Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:39, 4 April 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Washington Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).

Background sources

The slide is actually a bit east of Oso, and north of the river. The site can be seen on the Mount Higgins geological map from the Washington DGER. See the Everett Herald for a good picture. The same area slid in 2006, and a channel was cut across the toe of that slide. Direct access to Darrington has been cut-off, now requiring a long detour via Hwy 20. And apparently communications to Darrington are also cut-off, likely due to a break in the phone cable that went along the highway. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that. If you have Google earth you can look at the older imagery and see how much that bend in the stream has changed over the past 15 years...it used to flow more than 200 yards to the NNW before 2005. By 2006, after the last slide, it was following the same bend that it may have until this latest event.--MONGO 01:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see editors are aware of the prior slides, but there is currently little mention of them. You may find useful text and refs that I added to Oso, Washington before the main article was started. You may need to find it in the history as I was reverted. :-\ -See which mentions as long ago as 1967. 220 of 08:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Glacial moraine

I have been hearing experts on tv refer to the whole Oso area as a giant glacial moraine, and that this was a contributing factor. Not just simple cause and effect, but in relation to how the hill collapsed the way it did. But I've checked online and can't find reference to that fact yet. I believe it could add some needed context to this article, and explain in better detail how the slide occurred. But anything I could add at this point would be original research on my part and unverified, and I've been on Misplaced Pages well long enough to know better. If anyone else knows of any source to document this, it would be a great help. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a moraine - those are essentially trails of debris left alongside a glacier, or in front of it - but glacial till, which is deposits of glacial sediments. This forms the topography characteristic of the Puget Sound region and north, and pretty much all of the lower elevations of western Washington north of Olympia, and is notoriously unstable, especially when saturated with water.

That the material where the slide occurred is till can be documented in the geological map for Mount Higgins (citation below); all of the yellow and tan colors indicate till. (The slide is just northeast of "Rowan".) Most of the experts are suggesting that the river undercut the bluff, but the straight channel you see in some of the pictures was cut after 2006 to prevent that. But this particular section of the bluff is probably undercut by the Darrington-Devils Mountain fault (inferred location shown on the map). While the slide was not initiated by seismic activity, prior movement has probably fractured the deposits and weakened them. (This was explained by John Vidale of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, as reported in the Seattle Times by Sandi Doughton on 24 March.) Today's Seattle Times also has a long article relating the prior slide activity, taking to task the "unforseen" statement of the disaster spokesman John Pennington. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, J. Johnson (JJ). You have helped me understand the situation better. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you go to Google Maps and add "Terrain" that bluff is seen to be part of the lineament that results from the DDM fault, including Lake Cavanaugh to the northwest. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dragovich, Joe D.; Stanton, Benjamin W.; Lingley, William S., Jr.; Griesel, Gerry A.; Polenz, Michael (2003), "Geologic Map of the Mount Higgins 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington" (PDF), Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Open-File Report 2003-12, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

I've found some information that the hillside that slide was not the usual glacial till, but possibly a river delta. I'm looking into that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but please make sure that it is documented in reliable sources. 173.160.49.206 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier landslides

This area has been known, at least by geologists, for it's activity. See here, from the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia. (Good pics of the slide too). Prior slides were in 1949, 1951, 1967 and 2006. Quote: " "a 1999 report filed with the US Army Corps of Engineers, warning of "the potential for a large catastrophic failure"." Home building was allowed in the area despite it being KNOWN as a landslide prone zone. 220 of 00:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? We should start speculating about who's at fault? If anyone is determined to be at fault, it will be reported, we will have references, and then it would be appropriate to put in the article. Until then, definitely not. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to say exactly what I said with references. There have been previous landslides there. The fact that it was known as a landslide prone area is worthy of mention. The fact that there have been previous landslides as recently as 2006 is worthy of mention. I said nothing about 'fault' or blaming anyone. I suggest you look at Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Ownership of articles and Wikilawyering. I suggest you chill-out and stop acting like I, and other experienced editors (an Admin too) that you have recently harangued on your talk page, have never edited Misplaced Pages before. 220 of 01:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I told you a couple of days ago on my talk page: get over yourself. I can have an opinion and express it. What you suggested above smacked of including original research and drawing your own conclusions through synthesis, not encyclopedic content. I call them as I see them. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you shouldn't dismiss it just because you have a bunch of edits over however many years and I've have less edits and years here than you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research? Synthesis? What are you talking about? The only research I have done is Googling for sources. I am drawing no conclusion whatsoever or speculating in any way. What I have mentioned is what the source says. Nothing more. 220 of 02:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good information. Might I suggest wording more along the lines of "home building occurred" or "homes were built". Whether or not they were allowed is, technically, not proven. Ufwuct (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 'Ufwuct' and Agree If I read it right, no sooner was there a slide than they were rebuilding in the same spot, or nearby. Feel free to add it if you wish. Interesting username, must be cautious how I pronounce it. ;-) 'You fwuct'? O:-) - 220 of 02:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept that explanation for now, Borg. But that's not what your original post sounded like. Perhaps you worded it unclearly, but what I read is something dramatically different than what you now say you actually meant. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point: yes, there is matter of whether this slide was forseen/unforseen. As I mentioned above, Snohomish County's disaster spokesman (John Pennington) did say that this was entirely unforseen, a point blasted by the Seattle Times as having been forseen in reports by Dr. Miller, and further amplified by the tv news networks. Which leads to all kinds of questions (and potential legal liability) about whether this disaster could have been avoided. And gets into the broader questions of people insisting on building in floodplains, on the tops of unstable cliffs, and other hazardous areas. So I think this event leads directly to a very notable issue of (currently) great interest, which this article might well cover.

For anyone interested in the prior reports, see: Miller and Sias, 1997, Miller and Sias, 1998, Miller and Miller, 1999 Miller 1999. For other resources search for "Hazel Landslide" and "Steelhead Haven Landslide". See also this excellent picture showing the 2006 slide and locale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting and at the exact same location then as now...more will come to.light over next few days to weeks at which point we'll have more references available.--MONGO 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

An excellent photo indeed, J Johnson, wonder if it is public domain? Can see a real controversy brewing (my POV) over home construction in a slide prone area iirc as recently as 2009. Oso mudslide controversy perhaps, in the long term? 220 of 01:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It does say "Copyright © 2001 Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians". But you could always ask; sometimes people do release materials for general use. See if you can talk them into releasing it on a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This series of slides have interesting diagrams. This is from the point of view of fish conservation, as the landslides have badly affected a trout known as the Steelhead or Rainbow trout, hence the name 'Steelhead Haven' landslide, which is how I found it (first google result for "Steelhead Haven", on a mobile device anyway!)- 220 of 01:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC

Let me be clear: I don't disagree that this was a disaster waiting to happen and the people knew it was going to happen who should have made it clear to residents. I predicted the day of the slide within just hours of it happening that this was going to be a huge deal beyond the loss of life and the cleanup. Families are going to want to know - no, DEMAND to know - why their loved ones were killed/lost, and they are going to be questioning the county, the state DOT, the Army Corps of engineers. I wouldn't be surprised if lawsuits don't end up being a part of this. But I just think we need to be calm and patient and wait to see where it goes and not jump in too soon, trying to assemble as many sources as we can, until we know the whole story. If for nothing else than out of respect for the victims and their families and friends. This is a small, tight-knit community that has been rocked at it's very foundation. There are those from surrounding counties as well as local first responders who are up to their chests day after day pulling parts of people's lives as well as their bodies (and in some cases, just parts of bodies) out of the mud and rubble. They are exhausted and emotionally spent, just as the townspeople of Oso, Arlington, and Darrington and the families of the lost waiting to learn the fate of their loved ones. Please, let's remember that there are very human feelings attached to this and it's not just about creating another Misplaced Pages article and racking up edits. Not trying to accuse, just trying to remind that we're not here to scoop anyone and we have to at the very least be sensitive - friends, family, community-members, and others closely tied to this horrible tragedy will and are already reading this article. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a genuine query Winkelvi, do you live in the area where this event occurred? You seem very 'involved'. 220 of 02:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved, just aware. And your question is intrusive and inappropriate, bordering on WP:OUTING. If I were you, I'd reconsider where you are (or may be) trying to go with this. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool it. He wasn't trying to "out" you, he was trying to be considerate in asking if there might be any reason for your very emotional response for which we might want to make allowances. Your statement is an implicit threat (why should he reconsider?), but I think everyone here would rather presume that you were just over-wrought. (Right?) If you think this article, or any part of it, is unsensitive, you can certainly raise that. But blowing up at people is not going to help any discussion. If it is too much for you to handle perhaps you should consider backing off a bit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to back off, J. Johnson. This discussion between Borg and myself has some history to it, and because of that, my comments to him are justifiable. Save your lecture for someone else in a discussion where you are familiar with the details. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, what an attitude. I initially assumed good faith, but that does not excuse bad behavior. Look, if you want to have a private discussion with Borg please do it somewhere else. Your discussion does not seem to be leading to any improvement of this article, which is the purpose of this Talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who asked the personal question, that was Borg. Like I said, direct your lecturing to the right people. If you don't want to see conversation on an article talk page and have a compulsion to chastise those doing it, direct it to the appropriate people. In this case, the appropriate person would be Borg. Are we done now or do you want to continue engaging me in something pointless that you, yourself, have identified as not improving the article? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I directed my comments to you, and particularly to your response, because you are the one doing all the drama. Any problems you have with Borg's question you should take up on his talk page — not here. If you insist on commenting here (because more people are watching?) please do it under the blanket I've just pulled over all this, as I really doubt if anyone wants to see them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no fucking drama, no more commenting until you jumped on your meddling high horse and started pontificating. Accuse all you like, Borg was inappropriate with his question and I rightfully called him on it. That was the end of the story until you decided to stick your nose into something that was over and done with. Gawd. The pissing contests that go on here are so tiring. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There being no pertinent discussion against I have added a "History" section (and two others). It could use some more work (and a citation), so feel free to dive in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Would the following editorial in the New York Times be appropriate for the "History" section? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/egan-at-home-when-the-earth-moves.html 64.134.145.86 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

An editorial? I think not, unless it were to document that Timothy Eagan went up there once, or has an opinion about the situation, neither of which seems relevant here. However, one of the external links here points to an article in the Yakima paper which may document some other "events". And I believe some other minor events are mentioned in the Seattle papers (don't forget the , as well as the 2006 event. Keep in mind that documenting the history of sliding is one thing, documenting that the slide was therefore forseeable is another thing. And probably should have a separate section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you put it in (perhaps just before my comment? I haven't check the time stamps), and I took it out. But lest there be any misunderstanding: I am not suggesting that citing that that editorial can't be cited; only that it isn't appropriate for history. As I just suggested (above, and now in the next section), we could have a section on "unforseeable?", where this editorial might be appropriate. But just not as history. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I suggested it only. Somebody else put it in! It is a nicely written editorial, but possibly not for here. 166.147.88.28 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I worked the editorial into the new Controversy section (see below). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Some background resources

Here are a couple of resources that are themselves full of resources for some of the geological history and character of the site:

• The Landslide Blog, over at the AGU site
• Aerial History and LiDAR of the Stilliguamish Blocking Landslide at Reading the Washington Landscape

I won't be able to spend any time myself on this article for a few weeks; maybe these can help other editors. - Gorthian (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to find that the Landslide Blog is already an external link for the article. I'll add the second one as well. - Gorthian (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

Is there a precedent for the odd bullet point citation style? If not I'll clean it up. I've never seen it done that way before. Valfontis (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Odd bullet point style"? Not odd at all where references are put into lists (such as on this Talk page). Perhaps you are referring to the curious instances of inexperienced editors putting lists of references into their footnotes. Now that is odd! And ought to be fixed.

I have just added a new section where the first citation of a source has the full citation in the footnote, with subsequent citations of that source done with a short cite that automagically links to the full citation. This is just like has been done in print media, though rare on Misplaced Pages. More common for Misplaced Pages would be having all the "in-line" (or "in-footnote") citations as short cites, with the full citations they link to collected in a separate section ("References"). I'm fine with doing it that way, but reckon the general run of WP editors are less familiar with that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the citations were following the bullet style of WP:CITEBUNDLE. - Gorthian (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@JJohnson No no, the talk page is about discussing improvements to the article, thus my question was about the citations in the article--of course one would use bullets on the talk page, or whatever. As long as the talk page is readable I don't worry about the format. @Gorthian Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I remember reading about it but I've not seen it used. I'm not crazy about it, but as long as it's sanctioned, I'll leave it alone. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE starts with: "Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote." I think the cure here is worse than the presumed problems, which arise from not knowing how to do things better. I don't think such usage here is necessarily grandfathered in by WP:CITEVAR. So maybe ask the editors who put them in if they would object to doing the citations a different way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A point in passing: Citation bot was introducing garbage, so I added a line that (hopefully) will keep it away. And I do some clean-up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Another note: we are getting redundant citations. One of dealing with this is, of course, to use "named refs" to replicated the footnote with the citation. Alternately, and especially if you don't want to dig through the whole article to find the id for a named ref, you can use a short cite. As an example see this diff. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Slope Stability and effects of logging

I'm concerned that the new logging effects section could be WP:OR, and may violate WP:NPOV, as it could be interpreted as "Misplaced Pages says that logging contributed to the disaster." This section is well written, and all the citations support the process explained, but there are no citations of secondary sources stating or speculating that logging contributed to this particular landslide. The section may be useful in the general landslide article, but I'm dubious it belongs here. Not yet, anyway. - Gorthian (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, both my concerns were addressed by Lattetown while I was writing the above. I'm really too slow of an editor to be working on current events; I'll go back to copyediting now. ;-) - Gorthian (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/Forestrystudent changed the section title to "Timber Harvesting is Highly Regulated", which seems distinctly non-WP:NPOV. So I changed it back. I also removed the last phrase about "conclusively demonstrated" that logging caused the slide. That quite likely may be the case, but we should let the experts conclude that, and then quote them.

For similar reasons I removed a sentence added to "History" about Pennington's "unforseen" statement: that wasn't about the history of slide activity, but a conclusion that someone made. For sure, the history confounds that statement, but the "confoundment" should be treated separately from the history. If I can find any time tonight I'll see if I can come up with a suggestion on how to handle that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK great, glad the concerns were addressed. Last sentence wasn't intend to suggest that logging caused the slide, only that much of what was thought to be the groundwater recharge area to the slide was actually part of the slide (I used the term conclusive, because it slid, so by definition it is now part of the slide and not part of the groundwater recharge area to the slide)

I brought up the same concerns a few days ago but was rebuffed. No one has said what caused the slide or why other than grand water saturation from a record month of rain. Yes, there was logging in the area, but as far as I've seen/heard, that isn't in the equation for the current official explanation for the slide. We aren't newspaper reporters, folks. This is an encyclopedia. Gotta remember that, yes? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the | Seattle Timesarticle cited, it suggests that the encroachment into the restricted area could feed groundwater into the landslide zone that collapsed Saturday and the impact to the groundwater can last for 16 to 27 years (according to a 1988 report by a University of Washington geologist). This is in keeping with spirit of what J. Johnson (JJ) wrote, but it doesn't appear to be conclusive yet, since State Forester Aaron Everett wants "to consult scientists to see whether the clear-cut could have contributed to the slide". -- Lattetown (✉) 01:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Gorthian, Lattetown and Winkelvi. Thank you for your constructive comments. I am revising the section based on your input and will resubmit something shortly, which I encourage you to review to ensure it addresses your concerns.

On a related note, the actual name of the landslide is the Hazel Landslide. It is just near the town of Oso, and thus the media have been calling it the Oso landslide. Further, the article really appears to be originally set up to deal with emergency information about the disaster, not to discuss the geology, history, land use impacts etc. of the slide. It seems to me it makes sense to create an Article titled "The Hazel Landslide" and this to redirect all of the non-emergency information over to that site, with a quick explanatory sentence near the heading. What do you think? RiverDoctor 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Rivers (talk • contribs)

Posted revisions that hopefully will address criticisms (above), including a section title change. Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed-- Dr.Rivers (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Good content, but section title is waaaaaaaaayyyy too long. How about back to "Effects of logging"? Also, your citations need some straightening. If you want to back out for a little while I'll be happy to fix them for you. I also recommend using {{citation}} rather than {{cite xxx}}, as that avoids some complications. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For general edification I note that today's (3-31) Seattle Times has a good article on this ("State used outdated map to allow logging on slope"), along with an excellent map. The key is that trees reduce groundwater infiltration, which is the likely trigger here. The main source for all of this is Miller and Sias 1998. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Slope stability and effects of logging seems like a nice short title that captures things. Would be good to clean up citations if you have the time, thank you for offering. I am playing around with word and zotero to see if I can get a nice clean look, but not clear how to easily pull citations from a wiki page into Zotero, which would help avoid duplicate references. -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ForestryStudent keeps changing the title and deleting all the information in this section that s/he didn't write, so gave ForestryStudent a subsection in the Controversy section, since s/he was writing about a controversy over a timber harvest that may have extended into the restricted groundwater recharge area. -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. I may split "Controversy" into subsections. FS looks like a head-strong but clueless newbie, possibly with a non-neutral point of view, who may need some instruction.

We'll talk in a little while about citations. I'm about to grab some more data to fix those, will post a notice when I go in to (hopefully) avoid edit conflicts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing

The article states that the number of missing and unaccounted for "remains" at 30 (or whatever the current count is). This seems to me to be misleading, as this number keeps changing, not remaining. I think this should be reworded as "Initially X people were reported missing and unaccounted for, but as of ... the count has dropped to Y," or something like that. Far more people have been removed from the missing list than have been found dead, but this is not explained; it should be if a source can be found. 68.64.53.227 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: The lede says X people remain missing, which is fine. The "Casualties and damage" says the count remains, which is what I think is misleading. 68.64.53.227 (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I just added a new "Controversy" section. For now it addresses only the "unforseen" controversy, with a slide into what could be done (also controversial). I point out that other subsections could be added, such as the delay in calling in the National Guard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice addition. You could cover a lot of ground with that section title, but I think you did a good job capturing the essence of the main controversy -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved a pargraph about a timber harvest controversy from the slope stability and logging effect section to the controversy section, since it is, well, controversial. -- Dr.Rivers (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies wiki editors for my bad manners. I agree with Rivers above, thus sounds like Wiki is saying the cause is logging. Obviously by my username I am an informed editor, and Dr. Rivers is right, the citations are not balamced. Some reports showing uo in the paper are not credible sources and this section is imbalanced. This happened in the state I like and I have first hand experience with the misleading articles. So, I hope to behave better in the future. Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestrystudent (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC) forestrystudent

You might find WP:VERIFY of interest to better understand content inclusion and accompanying references, User:Forestrystudent. WP:NOR is something else that would likely benefit you as a newcomer. "Manners" can go a long way here, but getting to know how things work and why might be a better way to start. Don't stop editing just because some of what you've written has been deleted or changed. Bottom line, that is the very nature of Misplaced Pages. Nothing stays the same content-wise. Best not to become attached to what you write! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Area status before slide

The article lede does not clarify the land use of the slide area before the disaster - were the buildings generally farmhouses, weekend cottages or suburban homes? Perhaps a before/after set of images may help to create a more accurate understanding. Paul venter (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Steelhead Haven was originally fishing cabins and such, but people develop their properties so it had become rural/weekend homes. Beyond that several farms were hit, either by the slide itself or the flooding. Today's (4-1) Seattle Times gets into this a little bit, but I'm rather over-busy so someone else will have to work that up. I don't believe there are any "before" photos showing structures well (too much tree cover). The Times had a decent illustration on the 25th showing structures. Snohomish County also has GIS data from which a map can be made, which would be a way cool project for someone. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How big

The lede says "covering an area of approximately 1 square mile (2.6 km2)" but the body says "The mud, soil and rock debris left from the mudslide is 1,500 ft (460 m) long, 4,400 ft (1,300 m) wide". Even a rectangle 1,500 by 4,400 is less than a quarter square mile. What do these areas mean?  Randall Bart   Talk  20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Valid point...I wondered about that as well when I added the reference but this is what the source says. In about a month when the news slows down and stabilizes and more authoritative sources become available we can hope to see this article becoming better organized.--MONGO 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Steelhead salmon vs. Rainbow trout

MONGO insists referring to the Steelhead as a trout while in the Stillaguamish River is correct for article content. Numerous websites with authority behind them, however, support the reality: Steelhead while in any river on it's way to or from the ocean are salmon, not trout. When only landlocked in a fresh water environment and never having lived in the ocean, it's a Rainbow Trout. I tried to explain this to MONGO, I changed the article to reflect this, but he decided to edit war instead, insisting his version was correct. The article is in many ways about the Stillaguamish River. The neighborhood leveled by the slide is called "Steelhead" and it is (was) on the banks of the Stillaguamish. The river in question is a tributary leading to Puget Sound - salt, ocean water. Steelhead may be on their way to a lake or a fresh water spawning pond while swimming up the Stillaguamish, but they have come from the ocean. The Steelhead in Puget Sound tributaries such as the Stillaguamish do not stay in those tributaries, they live part time in ocean waters. They use the river as a "highway" of sorts. And that makes them the anadromous version of the Rainbow Trout = Steelhead Salmon. The scientifically accepted definition of Rainbow Trout as Steelhead Salmon is as follows: "rainbow trout remain in fresh water, while the steelhead are anadromous – living in both fresh water and the ocean for parts of their lives." This definition is found here , here , here , here , here , here . There are many more examples that support the content I included and not the content MONGO kept reverting back in, and I could provide them, but I think the point is made.

Civil comments on this are welcome. Because of the references I have to back up the content I included, I think it only appropriate to add at least one of those to the content about Steelhead in the article after it's changed back to the correct label of "salmon". Or, if we can't come to a consensus on this in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Steelhead in the Stillaguamish River are salmon, I suggest we remove the content about it while keeping the name of the neighborhood intact. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the mudslide itself and is better off at the Rainbow trout article...IMHO. But we maybe should fix the redirect on Steelhead since instead of pointing to Salmon it redirects to Rainbow trout where an entire section is dedicated to explaining this issue already. The neighborhood where the mudslide happened is apparently named Steelhead after the fish...Steelhead are apparently Rainbow trout, not Salmon. Salmon swim upstream and then die after they spawn...Steelhead can swim upstream and spawn multiple times over multiple years before they die. This nonsense argument started because I linked Steelhead to Rainbow trout...which is what the term Steelhead means...Winkelvi wants the Rainbow trout link to spell out Salmon in the article...why...who the heck knows?! Who cares?! How ridiculous! We can just remove the link about Steelhead altogether...it's not an important issue for this article in the least!--MONGO 03:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe Mongo has this correct. Steelhead are not "Salmon". Salmon is a colloquial term referring to anadromous and landlocked species in the genus Oncorhynchus (Pacific salmons) and Salmo (Atlantic salmons). Within the genus Oncorhynchus are included the Pacific trouts—O. mykiss (Rainbow trout) and O. clarki (Cutthroat trout) both of which have anadromous and semi-anadromous life forms. Anadromous life forms of rainbow trout (commonly called "Steelhead") exist to take advantage of the tremendous food sources in salt water and large lake environments. O. mykiss, whether residing in saltwater or freshwater, is a rainbow trout, not a salmon. O. mykiss is an obligate stream spawner and will migrate (anadromy) to and from saltwater or large lake environments to feed and spawn respectively. Two subspecies of rainbow trout exhibit anadromous life forms: O. mykiss irideus (Coastal rainbow trout) and O. mykiss gairdneri (Columbia River redband trout). The steelhead that use the Stillaguamish to spawn are coastal rainbow trout. The definitive source for this is:

• Behnke, Robert J. (2002). "Rainbow and Redband Trout". Trout and Salmon of North America. New York: The Free Press. p. 65-122. ISBN 0-7432-2220-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Many secondary sources refer to Steelhead as steelhead trout, steelhead salmon and salmon trout but that does not make them anything other than what they are: Rainbow trout.

--Mike Cline (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I boldly removed the whole reference to the fish; it wasn't pertinent to this article. - Gorthian (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to Ignore the references and everything that says Steelhead are considered salmon when not landlocked in freshwater if you'd like to do that. Just don't try to pass that opinion off as correct and encyclopedic. Well, not in the real world, of course. The only solution here in face of the references that disagree with personal opinion is to remove the commentary on Steelhead from the article. Thanks, Gorthian, for taking care of that. Funny, isn't it, that MONGO thought the content important enough to edit war and childishly name call over it, then still thought it important enough to canvass support over it, but now says it's not important and it should be removed. Regardless, it's better not included at all. --Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We better get that featured article star removed from the Rainbow trout article since the dozen editors that worked on and researched for that article are wrong and you're right! Let us also get that redirect on Steelhead fixed so it points to Salmon instead of Rainbow trout, since, well you're right and everyone else is wrong!--MONGO 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

FA and GA are specific only to Misplaced Pages, and are eyeballed only by Wikipeians, not the outside world. Outside in real life, FA and GA articles mean nothing at all. They mean nothing to serious researchers, they mean nothing to scholars, scientists, authors. They mean nothing to anyone who isn't interested in or part of the sub-culture that is Misplaced Pages. If you had said, "The article has received accolades from those outside Misplaced Pages", that would mean something and I would sit up and take notice. I've seen a number of articles (where I'm very familiar with the subject) that have been FA or have just made GA that suck and have gotten a lot of content and grammar wrong. There's a reason why Misplaced Pages is still nowhere near considered a reliable source. Duh. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...you better get busy at the Rainbow trout article then since its wrong and you're right...and get that Steelhead redirect fixed so it points to Salmon instead of Rainbow trout since once again everyone else is wrong and you're right.--MONGO 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that many readers might not understand what a "steelhead" is, so some kind of link would be appropriate. But it would fully satisfactory to say that it is kind of fish. And massively irrelevant to this article as to whether it is salmon or trout. If folks here can't agree on a suitable link, I propose to add a footnote: "A kind of fish." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Species" would be better, but good thought about inclusion for explanation. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson...it's not even a debatable point really since only Winkelvi wants to make up some imaginary alternative universe as to what a Steelhead is.--MONGO 00:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. Whether that point is debatable (or not) is IRRELEVANT to this article, as the point itself is IRRELEVANT. Trying to bait Winkelvi into further debate ("comment") contributes NOTHING to improving this article, and slides into uncivil behavior. If you want to discuss the point with Winkelvi do it on his/her Talk page. I am going to add a footnote, and I strongly suggest that both of you resist the temptation to "clarify" this point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No intent or temptation to "clarify" from me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@J.Johnson...you're not an administrator and are not in a position to issue any ultimatums. I would refrain from mischaracterizing the situation. What good does it to do clarify by being vague? That's simply ridiculous. Take the entire Steelhead stuff out...all of it and the problem is solved.--MONGO 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an "ultimatum" (hey, are you mischaracterizing my remarks?), and one doesn't have to be an administrator to make a strong suggestion that you stop your tendentious, disruptive behavior. Or would you prefer to have the attentions of an administrator on this point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There are already plenty of admins watching.--MONGO 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, but that can be arranged. Don't let me stop you, I'm breaking out the marshmallows. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You say I am engaged in "tendentious, disruptive behavior", yet "breaking out the marshmallows" is supposed to be a comment that is beneficial to article improvement? Oh, that's tight...you're idea of article improvement is to create a non-consensus based edit about the stupid fish that is so vague it still leaves the reader hanging! I'm taking this disaster off my watchlist...my edits here have been entirely constructive and by removing the entire steelhead nonsense, the problem was solved.--MONGO 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fatalities and missing

The fatalities and missing name lists do not seem to me to be appropriate content for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTWHOSWHO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL do not appear to provide explicit guidance on this matter, although they are somewhat related. In Effects_of_Hurricane_Sandy_in_New_York#Fatalities, I find no similar list nor a discussion of adding such on its talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing these lists.--MONGO 04:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they belong, either. I haven't checked, but if it isn't there yet, perhaps we could add a link to the official lists in the external links. - Gorthian (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The lists were part of what I came here looking for in the first place, so I was probably a bit biased in putting them there. I did look for precedents and guidance though; the biggest discussion on it I found was on the Yarnell Hill Fire talk page, the consensus there was inclusion. A part of me also supports keeping the missing persons list spread as far and wide as publicly possible, but that's more of a one in a million chance and probably not something Misplaced Pages would go by. Anyways, I support keeping them here and I am currently maintaining them, but if they end up needing condensed or removed in favor of links to official lists then I'd at least help with that as well. Varixai (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In retrospect I think the names at the Yarnell article and here should be removed...but support links to an authoritive source that lists the names such as we have here, the coroner's office. As Wsiegmund pointed out above, the policy on this matter is vague. I think more recent events tend to make us more likely to want to see lists of victims...one article I did took place in 1937 and though some names are mentioned, there is no list.--MONGO 16:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I support removal of the lists. Although WP:MEMORIAL doesn't really address this, these listing are not encyclopedic and this is not a news site. An external link to a memorial site/list, however, would certainly be appropriate. Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not appropriate. Okay, everyone (so far) opposes the lists except Variaxi, but he would accept links to the official sources. So let's replace them with a link (perhaps in a box?) to the official source, which I believe is the Medical Examiner's office. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I have removed the lists and added a Seattle Times link. Right above that is the Medical Examiner's updates so there's an 'official' link and an 'in-depth' link. I also tallied down the missing persons number as the latest 3 identified were from that list, will add a reference when I find a decent one or they mention it in the next official update.Varixai (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Because the list of the dead is evolving and people might want to keep abreast of that I suggest we have a box in the text (sort of like the previous lists) with something like "Link to the latest official updates from the Medical Examiner's Office". Well, perhaps "Download" would be better, as clicking on http://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/530slideme seems to be an automatic download, but whatever works. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 3 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Evolution of Forest Practices

Very relevant section, please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B02F:9952:0:0:0:103 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO: the added material is a history of the development of forestry practices in Washington, which would be better suited to a subset of Forestry or even its own article. It is completely off-topic in an article about a specific event. - Gorthian ( ]) 20:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. And it appears to be copied, and probably a copyvio. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not correct. If Logging is being blamed, then Washington's Forest Practices regulations are at issue. The develooment of these forest praxtices have a unique and collaborative history. the stillaguamish river is a tribal river. practices that govern logging are developed collaboratively with stakeholders. what is yet to come is the investigation and science surrounding forest practices and other land uses in the area. this is not onlu relevant, it is pertinent history and sets the stage for the days and months to come. i would aporeciate a better description than it is irrelevant, and whatever copyvio is, this was written by me from my nearly 34 years of experince with the issue. Imwould appreciate leaving this important infor,ation in tact. please don't remove because you don't yet understand its relevance. 2600:1010:B00C:BF5C:0:0:0:103 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)forestrystudent2600:1010:B00C:BF5C:0:0:0:103 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be using a dynamic IP/cell phone so rather than post this on your talk page, I will post it here. "Copyvio" is short for "copyright violation", i.e. something we don't do here. You may click on the blue link to read about it. (I did Google for the text, it isn't online.) It might be someone's personal essay. In any case, "2600", copying and pasting this info into the article repeatedly isn't a good way to get your way. Please read this: WP:5 Pillars for starters. Valfontis (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness Valfontis - I was wondering where you were. My name is Cindy -- I have worked in forestry 33 years, I have written the history, by my own hand, and by my personal experience and personal knowledge of the individuals whom I have quoted. Afterall I was hired by Stu Bledsoe, whom is a central part of the history, referenced by the Nisqually Tribal Chair. I have the experience, the knowledge and know that this site is verging on gross imbalance, which I Dr. Rivers noticed too. I am trying to attain balance, and insert information that is relevant to the slide and logging, or forest practices. Because Mongo or his campadre do not see this larger picture, then they are allowed to wholesale delete it without good reason. When I attempted doing that, citing irrelevance, my hand was slapped for doing so. I am obviously new to this, and we are talking lives lost and a multitude of factors in this natural disaster. My information will continue to be built upon because forest practices has a collaborative, continuous process, involving all stakeholders. There was a meeting yesterday with a proclamation for further scientific information. We need this information for the context relative to logging. Please encourage the wholesale text removers to do a bit of homework before acting. thank you.~~forestrystudent~~

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Washington articles
• Mid-importance Washington articles
• WikiProject Washington articles
• WikiProject United States articles