Talk:Spokane, Washington

"Derided" for lack of diversity?
Spokane's population may not be diverse, but that cannot be a reason for criticism, much less "derision". It is a fact, that is all. I suggest that the unreferenced claim that "Spokane has been criticized and sometimes derided for its lack of diversity and multicultural offerings" be deleted. There is also a bizarre confusion between diversity of population, and "multicultural offerings", whatever that means.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[redacted]


 * I've removed the language about "derided" but left the criticism idea because there are a couple of citations. Killiondude (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Spokane, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/699nOulzi?url=http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161019182931/https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101160345/http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp to http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214162235/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spokane, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://my.spokanecity.org/riverfrontpark/master-plan/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204185852/http://rra.hartsem.edu/finkescheitlearticle.htm to http://rra.hartsem.edu/finkescheitlearticle.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121103518/http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/about_us.php to http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/about_us.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass changes by IPv6 user
Pinging interested parties: Doug Weller and SounderBruce

Hi. I don't have a lot of time today to discuss this, but Special:Contribs/2001:5b0:4fd1:a378:18fb:f54d:609e:a090 has made numerous (large) changes to the article. I've left a warning on their talk page as it seems to involve edit warring. While the edits seem with positive intentions, some are ill-advised (removing citations without providing another) and others are plain wrong. IP user, could you please refrain from make huge edits to the article while we sort out what you've done so far? Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Anonymous user, it doesn't matter what username or IP address you use while editing this page—if you make egregious edits, they will be reverted. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Doug Weller  talk 18:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The changes I made represent about 2.5 MB of difference between versions. I wouldnt consider it a significant edit, but the amount of little things that I tried to fix was a lot. I am just trying to cleanup the article and I would like help and input. I tried to engage in discussion on Killion's Talk page but nobody has been willing to work together to solve the issues. So far, I havent been able to change the typos I corrected because all the work I put in has just been 100% reverted if someone is not satisfied with every single change that was made. I am requesting the content gatekeepers of the page if I can redo some of changes that I explained in detail in the edit sums. I want to change the typos, deadlinks, MoS fixes and make no changes to content at this point.2001:5B0:4FD1:E278:352E:326C:C774:CA1B (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no gatekeepers. If you want to make useful edits (i.e., edits which do not include the removal of references, or reversion of changes that are referenced, or are in any way surreptitious), nobody will oppose you. Making small, incremental edits will help people to not think you are up to the same nonsense if indeed you are not. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it's a common mistake to discuss an article on an editor's talk page - those discussions should almost always be on the article talk page. Doug Weller  talk 15:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are gatekeepers, if what is allowed on this page is only what you judge as "useful" then that means there are limits to what edits, goodfaith or not can be made. I dont care who did what or whatever, from here on, I just want to help cleanup the page a bit. I have been stopped from doing that because people have been just reverting everything I did instead of either fixing what they didnt like or only partially reverting whats problematic. Lets communicate and work on this together.
 * I dont want to dwell on this but please assume good faith and lets not get hysterical about any edits and keep things in perspective. If all my changes are rejected again, it wont matter one bit to my life or anybody elses. I know I didnt do an edit summary, but there are lots little minor edits without them. I just made lots of little edits pretty much in one swoop; its impossible to make a secret edit on this website since everything is logged and reviewed. I never expected anybody to have hangups about what I saw as pretty minor cleanup. It seems like I have permission to redo some of the edits that arent touchy and dealing with references. Thanks for listening and helping.
 * Who made that A-Class icon and why is it there? Why is this article the only article that Ive ever seen with that? I havent come across one and if there is one show me because Id like to see. I see none in Category:A-Class military history articles. It wasnt there on the earliest version of the page that is available right now in this articles History >>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spokane,_Washington&oldid=714144705 so who put it there and why is this article the only article that has this new icon? Is this article just so special that we just wanted to be different? Does anybody that makes the standards on this website know thats there and do they approve of it? If anybody knows who put that there, can we ask them? It seems annoying to me that we are just whipping up stuff and throwing it on there.
 * 2001:5B0:4FD1:E278:352E:326C:C774:CA1B (talk)
 * Your continued use of calling others' responses as "hysterical" isn't endearing nor collaborative. Killiondude (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reading all that. As already stated, make good edits and people will accept them. Spokane is not a controversial subject on Wikipedia, all you have to do is not remove references or have an agenda contrary to truth. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean it’s not that hard to find but a container of all A-Class articles can be found here.  red sparta  •••  talk to me  07:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I only used it once, but maybe 'hysterical' is the wrong word. I just wanted to help fix some issues I see in the article and help out. I was hopeful before but nothing seems to be open to discussion or collaboration. I introduced no new content that wasnt cited with an existing source on the website so nothing should be untruthful. Please read more carefully, I wasnt saying I cant find any other AClass articles, I was saying that none have a makeshift icon in the top right corner next to the GA icon. I think this is likely because the A-Class article review thing is more new and hasnt been adopted on all the WikiProjects and all of Wikipedia. I found that User talk:Howpper put the first A-class icon on the top page of a Wikipedia article on May 24, 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spokane%2C_Washington&type=revision&diff=842711151&oldid=842615922.
 * Im not going to try to change these bigger issues, people are really possessive over this page and want to keep it just the way it is. Ill just put back the minor changes that I think we can all get behind that were blanket reverted before. I dont plan on making anymore changes to any Wikipedia article or Talk ever again and Im going to use time my time doing other things and leave it at that. Thanks2001:5B0:4FC1:74A8:89E3:CB2D:60BD:BF32 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Official nickname
A nickname being unofficial by definition and therefore an official nickname being oxymoronic aside:

The claim that Spokane's official nickname is the "Lilac City" is also uncited, and in accordance with WP:VERIFY (a Wikipedia policy), and WP:CITENEED, I have altered this claim to not be apparently false.

You will not likely find a source for this claim because there doesn't appear to be one. I'm confident of this because I abhor drive-by tagging, and instead of tagging this assertion as, I have already looked for evidence supporting it and found none whatsoever. While I believe in possibilities very much, and I invite you, if you truly desire, to seek out and find evidence, I do not believe it exists. It does not seem to be claimed officially at the City's website, in the City's municipal code, or in any City newspaper of record. It is a nickname, but like virtually all nicknames used with an understanding of the meaning of the word, it is not apparently official.

As with the claim you made simultaneously that lilacs are native to Spokane, the claim of this nickname being in some way official is also false.

Thanks for your time. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who has, and still currently lives, in Spokane, I can confirm that it is not an entirely official nickname. However, there are signs throughout the city that call it the "Lilac City", we have a marathon, known as the Lilac Bloomsday Run and we have a Lilac Festival/Parade (https://spokanelilacfestival.org/history/). Here are a few links explaining why people call it the "Lilac City.":  https://my.spokanecity.org/parks/gardens/lilac/, https://www.kxly.com/dispute-on-how-spokane-became-the-lilac-city/, http://www.meganperkinsart.com/blog/2017/6/8/the-lilac-city . However, even if this is not the official nickname, the Lilac Variety that is named after Spokane is indeed true. Also, as stated in the provided links, the Lilac is not native to here, it was an introduced species that was brought from another continent. So, definitely not entirely an official nickname, but we could probably still mention it as long as it is disclosed that it is in no way  completely official,  but rather a local nickname, that is  associated with Spokane. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox  06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a nickname, no doubt about it. I'm not sure the best way to word it, or even if one needs to describe it more verbosely than as a nickname, but I'm very sure describing it as 'official' is incorrect. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Visit Spokane acknowledges it as the official nickname. https://www.visitspokane.com/things-to-do/seasonal/spring/ Jdubman (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Visit Spokane is a third party marketing firm whose texts are not official codifications of government decisions. If they were, then Spokane Falls would be "MOTHER NATURE'S FAVORITE FALLS" (as stated on visitspokane.com's index page) according to the city of Spokane — a pointless, unprovable, marketing statement. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a number of secondary reliable sources below, I'll add more but there's a lot of sources that refer to Spokane as [The] Lilac City. I've added selected quotes (with emphasis added) from the article to the cite web citations. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Added some more from other sources. Any of the sources below work? I think the parks department spokeswoman (Nancy Goodspeed) in the A designer bloom for Lilac City article stating the source of the nickname ought to be sufficient but perhaps there are others. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And again, it's definitely a nickname and the most popular one for our city. It's simply not official (as indeed virtually no nickname is), and should therefore not be described as such. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything short of some codified text originated directly from the city council or mayor's office could make it correct to be described as 'official'. In the context of a governed realm, it is the legislation of that realm that makes a thing official or not. There is apparently no government-derived legislation, decree, order, or anything of the like describing this nickname as official. In my opinion, however, for what it's worth, I don't really think not describing it as 'official' diminishes the nickname. Nicknames are unofficial by definition. There is no need for a nickname to be official. It's almost better without being official. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See the reference I added below, #8, which is from the City of Spokane Finance Department's 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Excelsiorbanjo here, no need for nicknames to be official, and there is nothing wrong with that. Has anyone seen anything from Nadine Woodward or any of our previous governors about anything related to the nickname? To me, that might be enough to possibly consider the nickname as official, though it would depend on what was said. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 13:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reference #8 does not include the word 'official'. I have no issue saying Spokane's nickname is 'the Lilac City', only with asserting it is somehow an "official" nickname, whatever that might mean. This text is also apparently copied & pasted directly from our own uncited article, which had this precise wording for a long time after it was added in 2007 . In fact you might note that despite almost certainly taking this text from our Wikipedia article, the word 'official' was explicitly removed, as our article had it at that time. Further, a financial report by the stated authors would still not carry the weight to make such a thing official (if in fact they had used the word 'official', which again they had not). Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, the "text was copied and pasted" couldn't be more generic and clearly have differences:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * City of Spokane, Washington2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (pdf)
 * Spokane’s nickname is the “Lilac City”, named after the flowers that have flourished in the area since the early 20th century.
 * Wikipedia entry (2007-06-16T16:36:35)
 * Spokane's official nickname is the 'Lilac City', named after the flowers that have flourished ever since their introduction to the area in the early 20th century.
 * }
 * Spokane's official nickname is the 'Lilac City', named after the flowers that have flourished ever since their introduction to the area in the early 20th century.
 * }


 * I think you're unnecessarily hung up on the word "official". A City of Spokane document, prepared with and containing an introductory statement written by the City of Spokane CFO in his official capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the City of Spokane states that the "nickname" for the City of Spokane is the "Lilac City". Of course it would be nice if there was some proclamation or Spokane Municipal Code passed to state this, but given the high level this document comes from it's as "official" as it needs to be for us. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Can we just rephrase the lead-in to the article to read: "It is known as the birthplace of Father's Day, and occasionally by the its nickname of the "Lilac City"? The "occasionally by the nickname" wording just sounds awkward. Jdubman (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Cyclone's just done that. Looks good in my opinion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While this isn't exactly about the "Lilac City" Nickname, I think it was very relevant here, and so I wanted let you all know that I have updated the article to also mention about the the new nickname known as "Hooptown USA" and a little bit behind the reason. Also, I included Officially in the sentence, as per Excelsiorbanjo above, as the City Council passed a "resolution", that officially designated it as the nickname of our city. Just thought that I'd point that out to you all, as it is in regards to separate names for the city, and in regards to how Official it might be. Thanks all for your time. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox  01:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh. Funny ole world. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lilac City sources

 * (emphasis added to quote selections, emphasis not in source)



Including ACS Data
User:SpokaneWilly and User:SounderBruce, wanted to ping y'all cause you two were going back and forth on reverting my addition of the 2022 ACS data. After I made them, I was made aware of the guideline WP:USCITY, and its suggestion to primarily use Decennial Census data. I'm in the (kinda slow) process of reworking my script to be in more line with the guideline.

I don't have a super strong opinion on whether or not to keep my additions in full or to have a briefer summary, but I wanted to link the guideline, mention that I did it all with a script rather than by hand, and also see if agreement could be reached? GrapesRock (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)