Talk:2014 Oso landslide/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Slope Stability and effects of logging

I'm concerned that the new logging effects section could be WP:OR, and may violate WP:NPOV, as it could be interpreted as "Wikipedia says that logging contributed to the disaster." This section is well written, and all the citations support the process explained, but there are no citations of secondary sources stating or speculating that logging contributed to this particular landslide. The section may be useful in the general landslide article, but I'm dubious it belongs here. Not yet, anyway. - Gorthian (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, both my concerns were addressed by Lattetown while I was writing the above. I'm really too slow of an editor to be working on current events; I'll go back to copyediting now. ;-) - Gorthian (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/Forestrystudent changed the section title to "Timber Harvesting is Highly Regulated", which seems distinctly non-WP:NPOV. So I changed it back. I also removed the last phrase about "conclusively demonstrated" that logging caused the slide. That quite likely may be the case, but we should let the experts conclude that, and then quote them.

For similar reasons I removed a sentence added to "History" about Pennington's "unforseen" statement: that wasn't about the history of slide activity, but a conclusion that someone made. For sure, the history confounds that statement, but the "confoundment" should be treated separately from the history. If I can find any time tonight I'll see if I can come up with a suggestion on how to handle that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK great, glad the concerns were addressed. Last sentence wasn't intend to suggest that logging caused the slide, only that much of what was thought to be the groundwater recharge area to the slide was actually part of the slide (I used the term conclusive, because it slid, so by definition it is now part of the slide and not part of the groundwater recharge area to the slide)

I brought up the same concerns a few days ago but was rebuffed. No one has said what caused the slide or why other than grand water saturation from a record month of rain. Yes, there was logging in the area, but as far as I've seen/heard, that isn't in the equation for the current official explanation for the slide. We aren't newspaper reporters, folks. This is an encyclopedia. Gotta remember that, yes? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the | Seattle Timesarticle cited, it suggests that the encroachment into the restricted area could feed groundwater into the landslide zone that collapsed Saturday and the impact to the groundwater can last for 16 to 27 years (according to a 1988 report by a University of Washington geologist). This is in keeping with spirit of what J. Johnson (JJ) wrote, but it doesn't appear to be conclusive yet, since State Forester Aaron Everett wants "to consult scientists to see whether the clear-cut could have contributed to the slide". -- Lattetown (✉) 01:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Gorthian, Lattetown and Winkelvi. Thank you for your constructive comments. I am revising the section based on your input and will resubmit something shortly, which I encourage you to review to ensure it addresses your concerns.

On a related note, the actual name of the landslide is the Hazel Landslide. It is just near the town of Oso, and thus the media have been calling it the Oso landslide. Further, the article really appears to be originally set up to deal with emergency information about the disaster, not to discuss the geology, history, land use impacts etc. of the slide. It seems to me it makes sense to create an Article titled "The Hazel Landslide" and this to redirect all of the non-emergency information over to that site, with a quick explanatory sentence near the heading. What do you think? RiverDoctor 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Rivers (talk • contribs)

Posted revisions that hopefully will address criticisms (above), including a section title change. Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed-- Dr.Rivers (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Good content, but section title is waaaaaaaaayyyy too long. How about back to "Effects of logging"? Also, your citations need some straightening. If you want to back out for a little while I'll be happy to fix them for you. I also recommend using {{citation}} rather than {{cite xxx}}, as that avoids some complications. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For general edification I note that today's (3-31) Seattle Times has a good article on this ("State used outdated map to allow logging on slope"), along with an excellent map. The key is that trees reduce groundwater infiltration, which is the likely trigger here. The main source for all of this is Miller and Sias 1998. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Slope stability and effects of logging seems like a nice short title that captures things. Would be good to clean up citations if you have the time, thank you for offering. I am playing around with word and zotero to see if I can get a nice clean look, but not clear how to easily pull citations from a wiki page into Zotero, which would help avoid duplicate references. -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ForestryStudent keeps changing the title and deleting all the information in this section that s/he didn't write, so gave ForestryStudent a subsection in the Controversy section, since s/he was writing about a controversy over a timber harvest that may have extended into the restricted groundwater recharge area. -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. I may split "Controversy" into subsections. FS looks like a head-strong but clueless newbie, possibly with a non-neutral point of view, who may need some instruction.

We'll talk in a little while about citations. I'm about to grab some more data to fix those, will post a notice when I go in to (hopefully) avoid edit conflicts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the game here, it is not for lack of trying, I needed the time out to learn how to request that information be added -- the correlation between landslides in 2007 and 2009 and the Oso slide are inaccurate. There are geological differences. There is very little glacial till in SW Washington, thus very few deep seated landslides, there were thousands of surface slides in 2007 and 2009 due to the enormity of rainfall and possibly surface activities, such as logging. The 2014 Oso landslide is a deep seated slide that started 600 feet below the ground. As you will note in this article, the forest landowner has spoken and despite speculation, there was no violation of harvesting in the recharge zone. I would appreciate proper placement of this article: Q & A What is and isn't known about the Oso mudslide? Additionally, geologist Randall Jibson has stated that the landslide was caused by rain, in Washington Mudslide Was Caused by Rains. I would appreciate the help in properly placing these links that show a broader perspective. I agree with Dr. Rivers, that wiki doesn't want to appear to be pointing to the cause, especially when the experts are still analyzing the situation. One final useful article, not sure whether it belongs here or under the Geology section, this citation has a wonderful graphic detailing how landslides occur, I found it very instructional. I wish I could just post the graphic itself. Well, you take a look and see what you think: Before the Washington mudslide, warnings of the unthinkable. thank you for all of the help.Forestrystudent (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

FS: like I said in my prior comment, I think you need some instruction. In particular, note my comment below (at #Logging) about WP:NPOV. Like, you just said that we shouldn't "appear to be pointing to the cause", yet you have been strenuously advocating that the cause is not logging, and (here) that "Washington Mudslide Was Caused by Rains". You're also trying to "get into the record" (as the lawyers say) that "there was no violation of harvesting in the recharge zone." (A questionable statement at best, as I have seen statements to the contrary.) In asking how to get material added you have skipped over whether it should be added. And this is doubtful. Your continued non-neutral advocacy suggests you might be too closely involved to be editing on this topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

thank you for your comments JJ -- The point is to add balance to the stories. What is posted in the Christian Science Monitor, and the Stranger is not only speculative, but activist -- I am offering credible counter points. What is being represented in wiki is clearly one sided to point to a cause that has not been determined. It is faulty for wiki to present information that points to a definitive cause, and I am offering legitimate citations. I appreciate your advice and really from my observation, wiki is trying to develop a POV, not present both sides of the story. It seems so straight forward to me to add credible citations, and I don't understand why the editors would not want to see that....maybe I am missing something. In my world, I have to present both points of view, and it is missing here in this wiki article. Because you have seen statements to the contrary relative to "there was no violation of harvesting in the recharge zone." does that mean you believe them? This is the bias I speak of. This is an advocacy position, not the truth. The truth, from the landowner's own words, is reported in this article, We Followed the Rules. I have tried the numerous pathways to add good information to balance the site, guess I will keep trying until I see neutrality. Honestly, this would be a blessing.Forestrystudent (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing

The article states that the number of missing and unaccounted for "remains" at 30 (or whatever the current count is). This seems to me to be misleading, as this number keeps changing, not remaining. I think this should be reworded as "Initially X people were reported missing and unaccounted for, but as of ... the count has dropped to Y," or something like that. Far more people have been removed from the missing list than have been found dead, but this is not explained; it should be if a source can be found. 68.64.53.227 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: The lede says X people remain missing, which is fine. The "Casualties and damage" says the count remains, which is what I think is misleading. 68.64.53.227 (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Area status before slide

The article lede does not clarify the land use of the slide area before the disaster - were the buildings generally farmhouses, weekend cottages or suburban homes? Perhaps a before/after set of images may help to create a more accurate understanding. Paul venter (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Steelhead Haven was originally fishing cabins and such, but people develop their properties so it had become rural/weekend homes. Beyond that several farms were hit, either by the slide itself or the flooding. Today's (4-1) Seattle Times gets into this a little bit, but I'm rather over-busy so someone else will have to work that up. I don't believe there are any "before" photos showing structures well (too much tree cover). The Times had a decent illustration on the 25th showing structures. Snohomish County also has GIS data from which a map can be made, which would be a way cool project for someone. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I just added a new "Controversy" section. For now it addresses only the "unforseen" controversy, with a slide into what could be done (also controversial). I point out that other subsections could be added, such as the delay in calling in the National Guard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice addition. You could cover a lot of ground with that section title, but I think you did a good job capturing the essence of the main controversy -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved a pargraph about a timber harvest controversy from the slope stability and logging effect section to the controversy section, since it is, well, controversial. -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies wiki editors for my bad manners. I agree with Rivers above, thus sounds like Wiki is saying the cause is logging. Obviously by my username I am an informed editor, and Dr. Rivers is right, the citations are not balamced. Some reports showing uo in the paper are not credible sources and this section is imbalanced. This happened in the state I like and I have first hand experience with the misleading articles. So, I hope to behave better in the future. Thanks for your patience. Forestrystudent (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You might find WP:VERIFY of interest to better understand content inclusion and accompanying references, User:Forestrystudent. WP:NOR is something else that would likely benefit you as a newcomer. "Manners" can go a long way here, but getting to know how things work and why might be a better way to start. Don't stop editing just because some of what you've written has been deleted or changed. Bottom line, that is the very nature of Wikipedia. Nothing stays the same content-wise. Best not to become attached to what you write! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

How big

The lede says "covering an area of approximately 1 square mile (2.6 km2)" but the body says "The mud, soil and rock debris left from the mudslide is 1,500 ft (460 m) long, 4,400 ft (1,300 m) wide". Even a rectangle 1,500 by 4,400 is less than a quarter square mile. What do these areas mean?  Randall Bart   Talk  20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Valid point...I wondered about that as well when I added the reference but this is what the source says. In about a month when the news slows down and stabilizes and more authoritative sources become available we can hope to see this article becoming better organized.--MONGO 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Steelhead salmon vs. Rainbow trout

MONGO insists referring to the Steelhead as a trout while in the Stillaguamish River is correct for article content. Numerous websites with authority behind them, however, support the reality: Steelhead while in any river on it's way to or from the ocean are salmon, not trout. When only landlocked in a fresh water environment and never having lived in the ocean, it's a Rainbow Trout. I tried to explain this to MONGO, I changed the article to reflect this, but he decided to edit war instead, insisting his version was correct. The article is in many ways about the Stillaguamish River. The neighborhood leveled by the slide is called "Steelhead" and it is (was) on the banks of the Stillaguamish. The river in question is a tributary leading to Puget Sound - salt, ocean water. Steelhead may be on their way to a lake or a fresh water spawning pond while swimming up the Stillaguamish, but they have come from the ocean. The Steelhead in Puget Sound tributaries such as the Stillaguamish do not stay in those tributaries, they live part time in ocean waters. They use the river as a "highway" of sorts. And that makes them the anadromous version of the Rainbow Trout = Steelhead Salmon. The scientifically accepted definition of Rainbow Trout as Steelhead Salmon is as follows: "rainbow trout remain in fresh water, while the steelhead are anadromous – living in both fresh water and the ocean for parts of their lives." This definition is found here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4], here [5], here [6]. There are many more examples that support the content I included and not the content MONGO kept reverting back in, and I could provide them, but I think the point is made.

Civil comments on this are welcome. Because of the references I have to back up the content I included, I think it only appropriate to add at least one of those to the content about Steelhead in the article after it's changed back to the correct label of "salmon". Or, if we can't come to a consensus on this in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Steelhead in the Stillaguamish River are salmon, I suggest we remove the content about it while keeping the name of the neighborhood intact. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the mudslide itself and is better off at the Rainbow trout article...IMHO. But we maybe should fix the redirect on Steelhead since instead of pointing to Salmon it redirects to Rainbow trout where an entire section is dedicated to explaining this issue already. The neighborhood where the mudslide happened is apparently named Steelhead after the fish...Steelhead are apparently Rainbow trout, not Salmon. Salmon swim upstream and then die after they spawn...Steelhead can swim upstream and spawn multiple times over multiple years before they die. This nonsense argument started because I linked Steelhead to Rainbow trout...which is what the term Steelhead means...Winkelvi wants the Rainbow trout link to spell out Salmon in the article...why...who the heck knows?! Who cares?! How ridiculous! We can just remove the link about Steelhead altogether...it's not an important issue for this article in the least!--MONGO 03:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe Mongo has this correct. Steelhead are not "Salmon". Salmon is a colloquial term referring to anadromous and landlocked species in the genus Oncorhynchus (Pacific salmons) and Salmo (Atlantic salmons). Within the genus Oncorhynchus are included the Pacific trouts—O. mykiss (Rainbow trout) and O. clarki (Cutthroat trout) both of which have anadromous and semi-anadromous life forms. Anadromous life forms of rainbow trout (commonly called "Steelhead") exist to take advantage of the tremendous food sources in salt water and large lake environments. O. mykiss, whether residing in saltwater or freshwater, is a rainbow trout, not a salmon. O. mykiss is an obligate stream spawner and will migrate (anadromy) to and from saltwater or large lake environments to feed and spawn respectively. Two subspecies of rainbow trout exhibit anadromous life forms: O. mykiss irideus (Coastal rainbow trout) and O. mykiss gairdneri (Columbia River redband trout). The steelhead that use the Stillaguamish to spawn are coastal rainbow trout. The definitive source for this is:

• Behnke, Robert J. (2002). "Rainbow and Redband Trout". Trout and Salmon of North America. New York: The Free Press. p. 65-122. ISBN 0-7432-2220-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Many secondary sources refer to Steelhead as steelhead trout, steelhead salmon and salmon trout but that does not make them anything other than what they are: Rainbow trout.

--Mike Cline (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I boldly removed the whole reference to the fish; it wasn't pertinent to this article. - Gorthian (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to Ignore the references and everything that says Steelhead are considered salmon when not landlocked in freshwater if you'd like to do that. Just don't try to pass that opinion off as correct and encyclopedic. Well, not in the real world, of course. The only solution here in face of the references that disagree with personal opinion is to remove the commentary on Steelhead from the article. Thanks, Gorthian, for taking care of that. Funny, isn't it, that MONGO thought the content important enough to edit war and childishly name call over it, then still thought it important enough to canvass support over it, but now says it's not important and it should be removed. Regardless, it's better not included at all. --Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We better get that featured article star removed from the Rainbow trout article since the dozen editors that worked on and researched for that article are wrong and you're right! Let us also get that redirect on Steelhead fixed so it points to Salmon instead of Rainbow trout, since, well you're right and everyone else is wrong!--MONGO 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

FA and GA are specific only to Wikipedia, and are eyeballed only by Wikipeians, not the outside world. Outside in real life, FA and GA articles mean nothing at all. They mean nothing to serious researchers, they mean nothing to scholars, scientists, authors. They mean nothing to anyone who isn't interested in or part of the sub-culture that is Wikipedia. If you had said, "The article has received accolades from those outside Wikipedia", that would mean something and I would sit up and take notice. I've seen a number of articles (where I'm very familiar with the subject) that have been FA or have just made GA that suck and have gotten a lot of content and grammar wrong. There's a reason why Wikipedia is still nowhere near considered a reliable source. Duh. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...you better get busy at the Rainbow trout article then since its wrong and you're right...and get that Steelhead redirect fixed so it points to Salmon instead of Rainbow trout since once again everyone else is wrong and you're right.--MONGO 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that many readers might not understand what a "steelhead" is, so some kind of link would be appropriate. But it would fully satisfactory to say that it is kind of fish. And massively irrelevant to this article as to whether it is salmon or trout. If folks here can't agree on a suitable link, I propose to add a footnote: "A kind of fish." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Species" would be better, but good thought about inclusion for explanation. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson...it's not even a debatable point really since only Winkelvi wants to make up some imaginary alternative universe as to what a Steelhead is.--MONGO 00:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. Whether that point is debatable (or not) is IRRELEVANT to this article, as the point itself is IRRELEVANT. Trying to bait Winkelvi into further debate ("comment") contributes NOTHING to improving this article, and slides into uncivil behavior. If you want to discuss the point with Winkelvi do it on his/her Talk page. I am going to add a footnote, and I strongly suggest that both of you resist the temptation to "clarify" this point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No intent or temptation to "clarify" from me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@J.Johnson...you're not an administrator and are not in a position to issue any ultimatums. I would refrain from mischaracterizing the situation. What good does it to do clarify by being vague? That's simply ridiculous. Take the entire Steelhead stuff out...all of it and the problem is solved.--MONGO 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an "ultimatum" (hey, are you mischaracterizing my remarks?), and one doesn't have to be an administrator to make a strong suggestion that you stop your tendentious, disruptive behavior. Or would you prefer to have the attentions of an administrator on this point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There are already plenty of admins watching.--MONGO 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, but that can be arranged. Don't let me stop you, I'm breaking out the marshmallows. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You say I am engaged in "tendentious, disruptive behavior", yet "breaking out the marshmallows" is supposed to be a comment that is beneficial to article improvement? Oh, that's tight...you're idea of article improvement is to create a non-consensus based edit about the stupid fish that is so vague it still leaves the reader hanging! I'm taking this disaster off my watchlist...my edits here have been entirely constructive and by removing the entire steelhead nonsense, the problem was solved.--MONGO 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fatalities and missing

The fatalities and missing name lists do not seem to me to be appropriate content for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTWHOSWHO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL do not appear to provide explicit guidance on this matter, although they are somewhat related. In Effects_of_Hurricane_Sandy_in_New_York#Fatalities, I find no similar list nor a discussion of adding such on its talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing these lists.--MONGO 04:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they belong, either. I haven't checked, but if it isn't there yet, perhaps we could add a link to the official lists in the external links. - Gorthian (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The lists were part of what I came here looking for in the first place, so I was probably a bit biased in putting them there. I did look for precedents and guidance though; the biggest discussion on it I found was on the Yarnell Hill Fire talk page, the consensus there was inclusion. A part of me also supports keeping the missing persons list spread as far and wide as publicly possible, but that's more of a one in a million chance and probably not something Wikipedia would go by. Anyways, I support keeping them here and I am currently maintaining them, but if they end up needing condensed or removed in favor of links to official lists then I'd at least help with that as well. Varixai (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In retrospect I think the names at the Yarnell article and here should be removed...but support links to an authoritive source that lists the names such as we have here, the coroner's office. As Wsiegmund pointed out above, the policy on this matter is vague. I think more recent events tend to make us more likely to want to see lists of victims...one article I did took place in 1937 and though some names are mentioned, there is no list.--MONGO 16:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I support removal of the lists. Although WP:MEMORIAL doesn't really address this, these listing are not encyclopedic and this is not a news site. An external link to a memorial site/list, however, would certainly be appropriate. Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not appropriate. Okay, everyone (so far) opposes the lists except Variaxi, but he would accept links to the official sources. So let's replace them with a link (perhaps in a box?) to the official source, which I believe is the Medical Examiner's office. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I have removed the lists and added a Seattle Times link. Right above that is the Medical Examiner's updates so there's an 'official' link and an 'in-depth' link. I also tallied down the missing persons number as the latest 3 identified were from that list, will add a reference when I find a decent one or they mention it in the next official update.Varixai (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Because the list of the dead is evolving and people might want to keep abreast of that I suggest we have a box in the text (sort of like the previous lists) with something like "Link to the latest official updates from the Medical Examiner's Office". Well, perhaps "Download" would be better, as clicking on http://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/530slideme seems to be an automatic download, but whatever works. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I broke out a "victims and aftermath" section for the external section. This might need to be monitored closely for good faith anonymous additions, but it struck me after looking at numerous search-and-rescue and survivor stories that although this is an encyclopedia, this article is long on the science and short on the human element. Hopefully we can strike a balance as this developing story continues. Valfontis (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I would put a link to the Medical Examiner's office at the top. And I still think having that in a box in the Casualties section is a good idea. (But if it is so good why hasn't anyone else jumped up and done that?} ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, It's nice to see fellow editors handle this with compassion and tact. The reference to the medical examiner's official list is both accessible and respectful I think. Lattetown (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tactful of me for not putting a box in the text? Or tactful of everyone else not telling me what a cruddy idea it is? Oh, my. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell, I stuck my neck out and added a box with a link for the latest updates. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Evolution of Forest Practices

Very relevant section, please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B02F:9952:0:0:0:103 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO: the added material is a history of the development of forestry practices in Washington, which would be better suited to a subset of Forestry or even its own article. It is completely off-topic in an article about a specific event. - Gorthian (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. And it appears to be copied, and probably a copyvio. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not correct. If Logging is being blamed, then Washington's Forest Practices regulations are at issue. The develooment of these forest praxtices have a unique and collaborative history. the stillaguamish river is a tribal river. practices that govern logging are developed collaboratively with stakeholders. what is yet to come is the investigation and science surrounding forest practices and other land uses in the area. this is not onlu relevant, it is pertinent history and sets the stage for the days and months to come. i would aporeciate a better description than it is irrelevant, and whatever copyvio is, this was written by me from my nearly 34 years of experince with the issue. Imwould appreciate leaving this important infor,ation in tact. please don't remove because you don't yet understand its relevance. 2600:1010:B00C:BF5C:0:0:0:103 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)forestrystudent

You appear to be using a dynamic IP/cell phone so rather than post this on your talk page, I will post it here. "Copyvio" is short for "copyright violation", i.e. something we don't do here. You may click on the blue link to read about it. (I did Google for the text, it isn't online.) It might be someone's personal essay. In any case, "2600", copying and pasting this info into the article repeatedly isn't a good way to get your way. Please read this: WP:5 Pillars for starters. Valfontis (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness Valfontis - I was wondering where you were. My name is <redacted> -- I have worked in forestry 33 years, I have written the history, by my own hand, and by my personal experience and personal knowledge of the individuals whom I have quoted. Afterall I was hired by Stu Bledsoe, whom is a central part of the history, referenced by the Nisqually Tribal Chair. I have the experience, the knowledge and know that this site is verging on gross imbalance, which I Dr. Rivers noticed too. I am trying to attain balance, and insert information that is relevant to the slide and logging, or forest practices. Because Mongo or his campadre do not see this larger picture, then they are allowed to wholesale delete it without good reason. When I attempted doing that, citing irrelevance, my hand was slapped for doing so. I am obviously new to this, and we are talking lives lost and a multitude of factors in this natural disaster. My information will continue to be built upon because forest practices has a collaborative, continuous process, involving all stakeholders. There was a meeting yesterday with a proclamation for further scientific information. We need this information for the context relative to logging. Please encourage the wholesale text removers to do a bit of homework before acting. thank you.~~forestrystudent~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestrystudent (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked for page semi protection because I thought it was just the IP doing the violation, but apparently the IP is yours. Your text looks like it may be a copyvio as mentioned, but even if it isn't, it is not related to this article! Stop adding that nonsense to the article!--MONGO 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongo -- you really need to learn a bit of history. Please make a valid argument for why this is irrelevant. your are crushing me. I post in hopes of continuing this dialogue so respectful and accurate edits can be made. Your not understanding is no reason for the harsh judgment. This is not a game for me, it appears fun for you. I am entirely frustrated and at a loss as to how to suggest that you do some homework before your sharp remarks. Forestrystudent (talk)

I have blocked Forestrystudent and I hope she will read the numerous links on her talk page about how to edit Wikipedia. FS, I agree with MONGO's removal of your content. It is not just MONGO's opinion that has caused him to revert your edits, he is following Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please take the time to read about how we do things on Wikipedia. MONGO and I have been here a long time and we know what we are talking about. I respect you have a lot of knowledge about forestry but that does not give you the right to flout our guidelines here. The Oso landslide article is not the place to copy and paste your essay about forestry practices. Period. Valfontis (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Landslide Blog

Every one of Dave Petley's entries in The Landslide Blog is worthy of being included in the external links. However, he's got five now, and the Other resources section is looking somewhat bottom-heavy. I would like to group all those entries, but I'm not clear on a good method. Variations I can come up with are:

1. A single link to the main page of the blog itself (but then, readers in the future would have to search the site to find the entries),
2. A single link to one tag for all the articles (except he didn't tag them consistently), or
3. Create another section for them under external links (in addition to the Scientific studies and Other resources sections).

Other ideas? Or is it all right as is? - Gorthian (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs aren't normally considered reliable sources, but since this blog is an arm of an official entity (vs. some random guy's thoughts), they could also be integrated into the articles as refs as appropriate. This doesn't satisfy the "all in one place" idea though. I agree that the el section is getting unwieldy. Perhaps put the individual posts into a collapsible section? Valfontis (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Arm of an official entity" (here the American Geophysical Union) should count as zilch, as they don't review his work; it is still "just a blog". The significance is the he is an expert, and also has done a pretty good job of assembling various resources.

I think a single link to Petley's blog is sufficent, as he does have a box of "quick links" to the various related posts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No matter how it is characterized, I think we agree that Mr. Petley's blog is a reliable source, and thus acceptable to link to on Wikipedia. And if the blog is linked from the AGU website, I would assume that there is some oversight. Much like we often accept "blogs" from reporters that are posted on newspaper websites. Again, my comments (whether the blog is an acceptable source) were to back the suggestion that the blog posts be used as refs as appropriate, in order to cut down on the external links section, as that section shouldn't be a collection of links, and it is better to integrate the info into the article where possible. Valfontis (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that gets back to the view that if "External links" are for resources that are not cited in the article then anything cited in the article cannot be included as an external link. I beg to differ: there is no basis for such exclusivity. E.g., The Landslide Blog is an excellent general resource, and we shouldn't force the reader to search for it in the notes if some part of it is cited specifically. Nor do I see anything at WP:EL prohibiting a collection of links. And what we have here hardly amounts to a WP:LINKFARM. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just collapsed all the Landslide Blog links to one, which is linked to the most recent entry on this subject. He's good about referencing his earlier entries, so readers can explore to their heart's content. I also removed the link to the state geologist, who basically said, "this is a big landslide," with measurements that I'm sure have been updated since. - Gorthian (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)