Talk:Cascadia movement

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]

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

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^[who?] 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^[who?] 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^[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.

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)

@Bri While there isn't an "official" movement of Cascadia, there is a pretty-widely recognized flag, and that's the Doug Flag, designed by Alexander Baretich. Several independent (varying reliability) sources reference this as "the" flag of Cascadia: , , , , , . There's also the one designed by David McKloskey but I couldn't find any independent sources with coverage of it, only his Cascadia Institute .

On the other hand, there is no coverage of the Commons:File:Cascadia_WM.svg flag. I don't think it should be portrayed as an "official" flag in the article. Currently, it is labeled as "the Flag of Cascadia" as if it is the only one. The creator of that one, Zscout, said specifically that it is based on the Doug flag. Thus, it seems like trying to skirt around the copyright on the Doug Flag. PersusjCP (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with PersusjCP. Although the Cascadia movement is an inherently decentralized one with no official flag, Alexander Baretich's Doug flag is by far the most used symbol. That Cascadia WM flag is definitely trying to avoid Baretich's copyright of the Doug, and I have never seen it in use - online or elsewhere. The McCloskey flag, for that matter, is more directly related to the ecologically inclined Cascadia movement, but it sees very little use largely because it is not manufactured or sold commercially. I recall reading a rather informally written interview of Baretich about his philosophy that included his critiques of McCloskey's flag, but I cannot find that source now. Aetholis1 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Are the differences between the volunteer-made flag file:Cascadia WM.svg and Baretich flag significant in the context of this article? This isn't the article Doug Flag. I wonder how many Cascadians can actually tell the difference, which is essentially trivial differences in the tree silhouette? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not about minute differences, it's copyright avoidance. It shouldn't be used to represent the Baretich flag because it is simply not that. It's mimicking it, but saying it's the "Cascadia flag" or the "Doug flag" is original research. It would be appropriate to call it "a design based on the Doug Flag" but including such a flag in the article without coverage would be OR, hence why it says on C:File:Cascadia WM.svg that it shouldn't be on any article pages. PersusjCP (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to repeated addition against consensus, File:Doug flag.svg is now on the image blacklist and cannot be used anywhere except Doug flag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

A user who repeatedly uploaded a version of the Doug flag has prompted a new editnotice for this page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Non-free_flags, Tvx1 (talk · contribs) questioned the exclusion of the Doug flag in this article. They believe that there is a credible fair sue rationale for its inclusion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I really don’t understand why this had to be put on the blacklist. It’s not the flag of some terrorist organisation or it doesn’t display anything illegal. It seems that the only issue was that no free use rationale for its use here was added to it when it was placed on this article. I think putting on the blacklist for that was a complete overreaction. I believe that including an image of the flag in this article which discusses it and accurately explains its status, while adding a correct fair use rationale to the flag’s page, should be acceptable. Tvx1 08:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add reference to more recent events, such as flags at protests and today in Oregon a man getting arrested for trying to "behead ICE agents" and create a group called the "Cascadia Rangers" to fight in a civil war. https://www.kptv.com/2026/02/09/oregon-18-year-old-arrested-violent-plot-targeting-ice-agents-police-say/ TheJamesGrace (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for making specific, precise edits, not pleas for general article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Since cascadia doesn't have a single official border it depends on the conception shouldn't the infobox stats make clear what assumptions they make? YannLK (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)