This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Winkelvi, why do you insist on removing the explanation about what Hazel is? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Because it should still be in the article, and just removing without discussion isn't cool IMO. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.--~ T P W 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Should the article contain material about the property dispute and murder following the landslide?— Gorthian ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Winkelvi, why do you insist on removing the explanation about what Hazel is? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Because it should still be in the article, and just removing without discussion isn't cool IMO. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.--~ T P W 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Should the article contain material about the property dispute and murder following the landslide?— Gorthian ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
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: