Talk:Cascade Range

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

	This article is part of WikiProject British Columbia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to British Columbia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	British Columbia Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Cascade Range has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Mt Wash 2 Geology 3 Error concerning Mount Garibaldi 4 History 5 North Cascades 6 Location Image for Canadian Cascades 7 Picture overload 8 Legends? 9 Source of new Medicine Lake information 10 Parentheses---exciting topic! 11 Rewrote intro paragraph 12 Cascade Volcanoes versus Cascade Range 13 Folded mountains? 14 This entire page is horrible

[edit] Mt Wash

Edited Link for Mt. Washington as it took one to a page on Mount Washington in New Hampshire. This new external link will take one to Mt. Washington in Oregon, in the Cascade Mountain Range.

[edit] Geology

This article could benefit from a separation of the Geography and Geology of the Cascades, and an expansion of their geology. As is, this article gives heavy emphasis to the volcanoes (perhaps justified, as they are generally the highest); however, most of the range north of Mt. Rainier is non-volcanic or ancient volcanic (i.e. unrelated to active volcanoes) in origin. Also, a mention of the glacial history of the range would be appropriate. BlueCanoe 00:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The glacial history of the range might be better dealt with on a regional scale, i.e. from the context of the icefield(s) rather than the range(s). What I'm suggesting here is that the entire Georgia-Puget icemass has to be considered, i.e. from the Ice Age onwards, to get a handle on the scale of glaciation's effects on the local landscape.

There's also the point that there's really three ranges involved; Shasta to Hood, St Helens/Adams to Glacier, then the spiny North Cascades into Canada, where ultimately they get kinda knoll-like (with big, nasty sharp teeth, though). So three different glacial/geologic histories, really; the Williamette - glacier? I wouldn't know if there'd been one, not in the same context as the coastal ice sheet from Puget Sound on up. The difference in type of mountain and type of glacial activity/presence is one of the issues by which the Canadian definition of the Coast Range (officially Coast Mtns) as separate from the Cascade Range, which you've probably noticed my note about.

I'm scratching my head trying to think of significant icecap-type glaciers in the Lower 48; it would have to be Olympus, wouldn't it? Rainier's and Baker's are montane glaciers, not big ice sheets studded with peaks; I'm not familiar enough with the North Cascades to know.

The Georgia-Puget Icemass which strikes me to have poured south, and towards Gray's Harbour? Or did it merge with the Georgia Glacier and the two of them push down the Strait of Juan de Fuca? I wouldn't know, but it's fairly obvious that all the coastal montane glaciers poured southwards into the Georgia Glacier so it pretty certainly wasn't flowing NW. If you're in the Pacific Northwest somewhere an excellent book to pick up (at a good bookstore, or on order) is the Sto:lo Historical Atlas; its opening maps do justice to the geologic and anthropological/cultural history, including a huge map of the regional glaciers . . .

Anyway your point about separate geology and geography is well taken; different mountain ranges have different special parameters with unique categories, too, e.g. the Cascades with its volcanoes, same with the Stikine Plateau and Katmai and Nass and the Rainbow-Ilgachuz Ranges in the Chilcotin, or Yellowstone, then there's the Pacific Ranges and Boundary Ranges with their temperate-coastal icecaps, or the block-faulting of the Rockies. Geography is description; geology is dissection and geneaolgy. Your suggestion's interesting because as I was describing the coastal fjords these last couple of days I've been pondering a chart showing the extent of the icefields 10,000 years ago.

One last item: there's interesting bits of human paleohistory turning up in the region; I've been meaning to put in Xa:ytem, which is a 9000 year old arch site near the Fraser, and in general to explore the themes of estimated populations and culture levels on the Columbia, Fraser and throughout Puget Sound - relative to volcanic and glacial activity that is. Reason I'm off on this tangent is the "pottery culture" of the lower Columbia that's turned up in recent decades, and that a huge flood or perhaps a lahar or associated volcanic events wiped it out. Same with a flourishing of population on the lower Fraser and, my understanding is, on the Nooksack and Skagit and adjoining islands as well; until Baker blew about 2000 years ago (?). Even a minor escalation in internal temperature on Baker can cause major flooding on the Skagit and Nooksack....Xa:ytem was inundated, so its legend (and its archaeology) goes, but such a flood. Apparently a couple of times the population of the Georgia Strait-Puget Sound and, parallel to it, the lower Columbia, have flourished, then been wiped out or near-decimated by earth activity (temblors, volcanoes, weather); it's throughout the legendary materials, evenSkookum1 08:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error concerning Mount Garibaldi

I reset changes to the text that clarify the status of Mount Garibaldi as part of the Coast Mountains and NOT the Cascade Range; it is a Cascade Volcano but the Coast Mountains are NOT (repeat NOT) part of the Cascade Range, which ends at the Fraser River. I made similar changes to the Cascade Range entry previously, including some description of the Canadian portion of the range, but someone thought I was "vandalizing" the entry (by correcting its mis-statements, apparently) and reverted back, losing much of my Canadian stuff and the clarification of Mt Garibaldi's range grouping (repeat after me, Garibaldi Ranges of the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains, and NO the Coast Mountains are NOT the northward extension of the Cascade Range, no more than 54-40 is the northern border of the State of Washington . . . ) Skookum1 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

The following statement is misleading: "Geologists were also concerned that the St. Helens eruption would awaken other Cascade volcanoes like it did the previous century, when a total of eight erupted between 1800 and 1857." While it is true that the region was indeed active during that period, that activity was not "awakened" by Mount St. Helens. The Cascade volcanoes tend to stand in isolation from one another and are generally not linked magmaticly. Coincidental eruptions are just that, coincidences. A better phrasing might be "Geologists were also concerned that the St. Helens eruption was a sign that long-dormant Cascade volcanoes might become active once more, as in the period from 1800 to 1857 when a total of eight erupted."

above by User:Marquoz

Done as suggested. You could have changed it yourself. Vsmith 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Cascades

I feel that the North Cascades deserve a separate article ("North Cascades" currently redirects here). They are quite different from the volcanoes, and quite important, at least to the climbing community. Any objections to my starting one? Should it instead be a section of this article? Comments? -- Spireguy 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location Image for Canadian Cascades

Created this morning by seat-of-pants while doing other BC Mountain ranges; realize now it's a non sequitur as there's nowhere to put it, really, on the main article, as there's no separate section for the Canadian Cascades, which are really part of the North Cascades (as far as the Coquihalla/Sumallo Rivers anyway). Wondering what to do here - make a separate Canadian Cascades section, or source a larger map showing the US side of the range as well? The terrain map is based on USGS data and is in Wikimedia commons as BC-relief.png; if there's a similar map, at the same scale for Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, maybe we could integrate them; will need to do the same for the Boundary Ranges with an Alaska map, too; also the St. Elias Mtns.Skookum1 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start a page on the North Cascades (as I suggested above). Maybe the pic can go there. -- Spireguy 03:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Well, I made a stab at a North/Canadian Cascades cross-border map, but it could use higher resolution. User:Qyd made the base map and I drew the red line; I've eyeballed the boundary to the south of the Similkameen River as the northeast boundary, and also only eyeballed the Nicoamen-Tulameen boundary; Holland describes these fairly precisely but the boundaries shown are only very rough; the more natural boundary would seem to be the Similkameen, and then via Aspen Grove to use the Nicola River to the Thompson; but Holland others are very specific about the latter area's boundary being the Nicoamen, and so likewise I imagine there's a reason of some sorts why the ridges south of the Similkameen aren't included (my boundary data in Bivouac is now invisible to me, as I'm no longer an editor nor a member); I didn't know where the southern boundary of the North Cascades should be; I took it to be the pass as shown, which I guess is the one to the south of Glacier Peak, whichever; and I assumed that Manastash and other hill-plateau towards the Okanogan River were to be included, although maybe not in formal geographical classification; some of the peak/ridges on the south side of the Similkameen aren't supposed to be in it either, according to Holland. Anyway, here's the other map to consider; scale and scope can be adjusted later, and feel free to add placenames.

Location map of North Cascades and Canadian Cascades

Skookum1 06:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not an expert on the Canadian boundary, but it looks OK. However the southern boundary should be one major drainage to the north of where it is now: you'll see a NW-SE trending valley on the west side of the range, which is the Skykomish River, and if you continue that roughly in a straight line to the eastern boundary, that is pretty good as well. (It would hit the eastern boundary where it is farthest west; that's the town of Wenatchee.) This boundary (which I use on the North Cascades page) is from Beckey. -- Spireguy 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture overload

I would say that the images are getting a bit much here. There are too many in the first section, and some of the other pictures don't relate well to the text they are with. Anyone want to fix that, or should I take a stab? -- Spireguy 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is twofold: first, Mount Garibaldi should not be a featured image, as it is a Cascade Volcano and NOT part of the Cascade Range; if a Canadian summit is here it should be that big wall by the Coquihalla Highway, whatever it's called, or a view of the east flank of the Fraser Canyon, or something from Manning Park; or Slesse-Cheam; Garibaldi is the LAST thing that should be here, although in American thinking it seems to be the only peak associated with the Casacades, even though it's not even in the Cascades. Sigh. Second, the other three pics are all isolated volcanoes; one would suffice. The way I see it the pics should show the main types of terrain; the bit volcanoes, the depths/crags of the North Cascades, the plateau-escarpment of places like Cathedral Provincial Park and American equivalents, and the barren rock knolls of the Canadian Cascades (north of Highway 3, that is). Skookum1 05:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legends?

I'm going to add some details on the Canadian-side geography, but in scanning the page it occurred to me the range is somewhat rich in legends: the two that come to mind are the old "marriage" between Mts Baker and Rainier (Baker hitched up her skirts and moved northward....maybe suggesting memory of a Glacier Peak eruption followed by a Mt Baker one?) and the various legends/mythologies associated with Tahoma (Mt Rainier). And, most obvious of all although I'm sure it's covered on its own page, Mount Shasta. The main mountain legends should all maybe have brief précis on this page, I think.Skookum1 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you will see that some of this has been recovered since I reverted. Happy editing! Katr67 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of new Medicine Lake information

I'd be interested in the source of the very interesting information that the Medicine Lake volcano is the largest by volume in the Cascade Range. These are really big mountains, and Medicine Lake certainly does not present the visual image of a large volcano - is the volume that's being measured underground? Source please! NorCalHistory 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was fairly common knowledge. Here's a link to the USGS CVO website which lists several references: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MedicineLake/description_medicine_lake.html . Medicine Lake and Newberry may be topographically dwarfed by Shasta and Rainier, but most of a volcano's volume is near the base and Medicine Lake has a very large base. FuQuaoar 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses---exciting topic!

Regarding this:

The railway's roadbed, now decommissioned, is a popular tourist recreation destination, the Othello Tunnels, a hiking and biking trail near Hope, B.C. (waystations along the line were given Shakespearean names by the local CBC administrator).

When the parenthetical remark is a full sentence, which this is, it should be treated as such, viz:

The railway's roadbed, now decommissioned, is a popular tourist recreation destination, the Othello Tunnels, a hiking and biking trail near Hope, B.C. (Waystations along the line were given Shakespearean names by the local CBC administrator.)

This is standard style stuff, although I didn't find it specifically addressed in a quick search of WP:MOS. I didn't want to revert again, since that can be rude. But it really should be in the latter form above. (I wikilinked the Shakespeare parts, since the remark calls attention to that. Maybe a good idea, maybe not.) Comments? I can find a reference if this is controversial. -- Spireguy 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a style maven, but just popping in to comment that the Wikilink on "Othello Tunnels" should be

Othello Tunnels, not Othello Tunnels. The Othello Tunnels should have their own link and article; Othello if linked separately here should be Othello, British Columbia - theoretically, but it was only a whistlestop; there may be a TransCanada Trail]] article/section on the Tunnels, but they' re a unit and go by that name; there's no point in referring to the Shakespeare character/play as it would be linked in any Othello Tunnel article; I think I didn't link it before, if it was me who put it in, as there was no article yet. The Shakespeare ref should go to the Bard here (the section head's daughter was an actress or literary student) but be advised that some other Shakespeare-placenames in BC may be named for Noah Shakespeare, a one-time Victoria civic politician and member of the legislature (or Member of Parliament).Skookum1 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My own thoughts are based on whether the parenthetical remark is a separate thought, or closely tied to the thoughts in the main sentence. If the remark is simply explanatory or otherwise closely connected to the main sentence, I leave it as part of the main sentence. If, on the other hand, the remark offers contrast or only distantly-related information, I make it a separate sentence. Examples:

"The quick brown fox jumped over the dog (the dog had been asleep since noon)."

"The quick brown fox jumped over the dog. (Interestingly, foxes seldom are found in this part of the country.)"

That said, while your courtesy is appreciated, I can see that reasonable people could differ on their approach! Please feel free to revert. NorCalHistory 06:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've cleared that up, I think there are too many commas in the thing, and for clarity it should probably read like this (though I am rather overfond of dashes). :)

The railway's roadbed, now decommissioned, is a popular tourist recreation destination—the Othello Tunnels—a hiking and biking trail near Hope, B.C. (Waystations along the line were given Shakespearean names by the local CBC administrator.)

Katr67 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you've gotten me curious, I did some poking around. [This grammar site] has two examples of the treatment of parenthetical remarks which are a complete sentence. In one example, the remark is a part of the main sentence, and in the other example, it is expressed as a separate sentence:

"Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost (we remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration) remains America’s favorite poet."

"Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost remains America’s favorite poet. (We remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration.)"

I believe that a parenthetical thought which is a complete sentence can be expressed either as a part of the main sentence, or as a separate parenthetical sentence; simply because it is a complete sentence does not require that it be treated as a separate sentence. Again, reasonable minds can differ about Shakespeare, Othello, Desdemona and Iago, as well as about Othello Tunnels! Please feel free to revert! NorCalHistory 07:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but I disagree. I think it's more about grammar than about semantics; I don't think that the crucial thing is how the idea in the parenthesis fits with the idea in the main sentence. In your two examples from the grammar site, note that in the first example, the parenthetical remark is embedded in the main sentence, so it would be impossible to treat it as a separate sentence. The key for our case is whether this would be appropriate:

"Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost remains America’s favorite poet (we remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration)."

That is what I object to; I don't believe it is correct. Sadly, I still don't have time to go digging for this. -- Spireguy 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote intro paragraph

I rewrote the first paragraph to be more readable and also more balanced between the High Cascade volcanoes and the rest of the range. Most of the range is not volcanic, and the volcanoes are not the only famous/notable parts. I think it's better now. Comments? -- Spireguy 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Remembering what's in the North Cascades article, there's a small addition maybe:

The small part of the range in British Columbia is called the Canadian Cascades or Cascade Mountains, the southern part of which is effectively an extension of the geography of the North Cascades. The term Cascade Mountains is also sometimes used by Washington residents to refer to the Washington section of the Cascades.

Throughout many range/mountains comparisons, the last comment holds true; Coast Mountains/Range, Selkirk Mountains/Range and vice-versa in some other cases (saw one the other day but can't remember where). Official names should be the standard, of course, with the others all redirects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I think things like "the southern part of which is effectively an extension of the geography of the North Cascades" would be more appropriate in the Geography section, perhaps in the second paragraph about the North Cascades. It's a bit too specific for the intro paragraph, I think. I'll try to put it in. -- Spireguy 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cascade Volcanoes versus Cascade Range

The recent edits by Skookum1 make clear that we need to establish the relationship between the Cascade Volcanoes (i.e. the Cascade Volcanic Belt) and the Cascade Range. Should the volcanoes north of the Fraser be included in this article at all? They have recently been added, and I tried to clarify in the list that they are not considered part of the Cascade Range proper; Skookum1 has changed the wording to make that statement stronger. In fact it is now so strong that it looks strange to even include them at all. My vote would be to remove them entirely, but include a note fairly near the start of this article about the existence of the Cascade Volcanic Belt and the possible confusion. Comments? -- Spireguy 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly suggested - stated - that they shouldn't be, and of course you'll have seen the note about this on your own talkpage. It's also become "stronger" because of the inclusion of a lot of summits that most Americans are completely unaware of, despite the (for some reason) fame of Mount Garibaldi; my view is that the listing of peaks shouldn't focus on volcanoes and should also name the non-volcanic peaks - the line about the "High Cascades standing twice the height of mountains around them" or however it's put doesn't apply in the case of Baker (well, since 8.5/10 isn't 1/2, right?) and the major/well-known North Cascades peaks should be given coverage, e.g. Cheam, Slesse, Hozameen/Hozomeen. All that's needed somewhere, even in an italicized dab line at the top of the article, or repeated in its intro for emphasis, is that there is a distinction betwee the Cascade Volcanoes and the Cascade Range, which the latter being only a PART of the former, and the two terms should not be confused as the former extends another few hundred miles north than the northern limit of the Cascade Range. I'll also find some refs on archaic usages of "Cascades" and even "Cascade Mountains" (but not "Cascade Range") in 19th Century BC legalisms, and even as I noted on your page in the Kootenays (which are the Selkirks and Purcells...), but these are not "references" as to modern usage; there was a phrase I took out a few edits ago in the intro about the range "sometimes is defined as..." including Garibaldi etc that is uncitable, unless we're going to allow erroneous references. Encyclopedias are supposed to serve up the truth; not accounts based on inclusion of errors and misconceptions.Skookum1 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of above: my intent today sometime is to move the non-Cascade Range peaks to their proper page, and terse-down the Cascade Volcanoes vs. Cascade Range; I made it "strong" because it has to be if it's on this page; especially because the original versions of this page blithely assumed Garibaldi's inclusion as part of the range, which it's definitely not. BlackTusk's enthusiasm for volcano entries is a a great thing, and I'm glad the Cascade Volcanoes has its own article now, as it should have a long time ago; but the confusion between the two terms has to be stopped, or it will be perpetuated.Skookum1 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folded mountains?

The Cascade Range was formed when the North American Techtonic Plate crashed into the plate next to it. I wonder how long it took or if there are any folded mountains in the Cascades. Does anyone know?-eeb

[edit] This entire page is horrible

Who wrote this awful page? Do they live in the area? 95% of the Cascades are non-volcanic, yet the page is entirely about a few volcanoes and not the thousands and thousands of other peaks in the range. The Cascade Volcanoes even have their own seperate page here at Wikipedia.

This page needs to be completely deleted and rewritten by someone who understands the Cascade Range and its significance in the lower 48 states. I am not qualified to completely rewrite it but I can help.

Martin Cash 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

To answer your question about who wrote this page, see the page history. In regards to it being "awful" and "horrible", that may be your opinion, but if you read about civility, you will see that comments like that contribute to an uncivil environment. Please keep your comments constructive--what other specific suggestions do you have for improving the article? Katr67 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Here is a comparison to qualify how inadequate this page is. If I wrote a page on the United States, but the only thing I talked about on the page was New Orleans. That would be comparable to this article about the Cascade Range, but completely excluding 95% of the peaks. The Cascades are almost completely NONVOLCANIC.

I'll rewrite this page this weekend.Martin Cash 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cascade Volcanoes page got made expressly because the volcanic focus of this page was "transcending" the geographic designatino; the Volcanic Belt and the Range overlap, but they do not have the same boundary nor do they mean the same thing. I just tried placing a merge tag on the volcano-specific listing/section overleaf but couldn't figure it out. I agree with you - and that MORE pictures of volcanoes keep on being added, as if that was all the range is about, flies in the face of my previous comments/suggestions farther above on this talk page. There should be pictures of Shuksan and Slesse and Hozomeen, and some terrain shots; not this fascination with big conical mountains that occasionally blow up. But apparently for some people who live in the shadow of these mountains, and apparently who've never been farther north than Everett, the Cascades means these big stand-alone cones; so how to explain the Anderson River group:

http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos/20061012_Kamloops/images/043.jpg

http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos/20061012_Kamloops/images/049.jpg

http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos/20061012_Kamloops/images/054.jpg

http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos/20061012_Kamloops/images/076.jpg

or the incredibly tangled thickets of the area from Glacier Peak to the Fraser? The cold jungles of the Sumallo and upper Skagit and Silverhope? The broken dryland plateaus of Cathedral Park and whatever's south of it on the inland side of the range? I tried amending the fudging overleaf, with its generalizations about Rainier-Adams type terrain, by making ref to the North/Cdn Cascades, but it's still an uphill battle when people equate the term "High Cascades" with the whole range; and then proceeed to define it in a way that describes only Shasta-Rainier and basically leaves out the northern third or so of the range. Also, that big Oregon template is most unsuitable here; there aren't WA or BC templates, I think there's a CA template; I could deal with it easier if it were less vision-dominant and were "Geographic Regions of Oregon", but it's a general Oregon template; and even though Oregonians think they do, it seems, they don't own the Cascades, nor are the Cascades defined by how they are in Oregon. Anyway, I agree with you; I think the volcanoes bits and most of the volcanic-cone photos should be merged/moved to Cascade Volcanoes and more effort here should be put towards addressing the whole range, not just its most famous features which, as noted, have a separate article; and can't somebody find pictures of Shuksan, Pilchuk, Hozomeen, Slesse?Skookum1 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting generalizations you're making about Oregonians, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the question of what this article needs for improvement. If the Oregon template offends you, feel free to remove it. The template was added to most of the articles that it links to, but you're right it doesn't make sense to have it on a cross-regional article. Looks like it's been there since June of 2006 and was added by a well meaning 16-year-old Oregonian. Katr67 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I make generalizations about British Columbians, Vancouverites and Canadians too; not singling out Oregon over anyone else. In this case these were more observations re the Oregon perspective I found myself working to amend in order to represent the North and Canadian Cascades, descriptions of which were absent entirely from the article a while ago. BCers see their own scope on regional history myopically, too; and Vancouverites even more; you can't help who you are, or where you see things from; it's natural; and in some cases based on different interpretations or misunderstandings, like the original confusion here (and still sort of here) between the Cascade Volcanoes and Cascade Range, as if they were the same thing - which in some American/US minds, they are). With the Cascades, up here it denotes an extremely precipitous, rugged, rain-soaked or alpine snarl of peaks, not a series of stand-alone volcanoes, as well as the last hill-plateau verges of the range before the official boundary of the Interior Plateau (which is rather arbitrary given that Lytton Mountain and others are clearly more plateau-like than the adjacent Clear Range, which is part of the Plateau; likewise the Okanagan Range and the mountains between the Similkameen and Okanagan Valleys, which are also part of the Plateau but most resemble the Okanagan Highland on the other flank of the Okanagan; which is officially, sort of, part of the Monashees. All this by way of saying geographic designations are all fairly arbitrary, though sometimes official or semi-official; and geological areas don't coincide with them often enough; as with the spill-over of the Cascade Volcanoes system far to the north of the official end of the Cascade Range (at the Fraser River).Skookum1 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the original reply about civility, and the lack thereof in the original comment in this section. Let's please remember to assume good faith. I do partly agree with the substance of the complaint, however, in that this page does focus mostly on the volcanic peaks, and it needs to have more about the nonvolcanic peaks. In fact I created the North Cascades page partly to address that very issue in that particular region. Nonetheless, there is reason for giving the volcanoes more space than their pure geographic extent would justify, since they are highly notable peaks. (To wit: they are dramatic, special, known worldwide; some are Nat. Parks, some are active; all are popular climbs;...) To use an analogy similar to the "New Orleans" analogy: in an article about the U.S., one would expect a lot more ink about, say, NYC than about North Dakota, despite the latter's greater size. I would favor including more in the article about the nonvolcanic peaks, but not a dominating amount. And about the Oregon template, yes, it's a bit much, although I don't think it constitutes any bad faith on the part of any Oregonian. -- Spireguy 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)