Talk:Cascadia movement

message: Further to  and my recent edits here, we seem to be in agreement that we should not be speculating about a capital without WP:RS and qualifications about who it was proposed by.  Even then in my view, it would have to be a pretty notable proposal to warrant inclusion here as a "proposed" capital.  Please do not add a capital or capitals without discussion here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see as I wrote the below comment this was removed again altogether.  I am not convinced either way on this.  It might be fine to exclude it, but it also somewhat informative to include that the main groups advocating have not chosen/proposed any particular capital.  Leaving just Seattle as the "largest city" could be misleading, but perhaps it's not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no capital, let's not speculate

message: Looking around the internet and talking to some people from the dept. of bioregion (cascadia), it looks like there is allot of new (relatively small) groups popping up here and there. How large/interesting should these groups be before they get a mention on this page? Latvysh (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascadian activist/political groups. Who is notable?  

message: :As a B-class article the first criteria (#1) is: 
:There are several sourced paragraphs with an added unsourced sentence. I didn't look at the editing history but many contain important, potentially challenged, or in some cases both, content. In some cases, the source might just be misplaced or there could be editorializing and original research. 
:The first example is in the first paragraph of the "Colonial background" section;  other sections or subsections: "Oregon Country and Columbia District" (first paragraph),  The fourth full paragraph is totally unsourced. 
:The first paragraph of the "American Civil War" section  is unsourced.
:An added sentence to the first paragraph of the "State of Jefferson"  is unsourced. The source provided on the author's article simply states: "...won the Pulitzer Prize in 1942 for his articles about attempts by several counties in California and Oregon to secede and form a separate state." There are no sources for the coverage or the Pulitzer Prize.
:The "Cascadia and Bioregionalism" section includes an unsourced ending sentence; 
:The next subsection, "Bioregional Congresses" likewise ends with the unsupported  
:The first paragraph of the "Regional identity" section (that contains a rather vague inline "clarification needed" tag) ends with the unsourced  The third paragraph;  is unsourced.
:The second paragraph of the "Canada" subsection's ending sentence is unsourced; , appears to be an editorial note, that even includes, " It is also worth noting".
:The ending sentence of the third paragraph of the "Secessionist activism" section,  I found the facebook page "Cascadia Department of Bioregion" (missing "Affairs") which states, "Political Organization. CascadiaNow. Nonprofit Organization. Cascadia Underground. Community Organization. Cascadia. Festival.", but failed to find a new active group "All Things Cascadia: Department of Bioregional Affairs". The facebook page cascadiabioregion.org and the "About" link do not advocate or sponsor a direct separation movement that I could find. There are hypothetical numbers of a region explaining the "Cascadia bioregion includes British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of South East Alaska and Northern California as defined through the watersheds of the Columbia, Fraser and Snake watersheds." it further notes that  Different hypothetical forming of any possible "boundaries" would create new and different sets of hypothetical figures. This means the information in the infobox defining the region as "Boundaries of the bioregion in respect to current political territorial entities (Washington, Oregon and British Columbia)." is not accurate as missing "Oregon, Idaho and parts of South East Alaska and Northern California". 
:The "In popular culture" section has more than one issue. The first two paragraphs, "The book Ecotopia" and "The name "Ecotopia" are unsourced and appear as a Wikipedia editorial review. This is against more than one policy\and or guideline.
*Things just creep in sometimes but with 721 editors someone should be able to review this for corrections, trimming, or supplying sourcing to stave off tagging and likely classification review.  --  Otr500 (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues and concerns 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Cascadia (independence movement) →  – The bulk of this article is about a regionalist movement that is not necessarily a secessionist one, that aspect being largely confined to the section Cascadia (independence movement)#Secessionist activism. I also find "Cascadia movement" a more WP:NATURAL disambiguation than the alternative "Cascadia (movement)". Pharos (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Support - for all the same reasons. Regionalism and identity movements need not and do not entail political separatism, and in the United States they largely do not. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: What about Just "Cascadia"? 2601:600:837F:FAC0:699D:B9EC:D0:26F6 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Already a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 January 2023 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion