Talk:Mudflow

Term "mudslide" is generally not used in the geology and engineering communities

The term "mudslide" is generally considered a non-scientific colloquialism that is frequently used by news media, political figures, and other laypeople, despite the fact that it is not a term that is typically used or embraced by professional agencies such as FEMA, the US Geological Survey, most US state and local government geological agencies, or most privately operated professional geology or geotechnical practices in the US. Many scientists and engineers consider the term to be a misnomer because, by the strictest definition, mud as an earth material flows over a substrate with internal deformation rather than slides over a substrate as a cohesive unit. "Mudslide" is not classified by the USGS or any state-level geological agency in the US as an official type of mass wasting. The wiki page in its current embodiment is misleading and inaccurate.

I strongly suggest that the wiki page for "mudslide" be completely overhauled such that virtually all the current content is removed, with only one short paragraph describing the usage of the term (as I have in the above paragraph) with hyperlink to the wiki page titled "landslide" and additional reference to any other existing wiki pages to include titles "mudflow", "debris flow", "earthflow", "debris torrent", "hyperconcentrated slurry", "hyperconcentrated flood".

50.204.209.2 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)A licensed professional geologist and landslide specialist in the State of Washington

Agree, especially given the total lack of citations throughout. A short paragraph plus the disambig you suggest seems appropriate. Though I note the debris flow page is not exactly user friendly as it is, and probably needs some attention too. DanHobley (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As you noted on my talk page, others have had problems with the terminology in the past. Re-reading some of those comments, I agree most with Bejnar's advice above.

It looks as if you're a pretty new editor here, so you need to know that most large changes are (ideally) agreed upon by consensus through discussion. What you're proposing makes good sense; you'll probably need some help implementing it, and there are many editors to help out. Disambiguation and redirect pages have their own conventions and rules, and moving (renaming) an article is another whole process. - Gorthian (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(Just so everyone knows: this discussion stems from a question at Talk:2014 Oso mudslide#Use of term "mudslide".)

Not "used or embraced" professionally? Ah, a quick check on Google Scholar shows something on the order of thousands of papers, suggesting that "mudslide" is not entirely out of use. And of course there is the standard classification of Hutchinson (1988). (Anyone interested should see Hungr, et. al, 2001, "A Review of the Classificaiton of Landslides of the Flow Type". See also Hungr, et. al, 2014, "The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update" [draft].)

That being said, I would also quote Hungr et. al 2001 (p230): "It is of concern that the word mudslide is presently being widely used in North-American mass media reports to describe a range of shallow, extremely rapid mass movements, which would be referred to as debris flows or debris avalanches in both Varnes' and Hutchinson's systems." Two pages further they note that the "distinction between mud flows and debris flows is perhaps not of primary importance...." They also distinguish between mud flow and earth flow, but this seems to be a subtler detail than we need to be concerned with.

As "slide" implies a certain solidity that "mud" lacks, and in accordance with the authority cited, I suggest we consider embracing "mudflow" in lieu of "mudslide", both for this article, and at 2014_Oso_mudslide. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposing rename to "mudflow"

This article was originally named "mudflow", but was renamed in 2009 to "mudslide" on the basis (apparently uncontested) of the latter being "more common". However, as shown in previous comments, "mudslide" is a "non-scientific colloquialism" of ambiguous meaning, "more common" mainly in the mass media. There being two strong suggestions to rename the article back to "mudflow" — that being the more meaningful and scientifically preferred term — with expressions of assent but not dissent, I propose that this article be renamed to "mudflow", with such textual changes as appropriate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been considering proposing this myself, given the several objections raised over time to the current name. However, I have two pieces of unsolicited advice:

1. Do the proposal properly, following the procedures outlined at WP:RM/CM. There are signs that the page history was damaged in that last move, and it would be good not to mess things up any further.

2. Realize that a "common name" (especially one used in the mass media) may trump everything else: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." As specialists, we may cringe at the use of "mudslide," but I suspect other readers may be just fine with it.

For now, I'll hold off my !vote until the request is formalized. Good luck! — Gorthian (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  Do this properly? The procedures you recommend (at WP:RM/CM) are for controversial moves, and I am unaware this move is controversial. It basically undoes the previous move (rename), which does not appear to have even been discussed.

  I don't believe therme is any conflict of interests here. The mass media, not knowing any better, uses an imprecise term, and the "general audience" is "just fine" because they don't know any better, and they trust the media. You quoted WP:Article titles; I would quote the lead: "Article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." It is not at all a matter of the experts using some obscure, technical term that few non-experts would recognize. Both terms are "common", and I think most people wouldn't know the difference. Yet the difference is very important, as we see at Oso. (The landslide probably didn't go any further than had been expected; the disaster resulted from the extended runout, which was in the nature of a mud flow.) It better serves the readers that we use the more precise term, rather than an ambiguous term that then has to be explained.

  Please explain if you think there is some problem with "mudflow", or any aspect that would be controversial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unruffle your feathers, JJ, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was thinking only that it would be good to notify a wider community of the move, especially other WP Geology and Geography members who might be interested. And to get a solid record of the (expected) consensus so that it doesn't get moved back on the whim of some passing editor in a year or two. — Gorthian (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Well, we did put up a notice a month ago at WT:WikiProject Geology/Tasks#Proposed changes for Mudslide. The lack of response there (and here) suggests that the interested community is not very wide. So I say be bold. If you say "yes" and no one else says no, then the motion is approved by acclamation. If in a year or two someone objects we can have a discussion.

  BTW, after looking around a bit last night I wonder if "mud flow" (analagous to "debris flow") would be more proper. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: mud doesn't slide - it flows. Now the question is: mudflow or mud flow? Either would be fine with me. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick look with Google turns up several reliable sources using "mudflow": Encyclopaedia Britannica, Oxford dictionaries, PBS, not to mention Wiktionary. Not nearly as many use the two-word name. — Gorthian (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  Google counting is so unreliable. Still, when I search on Google Scholar, with "geology" as a qualifier, "mudflow" does come out about twice as often. To control for older usage I tried limiting the search to since 2010, and since 2013, and got about the same results. I suspect this is partly the influence of Hutchinson (1988), who preferred single words, and partly the retention of older terms not in the text but in the references.

  However, the most recent recommendation (JTC-1, see Hunger 2014, above) is "mud flow" (along with "earth flow" and "debris flow", but retaining "landslide"). So do we go with past practice? Or expert recommendation? I am somewhat inclined for the latter, but want to check with someone before I commit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't using Google's numbers, I was just looking at the first page of hits and judging their quality.

I checked about a dozen online glossaries of geology, and every one I looked at spelled it "mudflow"—one word. Some of the sites I used were:

• USGS Geologic Glossary
• Geology.com
• USGS and the National Park Service's online Geologic Glossary
• Glossary of Geologic Terms, from Iowa State University

According to these and other reliable sources, the title should be "Mudflow." — Gorthian (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, all of that represents past practice. The authoritative professional body now recommends "mud flow" (which parallels "debris flow", "earth flow", etc.). To the extent this is a sea change the question for us is whether we want to be ante- or post- diluvian: stick with the past, or go with the future. (Not that I can't go with the other, but I want to see if your inclination one way is more or less than my inclination the other way.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I can go with the combined form of "mudflow". Gorthian, I presume you approve of the rename, as do I and Vsmith, and as urged by two other editors previously. There being no dissents, I will proceed with this tomorrow. I also have a new lead paragraph (sourced!) which I think will be a distinct improvement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. And then undone, as the the Talk page did not follow. (Because of existing Talk:Mudflow?) And then my Internet connection got all flakey and I was losing sessions, so I backed out the best I could (but likely leaving several double-redirects behind). Revised lead still in, though. At this point I'm pretty exasperated so I'm going to back off and take a rest. I'm even reconsidering whether this is really a good idea. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. You're right, the existing Talk:Mudflow page prevents the move. I'm not sure what options there are for preserving the page history, but obviously it needs to be done by an administrator. — Gorthian (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the page and the talk per the request at WP:RMTR. The old talk page of Talk:Mudflow is now in Talk:Mudflow/Archive 1 though there is not much of permanent value there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. (Though I was working up a good rationale for working with it as is.) The archive is curious: nothing shown, but there is a history. Can something be restored from that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored a couple of old 2007 comments, so that Talk:Mudflow/Archive 1 is not blank. See the history of that page for what used to be there. There isn't much. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stepping through the history suggests there wasn't much to start with. I think the best reason for retaining it is to show that nothing important was lost. Okay, good enough. Thanks again. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also kept for legal reasons. — Gorthian (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mudflow. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222113637/http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/landslide/basics/what to http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/landslide/basics/what
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727101317/https://www.etcg.upc.edu/asg/geolquat/teoria/articulos/clasificacion-de-deslizamientos/at_download/file to https://www.etcg.upc.edu/asg/geolquat/teoria/articulos/clasificacion-de-deslizamientos/at_download/file

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) 19:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Largest terrestial landslide

The claim that the Saidmarreh landslide is the largest known prehistoric landslide seems dubious, to put it mildly. The Heart Mountain Detachment had a volume likely 100 times greater.

More generally, superlatives sections like this one tend to suffer from poor sourcing and I am inclined to think they should be avoided. "Among the largest ..." or better yet "Examples of very large landslides include ..." are safer, easily sourced, and not as likely to be disputed or rendered obsolete by new discoveries.

Another problem with this section is that it is not at all clear the large landslides mentioned are actually mudflows. Not all landslides are mudflows, and debris flows are definitely not mudflows -- there are actually precise definitions of each. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kent G. Budge: Yes, and the Seimareh / Seymareh landslide ("Saidm..." should be avoided as I was told by locals) was generally not a mudflow, but a giant rock avalance, see Ilam province#Landslides and AGU blogs. I think the paragraph in Mudflow should be removed completely and the information be added to Ilam province#Landslides. In succession, the redirection "Saidmarreh landslide" could also be adapted. I collected a few pieces of information on d:Q112633353 --Kuhni74 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Practical reasons to differentiate mudflows from mudslides in the article

Standard homeowners insurance policies that cover damage from flooding (including mudflows), do not cover landslides (including mud slides). [1] Currently the lede equates the terms. Because most of the damage from Hurricane Helene to the Asheville area was from debris flows, it can be covered by insurance as flood damage. The mud flows I am most familiar with are the ones that start as a mud slide: failure of rain saturated soil on the steepest part of a steep slope. Most slides never leave the steep slope they originate from. This is my understanding: when the slide picks up material by carving out the path it is following, it has grown into a mud flow. The distinction seems significant beyond insurance. Counter to my understanding is a 9/30/2024 USGS article that categorizes debris flows as a type of landslide saying "Debris flows are among the most destructive and dangerous types of landslides."[2] That disconnect prevents me from being bold and rewriting the lede. I am going to do more research. Appreciate any thoughts. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)