Talk:Okanagan Valley (wine region)

Mudslides

Is there an article on the 2010 mudslides? It seems like an WP:ITN thing that would have a larger article. The blurb here is way too short on relevant details. 168.156.99.56 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sonoran Desert refs

We obviously don't need to add all these WP:RS to the article but some additional refs that talk about the Sonoran Desert extension in the southern Okanagan. And again, there are many, many more refs we can use if need be. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• • they're NOT WP:RS; see below.Skookum1 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Google News hits
• Spokesman Review (news paper) "Equally exciting are the few remaining pockets of the northernmost extremity of the Sonoran Desert, which runs all the way through the United States into Mexico. To show off the desert's beauty and warn of its rapid disappearance, the Osoyoos Desert Society has acquired a 67-acre site with more than 100 plants and 300 invertebrates deemed at risk."
• Toronto Star "The grasslands and bald hills outside the town of Osoyoos are an extension of the Sonoran Desert that runs as far south as Mexico and creeps north to form Canada's only arid desert."
• USA Today "The Okanagan area has nearly 40 courses and has been one of the fastest-growing golf destinations in Canada the past decade. It's surprisingly one of the warmest spots in the country, a northern extension of the Sonoran Desert, and the golf season is long."
• Yakima Herald-Republic (news paper-PPV) "... 40 miles or so of what begins as the Sonoran desert in Mexico..."
• Toronto Sun "That we have a flourishing wine industry taking root in the Sonoran Desert, which runs from the southern Okanagan to the northern tip of the Gulf of Mexico, is the kind of story that television crews assigned to do travel diaries of the Games is unlikely to overlook."
• Toronto Star "The dry, dusty location had everyone on the crew well aware of why real cowboys wore handkerchiefs and hats, says Stephen Heyges of Brightlight Pictures, the co-producers of the film. "This is the Sonoran Desert, which goes all the way from Mexico to B.C.," he says."
• Houston Chronicle "About 125 miles long, with Lake Okanagan for a lovely centerpiece, the valley constitutes the very northern tip of the Sonoran desert, which, of course, is what most constitutes most of West Texas."
• The Olympian "This northernmost extension of the Sonoran Desert runs through the traditional lands of the “Sylix” First Nations of the Okanagan Valley, home to sagebrush and antelope brush and rare critters such as burrowing owls that turn old badger dens into summer nurseries, pallid bats that hunt their prey on the ground, and yes, plenty of rattlesnakes."
• New York Times "This may be Canada, but we’re at the northernmost tip of the Sonoran Desert."
• Mexiadata (Wouldn't call this an RS by itself but the author is a writer for the Baja Times in Mexico and this is written from a Mexican, rather than Canadian viewpoint) "Another surprise for me was to discover that Canada’s premier wine country of Okanagan Valley, in British Columbia, is actually part of the Sonoran Desert, which starts in Mexico and extends through North America as the Great Basin. In fact, this premier wine growing region gets about the same annual rainfall as Valle de Guadalupe, in Baja California, but they have an abundance of water generated in the high, surrounding mountain ranges of the north."
• Google Scholar hits (many are PPV)
• ISHS Acta Horticulturae 451
• Canadian Journal of Environmental Education "...a visit to the geographical location of the road in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. The particular beauty and ecosystems of this region of Canada, a continuation of the Sonoran Desert, with its fruit orchards, lakes, and vineyards, fertile, yet arid...."
• University of British Columbia-OKANAGAN WATER SYSTEMS "The land provided numerous root food resources as well as a multitude of berries that grew in the diverse ecosites found in the territorial boundaries of the Syilx. The ecosites range from semi-arid Sonoran desert areas to sub-Alpine mountain ranges."
• Incorporating Tourism Into the Local Economy Without Sacrificing the Character of the Community: Case Study of Oliver, British Columbia "At the northern edge of the Sonora Desert in the southern Okanagan Valley, Oliver lies a short distance north of the resort town of Osoyoos"
• University of Winnipeg - Projected Climate Change Impacts on Grape Growing in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada "
• The Condor, Vol. 67
• Google book hits beyond travel books
• North American pinot noir By John Winthrop Haeger pg 104
• Knack Wine Basics: A Complete Illustrated Guide to Understanding.... By Alan Boehmer, Renée Comet pg 118
• Fruit Growing in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia pg 155
• Indigenous women: the right to a voice by Diana Vinding pg 189
• British Columbia, the Pacific province by Colin J.B. Wood pg 83
• Additional reliable sources
• British Columbia Wine Institute
• J. Robinson (ed) "The Oxford Companion to Wine" Third Edition pg 133 Oxford University Press 2006 ISBN 0198609906
• J. Gordon (ed) Opus Vino pg 126-130, DK Publishing New York 2010, ISBN 756667511
• C. Fallis, editor The Encyclopedic Atlas of Wine pg 121 Global Book Publishing 2006 ISBN 1740480503
• A. Domine (ed.) Wine, pp. 795, Ullmann Publishing, 2008 ISBN 9783833146114
• Wine Business Monthly "Its southern area between Oliver, B.C. and the U.S. border is the northernmost tip of the Sonora Desert."
• Sommelier Journal"Although the southern end of the valley is actually the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert—which stretches all the way from Mexico"
  • • that same old phrase again, not supported by any given academic source, and just a repetition/rephrasing of the same non-academic tourism blurb.....
• Wine X magazine "The Valley is actually the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, which starts in Mexico and has the distinction of being the most northerly desert in the world."
• Harpers "Its southern part (from the US border to the town of Okanagan Falls) is the northernmost extension of the Sonoran desert, which reaches all the way into Mexico."
  • • No, that would be the cold desert near Old Crow, Yukon and is just more WP:peacock peacockery drawn from tourism materials; wine magazines are not valid sources for scientific or geographic definitions.Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• The Seattle Times "From the border north to the little town of Okanagan Falls is Canada's only desert, the last 40 miles or so of the Sonoran desert that extends all the way to Mexico."
  • • paraphrase of common tourism material on this area, not supported by RBCM links about Cranbrook (which is more than 40 miles from the border< being also part of the Sonoran Desert.Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Proquest Academic search results
• Canadian Geographic "As we drive along the highway, it's hard to believe that there's much past the drab sandbanks of Canada's only true desert, at the northern tip of the Sonoran."
  • • This is a link to a Seattle college library siet, not accessible to mere mortals; I search Canadian Geographic's own website, the only article there is on the Sonoran Desert proper, around Tucson. The quotation shows clearly that this is only a travel article, not an academic ecosystem article; nor is the Canadian Geographic considered an academic source; it is a popular geographic and travel magazine similar to National Geographic. That this "Canada's only desert" line conflicts directly with the RBCM links below, which are about Cranbrook, not Osoyoosh, points to a lack of consistency and also overblown WP:Peacock claims typical of travelogues; this article is also without citations for that claim, which parrot's not only Osoyoos' tourism slogan ("Canada's only desert", as well as the repetition of the "northern tip of the Sonoran Desert" a-factuality. Not a citation given for either statement, therefore not a proper academic source (not even close).Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Medical Post "Most of the state's vineyards are planted east of the Cascade Mountains in the northern part of the Sonoran Desert (which extends to Osoyoos, Oliver and Okanagan in B.C.) "
  • • A medical-professions journal's travel articles, without academic citations, is not a valid scientific source for geography, or for ecoysystems (and is also uncited, therefore not a proper academic reference)Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Last, but not least, the Royal BC Museum' Living Landscape's project (government bc.ca domain) "the northern edge of the Great Basin (also called the Sonoran or high desert, a sagebrush-dominated biome that runs from British Columbia to Baja California)"
  • • "Last but not least", this link makes NO REFERENCE to Osoyoos or the Okanagan, but is about the Cranbrook District (i.e. its Forest District) in the East Kootenay. Mis-representing quotations is not a responsible way to use academic citations; jury's out on this one, with a response from the authors of the three articles which use this phrase on the UBCM site to clarify context, as asked for today from the RBCM's Natural History curator....given that Cranbook is in the Rocky Mountain Trench and not in the Great Basin there is clearly no geo-continuity to said ecosystem, that is an issue with this citation also.Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

the Royal BC Museum, despite its name, is NOT a BC government organization any more, it is in fact an American-owned corporation, often catering to the whims and p.r. machineries of various tourism boards. "bc.ca" is NOT a BC government domain, by the way, that's just BC's domain n general; and lots of now-private gofvernment agencies, formerly public, use gov.bc.ca, very misledingly. Tha the RBCM- or rather, a paper hosted on its Living Landscapes sub-site - is included in your list of "cites that say this is the Sonoran Desert", most of which are only replications of the Osoyoos Tourism Board/Nk'mip p.r. onslaught about this and all of which are NOT supported by academic geography just one look at the Sonoran Desert article will confirm that, and there is NO connection/equivalence between the Great Basin Desert OR the "high desert" (which is actually the Red Desert in Wyoming, and is also used to refer to parts of New Mexico); that's completely spurious and I don't care if the RBMC published that/ the Sonoran Desert, or any other desert, is NOT a "sagebrush-dominated biome, and it certainly does NOT come north of the Mojave or any REAL desert in between. The Columbia Plateau is not even part of the Great Basin, how the hell can Osoyoos be part of that if all of Washington and Oregon are NOT????? As for the travel articles and wine columns that repeat the LIES of the Osoyoos and Nk'mip p.r. people, they're just not reliable sources anything else. Osoyoos is shrub steppe just like the Gang Ranch area and the Kamloops Lake area, it's nothing special except in its own mind (and its endless torrent of p.r. spew). I'll repeat, for emphasis, that the Sonoran Desert does NOT extend north of California and Arizona, it is in fact delimited by the Colorado River; an the Great Basin Desert and the Owyhee Desert and the Mojave Desert and the Columbia Plateau are NOT part of it, period. See this map. Opus Vino and BC Wines can repeat the falsehood as much as they want it doest not make it true, and only serves to demonstrate that they are NOT reliable sources, and definitely not verifiable either - given academic geographers would scoff at this (unles paid handsomely by Nk'mip, as at least one was). The Sonoran Desert myth was invented two decades or more ago by local tourism types to play on another myth that the conquistadors had reached Osoyoos in search of El Dorado, but turned back; it's never been true....I shot off a letter to BC Wine tonight lambasting them for repeating this nonsense, and will take it up with the RBCM tomorrow about that paper; things published on Living Landscapes are often informative, often POV, and also often contain many errors, whether to do with history or with science as in this case. it's garbage, and you're just citing the repetition of the garbage that has permeated other publications BUT HAS NEVER BEEN TRUE, and never will be, no matter how often it's told and re-told and re-told. it's still a lie, but by repeating it, a la Goebbels, to try to make it true....but it's just not, period.Skookum1 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So the WP:RS policy should be chucked out the window? None of these are reliable sources because......you say so? So far only the link that JHunterJ has provided below is the only thing close to disputing the mountain of reliable sources that say other wise. I can see merit in including both those as compromise--the many reliable sources that place it in Sonoran and the desert.org link that offers the scrubland view. Then we can edit the Sonoran article link with more details on the disagreement (since obviously a wine article is not the best forum). That way both views are represented and we're not relying on "Because I said so WP:OR". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm anything but OR, it's Osoyoos that has the OR and has too-widely circulated it....[post edit-conflict: They are NOT reliable sources if they are NOT TRUE. They all feed off the same press campaign, based in a tourist promotion and not relevant to academic geography. It's only in relation to the Osoyoos/Nk'mip "Desert" that you hear the claim that it's part of the Sonoran Desert, it's like citing wikiclones, endlessly repeating the same refrain based in the same bit of disinformation. Newspaper travel articles are not valid sources for geographic articles, especially when they contain blatnatly correct information. The aboriginal women article/book is clearly connected to Nk'mip/the OIB's p.r campaign, the environmental journal, like so many, contains bad geography - also based on Osoyoos' hype. The only possible compromise could be "the Osoyoos region in the South Okanagan of northern British Columbia claims to be the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, but this is not supported by sources unrelated to that region" .... or something to that effect; it would look quite frankly ludicrous in the Sonoran Desert article, "Find me something that says "the Great Basin Desert is part of the Sonoran Desert" (i.e. from a publication discussing that area, with no relation to Canada - and I don't mean a Houston newspaper), find me something that says "The Columbia Plateau Desert is part of the Sonoran Desert", find me something that says "the Mohave Desert is part of the Sonoran Desert", find me something that says "The Sonoran Desert includes all the desert west of the Rockies and extends into Canada, ending at the town of Osoyoos. Drier areas farther north, though similar to the climate of Osoyoos, are defined by Osoyoos to be something else and not part of the Sonoran Desert. Find me something that says "the Columbia River flows through the Sonoran Desert". That Osoyoos, and the area's wine region publicists, have widely circulated the Sonoran Desert claim, it is not part of any regular academic literature and has no relevance to encyclopedic geography, except as a footnote that an incorrect assertion is made by a small Canadian town claiming that the Sonoran Desert extends there (and no further). Wine article after wine article and ecologists/botanists hired by the wineries in question (as I know to be the case, having worked for one of them and being told about it...), and promulgated by a tourism promotion that Osoyoos is "Canada's Only Desert" (and nowhere else is, even places drier and hotter - which haven't planted saguaro or century plant...if Lillooet planted some yucca or Joshua Tree, would it then be part of the Mojave??) - and repeated endlessly by travel writers adapting copy from motel guides (like the one here in my room, in fact), but having no basis in scientific or real academic sources (e.g. the US' own system of geographic classification - which draws the Sonoran Desert's boundary at the Colorado). Something that is untrue, no matter how widely repeated, is just not a reliable source. It certainly is NOT verifiable (you write the geography departments at Pullman, Boise, Wenatchee, Bend, Carson City, Vegas, Oroville - ask them if they are in the Sonoran Desert, ask them what the desert areas of the American West are called and what their boundaries are. Don't you see the point? All the copy you have cited related to material mentioning Osoyoos, they're all just riffing off the same non-fact, it doesn't make it true. In fact, it's quite probably -very probable - that some of those sources even adapted copy from earlier versions of the Wikipedia article and of the Nk'mip Desert article - which has been merged to the Okanagan Desert article and you will not it has the shrub-steppe category, NOT the desert category; add onto this that the Nk'mip page, like Nk'mip's press kit, claims to be the only desert centre and that only its side of the valley is the "desert"; "there can only be one", seemingly, but likewise in Wikipedia; there couldn't be two articles both claiming to be "Canada's only desert". As someone from Lillooet/Fountain/Pavilion/Moran, and familiar with Lytton, Spences Bridge, Ashcroft-Cache Creek, and knowing what the country looks like up to Riske Creek, at the confluence of the Chilcotin and Fraser Rivers, all of which looks just like Osoyoos (only more scenic, and a LOT hotter and drier, and also with the same vegetation and similar fauna).....and that's not original research; pull up a satellite map of southern BC and have a good, long look. And like I said, can you find even newspaper or tourism copy from small towns in Washington or Oregon saying "we are in the Sonoran Desert". Osoyoos' claim is not just overblown, it's not even true; neither desert, nor anything like the Sonora. Like wiki-clones, all you're doing is citing "Osoyoos clones". The RBCM item, as I've already explained, is not valid academic copy and that is NOT a government-managed site, nor vetted by proper academics; somewhere on the Living Landscapes pages, in fact, is a disclaimer, and I remember when the museum was privatized there were concerns from academics that the new management was geared, and commissioned, to work more closely with tourism and forestry etc (i.e. to coordinate their materials to help those industries). And don't just ask universities in WA/OR/UT/ID/NZ/CA, as at the Geography departments at SFU, UBC, UBCO, etc etc. It's not part of the curriculum unless they're doing a "wine unit" reading materials put out by the wine industry, or - as you have, googled "sonoran Desrt" and "Osoyoos" and come up with lots of clone hits supporting the FALSE THESIS. It's not even a thesis, its a very wrong claim, and that's it. Nothing is a reliable source if it says that, and it's not verifiable - as I have just explained.Skookum1 (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You do release that reliable sources don't become "unreliable" "Just because I said so..."" Your casual dismissal of the mountain sources is unequivocally your WP:POV and WP:OR. Again, so far the only source being brought up to contradict the other reliable sources (beyond your "I said so" defense) is the link by JHunterJ. That's enough to mention the two description in the article but it is certainly not enough to categorically dismiss numerous other reliable sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to edit the Sonaran Desert article with this information, please research this C. Hart Merriam, his ideas and their effect, decently. I don't have time right now to do it well, but perhaps in a few weeks. It's an interesting bit of geo-terminology-history. I still suspect the usage is extremely "fringe", but then again, I've always thought there should be a general term for the large "North American Desert" region that does in fact reach from Mexico to BC (though well north of the Okanagan Valley, to be sure). So, if you want to edit the relevant articles, please take time to do some good research. Perhaps I'll find time to do it myself in a bit. Pfly (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd put stock in the File:Mojave-sonoran_deserts.png. The amount of information that contradict that map might warrant a section disputing the claims of the desert suddenly popping up again after disappearing for such a distance; ideally, that rebuttal would be published somewhere and could be sourced. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I was going to edit the Sonoran Desert article with one of the numerous reliable sources we have here but once I saw Skookum's commitment to an edit war, I decided to wait. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something from here? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That last one is interesting, actually putting a name and date—C. Hart Merriam, 1889—to the origin of this odd use of the word "Sonoran". I can believe there are some decent sources that use the word this broadly, but it sounds bizarre to me and contradicts to an extreme the normal sense of "Sonoran". So I'd say that if the term is to be used in this broad sense it should also be pointed out that such usage is non-standard. (also, I find it funny that the Houston Chronicle says West Texas is in the Sonoran Desert, when it is in the Chihuahuan Desert--you'd think Texans would at least get their own geography right!) Pfly (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The name I recall for the collectivity of western deserts and semi-arid areas, and includes BC - up to and including Kamloops, Riske Creek, the Thompson - is the Great Western Desert or the Western American Desert; maybe I've seen both in fact; the term Western Desert I believe is an Egyptian context, meaning west of Nile of course, and on the hither side of teh Libyan Desert/ both are part of teh Sahara. Thet equivalent to the Sonoran Osoyoos claim is like saying the Coast Mountains are part of the Sierra Nevada; what they are both part of is the Western Cordillera, and also its subset the Pacific Coast Ranges; but they are not the same thing. You might have found this in the New York Times or Houston Chronicle travel or food sections, but you won't find it in the New York Times science section....Skookum1 (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking around at other wikipedia articles in teh US regions category, most of which are well-cited from proper sources and reflect the academic/official definitions, I found this on teh Great Basin page:

The Great Basin also has many named deserts, such as the Black Rock Desert, the Great Salt Lake Desert, the Sevier Desert, the Smoke Creek Desert, large parts of the Great Basin Desert, the Mojave Desert, and part of the Sonoran Desert of Baja California

They mean, and perhaps I'll reword it appropriately as "that part of the Sonoran Desert in Baja California" (which is the only part in the Great Basin, as defined on various page and maps (clearly not read by the Osoyoos tourism and wine people in the course of prepaing their p.r.). Ecoregions of the United States....which redirects somewhere, can't remember exactly where, will also not have anything on the Sonoran Desert including all those others, and those in the Columbia Plateau also...unless Agne tries to add it....but I submit it won't survive long....bad sources are bad sources, and only worth mention as being bad sources, as in the manner above "a small tourist town in southern British Columbia, Canada, claims to be the northern tip of the sonoran Desert, though this is not supported by academic literature/consensus/ or official definition of the Sonoran Desert." Then to a statement like that, if you want, you can add the linkfarm of bad sources as demonstration.Skookum1 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From the Columbia Plateau (ecoregion) article:

The Okanogan Valley ecoregion is located along the lower reaches of the Okanogan and Methow rivers and their tributaries in northeastern Washington, including land managed by the Okanogan National Forest.

No mention of any desert, much less the Sonoran....Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Um....you do realize that Wikipedia can be edited? All those webpage can be updated with the reliable sources that describe the northern extension in the Okanagan. They certainly don't support your "Because I said so" case. There is still only the JHunterJ link and your own personal WP:OR and WP:POV campaign. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This has NOTHING to do with "Skookum1 says so", though Skookum1 DOES happen to be right. What are you going to add to those pages? "A small pocket of the Sonoran Desert exists in British Columbia, Canada, but nowhere else in between"?? And then use tourism/wine-based sites and wine-commissioned studies to back that up?? Those Wikipedia pages, and countless more, use OFFICIAL and VERIFIABLE sources for their descriptions, not travel articles. I challenge you again - find me cites or pages that say "Wenatchee is part of the Sonoran Desert", or "Klamath Falls is part of the Sonoran Desert" or "the Great Basin Desert is part of the Sonoran Desert". You're wanting to add fictional geography because you have a host of sites riffing off Osoyoos and the Okanagan Wine Regions' presskits. This has nothing to do with ME personally, other than I INSIST on truthful information, not half-baked geography circulated by tourism boards and business organizations. Go ahead, ask on Talk:Geography of Washington, Talk:Geography of Oregon, Talk:Geography of Idaho, Talk:Geography of Utah and others, and tell THEM that because you have a bunch of "cites" saying that Osoyoos BC (and only Osoyoos, despite the 3-400 miles northward or soe that the VERY SAME climate extends northwards into BC) is in the Sonoran Desert, then their articles are in error for not saying that all of them are part of the Sonoran Desert......I think you should start reading more than just WP:Wine articles....see Category:Regions of the United States for teh various ecoregion/landform articles on the North American Deserts (which is the term used by the US ecoregion page - which limits the Sonoran Desert term to its proper delimitation, the Colorado River. It's not "because Skookum1 sez so", it's "because Agne says he/she has found a whole bunch of articles saying Osoyoos is part of the Sonoran Desert, so therefore all the deserts in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada are also part of the Sonoran Desert". The citations you've brought up are demonstrably flase and in error, and are therefore not admissible except as anything but curiosities, and laughable in proper geographic classification/literature....Skookum1 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, let see. In that 2000+ bytes of text, any reliable sources mentioned to back up your argument? Hmm, doesn't look like it. More "I said so" and Oh, yeah, "Go check out Wikipedia"--which is somewhat cute since WP:CIRCULAR and all commonsense says you don't use Wikipedia to back up what you think should be...on Wikipedia. But I don't doubt your good faith, I just think you need to move beyond your "Because I said so" argument and start list some actually reliable sources that explicitly debunk the sources above. Let's create a new section to explore this. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RS that explicitly say that the Okanagan does not include the Sonoran

Here Skookum. Please list the WP:RS that directly counter the mountains of sources that say the Okanagan includes a northern extension of Sonoran. Now the cites should mention the Okanagan and directly debunk it because cites that just talk about the Mexican, Southwest extension of the Sonoran could just be suffering from omission and/or incompleteness. Otherwise, I'm still leaning towards a compromise using JHunterJ's link in the article along with the cites that describe the area as part of the Sonora and then the alternative description. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good GRIEF!! Have you not read what I just said, or just dissed it as 2000kb and WP:Didnotread because you don't CARE what Geog of Washington, Geog of Idaho, Geog of Utah etc and scads of ecoregion and landform pages say - or DO NOT SAY?? You're asking me to prove a negative statement, with sources saying "the Okanagan is not part of the Sonoran Desert". Your sources saying that "the Okanagan IS part of the Sonoran Desert" ultimately ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source, namely the press kits of the Okanagan Wine Region, Nk'Mip Cellars, and the Osoyoos Tourism Board. If you wish I'll spend the next couple of hours copying ALL the cites on the various state geography, ecoregion and landform articles which do NOT say anything of the kind, AND NEVER SHOULD. Your solution? - change those pages to agree with a Canadian wine region's bad geography-cum-propaganda. Get a grip.Skookum1 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I dismissed your argument as WP:CIRCULAR because you are using Wikipedia as an RS to support what you want on Wikipedia. It doesn't work that way. So far you have offered ZERO evidence that we should disregard these mountains of reliable sources beyond your single, one man proclamation of "Because I said so". You claim that they are unreliable. You claim that they "...ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source.." but you offer up absolutely zero, zip, nadda proof to ANYTHING backing up your assertion. That is WP:POV WP:OR and, I'm sorry, but we need actually reliable sources and solid support to take your claims seriously. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Asking for negative citations to disprove false statements is somewhere in WP:CITE or a similar page as not viable; a red herring. There are thousands of cites backed up by Chinese govenrment propaganda saying "the Tibetan people are really Chinese", but that doesn't make it TRUE. There are scads of webpages saying "the Illumaniti run the world", but it doesn't make that TRUE. You can even find thousands of pages asserting that "the world is flat" or "jews eat babies", but that doesn't make either of those true, EITHER....Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You know that there are not mountain of reliable sources making credible claims like that. Come on, at least try to find some reliable sources that dismiss the abundant reliable sources I've provided. At least try to move beyond your WP:CIRCULAR arguments, WP:POV and WP:OR "Because I said so" campaigns. I'm very willing to work on a compromise wording but I won't categorically dismiss mountains of reliable sources because you said so. That's not how Wikipedia works. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Even your wording of this section title is amateurish - that "the Okanagan includes the Sonoran"?? In other words, that the Okanagan includes the Sonoran Desert (and everything in between). If the American Okanogan is NOT part of the Sonoran (according to the official classification system of the United States EPA, are you just going to go change that page (List of ecoregions of the United States (EPA) because of your campaign to rewrite North American geography so as to conform to the wine industry's p.r. materials????Skookum1 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My campaign is to write wine articles based on WP:RS and not on one person's WP:POV, WP:OR "Because I said so" agenda. I don't know what goes on in your sphere of Wikipedia but at the Wine Project, we place a premium on following Wikipedia guidelines of WP:V and WP:CITE. Because I said so...' doesn't cut it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RBCM disclaimer

Read THIS.Skookum1 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI-RS Noticeboard

To get a broader opinion on the usages of reliable sources in this article-Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Talk:Okanagan_Valley_.28wine_region.29.23Sonoran_Desert_refs Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They're NOT RS because they're not TRUE.Skookum1 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And that is... Because you say so. Yeah, we've been over this parade route before. I still would like to see something along the lines of verifiable evidence or competing reliable sources before I disregard mountains of reliable sources that just so happen to contradict your POV and OR. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Boy, you really DON'T want to go read the other ecoregion/landform/deserts pages do you? You just want to accuse me of "Skookum1 says so" and make this an ongoing personal attack. I'm protecting the truth, and Wikipedia's integrity, you're wanting to advance a p.r. campaign for a wine board's BAD GEOGRAPHY as if it were the truth (which it's not).Skookum1 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the cites of the Sonoran desert and several other articles and I still don't see any evidence that explicitly debunks the mountain of reliable sources that describe a northern extension of the Sonoran in the Okanagan. I see omission and potential incompleteness (and certainly no cite claims to be the exhaustive absolute truth on the matter). It is not a personal attack to say that you have a gaping hole in your argument or to point out that you have provided ZERO reliable sources and ZERO amount of evidence to support your claims that the many diverse and unrelated reliable sources provided are unreliable. All we have your repeated "Because I said so" retort. YOU are not a WP:RS and Wikipedia doesn't need your protection when we have policies and guidelines like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. If we follow those, we're pretty okay. I'm sorry that you feel we need an addition WP:Skookum1 policy that supersedes all these other policies since you obviously can't support your argument with any reliable sources or evidence. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, REALLY?? So you've found cites on those wikipages that say "the Columbia Plateau is part of the Sonoran Desert", "the Great Basin is part of the Sonoran Desert", "the Sonoran Desert extends into Canada, ending at the town of Osoyoos (but no further)"?? "The Sonoran Desert is also known as the high desert"? (really odd 'cause it's a low elevation desert, if you knew anything about the place). I reject your insults, and your interpretations of the pages you claim to have read. find me an EPA defnition say "the Sonoran Desert includes all the dserts between the Colorado River and the Canadian border"......Skookum1 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I found exactly what I said I found above. I didn't "see any evidence that explicitly debunks the mountain of reliable sources that describe a northern extension of the Sonoran in the Okanagan." Yes, I saw omission and incompleteness but nothing that debunks the other sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's two very reliable sources on the Sonoran Desert. I consider both of these sources "extra reliable" on definitions like this:

• Sonoran Desert, Encyclopædia Britannica: Sonoran Desert, also called Desierto de Altar, arid region covering 120,000 square miles (310,800 square km) in southwestern Arizona and southeastern California, U.S., and including much of the Mexican state of Baja California and the western half of the state of Sonora. Subdivisions of the hot, dry region include the Colorado and Yuma deserts.

• Sonoran Desert, Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, p. 1104: Sonoran Desert: Arid region, W North America, in SW Arizona, SE California, W Sonora state, Mexico, and N Baja California, Mexico; includes the Colorado Desert, Coachella Valley, and Imperial Valley.

These two represent the normal, standard definition of "Sonoran Desert". Pfly (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with working on a compromise that notes other definitions don't include the Okanagan Sonoran but omission and incompleteness of other cites alone shouldn't dismiss the mountains of other reliable sources--especially since there is zero evidence of Skookum's alleged "collusion" between all these sources. It seems the only fair solution is to craft 1 to 2 lines that deal with this subject without having WP:UNDUE overkill on the topic since this is, after all, a wine article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're in denial, Pfly's links expliclity debunk the "Osoyoos is part of the Sonoran Desert" mythology. Very explicitly. Teh host of lnks you've provided are NOT reliable (travel artcles are especially not reliable sources, as per those guideines if you'd actually bother to read them), and they're VERY explicitly not VERIFIABLE. Because the only cites you've provided are those which mention Osoyoos in tandem with the Sonoran Desert, and are not cites which prove that the Sonoran Desert extends into Washington and Oregon etc. You're living in a p.r. driven fantasyland, and are digging in your heelsz so detrinedly it's like you have blinkers on to the TRUTH. You want something that explicitly debunks the myth you're defending, but refuse (apparently) to approach geography talkpages, ecoregion talkpages, and US universities in the intervening region....I'd be very surprised if either UBC or SFU geography departments agreed with you, but go ahead and try and see if you can get them to agree. All your provision of a host of links found by googling "Osoyoos + 'Sonoran Desert'" is taht the p.r. campaign has been successful, and taht BAD GEOGRAPHY has been spread by a region that's not part of wherre it says/thinks it is. Hosts of official sources, and authoritative ones like the Britannica and Merriam-Webster, clearly are not in agreement that British Columbia is anywhere NEAR the Sonoran Desert. But you calim that because they don't say it's not, therefore it is?? Pffffft.Skookum1 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, is there any evidence in this blurb about collusion or PR departments or any other conspiracy theory between a wide diversity of reliable sources? Um...looking, still looking....hmm, no. No evidence. Yet again. 25,000+ bytes of text from Skookum and not once is he able to provide a shred of evidence that there is some collusion between these reliable sources (Though it funny how sources that agree with him aren't part of this collusion. I mean wait...couldn't there be a conspiracy theory by other sources to exclude the Okanagan extension of the Sonoran? </sarcasm>) Seriously now, even going back to college Lincoln-Douglas debate its pretty basic stuff that omission and incompleteness do not debunk another claimant. You need to either A.) Find evidence to support your assertion that the mountains of reliable sources are not reliable (and BTW *hint* they're not all travel articles, you still have 20+ other RS to deal with) or B.) Find sources that explicitly debunk the claim saying "No, this isn't the case and here is way". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying "p.r. campaign based on bad geography and touristic romanticism", you're saying I'saying "conspiracy theory", and you turning taht phrase around like taht sounds an awful lot like certain partisan tactics in BC whic attack critics....not saying you are one, and perhaps you're just a wine enthusiast who puts more stock in wine articles than encyclopedia articles and not a p.r. person intent on defending the misinformation so that money doesn't have to be spent on correcting all the BAD GEOGRAPHY that's been published so far. Whatever/whoever you are, you're not being logical, and refuse to consider other sources than your own, and in those that you do read that aren't your own, you say they don't disprove what you're claiming BUT THEY ARE. And you keep on talking abouyt "mountains of reliable sources" without understanding, or caring, that there are guidelines excluding travel articles, tourism brochures and bad science as reliable sources; they inherently aren't. The South Okanagan can keep on promoting itself, delusionally, as part of a desert that ends in California and Arizona, but don't expect the rest of the world, or scientific conensus, to go along with that; it can also go on about being part of the Great Basin Desert, but the Great Basin ends in southern Oregon and Idaho and very explicitly does not including the Columbia basin, or cross the Columbia River. The Okanagan, not even a tiny bit of it, is not even a desert. Another officially source oyu're probably not interested in places the Okanagan in the bunchgrass Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia (Ministry of Forests)....bunchgrass does not grown in deserts. ANY desert. I've written the wine region, and the RBCM, to challenge/advise them of their errors, but those mails were sent yesterday; if I get a reply I will post it here. In the meantime why don't you write the Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and teh US Environmental Protection Agency to advise them their information is in error, and that they should revise their content to extend the Sonoran Desert definition into Canada "because Osoyoos says so"...."and all these wine articles I've found". Good luck with that.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Below is an opportunity for you to state your case on why we should disregard the 30+ or so reliable sources. Of course if you uncover any link or evidence that there is indeed a collusion of "bad geography" between New York Times, Royal BC Museum, The Oxford Companion to Wine, Houston Chronicle, etc, you can also add that evidence to the table. But probably your best bet is to focus on how Wikipedia policy like WP:V and WP:RS may disqualify their usage. Do note that WP:CIRCULAR, where you use a Wikipedia page to support your contention of what should be on Wikipedia doesn't count and, in fact, is explicitly excluded by Wikipedia policy. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An extension of the Sonoran Desert? So the Mojave, and the various deserts of Utah, Nevada, Oregon and Washington are all extensions of the Sonoran Desert? Or has the Sonoran somehow leapfrogged over all of the other ones to "extend" into southern BC? I don't know that is a collusion between sources, however, it is apparent that none of them actually looked at a map and it sounds like some are repeating what they have read somewhere else (could be wrong!), Sorry if that's too snarky, but I can not believe that this amount of words have been used to defend this idea? Why must it even be in the article? Can the "desert" regions of the Okanagan not stand alone as notable unless they are connected to one desert far to the south? Or is a more romantic notion than say, the neighbouring "Scablands".  ;) Gingervlad (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Disregarding reliable sources

Each item on the table below corresponds with the full reference and link noted in the Sonoran ref section above. Hopefully this make it easier for Skookum to collect his thoughts and present clearly why each source falls outside the classification of reliable source according to either Wikipedia policy or with some link to evidence a vast collusion conspiracy between the news organization/publisher/etc and Nk'Mip, Osoyoos or whoever is behind the conspiracy. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. My table coding skills suck and this was the best that excel2wiki.net gave me :P If anyone knows how to add lines to make it neater, feel free. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to fill in your stupid table -jumping through hoops of nonsense is something you're welcome to do, apparently endlessly, but that you continue to ignore AUTHORITATIVE sources such as the Brittanica, Merriam-Webster, the EPA ,and all otehr Wikipedia articles that DO NOT support your claim (even though you say thtey do because they don't explicitly debunk your UNreliable sources -and I'll repeat FOR THE TENTH TIME - that travel adn wine articles are NOT reliable sources for scientific or geographic information. Demanding that I WASTE MY TIME filling in a table full of repetitive inanities, all spun off the same press kits.....I reject your demands, just as I reject your imposition of Osoyos and thOkanagan Wine Region's use of terminology it has no right to use. The Okanagan is no more part of the Sonoran Desert than it is of the Ohio Valley or the Canadian Shield. It's pointless to argue with you, as you're incapable of reason and refuse to recognize the value of BETTER SOURCES than the trivia you've assembled and are now trying to order me to jump through. Your position is nonsense, as is your shallow grasp of WP:RS and WP:VS.Skookum1 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing what the problem is here. What's wrong with saying something like, "The Okanagan Valley is sometimes said to be the northernmost part of the Sonoran Desert,[reference] although the term "Sonoran" is usually used in a much more limited sense.[reference]" Perhaps with an addition aside, pointing out that there are other deserts/semi-deserts in BC, some far to the north? Pfly (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm absolutely 100% okay with that compromise. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that's pretty funny, because I proposed it - or explained its necessity - at least three times, but you just kept on ranting on about supposedly reliable sources which AREN'T reliable sources and are counter-factual to mainstream definitions of the Sonoran Desert (which are ALL that don't mention Osoyoos). Be very, very wary of misleadingly wording that compromise section to sound like Osoyoos IS part of the Sonoran Desert (because it's not); all that can be said is that Osoyoos/the OkWR makes this claim and it's widely repeated in wine and travel articles, but that it is not supported by authoritative sources. That many of your "reliable sources" use the phrainsg "thet northern tip of the Sonoran Desert which extends from Mexico into Canada" (and variants), points to a common and very, very obvious source: badly-researched wine-industry brags/promotions. I just searched the BC Government websites for "Sonoran", likewise Environment Canada - there were three mentions of the Sonoran Desert re the Okanagan, all with the same wording (exactly as above), one by a politician (Cliff Serwa) in a Hansard debate, one in a real estate legal case laying out the nature of the property, and another in a "welcomebc.com" (Ministry of Tourism) page - whjich like your wine articles and teh politician in question are just repeating verbatim the content of Osoyoos' and Nk'mip's presskits. NO scientific ministry - the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Environment made any such statement; all that there was in the case of MoE was something to the effect, re Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park, in its Master Plan, that plants and animals found in the Sonoran, Great Basin, and Chihuahuan Deserts are found on Okanagan Mountain - without making ANY mention of Osoyoos or the South Okanagan. The same items (cactus, rattlesnakes etc) are also found around Lillooet, Ashcroft, Riske Creek, Spences Bridge and Keremeos. The word "desert" must also be qualfied, as despite Osoyoos' claims (and your "reliable" sources), there is NO desert anywhere in British Columbia.....ALL THAT CAN BE SAID is "the wine region is said to be part of the Sonoran Desert, but this is in error and is not part of the definitions of that desert, which ends in southern California and southwestern Arizona"....any statement that the region "is part of the Sonoran Desert" will be removed as false and bad science/geography.Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

History Sections

Part of the lead was moved into a history section, even though there was already a history section, duplicating some content. Could someone look into merging the two sections together please? Camw (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah for some reason the lead was trimmed down. Fixed now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what Skookum's WP:OWN issues maybe with this article since he seems very unresponsive to anything that changes one of his edits. Hopefully he won't escalate an edit war over the lead section any further but to quote from WP:LEAD (2nd paragraph) "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." The word "concise" doesn't exclude 3 paragraph and it is important summarize the article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you funny huh? This isn't a WP:OWN issue it's an issue of WP:TRUTH and WP:FACT and WP:Verifiable sources, and in the case of hte section headings there is an ongoing standard for short ledes containing only necessary introductory material. You're clearly have no regard for WP:MOS any more than you dno't have a regard for authoritative sources......Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you could both kindly dial back the antagonism and discuss the issue at hand rather than dragging the above disagreement into it please as that helps nobody, especially not the article. There are now duplicate climate and geography sections even though the history section has been merged. Having some lines on the history, geography and climate in the lead would seem to be appropriate as a summary of the article, perhaps pared back a bit from the original, but I don't think it should be excluded entirely and I don't think the manual of style supports excluding this information either. Camw (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Camw, I agree this needs to be dial back and I am, as I have always been, willing to compromise. Right now the article deserves as {{lead too short}} tag and the amount of redundancy in the history section is ridiculous. And to boot, the lead is now unreferenced. Any edits you do that will get the article back to standards, I will support. I would even be willing to do an edit moratorium with this article, provided Skookum agrees to that same. Far from having WP:OWN issues, my only concern is that this article is well referenced and up to the standards of the Wine Project and Wikipedia. If stepping aside will see to it that happens, I'm very willing to do that. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you do happen to edit this article, User:Pfly above has a compromise idea that would seem to solve the Sonoran desert issue that I think would merit consideration. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try to put something together in a sandbox in the next 2-3 days for the lead and post it here for review by both of you. Camw (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pffft - that's the same proposal I brought up at least twice, more like three times, but you ignored while ranting on about how wine and travel articles were "reliable" (which they're not) and insisting that teh authoritative sources agreed with your position because they didn't explicitly debunk it; Pfly only rephrased what I'd already said, and you wilfully ignored; and any compromise must adhere rigidly to FACT (and not 'facts' from your wine/travel articles, but from authoritative sources, i.e. that this area is NOT the Sonoran Desert, though the town/wine indsutry claims it is and that has become current in wine literature; a myth becoming widespread does not make it fact, and does not quality sources repeating it as reliable; rather the opposite.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise lead section here and worked on better integrating the remaining material into the sections below (the integration is not in a good state in the live version at the moment). The lead has been cut from 2327 to 1285 characters, but I think it retains some of the more important information to summarize the subject from the initial version. I have not attempted to integrate any desert information in this version, as I'd like to come to an agreement to make changes along these lines and then work on the wording surrounding the desert issue as a different issue as it seems to be more contentious and including it will distract from the quick improvements we can make here. Could you both give me some feedback please (Agne, if you can specifically check my moving around of the sources please, as I've tried to integrate them without having access to the text in many cases) and work together with me to make some of the proposed changes? I've probably made some mistakes, but I have done the best I can and I hope you can give me some constructive feedback to improve this proposed version of the article. Camw (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The source citation looks fine in the lead. As for the desert info, another editor has advocated the compromise idea similar to what Pffy put forth earlier. It seems like that is emerging as the best solution to cite Oxford/Opus Vino/Wine Atlas's description of the northern extension with a note on the dissenting view and something like the www.desert.org link that JHunterJ posted earlier as ref. Ideally with WP:UNDUE in mind, it probably only needs a single sentence line to present both views simply and neutrally. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see, using "find on page" either "Sonoran" or "desert", which of course from my view is a good thing as neither are accurate and any attempt to explain the differences between the proper definition and the local claim would be too complicated and off-topic to include (especially given the need to include, if they are at all, the RBCM's inclusion of Cranbrook in that particular botanical/ecological-only definition, which is really a reference to pockets of the Sonoran life-zone (as explained/alluded to be my the RBCM curator yesterday), and also to the reality that much of teh rest of the Southern and some of the Central Interior valleys have similar climates (including the Similkameen as well as many places farther north) and smack of, if they were included WP:Hype and peacockery.Skookum1 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have added the revised lead and merged sub-sections as there were no objections. Skookum, I specifically said I excluded any attempt to include the desert issue in this particular revision, with an intent to work it out next. I will create a new section below to discuss that wording. Camw (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Desert Issue Compromise

Hi,

The proposed wording by pfly was "The Okanagan Valley is sometimes said to be the northernmost part of the Sonoran Desert,[reference] although the term "Sonoran" is usually used in a much more limited sense.[reference]"

This approach has been endorsed by Agne. Skookum you have said that a compromise like this was a proposal that you have made. Gruban on the RS board has also indicated that this is the best idea and I endorse it as well, so I think that we should be able to work out something around this wording.

Do either of you want to change the wording proposed by pfly? To me the line seems about the right length and presents both sides of the argument in a reasonably neutral manner - maybe there should be a slight expansion to indicate what "limited sense" refers to - as in, where do the other sources say the northernmost part is, just to make it clearer for readers where we are actually talking about.

For sources, Agne has proposed Oxford/Opus Vino/Wine Atlas (does the Oxford book reference this? I'll double check) being used and a page on desert.org used to reference the other side - Skookum, are there any alternate or additional references you would like to see used for the "limited sense" portion? Camw (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

....is widely stated in wine and travel articles, and in a few botanical and environmental articles, to be part of the northernmost part of the Sonoran Desert, although the conventional and accepted use definition of that desert does not extend any further north than southernmost California and southwestern Arizona.

NB the RBCM cites cannot be used as they say this about Cranbrook, not the Okanagan.

"in a much more limited sense" is weasel words when it is the prevailing, normal meaning that is meant. Your wording "although the term 'Sonoran' is usually used" is misleading because of the "Sonoran life-zone" and other meanings of Sonoran (including someone from Sonora...) and as a stand-alone, it is indeed used in a much more limited sense (the Sonoran life-zone, under that at least one other name) - but the term Sonoran Desert means something very specific indeed (everywhere but in relation to BC in only certain contexts e.g. the work of certain botanists or whatever - who the jury is still out on as to whether they meant the life-zone or the real, honest-to-god Sonoran Desert; do they mean pockets of a desert similar in vegetation to that desert, or do they mean pockets of non-desrt where vegetation similar to it, or defined by that life-zone, exist (the most compelling thing I've heard so far is scorpions, which quite honestly I didn't know were in BC; I'll watch my boots when in Osoyoos). Compromise does not mean veiling the full truth so as to give undue weight to a questionable definition that is in the mainstream of academic science/geography. Equivocation is unacceptable.Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is not my wording and there is no suggestion of using the RBCM cites, it would be helpful to please focus only on the issues at hand. Can you please indicate which source you would like to use, specifically regarding the "conventional and accepted use", the source should explicitly include wording along these lines otherwise it is just as much opinion as saying it is part of the desert. Camw (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You wording is unacceptable; mine is clear and truthful and does not engage weaselry and is clear about the nature of the sources; I proposed it a number of times since, only to be deluged with repetitive and mutually-parroting (down to the wording) of sources as if they were of equal value to authoritative sources; what I've said is clear, what you've "compromised" with is not a compromise, but a veil and a distortion of the nature of the sources; you've also used, as noted, the term "Sonoran" in the second phrase that is indeed used in a much more limited sense, i.e. in only one field, and does not reference the Sonoran Desert directly or its REAL, normal boundaries in CA and AZ. Only my version does that, and it's clear and understandabland and doesn't use any iffiness to try and pitch the "folk geography" used by tourism/wine/environmental journals/materials vs. a "much more limited sense", as if the latter truer meaning were less real and "limited". The reason I mention the RBCM sites is to stipulate they cannot be used (despite Agne's repeatedly enthusiastic incantation about them). Obvious cites for the "normal and conventional" meaning are teh Brittanica, Merriam-Webster, the EPA and others of that kind (which are legion, and all agree, without any wishy-washiness or reliance on an obscure usage from one particular field of environmental science).Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, not my wording, again, I put it here so that we could discuss changes to it. Not every comment needs to be turned into a battleground and it is extremely difficult to move forward with that kind of attitude. I am trying to work with you to find something acceptable, so please try to keep the discussion focused. I mentioned elsewhere that this issue has consumed 90k+ of text, and to continue along that path is a waste of everyones time. Please give me specific citations so that they can be used as I don't have access to Britannica, M-W etc. Camw (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already given alternate wording that is acceptable, and forthright, and why it must be so. That is my compromise.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading what I am saying - I don't believe I have said your alternate wording is unacceptable. If Agne agrees with the wording and I add it to the article, will you add appropriate sources to the statement within a reasonable time frame please? Camw (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NB a further collary/alternative line/subphrasing, called for because of the Cranbrook citation, would be "the Okanagan and other parts of the Southern Interior of British Columbia are parts of the Sonoran Desert, according to certain papers in environmental science". Not a lot of papers, a scattered few referring to isolated pockets of certain vegetation; if the phrasing in the CJEE is simply the same again as that repeated widely through wine-tourism writings, it's not an academic source, it's just more travelogue with a SYNTH-ified extenuation of a particular environmental biology context as if it were the general case; that's too wordy, and as I said to "go there" would take content off-topic into general BC geography, and implies the need to mention that semi-arid zones extend a great deal farther north and are found in the southeast as well etc etc. Fairly easy to see on satmaps; just have a look at one and scroll/move it up. Since BC Parks/MoE have already indicated the presence of certain grasses and insects on Okanagan Mountain (about 50 miles north of Oliver, just south of Kelowna), being those also found in the Sonoran Desert (which is how that site puts it), and there's also "antelope brush desert" is used on the WC2's site, and not just in exclusivity to the Okanagan (and again uncited by academic materials), and other towns with "desert" identities and promotions (not just as widely circulated as Osoyoos'), that it's said by some of the "reliable" sources racked up from wine/travel materials as "Canada's only desert", which is clearly wrong if other towns' materials and the other deserts or desert/life-zone-biology areas their reliability remains, to me, highly suspect, especially in the light of the cut-and-paste phrase which is virtually identical across them all; the Oxford Companion to Wine is of course the most high-profile publishing house to repeat this phrase/context, but it's clearly not hte originating source, is it? So what is the originating source? The answer to me is obvious, but discredited simply because it's asserted it's only my assertion; it's not like all these people thought this indepedently, especially with such consistent wording across the board. The Oxford cite certainly demonstrates the "widely circulated/held in wine/travel literature" partt, which is why it can be used; but it shouldn't be used as if it were the originating usage, nor as if it were authoritative in reference to geography. They, like most of the rest, are just repeating what the literature circulated to them by local vintners and tourism people told them. You can call it OR, but I've worked aroudn the press and know how they operate; the cut-and-paste and take what's given them and gussy it up; they don't check it (nor will you find a geographic citation in the Oxford Companion to Wine about taht usage, I'll bet).Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously not familiar with Oxford University Press which is intimately connected to Oxford University and employs full fact checking staff. It is one of the reason why OUP books, including The Oxford Companion to Wine, are so highly regarded. In addition to the fact check staff, the OCW was the work of over 60 contributors with more than 3/4 affiliated with some university including Tim Unwin, professor of Geography at the University of London, Nigel Wilson, professor of paleography at Oxford, Keith Sutton, Honorary Research Fellow for Geography at the University of Manchester, Margaret Emery, head research librarian at Roseworthy Agricultural College, etc. The Oxford Companion is a collaborative work of many highly esteem academics, Masters of wine and wine writers and is a perfectly reliable source for wine articles--which, in case you've haven't realized, is exactly what this article is. We're not asking to use this reference at Sonoran desert, which you are welcomed to mold into whatever image you wish. Rather, we are simply trying to write a wine article reflecting the information of reliable wine sources for readers interested in reading about the wine made from the Okanagan wine region. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am fine with this compromise approach, especially since it keeps the topic to one, neutrally worded line. Oxford's wording (pg 133 under British Columbia section of the Canada entry) is simply "The southern part of the Okanagan is the northern extension of the Sonoran desert." Opus Vino and Fallis' wine atlas are worded except Opus Vino delineates the area more from Oliver down to the US border. They're all fine for references but since the Oxford is probably the one most widely available for WP:V, I'll be incline to recommend that one. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you feel about the proposed wording above Agne? Camw (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think simple is best and Skookum's wording sounds way too legalese for a wine article. I, again, don't think we need to stray in to WP:UNDUE territory as if this was part of a section in a geography article detailing a boundary dispute (Which, BTW, why is the Geography Project's tag on this article? I don't think it is on any wine region article) We don't need to list "....is widely stated in wine and travel articles, and in a few botanical and environmental articles," and everything that discusses the Okanagan extension of the Sonoran. The original wording by Pfly is sufficient in pointing out the contradictory views with the link to the Sonoran desert article providing ample opportunity for the issues to be further discussed there. I, personally, will not be editing the Sonoran desert article so I highly encourage Skookum to expound upon the issue in that article so readers that are truly curious about the disagreement can go to that article for the broader picture without distracting from the wine info in this article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh - so it doesn't have to be exact, or observe WP:UNDUE or WP:OR or WP:Weasel - because it's a wine article?Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WINE doesn't WP:OWN this article, it's also a WP:Canada article, a WP:BC article, a WP:GeogCan article and a WP:Geography article. Rationalizing being immune from input from other WPs, and other facts than int he wine literature, on the basis that this is only a WP:Wine article - that doesn't wash, not at all.Skookum1 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL...I do love the edit summary for this comment "simply reply, I've made a good and brief, correct and not misleading, compromise- accept it" Is it really going to be that way? Your way or the highway? WP:WINE is not claiming to own any article but we will point out the foolishness in trying to put content that SHOULD be in a geography article, in a a wine article that distracts from the topic. Plus, after your behavior with this article (including your take it or leave it tone with the "accept it" compromise edit summary above), you really shouldn't be lecturing about WP:OWN

I'm not sure how much worth this will be since you seem to be locked in but here goes. Pfly's wording, which Camw and I endorse and which seems to be in line with Gruban's suggestion on RN, does not violate WP:UNDUE since it states simply and plainly that the southern Okanagon sometimes is includes in the Sonoran [wine ref] but other sources don't include it within the boundaries [another source, like the desert.org or something of your choosing]. That is all a non-geography article needs about a geography issue that has contradictory views because, ideally, the geography article that is linked should expound further on this issue. (Which again, you are highly welcome to mold into whatever image of "truth" you wish. I certainly won't be butting heads with you on that page). WP:UNDUE would be expounding more on a geography issue that is unrelated to wine production in the region. (The grapes really don't care) It is not WP:OR since we are attributing the information to independent, third party reliable sources and reporting what they are reporting. It is not WP:WEASEL because we are citing actual reliable sources that present each view. In fact, Pfly's wording is no more weaselish than your wording which includes the line "...the conventional and accepted use definition" which could easily merit a {{who}} tag for a RS that explicitly says THIS is the conventional and accepted definition. But if you truly are concern about weasel words then we can just label the reliable sources in the text that will be followed by the footnote. (Like below) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Compromise wording #3 "The Oxford Companion to Wine describes the southern Okanagan Valley as the northernmost part of the Sonoran Desert,[reference] although [name of ref-Britannic, desert.org whatever] uses the term "Sonoran" in a more limited sense that doesn't include the Okanagan.[reference]"

Wow. I hadn't checked here for a few days. I feel like I should say something, but I don't know what it might be. A quick personal report: Somewhere I had once heard that the Okanagan area was the "only desert in Canada". I don't recall the term "Sonoran" being used, but perhaps it was. Maybe it is only my experience, but I suspect this notion, of the Okanagan being the only desert in Canada, is more common than the notion that it is Sonoran. If so, that is perhaps the falsehood that ought to be pointed out most clearly, no? (of course, I have no source for this notion of "the only desert in Canada", so feel free to ignore me--I usually do!) Pfly (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Numerous "mass media" and travel articles say "the only desert in Canada". Here are some: "the Vancouver Province" (whatever that means), Calgary Herald, VancouverIsland.com ... --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy we're talking compromise now. I would be content with any of the 3 proposals. I actually like Skookum's (I think) proposal that we are specific about what kinds of sources say it is a desert, and what sources don't. That way we can let the reader decide if he likes the definition from wine sources or geography sources. I object slightly to the phrasing that sources that say one thing are "normal, conventional, and accepted" and the others aren't, though - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the mass media sources have a wider readership than the geography ones. How about being even more specific about the types of the other sources too? Would calling them "geographical" work? Like this:

....is widely stated in wine and travel articles,[ref][ref][ref] and in a few botanical and environmental articles,[ref][ref] to be part of the northernmost part of the Sonoran Desert, although the usual geographical definition of that desert does not extend any further north than southernmost California and southwestern Arizona[ref][ref]

--GRuban (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think that is a little too wordy but it does remove some of the WP:WEASEL-terms from Skookum's so if consensus leans towards this, I will not object. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a simpler option also, but I also think this is a reasonable compromise to present both points of view and I believe this should be the wording that we go with. Camw (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Conventional" and "Accepted" are not "weasel words", they're what the situation is and are found in many Wikipedia articles for exactly this same context (and no, I'm not going to waist my time going to find some for you); "usual geographic" will almost do, but it downplays the greater significance, and much wider usage (in sources not targeted at mentioning Osoyoos/the Okanagan, or the normal and accepted most common use.. Trying to downplay that is what's weaseling.Skookum1 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's rather comical, and pathetic, that the resultant wording is very close to what I proposed a LONG time ago, but Agne refused to dignify with a reply, or even an acknowledgement....Skookum1 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Note this question on non-reliable sources in the context of someone from one field being used as a cite, and also the context of "fringe theories", though because at least one academic field (though few if any others) has what to me is a "fringe" definition of the Sonoran Desert it's not fully "fringe science"....but it's definitely out of the usual ballpark and not in accord with terminologies used in other fields. This posted as a reminder that not all seemingly reliable sources are in fact reliable, and that many aren't.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Double hurrah - now we're down to 1 or 2 words! "Conventional" and "Accepted" may not be "weasel words", but they're not proven. I don't think you've shown that the sources that claim the Okanagan isn't part of the Sonoran have a significantly wider general acceptance than the New York Times and the various Canadian newspapers that claim that it is; in fact, I suspect the opposite is true, I suspect more people have read the travel articles than the encyclopedia article. That wouldn't be the first time that a specialized field uses a different meaning of a word than the common usage. That's why I think the "geographic" or similar caveat is necessary; at least it works. --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL you guys are hysterical, as in a comedy routine, and sure love clapping each other on the back about getting rid of that nasty word "normal" and trying to validate that "the Sonoran Desert extends to Osoyoos" is the wider meaning, and that the usual meaning is "the dissenting view". I daresay that there's more people living in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona, and who know where they are and what it is, than people who've read an article in the New York Times wine section....give your heads a shake. Your little bubble of unreality is verging on "fringe science", especially because you're so determined to downplay the normal meaning of the term Sonoran Desert. Must be some Arizona and California school textbooks out there that have been read by more people than any wine or travel article with bad geography in it. Actually, any school geography book anywhere in any state that discusses it; of course none will say "Osoyoos, British Columbia is not part of the Sonoran Desert" as you all are demanding a source be found to say "in order to prove it's not true"; but all will say something to the effect that "the Sonoran Desert extends into the US states of Arizona and California", and none will say "the Sonoran Desert extends all the way to CAnada". Give your collective heads a shake, and wake up to the fact that wine articles, and a few scattered botanical articles, are not reliable sources, being from another field and in the case of the wine articles, not from a publication that has any authority whatsoever about geography; these are out-of-field cites and the botanical/ecological science articles have a specific context and are from one field only which is not part of teh academic mainstream. You guys probably think bananas grow in Kitsilano too....Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, Skookum with retorts like "you guys are hysterical, as in a comedy routine, and sure love clapping each other on the back" you seem to act like it everybody here is conspiring against you or the "truth" whatever you want to designate it. There is no collusion of clapping each other on the back but rather diverse editors (GRuban, Camw, myself, Pfly and JHunterJ earlier) with different backgrounds, interests, etc offering ideas and trying to work on finding a compromise solution. Just because we don't 100% bow down to your viewpoint and want to examine other consideration, doesn't mean we're "collective heads". Sooner of later you need to "wake" up to the "fact" that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean "Whatever Skookum wants". We're trying to work with you but your aggressiveness and frequent snark makes it difficult to maintain civil discussion and work on compromise. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there is a difference between fringe theories and what we're discussing . Even though you frequently mock the request for cites that explicitly dispute the Okanagan extension of the Sonora truly WP:FRINGE stuff like Astrology, Alchemy, Face on Mars, Moon landing conspiracy theories actually do have reliable sources that explicitly dispute those claims. Typically the "real" sciences don't hesitate to provide counter evidence and information when "untruths" are widely held and published. Since references to the Okanagan extension of the Sonora have been around since the 19th century and published in academic journals since at least the 1960s, it just seems odd that there are not reliable sources explicitly tackling this supposed "fringe theory". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted above in the wrong section, but I must ask, have any of you actually looked at map of the deserts in the western United States, as I said above, what about the Mojave and other deserts and arid regions between the Sonora Desert and the OV? And this, why is it all fired important to use sources that though reliable in general,have gotten this one so wrong? Is it critical to the notability of the Okanagan Valley article? Does this one embattled phrase make or break the article? Why is it so important that an oft repeated phrase be incorporated into the article even if it obviously wrong? Again, look up a map of the western American deserts....the Sonoran desert extends alright, into Mexico. Gingervlad (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gingervlad, for stating the obvious, which I've tried to point out here time and time again, only to be told it's something "only Skookum1 wants" as if I'd made it up; what Agne wants is for wine articles to be used as valid sources for geographic definitions/usages even when they're clearly incorrect and also repetitive (to the point of being copyvio of each other), and has wanted to either omit the proper definition or label it "the dissenting view", as if it were a minority opinion. And seems to me Agne did a little pollilng of his/her own here, getting other WP:WINE people into this, and launching something on the RS bulletin board and only belatedly posting it here, after ranting on about "what Skookum1 wants" for way too long, and using mis-quotations/mis-citations of cites that were being bragged about but didn't even say what was being claimed they were saying. The silly argument that as it's a wine article, the wine industry's bad geography, not founded on science or in anyone's reality but wine and travel articles and certain botanists using the term in a certain way, and only accepted as such (if at all)_ within their own fields. There was even an argument here that authoritative, definitive sources like the EPA and Britannica were not as valid as the wine articles, as if they were of equal weight, and that even so if they didn't explicitly say "the Okanagan region in Canada is not part of the Sonoran Desert" then therefore it is, by default. I've been accused of advancing a "conspiracy theory" about the wine press, and of accusing those here pushing the Osoyoos-as-Sonoran-Desert agenda as "conspiring", always in quotes as if I'd said anything of the kind. The wine press's definition, in all its repetitive and uncited simplicity, is not a "conpiracy theory" but an "uneducated and overblown theory" and rooted in Osoyoos-Okanagan area tourism/wine writeups/promos (as is obvious, though I'm condemned for not being able to prove that; even if I did get one of their brochures, which ahd the same words that the NYT etc use, "there's no way of proving the NYT got that from there" or some other silly rationale would be put forward).Skookum1 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's travel articles out there, many, which label the Selkirks and even the Coast Mountains as part of the Rockies; that doesn't make them "alternative views", it makes them "in error"; ditto with using "the Cascade Range" to includes the Coast Mountains (although in the past, "the Cascades" was used, but no longer, though American authors still get it wrong because the Cascade Volcanoes extend into the Coast Mountains). Margaret Thatcher's speechwriters had her extol about how beautiful Vancouver was, being overlooked by the Rocky Mountains.....clearly anything but a "reliable source", and very explicitly an "erroneous source".....such examples of bad geography in tourism writing and business promotions are legion - but their huge number and oft-repeated bad geography doest not make it treu and if anything invalidates them as a reliable source for geographic statements.Skookum1 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Compromise wording #4 "Due to similarities in plant and animal life, the valley is sometimes said to be an offshoot of the Sonoran Desert." followed by a list of sources to support each word and clause. This allows representation of the sources using the term, which undoubtedly exist, but allows the reader to examine the sources and decide on the "truth" themselves. I believe that sentence accurately reflects the nature of the sources i.e. is sourcable, reflects weight and reliability within areas of expertise and encompasses all the sources. I can see arguments coming up abouty "sometimes", but I think it gets the job done. Franamax (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative #4a "There are similarities in plant and animal life between the valley and the Sonoran Desert.[refs] The area is sometimes referred to as 'the northern tip of the Sonoran'.[refs]" This can be even more easily ref'd and avoids the implied-causative phrase "due to". The wording does not take any position on what is right or wrong, or even give any hints, it just describes reality. Franamax (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Polling is evil but so is 90,000+ bytes dedicated to one issue

Comment Speaking of polling....Skookum1 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's try to nail down some WP:CONSENSUS so we can all move on to building an encyclopedia. I will leave a note on JHunterJ and Pfly's talk page, asking them for their views but I will assume that Camw, Gruban and Skookum are watching this page more closely. Please note your acceptance or rejection of using GRuban's last suggestion on a compromise wording a nd let's see if we can wrap this up.

"The southern Okanagan near Osoyoos is widely stated in wine and travel articles,[ref][ref][ref] and in a few botanical and environmental articles,[ref][ref] to be part of the northernmost part of the Sonoran Desert, although the usual geographical definition of that desert does not extend any further north than southernmost California and southwestern Arizona[ref][ref]"

• Support Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support a reversal, putting the "usual" definition first, and then the widely repeated use second. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Please, let's move on to something more productive. Camw (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support with condition that "usual" is too weak, and gives too much credence to the idea that the Osoyoos-version of reality is just as valid; "normal" and "conventional" and "accepted" are the preferred terms.Skookum1 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The proposed wording reads as though there is a real-world dispute over this, where in fact this is a bitter internal dispute. We should not be projecting our internal arguments onto our readers. I propose another wording above that I think is much simple, but I won't stand in the way here. BTW, polls are evil. Franamax (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The original proposed compromise by pfly was quite similar to your suggestion (which I think is good), but unfortunately it was outright rejected by one of the participants, which is why we have ended up with the current wording. Camw (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the objection to both this and Pfly's original proposal is that it leads with the declarative on how it may indeed be a part of the SD and then qualifies that as "conventionally" untrue, rather than delving into the exact origin of the characterization as Skookum1 wishes or, well, just avoiding the issue altogether as I have tried. And while I'm here, using "environmental articles" as anything to do with the commentary on cover art in CJEE I feel is rather a misuse of sources, as it confers a gravity beyond what is contained in the source, by means of the "Journal" rubric. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If the Sonoran Desert thing is to be mentioned at all I think it ought to be clarified that it is not the normal definition of the term, worded however. Another option is to not say the region is Sonoran in the first place. But feel free to make whatever edits y'all want, I only happened to notice this page in passing. You can count this "vote" as an abstain. Pfly (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let me try saying this another way. I have no vested interest in this article and don't feel like my opinion ought to count for or against consensus for whatever issue. And I'm not even quite sure I understand what the issue is--I skimmed part of the arguments above but didn't read all of it. Based on what I did read I made a suggestion, but that's about the extent of my involvement. I'm just passing by, so to speak. If the issue is whether or not to mention the Sonoran thing at all, I can't really say--I'm just not familiar enough with the topic to know whether it merits mentioning or not. Pfly (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As someone from the region, I can attest to the misuse of the term "desert" and "extension of the Sonoran Desert" by tourism agencies. The concept was scoffed at by my geography teachers, if I recall correctly. The concept has legs because it lends an exotic feel to an area that could be ungenerously referred to as "scrubland". If we can't locate a geography source that states the region is part of a contiguous southern desert, or is even a "desert" at all, we should avoid perpetuating this misclassification. As such, I would happy if the proposed wording is a bit stronger in regards to stating that the claim is not backed up by geographers. The Interior(Talk) 04:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And I must ask, what is the most visually defining characteristic of the Sonoran Desert? The Saguaro cactus, not found elsewhere (except as a logo or symbol in regions where it is never found). I did mention above that the "idea" of the Sonoran Desert is attractive..it is indeed a lovely and evocative place. And it certainly has a more attractive ring to it than the neighbouring "Scablands" of Washington state. ;) I just find it appalling that all the actual facts of the different ecological regions are ignored in favour of some "romantic" notion mainly fed by some tourist and commercial interests. And as I stated aboe, why is it important to the article to insert this peculiar notion? I realise that there is a winery in BC that calls itself "Sonoran Estates", however, simply calling oneself 'Sonoran" does not make it a reality. Gingervlad (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, alongside this "Sonoran Desert" myth, Osoyoos also dug up/concocted a story about a troop of Conquistadors who allegedly made it as far as Osoyoos in search of Cibola ("El Dorado" as usually put in English, though that was really a reference to Cibols's mythical ruler, "the gilded one"). This was mocked in the Vancouver papers of the day as rather pathetic and just a tourism promotion; still, local motel and housing is often deliberately Hispanic/Mexican in flavour, and they've planted some Saguaro even, same as Vancouver and Victoria with their vanities about planting palm trees ("nyah, nyah, we're not Toronto..."). They can grow pineapples in Lillooet (in coldsheds), but it doesn't make Lillooet part of Hawaii....wanting something to be true, and pretending as though it is, and sucking in a bunch of travel writers with glossy tourism guides saying so, does not make it true....it's an odd association for a wine region, given that there's not much wine, if any, grown in the region of the real Sonoran Desert, even on the US side of the border. As for Spanish history in the Okanagan, there is a story about a group of unknown Spaniards who tried to settle at Kelowna, then were killed on their retreat from it, at Keremeos.....there's actually - or were actually - some foundations at Kelowna, before urbanization, I doubt they were protected, and local native families around Keremeos who have bits of Spanish armour and weaponry. There's an apocryphal speculation on who they were, quite interesting, in a truckstop-type local history book called Indian Wars in the Pacific Northwest, suggesting they were corsairs (pirates) who were based at "Hermosa" (Fairhaven/Bellingham) and were the reason the official Spanish expeditions, the author says, were wary of penetrating past the Strait of Juan de Fuca at first, but were also part of the reason those troops and ships were sent north....no firm evidence, lots of circumstantial observations, all interesting....but no Spanish records about either that bunch, of the supposed one that got to Osoyoos and turned back; whichever particular conquistador it was, who they named, there's no equivalent stories in Washington or Oregon lore about the same expedition, just as there's no mention in historical, travel - or wine region - literature there or anywhere else between the Canadian border and the Colorado River saying anything about being part of the Sonoran Desert....Skookum1 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okanagan viticultural regions and wineries

Agne27 has pointed out that information like the list below violates WP:WINEGUIDE#List_of_wineries which might be interpreted as an advisory for avoiding subjective debates and WP:SPAM about whose wine is better.

Rather, a list may serve the purpose of Information-Navigation-Development, both for readers of this Article and for more detailed future information that may address significance of Okanagan regionality and terroir.

I've started creating one list among seven that would identify wineries in the respective Okanagan regions. A list of wineries by region actually fulfills a WP goal stated in the Guide: On Wikipedia, as editors we have volunteered to expand the world's knowledge of this beverage and the people, places and processes that are devoted to it. The list simply organizes wineries in different regions and provides a link to the winery homepage where WP users could preview each for more information.

I'll continue with creating the lists -- other volunteers welcome -- while discussion ensues about whether this, or a reduced version for each, is appropriate information for the Article. --Zefr (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Kelowna-North Okanagan

1. 50th Parallel Estate
2. Ancient Hill Winery
3. Arrowleaf Cellars
4. Bounty Cellars Winery
5. Calona Vineyards
6. Camelot Vineyards Estate Winery
7. CedarCreek Estate Winery
8. Gray Monk Estate Winery
9. House of Rose Winery
10. Larch Hills Winery
11. OkanaganVilla Estate Winery
12. Peller Estates
13. Sandhill
14. Sperling Vineyards
15. SpierHead Winery
16. St Hubertus and Oak Bay Family Estate Winery
17. Summerhill Pyramid Winery
18. Tantalus Vineyards
19. The Cellars at The Rise
20. The View Winery

Further research indicates the list in External Links[1] is reasonably accurate and extensive, sufficient to serve on its own. The Oliver-Osoyoos Winery Association provides additional information for 28 wineries in the 30 mile region from north Oliver southward to the US border near Osoyoos.[2] --Zefr (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)