Jump to content

Talk:Buffalo Creek flood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnthonyAcevedo62682. Peer reviewers: SalvadorA018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NFS26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald M. Stern

[edit]

I remember how in my first year of law school we were asked to read his book, The Buffalo Creek Incident. After finishing it, all the naive 1L students, including myself, were so enamored with Mr. Stern's unselfish acts and struggle for truth, justice, and reparations for the innocent who were wronged by the very naughty corporate conglomerates. Our professor went on to say that once we leave this law school, many of us will lose their innocence, be corrupted, and turn to the dark side -- we should always think of Mr. Stern and rise above him. What?!!! Blasphemy! Mr. Stern seemed like the second coming of Christ to me, a savior of the common man! Then, our professor dropped the bombshell on us. Apparently, Gerald M. Stern became chief corporate counsel for Exxon in the 80s, and that he was the first to downplay Exxon's liability in the Exxon Valdez Spill. A study in contrasts, right? Can anyone confirm this, and if true, add this to the article or make a stub under Gerald M. Stern?

Mr. Stern had nothing to do with Exxon. He was General Counsel of Occidental Petroleum. 34tl33k34 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Trauma at Buffalo Creek

This scholarly journal discusses the Buffalo Creek disaster in more detail. Some of the information that i read states that over 125 people lost their lives that day. There was around 132 million gallons of sludge made of water and coal waste that flooded Buffalo Creek. This sludge raced through Buffalo Creek at speeds up to thirty miles per hour causing massive devastation to the sixteen near by towns leaving around four thousand people homeless. (Antshep (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Erikson, K. T. (1998). Trauma at buffalo creek. Society, 35(2), 153-161. http://search.proquest.com/docview/206714941?accountid=10353

Use in Law Schools

[edit]

We read this book in our first year law school class as well. Apparently there is a nationwide Civil Procedure curriculum that involves learning the rules of civil procedure using the Buffalo Creek Disaster as a sample case. An example of this can be found at the Computer Assistant Law Instructor at www.cali.org

76.171.7.133 03:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¿Declared Safe?

[edit]

According to the admittedly biased book, the feds themselves were stating the dam was sub-standard,as was the state; ¿How then does the dam fail "four days" after the federal inspection? (I may be confused here, but I really don't think so.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.7.35 (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A facility or structure can be deemed 'substandard' but still be deemed 'acceptable'. Acceptible just means it meets minimum qualification for use. Substandard means it's not up to the usual construction standards. But obviously, the facility should not have even been judged 'acceptable'.--71.38.172.171 (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Creek Flood → Buffalo Creek flood – Case norm per MOS:CAPS; not usually capitalized in sources – Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Philg88 ♦talk 06:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. As can be seen in book search, capitalization of Flood is pretty much limited to uses in titles, headings, and citations, while uses in text are lowercase. See for example this book that has both. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GregKaye 10:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This is more often capitalised in RS. If one takes a look at Google Ngrams, one will see that the capitalisation is now dominant, and that the lower case usage has been on the decline for more than ten years. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, RGloucester seems to have gotten this one right (old ngrams, and presumed trend), with the External sources on the page backing up the case for letting it stay capitalized. Randy Kryn 14:57 31 March, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—Randy, you've "discovered" this new meme about so-called old ngram stats. 2009 is modern usage, unless you have solid evidence of a sudden fetish for capping items for which that formatting was distinctly minority usage. I see quite a few authoritative books that downcase, including two I've just noticed published in 2013 and 2012. MOSCAPS says that in the absence of consistent capping outside, downcase. There is no doubt about this one. Tony (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly is consistent capitalisation. If capitalisation is more common, that's what we use. That's consistency. It is consistently more common in capital letters. We don't go against common usage, per WP:UCN and MOS:CAPS. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The White Stripes?

[edit]

I've tagged the paragraph regarding the song "This Protector" by The White Stripes as possible original research. I looked up the lyrics and they're completely ambiguous, bordering on incomprehensible. In fact the only clear connection of any kind that I can see is that West Virginia is mentioned. That's it. The only reason I didn't just delete the paragraph outright is because this seems to be a semi-popular fan theory judging by the Google hits I got when I cross referenced the two items and I thought perhaps The White Stripes had made the connection themselves at some point. Then again, it could also be because of this very article. So, "citation needed" is what I'm saying. ProgHead777 (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffalo Creek flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffalo Creek flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Modifications

[edit]

I updated sources by providing citations for claims that needed citing and fixed old/dead links by providing links that worked.

Best, NFS26 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_Creek_flood&oldid=1206470226"