Talk:2014 Oso landslide/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Need cite check

I've done a general copyedit on the "Unforeseen" section, but I can't get to the Seattle Times to check that the slightly rearranged cite placements are still correct. (Apparently I've read too many articles without subscribing.) I'd appreciate it if someone could check that the article's still got the right citations supporting the right statements.

Also, I'm unsure about this quote:

County Public Works Director Steve Thomsen was quoted as saying, "A slide of this magnitude is very difficult to predict. There was no indication, no indication at all."

Is he saying that it was difficult to predict the slide, or that there was no indication of its potential magnitude? Could someone supply some context and clarify that? Of course, if that's all the Times said, there's not much we can do.

Thanks! - Gorthian (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  I don't know exactly what the deal is with SeattleTimes.com, maybe they count how many times a IP address shows up? So try a different coffee shop? :-)

  I'm pretty certain the dates on the Seattle Times articles are correct to some degree. The caveat is that the publication date on the web page sometimes differs from the print edition, and possibly even between city and suburban/rural editions (as an item that misses the deadline for one edition may be carried over to the next day). I have also found one article that was printed on the 26th, then republished on the web on April 9th (as annotated). So maybe this something we try to do reasonably well, and not get hung up in the gears.

  Good question. Without seeing a transcript of the press conference it's hard to say exactly what he meant. Given the general tone and drift of remarks coming from the county I'd guess that this is on the line of "completely unforseen". It is interesting to note that the some of geologists (e.g., Dave Montgomery), while not at all surprised that there was a slide at that site, are expressing some surprise at how far it ran out, and even how fast. I suspect this results from how a mudslide differs from a landslide. Where the glacioalluvial sediments of the bluff collapsed it was, indeed, a landslide. But where all of that, including the ground water, water in the river, and topsoil, got mixed together with a good amount of air, it was definitely a mud flow. I expect that at some point the county will try to deflect the charges of "you should have known" (that slides there are common) by conflating it with "the scientists didn't know!" (how far the slide would go). Then we might see some attempts to re-interpret this and similar remarks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was cookies (of course!) and, after tediously tracking them down and deleting them, I'm good to go at the ST for another 30 days, at least on my iPad. ;-)

I did find that I'd scrambled some references: citing an article to support statements that weren't made in that article. So I tried to move them back to the right places, and get the URLs and titles updated, but now at least one cite is completely broken. I do not understand this system--yet! But right now it seems really difficult to change simple citations. I don't give up easily, and will keep studying them, but at the moment, I don't like this system at all! >Bangs head on bricks yet again<

As far as the dates go, I have no access to the print version (which is probably true for the majority of readers), so I think sticking with the published (or updated) dates given on the website is best.

Anyway, the cites I broke are: the one just after the word "reported" in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Unforeseen" section, and the one after Flaner's quote (#38 & #39 at the moment). Would you please fix whatever I did? TIA - Gorthian (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Last night, I went through the refs and addressed many of those that you had left comments for, and left comments back. I couldn't do all of them, but managed to get enough info so that you can Harvard-ify many of them. Whether they are all worth keeping is another question entirely. - Gorthian (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 The info on the cookie is a good thing to file away for future reference.

  I suspect some of these sources were scrambled from the start. I haven't been as concerned (yet) that the text has the correct handle (except where I see it's been screwed up) as that it has a handle.

  I'll take a look at what you've got to see if I can identify any problems. Sometimes there are problems with spaces; as I mentioned in a previous section I think I'll switch the links over to a single argument. (E.g.: {Harvnb|Seattle Times, March 22, 2014} rather than {Harvnb|Seattle Times March 22,|2014}.)

  Different dates re print/web can be a problem, and I don't know of any good solutions. A url and accessdate do imply the web version, but accepting that implies that when a print version was consulted a convenience link to the on-line version should not be included. Which seems like a disservice. The best I can think of (so far) is to added the print date after the template. If I get enough time I might ask around about this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Needed to revert

Gorthian: my apologies, but it looks there may be some serious problems with your recent edits. I have reverted them (lest someone else poke some other changes in) while I examine these in detail. If there are not too many problems (and no other edits intervene) I'll put them back, and we can deal with the individual problems. More on this in a bit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I put back as it was. A couple of problems, but we can take care of those. Something important to note regarding use of Harv: the arguments supplied have to be such as will match the corresponding CITEREF. These includes the "a", "b", "c", etc. suffixes to the year, but possibly you have that figured out now. More later. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I did the conversions, and straightened out a bunch of stuff. I believe that citation you had a question about got misplaced when some other text was taken out. I think I have that straightened out. The "broken" references still have some problems, but those can wait. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, what a mess to straighten out! I'm grateful you went through it all again. No worries about the revert; it was needed for the process. I hope to look through the refs again later, but probably not today. - Gorthian (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It turned out a couple of the bad things were what you were correcting. I think we're progressing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal claims?

Today's paper had a small item from AP that a claim for $7 million has been filed against Snohomish County and the state. Undoubtdedly more will be coming. Anyone want to suggest how those should be covered? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Like we're supposed to: NPOV and encyclopedic. Write it and see how it shakes out as we take turns adding, snipping, copy editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Very carefully. Probably slowly. We don't need to be at the whim of the press; we can afford to wait to see how things fall out and if it ends up being notable or not. There's already plenty to do. - Gorthian (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Science link

I'm moving a link here that was added by 174.21.42.232 in the external links section (it didn't work in its original form, so I've modified it): 

• Science Magazine: Even for Slide-Prone Region Landslide Was Off the Chart

I was curious about why the Chinese version of Science had been chosen for the link; upon investigation, it turns out that this is one way to access the article without having to subscribe. The article linked to may have some merit for our article, but I've seen at least some of this material elsewhere. I'd like to find out if we can find other sources that say essentially the same things. - Gorthian (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It does discuss some some of the surprise at how far the mud flowed. But it is only a magazine article (though a most reputable magazine), and most certainly is not a scientific or technical report, so your removal of the link is quite correct. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that move and actually found a Seattle Times story, which I put in the references, that had same geologist, so put it in references, as requested.Forestrystudent (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Garbage edits reverted

Why are these edits labelled "Garbage"? 208.185.160.194 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I would not object all of your edits, even some of the more peculiar ones. But I do object where you introduce factual error, remove necessary context (also here), or change the attributed source. I also object your pseudo-citations (e.g., here). But most of all I will object to your reordering of the sections. We have been through this before. To refresh your memory: the "Controversy" section was placed after all the other sections which might provide a background to the controversies (e.g., History, Geology, Logging).

Your questionable edits here are so extensive I am going to just rollback to the last plausible edit. Please discuss before attempting any further changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't address your remarks to me, I assumed you didn't mean to include my edits to the "External Links" section in your revert, so I've replaced them. - Gorthian (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Gorthian: Ooops! Yes, and sorry, didn't see that you had slipped in there. My apologies. Although shouldn't we keep the scientific/engineering reports separate, so people don't confuse them with whatever random links get thrown in? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get them out of this section and into the references. - Gorthian (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss while the edits are still in place. And leave the insults and personal attacks out while you're at it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Now Winkelvi's reverted my external links edits. Please, both of you, look more carefully before you revert. I feel like some sort of collateral damage here. - Gorthian (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What insults and personal attacks? I believe factual error and so forth come under competence. And no, let's not let such questionable edits stand, as they get entangled with valid edits (such as Gorthian's); I remind you of WP:BRD. And now you are edit-warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You said you wanted to discuss edits, so discuss. I'm waiting. So far it seems all you are discussing is in relation to those making the edits. You make snide remarks about editors in edit summaries, you make snide remarks about editors in talk page section headers. How is any of that discussing edits? How is any of that constructive or helpful in building an encyclopedia? What's next? You wanting me topic-banned like you did with User:Forestystudent? Asking I be censured for 30 days as you did with User:Beeblebrox at AN/I? User:Johnuniq and User:DangerousPanda both gave you advice about commenting on edits rather than editors back in March. You seem to have not yet learned the wisdom in that advice. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How about we start with some background considerations? Like, WP:BRD: you are free to Boldly edit, anyone else is allowed Revert, after which the is Discuss — not "Do it again". You don't get to trash stuff (which is what you have done) and then keep restoring prior to discussion. That's edit warring. Do you understand the concept? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

When you start discussing edits rather than editors and stop personally attacking, I'll happily discuss those edits with you here on the article talk page. Until then, you'll be hearing crickets from my camp. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  What personal attacks? Is noting that one of your edits contains a factual error a personal attack"? I don't think so.

  While I would be pleased to hear nothing from you, unfortunately Discussion is a requirement of editing. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not compulsory, so you do have a choice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, if you want to discuss the edits, then do it. You have yet to come even a little bit close to discussing edits. So far, just more insults and personal attacks. I'm still waiting for you to talk about the edits I made. This isn't a classroom where you get to make the rules. It's a talk page for civil discussion between editors. So, please...you said you wanted to discuss the edits: commence. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In the middle of all this it appears that Winkelvi is edit-warring with Forestrystudent. FS: your edit of a reference is questionable, but I don't have time right now to explain it. How about setting that aside until we can discuss what you want to? Perhaps tomorrow? Perhaps everyone should back off until a certain editor settles down, and then we could revert to (say) Gorthian's last edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Do that (revert to Gorthian's last edit), and I will be forced to report you for edit warring (+ gaming the system). Your choice. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What about all your reversions? Your disdain for discussion? Your introduction of factual errors"? I have pointed to the objecitonable edits; which ones would care to discuss? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

JJ that was me messing up -- I thought the Forest Practices Rules had a broken link. Originally I had added a reference to an information sheet our state department had on their website (which has been moved? removed?) so I was trying to fix what I thought was a broken link....it was just a mess up. I still seems to have confusion, although getting better, with adding NPOV material. Wink actually explained that one of the most egregious pieces of POV material, in the SLOG, isn't actually used as a reference, it is just there, which made me feel better.....so I am grateful if you are willing to discuss. thanks.Forestrystudent (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

FS: Good work with the references here and here; you're getting the hang things. What I wanted to caution you on is your alteration of the Forest Board ref. Not but what it couldn't use alteration (it is broken), but if you change a reference someone else has used it might break the attribution/verification. Of course, if you are replacing some material, or find a better source, you might recycle the citation. But you should check very carefully that it is not being relied on elsewhere. NPOV we should discuss elsewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Factually incorrect edit

As Winkelvi has been too busy hacking on the article (or is too shy?) to discuss his questioned edits, it seems I must start the ball rolling for him. Winkelvi: in this edit you inserted into a paragraph about the M 1.1 earthquake referred to by Pennington a statement attributed to Q13Fox that "the United States Geological Survey (USGS) determined the slide was not caused by seismic activity." This is inaccurate, as the source says there was "no indication" of an earthquake on Saturday (the 22nd). The story explicitly states: "USGS officials did not comment on a March 10 seismic event." Your edit is thus factually inaccurate, misleading, and creates a POV contrary to the source. Your edit was wrong at the outset, and properly reverted. So why have you restored it without any attempt at discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the following link contains information that might be helpful: http://www.pnsn.org/blog/2014/03/26/seismic-signals-generated-by-the-march-22nd-oso-landslide 208.185.160.194 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that is the Allstadt article, which is already incorporated into the article. Please note that this subsection is about a specific edit which misquotes a source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi: didn't you want to discuss this? How many invitations do you need? Your edit is inherently defective and shouldn't require any discussion to delete, so if you don't want to bother, fine, I'll just delete it again. Likewise for the other edits. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit removing necessary context

Winkelvi, in this edit this edit you removed from a note commenting on the sources the context of what these comments refer to, making the comments look rather stupid. What is your justification for this?

Also, in this edit this edit you changed the text about the effect of the glaciation from "it dammed the various mountain valleys, forming lakes" to "various mountain valleys were dammed and lakes were formed." I point out that "damming the valleys" and "forming lakes" were not two independent results, as one necessarily resulted from the other, as your edit implies. You have provided no support for your rationale for your edit, and even your edit summary is only the two letters "ce". How is this an improvement? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

When I click on the "locked" link provided by JJ that is, I think, supposed to be about glaciation, what I find, instead, is deleted material about Vanessa L. Williams. Is there a problem with the Wiki software? 208.185.160.194 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. This is, apparently, just a log of all edits, the previous one, on Vanessa Williams being for a different page made moments before the edit of interest. Still, nice to be reminded of Vanessa Williams! 24.8.231.222 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange. I have no idea how those links got transmogrified. I've replaced them with correct links. (Well, I just checked them, but wait and see.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

More context removal

Winkelvi, why do you insist on removing the explanation about what Hazel is? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is the fact that Hazel is a "former mill site" relevant? If relevant, maybe include this info; if not, then it shouldn't be included. 208.185.160.194 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the site has been called the Hazel landslide, after the place named Hazel. Readers may wonder about Hazel, especially if they look at any of the maps. So I have included the bare minimum of information: it is the site of a former mill. That seems a lot more relevant (and material) than the mention of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

references not connected to the article

Hi all, after conversing about this on my talk page, and having one of my own references removed because it does not appear in the article, I was alerted that this reference does not have a link in the article either -- should same be removed?

The Stranger: Kiley, Brendan (March 27, 2014). "Is There a Connection Between the Mudslide and Our State's Historical Mishmash of Logging Regulations?". SLOG. The Stranger (Seattle, Washington). Retrieved 30 March 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestrystudent (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree--refs not cited in the article don't belong in the reference section. Winkelvi, Forestrystudent did the right thing; why did you revert the removal? - Gorthian (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it should still be in the article, and just removing without discussion isn't cool IMO. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to be the uncool person here, I tried to start a talk page about this -- since the feedback I was getting included not using editorialized, non encyclopedic, newsy, opinionated articles, and those that are not connected -- I responded this way (removing it) -- why is this article allowed? It seems to violate WP:SOAP and WP: NPOV in addition to not being connected as a reference. It is a hold over from the section that was removed. thanks for your attention.Forestrystudent (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

references that should be included

Hi all -- I am ready to throw in the towel -- I have been trying to add good information to the article -- and have so many conversations going on my talk page, the advice I get doesn't seem to connect, and I am responding as fast as I can.....please help me to find a place for this discussion -- the article is falling behind on the latest information that is being revealed. thank you.

References that could be in this article from scientists:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023331700_mudslidescientistxml.html On April 8, the Seattle Times reports from the world most expert on landslides, Richard Iverson and University of Washington's David Montgomery are discussing the length of the run out -- this is important information as geologists try to predict future hazard zones. NOTE -- this is an alternative source to the Science Magazine article that you all liked, but didn't know how to place because it was from a Chinese website: http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/20140404C?pg=16#pg16 One of the editors asked for an alternative reference and this is it.

http://www.asce.org/cemagazine/Article.aspx?id=23622330614#.U1gaP429Xa0 On April 22, Civil Engineering Magazine reported on a team of geologists and engineers from the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association that will be studying the causes of the Oso landslide. The team is supported by the National Science Foundation.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mudslide-oso-obama-disaster-victims/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_n1p_us_se_w On April 22, National Geographic talks about building in the hazard zone and quotes Lynn Highland, who heads the landslide program at the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colorado. "Local governments are between a rock and a hard place. They have responsibility to protect public safety. And they have pressure to build." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestrystudent (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Forestrystudent, I responded on your talk page before I saw your entry here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓

great -- so how can we add in these references? I am not getting an answer here. How can I insert the Seattle Times article quoting the geologists? When I added it, you deleted it......I thought I did as you requested, including a quote from a geologist -- I will try one more time, not quoting exactly (altho I never heard of an exact quote infringing on copyright laws) -- you have asked me to pose questions on the talk page, I have, and no body answers....PLEASSEE, I am pleading with you to treat me consistently -- I am only concerned about this. every other news paper article is POV -- and some are worse than others. The one I seek to post is from credible geologists, not opinion, or editorializing.....can you see that? I will try once again.....Forestrystudent (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is it unusual to rely on newspaper or popular press accounts of events? They may not be "scientific" per se, by isn't recording the situation as it is perceived important? Is there a Wikipedia "policy" on quoting from the popular press? Just asking. 208.185.160.194 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Question for you without trying to sound rude: Why are you interested? So far, it seems you're really not editing articles, just going to article talk pages and asking questions or commenting. Why? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay kiddos, I did indeed put the CE reference in the OVERVIEW (which is same as ST and the Science Mag) hopefully it passes muster, thanks.--Forestrystudent (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

New content from CE Journal

I get where you're coming from by including the new content, Forestrystudent, but I don't see what you included being supported by the content in the reference. Where in the article does the geologist say the slide was extraordinary because of the flow? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I just getting late to this question, or is it a new one? To not violate quotations, I used information in the article, headline and also paragraph 1: April 22, 2014—A research team from the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association hopes to capitalize on an extraordinary coincidence to gain a better understanding of the causes of the massive landslide and unconfined debris flow outside of Oso, Washington, on March 22 that killed 39 and left 7 missing. Make sense?--Forestrystudent (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

here is the quote -- “We know it’s big and we know it had some really extraordinary run-out,” Wartman says. “Sometimes landslides are initiated and they stall or their movement is arrested or suspended. There are a lot of good mechanical reasons why that happens. Others develop into these more viscous-flow-type movements. This one seems to really be at the extreme, when you compare it to similar flow slides that we have observed over the past several decades.” --Forestrystudent (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Types of Landslides

There are links to types of landslides[[1]] in the SEE ALSO[[2]] section, but I'm suggesting we put this in the article since there are different processes that cause these landslides to occur. The GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT seems like a good place to note the type of landslide that occurred on OSO, which was a Glacial, Deep-Seated landslide. The reasoning for this is not all landslides are equal. In Washington, there are basically two types of landslides: 1) shallow, rapid-moving, debris flows; and 2) deep-seated landslides often associated with glacial deposits on steep slopes. Shallow-rapid occur within about 10 feet of the surface, within the rooting zone, and initiated by intense rainfall and/or rapid snowmelt. Large, deep-seated landslides occur below the rooting zone to depts. of tens to hundreds of feet, initiated primarily by hydrological processes, usually in permeable, glacial materials on top of clay, hardpan, or bedrock. Contributing factors include erosion of the supporting toe or base of the slide, and excessive water.

I see two pathways: 1) update and refer to the wiki landslide article (although it needs a lot of work, and I don't need another project). 2) include the two types of landslides in the Geological Context (or another section).

Here are some references to use:

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/forestry/forester-forums/fpa10.pdf

http://www.earthsystems.net/docs/Slope_Stability2.pdf (author, Dan Miller, often quoted in current article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestrystudent (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another resource -- see last two sentences in this article, distinguishing the types of landslides is this National Geographic article "As Scientists Examine Landslide, Questions about Logging's Potential Role.Forestrystudent (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Updates

The last missing person has probably been found but hasn't been added to the medical examiner's list yet as she hasn't been identified. We should probably just keep an eye on the list for now and not update until the list is updated. Also, according to what I heard on NPR, the highway was reopened recently with a ceremony honoring the dead. I don't have time to find a cite and add this information, but it would be nice to keep this article up to date if someone has a few moments. Valfontis (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WSJ latest

Latest news on the slide here indicates that there were proposals to monitor the slide area after the 2006 slide but they weren't carried out.--MONGO 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

GEER Report

The Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association (GEER) Report was published yesterday.[3] Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, it is a reliable source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added a suitable citation template. Cite with {{Harvnb|GEER Report|2014|loc= }}, specifying the appropriate Asection (e.g.: "loc= §1.0"), figure, or (with "p=") page number. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Landslide

I removed "landslide" from the see also section because WP:SEEALSO indicates that there's rarely a need for a link in that section when the topic is already linked in the main article, and in this case, it's linked in the first sentence. J.Johnson reverted, asking the edit summary why it should be removed, so I reverted again, and quoted the recommendation from WP:SEEALSO in my edit summary. Based on this edit summary, J.Johnson did not feel that answering the question posed in one edit summary in another edit summary counts as discussion, and chose to revert me again solely based on the fact that the editor was dissatisfied with where I answered the question.

I'm not sure why making the remarks here on the talk page would make the edit any more or less valid, particularly since the question was asked and answered in exactly the same venue, but nevertheless, I make note of it here: per WP:SEEALSO, there's generally no need to link to an article already linked in the main article, and because this particular link in this particular article is particularly prominent, there is no reason to retain it.--~TPW 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not feel that a chain of edit summaries is a proper discussion. In part this is because it is harder to document, find, and reassemble the totality of such dispersed comments. Discussions on the Talk page are more visible to other editors, can be seen in there entirety, and easier to find in the future. Which is why the Talk pages are the designated location for discussions about an article. At any rate, thank you for opening the discussion here.

Regarding MOS:SEEALSO (aka WP:SEEALSO), please note that 1) the MOS is a guideline, not a strict rule to be applied automatically in all cases, and 2) the SEEALSO explicitly states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In the current case I submit that, as a matter of common sense (even as common courtesy to the reader), where the See Also would offer the reader links to some closely related topics, it is nonsensical that one topic cannot be included here because it was already mentioned somewhere else in the article, and discourteous that the reader is forced to search it out.

That a link to landslides is provided in the article in no way gives that topic undue weight when it is listed with other forms of mass wasting in the See Also. But omitting such a major form of mass wasting creates a serious imbalance that is not countered by having a single link elsewhere in the article. Therefore it is proper to retain this link in the See Also. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of term "mudslide"

I suggest that all usage of the term "mudslide" within this article be changed globally to "landslide". The term "mudslide" is a non-scientific term that is generally only used by news media, political figures, and laypeople, despite the fact that it is neither typically used nor embraced by FEMA, USGS, state government geological surveys, or privately operated professional geology or geotechnical engineering practices. No public agency of the geological sciences or engineering includes "mudslide" as a recognized classification of a type of mass wasting. The term "landslide" is preferred and accepted by professional geologists, earth scientists, geomorphologists, and geotechnical engineers. 50.204.209.2 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Signed, a licensed professional geologist in the State of Washington who is currently conducting contract work for the state and for Snohomish County on the Oso landslide.

In order to keep this discussion focused in one place, I will respond at the mudslide talk page.- Gorthian (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Mudslide is properly about the general terms mudslide versus mudflow. In the context of this specific event the initial mass wasting event was undoubtedly a landslide (involving discrete blocks), but at about the point it crossed the river it became fluidized ("liquid or semi-liquid"), and was no longer sliding but flowing (arguably even blowing), which is likely why it had such a surprisingly long runout. For that reason I would oppose any global change of "landslide" to "mud*", as some parts of this event, as well as prior events, were landslides. The article title should stay with "mud", as the major characteristic of the event, but whether we stay with "slide" or go with "flow" is matter for the other discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME might be loosely defined as "a non-scientific term that is generally only used by news media, political figures, and laypeople". Especially news media and laypeople. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

NOVA coverage

On November 19, 2014 PBS aired a NOVA TV special Killer Landslides. [4]. While it was generally on landslides, research, causes, prediction and mitigation, the Oso landslide was used as a 'wrapper' for the entire show and extensively covered. It has a transcript and may be a good source for some details, like the speed of the slide mentioned as 60 miles per hour. 220 of ^Borg 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical reports (such as the GEER Report, above) are generally better sources for technical details. There are some points which (the last time I checked) were not entirely settled. But where the experts differ it would be better to present the differences than to go with some tertiary source's unexplained selection of particular data. Where I think the NOVA report would be good is as a 'See also' link that can lead the reader to a broader consideration of the topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean "External links"? "See also" is for WP page links only no? And there are already a lot of external links, perhaps 'pruning' is needed. It was an interesting show to watch 220 of ^Borg 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, of course, external links. (Yesterday was a looong day.) I don't know that the existing external links are such a "lot"; I'd say leave in what ever is useful. But if you really want to trim something, take out the link to Snohomish County: it's much narrower and less interesting than the NOVA show. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the video and agree that it would be a very useful addition to External links. The video is available in several versions at YouTube, including this one. The link provided by the OP is to the PBS site, which provides only a transcript and a way to buy the DVD. Considering WP:PBS, would it be copyvio to add the YouTube video to External links? Our copyright policy often baffles me; does how PBS feels about it even matter to Wikipedia? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, how PBS (the presumptive copyright owner) feels about this most certainly matters. At the very least, if they object to various postings on YouTube the links there will be transient. But whether this prevents us from adding such links, I don't know. Try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Err on side of caution. Unless it was posted to YouTube unambiguously by PBS, it would be better to not link it here.--MONGO 11:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Condemned property dispute ends in double murder" section tagged as off-topic

I have tagged the "2014_Oso_mudslide#Condemned property dispute ends in double murder" sub-section (under the "Controversy" section) as off-topic. This was initially added by the sometimes active User:MrsKrishan, but I don't see how this is relevant to the topic of this article. If there is no support for it I propose to delete it in a week or two. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: um, it's pretty directly related. The county condemned Reed's home as a result of the dangerous condition left by the slide and forced a sale; Reed allegedly squatted on the property; Reed allegedly killed his neighbors after they complained. It's not just me making the connection, either. Example sourced in the article: "The neighbors had also got involved in a dispute over a condemned property that Reed had been forced to sell to the county following a deadly landslide in the area in 2014 that killed 43 people." VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about {{off topic}} before, or I would have used it when that stuff got added. It has nothing to do with the landslide. It might be worth a single sentence in the "Recovery" section, if the article had one. — Gorthian (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that it makes no sense in the "controversy" section. It would make more sense in "Recovery" or "Aftermath" sections, either of which would be reasonable additions to the article. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe any experienced, serious editor would think the content belongs in this article. It's not at all related and needs to be removed as off-topic trivia. If the murder case is notable, write an article on it and mention the mudslide, that would be appropriate. Adding a section or any mention of the murder in this article? Wholly inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems we disagree. Related means "standing in relation or connection." The murders were allegedly the culmination of a property dispute directly caused by the landslide. That seems pretty unambiguously related, and as noted above the connection was made by the sources as well. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Murderers murder because they are murderers, not because a landslide happened. Criminals commit criminal acts because they are criminals, not because a landslide happened. Drama between neighbors happens because people like to create problems and drama for others, not because a landslide happened. See where I'm going with this? Like I said above, if you want to see content on the murder in the encyclopedia, create an article on it. The section doesn't belong in the article but you're free to create an article that is about the murder and the circumstances surrounding the murder that seem to be only in a very small, insignificant way about the landslide. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, it doesn't matter why the property was condemned. It could have been a tornado; it could have been an earthquake; it could have been a flood. The dispute and the subsequent murder have nothing to do with the reason the property was vacated. It's a separate story. — Gorthian (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are your opinions. But what our policy actually says is to reflect the sources in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint. The sources in this case do verifiably connect the murder to the landslide. WV, re your repeated suggestion to create a separate article, I think that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the murder is better (briefly) covered here rather than in a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Those are your opinions". Indeed. And everyone of those opinions disagrees with your one opinion on the subject. Which tells me, it's time to remove the irrelevant content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We're discussing. Don't edit war. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You're denying the reality. How many editors are disagreeing with your desire to keep the irrelevant content in? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No one has even attempted to make a policy-based argument for the removal. Please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE if you think this is determined by simple majority, and WP:EW if you think your repeated reversions during discussion are acceptable. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this? I think that addresses the sectioning issue by creating an "Aftermath" section, and the WP:WEIGHT issue by paring down the coverage to the portion linked to the slide in the sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, VQuakr is right. We need to come to a consensus before changes are made to the article. That includes getting more editors' opinions. Maybe we need to go for WP:RFC or WP:DRN? — Gorthian (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been appropriately labeled as off-topic, meaning it is irrelevant to the subject of the article. Several editors immediately stated the content does not belong. How much more clear can it be? An RfC? Typically I think they are appropriate. In this case I don't. WP:SNOW comes to mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Three editors have expressed the opinion that the section be removed; none have expressed so in the context of any policy or guideline. Feel free to be the first. Personally I think the edit linked above adequately addressed the due coverage issue, but I'd like to hear what @J. Johnson: and @Gorthian: think. Also, not everyone with this article watchlisted is on WP every day and this discussion is only a few hours old. Why not wait a week or so before jumping to any form of dispute resolution? VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The solution here is not a foregone conclusion, so SNOW doesn't apply. Once there is an objection to an action, the next step is discussion.

VQuakr, WP:WEIGHT doesn't work. For instance, the article you cited above mentioned the landslide in one sentence at the very end of the article. The article is approximately 0.1% landslide and 99.9% homicide case. The same goes for a spot check of other sources. WP:TOPIC says, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information." I'm not sure the murder should be mentioned at all. — Gorthian (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to wait a while to allow others to chime in with ideas. No rush. — Gorthian (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

From this one: "After the mudslide, deputies took a report that Reed had threatened FEMA workers at the Oso Fire Hall “in regard to his displeasure about the landslide and associated response.”" and "Cheek stated Reed was expressing extreme anger about the slide and named a list of people whom Reed blamed..." and "...Reed, whom investigators describe in records as a disgruntled landowner angered by the response to the deadly landslide near Oso that left 43 people dead in 2014." VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many articles you pull up that mention the slide in relation to the disagreement and the murders. The Oso mudslide article is about the mudslide, the lives and homes lost from it, and how it all directly affected the families of the deceased and the surrounding towns. It's not about people having arguments about land that was affected by the slide. That kind of thing is not encyclopedic, does nothing to further the reader's understanding of the article subject, and is simply off-topic, irrelevant trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

VQuaker: you said (at the top) that the slide and the double-murder are "pretty directly related" (emphasis added). But it is not the relation I question (all things are related, if you look far enough), I question the relevance. And while this does not arise to the level of policy (it is, after all, one of those pretty basic, common-sense expectations) we do have guidance at WP:Relevance. Pariticularly (from the nutshell): "Stay on topic, and within scope}}". That first link goes to WP:OFFTOPIC, which says (as Gorthian has already noted): "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. ...". And the scope of this article is the 2014 Oso mudslide. Not any murders.

The article mentions how many died in the slide because they died as a direct consequence of the slide. The slide did not cause the murders. It was, at most, an indirect factor, the connection (or relation) being several steps removed. Neither the actuality of the murders, nor any detail about them, tells us any thing about the topic here, which is the slide. So there is your "policy-based argument for the removal." As to your statement that "what our policy actually says is to reflect the sources in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint", that would apply to to different viewpoints about, say, why the slide happened. That there was a double-homicide is not a viewpoint (let alone a disputed viewpoint), it simply is not relevant. It is off-topic.

The rest of us think this issue is pretty clear. Please note that consensus does not mean unanimity. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A week having passed, it appears there is no longer any objection to the view that the text questioned is off-topic. Therefore I am proceeding to remove that text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Still the same objection, and certainly no consensus to remove the paragraph. The contentious and bitter nature of the compulsory purchases following the slide are a key characteristic of the aftermath. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it looks as if we do need a RFC. I can post that, but I want to make sure we agree on a category and statement wording. The category probably should be "Maths, science, and technology", yes? We can have more than one category, but I'm not sure what other one(s) would work. For the statement wording, how about, "Should the article contain material about the property dispute and murder following the landslide? — Gorthian (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest including the "history and geography" category. I also suggest linking the disputed diff. I think the query text you propose is reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Mention also that only a single editor opposes the exclusion of the disputed text, who proceed to re-insert the text without any further disucssion. (Which I just reverted, per WP:BRD.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay. One would imagine the editor who originally added the content also would support its inclusion. The entire point of a RfC is to get additional visibility for discussion, not to determine consensus level for discussion that's already existing. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ETA - are you really claiming "without further discussion" in direct reply to my post discussing the topic!? VQuakr (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The last substantive discussion was my comments on 10 Sep. (above). There has been no further discussion until your "Still the same objection" comment of just yesterday, which hardly advanced any discussion of the issue. You had over two weeks to reply to my comments, and did not.

Your edit-warring notice on my talk page is pretty condescending. Do I need to explain to you it runs the other way as well? Even more to the point, do you need an explanation that consensus does not require unanimity? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Don't edit war over well-cited content. Leave it in and give the article time. It isn't causing immediate damage, so you have no reason to provoke drama. It's totally fine to add a maintenance tag, but that's enough. For now.

I guess this is never going to stop happening. That's the reason why we have so many policies that speak directly to the habit of some editors to immediately delete well-cited content instead of trying to fix the problem or allow the article to grow into a better version. The specific policy that directly connects to this is WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM aka WP:PRESERVE. It's fine to tag the content, and to discuss it, for future revision or cleanup. But there is no compelling reason to remove well-cited facts while an article is at an early stage. Once it is at the late, polishing stage, nearing some kind of perfection, then a second look at what might not belong is worth while. When you immediately stomp on additions, it excludes editors from participation, and slows and even halts the process of building an encyclopedia. Exactly what WP:Editing policy is prohibiting.

The only good excuse is WP:BLP issues, and in this case we are't saying anything opinionated, controversial, or tangential about any living people. The most important fact about John Blaine Reed, whom we don't mention by name, is that he has plead guilty to murder. We aren't blowing that incident out of proportion with regard to his reputation. That's his whole reputation.

What does a polished article look like? It looks like a WP:Featured Article. Some examples:

• 7 World Trade Center mentions the Boesky insider-trading scandal, even though it isn't really directly connected with the building. By this strict standard of what's "off topic", we'd have only said a tenant backed out, and not mentioned why.
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic tells us the fates of passengers after the disaster, such as the death of Colonel Archibald Gracie attributed to the ordeal, or the 'cultural impact' section which is deceptively short -- the quantity is so large that it has been offloaded to RMS Titanic in popular culture. This kind of information is not unencyclopedic, it's just that it doesn't fit on an article already 12,000 words long.

Details like this are not so awful that they must be aggressively expunged on sight, and even our most polished and refined articles typically keep some of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)