This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cascadia movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1826 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 1 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cascadia (independence movement) to Cascadia movement. The result of the discussion was moved. |
There are several reasons why the Cascadia movement aims to foster connections and a sense of place within the Pacific Northwest region and strive towards independence. The main reasons stated by the movement include environmentalism, bioregionalism, privacy, civil liberties and freedom, [1] increased regional integration, and local food networks and economies. [2]
Designer of the Doug flag, Alexander Baretich, claims that Cascadia is not necessarily about secession but is rather about survival of peak oil, global warming, and other pending environmental and socioeconomic problems. [3]
I’ve seen whole pages wiped for less.
There are several reasons why the Cascadia movement aims to foster connections and a sense of place within the Pacific Northwest region and strive towards independence. The main reasons stated by the movement include environmentalism, bioregionalism, privacy, civil liberties and freedom, [1] increased regional integration, and local food networks and economies. [2]
Designer of the Doug flag, Alexander Baretich, claims that Cascadia is not necessarily about secession but is rather about survival of peak oil, global warming, and other pending environmental and socioeconomic problems. [4]
Footnotes
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 June 2016
Recently several different wikipedians have added various links to different sites/wikipedia articles describing white nationalist/alt-right movements operating with a stated purpose of Pacific Northwestern independence (some calling it Cascadia, some not). @ AlexanderBaretich: has removed these links, without providing any explanation, so I will not try to divine his intent. These movements, if real (some of which I haven't looked into, so may be hoaxes), are very closely linked to the subject matter of this article and should be included in the See Also. Specifically I see no reason why Northwest Territorial Imperative, a short but well documented article about a pacific northwest independence movement, should not be included. It certainly seems more relevant to me than the Cascadia Cup. Agree, disagree, thoughts? GiovanniSidwell ( talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I still do not understand how to have dialog in this system ... SO I WILL POST THIS HERE .. the Cascadian movement is anti-racist and by having that link it implies we are. Why not have Ecotopia or Ernest Callenbach or the Diggers (anarchist street theater) as a link as they are FAR MORE RELEVANT to the the Cascadian movement. There I hope this satisfies you as I remove it again. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AlexanderBaretich (
talk •
contribs) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the last four links in the See also section should be removed. (Secession in the United States, Secessionist movements of Canada, Yes California, and Northwest Territorial Imperative). The article already belongs to the Separatism in Canada category and the Separatism in the United States category, so there is no need to include links to the main articles of those categories, and there is especially no need to link to unconnected separatist movements like Yes California and Northwest Territorial Imperative. Anyone who is interested can find them on the category page. InsuranceAgentof Satan ( talk) 08:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article.I find category pages difficult to navigate, with the layers of nested categories and often way too many articles. has 53 articles, plus 9 subcategories of which 6 have a combined 47 additional subcategories. There's room for discussion about which "See also" articles are potentially relevant or of interest to this article's readers, of course. Schazjmd (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Further to Philoserf and my recent edits here, we seem to be in agreement that we should not be speculating about a capital without WP:RS and qualifications about who it was proposed by. Even then in my view, it would have to be a pretty notable proposal to warrant inclusion here as a "proposed" capital. Please do not add a capital or capitals without discussion here.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The use of template:infobox country was mentioned at Northwest Territorial Imperative as justification for adding one there, too. This is not appropriate at either article, since neither are countries. All of this is speculative and ambiguous. Actual borders, population, GDP... All of this would have to be cited to sources which are specifically discussing Cascadia. The idea that the population of a group of neighboring states, or their combined GDP, would apply to this speculative country is original research. Using multiple sources about different regions to imply a conclusion about this movement is WP:SYNTH, and is not appropriate. If nothing else, it's absurd to think that all of these statistics would not change dramatically when a chunk of the USA breaks-off, making these specific numbers abritrary and misleading, at best. Grayfell ( talk) 03:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
potential. Using potential boundaries to present hard data as factual is misleading, or at best, entirely premature. This is in addition to the WP:SYNTH issue, which means this information fails verifiability. There is no reliable source for the GDP of the country of Cascadia, for hopefully obvious reasons. Statistics like this would need to be presented as projections, or predictions, or honest speculation, and therefor all of this would need to be attributed to a reliable source. That source would need to be discussing Cascadia as a movement or country. Grayfell ( talk) 19:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Cascadia | |
---|---|
Capital | Undecided |
Largest city | Seattle |
Demonym(s) | Cascadian |
That works for me. It's tempting to point out that Victoria, Salem, and Olympia are already capitals with existing infrastructure, while the larger three are not.... but that's also speculative, obviously. I think this helps show some of the problem with citing these movements for information about the movements, but this is getting off-topic. Grayfell ( talk) 05:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking around the internet and talking to some people from the dept. of bioregion (cascadia), it looks like there is allot of new (relatively small) groups popping up here and there. How large/interesting should these groups be before they get a mention on this page? Latvysh ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a bunch of smaller groups, that I can't seem to track down any actual websites for that are on twitter or instagram that I don't see a lot of other activity for. The Cascadia Bioregional Party just filed their 8871 with the IRS, and should shortly be able to show itself as a registered 527. They also just had leadership elections - so expect to see more independent 3rd party articles from or about them shortly. Brandonletsinger ( talk) 08:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
These early borders very closely resembled the natural borders that were used in the creation of the Oregon Country and Columbia District, which were shared by many nations.other sections or subsections: "Oregon Country and Columbia District" (first paragraph),
The same year of Jefferson's letter, Fort Astoria was sold to the British North West Company, based in Montreal.The fourth full paragraph is totally unsourced.
When the Southern states of the U.S. seceded to form the Confederate States of America, some Oregon Territory settlers who? reacted to the instability of the union as another opportunity to seek independence.is unsourced.
Stanton Delaplane's coverage of the State of Jefferson won the 1942 Pulitzer Prize for Reportingis unsourced. The source provided on the author's article simply states: "...won the Pulitzer Prize in 1942 for his articles about attempts by several counties in California and Oregon to secede and form a separate state." There are no sources for the coverage or the Pulitzer Prize.
"This distinction forms a root basis for many people who? arguing for further Cascadian Independence or Autonomy."
Each would form committees in topics such as food sovereignty, energy, waste, democracy, and plan together for actions to take in the upcoming years. These early gatherings formed the bulk of the early Cascadia movement.
These groups were established to focus on transportation issues, and have not advocated secession or independence.The third paragraph;
Under some definitions which?, Cascadia is energy sufficient, due to the high propensity for renewable energy resources (mostly hydroelectric and geothermal) and supplies many other western states such as California and Idaho with some electricity.is unsourced.
This information may not directly reflect the desire for separation in British Columbia, as Western Canada includes Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in addition to BC. Alberta in particular has its own distinct Alberta separatism movement that has manifested in the creation of the Wexit Canada political party. It is also worth noting that Western Standard is an Albertan publication., appears to be an editorial note, that even includes, " It is also worth noting".
Another new group active is All Things Cascadia: Department of Bioregional Affairs, which operates a 'Cascadian Diplomatic Corps' and offers classes and training about Cascadia and bioregionalism.I found the facebook page "Cascadia Department of Bioregion" (missing "Affairs") which states, "Political Organization. CascadiaNow. Nonprofit Organization. Cascadia Underground. Community Organization. Cascadia. Festival.", but failed to find a new active group "All Things Cascadia: Department of Bioregional Affairs". The facebook page cascadiabioregion.org and the "About" link do not advocate or sponsor a direct separation movement that I could find. There are hypothetical numbers of a region explaining the "Cascadia bioregion includes British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of South East Alaska and Northern California as defined through the watersheds of the Columbia, Fraser and Snake watersheds." it further notes that
Definitions of the region's boundaries vary, but usually include the area between the Cascade Range and the Pacific Ocean, and some part of the Coast Mountains. Other definitions follow the boundaries of existing subnational entities, and usually include the territory of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, while others also include parts of California, Idaho, Alaska and Yukon.Different hypothetical forming of any possible "boundaries" would create new and different sets of hypothetical figures. This means the information in the infobox defining the region as "Boundaries of the bioregion in respect to current political territorial entities (Washington, Oregon and British Columbia)." is not accurate as missing "Oregon, Idaho and parts of South East Alaska and Northern California".
Odd expression in "They lived and traded largely within the Cascadia Bioregion along watershed boundaries". A watershed is a type of boundary (usually along ridges) and has no boundaries itself except ends. Trading along ridges can be sensible if not too steep, but people tend to live close to running water rather than on ridges. Clarification desirable. Robin Patterson ( talk) 05:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Cascadia (independence movement) → Cascadia movement – The bulk of this article is about a regionalist movement that is not necessarily a secessionist one, that aspect being largely confined to the section Cascadia (independence movement)#Secessionist activism. I also find "Cascadia movement" a more WP:NATURAL disambiguation than the alternative "Cascadia (movement)". Pharos ( talk) 01:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 19:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cascadia movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1826 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 1 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cascadia (independence movement) to Cascadia movement. The result of the discussion was moved. |
There are several reasons why the Cascadia movement aims to foster connections and a sense of place within the Pacific Northwest region and strive towards independence. The main reasons stated by the movement include environmentalism, bioregionalism, privacy, civil liberties and freedom, [1] increased regional integration, and local food networks and economies. [2]
Designer of the Doug flag, Alexander Baretich, claims that Cascadia is not necessarily about secession but is rather about survival of peak oil, global warming, and other pending environmental and socioeconomic problems. [3]
I’ve seen whole pages wiped for less.
There are several reasons why the Cascadia movement aims to foster connections and a sense of place within the Pacific Northwest region and strive towards independence. The main reasons stated by the movement include environmentalism, bioregionalism, privacy, civil liberties and freedom, [1] increased regional integration, and local food networks and economies. [2]
Designer of the Doug flag, Alexander Baretich, claims that Cascadia is not necessarily about secession but is rather about survival of peak oil, global warming, and other pending environmental and socioeconomic problems. [4]
Footnotes
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 June 2016
Recently several different wikipedians have added various links to different sites/wikipedia articles describing white nationalist/alt-right movements operating with a stated purpose of Pacific Northwestern independence (some calling it Cascadia, some not). @ AlexanderBaretich: has removed these links, without providing any explanation, so I will not try to divine his intent. These movements, if real (some of which I haven't looked into, so may be hoaxes), are very closely linked to the subject matter of this article and should be included in the See Also. Specifically I see no reason why Northwest Territorial Imperative, a short but well documented article about a pacific northwest independence movement, should not be included. It certainly seems more relevant to me than the Cascadia Cup. Agree, disagree, thoughts? GiovanniSidwell ( talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I still do not understand how to have dialog in this system ... SO I WILL POST THIS HERE .. the Cascadian movement is anti-racist and by having that link it implies we are. Why not have Ecotopia or Ernest Callenbach or the Diggers (anarchist street theater) as a link as they are FAR MORE RELEVANT to the the Cascadian movement. There I hope this satisfies you as I remove it again. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AlexanderBaretich (
talk •
contribs) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the last four links in the See also section should be removed. (Secession in the United States, Secessionist movements of Canada, Yes California, and Northwest Territorial Imperative). The article already belongs to the Separatism in Canada category and the Separatism in the United States category, so there is no need to include links to the main articles of those categories, and there is especially no need to link to unconnected separatist movements like Yes California and Northwest Territorial Imperative. Anyone who is interested can find them on the category page. InsuranceAgentof Satan ( talk) 08:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article.I find category pages difficult to navigate, with the layers of nested categories and often way too many articles. has 53 articles, plus 9 subcategories of which 6 have a combined 47 additional subcategories. There's room for discussion about which "See also" articles are potentially relevant or of interest to this article's readers, of course. Schazjmd (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Further to Philoserf and my recent edits here, we seem to be in agreement that we should not be speculating about a capital without WP:RS and qualifications about who it was proposed by. Even then in my view, it would have to be a pretty notable proposal to warrant inclusion here as a "proposed" capital. Please do not add a capital or capitals without discussion here.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The use of template:infobox country was mentioned at Northwest Territorial Imperative as justification for adding one there, too. This is not appropriate at either article, since neither are countries. All of this is speculative and ambiguous. Actual borders, population, GDP... All of this would have to be cited to sources which are specifically discussing Cascadia. The idea that the population of a group of neighboring states, or their combined GDP, would apply to this speculative country is original research. Using multiple sources about different regions to imply a conclusion about this movement is WP:SYNTH, and is not appropriate. If nothing else, it's absurd to think that all of these statistics would not change dramatically when a chunk of the USA breaks-off, making these specific numbers abritrary and misleading, at best. Grayfell ( talk) 03:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
potential. Using potential boundaries to present hard data as factual is misleading, or at best, entirely premature. This is in addition to the WP:SYNTH issue, which means this information fails verifiability. There is no reliable source for the GDP of the country of Cascadia, for hopefully obvious reasons. Statistics like this would need to be presented as projections, or predictions, or honest speculation, and therefor all of this would need to be attributed to a reliable source. That source would need to be discussing Cascadia as a movement or country. Grayfell ( talk) 19:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Cascadia | |
---|---|
Capital | Undecided |
Largest city | Seattle |
Demonym(s) | Cascadian |
That works for me. It's tempting to point out that Victoria, Salem, and Olympia are already capitals with existing infrastructure, while the larger three are not.... but that's also speculative, obviously. I think this helps show some of the problem with citing these movements for information about the movements, but this is getting off-topic. Grayfell ( talk) 05:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking around the internet and talking to some people from the dept. of bioregion (cascadia), it looks like there is allot of new (relatively small) groups popping up here and there. How large/interesting should these groups be before they get a mention on this page? Latvysh ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a bunch of smaller groups, that I can't seem to track down any actual websites for that are on twitter or instagram that I don't see a lot of other activity for. The Cascadia Bioregional Party just filed their 8871 with the IRS, and should shortly be able to show itself as a registered 527. They also just had leadership elections - so expect to see more independent 3rd party articles from or about them shortly. Brandonletsinger ( talk) 08:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
These early borders very closely resembled the natural borders that were used in the creation of the Oregon Country and Columbia District, which were shared by many nations.other sections or subsections: "Oregon Country and Columbia District" (first paragraph),
The same year of Jefferson's letter, Fort Astoria was sold to the British North West Company, based in Montreal.The fourth full paragraph is totally unsourced.
When the Southern states of the U.S. seceded to form the Confederate States of America, some Oregon Territory settlers who? reacted to the instability of the union as another opportunity to seek independence.is unsourced.
Stanton Delaplane's coverage of the State of Jefferson won the 1942 Pulitzer Prize for Reportingis unsourced. The source provided on the author's article simply states: "...won the Pulitzer Prize in 1942 for his articles about attempts by several counties in California and Oregon to secede and form a separate state." There are no sources for the coverage or the Pulitzer Prize.
"This distinction forms a root basis for many people who? arguing for further Cascadian Independence or Autonomy."
Each would form committees in topics such as food sovereignty, energy, waste, democracy, and plan together for actions to take in the upcoming years. These early gatherings formed the bulk of the early Cascadia movement.
These groups were established to focus on transportation issues, and have not advocated secession or independence.The third paragraph;
Under some definitions which?, Cascadia is energy sufficient, due to the high propensity for renewable energy resources (mostly hydroelectric and geothermal) and supplies many other western states such as California and Idaho with some electricity.is unsourced.
This information may not directly reflect the desire for separation in British Columbia, as Western Canada includes Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in addition to BC. Alberta in particular has its own distinct Alberta separatism movement that has manifested in the creation of the Wexit Canada political party. It is also worth noting that Western Standard is an Albertan publication., appears to be an editorial note, that even includes, " It is also worth noting".
Another new group active is All Things Cascadia: Department of Bioregional Affairs, which operates a 'Cascadian Diplomatic Corps' and offers classes and training about Cascadia and bioregionalism.I found the facebook page "Cascadia Department of Bioregion" (missing "Affairs") which states, "Political Organization. CascadiaNow. Nonprofit Organization. Cascadia Underground. Community Organization. Cascadia. Festival.", but failed to find a new active group "All Things Cascadia: Department of Bioregional Affairs". The facebook page cascadiabioregion.org and the "About" link do not advocate or sponsor a direct separation movement that I could find. There are hypothetical numbers of a region explaining the "Cascadia bioregion includes British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of South East Alaska and Northern California as defined through the watersheds of the Columbia, Fraser and Snake watersheds." it further notes that
Definitions of the region's boundaries vary, but usually include the area between the Cascade Range and the Pacific Ocean, and some part of the Coast Mountains. Other definitions follow the boundaries of existing subnational entities, and usually include the territory of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, while others also include parts of California, Idaho, Alaska and Yukon.Different hypothetical forming of any possible "boundaries" would create new and different sets of hypothetical figures. This means the information in the infobox defining the region as "Boundaries of the bioregion in respect to current political territorial entities (Washington, Oregon and British Columbia)." is not accurate as missing "Oregon, Idaho and parts of South East Alaska and Northern California".
Odd expression in "They lived and traded largely within the Cascadia Bioregion along watershed boundaries". A watershed is a type of boundary (usually along ridges) and has no boundaries itself except ends. Trading along ridges can be sensible if not too steep, but people tend to live close to running water rather than on ridges. Clarification desirable. Robin Patterson ( talk) 05:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Cascadia (independence movement) → Cascadia movement – The bulk of this article is about a regionalist movement that is not necessarily a secessionist one, that aspect being largely confined to the section Cascadia (independence movement)#Secessionist activism. I also find "Cascadia movement" a more WP:NATURAL disambiguation than the alternative "Cascadia (movement)". Pharos ( talk) 01:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 19:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)