Talk:Portland, Oregon/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Economy of Portland

Um, this is my first post (I think I'm doing this right...) and I noticed there's no "economy of" section in this article. Well, I thought I might offer a few bits of information for anyone who has the knowledge to add it to the article: silicon forest; Nike (headquartered in Beaverton); Tektronix (its location in the area helped to create silicon forest); Intel (largest employer in Portland area, or maybe state); history of steel industry and existing/remaining companies-precision cast parts, oregon steel, northwest pipe company, etc.; portland is the largest grain shipper in the nation, and the third largest port destination in the west coast; emerging biotechnology (?), although that's debatable as we don't have any major businesses in that field in the area... I don't know, just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowden352 (talk • contribs) 02:21, August 26, 2006 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on Portland's economy? I think this information would be useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.182.41 (talk) 17:37, January 26, 2007

Agree. A local economy section is vital to an city wiki. That is what I came to look for here, and was dissapointed when I found it missing. Someone who knows better should take the information above and begin crafting a section on the main page. Onishenko 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree I am compiling some information for the economy section. Should we create a seperate page for the economy as well? There is a multitude that could be written about the economy in Portland. JordanRL 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that an economy section is needed, your examples are not in Portland, but in the Portland metropolitan area. The silicon forest is mostly if not entirely outside of Portland proper. I don't really think it is appropriate to talk about Beaverton/Hillsboro/Gresham/Vancouver in this article, but it is entirely appropriate and needed in the metropolitan area article. Cacophony 01:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Econ section definately needed, as I just started the Precision Castparts Corp. artilce to remove the redlink from the Oregon artilce and thought I'd link it here too, but can't. And Cacophony is right, Portland companies only, no Nike, no Columbia Sportswear, and no Intel (unless they still have an office in downtown Portland). And while we are on this subject, could someone remove other none Portland items, such as oh the universities not in Portland. Aboutmovies 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is not going to go up the scale without any economy information of greater portland Area or Portland itself. Since i don't know about the economy i cant add anything but those who know should:)EdwinCasadoBaez 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving related pages

I am proposing that two related pages get moved: Metropolitan Area Express (Portland) to MAX Light Rail and J. E. Clark to Bud Clark. Please come discuss these on the articles' talk pages. Jason McHuff 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

band vanity

I removed a band from the list under the "Popular Culture" section a couple weeks ago, with the following comment:

removed what appears to be vanity. The wiki page on the band makes no convincing case for notability; also I have followed music in Portland for some time and am unaware of them.)

The band was just re-added at the top of the list (by a user at the same IP address as the first time: 81.216.8.15) I'm reverting again, and will explain my reasoning a little more fully: the other bands listed (Elliott Smith, Pink Martini, Sleater-Kinney) are all well-known around town, and have received considerable news coverage over a period of several years. This coverage has largely been from mainstream publications, not just music-oriented entertainent papers. Elliott Smith's music was nominated for an Oscar. Portland residents who don't follow music could be reasonably expected to have some familiarity with these bands. I am a Portland resident who does follow music, and I have never heard of this band anywhere but here. -Pete 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the add to make it conform to the English language, and the format of the others. The band Agalloch I've never heard of either, but their wiki page has 3 full length and several EPs. I don't think the threshold for inclusion should be "well-known around town" but either (1) well-known nationally in their genre or (2) multiple "available" recordings. It has to be something other than "Portland residents who don't follow music could be reasonably expected to have some familiarity with these bands.", since I don't think either Smith, PM, or S-K would be known by the "average" Portland resident. Philvarner 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Opening the door to any band with "multiple available recordings" would invite literally thousands of bands to attach themselves to the list. I could probably rattle of 20 or 30 without pausing for breath. I am certainly open to discussion about what the standard should be, but I don't think that is a good one. As to specifics, I'll concede that Sleater-Kinney might be a reach, and wouldn't oppose removing them. But Elliott Smith was nominated for an Oscar, and his suicide got front page coverage on general-interest Willamette Week and possibly other papers. Pink Martini has also had front page treatment, is involved in charitable events around town, and tours internationally. -Pete 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the recordings one is a good one either. I think the Seattle#Culture section is a good example we should follow. This would exclude Agalloch. I would say theirs are "nationally prominent bands in their genre". For example, Skinny Puppy isn't necessarily popular overall, but they are nationally prominent in their genre. Austin, Texas goes the other direction and lists just about everyone, even if they don't even have a wikipage. I don't think his is what the list should be. Although, there's also a lot of grey here, for example, Storm Large is prominent locally and was recognized nationally on "Rockstar: Supernova". I don't know whether she should or not, but I do think she's the marginal case which should be used to determine the threshold. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philvarner (talk • contribs) 20:00, February 11, 2007
I think Storm Large should be on there - she went far on Rockstar: Supernova, and was heavily praised there. Austin would probably have a different standard than Portland, because it's known for its music pretty much more than any other characteristic. I think "prominent in their genre" is a little dicey, simply because musical genres seem to propagate faster than bands sometimes…do we want a "prominent" house-dub-techno-industrial DJ on Portland's front page? Or an operatic-grungecore band? Another specific suggestion: if a band's wikipedia entry does not cite mainstream or national sources, it doesn't go on the page. Which isn't to say EVERY band that does goes on the page. By that standard, only the Shins and Elliott Smith would get to remain…but I'm sure citations could be found for the other bands currently on there. -Pete 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think any band should go on the page, this particular case shows a bias against metal music and for indie rock. And I say that as basically the biggest Elliot Smith fan outside of Portland. - Stick Fig 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would happily support the idea of removing all bands from this page. Short of that, I'd say the appropriate way to overcome that bias is to find a truly famous metal band from Portland…if there is one. If Portland is more of a hotbed of indie rock than metal, that would be reflected in the page - I'm not sure if that's the case, but calling for equality among genres may not fit reality. Anyway, is there anyone who feels strongly that ANY bands should be listed here? -Pete 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You're totally arguing in the wrong direction. Portland's got a good cultural scene and it should be reflected on the page. Just saying, "this is too tough" and removing everyone is the wrong way to go. In fact, I would be bold and put them back in if you took them out, because I think they're essential to the page.
Instead of suggesting this line of thought, go the other way and figure out how to show that Portland is home to a variety of artistic contributions. - Stick Fig 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood you. Not sure I understand even now - but, I'm not really suggesting that they all be removed, just that I would support that choice if you or somebody else made it. I think the ideal section would express something in prose, as opposed to a list, perhaps listing a few examples, but aiming more to inform the reader of trends or culture rather than a laundry list. But I'm not really prepared to write that myself, I have enough projects on my plate! Which is the main reason I wouldn't suggest removing the list. Certainly, something should be there. -Pete 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Portland Public Art

I have nominated Portland public art for deletion. Please visit that page and share your thoughts. I have noticed that editors of the Portland page are diligent about keeping extraneous external links off this page. The PPA page avoids that controversy by making an uninformative stub, that contains a link to the weblog. I like the blog, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote web sites. Please visit the PPA page to discuss. -Pete 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of good faith addition of "otheruses" template

Any reason not to have one on this article or was this just reverted because it was added by an anon? Katr67 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The page name is "Portland, Oregon", not "Portland" -- it is not ambiguous, so does not need disambiguating. See WP:D, and related guidelines. Joe D (t) 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

the alleged coin toss

Ok, I am just saying there are many, many people who believe the alleged coin toss was nothing more than an urban legend. The only sources that state this as fact are organizations made to draw tourists to the city. I could hardly call that a reliable source!

I have lived in Portland all my life, and have always questioned this alleged coin toss. I think that unless someone can find a better source than visitor's association, my comments should stand.

I don't understand what the tourist organizations would gain or lose if the coin toss never happened. However, here are some less touristy references:
—EncMstr 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

None of those are primary sources. They do not count if they are not primary souces. I want an actual article from the time of the actual coin toss or a photograph or something.

User:Mainliner.espresso please sign your statements with four tildes (~). Wikipedia does not require primary sources (though they do of course take precedent over secondary and tertiary ones), only reliable published sources. VanTucky 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I want video showing the Missoula Floods otherwise all references to it should be removed! And I also want a newspaper article covering the Trojan War too!!!! ;) Aboutmovies 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ecology

As far as I know, Portland has a great record and initiative in taking care of the environment and climate. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Btd-no 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the raw sewage into the Willamette whenever it rains a lot, or the toxic cotamintion that prevented the use of the back-up water wells along the Columbia, or the dioxins lining the bottom of the Willamette from pulp production? Aboutmovies 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the Willamette is one of the most polluted rivers in the US. But if you want to consider the carbon footprint, the mass transit system pu tin place by Metro is a step in the right direction. Also, consider the number of those biking and Flexcars. VanTucky 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess both could be mentioned in the article. I've only heard the city's side and they speak about carbon-emission reduction, mass transit and bike-commuting far above the general US levels. If it's true, it should be mentioned, if they pollute heavily in other areas that should of course also be included. Btd-no 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the city's industries pollute heavily currently, but they sure used to. Where's the city at as far as Superfund site cleanup? I believe there are still quite a few toxic sites along the rivers. Allied Plating on MLK, now cleaned up, was the worst Superfund site in Oregon at one time, IIRC. The owner used to discharge heavy metals directly into the Columbia, and the site affected (affects?) an awful lot of groundwater. I got to walk around on the site pre-cleanup, not sure that explains anything... Katr67 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Btd-no's point is close to "right," but not quite. There are three similar points that I think are more defensible, but not quite the same: (1) the state of Oregon is known for its history of environmental stewardship, notably with the Oregon Bottle Bill, protection of the coastal land, protection of salmon, etc. and (2) Portland is known for its neighborhood-oriented urban planning, largely as a result of the Mount Hood Freeway revolt and Neil Goldschmidt's redirecting federal fund to projects like MAX, and (3) Portland is known as being a very liberal city, which includes environmentalist sensibilities. (Tre Arrow's protest of the Eagle Creek timber sale comes to mind.)
The 2nd and 3rd points should definitely be touched on in the article, as they are important defining characteristics of contemporary Portland - and can be backed up by reliable sources. But saying the Portland has a "great record" would be original research or POV-pushing, and as illustrated by the discussion above, rather controversial at that! -Pete 07:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Portland's reputation largely hinges on developments within the past two decades, but that doesn't disqualify the city's current actions. Some information can be found here http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=ebijg Businesses participate in conservation as well by offering incentives to customers who bring their own bags to grocery stores, etc. The city also has placed bottle holders on the sides of most trash cans for homeless people to collect them, recycle them, and receive the bottle refund. This is all personal experience, but I think it may warrant a section in the article as the culture of conservation is unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanaSanJuan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Planning and development section

I'd like to see the "land use planning" section expanded and split off into its own article - any thoughts?

Also, it has one paragraph (quoted below) that is pretty non-encyclopedic. I think it has good info, somebody more knowledgeable than I (or with a good book on hand...) should rewrite it! -Pete 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

“ In the early 1960s, the PDC led the razing of a large Italian-Jewish neighborhood downtown, bounded roughly by the I-405 freeway, the Willamette River, 4th Avenue and Market street. It was replaced by concrete office developments that proponents find clean and modern, and opponents find antiseptic and lifeless at night. ”

knife capital of the world

In a KATU article today, it dubbed Portland "knife capital of the world". The article can be found here. http://www.katu.com/news/7361421.html 71.59.236.48 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Multnomah Falls

I'm not sure this is entirely relevant, but I didn't see Multnomah Falls under Geography. I thought it would be important to mention them because I always bring visitors from out of the country or state to that particular landmark. Or should I state watermark? (Laughs at cheesy joke)Gargoyle123 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, Multnomah Falls is 30.1 driving miles (according to Google) from Portland, and at least 15 miles outside the city limits. All the listed attractions are within the city limits. The proximity of Multnomah falls is a good tidbit for WikiTravel though. —EncMstr 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Education

The section about notable high schools seems to be growing into all the high schools. Maybe we want to rethink and rewrite that section, since "notable" in this application is somewhat subjective, and subject to endless revision by people from the schools not included? I'm not from Portland, so I don't know which schools are truly notable. Katr67 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that no high school is simply notable, independent of context - rather, a school is "notable for its…whatever. The "whatever" is filled in by a reference from a reliable source. Any school that you can't write and cite such a sentence for should not be included in the section. -Pete 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's official--all but one of the high schools have been added to the section. Rather than weed it I simply changed the wording. Katr67 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible deletion of related article

The article Portland, Oregon in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. Please take a look at the discussion, and chime in if you have an opinion. It is my belief that the existence of this page is very good for three reasons:

  1. It serves a reader looking for an overview of books, films, bands, etc. with strong connections to Portland. (It could do a better job of this, but is already useful, and improves over time.)
  2. It makes the job of deciding what's notable enough to include on this page much easier.
  3. Related to #2, it serves as a tool, allowing us to collaborate with new editors who come to Wikipedia to promote their favorite band, author, etc., and introduce them to the cooperative spirit that makes Wikipedia work, rather than getting into unpleasant arguments all the time.

-Pete 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Discuss external links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) Katr67 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Added www.portlandGuide.com

PortlandGuide.com is one of the best guide sites to the city of Portland. It should be considered as an additional resource to be included on the portland page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbagehead310 (talk • contribs) 7:58, June 6, 2007

Infobox Picture

I love the picture in the infobox and it is a Featured Picture, but I'm wondering if it would work better later in the article using the panaroma feature (see below) and find a picture that is less elongated that would work better within the constraints of the infobox? Any thoughts? Aboutmovies 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1000px

It just depends on the image you had in mind to replace it with. VanTucky (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The image has been returned to the wide format as it is there as the example of the proposed change. That's why it says "see below" so people unfamiliar with the wide image template can see what it looks like. As to a different picture I'm not really partial to any image in particular. I tried this Image:Portland&MtHood.jpg one in the infobox and it looks OK, but maybe someone knows of a better one. It's not so much about the replacement to me, but showing off the current Featured class picture in a better way. Aboutmovies 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think this image is better as the infobox image. The one you linked isn't very good composition, the trees in the foreground like that look stupid, and the depth of field makes it look like Portland is in the Rockies or something. But whatever replacement we would use, the above image doesn't look very good as a wide image. A more...panoramic one, with more of the bridges and such, would be better. It should also be pointed out that wide images aren't used very much for the simple reason that they tend to disrupt the flow of an article too much. VanTucky (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I don’t care what picture goes in the infobox. As to the use of large pictures you might want to spend some time going through the FA class articles about cities, which I might suggest Vancouver, BC, New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. They all have large pictures (not all using the wide format template) in the article breaking up the text. Thus large pictures like this are perfectly acceptable for FA class articles, and though Portland isn’t FA I would hope the editors are looking to get it there. As I said, it’s about showing off this Feature Class picture, and due to the size constraints of the infobox I don’t think that is the best place for the picture. Even working it into the body as a larger picture would be better (see above or the way NYC handles these pics). Aboutmovies 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look about on Commons. It is pretty tiny in the infobox, but I just dislike the wide format. A simple large size would be fine with me though. VanTucky (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:PortlandOR allbridges.jpg

For me, this image is the one to use as a wide format image. Awesome! VanTucky (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to join the party a bit late. I wouldn't recomend my FP as a wide picture because it really isn't that panoramic. Having it, say, 1500 px in width would make the height about 600 px. which is very tall. The bridges one above is a good choice for its showing the bridges and its nice lighting but it is inherently small, blowing it up any bigger than it is here would have less than optimal results. Two pictures I think are possibilities: this picture that isn't even in the portland artical is also an FP and illistrates the geography. And this (also mine) has a better aspect ratio. cheers -Fcb981 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I generally am in love with the second picture, and would surely support it. I think it gives a nice few of Downtown Portland, and of the cities development. The first one dosen't give enough information. --67.164.218.54 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Portland Workgroup

The new Portland Workgroup division of WikiProject Oregon is now open for business. If you would like to join and help improve Portland related articles, go to the page and sign up. Plus list any items you think need to be worked on. Then you can add this userbox to your user page: {{User WikiProject Oregon PW}} Aboutmovies 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rose Quarter: Not technically in NE

As a point of order, the text in the section describing the Rose Quarter complex as being in "Northeast" is misleading. According to the city "quadrant" system, Rose Quarter is actually in the "North" quadrant, even if about 100 feet crosses the line to NE. (If you examine any good map of Portland, the "North / Northeast Boundary" is N Williams Avenue: any place east of Williams Avenue is "Northeast", anything west [inclusive of Williams itself] is "North"). According to the building's placement in the 2005 "Thomas Guide" Portland Street Atlas, Williams Ave. would land in the middle of the building, but far to the east of the bulk of the building and anything that would be considered a "entrance" for purposes of street addressing.

It is worth noting that the address for the property was (until it changed to the ambiguous "1 Center Court") 1401 N Wheeler, and streets in the complex (like N Dribble Drive) are referred to with the "North" designator, as is Wheeler Avenue itself, which cuts to the east of the complex in between the Rose Garden and the highway (according to a street sign placed on Wheeler).

At best, the current language is disputable, and should probably be struck for more "neutral" placement of the complex. --Feedle 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Change it, link the edit summary to here. good research. -Fcb981 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Took me forever to get to it, but so done. --Feedle 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Little Beirut???

ONE PERSON (Bush) called this city ONCE Little Beirut, and this with an absolute made-up-out-of-thin-air reason... so that's why this article deserves the redirect of "Little Beirut"??? Undo that, please! Edgware Road for example deserves it way more! 亮HH (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That one person was the President of the United States, and it's a moniker that for the most part Portlanders accepted with pride. It's made a lasting mark on the city's image, which is why it is notable. VanTucky talk 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirects are aids to navigation, nothing more. If there is another topic that people might reasonably be expected to seek when they type in "Little Beirut," then we could make a disambiguation page. Otherwise, no reason to change. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, it seems like that was a cultural flash in the pan. I don't know if people would expect another place as "Little Beirut", but I seriously doubt they would expect Portland either. The operative question is, "Is anyone out there going, 'Dang, what city was it that they used to call Little Beirut?" I think the answer is No. The 2005 movie "Little Beirut" is about Paris. Msalt (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
G.H.W. Bush did not originate the phrase, it may have come from someone on his staff, I'm still checking. Article has same link I saw, there are other places with the nickname so a disambiguation page is probably called forAwotter (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'm proposing that we adopt image galleries to "de-clutter" the body of the article. As an example, Hawaii has done a good job with categorizing multiple image submissions. We could start with "Architecture" and "Transportation" sections. --travisthurston+ 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally opposed to most galleries. My main objection to them (which is demonstrated in the case of Hawaii) is that they can break up the flow of the article. To me, pictures complement the text, not dominate, and image galleries tend to come to dominate as they grow out of proportion with the text and can often come to not have any context. On a side note, most GA and FA articles I've seen do not have image galleries, and Hawaii is not at either one of those quality levels. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we're not getting much discussion out of that... I've looked over some of the GA and FA articles and have to agree that staggered thumbs allow for better flow. It takes some skill to get that "ideal" format. :) Thanks for the tip Aboutmovies. Proposal withdrawn. --travisthurston+ 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Economy

Could somebody please write a section describing Portland's economy? Thanks. --70.68.26.228 (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Northwest's alphabetical streets

A recent revision says that Yeon's not an alphabet street. .... Agreed. The Y street would be York Street. Apparently they didn't have anyone with an X name, so Roosevelt Street takes its place (see this map). This raises the question: does the alphabetical grid extend to York? Maybe even to Reed? —EncMstr 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought "Yeon" was part of that grid, but the alphabetical order breaks down around Vaughn. My guess is that when that area was platted (1900s at the latest), the area north of Vaughn was too swampy to support development so the alphabet scheme ended there. When development did arrive in that part of NW, Roosevelt & Yeon were added without detailed knowledge of the earlier alphabet scheme. (Roosevelt points to a time no earlier than the 1920s, after Teddy R.'s death.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. On a point related only by the area of town, I've always wondered what this is. Big ol' satellite dish, visible from Leif Erikson in Forest Park. Anyone know? -Pete (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a water system demand tank. Are you sure it's a dish? —EncMstr 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a run-of-the-mill water tank. Water Department periodically pumps water into it, & gravity draws the water out for the folks on NW Thurman street, like that big house nearby (& Ursula LeGuin). -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Sure looked like a massive dish to me when I first encountered it, I'm pretty sure it's concave. But it's been several years. Thanks for the answer, though! -Pete (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That's actually in Forest Park, isn't it? Many years ago I stayed with someone a few doors down from Ms. LeGuin and I remember walking around the tank when I walked up into the park.</off-topic reminiscence>Katr67 (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot A Nickname?

i've lived in Portland for 14 years of my life [wich is all of my life] And The Nickname for Portland is, The City Of Roses Why is that not there? trust me i ain't making this up ask anyone who lives here and they will tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.196.73 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Portland is not the Pacific Northwest's third largest city, it is the Pacific Northwest's second largest city, after Seattle. You cannot include Vancouver, British Columbia in American geographic terms. Plain and simple, Vancouver is not a Pacific Northwest city because it is situated in southwestern Canada; sort of like Los Angeles in the southwestern corner of the USA. People in Vancouver would wonder what are you thinking to say that their city is in the northwest part of their country. Why, that would be as foolish as someone in Mexico saying Los Angeles is the largest city in the Pacific Northwest just because they are living in Mexico. If you want to add Vancouver to the equation, you can accurately say Portland is the seventh largest city adjacent to the Pacific; after Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver. But that wouldn't be reader friendly. You cannot, however, call Vancouver a Pacific Northwest city; because that it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While you have a point, a discussion long ago at Talk:Pacific_Northwest/Archive#Name_dispute came to the opposite conclusion. —EncMstr 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The point could certainly be revisited, but the place to do that would be at the Pacific Northwest article, not here. Unless you want to rephrase it as "second largest city in the Northwestern United States, which would be accurate. Personally, I think 3rd largest in PNW is the most informative though. -Pete (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And per your: "People in Vancouver would wonder what are you thinking to say that their city is in the northwest part of their country." The Canadians are often rather adamant about being in the Pacific Northwest, thus #3 here, see the above linked discussion for details. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We could put second largest city in United States Pacific Northwest, but even if we didn't and simply said "second largest in Pacific Northwest", that too would be correct because Vancouver, BC is not a Pacific Northwest city. It does not sit in the northwest portion of our country, and it does not sit in the northwest portion of their country. If you look at the Pacific Ocean as a whole, all three cities sits in the Northeast rim of the ocean; which makes Portland the third largest in that regard (which may be causing some of the confusion). But when you look at the two nations boundaries, then Portland becomes the second largest in the Pacific Northwest. I love America just as much (if not more) than anyone else, and I realize our country is the focal point of the planet, but we cannot make ourselves be the answer to everything definitive. Meaning, if we all know that San Diego and Los Angeles are not both large Pacific Northwest cities (which would be from a Mexican perspective) than by that same logic we know that Vancouver is not a Pacific Northwest city (which is from an American perspective). And I'm not so sure if people in Vancouver say they are in the Pacific Northwest (I don't think they do), but if I find 1000 people to call a cat a dog, that doesn't make it a dog. Maybe, as the person stated above, the article should read "second largest in U.S. Pacific Northwest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you read Pacific Northwest you can clearly see that the term refers to North America as a whole, not just the U.S.A. VanTucky 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you're saying the article "Pacific Northwest" refers to North America as a whole, but really that's my whole point. The term is American terminology, from our viewpoint. Based on the way the article is viewing it raises the question: why would just North America be counted when the ocean stretches from Alaska down to southern Chile in South America? You can't just decide you will only count North America when the ocean is bigger than that. With the definition of North and South America being counted (which would be the proper way to define it since the ocean borders both continents), that would make Anchorage, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles all Pacific Northwest cities. Cities in Central America would be West Pacific; and in South America they would be Pacific Southwest. That would be the technical true definition of what you are describing. But remember, the term Pacific Northwest came about from Americans, not Canadians, not Mexicans, and not South Americans. It was meant to describe a region of our country. If you look at a map of the United States, the states of Washington and Oregon are tucked away in the northwest corner, ie.. Pacific Northwest. Now just because Vancouver shares some of the same characteristics as Seattle and Portland, and is just 2hrs away from Seattle, doesn't make it Pacific Northwest, unless you are defining it as all land area that borders the ocean; which, once again, would even place San Francisco in the Pacific Northwest. Are we going to call Newfoundland part of the New England states because it sits so close to our New England states? I know how tempting it is to consider Vancouver part of the Pacific Northwest, but if a kid were taking a geography test in school and was asked the second largest city in the Pacific Northwest and he put Vancouver, he would get it wrong. And he would owe it all to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] and [2]. Also, this article doesn't deal with this issue directly, but addresses another issue under some dispute re: Capts. Gray and Vancouver. -Pete (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Pacific Northwest" refers to the northwest part of the North American continent, in common usage. It's generally thought of as extending from Oregon to Alaska, right? I don't see what the problem is. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor: the point is not what "we" think. On Wikipedia we simply represent what is reported in reliable sources. Your claim that it's a purely American term is incorrect; apart from the Canadians who led the discussion referenced above, the articles I linked to (one of which is from The Independent, a London publication) support the regional definition.
As for your hypothetical scenario, Wikipedia can't be held accountable for a teacher hypothetically formulating a stupid and misleading question. (And while it's neither here nor there, Vancouver's bigger than Seattle anyway.)
Finally...since you're obviously interested in this stuff...can I maybe interest you in creating an account (no personal info required) and/or joining WikiProject Oregon? -Pete (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll just simply say this: When describing something in geographically, the terminology you use is based off the focal point of the source you're speaking of. Meaning, Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland are really Pacific Northeast cities to be true and accurate. Why? (Glad you asked.) Because they're in the northeast rim of the Pacific Ocean, the focal point which you are speaking of. New York City is a East Coast city. Why? Because it is in the eastern section of the focal point you're speaking of, the United States. I wouldn't call New York a Northeast Atlantic Ocean city because it is in the Northwest part of the Atlantic Ocean. What I'm talking about is correct terminology, not the way we mean to describe something. So when speaking of Pacific Northwest, you are either going to consider just the USA (which is acceptable) and would be Oregon and Washington, or the entire Pacific Ocean (which borders North and South America, and would be acceptable as well). But you can't (from a correct point of view) just say you're considering North America only when the ocean is much bigger than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll simply ask you this: Have you heard of the term Eastern Seaboard? I have, it refers to places like New York, so your focal point thing doesn't really pan out, as the focal point would be the Atlantic Ocean. Similar terms would be the Northwest (you know, the Old Northwest from the U.S. Northwest Territory that including current states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota where they still refer to themselves as Northwest (see Norwest Financial for an example, thus Northwest of what focal point? On Wikipedia, we go with what the common usage is, no matter what is necessarily geographically correct. Honestly, the true Pacific Northwest under your theory would be Alaska, as that is the NW part of the focal point of the United States. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my point. Eastern Seaboard is considered such so, because it is in the eastern part of the United States, not because those cities lie on the ocean. Even Philadelphia is considered Eastern Seaboard and it doesn't sit on the ocean. The 'seaboard' part refers to it being near the ocean. The 'eastern' part refers to it being in the eastern United States, your focal point. And to be true, Canada can have an "Eastern Seaboard" and so could Brazil, because they have eastern cities along the coast of their country. They just may not call it that. And as far as Midwest or Mountain states referring to themselves as "Northwest" at one time, that's because they were the Northwestern most part of our country at that time, when the United States was expanding westward. We gave that title based on boundaries in our own country. If that were not the case, then Calgary would have been called northwest too, and that doesn't make any sense. Plain and simple: If southern British Columbia were to become part of Washington state, then Vancouver would be Pacific Northwest. But as it stands, it is not in northwestern Canada, and it is not in the northwestern United States, so its technically not "Pacific Northwest", unless you're including everything down to Los Angeles as Pacific Northwest. We, as Americans, just call Vancouver northwest because its near the Pacific Northwest of our country. That's all it is, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is Eastern and not seaboard the focal point? And same with East Coast and West Coast. As to the Midwest at one time calling themselves NW, apparently I wasn't clear. They still often do, that's the point. Are you familiar with Northwest Airlines and where they are based and founded out of (again, also see [Norwest|Norwest Financial]])? If you've ever been back there it is rather odd when you hear those people referring to that area as the NW. As to Vancouver becoming part of Washington, you do realize it was all one chuck of real estate until arbitrary boundaries were added in 1846? That's why the natives are all called Northwest Coast despite the national boundaries, see map. And, again, as many people have told you, people in Vancouver (please take the time to read the blue links people provide you) do refer to themselves (i.e. self identification) as being in the Pacific Northwest. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously -- this discussion belongs at Talk:Pacific Northwest. Especially if there's a desire to incorporate the views of Canadian editors, who are very unlikely to notice this discussion here. For anyone who sees value in further discussion, please do it there. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pete is right, this belongs in the "Pacific Northwest" article. I'll leave saying this so there's no confusion on what I'm stating: With the phrase "Eastern Seaboard", the word "seaboard" refers to those cities being near the ocean. The word "eastern" refers to their position in the United States. Now with that same logic, let's look at the phrase "Pacific Northwest". The word "Pacific" refers to those cities being near the Pacific Ocean. The word "northwest" refers to their position in the United States. Vancouver is not in the northwestern United States, and it is not in northwestern Canada. By that token, it is not a Pacific Northwest city. *Now for a separate defintion: If you want to look at it in broader terms and are judging Vancouver's status as a Pacific Northwest city based on the entire Pacific Ocean, well that's fine, but it also makes San Francisco and Los Angeles Pacific Northwest cities as well, since the Ocean stretches all the way down to the tip of South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a good illustration of why reliable sources are so vital to Wikipedia. It's not up to us to decide what "makes sense"; all we can do is republish stuff that's in common usage. I don't have any problem with your logic, but this region is commonly referred to as the PNW, just as New Jersey is commonly referred to as the Garden State...the relative lack of gardens notwithstanding. -Pete (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)