Talk:Cascadia movement

Description of the movement

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, increased regional integration, and local food networks and economies.

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.

What is this? cascadia.com/aboutus?

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, increased regional integration, and local food networks and economies.

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.

Footnotes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 June 2016‎

White Supremist/Alt-Right Movements in the Region

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)

Many articles have links to related topics which are not equivocated with the topic at hand. Any reasonable reader can see that the name, and goal of the organization is different from that of the Cascadia independence movement. I don't believe providing information about white nationalist groups working towards a similar goal in the same region reflects on the other movement in any way, and I believe a reader interested in the Cascadia movement would be interested in knowing that such movements exist.

As for Ecotopia and Ernest Callenbach links to those articles already exist in the body of the text, and hence are not necessary in the see also section per WP:SEEALSO. I fail to see the relevance of the Diggers, but that may be my own ignorance.

In conclusion, no I am not satisfied that "protecting the public's perception of the Cascadia movement" is a valid reason for removing links to the Northwest Territorial Imperative. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors though. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:38, 13 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)

I disagree with this; categories are not a replacement for "See also" links. WP:SEEALSO says 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)

Time has passed, and I've mulled it over a bit, and something reminded me again of this article. On the one hand, obviously Yes California and Northwest Territorial Imperative will be relevant and interesting to some of this articles readers. That's because this article is about a separatist movement, and those articles are also about separatist movements. The thing is, we don't put all 50 pages from Category:Separatism in the United States in the See Also section, nor do I think it would make sense to do so. To me, putting links to these other separatist movements implies some sort of connection. If such a connection exists, there should be explanation of what it is. If there is no connection, then I don't see why we don't just remove the entries from the See Also section. InsuranceAgentof Satan (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no capital, let's not speculate

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)

Well, I see as I wrote the below comment this was removed again altogether. I am not convinced either way on this. It might be fine to exclude it, but it also somewhat informative to include that the main groups advocating have not chosen/proposed any particular capital. Leaving just Seattle as the "largest city" could be misleading, but perhaps it's not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of country infobox

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)

Grayfell, while I agree there are issues, I also beleive the infobox is informative. There are organizations and reporting that propose various boundaries and the country type statistics for thise areas. I beleive the infobox could be justified. I will review the conversation you mentioned above. Let’s also see what other editors think. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is informative, because this information is false precision. An additional problem is that (per the article) these boundaries are 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)

I don't think it is inappropriate to use that infobox, but I agree that Grayfell that some of the information provided in it is speculative due to the the unclear boundaries of the proposed country/independence movement. I think the flag and map are fine as currently included. I also tend to think the "Demonym: Cascadian" and the largest city/capital city lines are fine given the information posted there. Regardless of the boundaries, the largest city is Seattle and the capital proposed or otherwise is undecided or unknown. The GDP, area, population etc. should just be removed though as that information is speculative based upon boundaries etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

For context, this was my edit, which included the flag and map, but nothing else.

Typically, infoboxes summarize either non-controversial basic details, or information already supported in the body of the article. Everything should be sourced, but ideally, all of these details should be supported by independent sources. This isn't a strict requirement, but an over-reliance on involved and primary sources is a red flag. Reviewing existing sources, this demonstrates a deeper problem with the article.

The more the article relies sources like Cascadianow.org, the more likely it is that the article includes undue levels of details or worse. Saying the capital is "undecided" is accurate in a way, but it's also presumptuous, since for now, at least, there isn't even anyone to "decide". Using sources for a bit of context is helpful, but most sources should be about Cascadia as a movement, and it seems like that's not the case right now.

As for the infobox, it is designed for countries, and this is not a country, and that's okay to a degree, but it's not a license to include indiscriminate info.

As an example, Cascadianow.org really doesn't say anything about this being a country, and Freecascadia.org says "Free Cascadia does not advocate for the creation of a nation state independent of the United States." Since this infobox is for countries, this infobox is only being used for convenience. Everything needs to be contextualized based on reliable, independent sources. That includes things like demonym, and even largest city, but especially things like languages and GDP. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, Your position is clear. please allow room and time now for other editors to consider the question and respond. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You pinged me to tell me this? By all means, respond to the substance of these comments if you are concerned about room. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Cascadia
Boundaries of the bioregion in respect to current political territorial entities (Washington, Oregon and British Columbia).
Capital	Undecided
Largest city	Seattle
Demonym(s)	Cascadian

I agree that the article needs diverse WP:RS. The nature of an article about an independence movement is that some of the information is going to invariably come from websites of those movements. There is nothing wrong with primary sources, but I agree the use that source can be put to is limited. I tend to think the term "Cascadian" is uncontroversial, and think it is fine to note the movement has not decided on the capital etc, but I agree with you that some of the other material is WP:SYNTH or speculative and should be removed. Myself and philoserf already seemed to agree that some of the information in that box was problematic, as we messaged about the capital as noted in the discussion topic above. At one point it had said the capital would be probably Vancouver, Seattle or Portland (which we seemed to agree was a bit speculative and problematic). I would propose a box like this. Unfortunately, the "national language" field is also pretty speculative and/or WP:SYNTH, so I have also left that out.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

I most wholeheartedly agree (though I realize I'm a year late). Unless anyone raises an objection, I think I will remove the National Language, driving side, and perhaps GDp and some other things. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll proceed in doing this. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Cascadian activist/political groups. Who is notable?

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)

Article issues and concerns

As a B-class article the first criteria (#1) is: 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.

There are several sourced paragraphs with an added unsourced sentence. I didn't look at the editing history but many contain important, potentially challenged, or in some cases both, content. In some cases, the source might just be misplaced or there could be editorializing and original research.

The first example is in the first paragraph of the "Colonial background" section; 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.

The first paragraph of the "American Civil War" section When the Southern states of the U.S. seceded to form the Confederate States of America, some Oregon Territory settlers reacted to the instability of the union as another opportunity to seek independence. is unsourced.

An added sentence to the first paragraph of the "State of Jefferson" Stanton Delaplane's coverage of the State of Jefferson won the 1942 Pulitzer Prize for Reporting is 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.

The "Cascadia and Bioregionalism" section includes an unsourced ending sentence; "This distinction forms a root basis for many people arguing for further Cascadian Independence or Autonomy."

The next subsection, "Bioregional Congresses" likewise ends with the unsupported 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.

The first paragraph of the "Regional identity" section (that contains a rather vague inline "clarification needed" tag) ends with the unsourced These groups were established to focus on transportation issues, and have not advocated secession or independence. The third paragraph; Under some definitions, 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.

The second paragraph of the "Canada" subsection's ending sentence 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".

The ending sentence of the third paragraph of the "Secessionist activism" section, 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".

The "In popular culture" section has more than one issue. The first two paragraphs, "The book Ecotopia" and "The name "Ecotopia" are unsourced and appear as a Wikipedia editorial review. This is against more than one policy\and or guideline.

• Things just creep in sometimes but with 721 editors someone should be able to review this for corrections, trimming, or supplying sourcing to stave off tagging and likely classification review. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've resolved most of the above bullet points, usually by deleting content, save the pop-culture material. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 1 January 2023

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

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)

• Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Support - for all the same reasons. Regionalism and identity movements need not and do not entail political separatism, and in the United States they largely do not. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What about Just "Cascadia"? 2601:600:837F:FAC0:699D:B9EC:D0:26F6 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Already a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Cascadia.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Doug Flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)