Talk:2014 Oso landslide/Archive 1

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  Borg 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 Wikipedia 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. [But see below.] 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)




 * 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  Borg 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 Wikipedia before. 220  of  Borg 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  Borg 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 ✅ 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  Borg 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  Borg 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  Borg 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 Wikipedia 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  Borg 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 [www.seattlepi.com/ Seattle Post-Intelligencer], 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: 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)
 * The Landslide Blog, over at the AGU site
 * Aerial History and LiDAR of the Stilliguamish Blocking Landslide at Reading the Washington Landscape


 * 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 Wikipedia. More common for Wikipedia 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)