Jump to content

Talk:Cascadia movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cascadian secession/autonomy groups

I will continue to revert the inappropriate deletion of references to historically verifiable Cascadian secessionist/autonomy movements by Chris, as his stated grounds for doing so are fallacious. That there have been and continue to be groups of people in the Pacific northwest who advocate the creation of new geopolitical political entities of various sorts, and that the term "Cascadia" is applied to many of them - is a documented historic fact extending back to at least WW2. Asserting that "there is no facility for secession" in the US Constitution is irrelevant in the context of that discussion. Secessionist groups exist, and Wiki's business is to document them, just like it documents the existence of political parties, sects, terrorist groups and other notable organisations that posses a clear dogmatic foundation. After all, there was "no facility for secession" from the British Empire in 1776 either, but that didn't stop a buch of tax-avoiders founding the United States. There are dozens of other equally appropriate historic examples. --Gene_poole 01:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support this user, and will do so in action as well as text. Canaen 05:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I am missing in the article references for current organized secessionist/autonomist political parties and their support. Aren't there any and this is only an "intellectual" movement at this time? Mountolive 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ...

Gene, thank you for reverting the deletion of details regarding the historical aspects of Cascadian secession/independence.

We in Cascadia thank you! --Nagasaki Sullenhorde 04:48 GMT, 3 July 2005

First Use of Name?

The following has been moved from Talk:Cascadia#First Use of Name? when the article was split on 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the name's use for the political concept came from that professor; it's not organic or related either to the architectural style or the town-name; but comes from an amalgam of the Cascades and the idea of "cascades" ("all the rivers cascading to the sea" etc). Yawn. The article reads, by the way, as if Cascadia actually exists, e.g. "places inside Cascadia", which is pretty misleading. I was tempted to put a POV tag on it but will give that some thought as to why. If you'd like I could write up some issues to do with the political logistics of trying to integrate BC into WA/OR (different political and legal systems extant for one thing, unresolved native land claims another, multicultural/Asiana issues and more).Skookum1 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Shockingly, there's no article on western separatism or even western alienation yet. We do have articles on politcal parties like Western Canada Concept etc. heqs 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Found: Alberta separatism, Secessionist movements of Canada heqs 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox?

Republic of Cascadia
Anthem: >
Official languagesEnglish
GovernmentRepublic
Time zoneUTC-8 (PST)
• Summer (DST)
UTC-7 (PDT)
Calling code1
Internet TLD.rc

Should there be a infobox on this possible state? 159753 21:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because not being a state, most sections are unclear. There are no agreements on anything on that info sheet, except probably the time zone and maybe the calling code. Even the official language is up for debate, since Oregon and Washington have none, and likely wouldn't want one. I also have my doubts it would be a Republic, or have a President. So no, I think it's a terrible idea, since no one would agree on anything, and Wikipedia isn't exactly the place to draft a Constitution. Sarge Baldy 22:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there should be an info box, however it should conform to a standard that can be used for all micronations and similar unrecognised entities that have articles in Wikipedia - and be sufficiently identifiable that it's clear they are not "real" countries. I've been meaning to start a project on this subject for some time. Drop me a private message if you'd like to help out.--Gene_poole 02:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Micronations have agreed statistics, in this case there is very little agreement on anything. If you do want to set up an infobox, I suggest creating a new template entirely, and make it clear that it's for the most part only a subjective interpretation. Most things would need to be dropped entirely, like "capital", "government type", etc etc. "Primary language" would make more sense than "official language", and "principle cities" could take the place of "capital". Area and population could be measured in a "minimum to maximum" format, so as to show there are no established boundaries. Instead of "Republic of Cascadia" I think it would be more fair to say "Cascadia", although I feel the flag should be represented, although with a note that that hasn't been established either. I don't see any hope in such a project surviving here if you try to make the template pretend it's an actual state rather than a loose bioregion with a shared culture, but with a modified format I think it would be workable. Sarge Baldy 03:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
If we are going to have an infobox, and it's not clear that we should, it should describe the movement rather than the proposed state. —Ashley Y 03:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, on behalf of those who are involved with Cascadia, let me please extend our thanks to those of you who are taking this matter seriously. We appreciate that very much. In regards to Sarge Baldy's comments, he is indeed correct: it should not be "Republic of Cascadia", but just "Cascadia". The term Republic of Cascadia originates through a site called Zaptoi.net and though there is a lot of evidence that the owner of that site is a supporter of a Free Cascadia, his site was originally developed as tongue-in-cheek joke to help introduce the concept of Cascadia to a wider audience. On that note, there are several other similar sites, including one called the "Kingdom of Cascadia" where the owner suggests that we should be a monarchy (and of course, he has volunteered to be the King!) Though sites of the nature of Zaptoi's "Republic of Cascadia", Roger's "Kingdom of Cascadia", the "Commonwealth of Arcadia", etc. are not intended to be serious, they do illustrate just how widespread the concept of an independent Cascadia is today.

As well, a form of government has not been decided upon and has been a debated topic, along with the concepts behind a constitution. At this point, some of us are leaning more toward the idea of a Commonwealth versus a Republic, but I suspect that in the end, we will end up with something completely unique. Keep in mind, that as this is a serious movement that has developed over the last 25 years, we are taking our time on many of these topics simply because we feel it would be a dire mistake to rush into them blindly.

On the subject of language, we typically regard ourselves as speaking "Cascadian English" which is a regional dialect of neutral English that differs from that spoken in other regions of North America. Though the majority of us speak our regional dialect of English, Chinook Jargon (not to be confused with the Native American language of Chinook), was a trade language widely spoken in this region prior to 1860 and is now very much on the rise again. Though it never actually ceased to exist and has always been spoken by very few (as one example, the state motto of Washington: "Al-ki" is a Chinook Jargon phrase meaning "bye and bye"), classes teaching Chinook Jargon are now appearing at community colleges region-wide and there are a host of new web sites appearing on the web that feature online lessons in Chinook Jargon. Our hope is that in the years to come, it will be more widely spoken, much as Gaelic is in Scotland, which though no longer the dominant language, is widely studied for its cultural and historical significance.

On the subject of flags, the one depicted in the InfoBox is the most widely accepted and is commonly known as the "Doug" due to the Douglas Fir tree adorning it.

If I can be of any assistance on this matter, please feel free to contact me at:

nagasakisullenhorde@yahoo.com —Nagasakisullenhorde 10:18, July 29, 2005 (GMT)

If there is such widespread concept of an independent Cascadia as stated above, why doesn't your group float an Initiative process to see exactly how much support you'd get? I doubt you'd even get enough signitures to put it on a ballot. It is futile to dream about your form of government, language, etc. without any form of public support. You cannot govern without the support of the governed. --Luftmann (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Verification of the article should be done

Verification of notability for this article is needed. IOW, whether this movement and ideas are supported for long time by significant group of people, not just by someone's fantazy. The verification should contain reference to journals, books or historical material rather than a website (everyone can created dozens of them). Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 20:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Portland Indymedia [1] is one source with a lot of information and discussion on the subject (a search for Cascadia lands 1075 hits on the site). As for "historical material" and the like, I think that might be more difficult to dig up since as far as I know the movement, while quickly emerging, is not yet firmly established. Certainly the idea of a common culture in the area is older though, and some info might be dug up on that. Sarge Baldy 21:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
This is a well known regional secession movement, documented in the media since the late 1940s, as anyone bothering to research the subject can easily see for themselves.--Gene_poole 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course, if it's in a book, magazine or journal it MUST be true, right? Keep in mind that YOUR own country didn't exist 20 years ago save for the goals of a few forward thinking people.

For the record, you won't find ANY mention of ANY American secession movements in history books save for the Confederacy (which I guess they couldn't ignore). History books are written by those currently in charge and those in charge would not like to make it widely known that secessionist ideas are common here. That is despite the fact that there are currently at least 20 secession movements going on as we speak inside of the United States and at least three others in Canada. Of these 20+, Cascadia is probably among the top four best known ones. The other three are the Free State Project (New Hampshire), The Second Vermont Republic (Vermont) and the New California Republic. As Gene pointed out, secession in this region received extensive NATIONAL news coverage in 1941. Though it's now a little known fact elsewhere, it's still widely known in this region.

The San Francisco Chronicle considered the 1941 State of Jefferson important enough to dispatch a reporter to the scene as it unfolded. His articles on the "Yreka Rebellion" garnered him the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for his efforts in 1942. Both Life and Time magazines also sent photographers out on December 4th, 1941. Regrettably, due to their age, these documents are not widely available anymore.

I do happen to agree that the details do need to be better documented than they have been (which is being worked on, slowly but surely - for history sake alone), but to use the word "fantasy" in regard to ANY movement in this region is simply proof that you obviously don't know too much about the region you are commenting on, let alone any of its history. The fact is, there have been activities like this going back to the time when the first Americans set foot on Cascadian soil (and Europeans were living here long before that).

In the meantime, have an animated GIF of some of the 1941 activities that show secessionists from "Jefferson" changing the California border.

File:Newsreel.gif
1941 secession activities

--Nagasakisullenhorde 05:41, 4 August 2005 (GMT)

P.S. - Google gives 858,000 returns for the word "Cascadia", most of which point to sites that originate in this region.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so excuse if I'm not following standard protocol here. The history section is seriously problematic. Chronology and facts are fuzzy at best. There was a movement of sorts to create a Pacific Republic in the early 19th century. Thomas Jefferson assumed there would be a Pacific Republic, as did many others after him. Settlers in the Willamette Valley even voted to form an independent republic in the early 1840s prior to the Oregon Treaty, something John McLoughlin ("The Father of Oregon") favored, but the Methodist missionaries did not. The idea of a Pacific Republic simmered in the 1850s and was fully revived during the Civil War, but in a completely different political context. The Knights of the Golden Circle conspiracy thing, while interesting, is somewhat misleading. Fact is, the supporters of the Pacific Confederacy were pro-slavery Southern sympathizers, whether they actually belonged to some shadowy conspiracy group or not. Senator Joseph Lane was probably the most prominent of the (alleged) supporters of the Pacific Confederacy in Oregon---he was regularly denounced as a traitor in the newspapers, but I don't recall reading much about the Golden Circle claim in the newspapers of the time. He was denounced as a traitor because he expressed support for the South's secession, and, allegedly, for the secession of Pacific Coast states. I'll dig up my old research on this and rewrite the early history section when I have time.

Also, it should be emphasized that the advocates for the State of Jefferson---which was mostly a publicity stunt, by the way---did not seek secession from the US. They simply wanted separate statehood for their region, statehood within the United States. I don't see how it's really relevant to the idea of Cascadia, which is about independence from the US and Canada. I'm leaning towards totally deleting any reference to the State of Jefferson. I believe the State of Shasta thing was similar to Jefferson, but I haven't done any research on it---the provided link is to a verbatim copy of this very same Wikipedia article on some pro-independence site. It looks to me like whoever wrote this section is trying to legitimize the current Cascadia movement by establishing a long, unbroken history of support for an independent Pacific Republic. This is not historically accurate.

Finally, this whole article needs a lot more context. Bioregionalism is mentioned only indirectly, but the modern idea of Cascadia is thoroughly grounded in the bioregional movement. There are also other independence movements out there, Vermont Commons, for example. I'll do what I can to fix some of this, but it'd be nice if someone who knew more about bioregionalism than I do could pitch in. Generally speaking I think the Cascadian independence movement, and others like it, are more tongue in cheek than anything, designed to provoke thought rather than political action, but it would be nice to document them accurately and fairly. Coyote369 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Until the people in the affected region all vote for the creation of this state, it will remain a fantasy movement, just like the revisionist myth of the 1940's secession movement, which in reality was an attempt to create a new state within the US from part of Oregon and California. --Luftmann (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If this helps anyone.

The population would be about 13,500,000 assuming no one left. 13,522,874 to be exact. I would add this myself, but I really don't know enough about the topic.

Well, that also depends exactly what split off. It's possible some areas (such as eastern Oregon and Washington, and northern British Columbia) might opt out, or that other areas (parts of Idaho, Northern California, the Yukon, or Alaska) might join in. While the two states and the province are the obvious core, and that number might be a good guesstimate, it's really not so easy to say definitively. Sarge Baldy 00:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Silly question

Hawaii has some distinct cultural connections with mainland Cascadia. Why not include Hawaii in Cascadia? Cnoizece 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii has an independence movement of its own. Independentists in Hawaii have no desire to become part of Cascadia --Revolución (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason that Hawaii has never been included lies in the fact that 1.) it is located thousands of miles away and 2.) Hawaii has its own secession movement.
Nagasakisullenhorde 08:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
their pretty much their own thing culturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklordchris (talk • contribs) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

the cascade mountains are nowhere near hawaii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.32.201 (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

czechoslovakia comparisson

I'm always looking for intelligent writing on the subject of Cascadia, preferably something that goes beyond wishful thinking and enters into the realm of real-politik. I would suggest leaving out the reference to the "velvet revolution" of Czechoslovakia. I understand wanting to give the Cascadian movement a certain historical legitimacy, preferably a nice clean European one, but I think it's historically misguided to say that PNW has anything in common with Czechoslovakia. Yes, a will for a peaceful revolution, but that's where the comparison stops. To me, as a historian, it's a disconsonant note, and comes across as a bit hystrionic. At the risk of being pedantic:

1. It overdramatises the PNW "plight", as if Oregon/Wash/BC have been held down by the thumb of a great Tyranny all these years .

Well, BC actually has, but it's too lengthy a discussion on Canadian federal policies and electoral structure to get into here; write me if you're interested mikecleven_at_gmail.com

2. It ignores the fact that Czechoslovakia was already an (officially) sovereign nation with representation in the UN.

3. Czechoslovakia did not seceed from anything, it threw off the yokes of a foreign power and a tyrannical domestic regime.

4.The two components that it eventually split into (Slovakia/Czech Republic) already had previous lives as sovereign states, with clear recognized borders and distinct languages.

5. The situation was in Czechoslovakia was quite dire, the population was almost universally dissatisfied and mobilizable.

The truth is, I can't think of any historical precedent out of recent history that would be applicable for a trans-national region that peacefully acquires autonomy from 2 separate federal governments. Cascadia has a clear opportunity to be historically groundbreaking in it's own right. If you are looking for historically comparisons, you are jsut as well off looking at the United Arab Emirates or Micronesia than to Czechoslovakia.

Tvanhulzen 11:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I'll remove the passage. It's unreferenced, anyway. — Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

violent revolution?

The "movements and ideas" section had the following paragraph:

Supporters of the Evergreen Revolution, hope to one day achieve the independence of Cascadia through peaceful means versus the use of violent revolution, much the same way as was done in the former Czecho-Slovakia's Velvet Revolution in 1989.

I'm pretty sure that "nonviolent" was meant here; otherwise the Velvet Revolution reference doesn't make sense. I've changed it; please revert it if I was mistaken...

Jamie 09:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it was correct, just confusing. It meant through peaceful means rather than the use of violent revolution. Still, there's no reason to even mention violent revolution, particularly since it transitions poorly into the mention of the Velvet Revolution. Sarge Baldy 10:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cascadian References

I think someone should mention the cascadia scorecard [2] in this article. Also there is a movement to rename Washington State Cascadia that has been brewing for sometime now.

Here's some info I've found on the state renaming:

[[3]] I do not know who the person who brought this initiative in is, not one of the people I've heard about in the struggle to change the name.

One person merely suggesting a name change does not make a movement. There was no such initiative placed on the ballot in 2003, or ever for that matter. --Luftmann (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

There used to be a userbox for supporters of Cascadian independence. Does anyone have the code for that one?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wandering Star (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 July 2006.

You'd have to get an admin to grab it from the history of Template:User independent Cascadia. I think it could be recreated now, but I haven't been following the ubx-politics lately... There's also [[:Category:Cascadian Wikipedians]]. heqs 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Sarge Baldy has it on their user page. heqs 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is easy - have one on me! Do I have the colours right?
id1This user is CascadianCAS
Solarbird (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This user supports the independence of Cascadia.
Is this the userbox you were talking about? I had it in my userboxes for some time now. —NuclearVacuum 01:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article is going to plausibly speak of Cascadian secession, it should offer some data demonstrating what level of popular support there actually is for that idea. What percentage of PNW residents have been documented to actually support this? (This IS an encyclopedia, after all.) 69.241.235.253 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is NO popular support here in Washington for this movement. --Luftmann (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I added that it says Brewed in the Republic of Cascadia on Fishtale Organic Ale, because I think it is noteworthy that a beer says that with a map of Cascadia on it. I dont know of any other products which say "Made in Cascadia". Dream of Liberation...FREE CASCADIA! --Fragility 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. Owen 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete!

This should be deleted. It promotes rebellion, and other unlawful activities. And we all know that this dream of a "sovereign" state will never come true, the US Govt, would not allow Washington and Oregon to separate, I dont know what Canada would do, because they are for the most part peaceful. SG-17 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you-I sincerely hope they delete it, though I doubt they will.63.152.13.173 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any logical reason this article should be deleted, as it discusses an actual and historical movement, and the basis behind such a movement. Unless you can provide reasoning beyond "promoting rebellion", this article will stand. Furthermore, please read up on the United States Constitution Amendment One, you may find an interesting passage in there about Freedom of Speech. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
SG-17, you should perhaps go back and read some of the (I assume YOUR) founder's writings and maybe get to know your rights a little better. I suggest doing so quickly before those writings and documents are banned - you don't have long, my friend. Does this all promote rebellion? I hope so. And as for it being a dream that will never come true; well, that's what everyone said about the USSR, Czecho-Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany and a host of other countries.

It certainly shouldn't be deleted. It does document an actual, if extremely marginal, idea/movement. But the point of view needs to be more neutral. Some of it is a straight cut-and-paste from a pro-independence website. Coyote369 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's some irony - talking about seceeding from the US while claiming First Amendment protection. --Luftmann (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually ironic. The First Amendment protects an internationally recognized human right. Knightablaze (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets burn some books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.102.38 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is bullshit and foolish. I doubt there is much support for this supposed "country". My vote for this "independence movement" would have to be strong oppose. Volcanoguy 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Plagarism?

The bulk of the text in this article is identical to the text on http://cascadianow.org/history.html 67.168.59.171 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks to be the case. This will be handled shortly. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup. You'll note that the entire CIP website is Anti-Copyright. And I quote:
Anti-Copyright @2006. Information on this page may be reused for any purpose.
Seems it's just fine, though we may wish to improve the prose a bit. Vert et Noirtalk 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It's really the other way around. CascadiaNow.org was largely put together by its developer by gleaning from multiple online sources. These include not only Wiki, but also several other sites - all of which are considered Public Domain. Of course, the developer should have maybe pointed that out in a list of references. Nagasakisullenhorde09:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cascadia extreme.jpg

Isnt' Image:Cascadia extreme.jpg a picture of the Cascadia geologic province? 132.205.44.5 01:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. That image was designed by David McCloskey who is also credited with popularizing the name Cascadia for this region. Most of us involved in this movement generally regard McCloskey's map as a guideline, though in recent months, the portion which encompasses Northern California is becoming an issue of debate. Nagasakisullenhorde 09:94, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding Category

Since this article is part of Category: Secession in the United States I'm adding it to the corresponding Canadian category. Random89 06:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Are there any better sources for this? The vast majority of the references come from the Cascadian Independence Project, which is obviously not independent non-partisan coverage. The rest of the references discuss the "Republic of the Pacific" or are from an online forum.-Wafulz 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a Start Class, since it contains more detail and organization than a Stub Class, but requires more referencing. I have assessed as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

References

This article definitely needs more sources, however the movement has been written up outside the various movement's websites. A quick search of EBSCOhost yielded these results:

We're outta here. By: Overby, Peter, Common Cause Magazine, 08846537, Win92, Vol. 18, Issue 4

"And visionaries in the Northwest talk about a nation of Cascadia spanning northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia."

America's Crackup. By: Fleming, Thomas, National Review, 00280038, 7/28/1997, Vol. 49, Issue 14

California is also experiencing cultural friction. In San Francisco, where I spent a year, many people endorse a proposal for splitting the state in three, while others dream of being part of Cascadia, a new nation that would include Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.

The following articles aren't about secession, but do note how economists refer to Cascadia as a distinct trading region.

All trade routes lead south. By: Serres, Christopher, Alberta Report / Newsmagazine, 02250519, 6/27/94, Vol. 21, Issue 28

"These rechannelled exports are heading primarily into two trading regions, Mr. Swanson notes, the Rocky Mountain Corridor (Alberta, B.C., Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Colorado) and Cascadia (Alberta, B.C., Montana, Alaska, Washington and Oregon). California is a partner to both regions. Last year Alberta shipped about $9 billion (47.3% of the province's exports) worth of goods and services into these two corridors.
Cascadia has become Alberta's most significant regional market. Also known as the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, it consists of 16.5 million people with a total economy of $350 billion a year. If Cascadia were a single economy, it would rank tenth in the world, just behind Canada. Alberta shipped $6.5 billion to this market last year, and the Alberta government estimates that, over the past five years, exports from Alberta to Cascadia have grown by about 11% a year."

WESTERN REGIONALISM: VIEWS ON CASCADIA. Phillips, James D. Canada -- United States Law Journal; 2004, Vol. 30, p333-339, 7p

Welcome to Cascadia. The Economist, 00130613, 5/21/94, Vol. 331, Issue 7864

BRITISH COLUMBIANS were not amused, but not surprised either, when a Toronto-produced television documentary portrayed their province's participation in "Cascadia"--a cross-border alliance with the nearby American states of Washington and Oregon--as a flirtation with separatism. "Eastern Canadian journalists are caught in a 19th-century time warp," says Charles Kelly, publisher of New Pacific, a magazine promoting Cascadia."They're completely ignorant of our history, culture and aspirations."

Cascadia: A state of (various) mind(s). By: Henkel, William B., Chicago Review, 00093696, 1993, Vol. 39, Issue 3/4

The gist of this article is how a UW prof, mentioned above, borrowed the term "Cascadia" from a book on geology to describe a bioregion, and now the term has been co-opted by the the business media.

Some diligent searching should probably yield other mentions of the secessionist movement.

Katr67 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One more

The Americas: British Columbia's future may not lie with 'Old Canada' Powell, Mark W. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jun 9, 1995. pg. A11

"Should Quebec break the 128-year-old confederation in the East, British Columbia could well do it in the West. A rump Canada, dominated even more than it already is by Ontario, holds little charm for many BCers. Some look to a tighter association with oil-rich Alberta in a so-called Western Canadian Concept, and/or close ties with Washington and Oregon in a Northwest " Cascadia," envisioned by some as a partially or fully autonomous Northwest country. Washington and Oregon aren't about to leave the U.S., but closer economic and social ties defining a de facto "Cascadia" seem inevitable."

Another trivial mention, and another article referred to it as a "fringe movement" but I bet there is more to be found. Katr67 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

More

Non-trivial? mention in Oregonian:

Trivial:

Katr67 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As of now

As of now, this article is nearly all unsourced. The CascadiaNow.org website is down. While I agree that documenting what is basically an idea (not so much an actual movement, sorry guys) it should include more sources then a few. I've been tracking this idea for a while (off and on) and it seems to be only people talking about the idea, and not taking much action, as one would think a movement would be doing. I question this articles content and NPOV. --Ryandwayne 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Afd discussion. I suggested this article be renamed and have it cover the concept of the bioregion and economic region, with some mention of the independence movements included. Thoughts? Katr67 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I was on a listserve for the Cascadia independence and it was one person posting TONS of stuff, without much meaning to actually moving towards independence. Seccession in the US would be extremely complicated and at this point it is more focused on creating an identity of Cascadia, which links to the culture of the PNW and the bioregion. Sections in the existing bioregion section could include : "Culture" "Politics" which could include concepts of cascadia as a increasing cultural identity (it is showing up more and more) and the idea of a independent state. I've yet to see any information that shows an actual movement is happening. If it is, it's in the early stages of forming and does not need its own article.

I took a look at the Pacific Northwest page and there was much discussion that it is NOT synonymous with Cascadia, so it would make sense to reexamine the "Cascadia-Bioregion" title and starting a new topic. I'll point out that the idea of Cascadia is very integral to the idea of a bioregion...Cascadia being linked to the cascades watershed, which creates the bioregion. --Ryandwayne 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I realize that Cascadia is more of a growing REGIONAL identity then it is a national one. There is no place for presenting the increasing use of Cascadia as a regional identity. And I will say in most contexts it is being used by politicians and journalists in the PNW as a bioregional identity. --Ryandwayne 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cascadian Independence and Proper Citation

Hello,

First off, I would like to take the time to thank all those people who have so far contributed to the Cascadian Independence Wikipedia article, and have taken the time to discuss this article.

I am the webmaster for the Cascadian Independence Project at cascadianow.org of which much of this article references. There was some concern earlier in this discussion about the website being down, and I wanted let people know that we are done moving our servers and to assure people that it is again live. Be warned that there may be some inconsistencies in page quality as we convert our pages from images to text based html. The site should be finished within the next couple of weeks.

Also, the information that was gathered for the history sections as was stated correctly earlier is found throughout the internet and is not copyrighted material. As I have the time, I can go ahead and grab the sources to move this article away from my site to put down further questions of legitimacy. Also, the below suggestion that we need references on the original page was correct. That will be done as we convert our website.

One final note that I'd like to ask is to please stop deleting our link. We are a legitimate organization calling for eventual independence from the governments of the United States and Canada. I think this entitles us to a space somewhere on the Cascadian Independence wikipedia article.

While many other organizations have arisen to promote Cascadian wellbeing and increased democracy, we maintain that we are still the primary group dedicated to the idea of secession simply because we are the ONLY organization at this time publicly arguing for it. Please respect this fact.

For those who still question the legitimacy of Cascadian Independence as a movement, I think the people below have done a wonderful job of illustrating the impact of Cascadia within popular media today. Some other publications that reference the Cascadian movement are the NYtimes (Coming together to pull apart), Good Magazine (Most Likely to Secede), the Eugene Weekly (A Free Cascadia), the Vancouver Review (Welcome to Cascadia) and the Martlet (The Evergreen Revolution) among others.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and keep up the great work.

--Brandon Cascadianow (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and your very helpful comments. Skomorokh incite 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is now August and your group's link is still dead. Please fix the link or delete it. --Luftmann (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now 2009 and cascadianow.org is still up and running...is this some sort of vendetta Luft? Knightablaze (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a map?

A map seems necessary for an article about independence movements doesn't it? I would make one but I don't know the maps for these areas. Thanks--Hamster X (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be sweet. I would be more then happy to help you out, but what exactly do you need? — NuclearVacuum 13:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Motivations: Bioregionalism

I like the idea of a bioregionalism subsection under motivations, but currently it is completely and totally unsourced. I've added a call for sources to it, as I think the idea is sound, despite the insertion of POV in other portions of the article (and on this article discussion page) by the same contributor. (Luftmann, please remember that at least in theory these discussion pages are about the article, not about the validity of the concept discussed by the article. I've attempted to do a fair cleanup of your adds - and some other problems in the article, of which there are many - by moving things into proper sections, adding a couple of additional source pointers, and deleting some commentary.) Solarbird (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The page as written could be straight from secessionist propaganda websites, many of which are no longer maintained. Neutrality is sorely needed. The environment is the primary motivation for this movement and it should be noted rather than hiding behind derived reasons such as a nonexistent Pacific Northwest dialect and cultural differences. I have traveled widely and we Washingtonians do not have more in common culturally with BC than with the rest of the US; nor do we use the typical Canadian dialect found north of the Washington border - for example, a-boot and eh are not used at all. I have used valid references - in fact more valid than the self-written pieces used as references by earlier contributers. Do not remove valid references, and if you want to keep your references, please provide links to websites that actually exist. I do not agree with all of your info, but I do not simply delete it. You do not have to agree with mine, but it is properly sourced and it provides greater neutrality overall and greater understanding of the subject.
I respect and support the green movement's commitment to the environment and wish you success under the incoming administration. However, do not claim to speak for the millions of Washingtonians, Oregonians, and others who do not share the political views of your extremely marginal group and its secessionist dreams.--Luftmann (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have indented your reply one level, before indenting this reply two levels, for clarity. I did not edit the content of your response.
I note you bulk-undid my recent revisions; I've now demonstrated I can do that just as well as you can, so now that we've done that, I would like to try to have a more constructive approach to this in future, okay? I've been keeping as many of your changes as I thought were sustained by your source material, including adding (in the last round of revisions that you just undid en masse) a Criticisms section. I have deleted what struck me as highly POV-driven commentary from the article, particularly when unsourced; however, I think the idea of describing (rather than boosting) criticisms of the movement is good, which is why I added a criticisms section at the motivations part of the article, prompted by your contributions. I've also kept other material you've added, such as the bioregionalism section. (More on that below.) I am trying to work with you.
To the "it's all ecological" argument; it is your opinion that the primary motivation for this movement is as you described. (It is also your opinion that the entire article should be deleted, but I digress.) That is not what the backers of the movement say, and as this is an article about that movement, and in such a political situation, the stated opinions of those people do in fact matter, because it's those opinions (and the results thereof) being described. It is valid to say that external observers say it's really about foo or bar; that's why I supported the idea of a section on bioregionalism. This is an argument that can be supported.
Similarly, the article does not pretend to "speak for the millions of Washingtonians, Oregonians, and others who do not share the political views of your extremely marginal group"; you're confusing description with advocacy. The article is attempting to describe the movement itself, not support that movement has. Similarly, an article about the Libertarian Party of California would not "speak for the millions of," etc. That the movement is very small is fundamentally, pedantically obvious; your obsession with pounding that point home every second paragraph is, frankly, POV. For what little it might be worth, despite your assumptions, I am not a member of the CNP, of the CIP, or associated in any way with CascadiaNow. I in fact agree that the movement is extremely marginal and unlikely to go anywhere, ever. However, I find it interesting as a thought experiment, and frankly kind of fun. (I also do support cross-boarder cooperation with BC, and open boarders between here and Canada.)
As for dialect: the articles to which you have linked previously about dialect in fact contradict your statements and additions about dialect; hence my alterations of those sections. You are confusing east-coast, eastern, and maritime Canadian dialects, which have different vowel shifts and some phrasing. The offsite reference you borrowed from another article about Canadian dialect, for example, had nothing to do with the point you were using it to support, but was instead covering accents of the Maritime provinces (far eastern Canada, with a very different dialect) to Maine, and accordingly, not relevant. (Yes, I looked it up.) The Wikipedia article on the Western Canadian dialect found in BC in fact notes specifically that said dialect is essentially identical to that found in the American PNW, which is not the case for Californian and several other Western US dialects. Again, this contradicts your assertion on a simple factual basis.
Referencing no-longer-extant websites is valid as long as those sites were valid at time of reference. The internet is a fluid thing; if only permanent references were allowed, there would be awfully few references, particularly for small political movements. That's the reason for the retrieved-date portion of the reference. I agree that currently-online citations are better, but in marginal cases like this, you have to take what you can get. Solarbird (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't assume that I am against inclusion of this article. I am all for free political speech, but it must be FACTUAL to be included in Wikipedia, otherwise it is a great disservice for readers. The fact remains that this movement is not a mainstream movement and to remove this fact is an attempt to put this movement on par with ACTUAL secessionist movements around the world with legitimate political agendas. This movement is an idea, not a flesh and bones movement operating with the consent of the majority of those living in the area. It should be stated as such. I do not seek deletion of this article, especially since I agree with some of the environmental aspects of the groups behind this movement.
You must use valid sources that can be currently referenced. Wikipedia policy states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If I had turned in my masters' thesis with sources that could not be verified, I could not have defended it. The links to the CNP must be fixed or they must be removed. I will work with you on other issues, but this one I am standing firm on. Cite your work with sources that others can actually read.
The language section is completely dubious. If you have lived in the western US for any length of time, you would know that there are few differences in how we speak, from Washington to Colorado. The commonly identified areas of obvious language differences are in New England, the East Coast, the Midwest, the south, and Texas. As much as you may dislike Californians, there are actually few differences present in the way residents of both areas speak. Do not use another Wikipedia article as a source for language dialects. You must use a valid linguistic study as proof.--Luftmann (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:BeTheEvergreenRevoultion small.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The last edit

The last edit reverted Shegoesgaga's edit and indentified it as vandalism, I looked at her (or his?) edit and it does not look like vandalism to me. Am I missing something or was this a mistake? If no one posts here in a week then I will revert it back to Shegoesgaga's version, thanks. --South Islander (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Seattle or Vancouver?

Are we sure that Seattle is larger than Vancouver? To my knowledge, Vancouver's population is over one million. Seattle's is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.58.34 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 

     Never mind. Some areas that I was thinking of as being part of Vancouver are simply part of the metropolitan area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.58.34 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson's supposed "Republic of the Pacific"

I just rewrote the section about Jefferson, which had a number of points wrong, or misleading. I removed the two references about Jefferson, which both pointed to http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/road2oregon/sa31provgovt.html -- this link was given the title "Beginnings of Self-Government", but whatever it was meant to show it does not now. The link redirects to The Visitor Center at the End of the Oregon Trail, which says nothing about Jefferson or Cascadia at all. Also, I found it curious and a bit amusing to read Jefferson's letter to Astor in full, online here. After gushing about Fort Astoria Jefferson makes several nasty comments about the English. It strikes me as ironic to cite this letter in a history of a proposed independent Cascadia made up of both US and Canadian (specifically British Columbia) territory. Pfly (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

6st edition?

^ McArthur, Lewis A.; McArthur, Lewis L.. Oregon Geographic Names (6st ed.). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press. pp. 152–155.

I guess 6st editions are rare, can you find it in the 6th edition? Or in the 1st? And in the 7th? --Diwas (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I added that bit on the origin of the term "Cascades". The copy I have of Oregon Geographic Names happens to be the 6th edition. The info is undoubtedly the same in the 7th edition, but the page number might be different. Pfly (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for explanation, now it is corrected from 6st to 6th. --Diwas (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, a typo? My bad. I didn't catch it even in your pointing it out here. Pfly (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag?

There is only flags that Cascadia might have when it gets independent[4]. Thanks, Steve T. R.! --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 03:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that emblem (more a seal than a flag) more legitimate than the one shown in the article? —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Doug Flag is the most legitimate and documented symbol of Cascadia. It is not a 'hypothetical' symbol but one that is being actively used, hence it deserves a place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cascadianow (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You are responding to a really old thread about this link (as linked in the original post). This thread isn't about whether or not the Doug Flag is hypothetical, as far as I can tell. I reverted the unregistered user's addition of a Doug Flag section as repeating info already in the article. Feel free to try again, but I think since Doug Flag already has its own article, the info provided already is sufficient, as people can click through if they want to know more. I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made a detailed map

My map.

Greetings. I have made a new map for this article. It is more detailed then what has been up, and shows the Core (BC, OR, WA) and the bioregional border. I have added it to the article, I hope you guys like it. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I love it! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug Flag/Timbers

In the 'References in Popular culture' the first part about the Doug flag feels a little off topic, I don't think the connection between the Timbers use of the flag and the "independence movement" specifically is explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreboniusArtorius (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Should the page be split?

It seems to me this page is trying to address two rather different things—or at least there are two different things that ought to be addressed. First, there is the "independence movement", which this page's title and most of its content focuses on. Second, there is the "binational" region sometimes called Cascadia, which already exists and does not involve secession or sovereignty. This second Cascadia is something like Great Lakes region (North America)—a widely recognized region that includes parts of the US and Canada. In my experience this second Cascadia is the one most commonly written about and what is referred to by groups like the Sightline Institution (eg, their Cascadia Scorecard). There are scholarly books about this binational Cascadia, but I have never seen a book of any kind about the secessionist Cascadia. The secessionist Cascadia gets attention on the Internet simply for being secessionist, but there is nearly zero support for such a thing among the general population of the region, as far as I can tell.

In short, I'd like to see a page about Cascadia the already-existing binational region (a page similar to Pacific Northwest, but with a focus on the term Cascadia and groups using the term to promote cross-border cooperation (economic, ecological, cultural, etc)—without so much focus on the secessionist "movement", without the Country Infobox, flags, and so on. This page could remain about the secessionist movement (it is titled for it already), while the other page could be called something like Cascadia (region) or Cascadia (economic region), or something like that. It could be argued that this binational Cascadia is already the topic of Pacific Northwest, so there is no need for another page. I could be convinced of that. Still, it seems like it might be worthwhile to have a page specifically on the Cascadia that already exists and is not exactly the same as the Pacific Northwest, is something more specific and limited in focus. I'm not quite sure though, so I thought I'd just post this suggestion and see what others think. Pfly (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

-- there is nothing on this Cascadia page that does not belong there in my mind. Many of these issues are incredibly intertwined, and while your personal beliefs are that an independence movement has no support, it is your personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cascadianow (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
-- I agree that it should be split. It must be split because the Cascadia Bioregion is real and now. It refers to the land. The independence movement is somewhat a derivative of this as the separation is based on the bioregion itself. I have studied this topic a fair amount over the past 6 months and I feel 100% certain that the page must be split. I can't do it now but would support someone else doing.--74.198.150.30 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to stick to the subject of the independence movement

I've just deleted two sections as they weren't about the independence movement. Also please note, sources should discuss the movement, not the concept of Cascadia. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm wading back into this controversial topic area after years of avoiding it. Could you suggest a way to write about the concept of Cascadia? See Talk:Cascadia and possibly Talk:Pacific Northwest and their archives for the background. At one time it was proposed to have an article on Cascadia (bioregion), which is currently a redirect to Pacific Northwest. There is little mention of the concept in that article. Thanks. P.S. Oh yes, and see Pfly's comments above. Valfontis (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Good work there. I'm not sure how to write about the concept. I'd think offhand, without looking at anything, it would start with a section in Pacific Northwest and then when it was too large, split. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

- 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.150.30 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested rename to Cascadia movement

I'd like to propose a rename to the simpler and more inclusive Cascadia movement, as many of the relevant activists are more interested in increased autonomy and regional identity/cooperation, rather than actually pursuing "independence".--Pharos (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


We should change the map to represent the bioregion.

This is the only place i've seen a map that severs areas of the Cascadian Bio-region the way this one does. The cascadian movement is bio-regional, and includes many areas left out of this map. What then shall we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmosis (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Erasmosis What map do you prefer? Can you provide a link to one you like better? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: RESULTAs there is no longer agreement on the original move, closing this and restoring old name. New article to be created, old material from this one to be moved to an improved Cascadia (bioregion). Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Cascadia movement → Cascadia independence movement – I think it is a really bad idea to have one article combining a discussion of the bioregion and of the secessionist movement in one article. Clearly most of the article is about the independence movement and to combine them is to link those concerned with the Cascadia (bioregion) with secessionism. I didn't notice this before it was moved. Maybe the 2 editors involved didn't notice that we already have Cascadia movement. I do not understand the rationale " the article here does not describe the subject of this article as an "independence movement". The lead says it's the name of a proposed country. The description mentions striving towards independence. A number of sections describe secessionist attempts, etc. The problem that has existed is that people have added material to this article which should be in Cascadia (bioregion). Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Revert to status quo This does not merit discussion. The previous move happened too quickly and there are other things which should happen instead of sustaining the move. Things should go back to the status quo and other routes of discussion and action should be examined. See discussion below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Dougweller May I ask that you close this move discussion for a few days? There are some problems both with the move that just happened and with your proposal, and I think it would be best to sort out the options with a few inside people before we bring this issue to outsiders who know nothing of the concept of Cascadia. I would like to sort the scope of several articles and I do not expect to have a lot of dispute in doing this as I think we will be of like mind.
The Cascadia (bioregion) ought to be about the bioregion and not about human behavior. Probably that article and some of the article on Pacific Northwest ought to be combined somehow. There are a series of social movements which call themselves "Cascadia". The independence movement may be one, and the environmental movement may be another, but the sources talk a lot about regional identity which has nothing to do with either of those things. Perhaps the article currently called Cascadia (bioregion) should be called Cascadia environmental movement, because that article seems to want to discuss environmental protection in the region. :Also that entire article is backed to weak sources, and I am not sure the article would pass an WP:AfD without talk of merging it to something else. Perhaps the content in this article should not be called "Cascadia movement", but their ought to be an article called "Cascadia movement", and it ought to summarize all the Cascadia movements then link to longer articles about those things if necessary. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Bluerasberry - I'm a bit gobsmacked here. You're an experienced editor with a lot of knowledge of Wikipedia and involvement with Wikipedia activities. But you are asking me to defer a move request while what looks like a group of unknown individuals with a possible conflict of interest make decisions about this and then presumably start to !vote? If you mean, as I'm guessing you do, Wikipedians belonging to m:Wikimedia Cascadia it would help if you said so. And sorry, but if you hadn't !voted the way you did a move that you now say is problematic wouldn't have taken place so quickly. I'm still of the opinion that "Cascadia movement" is too general as there is no single Cascadia movement, and as I've suggested, we shouldn't lump secessionists with probable anit-secessionists in that way. So no, I can't in good conscience close this now - that would let your group have a headstart over ordinary, non-involved Wikipedians who might have something to say. Leaving it open shouldn't disadvantage anyone as I think that the move was far too hasty and a normal move request should stay open longer than a week. Normally they stay open 30 days unless there is an obvious decision earlier. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller There is a misunderstanding. I am going to email you now to ask if you would talk by phone or video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I just talked with Doug on the phone and I think we are in agreement. I support moving this article back to Cascadia (independence movement). I will start a new article sometime soon called Cascadia movement, and then that article will summarize the various Cascadia movements with appropriate weight and link to any subarticles on the topic. Subarticles right now would be Cascadia (independence movement) and Cascadia (bioregion). In the history of the independence movement article there is some deleted text which may be able to be revived and put into Cascadia (bioregion). Doug and I both agree that the secessionist movement is only well-described in historical sources and that good sources have not been identified which describe it as a serious contemporary phenomenon supported by any group which is well-covered in journalism. I confirmed to Doug that I do support and help organize meta:Wikimedia Cascadia but that group is apolitical and is just intended to be a community for people who support the culture of the geographical region or who live in the geographical region. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source

--Another Believer (Talk) 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete silence on Indigenous in Historical section

So far the run through on the Provisional Government of Oregon is pretty rife with ignorance. "Elements among the region's population sought to form their own country from the very beginning" was the opening, which is pretty impressive given that there was already a collection of Native nations across the region. Frankly I don't think of the information stated on other pages needs to be copied here; every scholar on the polity states it wasn't "functioning" until 1845, two years after it's creation. This was due to how only willing colonists were a part of the creation, and their number was low (under 3,000 French-Canadian/Americans in 1843) Even then it was essentially relegated to Willamette Valley, a far cry from controlling the entire PNW (which while not stated, is implied merely by being on this page). For a redrafting I was thinking a condensed paragraph, perhaps covering the weakness till '45, the inclusion of French-Canadians, the later Cayuse War and the bungling of land claims that ignored territorial rights of Natives. Details like the Organic Laws can be cut to just a link to the article. Even if this was to be completed there is a dire need to explain how these "precursors" thought by American leaders to independent states would be *colonist* creations. Thoughts? Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

what is this? cascadia.com/aboutus ?

I've seen whole pages wiped for less.

Just stop. These links are not 'irrelevant' or 'promotional'. They serve a function, and when they continued to be deleted, then when groups are referenced elsewhere in the articles, people delete these sections by going saying there are no groups. There are many active secessionist groups working within the Pacific Northwest area that are well documented. If it is listed and cited in the article, and is relevant to Cascadia Do not delete it. April 15th 2011

Largest City, Seattle or Vancouver?

In the information box on the right, the wiki has Vancouver listed as Cascadia's largest city, but in the second paragraph of the article, last sentence, it contradictorily cites Seattle as the largest.

Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.137.98 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver recently surpassed Seattle in population, the second paragraph has not yet been updated. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Which recent census? Seattle's population as of the 2010 Census is 608,660. The most recent census info for Vancouver I know of is 578,041 as of 2006 ([5]). If there is more recent Canadian census info, please cite it. Pfly (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me for that. Here: [6]. Not a census, but an official government estimate. I was under the impression there were census results, although I can't seem to find them now. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That works for me. I'm not surprised that Vancouver is overtaking Seattle. I'll edit the page with this info later, unless someone beats me to it. Pfly (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks from our own articles Seattle and Vancouver that Seattle has the larger metro area by a considerable margin. For both cities, the actual city boundaries aren't really pertinent because they include considerable contiguous suburbs. So I'm OK with retaining it in the infobox. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cascadia_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1207512645"