Jump to content

Talk:2014 Oso landslide/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Topic ban User:Forestrystudent?

As Forestrystudent's continuing edits show an intent to mention at every possible place that logging did not cause the slide, even where causation is not being examined, and her comments above (here and here at #Slope Stability and effects of logging, here at #Evolution of Forest Practices, and here at #Logging) evince a strong belief that everything on "the wiki" that does not absolve logging is advocacy, and as she seems not amenable to suggestions from several editors: is it time to consider a topic ban? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that takes Arbcom action and is likely a bit premature. You can't ban someone who has only been blocked once for disruption. Give it a little more time and feel free to check out other avenues for dispute resolution. That goes for FS as well. She said on her talk page she was willing to be mentored. Valfontis (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No. Too harsh, too soon, not enough evidence FS is here to disrupt, and why not give FS time to grow past this with a mentor? Topic bans are preventative, but I think this early in FS's editing "career" such an action would put a giant scarlet "TB" on his/her chest, and that would taint what he/she edits from now on from the perspective of others. Not to mention it seems like WP:BITE to me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose -- I'm a little baffled by your recent reversions. This one, for instance: a single sentence that says, "Scientists are investigating the multiple causes of the current mudslide," with appropriate cite. How is that non-NPOV? It's not in an appropriate section, maybe, but as the article stands, there is no appropriate section. (Yet. Working on that, someday soon, any minute now, mumble mumble...) - Gorthian (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"Oppose"?? I was asking only if it was time to consider an action, not propose the action itself. If it's too soon to consider that, fine.
That edit was inappropriate for the section. It also seemed (to me at least) to be part of a pattern of other edits suggesting that logging is not a cause, scientists don't know that logging is a cause, scientists don't know the cause. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm still new (or feel new), and thought oppose was sort of general-purpose. And no, scientists don't know all the causes. It will most likely be a complex interrelationship of many factors. - Gorthian (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Green Mountain Act

This paragraph seems to go into too much procedural detail about the act (which is covered in the Act's own wiki article). The relevant point here is that it's a form of Federal Economic stimulus to the area. Also the Green Mountain Act page cut and pasted the Oso Mudslide overview copy into it's background section. Any objections in cleaning these two articles up? Lattetown (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned at all in this article; if so, I suggest a link under "See Also.". And/or maybe a sentence in the "Federal Reactions" section. - Gorthian (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think trimming it to a short sentence with a link is a good suggestion--not sure it even belongs under the "see also" section if it's linked in a sentence. Lattetown (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Winkelvi why did you undo edit "Political Support" with "definitely no" comment when both Federal and State officials are mentioned? Your undo comment doesn't explain your reasoning. Please clarify. Lattetown (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Because it wasn't "political support" and stating such is simply not factual. Not to mention POV. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, how would you re-word it to show Government assistance was more than Federal--because Federal is also POV. Lattetown (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Federal isn't POV, it's factual. FEMA is POV? Perhaps you need to read up on what POV is and isn't. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: It's true that the financial aid provided by FEMA (and indirectly through the Green Mountain Act) is Federal Aid. However it is also factual that there is cooperation between State and Federal officials to get aid to the Darrington community as quickly as possible. Lattetown (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lattetown: I suspect that the word "political," with all its connotations of elections and parties and debates, may have been the objectional word. - Gorthian (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Gorthian: That's a good point. As I mentioned above, it seems like this section touches on several forms of coopertive official support (namely Federal financial aid) however it could be expanded to include official support from other agencies (e.g. neighboring county emergency services, etc). Any thoughts on capturing all that aid under a section title?
Nothing in the section said anything about aid coming from anywhere other than Federal sources. A gubernatorial request is not aid. "Federal aid" is accurate and appropriate. "Political" just isn't correct and was POV. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for "References" section?

There is a massive problem of corrupted references. I was trying to fix some of this, but having multiple full citations to a source makes matters very tedious to correct. It would be much easier to collect the full citations in a separate "References" section, and to use short citations (e.g., "Miller, 1999") in the text. Any objections if I move them out? Alternately, would anyone else like to fix all that red ink? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I worked my way through the citations in the last section ONLY. I tried to bring in some consistency (though I'm afraid I've been all over the map when it comes to date formats), and I exploded the bundleclusters into individual refs. I'm too zonked to go any further tonight, but I can see where using one or two bundles could be useful. Or maybe the references should be pared down a bit? Anyway, carry on and cheerio! It's way past time for me to hit the hay. - Gorthian (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a way of referencing where all the reference 'code' is actually in the references section and only the cites are among the article text. Found it wp:list-defined references. I don't know if there are any utility programmes to do it for you, or if you have to manually extract the refs. The 'bundles' would actually make moving them easier! - 220 of Borg 13:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Gorthian for doing the heavy lifting fixing the red ink.
The big advantage of list-defined references is being able to pull the citation templates out of the text. But they suffer from all the disadvantages of named-refs ("ref name="), and do not permit sorting the references.
Independently of having a separate "References" section (and putting the reflist into "Notes") is the use of named-refs and short cites; should we discuss that? (Swiliv has touched on this at my talk page.) These are not incompatible (i.e., it's not "versus"), nor even "different ways of doing the same thing", as one is a means of "re-using" a note, the other of a full reference (the citation template).
I believe the main complaint regarding short-cites (aside from their implementation using {{harv}} templates, which seems to scare off many editors) is that many readers will confused by something like "Miller, 1999", or will balk at having to click a second time in order to see the full citation.
On the other hand are many benefits. E.g.: being able to sort (alphabetically or chronologically) the full references, being able bundle multiple citations in a single footnote without having to replicate the citations, or having a string of footnote links, being able to cite to a specific page without having to replicate the citations, etc. Any questions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the appreciation. :-)
My first impulse: I like the simple number I can hover over briefly while I'm reading, without having to interrupt the flow. I'm used to it, and it doesn't get in the way while skimming an article. However, that type of inline citations makes editing a much more grueling task: "now where does that sentence continue, exactly?"
I'm just beginning to pick my way through the myriad citation styles/templates/tools Wikipedia provides. Tonight I spent some time looking at {{harv}} and {{sfn}}, trying to understand how they work. Are these what you've been talking about? On first impression, I do like the order they lend an article. (I'm talking about short citations listed in "notes" or whatever; each linked to a full reference that is listed separately (in whatever order is wished).) But I do have one objection: in the examples and articles I tried out, clicking on the inline citation could get me to the full reference, but there was no way to click back to my place in the article. Is there a way to set it up so that this is feasible? - Gorthian (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I find that the left-arrow on the browser suffices. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My lack of sleep has fogged my brain, or else I was thinking of different example pages. The back button works admirably; thanks. - Gorthian (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
We will make allowance that you had too much face time on all those broken citations. That was almost as bad as having to trek across the slide area itself. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Never that. :-( - Gorthian (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So back to the main question: is everyone okay with the current "References" section becoming "Notes", then collecting all of the full citations (the templates with full bibliographic details) into "References"?

A secondary question is how to implement the connection from the text to the reference. This could be done using the named refs (see list-defined references), which kind of preserves the existing look-and-feel, but does get messy, and precludes sorting the references. Alternately, all in-line citations could be short-cites, implemented using {{Harv}} templates.

As one of the reasons for collecting all the references together is to facilitate comparing and fixing them, I would start by collecting the master named-refs as LDR. This is messy, but could then be migrated to using short-cites through out. Everyone okay with that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes : I would much prefer the numbers in the text, though, over the "parenthetical" layout, which doesn't seem appropriate for what is basically an ongoing news story. - Gorthian (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  I agree. But I would like to clarify some confusion of name that tends to arise regarding "Harv". Parenthetical referencing, also called Harvard referencing for where it was developed, is a citation style in which the "short citations" (such as "Smith 2010") are enclosed in parentheses and embedded in the text; this is instead of being placed in footnotes (or endnotes). However, the use of a {{Harv}} template, despite the similiarity of name, goes only to creating the short cite (and a link to the full citation); it can be used "parenthetically" in the text, but it can also be used in the notes (between <ref>...</ref>). While I sometimes use a short cite in the text (perhaps with parentheses, or perhaps not) where it seems important to identify the source, usually I put all the supporting material (including citations) in the notes.
  Note that the essence of named-refs is to make a given note appear at multiple locations, while the use short-cites (whether "parenthetical" or note, whether in the text or a note, is to provide multiple links to a given full citation.
  One of the advantages of using short-cites (implemented with Harv) is that it is feasible to "bundle" a bunch of them, and also notes, in a single footnote. We don't strings of superscripted, bracketed numbers ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I think things are calming down now, but because this article was about a local disaster many contributors created Citation overkill when they added information quickly and it led to hard-to-read copy. It looks like this group has been great at merging and reducing needless repetition from the overkill guidelines. Lattetown (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start pulling stuff together. May look messy at first. But not today, I've once again run out of time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Still working on it. Decided it would be easier and faster to write some software to do some of the organizing, so many of the references being pathetically incomplete. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First part is done, consisting of moving {{reflist}} to a new "Notes" section, and loading "References" with filled out, corrected, and sorted references. Please note the following:

  • Newspapers (and other news sources) are sorted by newspaper and date, with multiple articles sublisted under the name of the paper. (I am sure that many of you have seen this kind of arrangement, as it is quite common outside of WP, but I doubt if anyone here has done it before. Relax! It will be okay.)
  • Yes, it currently duplicates (largely) what is now collected by 'reflist' (now in "Notes"). I haven't started cutting those over yet. Be patient.
  • Some of the latest additions/deletions are not included. I'll get to those later.
  • Some of citations were so incomplete that I didn't try to chase them down. I'm rather hoping that some of them have disappeared from the text.
  • Yes, not perfect, there's bits of cruft yet to be fixed.

Hopefully no one has their panties so knotted up they feel they have blow all this off. In a couple of days I'll start replacing the stuff in the text, and you all can see how that works. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing where you're going with this, and you're right--it's a mess while you're getting there! ;-) But it'll come out much better when you're done. I had a couple of questions:
  1. Is there any template you know of that will put the date of publication first, after the newspaper name? Especially for a source like The Seattle Times, where there are dozens of entries. Because the authors are listed first, the list looks fairly chaotic, until you kind of squint and pick out the dates.
  2. I'm itching to take out the duplicates and outdated cites. Is it possible to go ahead with that task, or should I wait till you've finished the whole transformation?
  3. Did the software approach help, and what did you use? (Maybe that would be better answered on one of our talk pages, since it's not directly concerning the article.)
However you are doing it, kudos for wading in! - Gorthian (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind support.
1) Unfortunately, no. Perhaps something could be modified to have that as an option, but as this usage is rarely done (yet?) on WP it could hardly be justified. It could be done manually, but that would be such a thicket I'd rather settle for as much as we've got. Hmm, perhaps the dates could be bolded??
2) Sure. In Edit you can see the comments with the filled-out Harv templates to be used where the default "last1|last2|year" arguments don't suffice. I'm about to do "History" so folks can see how it works.
3) I used scripts of my own making. Which are not complete (substantial manual editing still required), but without which this would have been more tedious than I could have withstood. Anyone interested in the details should ask on my Talk page.
There are still some junk citations in there. I point out to everyone that mere urls are quite inadequate; at a minimum you also need to cite who wrote something (if available, which is more often the case than not) and when. And for anyone adding material: go ahead and add a filled out template in the text as usual, and I will make the necessary adjustments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Forgot to mention that where a newspaper has more than one article on a given day, a letter suffix is added to the year. Be sure that you use the right suffix! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been rethinking a bit of this. I setup the newspaper-style Harv links using two parameters (e.g.: {Harv|Seattle Times, March 24,|2014}), with the year separate. This is the way I've done it before, and it seemed adequate. But it can get a little tricky setting up the corresponding CITEREF on account of how Harv handles spaces. I am now thinking that a single argument (e.g.: {Harv|Seattle Times, March 24, 2014}, lacking the vertical bar) works fine, and would be clearer. Any objections if I sweep through all the citations and make that change? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Outsider review

I had an uninvolved historian of my acquaintance review this article without looking at the history or talk page. Here are his impressions:

1) too much detail, and much of it because of recency is speculative and not authoritative yet (even if it comes from reliable sources - but the truth of the matter is there's still a lot that's not know for sure about the slide).
2) Maybe some of that history detail should be dumped off into a Hazel Slide article of its own that talks about the larger geography, topography, geology and time scale of the whole 20th century or whatever interval is right.

I think he's right, FWIW. Valfontis (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking that a separate article would be the way to go, but I was hesitant to propose it; I wasn't sure there was enough material yet. That would help focus this article on this particular slide and its effects. - Gorthian (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that he's right. The article became a mess and mish-mash of tangent-like content. It's better now that some has been removed, but still needs work. Like the rest of Wikipedia, I guess. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. there is no importance to the other landslides except as a background to this event so here is the only place that should mention them. Rmhermen (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I would say notability rather than importance. But yes, the importance/notability of the "Hazel Slide" site is as the location of this event. As to "too much detail": huh? It all depends on how much we want to get into the background, or how long (or short) the article is, and such. "Too much" has to be considered in terms of: by what criteria? [Oops. Seems I forget to sign this. -JJ]
I'm not opposed to moving the history of the larger Hazel Slide area to another article as long as there is a short mention how it relates to the Oso slide with an inline link to it. Lattetown (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm coming around to opposing a separate article. The "history of the larger Hazel Slide" is mostly undocumented. Its sole point of notability as a separate article would be its connection to this event. Including the history (and geology) of the slide area into this article is warranted as suitable background. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, didn't look at the article for a few days, and just re-read it with fresh eyes. I agree it doesn't makes sense to write a seperate Hazel Slide article at this point--everyone knows the name "Oso Mudslide" since it appeared on the English homepage and current events page, and most people don't know the term "Hazel Slide" outside of the context of this article. It's concise and full of the kind of information I'm used to getting from Wikipedia (with links to do further research). The overview maybe a little overly superlative--it sounds a bit odd to say it's the deadliest landslide with caveats that exclude the 57 deaths from Mt. St. Helens. Lattetown (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the exclusions are matter of landslides that are incidental to or triggered by other events (e.g., a violent eruption), and those that failed of their own internal causes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed section: Slope stability and effects of logging

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I removed the section on scientific speculation, hypothesis, and other cruft that was some of the worst example of WP:UNDUE I've ever seen in an article. There was nothing encyclopedic in it for an article on a natural disaster that claimed lives. It read more like an editorial piece in a science journal. Wikipedia isn't a science journal. I know I'm going to take flack for doing it, and that's fine, but if it generates discussion on rebuilding a section more appropriate or to add into the geology section, more the better. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: This seems like a Disruptive Edit. Certainly a scientific explanation regarding why a natural disaster occurred doesn't seem out of place. If you were concerned with the length, then why didn't you move the content to a new article about the Hazel Slide zone and then link to it? Lattetown (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Scientific but very poorly written, organized, and definitely undue weight. WP:SOAPBOX likely applies as well. As far as your comment about my "concern" in regard to the length, don't try to distract and make this about me. It was a section laden with issues and needed to be purged. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi:I was glad to see this removed; we do need a section about the causes, but this was poorly organized and fairly distracting. Having a section on "Causes" would give us a chance to reorganize some of this former section (perhaps) as well as incorporate some new material. There's no shortage of reliable sources quoting experts of all kinds out there. - Gorthian (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It was very distracting and gave undue weight to the section over the article topic. You could probably even label it WP:SOAPBOX. Some of the section could be restored, but not much of it. "Causes" seems concise and would be a much better solution. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
"[S]ome of the worst example of WP:UNDUE I've ever seen" (really??) seems rather overstated. As to "laden with issues" (and other points): it would be useful to identify them. I ask because while I also found that section rather unsatisfactory, I wonder if any attempt to re-write that section will founder on some deeper issues. It would save time and effort to know what the issues are out in front, rather than having play "twenty questions". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I already stated what issues in more than one post located in this section. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Perhaps you can reiterate the issues here, since this is where the discussion is happening. For example, what is the issue with the opening cited paragraph? (see below) Lattetown (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Numerous parties...(i.e. The Seattle Times, KUOW, etc)...have raised the question as to whether logging was a contributing factor to the 2014 Oso (aka Hazel) mudslide.
In the past, logging on the Whitman Bench above the Hazel Landslide has been correlated with previous slide events,
  • cite journal | pages = 19–09420 | last = Benda | first = L. | coauthors = G. Thorsen, S. Bemath | title = Report of the ID Team Investigation of the Hazel Landslide on the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River | journal = Unpublished. DNR NW Region, FPA | year = 1988
and this has led to concerns that recent logging may have been a contributing factor to this slide. Further, logging activities have long been known to trigger landslides;
  • cite book | publisher = American Geophysical Union | isbn = 0875903223 | volume = 18 | last = Sidle | first = Roy C. | author2=Hirotaka Ochiai | title = Landslides: processes, prediction, and land use | year = 2006

Wikipedia isn't about raising questions regarding incidents, it's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a news blog or a radio news program, it's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias give established facts, not conjecture. Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal. We don't synthesize hypotheses and theories and newspaper articles together and come up with a conclusion in Wikipedia, we write content that contains factual information that is verifiable via reputable and unbiased sources. If it becomes an established fact and verifiable conclusion logging contributed to the slide, that can be included in the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Actually what the Neutral POV says is to describe disputes, but not engage in them...[by indicating] the relative prominence of opposing views. The act of not describing this dispute (i.e. logging's possible influence on the event) has the effect of editorializing a point of view. I suggest this opening paragraph should be added to the "Controversy - Logging" section and add a cited counter side to the dispute using Jimmy's rules below Lattetown (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
"Jimmy's rules"? Thanks for my morning laugh. Please see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Then look into Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Good articles, thanks. So it appears we need consensus from the other editors on whether this paragraph should be deleted, edited, or restored. Lattetown (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy's rule in this case is posted on the NPOV policy page...one of the only times I can think of where his specific wording regarding what is now a policy is posted within a policy. Policy is not negotiable unless you wish to go to the policy page and get it changed. Guidelines are negotiable, but policy isn't. I don't see any reason why the details of logging cannot be mentioned since they aren't fringe in any way.--MONGO 13:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
MONGO talking about policy not being negotiable is most certainly humorous (what with NPA being policy, and all that). In fact, any credibility found within what editors say and quote is so easily dismissed in light of such humorous hypocrisy. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I get it...your erroneous perception that I have personally attacked you means you have some twisted right to therefore violate a policy that is content related. The hypocrisy is that after you've edit warred here and argued with virtually every editor on this page that you might feign insult and play some passive aggressive bullshit game about who is guilty of personal attacks...how preposterous. NPOV isn't negotiable because it is about CONTENT, not about your ongoing erroneous assumptions about how your person or inabilities have once again been slighted. Now your turn to schreech personal attack or yell that you've been bitten.--MONGO 03:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And you're not only back to more PA, but you're denying you ever did it along with edit warring. More than once. After you said you would stop. Ah, well. You're predictable, if nothing else. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I surely wouldn't consider it edit warring if we are forced to fix your numerous mistakes. As far as your assessment about what Wikipedia should mention regarding logging issues, I think you are once again dead wrong both as far as your interpretation of the evidence and as to whether such evidence is anywhere approximating fringe.--MONGO 11:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain you want to talk about "mistakes", M? Seems to me your "mistakes" in Wikipedia are not just legion, they're legendary:[1]. 31 opposes and only 4 supports testify to such. Not to mention 8 edit warring/civility blocks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh how quaint! You once again are unable to defend your inaccuracies so you resort to insults, yet you argue incessantly that everyone else is insulting you! What a joke...your wiki resume is unsubstantive and you schreech about blocks from 6 years ago because that is the only card you have left to play. How pathetic....that you probably overlooked that all those blocks aside from one was overturned almost immediately and the last one earned the blocking admin a desysopping. Now can you finally explain why you wish to violate a content related policy for your unilateral removal of content or is all you have left is to make vain attempts to belittle? I'll give you a day to make one substantive argument before I restore the section and clean it up.--MONGO 22:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
To begin with, I didn't do any of the things you are accusing me of. What I see you doing now is waving a red herring and nothing more. As far as the ultimatum: I don't do ultimatums, especially when I have done nothing inappropriate where an ultimatum might be the right thing to issue. Ultimatums over content are counterproductive and certainly demonstrate uncivil behavior. There has been more than one editor on this talk page who has said they didn't like the section and felt it was out of place at this article. It seems to me you're not interested in discussion about the section, rather, you're more interested in retaliation and pissing me off. Which goes along with some of the reasons why your RfA failed so miserably. And you've been blocked numerous times. But I'm not going to bite, even though that's what you'd like me to do. I will tell you this, however: if you restore the section without discussing it first, you will be not working toward building an encyclopedia article. What would be the point, really?
Discussion is much more civil and productive. Let's try that instead, eh?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2014 April 17‎

Order of sections

Rereading this article, I think it's time to consolidate and rearrange the info into a more coherent narrative. As is the nature of such a developing story, it strikes me that all the forestry and landslide and history and background info had become a bit of a mishmash, and as I mentioned above, the human element has become lost in the shuffle. I'm not sure how to proceed and untangle it all, but right now the article reads like a random collection of information about the slide instead of an encyclopedia article. Anyone up for tackling this? Valfontis (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for days, as well as clean up the rest of the cites, but I've been slammed IRL and haven't managed it yet. If it's possible, I'll work on it tonight. - Gorthian (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking forward to it, thanks. Valfontis (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not too bad. Good to have the "current events" stuff at the top, and I would suggest moving "Federal disaster declaration" up. I think the main thing is that "Controversy" needs to follow all of the background stuff, as they provide the basis for an informed consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Aaah, couldn't get even get to the computer. I'll do what I can, when I can, sorry. - Gorthian (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I flipped a couple of sections around. Better? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
What I had in mind was more detailed revision than just switching sections around. I'm (SLOWLY) working offline on changes towards what Valfontis called "a coherent narrative." My life is way full of other stuff right now, so I'll just be adding bits as I go. - Gorthian (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed article organization

Outlining a structure for this article was not easy. I've looked through dozens of articles on landslides and other natural disasters, trying to find some common elements around which they are organized. What became obvious is that each disaster is distinct from all others, and has its own character. I tried to find FAs to use as guidance, but found only one, 1997 Qayen earthquake, with a structure even slightly suitable to this article.

As will be obvious by the outline I worked up, I tend to emphasize the long view. Right now, things are changing daily around this event, so it's hard to imagine all that will be notable in a month, in five years, or in a generation. But we can flesh out the skeleton as we go. And also obvious: the latter sections won't even exist for some time.


  • Lead/Intro (needs to tell what happened so that anyone who reads only this part gets the whole story)
  • Background
    • Setting (geography, community, human history)
    • Geology (area and site)
  • Event (what happened, when, witnesses)
  • Casualties and damage
    • People
    • Property
  • Relief efforts
    • Organizations involved
    • Search and recovery
  • Aftermath
    • Controversies
    • Restoration
  • Legacy
    • Policy
    • Regulatory
    • Environmental
  • See also
  • Notes
  • References


I will only be able to edit in incremental bits for the next few days (if that!), so don't be surprised if I don't respond to any comments for a while. That said, have at it! (but gently, if you please.) - Gorthian (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" (2)

I question this edit on multiple grounds, but particularly in changing the subsection title from "Claim that slide was unforeseen" to "Conflicting assessments" (subsequently revised to "Conflicting assessments and previous problems").

The controversy here is not that there were "conflicting assessments" (depending on how one defines that, it is not definite that there were any, and at any rate that would not necessarily be controversial), nor that that there were previous problems. The controversy here is Pennington's statement that the slide was "completely unforseen". That there were previous problems, and assessments and reports documenting that, provide the basis on which that statement is controverted. But it is neither the problems nor the assessments themselves (and there are plenty of those in other places), it is the claim that nonetheless this was "unforseen". I think the previous title should be restored. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The section most certainly should be about the conflicting assessments of the slide and its cause. That makes it balanced and NPOV. It should most certainly not be about Pennington and his statement alone. That makes it an indictment of Pennington and POV. Wikipedia isn't a news source and it isn't a blog, it's an encyclopedia that gives balanced facts allowing readers to make their own conclusions about a subject. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to lead readers to any conclusions, just supply facts. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you even understand what I said? It is a demonstrated fact that a controversy exists, which, at a first approximation, is entirely about Pennington and his two word statement. It is not POV to neutrally state that the controversy exists, or even what the controversy is about, or is it an indictment. However, mis-characterizing the controversy as a mere "conflicting assessment" is factually inaccurate. (Where is the conflicting assessment that denies the known history or potential?) Whatever might be said in mitigation of Pennington's statement (and I haven't heard that he has commented on this), the controversy is about two words, and it is a mis-service to our readers make them into something they are not for fear of giving offense. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary rudeness noted.
The way it was presented before the change was POV. Now it's not.
When Pennington made the statement, conflicting assessments became the controversy. Wikipedia isn't meant to make judgements on who is guilty, who is controversial. We just present the facts as they are made known. This is all subject to change pending more information. Pennington is currently on paid administrative leave, but not because of what he said at the news conference. This story is still developing and there will be more to put into the controversy section as things come to light. At this time, the conflicting assessments are one part of the controversy. The logging in the area by Grandy Lake Logging is another. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
From your remarks it appears you do not understand what I said. Please attend.
The controversy did not arise because any official or newspaper trumpeted "Conflicting assessments!", with consequent wide-spread shock and dismay. Hell, that could about the logging question, or the estimated damage. No, the controversy arises from the county's official responsible for disaster management stating they had not forseen this. It is not about any conflicting assessments because there aren't any; use of that term here is factually inaccurate. The controversy derives entirely from what was revealed by this official's two-word remark, including an apparent obliviousness of the well-known history of sliding at that site. That is the essence of the controversy, and it is not a biased POV to so state. It is non-NPOV to substitute a factually inaccurate term that serves only to ameliorate evident culpability.
I will be changing that header to reflect the term that is the essence of that controversy, and that best identifies that controversy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
More unnecessary rudeness noted. Why are you behaving like such a dick to those who disagree with you, J? First you nose into something you know nothing about between myself and another editor and chastise me unnecessarily, then you repeatedly bite FS and inappropriately suggest to have her topic banned, now you're back to hurling insults for no reason other than we don't see eye-to-eye on content. How about just trying to get along with others, dropping the stick, and losing the holier-than-thou battleground mentality while working cooperatively with all those who want to see the article not stink? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The "nosing into" being your very public and excessively dramatic spat with Mongo, right? And speaking of article content, well, funny coincidence, I was just working on "Controversy" and I saw that a number of citations were screwed up. Like, simply eliminated, or switched around to the wrong text. And apparently due to your editing. Please, do try to pay closer attention to what you are doing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Restoring deleted comment. - Gorthian (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you. -JJ

Comment deletion must have happened during an edit conflict. It appears from the history that I did it, but it was accidental, definitely not intentional. I don't delete comments unless it's vandalism. Next time, please ask before assuming the worst. Your edit summary on this is wrong, not AGF, and now part of the permanent record. You could have chosen a different avenue, but didn't. Unfortunate. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that you did delete someone else's comment, in violation of WP:TPO. Now, THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A BIG DEAL. Provided, of course, that it was not intentional. The usual course in such a case is to disavow any intent by apologizing, and generally making nice. And if the explanation seems reasonable, the harm small, and person's reputation good (like, isn't known to engage in bad behavior), it is usual to accept the apology and move on. Instead, you attack Gorthian for a completely innocuous edit summary ("Please do not delete talk page comments"). The imputation that you did delete talk page comment is factual, and this most polite reminder not to do so is implicitly WP:AGF. You are quite out of line. And unlike your deletion, your comments to Gorthian cannot be excused as accidental, and warrant an apology. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC) [belated sig]
The only one out of line here is you with your nanny-like behavior, scolding those who aren't even talking to you. Gorthian and I settled this yesterday between the two of us on my talk page. Take your unneeded and unwanted chastisement and save it for when it's appropriate. Which would be pretty much never. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
How you taking your unneeded and unwanted dramatics somewhere else? If you want to have a private spat with someone, please do it privately. Not on an article's talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
How about you never should have nosed into this in the first place and made unwarranted accusations and scolding on an article talk page for something that wasn't about you? Everything was settled between Gorthian and myself, on my own talk page, before you brought unneeded and unwanted dramatics here to the article talk page. Pretty funny you are again scolding, but scolding for something only you did. Project much? Take your bullshit elsewhere. Like maybe your own talk page? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Logging

Since I am new, and have been directed to request of the group that someone help me to add citations to their proper place, I believe this link needs to be added, it is from Aaron Everett's boss, whom is referred to in the Logging section: Top Forestry Official Says Timber Harvest Not to Blame would somebody please find an appropriate place for this quote? thank you, Forestrystudent (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the narrowest sense of your question the proper place for a citation is next to (usually immediately following) the material supported by that source. However, there is a deeper problem here: you appear to be taking a side in a controversy. Indeed, most of your edits seem to be advocacy for a particular point of view (that forestry practices are not responsible). This is not acceptable! We have a policy called "Neutral point of view" (frequently abbrviated as WP:NPOV), which says that articles must not take sides. As has been explained to you before, you may be too close to this topic to write on it without bias, or even conflict of interest ("WP:COI"). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

JJ -- do you not see that what is currently on wiki is advocacy itself? How can you claim that the citations posted here which take sides are neutral? Why do you think I am trying to balance it? How is this citation not advocacy? ^ Knickerbocker, Brad, Washington mudslide: logging eyed as contributing cause, The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 30 March 2014? If you read this article, you would see. This article, from 2008, was a 9 month advocacy campaign to unseat the former lands commissioner: Bernton, Hal; Mayo, Justin, Logging and landslides: What went wrong?, The Seattle Times, retrieved 30 March 2014, it is pure advocacy. The Stranger citation is pure advocacy, ^ Jump up to: a b Kiley, Brendan, Is There a Connection Between the Mudslide and Our State's Historical Mishmash of Logging Regulations?, SLOG, retrieved 30 March 2014 -- by an environmental attorney who continuously sues the state and the timber industry -- if we cannot have the Commissioner's reply to this, entitled, Top Forestry Official Says Clear-Cut Blame is Speculative, then where is the balance? The story was repeated in the Christian Science Monitor. I would feel much better if the wiki editors were removing ALL of the advocacy pieces, but I still see them in there.....So this is why I am attempting to put balance into the site. Truly, reporting what Aaron' Everett said, and then not allowing a statement by his boss in the last citation, does not make any sense. The input I am giving is a mirror to what is on the site. I would not be pushing an alternative point of view if the site itself were not reflecting advocacy. Can you not see that the POV in wiki is currently advocacy based, and designed to conclude logging is the cause? I do have to admit it is getting a bit better, but conveying that logging is the cause, is scientifically and actually inaccurate. If there were neutrality, and not an advocacy in this article I would not attempt to post anything. I must say, I appreciate the intent of the editing, and now that I see more of the policies, am trying my darndest to comply with wiki manners and rules. I appreciate the helpfulness. Thank you.Forestrystudent (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

FS: I don't know how to tell you this in way that you won't immediately reject. So I'll try simple: your repeated insistence that logging is not the cause of the slide, even where no cause is being discussed, and your across-the-board condemnation of every source that suggests otherwise, is not credible. Basically, you protest too much. And that you seem to be unable to see this suggests an incredible blindness. Now I will allow the possibility that you are, indeed, correct, and the rest of us here have totally missed it. But don't forget the saying about "the fight is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift — but that is the way to bet". That your view is "balanced", and the rest of us not, is highly improbable. Given that you apparently do not understand this, I would strongly urge that you not attempt to edit on this topic. A voluntary withdrawal would be best all around. But as this also seems improbable, I have raised the question of whether you should be banned from editing on this topic. I am sorry it has come to this, but your intensity in pushing what you think is truth is becoming disruptive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: - Forestrystudent has been trying to comply with the guidelines as they've been presented. She's obviously got a long way to go (don't we all?), but her original post in this section is a far cry from the reverting and inserting that was going on earlier. Her request deserves respect and consideration. - Gorthian (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with respect and consideration, and just hope that she will consider that her notions of truth and balance are not fully shared. I suspect there are going to be some growing pains here, and am hoping they can be minimized. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Forestrystudent: - I'm afraid you have sources' viewpoints confused with guidelines about neutral point of view. Sources don't need to be neutral; the article we're constructing should be. If there is a controversy or debate going on, we need to describe the debate and the parties involved, using reliable sources, and making sure we are not giving undue weight to marginal factions. If many reliable sources are reporting about advocacy, it is up to us to be sure those views are included, but not in Wikipedia's "voice". That said, I think this article does need better balancing, as well as a complete rewrite, but that will come eventually. - Gorthian (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the acknowledgement of the possibility that I may have a reasonable POV, it will be revealed in the end. Sorry about what appears to be one sided posts, this is simply the opposing view to the advocacy citations listed above. I don't like to behave that way. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who are genuinely investigating the multiple factors right now, including forestry operations, it seems like the site is moving this way. Since the Slope Stability section is removed, I can voluntarily not edit any more, since that was the section with all of the advocacy. I've been at this a long time, and know the sources of the advocacy positions, so I am sorry it appears to be protesting. Glad you didn't ban me because it is pretty harsh to be dropped. All of our relationships are mirrors, so what we put out, we get back...if I ever get into editing heavy again, like on the new forestry site, I'll ask for a mentor! I asked round and round where I work and no one could help, so am glad the site offers this service. The President will be visiting Oso in a few weeks and that is sure to focus more attention on this site. Thanks again for all of your help, patience and encouragement.Forestrystudent (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles are not debates, and claiming that the other position is radical and advocacy is hardly the dispassionate quality needed in an editor. Especially as some of the articles you have objected to are by people whose professional qualifications and legitimacy are unquestioned. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't be so harsh with me. All I can say is it is way too early to determine definitive causes. That has always been my only objection. Thanks.Forestrystudent (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Don't be so harsh and please stop biting FS, JJ. Your prejudice against her has been evident since you wanted to have a topic ban imposed. My suggestion is you back off and try a lot more patience along with cooperative discussion and editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If I may make a respectful suggestion, that the Logging section, be another section in the list, and not under Controversy, since the short paragraph only indicates that logging is being investigated. Since there is not any controversial material in this section, it seems odd to be a sub bullet. Just a thoughts. thanks.Forestrystudent (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is cited controversial material in that section, FS. And at this time, the article continues to develop. Wikipedia is a work in progress, always. There's no deadline here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
FS: I think you are wrong, and there is controversy. But just out of curiosity I'd like to know: are you of the opinion that there is no controversy regarding the effects here of logging? And is that because no one controverts the view that logging did have an effect? Or because no one controverts the view that logging did not have an effect? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
JJ -- The way I thought about this is logging and a multitude of factors are being investigated, and currently the most conclusive evidence is the power of the river, the extraordinary rainfall and the nature of the geology, in addition to the multitude of warnings the county had about the slide prone area and whether they should have allowed anything to be built there. None of these are controversial in my mind, just factors being investigated, in other words, there is no disagreement or controversy over investigating all of the relevant factors....that is all I meant.Forestrystudent (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  FS, please note our convention of successively indenting comments using semi-colons (as I have just prefaced to your prior comment). And: I am still curious as to why you consider some of this non-controversial.
  I point out that "the power of the river" is not "most conclusive". Miller did reckon that erosion of the base of the slide by the river to be one potential cause, just as he also mentioned logging. In the day or two following the slide one or more geologists cited those as possible causes, but without actual investigation. But undercutting now seems less likely, as it appears the river was still in the channel created in 2006, and so was not directly undercutting the bluff. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
aha -- thanks for the convention -- the USGS that are reviewing this and University scientists are talking about the excessive rain, months of higher than normal river flow, 1.5 millions of gallons per minute of water eroding the toe of the slide. check out Montgomery's op ed yesterday for a good description.Forestrystudent (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you really paying attention? As I just said: it appears the river was NOT undercutting (eroding) the base of the slide, as it was still in the 2006 channel. And what you seem to not understand is that the significance of the unusually heavy rainfall (in terms of causation) is NOT in increased stream-flow, but as infiltration into the ground. Which is where logging comes into the question. But enough of that. I am still curious as to why you might think there is no controversy regarding logging. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
JJ -- there is plenty of scientific evidence that surface activity, for example, logging, can affect shallow, rapid moving landslides. The run-out zone is fairly predictable, and the forest practices in the Pacific Northwest are to avoid these areas, so as not to increase the natural background rate (frequency and magnitude) of landslides. Deep-seated landslides are a completely different story. There is little science and relationship between the surface activity and deep-seated landslides. This geological movement is way beyond the activity on the surface, including the recharge. As you may already know, there was no harvesting on the recharge area. The image in the newspaper is not an accurate depiction of what happened on the ground, thus the danger of drawing conclusions from lines superimposed on aerial photos. The trees I think are about 80 years old in the recharge area, with plenty of openings. Enviro transpiration was not happening during the winter months, when the slide happened. I know, I walked the entire site, with the geologists. As the multitude of factors are investigated, forestry operations will look at the science, see what they know and what they can learn about forest practices, use the latest technology and continue with the rule-outcome that has been in place for many years -- that forest practices does not increase the natural background rate of landslides. That is what I know. Controversy is not the point, it is about discovery and investigation. Forestry will do its part, and there are many other public safety issues that the county, state and other entities will be engaging in to ensure that human activity does not increase landslide risk, or building does not put people at risk. That is how things are being done in Washington state. It may be unique, I think the system is pretty good. But, more will be revealed through science, over time.Forestrystudent (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
oops -- deleted my own comment (sigh)Forestrystudent (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Oso_landslide/Archive_3&oldid=1219383793"