Talk:Pacific Northwest/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

professional sport?

British Columbia not part of Pacific Northwest

From the perspective of most British Columbians, what Vancouverites call the lower mainland (the area encompassing the Greater Vancouver Region) is not part of the Pacific Northwest. The term Pacific Northwest comes from a US-centric perspective. From a Canadaian point of view, Seattle would be in the Pacific Southwest, but that term is not used. I would suggest the entry for "Pacific Northwest" erase British Columbia from the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.50.237 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this statement is correct and 'Pacific Northwest' is strictly a U.S.-centric term. The Lower Mainland is in the Southwest corner of Canada. The Pacific Southwest, from a Canadian-centric perspective. And, both terminologies are from a North American perspective, since the area is actually on the Eastern shores of the Pacific Ocean! Since the area is in the middle of North America, considering the south of Mexico to the North of Alaska or the North West Territories, perhaps we should have the name changed to the Pacific Middle East!Homely (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion already - check the archive. From what I understand, the term "Pacific Northwest" is primarily used in the United States, but those in the United States DO consider lower British Columbia to be part of the Pacific Northwest. People in Canada don't use the term "Pacific Northwest" at all, and understand that it's an American term, so they associate it only with the American states of Washington and Oregon. This should be noted when editing this article further. LeviathanMist (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"People in Canada don't use the term "Pacific Northwest" at all" - ahem, I'm in Canada and I use it, always have, and lots of the rest of us do. Gotta ask you your age, if you don't mind, and where your education is from; a lot of new British Columbians don't know much or understand much about BC geography/history. Central Canadians may not use/think of BC this, but enough BCers to do render taht an irrelevant point; who cares what Canadians from east of the Rockies think? Hell, you must not read the newspaper; I've seen it any number of times in the Sun in the last year.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My reading of the archived dispute (and my understanding of it back when it was ongoing) was that the term is used variously by both Americans and Canadians. In some contexts yes, in others no. I don't see evidence in that debate that "People in Canada don't use the term ... at all" or that they associate it only with Washington and Oregon. Nor that it is an American term. Its usage predates the existence of the United States anyway. In any case, yes, this was discussed, but I don't think there was general agreement over the meaning and usage of the term "Pacific Northwest" in either Canada or the United States. For myself, I think there are contexts in which the term is precisely defined, but these precise definitions often contradict one another. In short, there is no general and widely accepted definition of exactly where the borders of the Pacific Northwest lie. Pfly (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've lived in Bremerton, Bellingham, and Seattle all my life and although Oregon was seen as part of the Pacific Northwest, BC *never* was. Idaho was actually included in "Pacific Northwest" locally (ie News channels, weather reports, etc). 140.160.115.197 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So's Western Montana....and the obliviousness of people in Greater Seattle/Puget Sound to language and life north of the border is a standard feature of cross-border non-awareness; living in Bellingham I guss you didn't watch KVOS-12's news/weather, because they use it unabashedly, and have since I was little (I'm 52). Also in recent weeks while googling/researching various topics I've come across lots of media and government reports form this side of the border, and various websites, which use it. Just because you've never heard it used that way doesn't mean people don't use it that way.18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And in any case, even with used for the US only, the term often includes southeast Alaska. Pfly (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, the area encompassed by the term the PNW is synonymous with the historical Oregon Country or the geographical Cascadia area. This is my personal POV, but it definitely includes much, if not most, of BC. The issue I have with the article, as it sits, is that to most Americans (even those living in the PNW) the term refers only to the northwestern states of the US. As a result, many British Columbians, and Canadians in general, tend to incorrectly adopt that definition, somehow allowing claim of the term to the US. This is not correct and, speaking as a native BCer, ignores many cross-border cultural and historical associations we share with our US neighbours that we don't share with the rest of Canada. Now as I've said below (and endured poo poohing as a result) the term is geographically incorrect. This too leads to some misunderstanding, since it lends itself to reinforcing the incorrect popular view. The term PNW is not about the NWern states and sometimes "let's just tack BC to them because of the proximity". Having said this, I think the article would benefit from clarifying the popular misconception a bit better than it does. Dionix (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Andyou're gonna get poo-poohed again, even though we agree somehwat on the main issue. It is geographically correcdt - it's in the northesst of the continent, and it's the Pacific Slope part of that Northwest (i.e. Albertans need not apply). Sure, it's not the northwest off the Pacific, or of that latecomer-empire Canada where it's the southwest (though no one thinks of Keewatin or the Great Barrens as "Central Canada", which is what we're southwest from....). You can pick hairs qbout why it's not wrong, but why it is is very clear; the people who coined the term in the early 19th Century obvviously had a contesxt; I don't think "the Great Northwest", which is southeast of Winnipeg, is "northwest" at all; but in a certain context it is, and to the people who live there it is. It's that simple. And you're right, Canadians have been lulled along by American geographic myopia in their perceptions about this, as with other things to do with BC; for the most part it's the national usage that Canada has copied, not the one in the American part of the PacNW; ironic though because thouse espousing "Southwest Canada" as an apposite paradigm to a supposedly US-only Pacific Northwest are embracing an American degeneration of the original meaning. Northwest of the continent, on the Pacific side of the mountains. Do you want me to repeat that in caps, perhaps???Skookum1 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest period. Whoever 71.146.50.237, 140.160.115.197, Homely and Dionix are, what I can tell you is that your speculations are incorrect. If you look around you will find several claims that British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest. I'm in Canada and I use it, always have, and like Skookum1 said, lots of other Canadians use it as well. For example, see the map here. Black Tusk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Skookum: I'm begining to dislike you. Either you're so caught up with your own mission that you can't see what I'm saying (hence the digressions to trivial tidbits) or you're a real arse (hence the digressions to trivial tidbits). I don't mean to be rude, but you know what you can do with your caps. Black Tusk: read what I said before you include me in the no-BC camp. The opposite is true. Goodbye. Dionix (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys! This is way too serious. A virtual fist-fight over a simple matter of semantics. And what's particularly ironic is that each person's definition is covered in the article! Is anyone going to ask for removal of a disfavored definition? Seems doubtful. It's time for everyone to take turns buying a round of beers and laugh it off. —EncMstr (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above remarks. British Columbia is not part of the Pacific Northwest as this term is from an American point of view; i.e Seattle and Portland are in the Northwest corner of the mainland United States, along the Pacific Ocean. Actually, the way the article reads, its considering British Columbia in this definition because it states: "the largest cities are Seattle, WA; Vancouver, BC; and Portland, OR." That's not correct. The largest cities are Seattle, and Portland. An alternate definition could include Boise as the third largest, as Idaho is frequently included in Pacific Northwest, but never should Vancouver be included as it is in Southwest Canada not Northwest United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have no solution for your ignorance other than education, but clearly you don't seem to want any and already "know" what you think are the facts. The term is from a North American point of view and predates the partition of the region between the United States and Britain. Deal with it: British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest - whether you think so or not.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And in any case we have an article on the US-only PNW: Northwestern United States. Pfly (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It dosen't matter what country or province or state you live in, Canada is part of the Pacific Northwest. Black Tusk (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this has been discussed. As a British Columbian, I've always understood this to be an American term, that they sometimes see as including us, but which we generally do not use, or use to refer to Washington and Oregon. We use lower mainland, BC, or sometimes southwestern BC, or, in Canada, just west coast or BC to refer to the BC areas others include in this term. In the Cdn context Vancouver isn't north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add - that yes I get we're still in the northwest of the continent - but we just don't use this classification, or generally think or classify our location on a continental basis. This tag may have some geographical accuracy, but when it is used I, and most people around here, assume that it is NOT referring to us, but to the people south of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(quote) "As a British Columbian, I've always understood this to be an American term, that they sometimes see as including us, but which we generally do not use. The term predates both Canada and the United States. Its roots go back to the British pioneering of the North West Trade. I don't doubt that today it is more commonly used in the US, but usage also depends on context. Not everything can be neatly partitioned by the international boundary. (quote) We use lower mainland, BC, or sometimes southwestern BC, or, in Canada, just west coast or BC to refer to the BC areas others include in this term. Sure, but what term would you use for regions that are not restricted to BC? Where was the Columbia District of the Hudson's Bay Company located? The potlatch tradition comes from what part of North America? The Coast Salish peoples live in what region? What term would you use for the region where the North Cascades are located? The Coast Mountains? The Columbia Basin? The Pacific temperate rain forest? The Cascadia subduction zone and its associated Cascade Volcanic Arc? What part of North America has a Marine west coast climate? If the term "Pacific Northwest" is strictly US-only, what term would people in BC use to answer these questions? Finally, a Google search like this shows the BC government itself using "Pacific Northwest" in many ways--sometimes in a US-sense (eg, "the US Pacific Northwest"), but also in a binational sense (eg, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region), and also in "apolitical" ways, especially on topics like First Nation history, ecology, climate, geology, hydrology, etc. Pfly (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there's no one universally accepted definition; I tend to agree with the definition of Pacific Northwest as encompassing Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon but not Idaho, but I know people who consider Idaho part of the Pacific Northwest, don't consider Alaska or Yukon part of the Pacific Northwest, etc. And even though I think of Alaska and Yukon as part of the region due to their volcanism, culture, and similar climate in their southern portions, I use something like the old 54° 40' Oregon Country line as sort of a divider between the traditional Pacific Northwest and the upper Pacific Northwest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context in which it is used. I think that most of the time, when Americans refer to the Pacific North West, they do not consider BC to be a part of it. However, Canadians consider BC to be part of the Pacific North West of North America (which it is). The problem here is that we have one term for multiple different concepts. There is a physical geography term, and there is a political geography term as Kudzu alluded to above. - Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.43.131 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really unfortunate and quite offensive,that outsiders who took it upon themselves to name a region in this article, and proceeded to pretentiously determine what political entities it is made up of, are aggressively promoting the Colonial point of view of previous centuries when the current countries did not exist. WE LIVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY,and political boundaries and other designations have changed considerably and long ago. To look at the map from some sort of outsider, unfamiliar, flawed, antiquated, outdated, and mistaken perpective, and write an article as if with authority on the subject, is misleading to those who don't know, and offensive to those who do know this subject as long-term residents. Or to aggressively claim that British Columbia is part of the northwestern region of the CONTINENT, shows that the writers are again, looking at the map from a certain purely geographical perspective, mixed with the antiquated viewpoint of the conquerors who also, as outsiders, designated the areas as being in the Northwestern part of the continent. Before any political boundaries were made. And so the writers of the intro especially, are using far too much bold assertion or rather aggression, in presuming to include Vancouver and British Columbia as part of the Pacific Northwest, and to compare US cities to Canadian cites etc. NEVER do we think in those terms, we who live here. The perspective of the writers seems to evidence a globalist and no-boundaries sort of perspective, as well as being obviously distant, out of touch, and unfamiliar with the subject. Experts did NOT write the opening or certain other parts of the article, and I have noticed that some of the main references for the intro and other parts, are not fact-based but rather very editorialized and dubious works written not by experts or by people from the area who have real expertise in the subject. Indeed British Columbia has for quite some time, been in the west or southwest of canada, and not in any way except as a very disconnected neighbor, related to the Pacific Northwest US state of Washington. Northwest, from a US perspective. Southwest, from a Canadian perspective. Stop trying to gain credit for writing a wiki article, when you are offending so many and aren't a real expert. Yes, I do live in the REAL Pacific NW (which has NEVER included BC in the 50+ years I've been here). SO FAR THIS ARTICLE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY mainly because of the inclusion of BC; and because the authors have falsely asserted its inclusion as a central and integrated fact rather than as a possiblity on the side. In other words, the authors have decided for everyone, in their own ignorant and biased way, rather than let the readers decide which entities belong in the PNW; since their inclusion of BC would be a minority viewpoint; instead they should have included only the most certain and FOR-SURE , known, agreed by all, core states and then mentioned the other possible members without so presumptuously clumping together such a questionable grouping as if it were fact. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed "American Northwest." British Columbia doesn't have the same form of government as Washington and Oregon, it doesn't use the same currency, or even the same system of weights and measures. As far as language goes, the English spoken in Vancouver is indistinguishable from that spoken in Winnipeg or Toronto, but easily distinguishable from the English spoken in the American Northwest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troublemaker400121 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Vancouver, a Canadian city listed first?

Ok since you didn't like my other comment communist's I take great offense that Vancouver a random Canadian city is listed first in all the lists. Pacific Northwest is a US term, sure fine if the Canadian's want to ride on American coat-tails whatever, but the BIAS that actually exists in this article by listing Vancouver first looks to be the result of a bunch of Vancouverites coming in and editing it and reverting any changes that change the order. Why not list them alphabetically, or perhaps by the largest metro area which would be the great city of Seattle, not Vancouver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.50.100 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, thanks for stating your point of view so clearly. Note there are citations from verifiable sources that explain why Vancouver is included in the "Pacific Northwest". In addition to approaching the issue from a neutral point of view, you might want to work on your grammar a bit- it's "politicians", not "politician's". tedder (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh yes I see the one source, hmm "Canadians have, for several generations, been preoccupied with the demoralizing influence of U.S. economic and cultural imperialism..." seems like a "neutral" point of view, doesn't it. 99.99.50.100 (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Largest cities by population in the Pacific Northwest LIST CONCERNS

I just added Bend, OR to the list as it experienced phenomenal growth in the past decade. However I see that some 4-5 Cities in the suburban Seattle area are not listed which achieve 70-80 k in population and would merit the list given the populations starting at around 74-75 k. Without looking further, I bet there are a few more in other states, regions. Many of the cities in that range are suburbs of larger urban cores in more than a few cases. I propose, rather than letting the list get longer and longer, that we cap the list to cities of 100 k or more in population. That will still list 21 cities at the moment. That is sufficient for most lists. What do other editors think? Norcalal (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That list dates back to about 2010, I think. It got rather long and somewhat random, and unsourced. In time it was trimmed down but was still unsourced. Then it began to expand again. Comments about it have mostly been in edit summaries I think. A while ago I tried to organize it and add sources. To keep things under control I purposefully left out satellite cities close to larger ones in major metro areas (like Bellevue, WA)--excepting cities of obvious importance, like Tacoma (for which I made a note pointing out it was part of the Seattle-Tacoma metro area). It looked like this then, [1]. I considered capping the lower end at 100k or something, but thought Olympia and Victoria ought to be included. They are rather small, however, so there are plenty of other larger cities that logically could be added to a list that includes Olympia and Victoria. My rationale was to only include truly major cities and those of significant regional/political importance, and not "satellite cities" within metro areas. Over time the list has expanded again and I haven't cared enough to do anything about it. A lot of "satellite cities" have been added. I'd be inclined to take most of these out. In fact, I'm not even sure what purpose the list serves in the first place and wouldn't mind seeing it go completely. Pfly (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Pfly. I see that the issues are multiple, subjective, and therefore complex. In an article covering a region as vast as the PNW, it seems important to list major metro areas and other important cities. However, its easy to make the case to leave out the suburban cities (despite size of upwards of 100k in population in a few cases) that are dwarfed by their larger cities a few miles away as in the case of those near Seattle and PDX. However, the case, as you point out, is easily made that Olympia (one of the smaller capitals in the US) and Tacoma (a major port and industrial center, and huge on its own despite being secondary to Seattle) need to be listed. It gets dicier in cases like in Oregon where cities like Bend and Medford and Eugene are clearly regional centers in otherwise rural areas where there are no other "major" urbanized centers for miles and miles. Making the point in rural areas outside the metro regions or leaving those places out is subjective. But then where do editors draw the line? What about cities like Coos Bay, which has the major port on the Oregon Coast (and the largest between SF and Portland) and is the largest population center between Eureka, CA and PDX on the coast despite being only 15,000? Perhaps it is too small to "worry" about but it does go to the issue of subjectivity. Part of the unique "charm", if you will, of the PNW is that it is an expansive place in which community there exists in the context of huge magnificent natural expanses and geographic wonders, "dotted" with vital smaller regional centers like Bend, Eugene, Medford, and even little Coos Bay which are big deals to the "micro-regions" they serve within the larger overall PNW region. Norcalal (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

*Extending List of largest cities list*

I think we should extend the list of largest cities in the Pacific Northwest, to around the 60,000 mark. There are not that many more cities, and I would even be willing to do so, if someone else thinks it would be a good idea to expand the list. Let me know what you others think... Thanks,

ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Defining The Pacific Northwest

I find the opening of this article, which attempts to define The Pacific Northwest (PNW), less than satisfactory. Its funny that the article mentions the Yukon before Southeast Alaska. In fact, the entire beginning of the article is a morass of differing opinions on what makes up the PNW. It mentions that there is no commonly agreed upon definition. Should not Wikipedia provide one?

Here's my argument: The Pacific Northwest is an idea about a shared culture, and culture is a function of geography. Mountains stem the flow of people, create climates, and in turn ways of life. The definition of the PNW seems to depend on which mountain range you consider to be the easternmost boundary (is it The Rockies or The Cascades?) Therefore, the PNW is defined by geography. The chart in the geography section of the article showing both the historical Oregon Country and Cascadia Bioregion is telling, and may explain the typical exemption of Southeast Alaska from The PNW. Both areas encompass the watershed of The Columbia River, but due to historic political boundaries, Northern California as well as Southeast Alaska and Northern B.C. were not included in The Oregon Country. I find political boundaries to be arbiitrary in seeking to define The Pacific Northwest I say the area of the Cascadia Bioregion and The PNW are one in the same.

Southeast Alaska lies in the north of the Cascadia Bioregion and as a resident Southeast Alaskan I have always considered our particular region (being almost completely cut off from the rest of the state) as being part of the PNW. Even by the stricter definition (Everything between The Pacific and The Cascades/Coast mountain ranges) it would be included. In fact, if it weren't for the Russians (don't ask) Southeast Alaska would be the northern coast of B.C. (sometimes I wish it were so- don't tell the Texans) And the culture bears a greater resemblance to that of Seattle/Portland than that of Anchorage/Fairbanks. For example, the article points out that while Alaska as a whole is overwhelmingly Republican, a slight majority of Southeast Alaskans voted for Barack Obama. Also, Juneau had a microbrewery (The namesake Alaskan Brewery) well before Anchorage ever did. And our local coffee roaster/shop (Heritage Coffee Co.) was started by a former Starbucks employee well before they reached world domination status. Other signifiers of the PNW: salmon, temperate rainforest, the pacific coast, totem poles, arts and music, RAIN. You will find them all in abundance here in Southeast Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.14.194 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a crack at cleaning up the first paragraph of the article. It was endless, repetitive, and not proper for the WP:LEAD (which should summarize). It's not clear why Yukon was included in the "common definition", which contradicted the source it cited (asserted that Yukon is "only rarely included"). Same goes for Idaho. The details and sources can be hashed out in the Definition section now. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Pfly (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed and Thank you. It is difficult to define that area of California that is included in a few words, but, indeed, IN ADDITION TO BEING IN "CASCADIA," the area inluding the Klammath Mountains, the Siskiyous, the Cascades (including Mt. Shasta and perhaps Lassen) AND the Coast from northern Mendocino northward is indeed in Culture and geography MORE PNW than Californian by anyone's estimation as well as definition. I took the liberty of adjusting the intro definition, as it were to BETTER reflect that portion of California that is part of Cascadia. Had only Southern Oregon and extreme Northern California succeeded in creating their own state in the "Jefferson" movement of the mid-late 20th century, it would be easier to "write" that area in. Norcalal (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
(copied from my point on the Cascadia (independence movement) Talk page: "I believe that the Cascadia Bioregion is the Pacific Northwest and not subordinate to it. It is a region that is defined by many things - culture, watersheds, geography, etc. - so it shouldn't be a sub section but rather should be in the title. Perhaps Pacific Northwest / Cascadia?" I feel it's time to put Cascadia in the title as multiple academic articles reference the PNW as Cascadia (sorry, got none off the top of my head atm)and as a citizen of Victoria, most everyone I know knows of the PNW as Cascadia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.150.30 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Cascadia or Pacific Northwest?

I'm wondering if Pacific Northwest is the most appropriate main title for the article. I understand searching Cascadia will bring you to the article but I find that Cascadia is overtaking PNW as the preferred name of the region. I also find as a Canadian PNW doesn't exactly apply to Canada, considering we're not really in the Northwest of the country at all in Vancouver. It's more of an US term. The map of the proposed boundaries of the PNW even shows the Cascadia bio-region, rather than anything else. Having the article named Cascadia would also match it better with all the other organizations and services that service the area that also share the name Cascadia.

I'm not a regular editor of wikipedia so I'm not sure how these questions are resolved (or names of articles changed) but I was hoping to get some discussion going as to whether that is possible or if other wikipedia users in the region also agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessassaurus (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue gets raised regularly—every year or two—and the consensus seems to be about the same: people disagree on the region's boundaries, so all are included in the article. Pacific Northwest refers to the northwestern part of North America—not the U.S. The major previous discussions are:
See also Oregon Country, Northwestern United States, Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Cascade Volcanic Arc, Cascadia subduction zone, Maritime fur trade, and many more linked in each article. —EncMstr (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to note, and being a big contributor to a lot of the linked discussions, that Cascadia would definitely not include Idaho or western Montana nor Baker OR nor a lot of BC; it's also an American-coined term that in its Canadian application tends to be Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver focussed only. Certainly not Williams Lake or Prince George nor the province's Northwest.....the context of the common phrase "British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest" should not be construed to mean BC is separate from it, the subtextual context is "British Columbia and [the rest of] the Pacific Northwest. Juneau and Skagway and Ketchikan are definitely included, Anchorage and Fairbanks I wouldn't include in it, though Whitehorse et al often is....the politicians' "Cascadia Economic Zone" includes Alberta, which definitely isn't part of the Pacific Northwest or Cascadia. The closest historical equivalent would be the Oregon Country, but that's also of American-only coinage and historical usage. It is what it is. Why do people feel such a compelling need to rename/rebrand everything? Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Addition of the City of San Francisco removed.

It is clear to anyone who studies the vast, massive mixed Douglass Fir and Coast Redwood forests of Northern-MOST California, especially beginning in Mendocino, and continuing through Humboldt and Del Norte Counties up to the Oregon border, that these areas are much more PNW than they are Southwest (or California for that matter). This is true not just geographically, but also culturally and in terms of the fact that timber at least was King (though nothing has really replaced the exhausted forests of the area, economically). From this North Coast area of California with its many rivers, it is easy to follow the lines of Cascadia (see map delineating the region in the article) in an easterly direction through the rugged, mountainous terrain of Trinity, Siskiyou, and other similar counties generally east of the area up over the top of the Central Valley (it may or may not include Redding, CA as the Northernmost tip of the Great Central Valley as the elevation and character of the Valley changes just south of Red Bluff). Continuing on, this vast PNW/Cascadia (rural and sparsely populated) area of California is still mostly forested and mountainous, and includes the southern end of the Cascades themselves (of course, Mt. Shasta and extends south toward Lassen) all the way to the Nevada border for the most part. All of these areas, for a multitude of "easy" reasons, are very PNW. BUT to include San Francisco or the Greater San Francisco Bay Area or any portion of region (with the only exception being a narrow coastal portion of Marin and Sonoma Counties) starting from Wine Country and continuing south to and beyond the Golden Gate is going TOO far. There is no way that San Francisco is in the Pacific Northwest, even by broad definitions, not geographically, not culturally, not at all. Norcalal (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that before, and sillier; the name dates back to Spanish times and was coined to mean everything north of California i.e. the 42nd parallel; Eureka gets joined in because of the cultural affinities and the rain....Shasta is kinda unique but is in some views connected; but for PNWers Grants Pass (the pass not the town) is clearly the natural frontier (unles it's Siskiyou Pass I'm meaning, where I-5 begins its descent from Ashland/Medford etc....which coincides with the actual California border at the 42nd Parallel....Skookum1 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

Somehow missing any mention of the largest group...whites. Not to mention it isn't focused on raw data, instead seems like commentary in place of quantitative data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.87.103 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Including Anchorage in list of "Largest cities by population in the Pacific Northwest"

An IP removed the listing of Anchorage in the section Pacific Northwest#Largest cities by population in the Pacific Northwest. I initially restored it, but then re-removed that mention as it wasn't clear the inclusion criteria for cities, and I couldn't find a discussion of its inclusion in the archive (I apologize if I overlooked it). I am starting this discussion to determine consensus towards listing Anchorage in that section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

the answer is very simple: Anchorage is not part of the Pacific Northwest; the "Cascadia" boundary shown (yuck btw, with that term presented as if accepted fact and not a "campaign") doesn't include it; normative concepts of the Pacific Northwest end at Yakutat Bay; the "Cascadia" extension shown northwest of that ends by the Kodiak Peninsula; Anchorage is not included. Same as with Salt Lake City, Edmonton, Calgary and San Francisco not being listed; they're not in teh Pacific Northwest. Same with Anchorage. Period.Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

University of Washington Wikipedia Visiting Scholar position

Of possible interest to editors of this article: the University of Washington is accepting applications for a Wikipedia Visiting Scholars position with possible focus areas including Labor and Working Classes in the Pacific Northwest, all aspects of Pacific Northwest History and Literature, and/or Pacific Northwest Architecture. Through the Visiting Scholars program, educational institutions provide experienced Wikipedians with remote access to their libraries' research resources. The Wikipedian is given an official university login and agrees to create/improve articles on Wikipedia in a subject area of mutual interest. The positions are unpaid, remote, and usually go for 6 or 12 months. If you have at least 1000 edits, an account at least 1 year old, and experience improving content, you're eligible. For more information see Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pacific Northwest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pacific Northwest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yukon

I think part of the Yukon in the Mount Logan area is included via the "west of the Rockies/Coast Range" watershed boundary definition. - Brianhe (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Population update

The population figures in List of largest cities by population in the Pacific Northwest are getting dated. For instance, Kirkland, Washington grew by annexation and organic growth to over 87,000 in the 2015 census estimate, and it isn't even in the table. - Bri (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pacific Northwest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pacific Northwest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Misleading Demographics

Is it just me, or does the demographics section makes no reference to any white people living in the Pacific Northwest, as if none exist there? Seeing the progressive-bias in other sections of the page, this doesn't seem to be an undeliberate oversight. Quite disturbing, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seso101 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally says the most dominant culture is Anglo-American. Antigravity711 (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo collage

Just have to give a shoutout to the photo collage. One hell of a compilation, guys. Probably the best I've seen on this site. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Alaska part of the Pacific Northwest?

It's located in the northwest extremity of the U.S., and it lies in the Pacific. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Alaskan Panhandle is sometimes included in the definition of the Pacific Northwest, being part of the same general bioregion, but the whole of Alaska is not considered part of the PNW. SounderBruce 04:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Does this article only talks about the coastal regions of Oregon, Washington, and BC or the entire areas? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Did you read Pacific Northwest § Definition? There is no agreement on what is included or not in an "official" definition. This article talks about the conflicting definitions, among other things. In my opinion, Eastern Washington, Southwest Washington's interior, and Eastern Oregon are definitely fair game for the article, not just the coasts. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Megacity map

The article is illustrated by a "megacity map" which is undated and doesn't state what the source of the data used for colorizing is -- it appears to be sub-county level data for both U.S. and Canada. This ought to be updated. Bri.public (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Boundaries

The summary says that Cascadia is loosely bounded in the east by the Cascade Mountain Range, but then immediately says the most common conception includes Idaho. These are contradictory statements. Antigravity711 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

BC should not be mentioned first, it is too much disputed. Canadians don't call BC "Pacific Northwest", as it is in the far SOUTHWEST COAST corner of thier country. some kind of faction wants to include BC in "cascadia" but the canadians don't call it any of the above. Why do people insist on placing BC FIRST on the list in the intro then? since it is the most disputed and least accepted. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't have a strong opinion on the order but people in BC definitely understand that "the Pacific Northwest" includes them. I was born and raised in Vancouver: it's not a term that gives people pause. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
People in Ontario possibly don't ever call BC the Pacific Northwest, but, yes, people in BC uniformly understand it as part of the Pacific Northwest. It is neither disputed nor controversial here. The only people who seem bothered by it are Eastern Canadians who see it as an affront to Canadian nationalism and then appoint themselves as speaking for "the Canadians," without stopping to ask people actually from here what we think. The term, anyway, comes from what the area was called prior to it being part of either country. 2001:569:7BB7:D200:444F:1855:3E73:EAD (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is consensus in BC about the term (I'm born and raised there too). To me it's an American term, that I know is often applied to us as well. But, like this article, we seem to be at the periphery of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Vancouver vs Vancouver

i am a life long oregon/washington resident. for as long as i can remember, we have NEVER called Vancouver, BC, "Vancouver". If we say Vancouver, we normally are talking about Vancouver WA. We always call Vancouver, BC, just that: Vancouver BC. This can get confusing. I imagine BC people always call Vanc BC, just Vancouver. And they probably call Vancouver WA, Vancouver WA. Just one more of many differences between the PNW people North/ South of the border. this whole article seems to be somewhat artificially blending us all together, but we are extremely different from each other. Nothing but the general geography actually has any commonality, in terms of US/Canada. And maybe the english we speak. it ends there. Our perspectves are quite different. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC) why would anyone remove the above comment i made? it is every bit as valid as any other on here. it isn't part of the article, it is DISCUSSION. so i reverted it back onto here. Leave it up. It gives American NW perspective. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think almost by definition, this article is going to focus on the links & similarities since it's about the area as a whole, although if you want to include additional points of division you're of course free to do so. On your narrow point, I didn't even realize the question you were asking from the title - from a BC perspective, "Vancouver" is of course ambiguous in meaning, because without qualification it's not clear if that means City of Vancouver (600k) or Metro Vancouver (2.5m) - but no, without a ", WA" qualifier, it would never mean "175k in suburban Portland". Similarly, Americans from different coasts would envisage a different "Portland" (Oregon or Maine) when said unqualified, and residents of most States would see a different "Lancaster" or "Springfield". --Brislian (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
If there are changes to the article to be proposed, this is the place to do it. But this is not a forum for general discussion. As articles are written for a worldwide audience there has been a general consensus developed in many articles to refer to Vancouver, Canada simply as Vancouver. On the talk page for that article, there is a link to an essay which explains why "Vancouver" is not a disambiguation page. That may provide some context to your question.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Vancouver is only ambiguous for people in Washington and Oregon. For everyone else it's clearly Vancouver, BC. This has already been established on wikipedia. People in Vancouver BC are not always even aware there is another Vancouver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Geographic misnomers

As a longtime resident of a state (Idaho) adjacent to (or by some conceptions part of) the U.S. Pacific Northwest, and an occasional visitor to Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the adjacent region of Canada is part of the PNW. It's a geographic and directional non sequitur to say that the southwestern part of Canada is somehow part of the northwestern United States. It makes no sense. Just look at the map. I for one have never heard B.C., which is in separate country, referred to as being in the Pacific Northwest.
Even more misleading is the notion that the Pacific Northwest in any common usage includes "southeast Alaska, western Montana and parts of Wyoming." Totally unknown. (And BTW, U.S. English style doesn't capitalize directional qualifiers such as "southeast" and "western" when such regions are not recognized geographic entities.) – Sca (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent coverage of the 2021 Western North America heat wave often referred to SW BC and even Alberta as the Pacific Northwest. Even University of Victoria more or less admits the term encompasses SW BC here. So does one of the Canadian scholarly sources at 1862 Pacific Northwest smallpox epidemic, "Smallpox in the Pacific Northwest: the First Epidemics". Here is a tourist promotion agency in Victoria that shows a ferry route map of the "Pacific Northwest", most of which are Vancouver Island-mainland and I think only two Seattle ferries. Hidden Pacific Northwest: Including Oregon, Washington, Vancouver, Victoria, and Coastal British Columbia and Pacific Northwest: Oregon, Washington and British Columbia] are book titles from major publishers. So I wouldn't exactly push a definition that includes British Columbia, but we have to realize it is out there in common use.
As for the capitalization issue, it is a known difference in US English and other variants outlined at MOS:COMPASS. We tend to follow the style pertaining to the region the article is about (MOS:TIES). ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I see you refactored your point about capitalization above, and I think I agree. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Missoula

Should we include Missoula? Western Montana was part of the Oregon Territory and it's located in the Columbia River drainage basin. Malcolmmwa (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind though that regardless of its qualifications for inclusion, it still might be irrelevant due to its size, as it's smaller than Medford, the current smallest entry on the list. Malcolmmwa (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_Northwest/Archive_2&oldid=1183717305"