy, perhaps.  But there are certain shared commonalities in the region, if only from the shared physical geography.  As for the Midwest, I'd argue that there is a Midwestern influence, as well as an "upper South" influence, a New England influence, a California influence, and a Canadian influence, with all the complex fuzziness that implies. Pfly 08:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midwestern? 

message: The section entitled "The United States' claim" is a mirror/abridged version of what's already in the Oregon Boundary Dispute article, and is also POV (as was the Oregon Boundary Dispute article until I began to add the non-American perspective on same); this doesn't really need to be here other than as a reference to the Oregon boundary dispute article; and should have some story of the BRITISH claim, as well as only stating the American; also POV is the premise of the article that British Columbia is not part of the "orthodox" Pacific Northwest, the narrowest definition here given as OR and WA only; no, the narrowest definition is OR, WA, BC, the Alaska Panhandle, northern/western Idaho and (north)westernmost Montana, plus the northernmost Pacific counties of California; Shasta is sometimes considered the spiritual/cultural boundary line, for instance.  I'm from BC and we've ALWAYS considered ourselves part of the Pacific Northwest, and anyone I knew in WA or OR also considered BC to be part of the PacNW.  The language of the area of the (U.S.) Pacific Northwest corresponding to the Oregon Territory of 1848 remains a bit awkward; the area corresponds to the US portion of the divided Oregon Territory/Columbia District, as left over arter the Oregon Treaty (1846); really the Pacific Northwest corresponds to the pre-partition Oregon Territory/Columbia District; plus a bit (i.e. the Alaska Panhandle, and Klamath, Humboldt and Shasta counties).Skookum1 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or by state or provincial boundaries, for that matter.Skookum1 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echoes of [[Oregon Boundary Dispute]] page 

message: Please see 
RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest.  If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on.  Thoughts?Skookum1 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory|BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum]] 

message: Gotta remember to ref these in here, and to write passages on them for Indian Wars.  Reminder for self, unless someone has comments/input on these events to add.  Also Rogue River Wars, Nez Perce War. Shoshone wars and more.Skookum1 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yakima War|Yakima]], [[Cayuse War|Cayuse]] and [[Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-Paloos War|Palouse War]]s 

message: :The rainy weather promotes an indoor culture of the Pacific Northwest. Video game usage is the highest per-capita than any other region of the country.
I don't think that's a valid cause-effect; there are other reasons for video-game mania in this area; and frankly the deleted bit about SAD (seasonal affective disorder) is a lot more to the point re the grey weather, and there's stats on that as I recall, though I can't say when or in which paper I saw the details.  Also the higher rates of depression and concomitant social isolation might be more the direct cause of the high rates of videogame/internet usage in the area; not so much the weather keeping people in doors, but what the weather does to people's heads/souls.  But the flip side of that is the intensity of high-speed connectivity and the prevalence of the videogame industry in the local technical culture to start with.  Cause and effect are in other words not all that direct in the quoted bit above; which needs amendment or deletion IMO.Skookum1 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, besides that, if you click on the cited link, you'll see the top 15 gaming cities. Seattle is number one, but what about other cities in the Pacific Northwest? Portland isn't even in the top 15. I checked the source website for the list, and although I couldn't find the results of that exact poll, of every study I found, they have included Portland in their results. Also, there are cities smaller than Portland on the list (Minneapolis, Atlanta, St. Louis), so I'm fairly confident that they included Portland in their data. Therefore, you can't say the Pacific Northwest promotes a large gaming culture, if only one of the major cities and not any others have been represented. Another note, the source website presented actually proves that the rainy weather has nothing to do with people playing video games more. Phoenix, the driest major city in the United States, is ranked number 5, while Portland isn't even in the top 15. LeviathanMist 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  I think the fact that Microsoft and Nintendo of America are in the Seattle-Metro Area has to help.  Add in that we are known as the "Silicon Rain Forest" up here.  Also, in my opinion, the PNW has more of an outdoor culture.  We're known for wearing hiking boots and trail runners (bust out the nice boots for dinner out).  Most people I talk to not from the area assume that I hike/hunt/fish/etc because I'm from the area.
198.104.64.238 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On culture section 

message: Before joining this debate I did some preliminary research to determine whether there has been historical use of the phrase “Pacific Northwest”.  E.E. Rich’s “The Fur Trade and the Northwest” (The Canadian Centenary Series, McLelland and Stewart Limited, 1967) describes the geographical background of the parts of Canada excluding Ontario, Quebec and the four maritime province.  These parts consisted of two territories. The much larger part was known as “Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory”, which includes present day Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the lands north of them.  The other territory was British Columbia.  Thus, the phrase “Northwest Territories” did not apply to B.C.
As well, in Chapter 13 (Coalition and Consolidation) Rich make reference to the above two parts of Canada.  The chapter deals with the British resolve, beginning in 1814, to quell infighting between the fur trading companies (Hudson’s Bay Company and Northwest Company) and to combat American and Russian claims to lands on the coast.  His following description clearly does not include British Columbia as being within the sphere of the Northwest territory:  “But American claims to the Columbia and Russian expansion in Alaska now combined with violence in the Northwest itself to necessitate some arrangement that would ensure peace and restore that region to its wonted obscurity. ” (p. 236).
Rich’s Chapter 15, which recounts the history of development on and near the Pacific, similarly does not refer to the British Columbia region as the Pacific Northwest. Rather, his title for the chapter is “Fur Traders and the Pacific Slope.”
In Roy Daniells “Alexander Mackenzie and the North West” (Faber and Faber, 1969) are references to the “north-west”.  However in his descriptions of the travels of Mackenzie’s predecessor Peter Pond, it is clear that this phrase did not include the British Columbia coastline.  This is because this “magnificent untouched territory” (p. 42) (my note:  the north-west) was in this direction from Lake Winnipeg in which Pond ventured in 1775.  That is, by the end of that decade he was exploring the region near Lake Athabasca. 
On the other hand, there is some informal (non geo-political) evidence of the phrase Pacific Northwest Coast.  This appears in Beth Hill’s “Guide to Indian Rock Carvings of the Pacific Northwest Coast (Hancock House Publishers, 1975).  The book is an explanation and researching of Petroglyphs.  Pages 11-12 contains a map of the coastal areas of southern Alaska, British Columbia and Washington State.
Based on the above preliminary research, I think it may be concluded that the title “Pacific Northwest” did not originate in a political sense, at least in Canada.  Rather, British Columbia was a separate place.  Further, I do not believe it would be logical for people living in what was or is now the region of Canada to consider that its western extremity could be classified as having a northwestern location.  This conclusion is especially true when considering that places like the Yukon could be more truly described as the northwestern corner of the country.
On the other hand, the anthropological text referred to above does confirm to at least some extent the concept of a single region in the northwestern sector of the continent.
So far I have not investigated American journals to determine when and how the phrase Pacific Northwest came into common practice, if that is where it originated.Ramrods 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramrod's points

message: Read all of my above replies to Gregorof, and note I'm away for a week and definitely won't be wiki'ing; I was going to go point-by-point for you above but don't have the time tonight and the energy will have to wait for another day; suffice to sum up, as I accused Gregorof of thinking what you'd said/exampled was from him, that you're comparing apples and oranges; none of the terms are a split off any of the others, they existed, were born, and are used in contexts each their own.  I'l be back...Skookum1 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to RamRod pending

message: Thank you, guys –I think I now see what the issue is. You disagree as to 
* whether the name of this article should be “Pacific Northwest” and
* whether the term “Pacific Northwest” includes BC.
But you also have a lot in common: Both of you care about Wikipedia and this topic. Both of you are well-traveled, culturally interested people. Both of you are skilled authors, as evidenced from your user pages and other contributions. 
I would be happy if you could agree with me that this part of the world, across the border, has its own character that deserves a cohesive description in Wikipedia. The existing article already shows this. When several dedicated authors agree to collaborate on this interesting material we have a good chance to make this a featured article. 
Once we agree on this, we can search for a good name for the article together; I’ll add a section for that below. — Sebastian (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion and proposed agreement

message: We have lots of personal statements but precious few sourced definitions for the term "Pacific Northwest". I would like to include all sourced definitions in this map. Unfortunately, I'm only aware of the following few sources so far:
* Combined watershed of temperate rainforest rivers. ,  This was the term originally used by Northwest Environment Watch, but they replaced it with “Cascadia Bioregion” for reasons similar to the ones discussed on this page. The second link causes IE to hang, at least for me. 
* WA + OR + ID + northern CA + parts of northern NV. Defined by US gov’t as part of US only. 
* WA+OR
* WA+OR+ID
BTW, I found another related map here: . — Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which definitions do we have for the map? 

message: BTW an interesting map/boundary overlay to consider, if it can be found or made (I'm not good at maps either) would be of the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund, aka the Northwest Coast Sprachbund (whatever it is in German, the original coinage), which would comprise all the coastal peoples from the Tlingit south to the Salish, excluding the Athapaskans and, I think, the Chinooks (just a sliver along the Columbia from the Dalles on down); excluding the Shoshonians in southern Idaho, and the Ktunaxa, but otherwise approximating the same area, here including the Cariboo (because Shuswap, i.e. Salish) but not the Chilcotin or Bulkely-Omineca (Athapaskan); can't remember who it looks down towards OR-CA boundary but native linguistic boundaries are a bit of a patchwork quilt south of the Columbia; not sure where the Sprachbund runs out or if Kalapuya and Klickitat and Sahaptian and others are included in the Sprachbund; its context is largely coastal and penetrates inland only because the Salishan group does.  What it means is that all those languages, despite being from many differnt language families, have related sound systems; there are only so many sprachbunds in the world (the term originated in the Balkans, where unrelated languages like Hungarian, Romanian and the various Slavic languages have related sound systems but are otherwise unrelated); I don't know if there's a wiki article on them so I linked that; there should be, although I'm not qualified to write it.Skookum1 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be nice. Actually, it isn't that hard at least to create a low quality map. I just used Microsoft Paint, but any old pixel editor will do. How about if you added the border to my map or to :Image:North_America_satellite_orthographic.jpg? If you want you can send it to me and I can further edit it and check it in, or you can do so yourself at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload. — Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Northwest [[Sprachbund]] map "needed" 

message: In two days, this discussion has not yielded any new ideas. To be honest, I was hoping we could agree on "Cascadia", which is a clearly defined name as a bioregion and also used in cultural, economical and geological contexts. However, this term is obviously not established enough. Unless I hear an objection I conclude therefore that the name of the article should continue to contain the term "Pacific Northwest". Another question is if we need a disambiguation and a parenthetical addition, which I would like to discuss in section #Disambiguation. — Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go job on the article, Sebastian, keeping the name at Pacific Northwest and explaining the area in intro is good, and adding the disambig. to Northwestern United States should explain the differences. feydey 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, nice job doing the disambig, editing various pages, making new ones, etc.  A lot of work!  Thanks. Pfly 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, thanks again. --GREGorof → talk 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: There are currently 762 articles linking to this article. Numbers by namespaces are:
* 844 (main)
* 44 User
* 22 User_talk
* 22 Wikipedia
* 21 Talk
* 6 Template
* 3 Wikipedia_talk
Counting only main and Template namespaces, there are 850 links that we need to care about.  
After looking at 35 of the articles that link to this page, I obtained 
* 11 mean the overall area
* 6 refer to US only
* 4 are explicitly specified as "US PacNW"
* 10 are undetermined 
* 4 discounted or skipped
If this is a representative sample we have to assume that of the 850 relevant links, 
* 302 mean the overall area
* 165 refer to US only
* 110 are explicitly specified as "US PacNW"
* 274 are undetermined
For details see User:SebastianHelm/PacNW material — Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What links here statistics 

message: Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article.  Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly.  (You can help!) Katr67 03:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss external links here 

message: :It is often claimed that the region also has a shared political culture and/or common cultural values.  
I'm not sure how to word what needs to be added here, because while there are differences between the culture and politics of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest states, there is a common social history and shared political history and mutual awareness spanning the international boundary; no other Canadian province has as high a concentration of its population so immediately adjacent to a land boundary; the Lower Mainland-Whatcom County border crossings are among the busiest on the continent, and Lower Mainlanders cross the border more often than any other metropolitan population in Canada; similar familiarity exists between the Okanagan and West Kootenay to Spokane and Couer d'Alene.  I think there's also an exteremely high rate of cross-border property ownership.  There is also a shared ethnic makeup to some degree because of the heavy concentration of Scandinavians in Washington, which while present is to a much lesser degree and much more assimilated in BC (elements of Scandinavian culture and "Scandinavian pride" are much more evident in Seattle than in the GVRD); also the residual Asian presence in Seattle, though less than Vancouver and more Japanese than Chinese.  The shared early history of the region also did not end with the Oregon Treaty of 1846, but continued due to mining, railway and ranching societies/populations; very pointedly in fact the union movement in the railways and mine workings both regions was very linked and there were strong similarities in the conditions of near-revolution during the Great Depression; likewise links between business and government - the Washington Group owned by Washingtonian Kyle Washington, for instance, is one of BC's most dynamic entrepreneurships/megalopolies (cf. Fast Ferries) - again to a greater degree than elsewhere in Canada except as concerns the Auto Pact in the central provinces, and the oil and ranching industries in Alberta.  There's also the International Joint Commission, which governs the salmon fishery and other boundary-waters matters (the current Wiki page as I recall tends to focus on Ontario but the bulk of the IJC's work has to do with salmon, as well as water issues including the Columbia River Treaty - another major business/industry link.  Then there's the parallels between the trendy/corporate/urban/ecotopian flavour of the coastal regions spanning the border, vs. the much more redneck/resource/conservative/native composition of the interior of both also are demonstrations of the shared cultural and political values, although the distinction from one side of the Cascades/Coast Mountains to the other is part of it.  And there's the shared marine society of people living and working or recreating on Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia/Desolation Sound , and the similarities between the San Juans and the Gulf Islands as well.  All those powerboats and sailboats moored in Seattle's marinas regularly come north, and likewise those from BC who at least go to northern Puget Sound, if not down to Seattle or Olympia so much.  Sports circuits such as drag-racing, rodeos and horse races and also contribute to a collective awareness from one side of the border to the other; although only SFU ever competed in US collegiate leagues, in their case the NAIA (no longer).Skookum1 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared culture and history between BC and US 

message: "The rainy weather promotes an indoor culture; video game usage is higher per-capita than any other region of the country"
First off, the link doesn't provide a study of the correlation between rain and gaming. Second, it doesn't specifically mention the region, just Seattle. I move we at least remove the first statement, since it really goes against the nature and spirit of most northwesterners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.187.240 (talk • contribs) 06:59, November 16, 2006
:I always found that bit of the article is be odd. If the citation is dubious or only pertaining to Seattle, I would not mind seeing it go.  Even if there is more video game playing in the PNW (which I am skeptical about), it is caused by rainy weather?  How would one even determine that?  Skeptical.  Pfly 08:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming? 

message: This page is 94 kilobytes long... I created an archive for this page. I'd like to sort through the posts and add  templates to some of the comments before those get archived. Have we worked out the naming dispute enough to everyone's satisfaction that we can archive some of the older discussions about that? If anyone wants to check out some of the other comments and archive them if they've been worked out (chai anyone?), please feel free. BTW, I think the subsection under "Culture" in the main article about ethnicity needs to checked out; I tagged it for sources long ago. It all sounds fairly reasonable, but without sources, should probably be removed. The new additions on religion need to be checked out as well. Katr67 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for offering this, and for your consideration. I don't see a reason not to do this at this time. — Sebastian (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Here's what there is:
:The Pacific Northwest (abbreviated PNW, or PacNW) or Cascadia is a region in the northwest of North America. There are several partially overlapping definitions. The word "Pacific" indicates that the region borders the Pacific Ocean; it also helps distinguish the term from other terms such as Northwest Territory and the Northwest Territories.
Here's what there should be:
:The Pacific Northwest (abbreviated PNW, or PacNW)is a region in the northwest of North America. There are several partially overlapping definitions but no exact definitions.  The word "Pacific" indicates that the region borders the Pacific Ocean; it also helps distinguish the term from other terms such as Northwest Territory and the Northwest Territories.  There are terms which describe similar territory and overlap considerably, including the Oregon Country, Cascadia, the Pacific Slope, and Ecotopia, but none are synonymous with Pacific Northwest.  The core urban area of the Pacific Northwest is sometimes called the Evergreen Triangle.
If it was put THIS way, without any direct equation being made between Cascadia and the Pacific Northwest, I could deal with it.  To me the vandalism is the forced inclusion of Cascadia, especially relative to other much more historically-valid options (though none with exactly the same meaning, including Cascadia).  Likewise if the article made equal-time references to other parallel areas as listed in the new version above.  But without that, the article is "Cascadia POV" and I'll continue to dispute it.  For the fifth, sixth, seventh and nth times.  The two terms are NOT synonyms, CANNOT be used interchangeably, and Cascadia is clearly an upstart (if a trendy one) on the scene relative to other terms.Skookum1 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to opening 

message: I have made preliminary edits to edit out most references to British Columbia (except for the historical part) since British Columbians do not see themselves to be part of the Pacific Northwest. The Cascadian Institute (of Washington) may have a political project of including British Columbia as part of the region, but this does not constitute British Columbians accepting BC to be part of the Pacific Northwest. Again, has been mentioned by several people, the term Pacific Northwest comes from a US-centric spatial reference. For a British Columbian, areas like Seattle and Oregon are in the south. North, for Canadians, imply areas more towards the Yukon and Northwest territories. So please do not include British Columbia as part of this U.S.-centric spatial reference.
Someone else with better editing skills I hope can continue to edit the more difficult items like the map and so forth so that BC is excluded from this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.50.237 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiments as well..Note the date stamp on teh post above yours; all their edits ahve been reversed; the issue has been debatede eselwhere on this page, though maybe it's in an archive of this page now....curiously enough some people ojbjecting to BC being "in" were Canadian, can't remember if it was of the younger sort or someone from another province.....suffice to say the issue has been resolved, though doubtless someone will come along one day to raise it all over again....someone even wanted to call it "Canadian Southwest" which is just way bogus....Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made preliminary edits to edit out British Columbia 

message: i was linked to this page through the Civilization page about the tribes of the pacific northwest and find the history of the area here officially starts with white men "discovering" the area.  it'd be nice if there were some information on the peoples who lived successfully in the pacific northwest for thousands of years.--74.97.142.249 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, there's whole lengthy articles about that, and anyone could add it here if they want4ed -instead of whining.  See History of the west coast of North America for starters....15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my last fvisit to this page various sections have grown topsy-turvy; I'd almost say break off the religions & spirituality stuff to a separate article, and the technology/industry section(s) could be made into Evergreen Triangle maybe.  But yeah, there's a huge absence of anything on Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, in either the History or Culture section, or in Politics for that matter; I'm surprised that this content wasn't added a while back given the high profile of Northwest Coast art within the regional identity/branding....and that the term Pacific Northwest seems originally to have been used by linguists and ethnographers studying these peoples and their civilization(s).  I don't have time to write this, or even start a section, but would people whining about such absences make the effort to add what's missing?  Skookum1 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  conquest bias 

message: From the article, 3 June, 2007:
It is often claimed that the region also has a shared political culture and/or common cultural values. The region is referred to by some as Cascadia as part of a modern-era rebranding effort, that is also associated with the perception of shared cultural and political traits.
Claimed by whom? Referred by which some? Rebranding effort? Perceived by whom? Why am I leaving the article with more questions than answers?
The above questions are somewhat rhetorical. The article demonstrates (or at least implies) "shared political culture and/or common cultural values" in the Pacific Northwest (regardless of what it's called or what its boundaries are). As far as I know, "Pacific Northwest", common though it may be, has no "official" standing with Statistics Canada or the US Census Bureau. Also, as far as I know, USGS invariably uses the geometric boundary between California and Oregon to separate California from the Pacific Northwest. NOAA also seems to make this distinction. (Why are lower Klamath River issues at NMFS governed from Long Beach, California?) Needless to say, neither agency has jurisdiction in British Columbia. Disclaimer: I work "in the field" for United States government contractors in "the far southwest" and know coastal California and the lower Columbia well, but I don't know the northern areas (British Columbia/Colombie-britannique and Alaska) nor the regionalization schemes of other U.S. and Canadian agencies. Doesn't Pacific Nowthwest, historically, refer to the region around the presumed Pacific outlet of the Northwest Passage? I might have gotten that from U.S. Navy archives, but I'll have to dig around for it.
I don't object to most of the article, and I can tell from the talk and talk archives that much effort has gone into it (Bravo!), but the fact that the borders are not fixed allows for all manner of "interpretation". If any particular "interpretation" is to be characterized as "rebranding", that requires a source. This looks like an inadequate wiki-compromise--a "cascading" paragraph of weasel words. Since the shared values and Cascadia concept are adequately covered in the article, this non-NPOV paragraph is subject to prompt deletion if it is not sourced.
Consider a Pacific Northwest example of regional rebranding--King County, Washington rebranded ahistorically a few years ago, and this is non-controversial in the King County article. King County has little historical connexion to Martin Luther King, Jr., but its rebranding was a public process and can be verified through local government and media archives.
[NOTE: Minor edit for clarity 30 June, 2007]
.s
X ile 12:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the international cohesion is probably overstated. But there is some cross-boundary collaboration. the first websites that comes to mind / hit with google include http://www.engr.washington.edu/epp/psgb/ and http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/Transboundary.htm .. both of which are US websites, but there are similar Canadian websites out there. But yes, I agree that the international unity is rather weak -- yet there is something to it. The cross-boundary cohension in the Pacific Northwest is real -- the challenge is to find good sources to cite. The word "rebranding" seems irrelevant in any case. The more I learn about the region (I live in Seattle), the more I appreciate the differences between Canada and the US. Nevertheless, there is a shared "Pacific Northwest identity", whatever that means. It may be tricky to find good sources to back this up. I'm mainly speaking from personal experience. It's easier, for example, for a Seattlite and a Vancouverite to find common ground in the natural environment for example, than it is for a Seattite and a Kentuckyian -- and, I imagine, a Vancouverite and a Newfie, if that is an acceptable term; but nevertheless, most Seattelites have only a vague understanding of Canadian politics. In any case, I'm all for greater trans-national communication and understanding, and would not want this wikipedia article to draw too strong a line between the two nations. Pfly 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascadia Rebranding Redux