Talk:Washington (state)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sales Tax

I've changed the sales tax to 8.8% before, but it gets reverted. I know for a fact it is 8.8%, so let it be known 6.2% is not correct. N734LQ 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. Per Washington State Department of Revenue, State Sales Tax is 6.5% state wide, with varying County, City, and Special Jurisdiction taxes collected. Source: WaDOR Tax Finder GIS. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's 8.8% or thereabouts in Seattle, but the minimum statewide tax is a couple points lower. --Lukobe 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Transportation

Article assert "Boeing Field in Seattle is the busiest airport by numbers of planes in the world." But I cannot find a citation for the claim, and I don't mean this kind of citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.17.40.34 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

FoxNews contradicts. 216.254.22.4 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wikipedia better

The Washington article on the Spanish wikipedia, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_%28estado%29 has become a featured article, and although I can't read Spanish, it is clear that the article there is better than the one here. Check it out, and why not improve this one? Pfly 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Lukobe 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The poster said he/she didn't understand Spanish, how do you want him/her to cooperate? It might be a good idea to actually read what the poster said before responding with an automatic message. It border on rudeness and carelessness. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

"H E L L O WHAT'S UR NAME??" has absolutely no bearing on the subject whatsoever. I'd remove it myself, but when I go to edit the page, it isn't there. 71.217.114.221 04:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be looking at an old version of the article. That was removed on the 19th. --Bobblehead 04:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

What is the rationale for Washington pointing to the State's article as opposed to any of the other possibilities, including George Washington - the namesake of most places with that name, Washington DC - the capitol city of one of the largest countries, or going directly to a disambiguation page? The only discussion on this I found was a suggestion to use the model of Lincoln, whereby the name is a redirect to a disambig. That never seems to have been implemented. Is that a resolved solution awaiting implementation? Tritium6 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because the State of Washington is the only term that really only goes by simply "Washington", Washington, DC is, well, Washington, D.C., and George Washington is George Washington. Any place that would have a Washington County, their articles would be "Washington County, (insert state here)". If you want George or D.C., you should really be searching those terms as those are the proper names. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Cascadia. The state of Washington is the primary entity referred to by the name Washington. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but please provide some support for that statement, Knowledge Seeker. I suspect that you are perhaps drawing from personal experience around your neck of the woods, wherever that may be. Globally, Washington refers to the capital of the USA. Do you think many people outside the US even know there is a state named Washington? Perhaps in Canada and western Europe, but for billions of others, the lack of a disambig at Washington leads to them reading about Washington state and thinking they are reading about the capital. The lack of a disambig is a very USA-centric (or Washington state-centric) decision. Cascadia - please read the Washington, D.C. article. Washington is the name of the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tritium6 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

If you feel you're right, you can certainly open up a move request for this page, however I would advise looking at the last proposed move. It might help you analyze the arguments for and against the move. However, I would like to calm your specific fears about confusion--I can pretty much guarantee you that practically no one comes here and reads the article thinking that they are reading about the city. That whole "Washington is a state" bit (the first four words of the article) probably makes sure of that. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone who reads the first line of the article and still thinks they are reading about the Capital of the United States needs more than a disambiguation page to fix that. The lack of an automatic disambiguation page is not very USA-Centric NOR Washington-centric, it is simply acknowledging the realities of the actual terms, not the misconception: Washington=the state; George Washington=The Man; Washington, D.C.=The Capital of the U.S.A.. And should you need support, I give you Washington, Washington, D.C.; Washington, DC Tourism site using "Washington, D.C.", Washington, D.C. Government Site "DC.Gov". CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

State symbols

I have removed two items under "State Symbols", the idea that the Onion is the official Vegetable and the Blueberry Muffin is the state muffin. Neither of these items are listed at the Washington State Legislature page on State Symbols. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Walla walla sweet onion is listed there, it might be a good idea to add it back. Stale Fries ^{taste better} 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I added a reference to a Seattle P I article discussing the contested election, but am not sure how to properly place the reference as a footnote. The subsequent trial following the election is a valid point to include, since it discusses the vote tallies and the margin of error.

Add <ref> and </ref> around a normal addition of an external URL, at the end of the sentence or paragraph. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just figured it out, thanks.

05 or 06?

According to the census the population is 6.3m, in the intro it says this a 06 number in the demograghics it says this is a 05 number, I think it is 2005 but its locked up.

According the the U.S. Census, it's a 2006 figure. I've changed the Demographics section. --barneca (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Official language(s) English

I'm changed that to "English (de facto)", since according to List_of_official_languages_by_country#U Washington is not a state with English as official. Fanra 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This has gone back and forth for a while. Since "de facto" means "not official", it is strange to append it to a field called "official languauge". There is no official language. "De facto" means "not official". I changed it back to "None", as it has usually been. Pfly 08:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tax Npov?

The state of Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the U.S. It is one of only seven states that does not levy a personal income tax.

While I agree that the tax structure in Washington is subjctively regressive, the language seems NPOV. Is "regressive" a parlance used in economics? Regressive how? By whose standards? 76.22.7.202 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the linked-to page Regressive tax explain it well enough? Pfly 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I also challenge this: "The state also does not collect a corporate income tax." It collects a "Business and Occupation Tax" that is based on gross receipts. That's a business/corporate income tax by another name. http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/ExciseTax/FilTaxReturn/BusTaxOver.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.182 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Microsoft to the History section?

Boeing is there, and Microsoft is (IMO) just as important as Boeing. Stale Fries ^{taste better} 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

The "area" section of the infobox has some formatting problems. I tried to fix it, but couldn't figure out the source. --Hojimachong^talk 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state, and its Christian population is the lowest of any state.

Hawaii has only about 29% of Christian which is much lower than the 63% of Washington. 62.47.181.135 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm? 62.47.180.35 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone change this? 80.121.77.174 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the claim about Christian population.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i find it very insulting that once again the Church of Later Day Saints is not under the Christian section. Mormoms praise Christ therfore we are just as Christian as any other Protestant sect and Catholic76.28.245.208 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Michael

Is this inclement weather important at all?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004049820_webweather03m.html Dio Only Uses a Knife (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) i find it very insulting that once again the Church of Later Day Saints is not under the Christian section. Mormoms praise Christ therfore we are just as Christian as any other Protestant sect and Catholic76.28.245.208 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Michael

Recent edit

Sighting references wich did not show after original addition

[[2]] www.turtlezen.com/weirdlaws.html [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttle-junky (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington:Template disagreement

There is a disagreement going on at Template:Washington about whether or not to include the "Tri-Cities" as a larger city or not. Please read the discussion and help us come to a consensus. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bluebunch wheatgrass

The redlink on Bluebunch Wheatgrass can be fixed by using Bluebunch wheatgrass instead. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

but is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.136.141 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why does it say {{{2000Pop}}} for the population, but when I went to change that to a number, I couldn't find {{{2000Pop}}}, but I found where population was on the table, changed it, but it still says {{{2000Pop}}} in there?

I fixed it. Someone changed the 2000pop entry to 2007pop, which was making it show up as it was. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington State redirect

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Washington State about its status as a redirect to Washington State University, rather than a disambiguation page. You are welcome to join. - BanyanTree 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to that discussion, I've made it a disambiguation page. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Miscapitalization

In the lead it currently says "Washington is sometimes called Washington state or The state of Washington". It's debatable whether "State" should be capitalized -- usage goes both ways on that -- but "The" clearly should not be. Since the article is semi-protected, as an anonymous user (who is staying that way). I can't fix it myself. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. File:Smily.png Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Race

Regarding the demographics table shown in Washington#Race, what does "(Hispanic only)" mean? I don't understand this table. Is this explained somewhere? — OranL (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New communities of Columbia cat

Hi; I just created Category:Communities on the Columbia River over breakfast and populated it with BC places and some I know of in Washington, plus made some additions to Category:Cities on the Columbia River, which curiously enough seemed to have (on the US side) only Oregon cities, and none from Washington except I think Yakima and Wenatchee...I've added some like East Wenatchee and the Tri-Cities (to the cities) cat and didn't know where else......Skookum1 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quarter image

What does Image:Washington quarter, reverse side, 2007.png have to do with toxic chemicals? — OranL (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dams along the Columbia

Dams that were built along the Columbia River were not initially built to create hydro power, as the main entry for Washington State avers. They were built for flood control and as a part of the "make work" projects FDR initiated to combat The Great Depression. Most especially, Grand Coulee Dam was not a hydro power dam to begin with, as it was retro-fitted, at great expense, to become a hydro power dam many years after it was completed. To this day, few of the dams on the Columbia are hydro-power producers...they continue to exist for the purpose of flood control. The majority of Washington State's major hydro-power producing dams are on the WEST side of the Cascades, not the east side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.79.41 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The move again.

Hi. We're having a discussion at Talk:New York about where "New York" should send the reader. Right now "New York" is the location of the state article, same choice as here. Obviously not everything that happens there is applicable here and vice versa, but I do believe "Washington" should be a dab. I've read some of the old discussions about this and don't believe my points have been addressed in them.

The argument the other way goes: "But we have a convention that works fine now. D.C. is where it should be according to US city guidelines and so there's no conflict. Besides, all other states except Georgia do it this way."

1. States have no specific guidelines other than "spell it out" so general WP:PRIMARYUSAGE guidelines take over.
2. WP:PRIMARYUSAGE states an unmodified phrase (no parens) can only be the location of article when there is an overwhelmingly common usage. Since this article gets 117,000 hits and Washington, D.C. gets 168,000, neither qualifies as the primary meaning of "Washington".
3. "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." so consistency in state names (which is somewhat moot because of Georgia) takes a secondary priority to the best layout for the reader.

I know people hate to argue this over and over again, but I can't read the policy any other way.--Loodog (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, with reservations: As uncomfortable as I am with the completed move over at New York, the reasoning applied to that scenario also applies here. While I don't have a personal problem with keeping the article on Washington state at "Washington", other conventions suggest that a move be made here as well. However, should the move at New York be reversed, then I would withdraw my support for this article following suit. Best, -epicAdam (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: they moved New York back, but without consensus. Wonderful.--Loodog (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out on Talk:New York, any and all move discussions related to this article should be done so in compliance with the instructions defined in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves (with a possible additional notes on Talk:Washington, D.C. and WP:USA directing interested parties there to the discussion here). Any other method is unlikely to garner an accurate measure of support/opposition for the move and will likely result in the move being undone. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that makes sense. I'm learning this process the hard way.--Loodog (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An official move has been proposed and is currently up for discussion at Talk:New York#Requested move. Since any decision made there will have obvious implications for this article and Washington, D.C., users may wish to make their voices known. Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The New York debate wound up being no consensus and the page was not moved. See Talk:New York/Archive 3 for all the gory details. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Width and Height are Reversed

The values for Washington State's width and height are currently reversed on the wiki page. Washington state is wider than it is tall when looking north. --Russorat (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Party Registration

Where as voting patterns and self-identification may support the idea that there a more Democrats than Republicans, there is no party registration in the state. As this my first post and I’m having fun just getting this in, I hope one of you more knowledgeable users would effect this change. I fear messing up the article. WashingtonNative (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's a voter registration form from the state. I read through it once or twice, and couldn't find a party registration section. There may, however, be other sources as to official party registration numbers, and I don't know too much about politics in the state, so I'll leave it up to others on what to do. AlexiusHoratius 09:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Washington doesn't have party registration, so the only way to tell the party breakdown is by polls and voting patterns. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no political registration under the current system (which has changed many times in the last 8 years when the previous voting system was declared unconstitutional), but was that always the case? Back in the 2000 presidential race I voted in the Republican primary (mostly for the first of my three opportunities to vote against Dubya) and I recall that in some way I indicated that I was a Republican, which made my ballot count for more towards picking the Republican nominee than it would have otherwise (this was an election organized by the state government, not a party caucus). I don't recall if this was an official party "registration" or maybe I just asked for a Republican ballot as opposed to a Democrat one, or something else. Anyone recall how this worked? In seems possible that the Secretary of State's office has some earlier records of party affiliation even if they don't for 2008. CAVincent (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I did find some interesting info. It looks like in 1996 and 2000 voters were allowed to choose among three presidential primary ballots - Democrat, Republican and Unaffiliated. In 2000, there were 1,309K ballots cast, 22.7% Democratic, 37.5% Republican and 39.8% Unaffiliated - and among "Unaffiliated" 40.1% went to McCain and 22.7% went to Bush. Given that the state hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since 1984 and hasn't elected a Republican governor since 1980, I think these numbers vastly overstate Republican support and merely reflect that in February 2000 the race between Bush & McCain was still open and interesting but Gore had pretty much wrapped up the Dem nomination. The results in 1996, with an active Republican primary race but no real opposition in the Democratic primary, are similar. Also of interest - since 1972 there have been three occasions when both of the top two primary gubernatorial candidates were Democrats (1976, 1980 and 1996) which under our new Top-Two election system would mean the Republicans would have gone unrepresented in the November gubernatorial race in those years. Notably, in 1980 Republican John Spellman went from third place in the primary to winning in November. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am an official of the Democratic party, a legislative district chair. I have been voting in Washington State since I was 20 in 1972. I have never registered or been asked to register in a political party. I’m am sure that has been the case since the blanket primary was adopted in the 1930’s. For the blanket primary requires no party registration. For you could vote for a democrat for governor, and then for senator, a republican in the primary. Washington State did not have a presidential primary until the 1990’s, and then like in 2004 none because the Republicans were going to renominate Bush, and the Democrats weren’t going use it to select national delegates. This year’s contest found the Democrats choosing not to use the results while the Republicans choose to use it for half their delgates. The presidential primary laws directs the Secretary of State to provide a list of those who vote in the presidential primary to the party whose presidential candidates they vote for. So if you voted for a democratic presidential primary candidate the Democrats get yours. But and this a big but it is not an registration for the next time primary comes around you still get both ballots to make a choice of which to cast.

When the blanket primary was declared unconstitutional, we since have had ongoing court battles on the shape of the primary for non-presidential races, From where you chose which party to vote for and vote only for that party’s candidates, with no record of your choice of party to this year’s top two primary. That is where every body runs together and the top two vote getters in the primary regardless of party “preference” move on to the general. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/Top2PrimaryFAQ.aspx WashingtonNative (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Microclimates/extreme weather paragraph

This paragraph was added a couple of months ago:

But despite Western Washington having a marine climate similar to those of the coastal cities of the Mediterranean there are exceptions, such as the "Big Snow" events of 1880, 1881, 1893 and 1916. The "deep freeze" winters of 1883-84, 1915-16, 1949-50 and 1955-56 among others. In these events Western Washington has experienced anything from six feet of snow, sub-zero temperatures, three months of snow on the ground, and lakes and rivers frozen over for weeks on end. Seattle's lowest temperature recorded officially is 0°F set on January 31, 1950. But it has been known that areas away from Seattle have experienced record lows from -10°F to -20°F. So it can be said that the climate in Western Washington can range from hot to cold, pouring rain to blizzard and no wind to storm force winds. Because the weather is so variable from place to place weather forecasting is hard in Western Washington. Along a coastline 200 miles long, Western Washington has two mountain ranges, an inland sea, a gorge and a fjord. With this variability come microclimates that can occupy spaces several football fields long or areas as small as a backyard. It is not uncommon that rain is pouring down in one area, while 50 feet away not a single drop of rain is falling. Western Washington has also experienced tornadoes and severe thunderstorms. These tornadoes are usually only a EF0 or EF1. But Western Washington in the summer of 2008 experiened over 5,000 lightning strikes in the Cascade Mountains and more Severe Thunderstorm Warnings in one day then seen in an average year. It can be said that the weather in Western Washington is unpredictable.

This needs a lot of work, not the least of which being some citations. First and foremost, is western Washington particularly notable for microclimates? I know we've got 'em here (I live in Seattle), but this paragraph has some pretty bold claims that need to be backed up with a good citation. -- RobLa (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Right away, Western Washington having a marine climate similar to those of the coastal cities of the Mediterranean sounds dubious. Seattle's climate is a far cry from that of Rome, Athens, Nice, Barcelona, etc. I suspect it may be true that western Washington does have an unusual number or density of microclimates, but the claim should be sourced, and there is no need to go into such detail regarding football fields, the number of lightning strikes in 2008, and so on. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. This looks like a good place to start: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=3681 . Next time I get some editing time, I may take a crack at a rewrite using some info from that article. This could be the work of someone who has the Cliff Mass weather book (which I don't have). Something tells me "Chapter 1: The Extraordinary Weather of the Pacific Northwest" might have something to say on this topic. -- RobLa (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdw^talk 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic not Christian?

The religion demographics is broken up in a way that suggests Catholic doesn't fall into Christian, somebody should fix this.24.65.95.239 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look a bit more closely at the way the list is indented: Protestant, Catholic, Other Christian and Latter-Day Saint all are indented behind Christian, with the various Protestant denominations indented behind Protestant. AlexiusHoratius 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I've officially made an ass of myself.24.65.95.239 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - although I don't know of a better alternative, I can see how the list in its present form may look confusing at first. AlexiusHoratius 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)