Talk:2014 Oso landslide

Request for comment
No consensus to add this information to the article at this time. - jc37 03:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the article contain material about the property dispute and murder following the landslide?— Gorthian (talk) Reopening: 01:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC); originally opened 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion just above is pertinent, and the disputed edit is here. — Gorthian (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Yes, the sources clearly say that the landslide, consequent property condemnations and trespassing dispute were motives for the murder. Therefore, the incident is on-topic. JerryRussell (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, per my reasoning in the discussion section above (in short, that multiple sources have made the connection between the alleged murders and the slide). VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the landslide itself should be the topic of the article. Property condemnations and reactions to those are incidental to the landslide. — Gorthian (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. The murder is a significant event, widely reported and verifiable (not counting the Daily Mail. Delete that one and cite something better), that happened as a consequence of the mudslide. This article is about a historical event: what led up to it, what happened, what that led to. Very basic stuff. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. As we have already discussed (above), that the fact of the murders, and the claimed motivation, are well established by sources, and even significant in themselves, is not relevant (per WP:Relevance) to the landslide. They are off-topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No – Having that content present doesn't add anything to the article. Dawnseeker2000  21:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. The murders are a consequence/aftermath of the landslide, and a historical fact.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No...BLP issues, and has nothing to do with subject matter of the landslide. Highly tabloidish to even mention in passing.--MONGO 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. For one thing, murders due to such circumstances happen all the time unfortunately. In any case, way off-topic for the article subject. Even if one accepts that a murder can happen as a consequence of something, by that logic every event that happened as a consequence of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami can be added to that article. pretty IittIe Iiar 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with others who view this as off topic.  The sources presented support the off topic POV.  The first cited article (39) is the only one actually about the mudslide and it doesn't mention the murder at all (it also doesn't work as a citation for the content).  The other citations were about the murder not the mudslide and mention the disaster only as background. Springee (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A similar question was asked on the Project Automobiles talk page. The discussion, now closed, is here [] and heavily favored excluding content such as this. Springee (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * *User:Springee has found this discussion by watching my edit history, in order to harass me, i.e. Wikihounding. See the Harassment policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No actually. There is a notice on CuriousMind01's talk page where I've been engaged in discussions.  I would suggest you read WP:AGF. Springee (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Off topic and not relevant to the article topic (as above). Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Arguing that the human consequences of/reactions to natural disasters should be divorced from explication of natural disasters presupposes the absurd assumption that we are not human beings making sense of natural disasters. Moreover, it would validate the ideologically driven agenda that regulatory responses to environmental factors should never be considered to be part of a natural disaster. However, when in doubt, fall back on the oldest standard there is: can you cite creditable third party sources that link the murders to the event?  I think the answer to that is 'yes'. (I commented here by way of a Legobot invite.)  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  09:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That there is a link (a connection) is not in issue, nor is it the issue. The issue is not relatedness, but relevancy. As there seems some confusion on this I've added the section (below) to clarify the matter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No-I too believe the issue to be off-topic.Property condemnations and other such reactions to those are entirely incidental to the landslide. And murders due to such circumstances(esp. natural disaster) happen all the time.(I commented here by way of a Legobot invite.) Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, The title is "2014 Oso mudslide", not "2014 Oso mudslide murder". Would be off-topic. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 05:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. The murder was an outcome of the mudslide. It's natural to include the effects of a disaster like this, whether they be immediate, like the destruction of homes, or later, like changes to infrastructure or legislation. Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The murder was not a consequence of the mudslide. One of the sources cited for the murder doesn't even mention the mudslide. The final one says "That dispute grew even more acrimonious after the Oso mudslide" – so the mudslide was not the cause of the dispute. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The murder was almost two and a half years later. The string of connection is too long and thin to really be on-topic here. Alsee (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No (bot-summoned). If the murder was notable enough for a standalone article, which it is not (per WP:EVENT), I would still oppose a mere link from the mudslide to the murder (though a link the other way around would be warranted). As others have argued, the causal connection is far too tenuous. In addition to that, even if the murder was a direct result of the mudslide, all the coverage is pretty much WP:MANBITESDOG, and so due weight is a concern. (For the record, I think BLP is not a concern here, especially if the characters stay unnamed in the WP article). Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes-but-or-if. An item like this as one of the many forms of consequences that might emerge from such a disaster could certainly justify inclusion. BUT the item is so written that that point does not come out, so it hardly earns its place, and really, the same applies to the rest of the section. JonRichfield (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes -- it's related and relevant and notable and i don't see what the big deal is here and why so many people want to get rid of that part of the whole story of the landslide. Seriously, why the opposition to its inclusion? Are we running out of storage? SageRad (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not yet -- The mention of the homicide has a direct connection to the mudslide, and is thus relevant to the article. However, we need to remember WP:BLPCRIME. There are only allegations, and no one has been convicted by a court. Therefore, we shouldn't include the specific allegations in this article until a court rules on the case. In any case, the mention of the homicide doesn't merit more than a one or two sentence mention, reliably sourced. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes The view here is that the mudslide served as a catalyst for the murders though not the primary cause. That's unusual and I think noteworthy enough to be included here. I also don't think BLPCRIME is an issue so long as the parties involved remain nameless. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - this would be a "broader impact" or "continuing impact", directly relevant via property damage and loss of life. There might even be enough similar things to warrant a small section. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I am curious about VQuakr's statement that: "The contentious and bitter nature of the compulsory purchases following the slide are a key characteristic of the aftermath." Are there any sources that discuss these 'contentious and bitter, compulsory' purchases? Could more of this information be included in the article? JerryRussell (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It got a passing mention in a few sources I found when trying to improve the paragraph on the murders. I don't recall seeing any sources that had an adequate intersection of reliability and weight, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that the buyout program was voluntary rather than compulsory, but there was a building moratorium, and habitation was prohibited in some areas. Here are some stories:
 * http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-after-deadly-landslide-fight-over-building-curbs-goes-on-1426871627
 * http://www.kiro7.com/news/oso-gets-76-million-federal-funds-mudslide-recover/43294007 JerryRussell (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The source that said "Reed had been forced to sell to the county" is the Daily Mail. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard hasn't reached a strong consensus on whether this tabloid can be cited, but it is a controversial source, which I consider skunked: even when its correct, you invite suspicion just by citing it, and that's an unncessary distraction. It looks like the Daily Mail story is a close paraphrase of the Seattle Times anyway, so what's the need? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, particularly if the Daily Fail says something different than the other sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Above I cited the Featured Articles 7 World Trade Center and Sinking of the RMS Titanic that include details and events that extend beyond the strict limits of the subject or event itself. Port Chicago disaster one more example of an article that takes a broader scope. It describes 1) an explosion 2) a mutiny in response to racial segregation and the conditions that led to the explosion, and 3) the trial of the mutineers. Beyond that it has sections that describe the social and political changes caused by these 3 phases years and decades later, through the 1990s and 2000s. It traces actions of participants 50 years after the initial events. Port Chicago disaster is a very well-written narrative that covers both isolated incidents and the sweep of history. If the narrow standard of what is and isn't "off topic" were applied there, you'd have nothing but a description of the explosion, and subsequent reactions and counter-reactions and counter-counter-reactions would be left for the reader to hunt down in some other article.Another FA, Senghenydd colliery disaster, has a somewhat narrower scope, yet still goes into detail on the aftermath of the explosion, noting what became of some of the principals in the events, the longer terms social effects, and media depictions in film and plays, and memorials observed a century later. Yet another FA, SS Arctic disaster tells us the fate of the ship's captain, the eventual fates of other ships involved, the shipping line, and so on. Again, not strictly limited to the event itself. This is the norm for Featured Articles. Other examples include Zong massacre, Gunpowder Plot, Rosewood massacre, 1740 Batavia massacre, 1907 Tiflis bank robbery and more. Our best articles follow threads begin in the original event and do not cut off the story because of some imagined rule. Quality articles do stay focused and have limits on their scope, but the limits of what the community says are the very best Wikipedia articles are significantly broader than what is being claimed here. Ask yourself why WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:Germane and WP:Relevance are all only essays that have never had any of their ideas accepted in a guideline, let alone policy. The reason is the advice they offer is not helpful in getting us closer to what the community thinks our best articles should be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MONGO cited "BLP issues", which is new. This is the first instance of anyone citing a policy rather than an essay or two in favor of removal. What are the BLP issues, specifically? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that any BLP issues are handled pretty well. The article doesn't name the suspected murderer, and it says that he's been arrested on suspicion of the murder, but avoids any judgment about his guilt or innocence. For whatever it's worth, I believe Reed has pleaded innocent of the charges. Perhaps that ought to be mentioned as well, per NPOV. JerryRussell (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. All of these various essays that get cited so often because they have become accepted distillations of long-standing community consensus and norms should be ignored because WMF has not officially enshrined them as policies. But allow me to point out that WP:SECTION, which you [Bratland] cite in the following section, is also an essay. So why are the essays you cite more compelling than the essays everyone else cites? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I cite it? I didn't say: do it because WP:CSECTION says so. I said my reasons were found there in fuller detail. There are varying degrees of acceptance, and that determines the precedence. There's nothing wrong with citing an essay. But it carries less weight than a guideline, which in turn carries less weight than a policy. Violating a policy is a more urgent matter than ignoring the advice of an essay. WP:CANTFIX lists the policies showing the only cases where content must be removed. WP:editing policy trumps any essay or advice page. We have not named an accused, low profile person, respecting the WP:BLPCRIME policy.  When multiple policies apply, or multiple interpretations are possible, the example set by multiple FAs is a good guide as to how the broader community interprets policy. It's a mistake to assume that because an essay exists, it must have broad support. Essays that contradict policy are rarely deleted because it's easier to simply ignore them.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So in the section below you did not actually cite the essay WP:CSECTION, you just waved your hand at some vague and unspecified reasons "found there in fuller detail." Frankly, I am generally more impressed with arguments that people can make out of their own thinking rather than just pointing at something they think says they are right. But given your rejection of essays it seems inconsistent that you claim support from something (unspecified) in an essay. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A Question for all of you who think the murders should be included because their connection with the landslide is close enough to make them relevant about the landslide: should the victim count be incremented by two to reflect the deadliness of the landslide? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An Irrelevant, biased, loaded question I believe. CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, what an erudite comment, and helpful assist to this discussion. Okay, maybe we don't really care about you believe, and now that you gotten that out of your system perhaps you would favor us with a considered comment. E.g., are the two homicides connected so closely to the landslide as to be considered a direct consequence of the slide? If so, then why should the not be included in the list of victims? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think: there are two sets of deaths. The 43 deaths caused directly by the landslide, and the 2 deaths caused in the aftermath of the landslide, the 2 murders.  I do not see a list of victims in the article, if you mean the count of 43 deaths in the lead and infobox I think that count is the count of 43 deaths caused by the landslide.  The 2 murders I consider are a count of deaths in the aftermath of the landslide, the aftermath is a direct consequence of the landslide. The count of 2 deaths by murder are not to be added to the count of 43 deaths in the landslide.I apologize if I misinterpreted your original question, it seemed like a loaded question as written within the RFC section. CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * JJ, I understand the point you're making, but your question is out of scope of the RFC, so I'm moving your question/comment (and replies) to the section. — Gorthian (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to this loaded question, I would ask whether the death count in Rosewood massacre should be increased form 8 to 9 to account for the shortened life of Haywood Carrier who died a year after the event. A similar question could be asked about the death Colonel Archibald Gracie in the article Sinking of the RMS Titanic, or the a number of shipwreck "survivors" who succumbed to illness after the rescue. What to "count" these deaths as is a pedantic question that depends on how one wishes to define words. The question of whether or not they can be mentioned at all is separate from that.There are different sources whose job it is to count victims. Insurance companies have their own criteria for what counts, and that determines whether a policy will pay out in a given case. FEMA has their rules for the scope of their aid. News media make their own choices -- for example, choosing to count the perpetrator and victims differently in a murder/suicide incident. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to make a judgement as to how to count victims of anything; we report what our sources tell us. These opinions can be attributed to whoever voices them. They have nothing to do with the scope of a Wikipedia article. A re-read of Article titles might help here. Long titles like 2014 Oso mudslide and its aftermath are only necessary when there is a chance the article might be confused with some other 2014 Oso mudslide article. When there are no other articles with similar names, it isn't necessary or desirable to append all sorts of adjectives on the end of a title to cover its entire scope. Since we have only one 2014 Oso mudslide article, it can contain everything about the mudslide, and everything connected to it. Long 18th century book titles like Modern Seduction, Or Innocence Betrayed: Consisting Of Several Histories Of The Principal Magdalens, Received Into That Charity Since Its Establishment. Very Proper To Be Read By All Young Persons; As They Exhibit A Faithful Picture Of Those Arts Most Fatal To Youth And Innocence; And Of Those Miseries That Are The Never-Ending Consequences Of A Departure From Virtue have their charm, but we don't do it that way.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

On related versus relevant
I think we need to review the distinction between related (as in linking from or connected in some way) and relevant, which is more about the degree of relation (i.e., how closely related). When I opened this discussion I explicitly questioned the relevancy of the questioned material, whereas VQuakr's first response was that it is "pretty directed related" (emphasis added). He subsequently added: 'Related means "standing in relation or connection."'. And that has been the principal point of controversy.

That those favoring retaining this material insist that the murders are related to the landslide seems quite beside the point, as I don't believe anyone denies a connection. But so what? There are a LOT of connections. Like the long-time state employee that lost his job (see next section); it is connected - derives directly as a consequence of the slide - should it not also be included? How about the person whose car went off the road taking the detour - that is "connected", why shouldn't that be included? If there is no qualification of the degree of relatedness (connection), then, by this supposed rule of "relatedness", those examples should be included. The grotesqueness of doing so shows that we should consider the degree of relatedness. Which comes down to a matter of scope. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comparing a murder to a car running of the road is a rather transparent rhetorical ploy. Nobody said "no qualification" but everyone I know thinks murder is kind of a big deal. Whether you say related or relevant, there's no policy-based argument against including events that happened as a result of the mud slide. Citing the WP:OFFTOPIC section of the essay Writing better articles is just another way of saying "I think it's better like this than like that". Port Chicago disaster is perhaps the most extreme example of an artilce considered to be Wikipedia's best content that ignores that essayist's definition of "better". It describes not only the explosion, but the mutiny that was motivated by the explosion -- which is much like this case: a disaster triggered a major crime -- and then goes into detail in the trial of the mutineers, then goes on to recount the consequences of all that decades later. But there are many other FAs that also ignore that definition of "better", just as that essayist's opinions about redundancy are overruled by the guideline summary style. Lots of other FAs -- in fact every FA I could find about a disaster or wreck or catastrophe -- did indeed include events like major crimes, deaths, social changes, and more that happened as a consequence of the event. So sure, we can take a vote to decide "I like it like this" vs "I like it like that", but this isn't an issue of policy or guidelines. Although, just saying, I would kind of feel like is an NPOV problem to filter events of the degree of importance of murders based on whether they're "tawdry" or "tabloid" -- well-sourced things that makes us feel shame, pity, embarrassment that they even happened -- vs other events that are cheerful or would make polite dinner conversation. That kind of limit pre-judges content not on their sourcing, or their magnitude, but on how they make us feel, and we screen out tawdry murders because they're too Fargo (film)-ish, and we prefer not to think about the dark side of human behavior when thinking about the tragedy and heroism of the Oso mudslide. By all means, vote to exclude it if you don't like it, but don't say policy or guidelines demand it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * BOTH I think the murders are related to the mudslide event and relevant to the mudslide article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a "big deal" does not increase the relatedness of the events. The guy with the car was taking the unpaved detour as a direct result of the slide closing the main road. The direct motive for the murder (apparently) "was retribution for the neighbors' reporting him for squatting at the property". Which followed the property's condemnation and purchase, which followed the slide. And I seem to recall there may have been bad feelings even prior to the slide.
 * You say "we prefer not to think about the dark side of human behavior...", but you seem to have missed that "tabloid" (as in journalism) emphasizes sensational crime stories, etc. It is catering to the vicarious thrill of "the dark side of human behavior". To some of us inclusion of indirectly related crimes sensationalizes the slide, and disrespects those who died as a direct consequence of the slide. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes tabloid journalism emphasizes it, but nobody has ever suggested we emphasize it. Merely be allowed to mention it, and do so in context, and in proportion. Just as any other Wikipedia article would do. Tabloid journalism pretty much covers all the same topics as Wikipedia, or respectable news media, research articles, and books. The difference is not what they cover, it's how. Tabloids cover sex salaciously, Wikipedia covers sex informatively, tabloids cover hoaxes and pseudoscience credulously, Wikipedia covers hoaxes and pseudoscience factually. The tabloids' choice of subject matter doesn't make it off limits to Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the key idea, that to some of us mere inclusion (however factually presented) of such a distantly related crime is sensationalistic. But if you think these two deaths are the direct consequence of the slide, then would you also hold with increasing the casualty count by two? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If you were closing this discussion, what would you do?
Dennis, you wrote above: So sure, we can take a vote to decide "I like it like this" vs "I like it like that", but this isn't an issue of policy or guidelines. But the essay on voting says that we don't vote, we seek to establish a consensus. At this point, arguments have been presented passionately on both sides, mostly based on essays and other reflections on the contents of good encyclopedia articles, rather than any policy questions. The vote is running eight "no" to five "yes" at the moment. So if someone were to close this RfC right now (which would undoubtedly be too early), what would be the conclusion? Considering the unmitigated passion on both sides, I would be most comfortable arguing "No Consensus." And what happens if there's no consensus? WP:NOCON policy says: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. So is this a contentious issue related to BLP? I would say no, the contention is almost entirely about the relevance, not the BLP aspect. So since the material had been in the article a long time before the bold edit that led to this RFC, the result would be that the material is kept.

Considering that I am arguing on the "yes" side, to keep the material, far be it from me to take it on myself to close the discussion. But I am curious if other editors have any thoughts on how this discussion ought to be closed. JerryRussell (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They could close it "remove" but only as local consensus, but noting there is no policy basis for this exclusion, i.e. consensus can change, and very easily. Once the case goes to trial, or sentencing, there will be more coverage, and consensus then will might support keeping it. Or close as "keep" but with an inline maintenance tag, like Importance inline or Relevance inline calling for future reconsideration. Once the article is better developed, it might make more sense, or have better context. For example, a fully-developed article would mention a variety of events triggered by the mudslide, including state employees losing their jobs, changes in policies meant to discourage settlements in unsafe areas, and so on, as we expect to see in a fully developed article, e.g. Sinking of the RMS Titanic. In a fully-developed aftermath section, a couple sentences devoted to this event don't look so out of place or disproportionate. Not saying the name of someone not convicted (WP:BLPCRIME) is the main BLP issue here, and nobody disputes the decision to not say the accused's name. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing the votes pile in on the "No" side, I feel really uncomfortable arguing that this should be decided on a procedural technicality. It makes sense to concede to the majority, while recognizing that there's not any consensus. Or at least, no consensus fitting the ordinary English meaning of the word. Especially in this case, when no one has really identified specific policy issues pro or con.
 * I hope that Dennis turns out to be correct, that as this article develops, and as more of the sagas of the aftermath are told, this incident will seem to fit right into place. JerryRussell (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At the 30-day point, my count of the tally is nine yes (or qualified yes), twelve no. !vote too close to call? JerryRussell (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * closing an RfC is more than counting !votes. If you'd like a formal-ish resolution, I suggest posting a request at WP:ANRFC. VQuakr (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For such a hotly contested issue as this, maybe we should insist on a panel of three closers to publish their deliberations, and then go to an appeals process. Personally, I would be OK if we toss a coin. JerryRussell (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Three seems a smallish panel. To establish panel size, we first need to check - how many active admins are there? VQuakr (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was recently involved with a similar RfC []. In that case, as here, it seemed the issue boiled down to editorial vs true policy issues.  So in that case weight of numbers, especially the views of uninvolved editors, largely carried the day.  It also mattered that the opinions were heavily in one direction.  Here we seem to have about an even split and no obvious policy view in either direction.  Thus I would argue that a consensus hasn't been reached thus the article reverts to what ever it was at the start of the discussion.  In this case I believe the material has been part of the article for a while thus the default would be keep.  Springee (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Another example for consideration?
I read in today's Seattle Times that a longtime employee of the Washington Attorney General's Office has lost his job as a result of the Oso slide. If we are going to cover all of the "aftermath" events shouldn't this be included? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
 * Here's the article: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/judge-state-must-pay-for-email-destruction-in-oso-case/
 * It says that victims of the landslide are suing Washington State and a timber company for damages "that could top $100 Million". A jury trial is expected to begin Monday. In a preliminary hearing, the judge in the case held that the state had willfully deleted relevant emails. The state attorney general said he respected the judge's decision, and pledged to prevent any similar incidents from happening again. This is why the employee was fired.JerryRussell (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That story ran on Oct. 4. The latest news is that Washington State settled the case for $50 Million. The plaintiffs are continuing to pursue the case against the timber company. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/50m-settlement-reached-in-oso-landslide-suit/

Tree genus in the memorial?
All the material I could find about the memorial avenue describes the trees as "cedar", which is where I linked the new section. This change specifically links to Cedrus, but the trees look like Cupressaceae to me. Cedrus isn't native to the PNW, either. Admittedly it's surprising that anyone would plant Western Red or Port Orford (=Lawson Cypress) so close together. Can anyone point to an authoritative source? David Brooks (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC) ETA: I should have put that more strongly. They are clearly not Cedrus. David Brooks (talk) 16:38, 18 Auguszt 2017 (UTC)
 * The tree genus is irrelevant, so I removed the link. Cedar is a common English word and so shouldn't be linked in the first place. What is relevant to this topic is that it is written in a way to imply that the "impromptu memorials" in the first sentence includes the 43 identical cedar trees, planted in evenly spaced rows, each assigned an individual victim and given items to match that person. Which makes it astronomically unlikely that the tree memorial was "impromptu". It is almost certainly something very well planned and organized, and has been carefully maintained for at least two years. I found a half dozen news articles more or less the same as the Seattle Times article cited. They all use passive voice to describe the "43 trees planted" but none attribute that planting to anybody. Who planted the trees? Who organized the project? Anyone with time to work on this should try to find that out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The (apparently) impromptu memorials are the objects and writing left on the barrier. But thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. I wrote to WSDOT about the trees because it piqued my curiosity, but of course if they send a private reply that would constitute OR. David Brooks (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out how the construction of this memorial -- not the impromptu one, the organized cedar grove -- could not have been reported. There are multiple local news sites besides the Seattle media, and I don't see any mention. Could be I'm somehow not searching with the right terms. Any detail WSDOT provides is useful in tracking down verifiable sources, so it's helpful to email them. And if they give you information which is contained in a public record available on request, that is verifiable too and we can cite it, even if it's not published. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the trees are Atrovirens Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata ‘Atrovirens’), which seems to be an ornamental cultivar. But I totally agree that the generic term is more appropriate for the article. David Brooks (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2018

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Possible changes to the article text to illustrate the differences between types of flows and slides are outside the scope of this close, and discussion or implementation of those points can continue as necessary. Dekimasu よ! 22:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

2014 Oso mudslide → 2014 Oso landslide – The term "mudslide" is a misnomer for a mudflow. As has been discussed on the mudflow article, the term mudlisde is a misnomer for a mudflow, and that article was moved accordingly. We should not use such a term for this event if it generally not used by geologists. The text of this article even refers to it as landslide. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) TornadoLGS (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Without a doubt, geologists will make physicists, economists, florists, vexillologist and many other specialists cringe with their misuse of the cant and jargon of those fields. I'm sure non-geologist specialists pull their hair out at the sloppy imprecision of a well meaning geologist calling a floral design a bouquet when any professional florist will have very good reasons why these are two quite different. "Oso mudslide" is the most commonly used term, though it is quite true that many sources also say "Oso landslide", often using the terms interchangeably in the same source. It's encyclopedic to inform readers that landslide is the correct geological jargon. I don't see any eventide for the assertion that any of our sources think this was a mudflow -- outside of some personal blogs and YouTube, reliable sources don't call it the Oso mudflow in that technical sense. They're using mudslide as a vernacular equivalent to landslide. For non-geologists, the distinction isn't necessary. Wikipedia policy is quiet explicit that the encyclopedia is not written in technical jargon, but in the common language, even if it is "wrong" according to special definitions.I'd support a move if there were compelling evidence that "Oso landslide" is the more common term -- from what I can tell, mudslide isn't overwhelmingly more common, but it is clearly more common and has precedence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For starters, the argument that ""mudslide" is a misnomer for a mudflow" does not justify changing "mudslide → landslide". Additionally, the proposer is skipping over this quite superficially, without due diligence in searching out previous discussion of this point, so he has missed Bejnar's comment that "mudslide" "is the vernacular." And it has not been shown that we have any problem with that. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize on that. It would have been better to simply say that the term is a misnomer since laypeople have used it to describe landslides, but it is a misnomer nonetheless. I admit that I missed the archived talk pages for his article, but I did read the discussions on the mudflow article. I figured that the argument by Bejnar didn't hold much weight in this case since landslide is already a very common term. I guess I will have to be content that the lead of this article refers to the event as a landslide. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For what's worth: it did start as a landslide. But when it hit the river it fluidized, and the rest of the story, and all the salient characteristics, is all about mud. And while there is no doubt that "flow" is the technically more accurate term, that is not how it is commonly known. Any thing else I might say on this would be pretty much just recapping what Dennis has already said, so I'll just suggest re-reading his comments (above). &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since it appears that this move is not going to happen, shall I remove the template? TornadoLGS (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Like it says on the notice: "may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached". If you agree to not doing the move, and no one else chimes in otherwise, then presumably there is consensus to not do the move, and after the 29th the discussion can be closed (see the instructions). &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I got a little mixed up since I was checking in on an AfD at the time as well. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral Per Dennis Bratland and the nominator, can't pick a side here.  Maybe keep as is and put the 'also known as the 2014 Oso landslide' in lead?? JC7V (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said above, it did start as landslide. Perhaps we could keep the first part of the lead sentence ‒ "A major landslide occurred ..." ‒ then explain how upon hitting the river it morphed into a mudflow that ran across the valley. To merely say that it is "also known as ..." seems weak; better to explain why it has this dual character. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, and, of course have both terms wikilinked to help demonstrate the distinction. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

Requested move 22 March 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2014 Oso landslide. There is no consensus to remove the year from the title, while there is a consensus that landslide is the common term used for this event. – robertsky (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

2014 Oso mudslide → Oso landslide – The event's common name, based on long-term coverage from The Seattle Times (this 2024 article for example) as well as government documents from the Department of Natural Resources.  Sounder Bruce  17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME; we should speedy or boldly move the page now if possible.
 * I just opened an uncontroversial technical request to move this to 2014 Oso landslide; unable to boldly make that move myself. Rather than the requested move process, I'd let that uncontroversial move happen. Or if anyone can move it now to the yearless title, that works too.
 * PK-WIKI (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It may still be controversial, so waiting a full discussion is warranted.  Sounder Bruce  18:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support  Unless there is another notable Oso landslide then the year is unnecessary. The Vital One (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Please take note that this is not a move to simply remove the year, but also renames it from "mudslide" to "landslide". Input on that aspect would be helpful. asilvering (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Moderate oppose I understand the need for simplicity, however there is a section on the page titled, History of slide activity. Not to be charged with WP:CRYSTAL, but it's possible this won't be the only one. Since it hasn't, and based on a quick search, some of the other slides would achieve minimum notability standards, so...we could potentially have articles for the 1937, 1962, and 2006 slides...making this convo naught. Personally I appreciate the title details that includes the year. It helps to separate the topic out a bit more; I mean, if we look around, a great many articles have year/topic titles, especially natural disasters. Seems standard. FWIW.Shortiefourten (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those slides are not notable enough for their own articles. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be succinct as this is the primary topic under the name.  Sounder Bruce  19:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Consensus to remove "2014", but like asilvering I would prefer to see some discussion on the change from "mudslide" to "landslide". However, if there are no additional comments on that specific aspect, I would see the general supports current made as sufficient to support the full move. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose a move to Oso landslide, on the basis that removing the year is an unnecessary change that conflicts with WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT.
 * 1. I disagree with the assertion that WP:CONCISE applies here, as I do not believe adding clarity to a 2-word title with 4 numbers and a space is at all within the spirit of that rule. The examples given in that guideline are reducing 7 words to 2, or 90 words to 3. While "2014 Oso Landslide" is already among the shortest titles for major event articles.
 * 2. I agree with @Shortiefourten that this is not the first Oso landslide, which will already induce confusion, but it is also very unlikely to be the last.
 * 3. Publications, such as the referenced Seattle Times article, refer to it as only "Oso landslide" because that is what fits their medium. They and other news organizations always speak to the current state of the world. For example, if a similarly devastating landslide occurs in Oso 35 years from now, they might have an article with the exact same title but be referring to a completely different event, and that is fine because the local community will know exactly what they are referring to.
 * 4. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as reference material it should make clear what event is being discussed out of a series of events that could all be referred to by the same name. Removing the "2014" now would only necessitate another move back to "2014" in the future when it becomes a bigger problem.
 * I support a move to 2014 Oso landslide, for all the reasons already mentioned regarding the common usage and overall terminology of mudslide vs landslide. Varixai (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support a move to 2014 Oso landslide, for all the reasons already mentioned regarding the common usage and overall terminology of mudslide vs landslide. Varixai (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.