Talk:Black Saturday bushfires

Photographs

If anyone has good quality images, on flickr, or wherever, and would like to contribute one or two to this article, it would be much appreciated. Nick carson (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some images of bushfire damage to property in Yarra Glen and Steels Creek, obtained with the permission of the owners who were notified that the images would be licensed under creative commons and used in an encyclopedic article on WP. Amazing people, just want to talk to you about things and tell their stories, could have chatted all evening. Just thought I'd run it past people here as to where they'd be best suited within the article. The police get a bit over-worked up about sight-seers in the affected areas who stir up residents by taking photos without their permission and without explaining what they're for, let alone saying hello to them and talking to them. So I just thought I'd make my intentions clear before anyone misjudged them as a bit inconsiderate or tasteless. Images can be found here. Nick carson (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the property owners are fine with the images and gave you permission to take them, I don't see a problem here. You've also released them into the public domain, and not under a creative commons licence FWIW. -- Longhair\^talk 10:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Nick - these are good images. IMHO the four images that show complete destruction of property are fine because they are unlikely to identify persons or property easily. The one with the house undamaged in the distance is less useful (again IMHO) because the house and thus owner can be quite easily identified and because they made it through with less damage that can present feelings of guilt, anger, etc which might be unhelpful to the owners. Just my 2 cents worth in terms of your question on sensitivity.--VS ^talk 10:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :] I'll include some in the article. Nick carson (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Rather than continuing to add new, uncited information, we need to concentrate of citing the information already there and then ensure all new information is cited. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. But just consider, citation only comes into effect if information is subject to being challenged. Facts such as the wind change and windspeed are very matter of fact to anyone living in the state right now. ABC News Radio is a very up to date and reliable source of information, they broke news of the 14 deaths before even their TV news, let alone Sky and others, how do we properly cite it as a source? The fact that the stated rail lines were closed is also very 'blue sky', and can be confirmed very easily. I've been adding factual information as it comes to hand and citing basic sources where i can, anyone can slap citation tags on things but actual contribution would be helpful, if they seek sources and help locate references then I'd be much more appreciative, tags ultimately do little to help. Nick carson (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, all information should be sourced before adding. If it can't be sourced, it should not go in. WP:V is pretty clear on that point. I have been adding sources but I can't keep up with the unsourced information being added. You are doing a good job, but everything needs sourcing before adding, even if it means waiting for a while for a print source before updating. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

You're better off just adding cited material and expanding once the fires have settled down and more reliable information is handed out to the public. I'm sure there will be big reports done by each news agency in a few days time. Be much easier to do rather than added a clump of information that came from 774 here and there, then having to find a citation later. Expanding is easier than cleaning up without removing valuable info in my experience. Maybe just post quick updates on the talk page and wait for a published source? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I personally find cleanup easier than expanding. Nick carson (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, i do too. But just in this case we're going to end up with a whole load of info - that's worth mentioning, such as wind strengths etc - and it's going to need citation at some point. Easier just to use the news articles which summarise the events, rather than the ones which are reporting. If you look on the ABC site, there's 20-30+ articles floating around. It'll be easier in a day or two to just use one or two articles. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 14:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No citations for content is bad enough but citations that don't support content are another thing. For example i have just removed from an infobox claims that ignition source was arson (with a citation) and lightning (no citation). For the arson claim the citation has the following relevant text -'...He believed arsonists were responsible for some of the nine major fires ripping across the state. "We suspect a number of the fires have been deliberately lit," Mr Walshe told reporters.'- I guess it will turn out to be started from various sources, but guesses and speculation are not the basis for a credible source for citation. Also, does anyone know how to put a template on the article that advises that claims are unsourced?--Theo Pardilla (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are various ignition but the quote you extracted wasmore than a guess, it was just worded with emergency worker caution. There are many fires with independent causes, one of which was arson. I have re-added arson with a stronger statement. Rather than tag the article as a whole, why don't you tag what you see as the unsupported claims?

I have added "Various sources" to the infobox and suggest that the claim of arson be removed until we confirm the exact sources of the fires. Various sources will likely stay for good as there are just so many fires we souldn't possibly list how over 100 bushfires started. Nick carson (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Not sure how the media might coin these fires, I thought February 7 Victorian bushfires was adequate enough, at least in the short term, I think we'll just see how things pan out in regards to naming. Just don't want to see some terrible move to a media-coined name. Nick carson (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the name was changed overnight to 2009 Victorian bushfires, we should be weary as there could be conflicting fires in the 2009-10 season. Also, these fires are directly linked to that particular day yet the changed name reflects an entire year and can be misleading. Nick carson (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the Herald Sun and a couple of weather forums are referring to the fires as "Black Saturday". I would advise against this naming. Black Saturday has already been coined for various other events, at least 11, a list can be found here. I suggest that we revert naming back to "February 7 Victorian bushfires" and just wait to see what other naming emerges, if any, be it appropriate in all respects for use. I'd like to avoid any edit wars so I'll leave the revert to someone else. Nick carson (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that February 7 Victorian bushfires would be fine. Although much of the fires have also gone across more days it will be Feb 7th which will stand out with the extreme conditions causing other spot fires and smaller fires across places like Cranbourne, Narre Warren etc. 2009 Victorian bushfires may seem a bit too ambiguous as it could imply other others as well as the ones across this weekend. Chalkstar2188 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactally. For example; the Black Friday fires were precipitated by the exceptional conditions on the friday, yet burnt for 50 or 60 days afterwards. Also; 2009 Victorian bushfires is too ambiguous, it could refer to any fires throughout the year and there have been many in January, totally separate from the February 7 fires. Nick carson (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought someone had changed the 2008-09 bushfire season to this name. It's not a very good name to specifythe fire it is referring to. And these fires definitely require their own page, it's only going to grow as more info is released. Revert back to February 7 Victorian bushfires. I'm not going to, as the In the News link will change and i'm not too sure what to do with that. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The February 7 title is not a good one because it is now clear the fires are continuing. Given the scale of the these fires, when discussing the Victorian fires in 2009, this will be the only one thought of. Support keeping the current name unless another name gains currency in the press etc. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people will or won't think of, 2009 Victorian fires is far too ambiguous, 2 other editors are in support and anyone with knowledge on how to revert the "February 7 Victorian bushfires" should do so. Nick carson (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Agree with Matt. It's best left as 2009 Victorian bushfires since these fires will continue to burn until it rains (Area is too large and inaccessible for fire fighters to control the fires) which could be a few weeks to maybe a month. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current name 2009 Victorian bushfires is satisfactory because the time period referred to in the text (currently Feb 7 onwards) does not include January bushfires such as at Boolarra. It could perhaps be called February 2008 Victoria bushfires, along the lines of naming in Category:Wildfires in California. Melburnian (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that these fires will continue to burn doesn't negate the ambiguity of the current naming convention. For examples see: Ash Wednessday, Black Friday, Red Tuesday, etc. Furthermore, the naming "2009 Victorian bushfires" should be reserved for any article in which the subject matter pertains to bushfires in Victoria throughout the year 2009. We now have 4 in support of the revert and 2 against it. I am suggesting to revert back to February 7 Victorian bushfires, February 2009 Victorian bushfires is still to ambiguous to the entire month. Nick carson (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got no issues with February 2009 Victorian (or "Victoria") bushfires. Bidgee (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Ash Wednesday? Black Saturday? They usually name fires after the day that they were worst, or the day that they began. As for now i am leaning towards Melburnian's proposal, February 2009* Victoria bushfires. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We're familiar with the traditional naming conventions of bushfires in Australia. Again, I am suggesting to revert back to February 7 Victorian bushfires, it pertains directly to the fires that began on the 7th and continued burning for an as yet unknown time afterwards. Other fires may occur in feb in Victoria that are not related to these fires, as such, February 2009 Victorian bushfires is still to ambiguous to the entire month. February 2009 Victoria bushfires is bad grammar. Nick carson (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the current title (2009 Victorian bushfires) is fine in the absence of anything more definite. -- Longhair\^talk 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

However, we are not in absence of anything more definite. Nick carson (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention for Australian bushfires is "Year" "Location" fires such as 1967 Tasmanian fires or 1994 Eastern seaboard fires unless it has a names such as Black Friday (1939). So the name should be 2009 Victorian fires unless black saturday gets widely accepted then it should be named Black Saturday (2009) 203.87.9.240 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP bushfire naming convention is out of date and requires amendment and should not be considered absolute. Events such as the 1967 Tasmanian bushfires were named in retrospect as they occurred prior to WP existing. Such names in themselves are still ambiguous as several other fires occurred in tas in 67 that were not related with the main fire event. These articles will be updated and their naming amended in time. Revert to "February 7 Victorian bushfires" still required. Nick carson (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons here, should it be bushfires or fires. Sure the fires are mainly bushfires, but there is a lot of structural damage, scrubs fires and what-not. Fires just covers a much broader subject. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A cat amongst pigeons indeed! hehe. Definately bushfires, structures usually only account for less than one percent of the total fuel burnt. Nick carson (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Continue to oppose rename to February 7. One, it is just wrong; the fires have now lasted into a second day. Two, it goes against Australian date formatting which is day-month-year. Thirdly, it is over specific; given the scale of these fires, these will be the fires that people will call the 2009 fires, not the run-of-the-mill fires earlier in the year. It will be a much much much more likely search term than the specific date. Fourthly, it is in line with WP naming protocol for events. I am not opposed to a rename should a name achieve common currency later on but February 7 is not suitable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a fire that destroyed 29 homes "run-of-the-mill" Melburnian (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Mattinbgn was implying. And the bushfires have destroyed around 130+ homes, likely several hundred. Nick carson (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Melburnian was referring to a different fire, when Mattinbgn collectively referred to all other fires as run-of-the-mill. You can't just call these the 2009 Victoria fires and ignore other fires which happened in 2009 (in Vic). I do agree that over time this will obviously be remembered as those fires in 2009, but we need a more specific title, this is just too ambiguous. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it is too ambiguous, but I'm willing to leave it as 2009 Victorian bushfires until a more specific name can be established in the next few days. Nick carson (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the current name is entirely adequate until, as will inevitably happen, the media arrive at some consensus as to naming over the next few days. Debate 木 06:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Channel 9 seems to be sticking with Victoria Burns. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just chucking in what I think - I'm strongly against February 7 Victorian bushfires as a title for the same reasons as Mattinbgn. In the unlikely event that there is another extreme series of bushfires in Victoria in 2009, I'd rather have February 2009 Victorian bushfires then a specific day. Terlob (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We should not accept any given names coined by the media. If these fires become known by any name over time, it will be reflected here on WP. Channel 9 and their "Victoria Burns" is merely a tag they have put onto their news items regarding the bushfires. Trying to label this event in haste is inappropriate. The only name that would be accepted would be one (if any) that sticks in the future. Trying to push for a particular label to be applied is just plain ignorant. Nick carson (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not implying we use it. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Saturday

Why does the lead image have the title, Black Saturday? I can find no reference to this name in any recent news articles after a brief online search. -- Longhair\^talk 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above... I noticed that the Herald Sun and a couple of weather forums are referring to the fires as "Black Saturday". I would advise against this naming. Black Saturday has already been coined for various other events, at least 11, a list can be found here. I suggest that we revert naming back to "February 7 Victorian bushfires" and just wait to see what other naming emerges, if any, be it appropriate in all respects for use. I'd like to avoid any edit wars so I'll leave the revert to someone else. Nick carson (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The term Black Saturday is now beginning to get a mention. See the image caption on this news article. Still too early to begin using it IMHO. -- Longhair\^talk 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Continually moving the name around based on what so-and-so station called the fires is a losing proposition. There are no victory points awarded for getting in "first", and anything less than a clear consensus in the media constitutes original research. No clear consensus on naming will emerge for at least a few days, and there is absolutely no need for us to preempt such consensus here. Until such a consensus emerges the current name is perfectly adequate. Debate 木 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought exactly. And if an individualised name does not emerge then they'll stay as 2009 Victorian bushfires or something simmilar. There is no rule book that says we must label these events by colours and days. Nick carson (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Marysville deaths

Clearly, there has been multiple fatalities in Marysville but there has been no confirmation from the police yet. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

True. We just need to wait until confirmative word gets through. Some of the helicopter images of Marysville look scary. Last I heard they were evacuating survivors from that area, so it'll take a while for them to confirm any casualties. Nick carson (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The death toll is going to rise. Last i heard there were 9 confirmed deaths in the Churchill area, which started from the embers of the Bunyip fire. 35+ now. I think we're going to be looking at 500+ houses destroyed as well. You look at the size of these towns Marysville (500+ people), Kinglake (1500), were both completely destroyed. An hour ago there was this, saying "In that area of Marysville we haven't had confirmed reports of loss of life." and "Marysville I understand, there's only one building left in the town." k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the number of buildings destroyed will likely ultimately be several hundred. The West Gippsland deaths have been included in the article. The report of one building left is out of date as it came through about 1am this morning. Anything further is speculation and we need to rely on confirmed facts. Nick carson (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On 3AW (radio isn't a source so i'm not going to add it) they just had a channel 9 reporter on, who was just in Marysville. He said they saw around 100 homes, only 2 left standing. So i'm sure by the time the news is on tonight, we will have some reliable figures. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Brumby says at least 49 deaths and many more. This is tragic. Waiting for news updates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

49 deaths makes it the 2nd worst fires, in terms of loss of life, in the states history. 203.87.9.240 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

49, I can't believe that it's still rising. People from Kinglake are explaining that most of them had fire plans and were packed and ready to escape when they got the message that the town was under threat, but within 5-10 minutes the sky turned black and the fire came through very quickly. This would explain why people tried to escape at the last minute. I don't know if anyone else has been to Kinglake or not, but the roads in and out are on steep valley sides and it would have been impossible to get out of the area in such a short ammount of time. Nick carson (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who lives in a fire prone area, as I have done, should know that waiting for the fire before fleeing is far too late. Leave early or don't leave at all (ie on the morning of a Total Fire Ban day, especially the hottest most dangerous day in history, not when you see smoke or hear reports of a fire on the radio). A fire can spread much quicker than you can drive, especially in the winds we saw yesterday. Having your car packed and ready to go isn't a fire plan, it's suicide. The last place you want to be caught in a major bushfire is on the road, surrounded by smoke, in your car - even the worst house is a significantly better place to try to survive a fire than the best car. Debate 木 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It will probably rise a fair bit more. Neil Mitchell was indicating it could compete with the deaths of Ash Wednesday (75). Just the media wouldn't dare announce anything until it's all confirmed, which is the way it should be done. Horrible days. They were saying that there's a few in hospital that may not make it, whether they're included in the 49 i'm not sure. 49 makes it the sixth deadliest in Australia, 5th in Victoria: Bushfires in Australia#Deadliest fires.

I wouldn't consider Neil Mitchell an authority on anything. Commercial radio has an interest in talking up the drama in order to drum up ratings. Debate 木 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was never insinuating we should go by what he has said, i was just saying expect the worst. There's definiely no grounds to start saying radio stations are bullshitting us at a time like this. They've done a hell of a lot for people over the last 48 hours, and should be commended. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be conflicting reports of the number of deaths from these bushfires; in one part it states "at least 65 deaths", whereas further in the article it states 50 deaths. Shouldn't this be corrected? - Sarz (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

65 is now current. It was just released within the last 10 minutes, i'm sure it will be corrected soon. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll now reported to be up to 76. :-( - Sarz (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualities don't add up, the break down of casualities total to 77 not 76 203.87.9.240 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll now 84 - I think the total number is going to move faster than the breakdown http://www.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=301174Chimeralex (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A CFA Officer reported the official toll was now 96 deaths on ABC Radio a few minutes ago, no other sources yet though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.89.119 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

10 have been confirmed in Marysville. We've just got to hold off on speculation and just keep updating the figures as they come through. There are many other figures that also need updating, not just the death toll, but the area burnt, structures lost, injuries, livestock, number of personel fighting the fires, etc. Nick carson (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Locator Map

I have created a simple locator map, I'm working on a better version which should be ready later this evening, just in case anyone else might start one so we don't have double maps. Nick carson (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A good start and makes the scale of the Kinglake complex apparent. Probably need separate maps for Bendigo, Beechworth and Horsham. Or perhaps a statewide map. Maps are not my strong point-- Mattinbgn\^talk

Much better making out the area burnt/burning which gives a better view point. I did make a map (File:Victoria bushfires - 9am Feb 8 2009 fire locations map.png) but please don't use it as it's now based on old information. Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made an updated map of the Kinglake fire complex. Better and updated version will follow during the week. Nick carson (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sections and sub-sections

I propose we create seperate sections for each different fire complex (eg. Beechworth, Bunyip, Bendigo, Kilmore, Redesdale), and sub-sections for each suburb (eg. Kilmore - Wandong, Strathewen, Murindindi, Clonbinane, Kinglake) . There's a lot tocover for each, especially as death tolls rise and stories are told. Also, we're probably going to need a section on the backlash, wouldn't think that would be covered for a few days at least - a lot of people seemed unprepared, lack of communications telling them of the danger. This article requires some expansion. Thoughts? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, once the incident is over, the article will need a mass rewrite. Feel free to be bold and restructure the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it'll help to make the article look more cleaner and easier to read. - Sarz (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest it myself. (An Argento Fan (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Is it the Kilmore fires or Kinglake fires? Both names are being used 203.87.9.240 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kilmore fires and the Murindindi fires merged in places and have been burning in close proximity, thus are being treated as one fire which is now known as the Kinglake Fire Complex. I'm not sure if this includes the Mt. Ridell fires west of Healesville or not. Nick carson (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted some information about Jihad fires. No news has reported any link associated with terrorism and the cause of these fires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is someone going to mention Climate Change. 3 significant events have occurred which could all be tied together in relation to the fires. The heatwave, the drought and political comments from Greens MP Bob Brown as well as Victorian Premier John Brumby who have associated potential global warming causes with the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The weather that precipitated the floods in Queensland, heatwave in southeast Australia and bushfires in Victoria are all attributale to a weather system that stalled over the Tasman Sea. It has been suspected that climate change has been the 'cherry on the top' of these weather events, causing such high temperatures, such high winds, etc, that led to the extreme conditions at the level they were. Take climate change out of the equation and these events would still have occurred but perhaps not to the same extent as they have. As for drought, it's always an element of all bushfires down here, the largest events occurr in roughly 2 decade cycles as drought dries undergrowth, fires sweep through and then vegetation subsequently recovers until there is enough fuel for subsequent major bushfire events. Nick carson (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, so ill just edit it then. Appears as though what i just said, namely references from two significant sources, isn't "newsworthy" enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fire complex

What is a 'fire complex'? I'm not into firefighting jargon. Ozdaren (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "complex" fire: A "complex" fire is two or more fires in the same area assigned to a single commander or unified command. - according to The Edge Complex - Sarz (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Put that down as my mistake. We need to somehow work this into the article, even i screwed this up, i'm sure readers would be confused. Slightly different descriptions here, here and here. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the CFA definition, a fire complex can be 2 or more large fires that marge or burn very close in the same area. Nick carson (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that an uncommon term to warrant a term explanation in the content. Nick carson (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to us Nick, I assume you're Australian? What if you were from Norway or Iceland and you were looking into this? You'd be like "Vat de fook is a foire complex!?"Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but this article isn't about fire complexes, or even bushfires in general, we can direct readers to where they can find additional information, they can click on the link to bushfire and learn all about bushfires, etc. Perhaps we need a wikilink on 'fire complex' that leads to that particular section of the bushfire article. Nick carson (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Steels Creek

Steels Creek is about 5 km south-south east of Kinglake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.28.53 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Death Toll

Just wondering, but are we keeping to this source? I don't know where 85 came from, but I think we should stick to the government figures. Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I changed to 84 (typo) and source is Sky News which seems to be the most up to date http://www.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=301174, am following closely as am on standby for medical relief. Chimeralex (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The CFA, DHS, DSE and ABC News Radio are the most up to date sources, note that none of them are commercial sources. Commercial media sources are unreliable, they are subject to bias and exaggeration. Nick carson (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

HS and Age have been reliable enough when giving the casualty list, and reasonably quick. There is no need to blanket rule out commercial sources, rather judge each report on its merits. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I was being a little biased myself. The Age can indeed be a fantastic source. HS is usually accurate, but they exaggerate a fair it. Nick carson (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Official Victoria Police/CFA death toll is at 93, as of 1:40am Monday AEDST - reduced due to a counting error from 96. That's off the 3AW broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.239.106 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

3AW is not a reliable nor a verifiable source. 96 has been sourced[1] so please don't change it unless you can find and use a reliable and verifiable source. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4] backs up 96. Bidgee (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[5] backs up 93; double counts, apparently. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should use the Victoria Police wesite, as that is where they are most likely to obtain their information for the news reports. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any report of where it says the death toll is now 111, only that it is 108, this has been rectified unless a source confirming the first figure can be stated. - Sarz (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of casualties has been raised to 130, this is from the Victoria Police website. [6]. Again, this number is expected to rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.78.97 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 131, again reported from the Victoria Police Site. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil.of.firewalls (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't call this the deadliest natural disaster in Australia until it passes Cyclone Mahina's 410 deaths. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I had similar concerns over this labeling. Prime example of WP editors relying too heavily on over-exaggerating commercial media sources. Prime example. Also, the toll supplied by Sky news of 171 has as yet been unconfirmed by Victoria Police who have so far only confirmed 156. I thought we had agreed to rely on Victoria Police and other direct sources rather than commercial entities such as Sky. Nick carson (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ABC News Breakfast now report that official police numbers put the number of dead at 173 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick - it's highly inappropriate that you use this tragedy to underscore your war against commercial organisations. The claim that the Bushfires are Australia's most deadly natural disaster is correct depending on the definition of "Australia". If we take Australia to mean the country in existence from 1901 to present then to call it "Australia's most deadly natural disaster" would indeed be correct. 202.67.91.228 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It didn't become Australia on federation, Australia is understood by people to mean the continent, not the country. Thus the tragedy of cyclone Mahina should be Australia's worst disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.165.249 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no 'war on commercial organisations', I was simply stating facts. If you want to call it the worst disaster since Australia's federation then call it that, but the History of Australia encompasses far more than just the last 108 years, as explained by the unsigned comment above. Regardless, I think there are more important things to consider in this article than worrying about wether or not we can call it the 'worst disaster in Australia's history', regardless of what sources might suggest it. Nick carson (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You will note I said "depending on definition of australia". Nick - I must apologise for my overstatement, I took it a little far. 202.67.91.228 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Black Saturday 2009

An editor recently created a duplicate stub article Black Saturday 2009. I've PRODded it. If there is any useful content to merge into this article, please do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No new information there that is reliably cited. I have been bold and redirected to this article. Still not opposed to a nma echange for this article in the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just added "Black Saturday": the name coined by media to describe the 2009 Victorian bushfires on the Black Saturday disambig page. Gibbsyspin 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified people on that article's talk page to direct their contributions here. Also note my comments from above, I'll include them below...

I would advise against this naming. 'Black Saturday' has already been coined for various other events, at least 11, a list can be found at the disambig page here. I suggest that we... ...just wait to see what other naming emerges, if any, be it appropriate in all respects for use.

We should not accept any given names coined by the media. If these fires become known by any name over time, it will be reflected here on WP. Channel 9 and their "Victoria Burns" is merely a tag they have put onto their news items regarding the bushfires. Trying to label this event in haste is inappropriate. The only name that would be accepted would be one (if any) that sticks in the future. Trying to push for a particular label to be applied is just plain ignorant.

Please respect reason. Nick carson (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

High-use of CFA website notification

Good work on tagging the link with that info, it had been on my to do list. I don't think our WP contributions constitute 'urgent need' so I'll echo the thoughts of other editors in suggesting that none of us use that link. Our updates here don't have to be that timely. Nick carson (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the easy way to keep everyone from using the link to just not put that link up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.224.65 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship isn't the answer to making people informed and aware. The link is there for people to use if they have the urgent need, if not, don't use it, simple. Nick carson (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. Just a mention here, that people rely on this site for valuable information more than we do. If we can decrease strain on it by keeping off, then no-one should have a problem. I'm sure everyone can wait a few days to put up some reference tags. And if their using this site, there's a high probability that by the time it's reported it's already outdated so maybe holding off as a matter of course is a good idea considering the rate information is changed. Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain, but I disagree. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles reads to me as not permitting these types of disclaimers in articles. I feel either the link goes or the disclaimer goes. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a general information site, and "It's useful" is not a reason to keep it. My 2 c but willing to be convinced otherwise. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably can stay without the disclaimer. I'd just say to anyone reading this talk page to be aware of the high demand on this site and maybe to give it a day or 2 to post non-vital information. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles says otherwise. Why is this an exemption? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not. I just said it doesn't need the disclaimer tag. Are you even reading the other posts? Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, that is right, although I would remove the link altogether. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you can. The only problem with that is if content in the article is verified by that link. We can't keep the content and remove the source without losing our verifiability (Not sure if that's a word) Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Too much unamended WP policy politics. Link and the disclaimer should stay. Nick carson (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

St Andrews

St Andrews has suffered significant fatalities but aside from those fatalities is not mentioned in the atricle and have heard very little about it from the media. 203.87.9.240 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard commercial media malpractice. Listen to/watch sources like the ABC, CFA, etc and you'll get more accurate information. If your after info from St. Andrews, I understand that it is the area north of the T-intersection at the market that has been affectect, everything south of the market and the hotel is fine. The area around Butterman's track is 50/50. They're holding a community meeting in St. Andrews today I think. Also remember that there have been several small communities like St. Andrews that have been further affected, we can't mention them all, but in time we'll be as inclusive as possible. Nick carson (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

'Causes' section

Before we jump into listing or labelling causes, a few things to remember...

The weather that precipitated the floods in Queensland, heatwave in southeast Australia and bushfires in Victoria are all attributale to a weather system that stalled over the Tasman Sea. It has been suspected that climate change has been the 'cherry on the top' of these weather events, causing such high temperatures, such high winds, etc, that led to the extreme conditions at the level they were. Take climate change out of the equation and these events would still have occurred but perhaps not to the same extent as they have. As for drought, it's always an element of all bushfires down here, the largest events occurr in roughly 2 decade cycles as drought dries undergrowth, fires sweep through and then vegetation subsequently recovers until there is enough fuel for subsequent major bushfire events.

I have also been analysing the path of the Kinglake complex from the Kilmore fire origin as it moved through on Saturday the 7th and into Sunday. I won't explain it here but if anyone want's an explaination as to how the fires moved through the Kinglake area so quickly and why the death toll is so high I can offer basic explaination and point you int he right direction for more detailed info.

We should hold off on trying to explain the causes until they have been thoroughly established. There are many fantastic people and websites and things out there that can explain the basics of bushfires to you if your particularly interested. Nick carson (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We get small to medium fires nearly every day in summer. Usually the CFS (CFA in vic.) boys get on top of it pretty quick. Like nick said there are a hundred ways a bushfire can start, both accidental and deliberate. All these conditions like heat and wind are things that make the fires worse, but they don't cause them. I can guarantee that out of 10 fires you'll get 9.99 different causes for them.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

'Investigations' subsection

Can we please hold off on this content for now. Even spokespeople from the authorities are just bounding about their professional and personal views. A good example is the 'greens preferences' statement. Such statements don't belong in WP even if they can be referenced. The only investigations that should be included here are that of the Royal Comission and the CFA, DSE, DHS, Victoria Police, etc. Randomly placing spokespeople's, politician's and the like, statements is counterproductive, may only serve to propogate misinformation and is merely speculative at this stage. At a later stage we will include an 'Investigations' section but for now the only subsections that should be under the 'Response' section are things like Aid, Government, Community, Media, etc. Nick carson (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion about fire policy has involved a range of politicians, fire officials and experts, and has been covered across many different news media. It would be a problem if the article asserted that the current policy is wrong, or that some other policy should be in place, for example, but the views are identified as belonging to those who hold them. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this section further and agree with you, however, the comments made by David Packham, Wilson Tuckey and Ron Boswell should be removed as they are purely speculative and politically motivated, respecively and none of them hold any authority directly involved with the fires themsleves. Nick carson (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our place to guess the intentions, political or otherwise Nick. While I agree with you, we should use all the sourced information availiable and not pick and choose based on our personal opinions, so long as it's noteable Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just concerned with using individuals opinions (even if they are sourced) who are not directly involved with the responsible authorities. Nick carson (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

False threat messages

Certain commercial media entities have falsely reported that communities in the Warrandyte, North Warrandyte, Research, Kangaroo Ground areas are under threat of ember attack. This has caused a great deal of panic in these areas. The CFA recently reported that this is false, however there is a small grass fire in North Warrandyte that poses no current threat to the surrounding areas and that all notifications should be taken from the CFA and not commercial media sources. This constitutes misinformation and exaggeration on behalf of the offending media sources. Nick carson (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick - this talk page is here to discuss improvements to the article. It is not here for you to discuss the perceived shortcomings of the commercial media. While I appreciate your contributions to this article (which have been impressive) it would be nice if you could do it in a more apolitical fashion. 202.67.91.228 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We also might want to look into mentioning that there's a fair few false fires being reported to the CFA. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the information needed to be shared, not in the article, but at least on the talk page. Point on being a little more apolitical noted :] Nick carson (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Naylor

"...173 people have been confirmed to have been killed by the fires[96] including Brian Naylor, former Seven Network and Nine Network television personality and his wife Moiree, who have been confirmed amongst the dead in the Kinglake West area.[97][98][99]..." Isn't it a little biased to spend half the paragraph on two individuals? 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fissionfox (talk • contribs)

They're two of very few people that have been identified by the media. I suppose celebrities or what-not are those who are seen as more important to report on, just the way the world spins around. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with fissionfox. Why does Naylor get on when others don't? He hasn't been "high profile" for nearly a decade. I can give you the names of 6 people who dserve a mention every bit as much as the Naylors do Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with fissionfox and AC. A person's celebrity or past celebrity status does not make them any more important or significant than anyone else. Nick carson (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so is there consensus to remove mention from the article? Just because the media mentioned Mr Naylor does not mean we need to. -- Barrylb (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Naylor was one of the most prominent broadcasters of the last thirty years, and it damned well warrants mentioning there, certain people's weird issues about "celebrity" notwithstanding. For gods sake, his death was reported in papers on other continents. Rebecca (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just going to be one of those irrational issues. The fact remains that celebrity or prominence in the media does not constitute significance or importance. Nick carson (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a figure known to just about anyone who lived in Victoria in the space of a twenty year period. Thus, he warrants mentioning in the section. This weird attitude toward "celebrity" is bollocks. Rebecca (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not for us to second-guess what the real world considers important. Naylor's death made the tragedy personal for many Victorians; it pushed empathy into sympathy. This is not uncommon with large-scale disasters such as this. It is reflected in the amount of media coverage relating to Naylor, extending to all the major outlets here. And since the ABC is treated as the barometer of all things on this talk page (as it should be), it should be noted that not just presenters but callers have spent quite a bit of time talking about him on 3LO these past days. --bainer (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

This is getting rediculous. Every time i refresh the page, someone has adjusted something, changed some wording or done a total reconstruction. I've seen the words The fire begin three sentences in a row, bushfires mentioned 3 times within 8 words and now someone is incorrectly claiming that the 31 main bushfires were all in Kinglake. Can we have some kind of consusus and just agree to leave the lead simple and easy to understand? I don't agree with the bolded bushfires being linked, it should be avoided. Feb 2009 is repeated, and the Feb bolded also does not constitute the naming of the article that was agreed on. Also, we probably need a section on the heat wave, since it was the whole reason this has happened and it is mentioned in the lead. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Heatwave wasn't the cause of the bushfires. We have a "Heatwave" twice a year down here. It's usually also called "Summer" it's just hot here. We also have bushfires every year like clockwork. If anything you could mention that the Heatwave exacerbated the fires, but mostly it has been the wind that has caused the most trouble. For causes look to arson or other accidental reasons, like lightning strikes. Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is surely notable that the fires came after a extended heatwave (even by the standards of an Australian summer) and the day in question was the hottest recorded day in Melbourne. This does not mean that the fires were caused by the heat, merely that one followed the other and both are of note. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you did, then 'We have a "Heatwave" twice a year down here. It's usually also called "Summer" it's just hot here' is a strange way of saying it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK and then we read on further where I said "If anything you could mention that the Heatwave exacerbated the fires, but mostly it has been the wind that has caused the most trouble. For causes look to arson or other accidental reasons, like lightning strikes." Don't read half my post and assume I'm arguing with you. I agree and I said so. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Temperatures brought on by the heatwave as a result of the stalled weather system over the tasman, no doubt contributed to the conditions observed on the 7th, including the wind, which brings hot air from the continent's interior. Traditionally, extreme bushfire conditions and events have occurred during major heatwaves, such as the 1939 Black Friday fires. So it is correct to state that the heatwave precipitated the fires, but it certainly didn't solely cause them or anything of such nature. Nick carson (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to the original complaint, I've removed some repetition and trivia from the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with kiac concerning the lead, I have only made a few adjustments to it since I first wrote it, but it has been a fair bit all over the place. I do like the version we have at the moment though :] Nick carson (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the heatwave wasn't the sole cause, but it was a factor. And it's not like i don't know what bloody summer is, i live in unaffected bushland in Victoria myself. Obviously it's hot and there's a very high risk of this happening. I have only one problem with the lead now (nice job to those who fixed it up); it states 31 major fires, ignited across the Australian state of Victoria on 7 February 2009. They were not all ignited on 7 Feb, were they? This is inaccurate imo. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this should be corrected, the Bunyip fire had been burning for days previous and broke containment lines on 7 Feb. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aid efforts

I have been updating the aid efforts section and have come to the relisation that it will be gow to be very big. See here and here as examples. I am not sure that the section is wothy of its own page. Please provide consensus on how we should proceed. -- E! (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to name every single bank and company and their donation. They're basically just throwing their names in for some good publicity, even though it is a good cause and i commend them. You might be better off stating $10 million was donated by the Commonwealth, National and Bendigo banks and keep it simple. This could demostrate original research, so you may need to find sources stating these figures already. I would oppose creating a new article about just this. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Task Force Phoenix

The current article states that a task force led by Inspector Greg Hough was set up, however an ABC Source states that Task Force Phoenix was set up to investigate all fire related deaths led by Assistant Commissioner Dannye Moloney of the crime department. Were two tasksforces set up with different objectives or is this one taskforce? High Speed Chaser (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)