Talk:Pacific Northwest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| B | This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article is rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
 Archives |
| Talk:Pacific Northwest/Archive |
[edit] professional sport?
- seahawks
- mariners
- sonics
- canucks
- etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.25.172 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-02T22:36:24 (UTC)
[edit] 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. 140.160.115.197 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)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).
- 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)
- 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).
-
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)
- 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] The history sectio
Could really use some pre-colonization history.Murderbike 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Megacity Map
Could someone please add Victoria, BC, to the map? It's the capital of the province and certainly worth noting as a cultural centre and important political entity. -Jackmont, Jun 27, 2007.
- While we're at it, is anyone is, labels ought to be added for Olympia, Washington, Bellingham, Washington, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Bremerton, Washington, and Centralia, Washington / Chehalis, Washington. I'll try to get to it if I can find the time and energy. Pfly 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
sfasdfasdfasdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiko1234 (talk • contribs) 23:47:49, August 18, 2007 (UTC). (partisan comment deleted)
[edit] Yukon and Pacific waters
Does the Pacific Northwest include the Yukon and Canada's Pacific waters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.206.222 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Canada's Pacific waters" are otherwise known as the British Columbia Coast, which is how people especially from the region use it; using the national-tag is, to me, unfamiliar and stragne sounding; as if Canada had more to do with the management of the coast's fisheries and so on than they ever bother to....Whatever; BC and the Alaska Panhandle are definitely in the traditional Pacific Northwest; the Yukon has become inclueed as an extension of same; much more legitimately than Alberta, in fact, as the Yukon's origin depended on the Pacific Northwest. This used to be explainedd in the variable/shifting definitions section whatever it's called now.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Religion
Needs to reflect the region-wide extremely low church attendance, high rates of atheism and (comparatively) small political power of Christian right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.198.59 (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Adding statements regarding the high rates of atheism without comparison and without citations is the sort of alteration that generally gets termed vandalism at wikipedia, particularly when the changes are made by an unregistered user. If you, User:63.226.198.59 are serious about improving articles in Wikipedia, please consider becoming a registered user, and then laboring to offer citations for your statements of fact. JStripes (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the citations I'm sure the first contributor has, but I am from the Northwest have repeatedly heard these same kinds of statistics. Perhaps someone could research in a neutral way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.231.158 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weirdness section
Seems like this new addition is repeating stuff elsewhere in the article already, and with more editorialized writing, too, but further to this it's US-only content; not that BC doesn't have its share of weirdness, it's just I"m amazed at the "the world ends at the border" mentality; you may have Ramtha but we had Brother XII? C'mon, BC has WAshington hands down on the weirdness quotient; YOU have never had a Bill Vander Zalm, for instance. Anyway I realize this was just an IP address users attempt to reflect something about the area the corporate-Cascadia p.r. offfice would rather silence once and for all, but if it's going to be there could there by some effort to cross-borderize it????Skookum1 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, agreed -Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.8.115 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Which way is up?
The last time I looked at a map, the "Pacific Northwest" lead me to the north-western United States, not north-western North America: that would be Alaska. Yes, we in SW British Columbia often (but not always!) use the term to include the Canadian south-west but, geographically speaking, to say "a region in the northwest of North America" (as it does in the article's header) is incorrect. Dionix (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Draw a big cross through North America. PNW is north of one line, west of the other. What's the problem? (Maybe the article should describe the region's location better in the lead, but there's nothing inaccurate about the current phrasing.) -Pete (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's too simplistic and ignores the political and cultural baggage associated with the term, which originally referred only to the NW of the contiguous US. Extending the term to coincide with the Cascadian watershed also ignores the history of the term. By the way, try to tell someone in Fort St. John they live in the PNW :) Dionix (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dionix you're so totally wrong it's embarrassing. The term surfaced in ethnography and linguistics before the creation of the Oregon Country, for pity's sake (e.g. the "Pacific Northwest Sprachbund", coined I think in the 1830s or '40s or so); it pre-dates the creation of Canada as well as the acquisition/annexation of the southern Oregon Country by the United States. You'll find it in both American and British Columbian sources from the 1850s and '60s; the truth seems always hamstrung between American "territorial myopia" on the one hand and Central Canadian chauvinism on the other ("Canadian Southwest" is one horrible mash-up I've seen to replace PacNW when referring to BC). Figure it out - "Northwest Coast" + "Pacific Slope", but I don't think even that etymology/contraction is necessary; there's no way the Alaska Panhandle can be in the Pacific Northwest (and people there consider themselves to be so...) without BC being also. And if you do some legwork you'll find all kidns of in-BC usages of Pacific Northwest meaning/including BC; they're not wrong, the US definitions an the Canadian chauvinist views ARE. And don't cite the Canadian Encyclopedia at me - it's not authoritative when it comes to BC - anything but; it's from the other side of the Rockies and is mired in Canuck-think. Aside from abundant press and journalistic examples of the including-BC usage there's also lots of organizations/chapters and businesses which use PacNW in their names or bumpf/descriptions to include BC - many are BC-based in fact. Hearing this all the time is really boring/frustrating.....apparently it's going to recur unless people start reading the talkpage before opining about it. Maybe a "box" at the top of the talkpage about this subject would help....19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's too simplistic and ignores the political and cultural baggage associated with the term, which originally referred only to the NW of the contiguous US. Extending the term to coincide with the Cascadian watershed also ignores the history of the term. By the way, try to tell someone in Fort St. John they live in the PNW :) Dionix (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've gone off on a tangent. I'm not saying the PNW does not include BC (Of course it does). I'm saying it's not the NW of North America. Period. Dionix (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- And that has to do with WHAT? I think you're picking hairs; "Northwest" is clearly north and it's clearly west; it's clearly "northwest" unless you want to pick hairs about where the geographic centre of the continent is, but that's just even more of a crock as, for human-habitation/use purposes, the northern third of the continent is, well, uninhabitable for the most part. The language of the intro is FINE. What else would you want it to say? - "it's not actually northwest in terms of pure geographic definition, but really Central Pacific Coast?" - or what?? Gimme a break and don't waste time with useless nit-picks and non sequiturs.Skookum1 (talk)
[edit] Boise and Surrey
I read with amusement the latest edit substituting Surrey BC for Boise as teh fourth largest city in the Pacific Northwest; in fact there are a number of BC cities larger than 211,000 (Boise's population or thereabouts). I think the wording of the paragraph might be better served by "metropolitan area" isntead of "city" but even then Victoria is far larger than Boise as well.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
