Talk:Oso, Washington

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Skaglund Hill Landslide[edit]

The landslide event needs independent article based on the loss of at least eight persons.--MONGO 17:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs it's own article. Corn cheese (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: That is the usual practice for such an event. I see no evidence that "Skaglund Hill Landslide" has been generally adopted. "Oso mudslide" with 94 unique results from Google Search seems to be a better title. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...let's get a title...sometimes these sorts of events have a year in the title...what would be the best naming convention.--MONGO 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example...2005 La Conchita landslide--MONGO 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's getting a lot of news coverage on an otherwise slow day... but beyond that it's a minor event. The only way to make an article that's more than a stub would be to stuff it full of largely irrelevant detail. 2601:8:9380:219:BCEE:DE3B:103A:135 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So at least 8 dead, 108 people unaccounted for makes it a "minor" event? It's an important event and it deserves its own article.--2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:3589:F8D5:3995:553F (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on separate article or name of it. But it is getting international media attention currently the article on BBC news is on the front page of internet version. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: "Minor event"? 108 people is nearly half the town. I live 20 miles north. The area had another slide in 2006, so the date should be in the title, and the dead should be remembered. 76.28.243.198 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and now in own article at 2014 Oso mudslide--MONGO 19:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Too late, I realize, but I wanted to throw my support into the ring. As well as a chastisement to the IP editor who believes this is a minor event. It's been broadcast for days on national and world news. Even Reuters is covering it. Not minor in the eyes of news agencies, definitely not minor in the eyes of Washington residents. The state's governor declared a state of emergency. President Obama has declared this an emergency that warrants FEMA involvement. Never was "minor". Is even less-so now. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It's too early to call whether this is a significant event. Compare this to everyday occurrences in Africa and the Far East where thousands die. Wiki doesn't document every flash flood there. If there's something socially significant about this situation -- such as tying the mudslide to clear cut logging -- that's encyclopedic. If it's just a mudslide that took out a community of people who were ill-advised to build in an unstable area, it's not encyclopedic. Leptus Froggi (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense?[edit]

It sounds like 14 people are dead and 176 are missing at the site of a CDP pop. 180. Not to sound callous, because this is just an incredibly horrible tragedy not all that far from where I live -- but is there anything left of Oso? Is it still actually a populated place, or was it completely wiped out by this awful slide? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were people on the highway driving, there were out of towners visiting relatives and friends, there were people at their vacation homes who are not permanent residents, and so on. Hope this information helps. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

While bears have not been unknown in this area, I am suspicious of the purported Spanish origin of the name Oso. I remember once reading that Oso is named for the Swedish island of Ösö, in sv:Grundsund. The area is heavily of Scandinavian descent, which makes this more plausible to me. If anyone can help me dig up an actual reference I would be grateful. 205.175.116.135 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Washington Place Names Database, which is a generally well-regarded and well-researched source maintained by the Tacoma Public Library, the Washington town was named after a now-defunct town in Texas, which is how it got a Spanish name—there's also an Oso Creek, Oso Bay, etc, in Texas, all named for the Spanish for bear. (There's no way to link to specific entries in the WPND, but if you go here and type "Oso" into the search box, you'll get the entry, with citations. The entry claims no town of Oso exists in Texas, but I've emailed them the newspaper citations indicating that Oso, Texas, existed in the 1860s-1870s. Per their response, they are currently switching content management systems and unable to update the entry but have added it to their to-do list.) 71.231.81.183 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TIME[edit]

11:00 PDT,PST,UTC, or what?68.178.50.46 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skaglund Hill[edit]

Regarding this edit: Why was this removed completely without discussion?

WP:SUMMARY style. We shouldn't duplicate 2014 Oso mudslide here.

the reference DOES call it Skaglund Hill and that is what it is referred to by the WSDOT

This Seattle Times article and the WSDOT blog clarify that the Skaglund Hill SR 530 project was on the other side of the river. Some of that work is visible on newer imagery at 48°16′19″N 121°51′24″W / 48.27184°N 121.856714°W / 48.27184; -121.856714. It's not the same hill. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you are incorrect about the hill location. And the slide article actually came from here. What I had written was essentially stolen from this article and put into the other word for word. Yes, it's been expanded and improved on, but what's now here isn't what's in the other article, by and large. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a little research of my own. Found that you are correct. Skaglund Hill is on the opposite side of the river. Thanks for the heads up. I will correct the article right away. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the articles are being very precise. The previous work was *at* Skaglund hill, not *on* Skaglund Hill. The hill this slide came from is called Skaglund Hill by locals. You can even hear it in just-release 911 tapes. 50.125.55.147 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. You are welcome to contribute, but please review the criteria (see preceding link) for criteria. Imprecise information is frequently associated with emergencies. But it should not be retained or repeated in an article.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, the slide crossed the river en route to the highway and houses. This is clearly shown on the interactive before-and-after photo/graphic the Seattle Times posted. I don't know the names of the hills thereabouts, but the graphic made it quite clear that the hill from which the side slid was across the river from most if not all of the inhabited area it inundated. --Haruo (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skaglund Hill is on the opposite side of the river from the hill where the slide originated. That's the context of my original comment this section, Haruo. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's wrong. I read the article about the project, and it's not clear that the work across the river wasn't named after this hill that slid. See this article. And others that say the Skaglund Hill slid in 2006 and show the overlapping area. It would be nice to see it marked on a map though. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I read showed something different. But if you have a iron-clad, reliable reference that says otherwise, go ahead and put it back in. I was pretty sure it was Skaglund Hill from what I read originally, too and it's certainly possible I was wrong the second time. And I agree: a map would be ideal to pinpoint it. I've looked several times online to see if I could find one and no luck so far. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Skaglund Hill Geotech Report (warning: 16 MB PDF) described the 2006 Skaglund Hill landslide in detail for WSDOT. This was the one on the south side of the river that damaged SR 530 and motivated the permanent repair. The northern hill also had a landslide in 2006, which is mentioned in the report: "On January 25, 2006, a large landslide occurred across the valley and upstream of the Skaglund Hill Landslide. This landslide, informally named the Hazel landslide by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, temporarily diverted the North Fork Stillaguamish River." The DNR is saying that the current event was a reactivation of that Hazel landslide. —Mrwojo (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]