Talk:2014 Oso landslide/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed reorganization

For reasons given in detail in WP:CSECTION, we should not have a heading called "controversy", and instead redistribute the contents chronologically. Looking at that, this article's order is quite jumbled. The prehistory is second to last, the history is last, and the order of events in the Controversey and Aftermath sections are anyone's guess. Good examples to follow are Nevado del Ruiz and Sinking of the RMS Titanic.

Can we do something like this:
==Background==
===Geological context==
===History of slide activity===
==March 2014 landslide== (was "Overview" section) some of the bits in the overview section belong under Background. Keep only the descriptions of what happens on March 22, 2014 Almost everything in the current "Casualties and damage" section belongs here
===Rescue and cleanup=== describe the events in the few days after March 22
==Aftermath==
===Logging===
===Federal aid===
==See also==
==Notes==
==References==
==External links==

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I intended to do a reorganization oh, about two and a half years ago: Talk:2014 Oso mudslide/Archive 3#Proposed article organization. Nothing distracting about Wikipedia. — Gorthian (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur in general for better organization. But keep mind that we do have some history as to why the article is in its current order. The original order seems to have arisen from doing the "BOOM" part first, then get into all the the boring details as to why. Presumably the lede can provide enough tease to carry most readers to the exciting part.

I disagree re the "Controversy" section, especially regarding Pennington's statement that the slide was "completely unforeseen". Whether logging contributed is also controversial, and this incident is only the latest of a long-running issue. (If logging is not covered here, then presumably it would be discussed right after the geology as a contributing condition. But that implies it is a contributing condition, which is what some people controvert.)

And I think you have misread WP:CSECTION; it does NOT say 'we should not have a heading called "controversy"'. It says: "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged ...." [Emphasis added.] And: "Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged."

While it also says that '[s]ections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies"' [emphasis added], The two topics here are indeed controversial, involving opposing viewpoints to a degree not seen in any of the other sections. I think it is proper they be identified as such in the headers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Segregating certain types of facts in a controversy section is bad style for the same reason that segregating certain types of facts in an "in popular culture" section or "trivia" section is bad style. You yank particular facts out of context and move them to a special section, making the chronology harder to follow and telling the reader that events proceeded separately from the so-called "controversies". Whether all parties agreed on a statement or not, we should read about the statement at the time in the chronology when it was said. Then if someone disagrees with a statement, we read about it at the point in the chronology when that happened.

Think of the reader's needs first.

It would make sense to end the article with a summary of retrospectives, assessments, reviews, etc written from a historical distance, where an expert has reviewed all the evidence and come to conclusions from that perspective. But even then, that respects chronology and helps the reader. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We are not "Segregating certain types of facts in a controversy section" (such as the "negative criticisms" that WP:CSECTION addresses). The chronology is preserved by mentioning in the proper place that there was logging, with the comment that whether this contributed to the slide is controversial, and "see below". I don't know where the "unforseen" comment would fit into the chronology, as it didn't happen before the slide, and the comment is hardly a consequence of the slide. But as a controversy, that is definitely subsequent.

Identifying controversial topics as controversial is thinking of the reader.

Your "where [when?] an expert has reviewed all the evidence" is a bit naive. As I recall, three different committees have issued reports, with over a dozen experts involved, and there may be new material in the court case. "Historical distance" is probably eight or ten years out, so all we can do is summarize our best understanding of current not yet conclusive views. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See below? That's terrible style. John Pennington said on March 24, 2014 "It was considered very safe. This was a completely unforeseen slide. This came out of nowhere." That's the date. March 24, 2014. That's where it belongs in the article. Reactions to what Penninggon said belong on the dates when they were said. The Seattle Times reacted the same day, others responded on later days. Why does the reader need to jump down to a different part of the article to read about it?

I don't know why the name calling and nit picking about what is and isn't "naive". Have you not noticed that when you address other editors like that, the whole discussion goes downhill from there? Please forgive me for not being aware that you define "historical" as 8 to 10 years. I had no idea. I referred to the post-event reports as having "historical distance" relative to the immediate newspaper articles. And those reports were published chronologically later. That's all. Picky picky picky. Not helpful.

Write it the same way as Sinking of the RMS Titanic. It's a great article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you consider my characterizing your statement as "a bit naive" some kind of name-calling? I don't consider your "[t]hat's terrible style" as name-calling, so why are you being so peevish?

I will insist on being picky to the extent you have misrepresented my statement. In particular: I have not defined "historical", or even "historical distance"; I merely said that, regarding of the causes of the slide, it may take eight to ten years to reach "historical distance". Meaning (roughly) time enough for information to come out and different points of view to be resolved to a point of long-term stability. If you meant that term in a different sense perhaps you should have advised us. It is most certainly not obtained when an expert has "reviewed all the evidence".

If you are going to insist that everything must be presented in strict chronological order of when it happened (or was published) then the article is going to be a mess. E.g., are the geological reports to be mentioned only when they came out, even though that intersperses them with the details of the murder and other "aftermath"? In that case I will oppose your proposed re-organization, as it seems you are going implement a confusing intermingling of different elements. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Does not compute?

The intro says the the mudslide covered an area "of approximately 1 square mile".

The fourth paragraph says the "mudslide covered an area 1,500 ft (460 m) long, 4,400 ft (1,300 m)".

That's less than a quarter of a square mile. . Moriori (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So check the sources to verify the numbers. If sources are inconsistent you may have find other sources to resolve the matter. It may be necessary to determine why the sources have different numbers. This could be due estimates by different sources (and here I refer to the primary sources, such as the USGS that have actually made some attempt to measure the area, not the newspapers that merely repeat the numbers), different concepts of just what is being measured, or an evolution of those numbers as the measurement are refined. Sounds like a nice mini-project. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)