Talk:Pacific Northwest

Ferry usage?

Both BC Ferries and Washington State Ferries are huge ferry systems (not to mention the Alaska Marine Highway), and while I don't know of any similar system in Oregon I think the fact that the coastal section relies so heavily on ferries merits a mention in the Transit subsection. Spellingbee91 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point , the Coast Starlight Amtrak route is listed, but not a single ferry route. Some individual WSF routes exceed the Amtrak ridership by at least an order of magnitude: the Bainbridge Island-Seattle for example has millions of riders. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the Greater Vancouver area more appropriately called the Greater Vancouver BC area?

The PNW has a small city, Vancouver WA, directly north of Portland, OR, which is often considered part of the Greater Portland area. Directly north of the northern WA state border is the Greater Vancouver area, which includes Vancouver, British Columbia. In the US part of the PNW, the Canadian Vancouver is typically called Vancouver BC, while the American Vancouver is simply called Vancouver. However, I do not know if this is common convention in Canada. If it is, the Greater Vancouver area may be more appropriately called the Greater Vancouver BC area to avoid ambiguity as to which Vancouver hold geographic significance to the PNW. Thoughts? Professor Whumpus (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarify odd designation?

As someone from outside North America, I was surprised to learn that the Pacific Northwest designation is used for what is actually the Pacific Northeast ( the northeast coast of the Pacific Ocean). I understand the designation makes sense from a local continental USA perspective and I am not saying the intro is not clear. But I think it would be good to point out this contradiction at the beginning of the article to make it more obvious for those to arrive from outside the USA. 69.172.153.217 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Francis Drake in the PNW story

Little is known about Drake wherebaouts in the PNW in the course of his 1579 circumnavigation, mainly due to a secrecy order from the elizabethan regime before, during and long after the expedition. Most of the critical expedition data (e.g. date, latitude and coastal sighting points) were obfuscated in the official records (even conflicting with each other over time) as best raised by Drake biographer Harry Kelsey in his 1998 book. And yet there is still a fascinating story, likely still in the making. There is still a prevailing central Oregon landing theory (Whale Cove) alternative to the official central California. Bob Ward kickstarted that in the early 1980s. Sam Bawlf picked some of this up in his 2003 overly provocative BC-centric book. Archeologist/historian Melissa Darby revisited in her 2019 book. But the alternate theory still needs much beefing up and TLC as Drake has also undergone some level of cancellation due to his earlier involvement in the slave trade. Thus the interest has much faded from earlier hype, even in central California...

Hence a real PNW matter. For instance, after a six weeks sail originating from southern Mexico, Drake would have had to seek a natural harbour around the entry of Juan de Fuca (e.g. Sooke Harbour or Neah Bay???) in order to resupply in fresh water, firewood and other necessities before continuing on any further. First ever contacts with indigenous people would have occurred. But none of this important stuff ever made it to the records. How should the Wikipedia article history section handle this missing story? The Drake fragment is currently overfocused on the Central California official landing theory. It was never really proven given similar obfuscation of the critical expedition data in spite of a similar lack of archeological digs confirming a landing beyound reasonable doubt. Any thoughts out there on how to stickhandle in a Wikipedia environment generally more comfortable with well established narratives? More on the Facebook PNW History group: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Lf6mQxkGQ/ LeCanardQuoi (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "handle" missing stories. Articles should summarize the mainstream, prevailing views on a topic. Discussions about "what if" and analyses of "would have had to" have their places, but not on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

So should we not at minimum document the little we know such as the secrecy order on the critical expedition information for which plenty has been written? Or is this article section just fine the way it is??? Wikipedia gatekeepers are also challenged by this. Seeking guidance from the Wikipedia community in line with the Wikipedia philosophy. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You already changed the article to read

Drake may have reached as far North as 48N and may have conducted some preliminary assessments of the western entry channels to the Northwest Passage under royal secrecy order before heading back south to land, to careen the ship, to rest and to continue on the circumnavigation undertaking.

Are you proposing that the article needs more speculation along those lines? Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No I have not proposed said speculation but have asked for community guidance on how to revise the article given the lack of credible expedition critical data: timedates, latitudes and sighted coastline most noteworthy features (e.g. capes, beaches, bays and rivers). I have also asked if article should be simply left as is. Community participation would be nice too. The 48N reach consensus can be backed up with an actual 2019 scholarly textbook reference. So does the Northwest Passage preliminary reconnaissance with a 2003 reference book if that matters. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The History section in this article needs to be written in summary style and be balanced in its coverage of the region's entire history. As it stands, the exploration section has undue weight and needs to be trimmed, so there will not be room to discuss the various theories of Drake's expedition, which should be well-covered in the dedicated article on the expedition. SounderBruce 00:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)