Talk:Pacific Northwest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Culture

The culture section needs major re-writing. The "culture" described in much of it is simply the culture of the Seattle region and in no way reflects the culture of much of the northwest. Especially the more arid rural regions, which are vastly different.

"Cascadia"

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)

POV

Maybe, one could write about the Pacific Northwest if one is situated in the Middle of the Pacific Ocean - that would be Siberia, Japan and so on... I'm aware that that's not a common meaning but that is also the PacNW... Scriberius 01:51, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Alaska As A Part of the Pac NW?

Would Alaska qualify as a part of the Pacific Northwest?

Not that I know of Scriberius 19:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps (ironically enough) south eastern Alaska, because its ecology and climate are fairly similar to the pac nw and it is also home to indigenous groups closely related those in the states of Washington and Oregon.

BCers who identify as PacNW generally also regard Alaska as PacNW; in fact I've never considered the definition without Juneau, Sitka, and the Tlinkit peoples in the equation.Skookum1 18:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

54-40

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)

See discussion page at Oregon Boundary Dispute for more.Skookum1 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Idaho

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)

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)

Idaho is not the Pacific Northwest. It is simply "the West"

Midwestern?

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"Chai"

'Foods include salmon, huckleberries, and chai??' I think the only reason chai is well known in the PNW is because of all the hippies who either traveled to India, or became interested in (an exoticized ideal of) whatever aspects of Indian culture they could pick up, and this popularity has partially led to the success of the tea company known as "Oregon Chai." How does one successful business imply that their product is in any way a 'food of the region?' I do, however, agree about the salmon, for cultural and historical reasons. DevinMcGevin 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you here; there is a big difference between food indigenous to a region, and food that has become popular in a region. However, chai is an important part of PNW food culture, currently. I suggest that this section be expanded (there's a lot that can be said about PNW cuisine) and maybe the best way to do that would be to have a paragraph about food indigenous to the region, and another about food popular to the region. How does this sound? Romarin 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why don't we create a 'local culture' section including not only cuisine, but coffeehouses, farmers' markets, music festivals like Bumpershoot and Folklife, the jazz scene, the Gorge, the Oregon Country Fair, etc.? That way we can include it all without implying that it's applicable to everyone in the area. Although perhaps we should leave indigenous foods as a part of an overview on indigenous peoples/culture in the region rather than categorized by food (probably with links to other pages that focus primarily on ind. peoples/culture in the PNW). I'm heading into finals right now so I won't be able to work on anything very comprehensive for the next two weeks, but once I'm finished I'd love to collaborate on a 'local culture' entry. DevinMcGevin 05:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean; I've got a paper to write too... but soon I'd love to jump in here and fix it up. I've already done some work in the culture section, but this page needs a big make-over. Speaking of indigenous culture though, I also think we should create a section on the first peoples to live in the area, since there is basically no mention of any of the native tribes. I was really shocked to see that. That's a big project, though I guess we could take a lot of info from the articles specific to the tribes.

I like your idea about the local culture scene section. Those festivals (and more, I'm thinking also of the Pinot Noir festival in Mcminnville, OR) are really important to both people in the area and to tourists. So, we'll get it done a bit at a time... good luck with finals. Romarin 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Echoes of Oregon Boundary Dispute page

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)

Being from Seattle, I agree with Skoomum1 that those of us in Washington have always considered BC as part of the core of the PNW. Many people here feel a kinship in that the PNW is an area not defined by national boundaries. --Peel 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Or by state or provincial boundaries, for that matter.Skookum1 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Better Map?

There must be a map available that actually, you know, shows all of the Pacific Northwest? -- TheMightyQuill 09:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• PacNW regional basemap
• Georgia Strait-Juan de Fuca regional basemap

Can't remember the origin of the first one, which ALMOST fits the bill; someone in soc.history.what-if posted it a long time ago for making maps off of. The other is an adaptation of an Environment Canada weather satellite basemap from about 1999 or 1998. PNG format appears to have dropped the dark coastline-lines from what had been on the JPG, which I'll upload later; or in GIF whichever you'd preferSkookum1 17:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum

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)

Yakima, Cayuse and Palouse Wars

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)

On culture section

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)

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)

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)Bradf0rd

Notes

<clearrefs/>

Name dispute

I am originally from British Columbia and am confused as to why this article states that the 'Pacific Northwest' includes parts of Canada. The name, 'northwest' is an implicitly US-centric worldview - that region is not 'northwest' when you put yourself in the Canadian geographical context but instead 'southwest'. While there are cultural similartities and consistencies among Oregon, Washington and B.C. societies (and other shared traits which transcend both the U.S. and Canada) - which justifies an article on the region - the name 'northwest' is non-sensical when considering the borders of Canada; it is not in northern Canada it is in southern Canada. As such, although there should be an article on the Pacific Northwest, when describing what this US/Canadian region has in common it is by definition improper to use this term. I am at a loss for what the contents of the current article should be named, I will give it thought and comments/suggestions are needed. --Gregorof 02:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think British Columbia should be considered part of the Pacific Northwest, because it is part of northwestern North America that borders the Pacific Ocean. By Pacific Northwest, I believe it implies northwestern North America, not by country, but by continent. This is also why southeastern Alaska is sometimes included, it is the very northwestern part of North America that borders the Pacific Ocean. LeviathanMist 04:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The term Pacific Northwest was in use well before there were the countries United States and Canada. Gregorof please read the history section of the article. feydey 10:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I did read the history section, which contains the term 'Pacific Northwest' only once ("Captain George Vancouver charted the Pacific Northwest on behalf of Great Britain") - and in an explanatory way, not in terms of what the region was previously called - and more importantly that, "From the 1810s until the 1840s, modern-day Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana, along with most of British Columbia, were part of what Americans called the Oregon Country and the British called the Columbia District". This sentence appears to me to state that the region was known other than as the 'Pacific Northwest'. LeviathanMist, the point you bring up is worth considering, I had not previously, but if I can offer one rebuttal, it is that in Canada the area including British Columbia is not normally referred to as the 'Pacific Northwest', but instead as the 'West Coast'. There is rarely a term, that I can recollect, used to describe the collective US/Canadian region. --Gregorof 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying at length below but cutting here to qualify "the term Pacific Northwest was in use well before the region in question was part of the countries United States and Canada." The United States was founded in the same year (well, there were revolting, weren't they, not constituioinalizing, in 1776?) in the same year as Captain Cook's first visit, and Canada of course didn't exist until 1867. Active marine exploration and trade didn't get going until the 1780s, and the land-based fur trade - the connection to Britain, but via a Montreal company granted - not until the 1810s-'20s. In between there was next to no military or political presence other than The Company and the competing diplomatic claims and treaty buy-outs from the Russians and Spanish, with trade open to all comers. I don't think the term got into use until after the "opening" of the Oregon Country by the Americans in the 1840s, and the Oregon Country is in itself an American term for what in British/British Columbian/Canadian history was the Columbia District (q.v. both, where I've done a work to x-border POV them, as also with the Alaska and Oregon boundary disputes and treaties.); but it was definitely in use before BC decided to join Canada, and was a collective term overlapping Oregon, the British territories in between (BC being unicorporated between 1846 and 1858, though still nominally British by the 1846 treaty); wouldn't have been polite to keep on calling British Columbia part of the Oregon Country, too, as that name in the American version of things takes in Prince George and Rupert. The name existed before Canada existed, and certainly before BC became part of Canada....Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a recent thing - "West Coast", especially in its trendy "Westcoast" form - and it's utterly Central Canadian in orientation. We (British Columbians) did use "West Coast" but always in a sense of affinity with WA/OR and (especially) California, rather than in any kind of orientational sense relative to the rest of the country (i.e. Canada) or in any kind of locational sense relative to same; every once in a while the newspapers publish something from some moron or other suggesting we should probably be calling outselves "Southwestern Canada" but that's so out-of-skew that it's openly derided as the mark of a complete neophyte to the area. We grew up knowing this was the Pacific Northwest, part of the Pacific Northwest, although it's true the common usage is "British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest". I'd say if anything there's a variation in context between the two countries; we don't tend to mean the Interior as much as maybe is the case south of the line, i.e. the "Pacific" part is critical; I don't generally think of Prince George or Kamloops or Cranbrook as being in the same sphere as more overtly Pacific-Northwest-y spaces, like Prince Rupert, Campbell River or Vancouver; on the other hand I don't think there's any doubt that New Caledonia (the region from the Cariboo northwards) was part of the pre-colonial "Pacific Northwest" (sometimes also referred to up here as "the Pacific slope". I'd say we're also the ones to use the term to mean farther north, i.e. the Alaska Panhandle. As far as the Columbia District/Oregon Country, that is a different context as neither one of those two names included the whole (i.e. Russian America and New Caledonia were both beyond Oregon/Columbia but still part of the Pacific Northwest).Skookum1 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC) What I mean there is that the term "Pacific Northwest" describes something different from "Oregon Country" or "Columbia District".Skookum1 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And now that I've gathered you're Canadian, Gregorof, I'd like you to understand that attempts by Eastern Canadians to redefine British Columbia are on the one hand pretentious and cultural-imperialistic and on the other doomed to failure; we don't take kindly to Easterners deciding what we should be called, just because they have a stronger focus on the Canada-as-a-whole geographic nationalism implicit in the idea that this is "southwestern Canada". Southwestern Canada is the Thames Valley as far as I'm concerned. YOU may not think BC should be considered to be in the Pacific Northwest, but YOU are in Montreal and all the rest of us could, frankly, give a shit. This is and always has been part of the Pacific Northwest, and it has a distinct history and identity as such which, distinct from the rest of Canada. So, also, with our terms for geographic orientation, especially for ourselves. Keep your re-definitions on your side of the Rockies.Skookum1 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Vancouver (West Point Grey), for the first 22 years of my life and moved to Montreal a year ago to attend school. I consider myself 100% British Columbian. I am not even a resident of Quebec; I am a resident of B.C. Consider the term 'Westcoast' trendy if you will, I have long used it to describe where I originate to people from around the world (as Martimers say they hail from the East Coast of Canada) LONG before moving away from the region. Please avoid slandering me on wikipedia, and please lets keep this debate civil. Thank you. --Gregorof 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Skookum1, I want you to please note that I wrote the article Western Alienation, and was accused in doing so of being POV in favour of the West. Secondly, simply put British Columbians do refer to themselves as being from the West Coast, not from the Pacific Northwest - that is not just a central Canadian thing, by any means. Already I have explained this debate to several BCers here I know, and they find it bizarre to state that the Pacific Northwest includes parts of Canada. That is an exclusively American term. But let me please reiterate that this is an excellent article and completely worthy of a presence here - and that the region wikipedia currently refers to as the Pacific Northwest has a certain shared history and culture which makes it very notable - but that the name Pacific Northwest is not accurate in either the strict geographical sense, or in common usage of the term, and as such should not remain the same. I will canvass some other wikipedians from B.C. and ask that they share their thoughts on the matter --Gregorof 00:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If I was to use "west coast", y'see, I wouldn't put it the marketing-quickie way but capped as West Coast, in the usage "from the West Coast"; it's the trendy usages I'm referring to, not simple geographic locators, used in passing. And even in the trendy marketing sense it's sub-texted as a reference to the California experience, best as you can get in Canada anyway; and in the older sense we used it to include California, Oregon and Washington, because we had a lot more contact with them, in fact, than we did with Canada - and that was after the railway and the highway I'm talking about. Telecommunications and airline travel and the immediacy of cross-country life now were different back then, and the fact of the matter there's very old historic and social ties up and down the West Coast (used in my sense) that go way back; but not in the crass marketing sense in current media usage.Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry for the slag, first off. But I hold straight to the concept of British Columbia being in the Pacific Northwest, which is what I was taught and which is current in my group - at least in my age-group, anyway (50): there may be a generational difference, given the upgrading of pan-Canadian nationalism in the curriculum since the Trudeau years, i.e. redefining everything according to "what it is to be Canada/Canadians". YOU may not like it, but enough people have lived with it that way, and enough Americans DO consider us to be part of the same sphere, that it's not really relevant whether YOU like it or not. As for "West Coast", in the one-word form you've used it's decidedly a media invention, especially in that noxious "seriously Westcoast" used on the Sun banner. In the world I grew up in, when we used "West Coast" we didn't mean it only to mean British Columbia (or more specifically Victoria/Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and the Coast) but it was a given that it was a shared identity with Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and L.A. I don't think you can equate the two in the moder "it's not Pacific Northwest, it's the West Coast"; the terms are different and have a different context; neither is exclusively Canadian OR American, although the growing anti-Canadian prejudices in new-nationalist Canada seem to want to make an issue of it. The Pacific Northwest spans the border, as does the West Coast, and the one is part of the other (although Americans may describe Spokane or Boise or even Missoula as being "towns in the Pacific Northwest"). There's also the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund in linguistics, which is related to the Pacific Northwest Culture(s) of anthropology/ethnology, and once again the term spans the border. True, as I already noted, that you'll hear "British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest" (as in the title of Derek Hayes excellent Historical Atlas of...) but the context there is something like "Quebec and Canada"; and there is no exclusive phrase that specifically omits BC, as "Maritimes" does re Newfoundland vs. "Atlantic Canada". "British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest" is an old phrase, a very old phrase, as is the reference to BC (and its predecessors New Caledonia and the Columbia District/Oregon Country) as being in toto "the Pacific Northwest". I think, in closing, that one of the problems is the lack of BC history/identity in BC's high school curriculum, with more focus on Canadian "national" history and national contexts/orientations; thing is in my day it wasn't just those who read books and went to class who conceived of things this way; if you asked one of the redneck bohos I went to school with (in Mission) as to whether or not this was part of the Pacific Northwest, if you didn't get a "who the f**k cares?" you'd get a "sure, yup, sure is - why would you ask such a dumb question?"

So go on, "continue the debate" all you want; it's not going to change the historical reality of the term being used to include BC, and there's no comparison to "West Coast", which in any case is transborder as well.Skookum1 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

cf. Atlantic Seaboard, which includes the Maritimes as well as New England and the southern Atlantic States; same idea of a transborder term that has nothing to do with political boundaries, but general continental geography.Skookum1 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic Seaboard, however, has a decidedly APOV redirect to East Coast of the United States, which isn't accurate (as the term is also used in Canada).Skookum1 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, point taken - maybe it is a generational issue. And trust me, I am disgusted as you are to have the whole 'Westcoast'/'West Coast' identity invented/propogated by mass media and business interests, in the same way the Molson 'I am Canadian' campaign tried to define what being Canadian was. Regardless, at the end of the day, that is how I do identify myself, as many of my age group do as well. But lets move away from the 'Westcoast'/'West Coast' issue as it is erroneous to this matter - the issue is whether or not the Pacific Northwest includes parts of Canada.

New reply to Gregorof mostly begins here

This is where I meant to start at before butting in a couple of times above with specific points, as I'll also do below, breaking in and keeping indents consistent (might add some subsection titles when/if appropriate); too many details to start at the end and scroll up and down; if you want your user sig on the end of your bits let me know and I'll do the work. This is the first of about six big meaty replies I've had pending in Wikiworld this last week, but some points came to me when rambling through it tonight that I thought, might as well start here. I'm off away in the mountains for a week after tomorrow so gotta get something written to someone ;-) Skookum1 09:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I have brought this up with several BC friends and they find it strange to include BC as being a part of the Pacific Northwest. As you state yourself, the traditional phrase has been "British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest", which implicitly identifies BC as not being included in the Pacific Northwest. Simply put, BC is only northwest when considered sans the 49th parallel and from an American perspective.

No, the syntax of that phrase does not "implicitly" identify BC as not being part of the Pacific Northwest, and its use in that fashion is a collective name, rather than a binary one; it's the same kind of usage as "Greece and the Balkans" or "Italy and the Mediterranean". I've also seen "Alaska and the Pacific Northwest", btw (which obviously includes BC as otherwise what's in between AK and WA/OR?). You're focusing on the orientation of the boundary, and its presence, when in fact the term was virtually born by that boundary, although I submit if you read around the fur company journals you'll find its use; and you should understand that until the railway - we're talking 27 years, BC was accessed and settled from the "American" direction; it's part of our historic identity and origin, and there's roots back and forth across the border even today because of it, including the famous shared culture/identity (relative to everywhere else, that is, given the regional diversity within all jurisdictions at question). This gets back to my generational perspective thing - you were educated throughout elementary and secondary school in a curriculum that was heaviliy Canada-oriented and didn't deal with BC's history in its own terms, as even we had a bit of in my time (grad '72). What I mean by Canada-oriented is the post-Constitution national revamp/rebranding, the pan-Canada hoo-hah of the national vision, the feel-good best-place-in-the-world stuff, the harmonious version of history, the inevitability of Canada - and of BC's joining Canada. Thing is, as already explained somewhere above, the term Pacific Northwest was in use before BC joined Canada, and was used to include American, British, and Russian territories. It was and is not a political term, or even a geopolitical one, nor relative to any one country, but to a single continent; it was a geographic term, and I'll bet also well-established in use among linguists, anthropologists and other diarists in the region; if you want "Canadian" (British) sources look up types like Dr. Helmcken and certain others of the period in Victoria. And it was in use before BC (as part of the Pacific Northwest) became incorporated into Canada; and when there was no other collective term for Oregon, Washington Territory, Vancouver Island, New Caledonia, and what remained north of the 49th Parallel of the old Columbia District (basically Kamloops-Kootenay House), New Caledonia, the Stikine Territory (British claims behind the Panhandle that were not incorporated by that name to c.1861, quickly absorbed into the Colony of British Columbia), and Russian America. Not even "Oregon Country" covered that whole region, and even Americans didn't use Oregon Country to include BC after 1846 (except in heated political rhetoric) but there was no doubt in the local mindset and interconnectedness that there was such a place, and that it included Victoria and New Caledonia (as the mainland was loosely referred to, for lack of anything else, although there was no official status or claim behind the name); the fur district of the same name doesn't quite fit as an "official" name as Forts Langley and Yale were administered from Fort Vancouver (the Columbia District) rather than Fort St. James (? Fort Fraser?) - but the colloquial usage after 1846 quickly included Fort Langley and the Fraser Valley and Canyon in New Caledonia, again for lack of anything else. Remember also that the term British Columbia itself did not exist until 1858, and "Pacific Northwest" was already extant, both in British and American usage. And again you'll definitely find it in linguistic and anthro writing from the period, esp. because of the common cultural collective, and this thing called the "Pacific Northwest Sprachbund", which is a phenomenon where, despite their vast linguistic differences, the languages of the Pacific Northwest region share a common phonology (sound system); "Pacific Northwest peoples" and usages of that you'll find well before BC or Canada existed - but in that context it specifically excludes the peoples of the Interior (other than maybe the Salishan languages) and the inland North; in its strict anthropological definition, that is, not in some non-academic usages, which might include the Chilcotin, Carrier and certainly the Tahltan; see Father Adrien-Gabriel Morice and try to find some of his histories in the library. Overall the word has no relation or bearing on this area being this or that relative to the United States and Canada; its American part happens to be in that country's northwest, but as you yourself noted the Northwest is also used to mean WI-MN, aka the Great Northwest; but as with your attempts to use definitions of the North-West Territory as if that phrase somehow spawned "Pacific Northwest", you've got the history wrong despite the geography; again, the term "North-West Territory" didn't come into use until 1867, while Pacific Northwest was already on the loose. Got it? You were trained to think from a Canadian perspective, y'see, because that's how they wrote the textbooks. Believe me, I'm often appalled and what I see in them by way of oversimplification and distortion of what BC history they do have, and the selective issues/images used to "tell the Canadian story" to British Columbians. The British Columbian story, which is integral and shared with that of Oregon, Washington and Alaska, was not taught to you; you are looking at things from the boundary, from the nation. The concept Pacific Northwest exists independently of "national perspectives"; in fact, it actually, as explained pre-dates them.Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And the idea that this is the Canadian Southwest is silly; for that to make any sense the bulk of the national population would be "implied" to have to be at Churchill or York Factory or, perhaps as one day may be, Edmonton-Calgary.Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote you: "YOU may not like it, but enough people have lived with it that way, and enough Americans DO consider us to be part of the same sphere, that it's not really relevant whether YOU like it or not." Please note, as I have written twice already, I am not disputing that we share a significant regional "sphere" and we deserve an article to these ends; All I am arguing is that the name is incorrect in both geographical terms and common usage (for my agegroup at least). I continue to understand not how BC is northwest.

Read more history. Akriggs, Bancroft, Ormsby; and I'm sure I've seen it in use in the major papers over the years in that sense, in business, editorial And FWIW I saw a usage the other day (I think towards the end of the article in the Refs of the John Deighton article) where the Pacific Northwest was used to include BC (on www.britishcolumbia.com btw); and this was in reference to after BC joined Confederation, too; "xxx gathered from all over the Pacific Northwest to drink and whatever in Gastown" it went (referring to 1867-1880s). I've seen it all the time in that sense in the major papers over the years, and in the big bios like Paddy Sherman's Bennett (in contexts concerning "trade in the Pacific Northwest", "energy resources of the Pacific Northwest", "the fruit industry in the Pacific Northwest", all perhaps best or easiest found in the chapter on the Columbia River Treaty, as the regional interests of the Pacific Northwest (including BC alongside neighbouring WA/ID/MT) apposite to the federal powers in Ottawa and Washington were; this is the kind of purely BC history, not flattering to the national image or the feel-good version of Canadian nationalism the textbooks reek of that; it'll put a heady spin on the pap you were fed about this in school, if you were told about it at all. Yeah, look up some Bruce Hutchison and other journalist-authors; you'll get a different sense of BC's history from actual British Columbians of the past than you will from modern-educated writers and academics. I'm not up to looking up all the cites, I think it's obvious as to the context of the phrase and there's no doubt it has a historic context and usage, even if in your need to see boundaries and relationships to the rest of Canada you can't make any sense of it; it's because you're looking at it that way, and needing it to be defined by something "geopolitical", that you've overlooked the fact that the phrase has its own history, and its own context, and in "geopolitical" terms existed before Canada even got in the game (as said probably for the seventh or eighth time). In fact I think if you had a look through the Derek Hayes Atlas I mentioned, as well as in things like the Sto:lo Atlas and other histories dealing with what I call the imperial period (the fur trade era, but this usage meant as the competing imperial politics of the day), there will be references to the whole region as the Pacific Northwest, either in the anthropological/cultural/linguistic context or, say, in reference to "competing imperial interests in the Pacific Northwest led to...".Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is, although I will never call myself a "Pacific Southwestern" Canadian, in geographical terms it is more correct than claiming I am from the "Pacific Northwest". And while many of your old friends in Mission may have not given a s**t, I know many people who would, and do, due to the fact that as I mentioned earlier, calling parts of Canada the 'Pacific Northwest' is a US-centric worldview which fails to take into account the reality of the Canadian geographical context. More importantly, I have personally never heard of the term 'Pacific Northwest' to include parts of BC besides here in Wikipedia. Again however, maybe this is attributable to my age (23).

Again, to the circumstances of your curriculum, and what is in fact a very new, marketing-designed and hypersold image of pan-Canadian identity; an invented identity as they're "trying to build national unity by reforms to the curriculum" and all that good stuff. Not meaning to slag you at all, you're young and you've been the victim of politicized curriculum materials; it takes years of reading to get the full picture of anything; don't believe everything you read, and never make up your mind until you've read at least three different versions of something. Same deal with stuff like this; yeah, it's generational. Not your fault, and no insults intended. The main issue for me on this page is that some Americans don't think of BC as part of the Pacific Northwest; because they're thinking from a similar (though not identical) nationalist/political perspective on the name; but it's neither a national or political term, it's a continental one, with deep historic roots. another example, tossed in here - "Pacific Northwest Art"; or "Pacific Northwest Native Art" or stuff like that you've got to have seen around in stores or newspaper or media ads?Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that Atlantic Seaboard redirects to the East Coast of the United States is completely analagous to this debate in its APOV.

No, it's not; that's just because someone in the US equivocated the phrase, rather than disambiguated it (I've had to fix other situations of that kind but haven't bothered with that one). I was raised with hearing Atlantic Seaboard on CBC News; e.g. you wouldn't hear "Hurricane Gilda hit the Atlantic Seaboard and the Maritimes" you'd hear "Hurricane Gilda hit the (whole) Atlantic Seaboard", and the context (and the guy waving his hand over the weather-map) would clearly mean the Maritimes were included. The redirect is APOV, not the existence of the phrase, which has a trans-border context and history, is not. What's analogous is "the East Coast" meaning the whole east coast of North America, and "West Coast" meaning the whole west coast of same; Pacific Northwest has different roots, even a different geographic sense from Atlantic Seaboard; I was only meaning the comparison in terms of something used on both sides of the border, if not recognized by some on one side or the other, or invoked in a one-nation sense. I remember hearing "Atlantic Seaboard" to mean Canada only, as well, i.e. the Maritimes and Newfoundland, just the same as there are American usages (and that redirect) that are purely US-oriented; chauvinism is chauvinism, but a phrase's true origin and meaning is something else. There are Americans who think Canada is part of the US, too, that doesn't make it true; somehow, btw, I outgrew a lot of knee-jerk nationalism long ago, and I'm more willing to examine Canada's (and BC's and Vancouver's) failings than point the finger at the US and their often quaint down-home sense of the universe (d'yall have igloos in Vancouver, asked on woman in Seattle...who was from Massachussetts). Clean your own house first before getting all antsy about being painted into the same camp as the guy next door. But also, bear in mind that Americans are part of the history of BC almost as an ethnic group, and in several waves like that; many famous ones stayed on as citizens, and even many of the early Brits had lived long in the US before getting here that they were more American (specifically Californian) than British or Canadian by culture - this includes Amor de Cosmos most of all. That the name and the history of the name has an "American" geographic perspective is because of the history of the place, and the cultural geography of the day that travel to this region was most easily via the United States, since as you know overland travel wasn't really practical until; like it or not, there's an American legacy and orientation in our history, even in the province's name - for the reason Queen Victoria chose the name was partly because it was the British remainder of the old Columbia District, so as to implicitly distinguish it from American Columbia, and also but less so to distinguish it from Colombia; so even BC's name was invented as a respone to the American context of the region's history.Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have been more than outvoted, and until anyone else comments on the issue, or I can find anyone to corroberate what I am saying, the Pacific Northwest as including BC, obviously stands.--Gregorof 02:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to sign off now as I've grown hungry and have to get to be and up in the morning to get ready to hit the road tomorrow afternoon. I'd wanted to get into a point-by-point in the following section but don't have time or energy right now, so maybe when I get back if I'm still so inclined; to sum up from what I remember about below comparing "North-West Territory" and "Pacific Northwest" is comparing apples and oranges; they have different origins, and different contexts, and in Canadiana there's always been a confusion of the two, as if it was supposed to somehow make sense; of course again most east-of-the-Rockies Canadians have no real sense of the pacific Northwest or BC's place in it. But they were created at different times, and for different purposes; same as the Northwest Territory in the US being actually in the MidWest. Language doesn't have to make sense, it just is. Cites showing the fur-trade/Riel "North-West" usage might as well be about Northwest Scotland or Northwest Airlines; there's no comparison, other than in the confusion of the pan-Canadian context.Skookum1 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramrod's points

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)

Reply to RamRod pending

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)

Dispute

Skookum, I doubt you will read this as you have demonstrated previously a low comprehension of the fundamentals of what I am saying (I wrote, to this effect, three times: "Please note I am not disputing that we share a significant regional and historical "sphere" and we deserve an article to these ends", yet you continue to respond with comments such as "Clean your own house first before getting all antsy about being painted into the same camp as the guy next door" and in doing so fail to acknowledge what I was stating). Thus, I am not writing this to your audience, but to those of an administrator, as your slander has grown out of control.

As if the fact that you re-edited past discussions to include your rebuttal in a more advantageous position and in doing so failed to indent my argument as to consume it by yours, that you re-edited specifically my last comment, breaking it up and interspersing your comments resulting in an incoherent argument of mine dominated by your responses (which to me constitutes vandalism), that you continued to engage in personal attacks and uncivil behavior :

• "YOU are in Montreal and all the rest of us could, frankly, give a shit"
• "Keep your re-definitions on your side of the Rockies"
• "Got it?"
• "Read more history"

after I specifically requested you not to ("Please avoid slandering me on wikipedia, and please lets keep this debate civil"), that you continue with your hopelessly misguided responses (see above) after, I, he who began the debate, declared it dead, was not enough, you specically devalued my opinion due to my age:

• "you're young and you've been the victim of politicized curriculum materials; it takes years of reading to get the full picture of anything;",

which is preposterous. I could insult your age in a multitude of ways. But because I have achieved a level of maturity you have as of yet been unable to, I will not go into those details.

Moreover, you wrote : "So go on, "continue the debate" all you want". After you sarcastically wrote this, I finished my postceding comment saying "I have been more than outvoted, and until anyone else comments on the issue, or I can find anyone to corroberate what I am saying, the Pacific Northwest as including BC, obviously stands", thus I did not "continue the debate" but ENDED the debate, ceding that I was outvoted and bring the matter to a close. Your sarcastic and contradictory manner in "continuing the debate" after i stated this, is bizarre to say the least. --Gregorof 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the article and don't get personal. feydey 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of dispute?

Could someone please summarize what the dispute was about? I, for one, am not going to read pages of personal rants. — Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is as to whether British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest or not. The misapprehensions exists that the Pacific Northwest is a purely American term, and in fact it is often used that way in the United States (but not in WA or OR, where the phrase "the whole Pacific Northwest" would implicitly include British Columbia as it also includes the Alaska Panhandle, and likewise in BC it would be used to mean BC as well as OR, WA and southeast AK in the same context, and commonly is in the media). There is a Canadian sentiment as voiced by Gregorof that it's actually "Southwestern Canada" and not northwestern at all; and that the term is purely American in nature and context, which it's not (as is my position); he also confuses cites about the Northwest Territories and the "Great Northwest" (MN-WI-MI etc) as if they had anything to do with the Pacific Northwest. The "Southwestern Canada" notion to me is a "Canadianist" position, imposing a pan-Canadian national context on British Columbia history/identity that is completely out of place - which is why my jibe at whatever curriculum Gregorof had been educated under. Canadian curriculum about BC is often as error-ridden and vague/misconceived about BC and BC history as US schoolbooks are about Canada, and that includes books used in BC schools...and universities. Now, even so, I doubt that any of these textbooks said anything like "British Columbia is not part of the Pacific Northwest", or defined the Pacific Northwest as not including British Columbia; at best it would be vaguenesses; and sure enough US textbooks which address US history and geography may have "Pacific Northwest" chapters which do not have sections on British Columbia because it's not a US state; but that doesn't mean it's not part of the Pacific Northwest from a Pacific Northwest context - both Canadian and US textbooks being published with national identity/perspective in mind as opposed to facts-on-the-grounds; national myth-making and all that. Just as Canadian textbooks passing over BC's history in point-form doesn't mean it happened that way; and I've seen academic papers and some high-profile published histories with bizarre errors, too; although this wouldn't be one of them - if you were to go into the main historians - Akrigg, Ormsby, Bancroft, Scholefield, Howay, Woodcock, Barman (ick), Bowering (double ick; all of those in BC, I don't know US-side); likewise journalist writers like Bruce Hutchison, Paddy Sherman, Terry Glavin, countless others - you'd never find Pacific Northwest used in a way not including British Columbia, and often enough in the sense of "British Columbia and the rest of the Pacific Northwest", if not in that phrasing.

In terms of origin and meaning, the fact of the matter is very clear and it is that the term Pacific Northwest existing independently of the area being incorporated into either country, in the case of Canada in fact well before. BC did not become part of Canada until 1871, and nothing west of the Great Lakes was part of Canada until 1867, while the term Pacific Northwest had already evolved in trade (marine, that is) as well as in anthropology by the time of the Oregon Treaty (1846). After which, in fact, use of the old Americanist "Oregon Country" with its political overtones of "54-40 or Fight" it came into use as a less volatile term, with the unchartered British remnant north of 49 loosely referred to as New Caledonia (at least its inland part, though not the coast, where the names New Georgia and New Hanover and such never caught on) until incorporated as British Columbia in 1858. The term Pacific Northwest spanned the border - and likely predated it, although an exact date of provenance would take some digging through Tolmie, McLoughlin and other early sources; it may even be in Capts. Gray or Vancouver, pre-1800.

My position is obviously that as a region/identity/term it has nothing to do with either country in terms of their specific geographic contexts; it happens to be in the northwest of the Lower 48, but that's not why it's named that; it was to the northwest of the United States when it earned its name, as just explained; and in terms of Canada in it was also to the northwest of Canada. It was, essemtially, term derived from the continent's geography, not from that of either country (remember, also, that at the time of its coinage in included three countries, Rusisan America lasting until 1867). Claiming that it's large-S Southwestern Canada is looking at it from an orientation that puts Churchill Manitoba and Chesterfield Inlet as Central Canada; or, one presumes of late, Alberta (come to think of it. But who knows, with global warming maybe there'll be a poulation shift to the shores of Hudson Bay from southern Ontario and Quebec, then it'll make sense in "real" geodemographic terms; for now BC's even to the northwest of metropolitan Central Canada to this day, just as pre-1871.Skookum1 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and summarize the dispute, since Skookum didn't. I argued that the name should not be Pacific Northwest, while he argued it should. I eventually ceded to leave it as is, as I was both outvoted, and have changed my own thoughts on the matter.

Both throughout and following this, Skookum engaged in a systematic attempt to devalue my opinion due to my age, in personal attacks against myself both due to this, and my geographic location (currently living on the other side of Canada). Moreover, he engaged in vandalism by altering the talk pages as to modify and disrupt my argument with his commentaries, and enter his later arguments into previous discussions.

Even though I have declared the argument dead repeatedly, he continues to discuss the name issue (as you can note directly above this). It is unclear who's audience Skookum is writing to. In a nutshell, thats the dispute --Gregorof/(T) 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregorof, you will note in my recent post that I resisted my usual flair for back-country straight-talk; and did not attack you in my recent post; you here, however, have bleated in public again, and "not taken it in stride". If a little flippant langauge is regarded by you as an "systematic attempt my opinion due to my age...and my geographic location", you need to spend more time in .... oh, never mind, you'll just regard it as another "personal" attack. Point of fact is you were wrong, remain wrong, and now that you've changed your tune (in the face of what you would have found was overwhelming evidence) it would behoove you now to just shut up to not further engage the Big Nasty known as Skookum1. I'm actually a really nice guy, just with a taste for salty language and colourful metaphors. I'm from the Ma Murray school of writing/debating and it's just the way I am. And, point blank, the shots at you concerning your age and location were fair game considering the huge information gap between generations and (in Canada) parts of the country; that you happened to be in Montreal at present, and not in your native Burnaby or wherever, doesn't mean that your perception of BC as "Southwestern Canada" wasn't a Central-Canadian-influenced perception; underscored, perhaps, by your current domicile. And I restate my comments about the poor curriculum in BC schools (and universities) on history and other topics; whether or not you were a victim of those books or grew up befuzzled by the context Pacific Northwest because of your own initiative is a separate matter. Take all this as an insult if you need to (no doubt you will), but I'll point out that in my summary I was honest about your position, and made no personal judgements; if you were a grown-up, as you're exhorting me to be, you wouldn't have engaged in further attacks/complaints; or said I didn't summarize the issues, which on the other hand I did quite well and thoroughly, too. Maybe because I didn't write in point-form, which I know is the preferred mode of communications nowadays; I come from a time when people had more tolerance for longer sentence structures....Skookum1 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion and proposed agreement

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)

Changing picture

See also #Better Map? above

Darker red states are always considered part of the Pacific Northwest. Parts of the lighter pink area around them are sometimes included.

Different definitions of Pacific Northwest and related terms. Click image for legend.

The current picture seems OR to me. In particular, I can not see which definition includes half of Nevada; the article does not explicitly say which definition this is supposed to be, let alone sourcing it. Instead, I'm proposing a map that shows different definitions of PacNW and similar terms such as the one to the right. I'm not good at drawing maps; if anyone can improve this I'd be happy. — Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be back, but San Francisco is NEVER considered part of the PacNW, the southern coastal limit of which is the Eureka area; inland it would have to be Shasta, and even that's peripheral - Redding never. I've heard of Elko (NV) getting included in the same breath as Shasta. As for the red-lined area, it should include the Gulf of Georgia and BC's Central Coast; I'll come back with defs of the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund and the anthro people's description of "Pacific Northwest cultures". As for whether or not BC's in, as disputed by someone above, just a month or so ago there was an article about cuisine, I think in the Cowichan Valley, where the reference was "yada yada her in BC, while in the rest of the Pacific Northwest...such usages are common, i.e. indicating BC is part of the Pacific Northwest, but there's people who can't seem to think outside the box and realize the term isn't US-dependent or Canada-exclusive.Skookum1 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - this is another reason to change the picture. You're right, the old picture not only claims half of Nevada but also SF. By contrast, the new picture (or better, its legend) explains that SF is only included in the definition for Ecotopia. I'm not sure how important Ecotopia is; maybe we can leave it out of the map, at least when we cram more definitions in the picture. I added it since the Nine Nations of North America currently reads:

• Ecotopia — the Pacific Northwest coast west of the Cascade Range stretching from Alaska in the north to coastal areas of British Columbia, down through Washington state, Oregon and into California just south of San Francisco. Capital: San Francisco

I understand why Elko County would be included: It contains several thousand square miles of the Columbia River Basin. — Sebastian (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Columbia basin has to be a defining parameter; the clincher in Elko's case would be do locals consider themselves to be in the Pacific Northwest. I know they also have ties because of the grazing industry/society/family with eastern Oregon and the Palouse; likewise the Klamath area; can't tell if your boundary includes Bend but I'd venture that it belongs in the same corpus as western Oregon; I'm pretty sure if you polled people in Missoula and Whitefish and northern Idaho (but not Great Falls or Butte or Helena??) to ask if they were in the Pacific Northwest, they'd say yes; people in the Kootenays, on the other hand, might very well not, particularly Cranbrook and the rest of the East Kootenay because of their Calgary orientation. I think the term has less meaning overall in the Interior of BC, especially farther north though for the Okanagan it's an obvous association because of the wine industry's Seattle market (branding being everything...); but on the Central and North Coast and the Islands I don't think there's any question - partly because of the marine connectoins in daily life, i.e. from fishing, tourism et al....the coast of Alaska is certainly Pacific Northwest; it's debatable as to whether the Stikine or Cassiar Countries are, though; or the upper Skeena vs the Lower, for that matter.

It's interesting, as I consider all that, that Pacific nature of the region extends inland in the case of the Columbia basin, but not so in the case of the Fraser basin where only the lower parts of the river's terrain are really in the "consciousness" of the Pacific Northwest; because I know if you asked people in the Cariboo if they were in the Pacific Northwest and scratch their heads about it, probably saying "no, but well, maybe I guess, why do you ask?" or looking at you like you had no idea where you were; for them the term would have to do with the Coast, i.e. Vancouver, maybe Rupert (Prince Rupert in BC slang). The reason for the Columbia basin being the major inland element of the sociogeographic region may be the greater settlement and development because of the broader terrain there; BC's coast is by comparison a wall of mountains and impenetrable canyons, and what's in behind isn't warm and arable like the Columbia basin is (rather high and semi-subarctic, even when grassland).Skookum1 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Ecotopia is very relevant to the Pacific Northwest, other than part of the PNW being in Ecotopia. I think it could be left off the map. As a native of Oregon, I've always considered the PNW to include the entire US states of Washington and Oregon, sometimes the southern portion of BC, and sometimes Idaho, rarely Montana.

People in the United States use "Pacific Northwest" to separate the broader term "northwest." The northwestern US is generally seen to include states as far east as Minnesota, and even Illinois (hence the term "midwest"). I would place WA, OR and ID in the Pacific Northwest region, MT, WY, and CO in the Intermountain Northwest region, and ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, MO, WI and IL in the Midwest region. LeviathanMist 12:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it's not very relevant. It just was in the map I used as a base and since I found so few other sourced definitions I thought it doesn't hurt to keep it. — Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which definitions do we have for the map?

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. [1], [2] 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. [3]
• WA+OR‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• WA+OR+ID‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

BTW, I found another related map here: [4]. — Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

California as PNW..

i think most people wouldnt consider that much of california as part of the PNW. NorCal has a pretty arid climate and is a different biome, it suppors palm trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 04:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Thats not very true, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Lake counties and the Shasta Cascade region (which has strong cultural ties to southern Oregon (State of Lincoln) have a climate that is much, much more wet than Idaho, or even Eastern Oregon and Washington. I think that the reason Northern California shouldn't be a Northwest state is not because of a reason invloving climate, geography, geology or culture, as Northern California shares almost all of these with Oregon and Washington, but because it was not historically part of the Oregon territory.-Anonymous

Pacific Northwest Sprachbund map "needed"

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)

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)

Finding a good name for this article

I thought “Pacific Northwest” was a good name, but it is not as straightforward as I thought. From your contributions in the summary I gather: The term “Pacific Northwest”...

1. is vague;
2. is used by many scholars for BC+WA+OR;
3. is used by media in Canada for BC+WA+OR+SE AK;
4. is used in the US often for WA+OR(+ID);
5. has been used for the whole area before BC joined Canada;
6. may get confused with Northwest Territories and the Great Northwest;
7. is perceived by some to be US-centric and by others to refer to the NW of the continent; historical evidence backs up the latter view.

I’d be very happy if we could find a less problematic name. I would rule out terms like BC+WA+OR because there is no need for our article to stop at state and province borders. For lack of a better name we could temporarily agree on “overall area” for this discussion. Alternatives for the article name include so far:

“Cascadia” or “Cascadia (region)”

sounds poetic, but the name is ambiguous, too. Article "Cascadia" currently under discussion to be changed to a disambiguation page;

it also has an American tinge to it hearing it from the Canadian side of things, though the concept has certain followings in BC.Skookum1 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

“the whole Pacific Northwest”

used at least in Canada informally;

(with the "whole" often by implication, as also with "the rest of...")Skookum1 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Southwestern Canada"

apparently claims part of the US for Canada.

"Oregon Country"

historic name, perceived by some as American bias.

"Columbia District"

historic name, undisputed Canadian bias [British, actually]; possible confusion with DC.

Note: The sole purpose of this section is Finding a good name for this article. Since previous sections with similar purposes have shown a tendency of getting extremely verbose and emotional I insist on a special rule for this section: Everybody has to stay on topic; in particular, nobody is allowed to personally attack another editor here. Since I have never met any of the editors of this page before, I volunteer as a mediator. If I have the impression a statement does not serve this purpose then I will, in this section only, deviate from general Wikipedia policy and edit it. Disclaimer: I do have an interest in splitting Cascadia into a redirect, but I will put this aside for the moment. I will not do any other work on the overall area until we find a name for this article. — Sebastian (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just BTW: PacNW covers at least two parts. The part of North America and a part of Asia. In the German edition, I've once created de:Pazifischer Nordwesten [5]. A few days later, I've wrote de:Pazifischer Nordwesten (Asien), the coastline of the Pacific that borders Asia in its Eastern shores if your sitting in the mid-Pacific. That was contrary to Pazifischer Nordwesten (Amerika), the old article being (temporarily )renamed. After some discussion, I've renamed that article to de:Nordwestlicher Pazifikraum. Bye, Scriberius 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really workable to change the principal name, because it's such a well-known term and has an obvious history of its own; the issue is the vagueness of the boundaries, which don't coincide with state/provincial or national boundaries; a discussion of the variation in meaning is perhaps needed, but the "Southwestern Canada" thing is very rarefied, and only occasionally shows up in actual Canadian discussions, usually people in Letters to the Editor writing who want to enforce a Canadian perspective on geographic language; which like other Canadian perspectives in reference to BC is an imposition, not a reflection of historical or social/cultural fact. Anyway, such points aside, there's no viable alternate name; the Cascadia thing has its own connotations, and is also less circulated on this side of the border (though it has its adherents in the bioregionalist factions of the environmental movement, and also in the annexationist/independent BC movements which crop up from time to time, but always on the fringe). The Pacific Northwest isn't an invented or theorized region, and it's also not an invented/adapted name like Whulge (q.v.).Skookum1 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're aguing from the cultural point of view, and I was going to object with a technical argument: that it's possible to change the page to a disambiguation or redirect page. But I must admit that it may be harder than I thought: There are currently 961 pages linking directly to our page. It would be interesting to see how many of these apply to US only, and how many to both sides of the border. — Sebastian (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(moved addendum and ensuing discussion to #What links here statistics below. — Sebastian (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Okay, so Sebastian asked for my advice. Just to get my POV out of the way, I'm Canadian and I've lived in the lower mainland (hopefully that's not a controversial term) of BC for about 24 years, though most of my family is from Ontario. Renaming the article because the term is vague is not useful; the fact that the term is used to describe different regions (points 2-4) should be explained, but to simply not define the term would leave wikipedia with a big hole.

It makes sense that (US) Americans might exclude BC from the Pacific Northwest, if they're talking about the United States, but from a continental perspective, it's certainly includes BC. I've often heard it used both including BC and not including BC. Not including BC is makes the term US-centric, including BC prevents it from being US-centric.

I don't remember EVER hearing BC referred to as Southwestern Canada, even while visiting "back east." "Southwestern BC" is a term I've heard, but not southwestern Canada. How could Atlin, British Columbia be considered Southern Canada? Even people from the Whitehorse don't included that as south.

I've never heard the term cascadia before. it sounds like something out of a bad fantasy novel. Why define a term no one uses?

I can't imagine anyone confusing Pacific Northwest with the Northwest Territories, and if they did, that's the point of an encyclopedia, to clarify.

So, from what I've read, I think I agree with Skookum on this one.

--TheMightyQuill 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay guys, first off I apologize for the delay in response. I have a 20 page paper due next week on classical interpretations on theory and the 'real' (which is actually fairly interesting). More importantly, thank you Sebastian for mediating this, and thank you Mighty Quill for your thoughts.

Olive branch: first half or so of Morse Peckham's Beyond the Tragic Vision (should be in a good uni library) is all about the real/ideal, starting with Plato and the other Greeks; relates evolution of that concept in artistic/literary/philsophical expression over the centuries; worth the read, even if you're already almost done your paper. Skookum1 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I think the bottom line is, as I wrote in my summary of the dispute "I eventually ceded to leave it as is, as I was both outvoted, and have changed my own thoughts on the matter" Although I still have inclinations that Pacific Northwest is innacurate, as my personal experience as growing up in Vancouver (I have never heard it to refer to parts of B.C., nor have my roomate and other Vancouver-originating Montreal friends), I realize that the matter is more complex this.

In geographic terms, I admitted before Skookum even enterred the debate ("LeviathanMist, the point you bring up is worth considering, I had not previously") that the possibility of Northwest referring not to Northwest United States, but Northwest North America, was real.

In particular, there were two factors which led me to cede that the name dispute was over: 1) nobody concurred with me, and 2) Skookum brought up several very relevant historical and cultural points which indicated that the nomenclature of Pacific Northwest, was, perhaps, appropriate. Specifically, points I was until then unaware. Thus, altough as I mentioned I am not "%100" satisfied with the name, I understand the reality that it is a better name than any to discuss the shared cultural and other spheres of this region. In short, I have no qualms leaving the name as Pacific Northwest.

In addition, as lame as this may sound, my respect for democracy in a context such as this super-cedes my own personal ambitions - the fact that there is a rough consensus, it seems, to keep this name, is enough to satisfy me. Nobody else besides myself (but as I mentioned even this is becoming debatable), it appears, is compelled to change this article's name.

I also fear that some comments of mine were taken out of context. I apologize if I didnt make this clear, but I believe it is silly to state that BC is in a region called "Southwestern Canada". I was only stating this to illustrate my argument that BC is not in the Northwest of Canada. Oregon Country and Columbia are different things, and should remain as such - this should be a seperate article. Cascadia, I have heard many times before, and I would argue is the best of the alternatives, but still its off - every context I've heard it in has been in referrence to future political movements/ambitions.

Regardless, I want to reiterate that I am satisfied to leave the name Pacific Northwest be. The reason this continued is because I feel, and continue to, that Skookum did not followNPA after I had asked him to stay civil. I was particularily frustrated when he implied very strongly that my opinions were not valid because I was young (and because I had been 'schooled' wrong). I continue to feel very strongly that this was the case, as I wrote in my summary. I apologise Skookum I havent read your full reply to that, I will in due time.

Anyways, if its a handshake that will end this, here it is Skookum. I apologise if I took things too seriously; I have a tendency to do that from time to time. You were right, in my now better educated opinion, the name of this article is most appropriately Pacific Northwest - better than anything else we have on the table. I just think this could have been avoided had we focused on each other's opinions and comments, rather than the sources of those opinions (ie my age).

PS If I missed anything, any responses, I apologise and will try to respond in due time. --GREGorof → ^talk 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary

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)

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)

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)

Very nice, thanks again. --GREGorof → ^talk 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What links here statistics

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), rewritten 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Since there are about 275 links that were meant to refer to Northwestern United States, instead of the overall area, we need a disambiguation. If no one has a better idea, I will add a disambig link on top, saying something like

This page is about the region that includes parts of Canada and the US. For the US only region, see Northwestern United States

We then can rely on the Wikipedia ant algorithm to disambiguate them alki. Another option I considered was to rename this article to something like term "Pacific Northwest (international region)", but that looks like much more work. — Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) , rewritten — Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is a reply to an earlier version of my above statement, when I wasn’t aware of the existing Northwestern United States article yet. Therefore the reply may be a bit out of context now.

You can split the article into two with a disambiguation if you want, but the Pacific Northwestern United States article is going to be either very small, or very repetative, and as far as I know, there is no one interested in writing such an article or maintaining it. It would be quite easy to mention the variety of definitions within the introduction to the existing article. In fact, it already does. The map (with pink and red) clearly illustrates that the definition is vague. -- TheMightyQuill 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Discuss external links here

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)

Shared culture and history between BC and US

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)

Gaming?

"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)

Protection

Regardless which side of the border, we all need to emphasize the conservation of the Pacific Northwest as one of the last-remaining ecosystems in North America still relatively "free." -Jackmont, Nov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.13.41 (talk • contribs) 12:36, November 18, 2006

Archiving

This page is 94 kilobytes long... I created an archive for this page. I'd like to sort through the posts and add {{unsigned}} 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)

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)

Opening line issue

OK, I won't change something until I check to see if that was part of that apparent compromise solution here; but it's still wrong:

The Pacific Northwest (abbreviated PNW, or PacNW) or Cascadia is a region in the northwest of North America.

There is no equivalency in the terms; can't remember what went on with the Cascadia article, but it's NOT a synonym for the Pacific Northwest; different origin, concept. Might as well merge the Oregon Country article; just being sarcastic' (there's also Pacific Slope, which is a used but fairly uncommon term in Canada, small or large 's'). I'm uncomfortable with that as an opening line; any mention of Cascadia should only be farther down in the document, stating that they're not quite the same thing, although neither is well-defined. Cascadia has overtones of particular politico-cultural associations and isn't as broad or neutral (or old) in origin as Pacific Northwest. Pacific Norrthwest is more synonymous, if at all, with Northwest Coast, but it's not purely coastal in nature; Cascadia is much more coastal in definition/sense also.Skookum1 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking before being bold. My goal for this article was not a compromise but agreement, so I'm taking your concern seriously. The criterion on Wikipedia however, is not how individual editors feel, but reliance on "verifiable, authoritative sources" (This is one of the 5 Pillars). That was my criterion in rewriting this introduction, and I firmly believe this is the best basis for agreement. All sources I could find use the two terms practically synonymously (see references in Definitions section). If you have any sources for your view, I would like to ask you to to add them to the Definitions section first, and then we can together summarize them into an appropriate intro.

I feel I also should address your concern about "overtones of particular politico-cultural associations". This is a common concern; Wikipedia has many articles that are much more loaded with politico-cultural associations, take e.g. Stalingrad, Ho Chi Minh City or Karl-Marx-Stadt. In all these articles it is standard Wikipedia policy to include all alternatives as far up front as possible. — Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll address your points more directly later on, but IMO the problem here is that the wording legitimizes "Cascadia" as if it were current, i.e. in common public use, which it definitely isn't; there's a campaign to make it so, even to supplant national and state/province boundaries with it; and it's American in flavour, if it's anything, even more than the bit of misplaced geochauvinism which presumes that "Pacific Northwest" refers only to WA-OR and maybe ID and western MT, plus Alaska, i.e. that it's an American-only term is an American perception (but so is the unspoken notion that Canada is part of the US); and also one of, as we've seen, hard-core Canada-think. It's true their definitions overlap; but one is an invented term, part of a concept, the other is a historical one, part of a culture. Cascadia preens itself on culture, rooted in its self-concept; the Pacific Northwest is a concept because of its shared culture/geospace; it didn't have to be coined by an academic, as Cascadia was.Skookum1 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In your reply, regarding Wikipedia policy, I see the basic assumption: Wikipedia includes a term only if it is in common public use. However, this is not true; there is no such policy. You may think of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of its 7 points, however, have anything to do with our case. The policy I believe applies best to our case is WP:V - "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This is already the case, given that the name is sourced in the Definitions section. Beyond that, your concerns are your personal point of view, which is - just like mine or any other editor's - ruled out by WP:NPOV, another one of the 5 pillars.

That said, I don't want to leave you uneasy about this article. I would like to convince you that the term "Cascadia" is much more common nowadays than it used to be. A little search yields the following and more - all on Canadian websites, and none of them (apparently) by particular politico-cultural associations, or expressing geochauvinism:

• http://web.uvic.ca/padm/cpss/lgi/pdfs/seminars/all_seminars2006_07.pdf (“CASCADIA: THE EMERGENCE OF A NORTH-AMERICAN CROSS-BORDER REGION”)
• http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/413www/glaciation2.html (“Cascadia, the region encompassing rivers from the Columbia north to the Stikine River (McPhail and Lindsey 1986).”)
• http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/09/13/Vancouver_island20050913.html (“The Cascadia subduction zone runs beneath the waters off Canada's West Coast”)
• http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/split-subduction-mar04.htm (shows nice graphics for Cascadia subduction zone under Vancouver Island)
• http://web.uvic.ca/ceor/hydrates/2005/poster_2005-Hyndman.pdf (more graphics, calling the zone just "Cascadia")
• http://gpbc.ca/web/ (Green Party of BC includes themselves in Cascadia Green Parties)
• http://www.geog.ubc.ca/iiccg/papers/sparke_m.html ("CASCADIA AND THE END OF THE NATION-STATE: INTERROGATING THE BASES OF TRANSBORDER BOOSTERISM")
• http://cascadia.scouts.ca/ (Cascadia Council, Scouts Canada)
• http://www.cclinc.ca/ (“Cascadia Container Line, Inc. was established in 1993 in Vancouver, B.C.”)
• http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/search/navigate.do?portal=1&profile=completeProfile&estblmntNo=105532120000&language=eng (another Canadian company named Cascadia)
• http://www2.vpl.vancouver.bc.ca/dbs/redbook/orgpgs/7/753.html (The Cascadia Society, North Vancouver, BC)
• http://www.cascadia.bc.ca/ (an empty page, just noting that someone claimed this for BC)

I sincerely hope this makes you feel more at ease with the term and keeps your enthusiasm for editing this and related articles! — Sebastian (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian, it may be more common today, and to even be used in contexts which don't have New Age-Ecotopian-political sentiments attached; but it CAN'T be equated with "Pacific Northwest", as is the way the opening sentence of the article still reads. Cascadia more resembles Ecotopia; and even less so than Pacific Northwest it is a more identifiably American term that is only imposed to include British Columbia, which pretty much disdains the use of the term, except in the vague what-if about "what if we could only get rid of all the bastards on the other side of the mountains" which is shared on both sides of the border; those companies in BC using Cascadia in their names are partly doing that out of cross-border marketing profile. Geologists, geographers and other academics might have started using the word but it's just trend-following and, again, is NOT equatable with the broader concept of Pacific Northwest; that it was coined by a geographer in the first place makes this all the more a pointed critique - he created a perpsective/term now mimicked by other academics, but it always had a different meaning than "Pacific Northwest", even in his coinage. Many of your links above clearly have political baggage (esp. the Green Party), likewise the Cascadia Society, a Steinerite quasi-New Age education foundation), and the use of the term always has an implicit cross-border political implication; the cascadia.bc.ca domain name is/was very likely a separatist/regionalist movement site, but for all I know it could be someone holding onto the name thinking that it might become valuable - actually just looking at it it's for "Interactive Solutions", inferring the IT industry and therfore definitely somebody who's targeting Seattle-area investment/customers; and there's a tide of "if we use it enough, people will be forced to accept it". Indeed. But that still doesn't make it the same thing as "Pacific Northwest" and should have its own article because of that.Skookum1 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, for the third time, and to put it more bluntly: You are pushing your your point of view. Please familiarize yourself with our policies, in particular those that specify that we need verifiable, authoritative sources. — Sebastian 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't changed it, please note. But from my end of it, the merging of Cascadia and Pacific Northwest is the pushing of a point of view, namely that the two are synonymous, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Cascadia-using people like to pretend that it is, but that's their POV; and the term Pacific Northwest is a LOT OLDER and also doesn't directly have the ecotopian/separatist/regionalist flavour that Cascadia does; in fact most of the BC Cascadia links you cited were flavoured by that (why Scouts Canada calls itself that instead of the old Dogwood Region is a matter of taste/trend, but I'd bet that "Cascadia" for this Ottawa-based organization is thought to include Alberta, which definitely does NOT have much in common with the Evergreen Triangle (another more obscure name for the "ecotopian heartland" along I-5). I think the problem began here with someone questioning the entire validity of "Pacific Northwest" as a term and looking for a "better name" for it; it didn't need a better or different name and Cascadia is a NAME FOR SOMETHING ELSE. The cites you need a are ones proving that "Cascadia" means the same thing as "Pacific Northwest" - the burden of proof is on you, not me. Again, I repeat, the equation between Pacific Northwest and Cascadia made in the first line of the article is not verifiable and is in and of itself a POV "Cascadian" view/agenda. One may include part of the other, but they are not the same thing. Cascadia as an agenda has been trying to insert itself into academic literature/language for a while now; that they have a claque doesn't mean that they have a case.Skookum1 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for:

The Pacific Northwest (abbreviated PNW, or PacNW) or Cascadia is a region in the northwest of North America. There are several partially overlapping definitions.

If it was

The Pacific Northwest (abbreviated PNW, or PacNW) is a region in the northwest of North America. There are several other designations for parts of this region which have overlapping definitions, including Cascadia, Ecotopia, the Northwest Coast, the Pacific Slope and others.

Because of the alternative definitions/regions/names, Cascadia should not have pride of place. For hell's sake, it was ONLY INVENTED IN THE 1980s!!!! Even Ecotopia at least dates back to the '70s or '60s.Skookum1 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the citation is provided in section Definitions and related terms. I'm really getting tired of having to repeat myself for you. — Sebastian 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Page and sentence of the particular cite where: The name Cascadia, which is derived from the Cascade Range, is often used as a synonym to "Pacific Northwest" in geology, ecology and climatology, as well as by the Cascadia independence movement. Which geological, ecological and climatological papers define Cascadia as a synonym for Pacific Northwest? And is this a standard in geology/ecology/climatology and to what degree? Here again the issue of one of language; that the two are equated and synonymous and defined as such in a given cite. They cannot, for one thing, be used interchangeable: "Heavy rains and storms hit the Pacific Northwest all weekend" vs "Heavy rains and storms hit Cascadia all weekend". You tell me they're the same thing and it's you that's forcing a point of view, NOT ME. They're clearly different, and one is clearly an invented neologism that has only recently gained any currency at all, whereas the other evolved historically and is in much wider use in the general population. For whom "Cascadia" inherently has something to do with regionalist/separatist and maybe techno-ecotopian agenda. My issue is not with the parallel between the two, but with the language used that seeks to equate and synonymize them; but no one has defined that in clear terms, i.e. that they are synonyms. Even the original geographer, whose interview I remember from TV years ago, as he gestured at the map explaining the boundary he'd outlined (all the Pacific Slope drainage basins from the Columbia to the Stikine, maybe the Taku) and spoke glowingly about how "Cascadia" (a name he'd invented) was meant to describe that part of the Pacific Northwest that "cascaded" towards the sea, amidst other flakey New Age-y poetry/eco-doggerel; he also made the usual Yankee extension of "the Cascades" to include the Coast Mountains [admittedly in use in obscure frontier-era documents as in "summit of the Cascades as defined for administrative purposes" which you'll find on some maps). Cascadia's a concocted name, again, and not an organic, historical one like Pacific Northwest; and even its originator defined it as being part of the Pacific Northwest; or the language he may have used was "located in" or "spanning" the Pacific Northwest; but it is clear that he made a distinction between the terms and used them in different contexts...and he's the ultimate cite on this, the provenance; all I remember is that he was at U.W. or U.Seattle; don't think it was a state university). And while there may be a Cascadia Subduction Zone, that's not the same thing as a Pacific Northwest Subduction Zone, or that geologists use the terms Cascadia and Pacific Northwest interchangeably, as this article seeks to establish a standard for; there is no standard, the two terms have different histories, are not synonyms, despite overlapping geographies; one is at best an outgrowth of the other, but they are not the same. Like I said, there's no reason why Pacific Slope, Northwest Coast, Ecotopia and Evergreen Triangle shouldn't also be mentioned on equal terms; except that "Cascadia" is an agenda that, while it's manifested itself in some academic circles as fashionable (and there is often meant to have implications for the Cascadia agenda) this doesn't make it current in general use. It's more an overlay, such that if you asked someone on the street in the Pacific Northwest they'd immediately identify it with the separation thing, not with the region per se, which is the meaning of Pacific Northwest. This isn't "original research"; it's obvious. What isn't obvious in the cites you've mentioned again, is how they state that the two terms are the same; that it exists in academic literature and marketing doesn't mean it's a synonym; nowhere does it say that. If you happened to ask certain bureaucrats on either side of the border, they may speak of the regional trade/business agreements that the PacNW states and BC as well as Alberta are working towards; but that includes Alberta and I think also Alaska and Yukon as well as Montana and isn't purely Pacific Northwest, or Cascadia either; but they'd likely use or apply that term without its regionalist-separatist overtones. But even if they did, it's still not synonymous; nor should the syntax of the opening line suggest that they are, either. What do I need? Stylebooks from the newspapers and TV stations, every mention of Pacific Northwest (with no mention of Cascadia) in the estensive academic, popular and journalistic literature covering the region), a quotation of "Cascadia is that part of the Pacific Northwest that drains/cascadces towards the Pacific flanking the Cascades" (sic, as here Cascades is used to mean other ranges than the Cascade Range). A definition which is very different from the emerging marketing/government usage, which as mentioned takes in Alberta and is on equal terms in Idaho and Montana, which the ecotopian agenda/version of its meaning is not. This whole discussion reminds me of the effort to establish "the Whulge" as if it were a commonplace term for the Georgia Depression/Georgia Basin or Georgia-Puget Basin or whatever it properly is; equating Cascadia with Pacific Northwest is a neologistic definition of a very deliberately invented (if fashioanble) neologism. Even "sometimes used as a synonym" doesn't cut it with me; again, even the existence of a Cascadia section when the other names for the area don't have theirs speaks to me of the Cascadia agenda. That may not be your intent, but to my that's what's been pushed into the content of this article as a result of "compromises" settled upon in previous discussions; I'll poll some of my author and reporter and blogger friends, although I realize the poll result is O.R., although some of them may be able to cite their own stylebooks or published works; it's an incredibly obscure splitting-of-hairs, but I also know even asking is going to get some rolling-of-eyes....Skookum1 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, for the fourth time: What part of "We need verifiable, authoritative sources" don't you understand? (Please forgive me if I overlooked anything in this heap of words you're expecting us to read.) — Sebastian 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't use a short attention span as a dodge to avoiding having to face my criticism of the Cascadia=Pacific Northwest claim you're trying to support here; it's not in your "verifiable" resources, and my arguments (prolix as they are) are still valid, even if you don't have the time or attention to consider them; your cites on the other hand are derivative rather than "authoritative". I've looked at your cites, none of them prove the equation that is made in the opening line of the article, or those in the Cascadia section. An alternative opening I'm adding at the bottom of all this.Skookum1 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in your "verifiable, authorititative sources" as cited does it say that Pacific Northwest and Cascadia are SYNONYMS???? There is a BIG difference between two concepts sharing similar territories and them being identical/synonymous. Also, not all of those sources are "authoritative" precisely because they have POV taints; the use of a neologism that has a political/cultural agenda by groups who share in that agenda does not make it the common currency of others outside those groups; bioregionalist politics such as the Green Party of BC's "Cascadia" usage, or the fuzzy Central Canada "gee, isn't that a cool word, let's use it" Scouts Chapter (which incluedes Alberta) are opposing cases of what this word means. In neither case are they used as a synonym or even a replacement for "Pacific Northwest". Fine, cite sources that Cascadia has wide usage. BUT PUT THEM IN THEIR OWN ARTICLE ABOUT CASCADIA AS THEY DO NOT BELONG IN AN ARTICLE ON THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, except by saying "Cascadia is a latter-day cultural and political concept which has gained some currency, but it is not in wide use and generally has political or cultural overtones. It is NOT SYNONYMOUS with the Pacific Northwest, despite extensive efforts by Cascadia-favoring Wikipedia editors to pretend that it is". Colourizing your repeated "authoritatitive and verifiable" comment doesn't make it any better; you still haven't provided cites which DEFINE CASCADIA AS A SYNONYM FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST. And, if some earnest eco-fundie at the Green Party has put a juvenile "Cascadia is what enlightened people now call the Pacific Northwest", and that's the best you can do, you know where you can put it. Do I have to make myself clearer? Just because you can provide websites which take part in the rebranding doesn't mean that they themselves aren't POV; and just because an eco-fundie or a neophyte geography prof decides to "make a definition" doesn't make it a verifiable definition. And if you insist on this Cascadia equals Pacific Northwest thing, then then the only thing to do will be for equivalent sections on the Pacific Slope, Ecotopia, the Evergreen Triangle to be added on the same scale and density as the Cascadia digression. And again, despite your claims that your cites back up the synonymy of the two terms, I see no such evidence in ANY of the linked items, other than evidence that the campaign to "brand" Cascadia on the map and in the public mindset is having some effect. As here in Wikipedia, where we went from one discussion from a pan-Canadian sentimentalist that "Pacific Northwest" could not be include part of Canada, to this completely inane one that a latter-day neologism is now equivalent to it, just because some geographer at U.W. concocted the word (and when HE DEFINED IT he did NOT say it was synonymous with the Pacific Northwest)......the IP address insult that Kat removed I tracked down to Montreal; indicating somebody who's taken part in this discussion before, perhaps, but can't sign his cojones on the dotted line like everybody else.Skookum1 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to stick a /font tag after your first link. May want to do that, so the entire rest of the page doesn't show up as green. LeviathanMist 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a /font tag at the end of it to fix the page. LeviathanMist 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to opening

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)

The presence of "or Cascadia" in the opening line really bugs me; it's saying something as if it were the case which it's not, despite the selective cites "proving" that it is. I could just delete it again but because of the obstinacy of the Cascadia faction here (sorry guys, but it's what it boils down to) I'm up against two deletions - "vandalism" - and I'd be blocked. The evidence presented to supported your case doesn't hold water, and has no overall substance except academic speciousness. Too many words for you again? I'm the one trying to be clear, instead of allowing vaguely-made logics and conclusions to go unchallenged. You don't have to repeat yourself for the fourth or fifth time; it's pretty obvious you have no intention of listening to common sense. And would seek to punish me for correcting what needs to be corrected (and Cascadia can go to its section or article or wherever else it belongs; it shouldn't have a special section here IMO, unless all other parallel region-concepts are also included. I'll have to figure out which admin or arbiter to consult on this; perhap the "expert" template should be called in, but it's such a nonsensical issue I still can't get over it (others in my web circle in BC just shake their heads about it, as if it's "what do you expect from Wikipedia?").Skookum1 06:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Made preliminary edits to edit out British Columbia

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)

I have lived in british columbia my entire life and have always thought of it as part of the Pacific Northwest. Its a matter of geography and common usage, not what province or state you're facing when you look north. There certainly is enough inclusion of BC as part of the Pacific Northwest by both Canadians and Americans to merit its mention here, to excise it from the article is to misrepresent how this term is thought of by a significant number of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BC-er eh? (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

conquest bias

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)

seems reasonable

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

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)

Cascadia Rebranding Redux

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)

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)