Jump to content

Talk:2023 Canadian wildfires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ribbet32 (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 12 June 2023 (→‎Why are there three very short articles?: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why are there three very short articles?

I have no strong feelings about this, but I'm trying to make sense of why we have three four five very short articles instead of one larger master article that subsequently gets forked to smaller ones as needed. Instead we have:

Also, the discussion at Talk:2023 Central Canada wildfires#Central Canadian province of Québec? seems to indicate there is not a lot of coordination among these articles as it stands. So I'm starting a discussion here in the hopes folks could explain the situation and perhaps optimize the organization. Courtesy ping some of the folks involved: NYMan6, B3251, Earl Andrew, Jennytacular, LilianaUwU, Bosshunter351, ForsythiaJo, Nsediter, MainlyTwelve, Knightoftheswords281 - Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge the 3 pages into one and include a lot more info about the wildfires in America as well. (There's only a few sentences about them in each page) Bosshunter351 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the "2023 Canadian wildfires" page is already attempting to be the main page. Bosshunter351 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to merging the pages. Having a central page makes sense to me. That said, I'm not sure how much information we can find on each of the regional fires - if the three subpages can be substantially enlarged, then merging them now might result in a overly huge single page later. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One large page is better than four small separate pages covering basically the same topic. Bosshunter351 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i think so 2601:188:CB7E:BB60:59DA:9C44:5CA3:AE98 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FOR THOSE READING AND PARTICIPATING - there is also an article covering wildfires in Alberta (2023 Alberta wildfires). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely missed that! Adding that to the list. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Personally, I think it's a much better idea to merge them all together and then split them off later. It made sense when the Alberta wildfires were created considering that there weren't other areas with many active wildfires. But, now there is and It would be better to just merge them. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support - this reason B3251 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with this. IDon'tLikeTheNewInterface (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would make more sense to merge everything and split them later as newly available information becomes available, as @Onegreatjoke mentioned. Cocobb8 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others' reasoning ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to 2023 Canadian wildfires per nom and Onegreatjoke. Wracking talk! 19:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Nova Scotia and Central Canada to this page, but not Alberta per Yeoutie & others. Alberta has been hardest-hit and its article goes into detail of specific, notable fires. Wracking talk! 19:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above reasoning. And while I'm here, I'd like to bring up that perhaps BC's fires should be added to this page when someone is able to. We've already had a ferocious and fast start to our fire season here. Blysse (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agreed followed by other fires that could be happening across other Canadian provinces and possibly U.S states NYMan6 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's also now 2023 United States East Coast wildfire smoke. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be reasonable to merge that page as well. The main Canadian Wildfires page already has more information on the US smoke than that page does. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree. Ezra RG (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ForsythiaJo I disagree that we should merge that article, because there's already a similar article Orange Skies Day. Event is already pretty significant on its own. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the existence of the Orange Skies Day article doesn't really have bearing on whether we should merge this one or not. Additionally, that article was created in March of this year, not immediately following when it happened (and personally, I don't know that it needs its own article anyway). I think having one article with the affects of the smoke is fine - if it needs its own article in a couple weeks time, there's nothing stopping us from splitting the article again. ForsythiaJo (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SWinxy merge that whole page into this article as well, also any other article talking about this or any wildfires that have happened currently near the border with Canada or American wildfires right now. NYMan6 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging the articles listed in nom, as well as 2023 United States East Coast wildfire smoke. As it stands, they're just smaller pieces of one subject. If any of the topics eventually expand to the point of needing a separate article, they can be made at a later time when necessary. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As more fires have sprung up across the country, would make logical sense to merge all articles into one. No need to have individual articles for a country wide event.
PascalHD (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One long article is better than 3 start-class articles and one B-class article. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT - Makes more sense to have one article then three. Alexcs114 :) 20:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Yes, it's the same country, but the fires are spread across the equivalent distance of a continent. While all of these fires are likely related to similar patterns of climate change and weather, Alberta has very different "normal" climatic/weather patterns from inland Quebec or maritime Nova Scotia. Just as you wouldn't want to lump articles together for wildfires in Colorado and Florida, it probably shouldn't be the same article for fires in the Canadian Rockies and the Maritime provinces. And the current 2023 Central Canada wildfires are having a much higher impact on major eastern population centers (NYC, Toronto, Philadelphia, etc.) than the Alberta or Nova Scotia fires. Scanlan (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At least keep the 2023 Nova Scotia wildfires article separate. The province has a very different climate from the rest of Canada and the fire in southern Nova Scotia is the largest in the province's recorded history. Scanlan (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and the fire as a whole is the biggest in Canadian history, plus the Nova Scotia wildfire article dosen't have enough information yet. NYMan6 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well I will say that Australia has articles talking about all bushfires in every year regardless of their location in the country. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a bushfire season, its a whole other thing than a wide-spread wildfire, which almost can't even be categorized as a seasonal wildfire NYMan6 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support they are all talking about the same event (aside from the US one) FusionSub (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - easier to develop in one space. If the fires extend into the USA later in the year, then renaming the single article then becomes a possibility. Nfitz (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and/or Weak Oppose per the reasoning laid out by Red-tailed Hawk, Lucie Person, Scanlan, and Yeoutie. Zorblin (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's confusing to research across multiple pages about the same event Jaidenstar (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely agreed, it would fit the article way better. 11:59, Gam3rEncyclopedia (talk) 9 June 2023 (EST)
  • Support: Just because there's some news on wildfires in some province, doesn't mean it warrants setting up its own article. Not really notable, should be merged. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All the wildfires can comftorably fit in the main article per WP:SIZERULE. Until the article size is at least 50 kB, all the articles should be merged into the cohesive article. (Although some of the smoke information could be incoporated in…like specifying which MLB games were postponed or including the Nationals game.) 204.107.19.38 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CostalCal (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support - Canadian wildfires per province/territory, if they are covered, do not always warrant a separate article if there are not enough notable resources. All those smaller area wildfires could fit well into the main national wildfire article. Hansen SebastianTalk 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly support - All articles (except for Alberta) should be merged due to the inability to create an article long enough because of the lack of resources to cover the event as its own article. Alberta, however, meets the criteria to be sufficient enough for the event to have its own article per User:Wracking. 📖 (💬/📜) 17:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge everything into "2023 North American wildfires", (or something like that). It seems like all this related content should be on one page. (jmho) - wolf 23:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected Status

Events currently happening tend to receive a lot of vandalism and although it hasn't happened yet I'm still going to pre-empt it with a request for Semi-Protected Status. JBrahms (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Go to WP:RPPI to suggest an increase in page protection. Never mind, it's already there. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for concision

Hey y'all! One of the sentences in the introductory paragraph could use some work for better wording. I'm putting it in here so it doesn't clash with any edits on this very active page might be going through. Here's the problematic section (weird parts in bold):

"Between March 1 and June 5, 2023, 2,214 fires had burned 38,000 square kilometres (9,390,000 acres), out of the country's total 9.985 million square kilometres, making 2023 the worst wildfire season in Canada's modern history. That distinction had previously belonged to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire."

That sentence could be better by reversing the first 3 clauses, and detaching the following clause to a new sentence with the other one. Here's my suggestion (American English, sources detached):

"Out of the countries near 10,000,000 square kilometers of land, 2,214 fires had burned over 38,000 square kilometers between March 1st and June 5th. This is the worst wildfire season in Canada's modern history, previously being the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire."

Ecco2kstan (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this had been the previous sentence until a good faith revision. NYMan6 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits for concision. It now reads As of June 5, 2,214 fires have burned 43,000 square kilometres (10,600,000 acres).[1] The 2023 season is the worst wildfire season in Canada's modern history, eclipsing the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire.[citation needed]
I added {{Citation needed}} as (1) it's uncited, and (2) it doesn't really make sense to compare an entire wildfire season to a more centrally-located fire. Wracking talk! 23:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wracking added source that I could find which fits the text NYMan6 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Andrews, Hillary (June 5, 2023). "'Unprecedented fire weather season' chars 9.39 million acres across Canada". Fox Weather. Retrieved June 6, 2023.

Seems that few scientist will attribute one or series of events as caused by climate change.

The article claims this was caused directly by climate change. The references for that appear to use similar media and not scientific consensus. 

  "Roughly half of all wildfires in Canada are caused by lightning; due to climate change, lightning strikes are happening more frequently" Is this an agreed scientific assertion? Logically if this were true, there would be more fires not just increased burn area.

It is possible,without denying climate change, that poor forest management may be the cause of greater burn areas. 70.59.146.230 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about consensus, but there are multiple studies showing a least a slight correlation: [1][2][3][4] ARandomName123 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say between the facts that 1) Specific scientific literature in the world's foremost journals attests to this phenomenon (including that linked by ARandomName123), 2) said literature is cited in the reliable news source (CBC News) we cite in our article, and 3) climate change has been shown over and over again ad nauseum to be contributing to the increase in severe weather events, this isn't a concern. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most wildfires are caused by poor forest management. That's what happened in California in 2022. Buildup of trees due to putting out every fire leads to a large uncontrollable wildfire. Privately managed forests in Cali were fine then because they were managed correctly. PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 14:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"They should've just raked the leaves, guys!!" If you'd like to use libertarian drivel as a scapegoat for the growing impact of climate change on wildfires as established by innumerable credible scientific sources, please do so with your own scientific sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27 I never said climate change didn't play a role, I said most wildfires are caused by forest mismanagement. As you requested, here are some sources.
Center for Biological Diversity - The vast majority of western dry forests are at risk of large, high-intensity fire because of the effects of poor forest management over the past century. The primary factors that lead to current forest conditions include logging large trees, fire suppression, and livestock grazing. Since the beginning of the 20th century, all three of these factors have been present in western forests, and they continue to play a role today.[5]
NBC News - Decades of mismanagement led to choked forests — now it's time to clear them out, fire experts say [6]
WaPo - The fires are worse because we managed the forests badly. [7]
Daily Mail - The origins of the fires are yet to be definitively identified, but Canadian officials have for years been warned that better forest management is required to avoid such a catastrophe. [8] PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That you felt like citing an obscure NGO and the Daily Mail rather than the sort of enormous corpus of scientific literature backing climate change's role here is all I needed to know. Both news articles you linked to, of course, noted that this is an issue to begin with due to climate change. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PalauanLibertarian, I think you have a point. Climate shouldn't be the go to scapegoat, bad fire management policy and lack of implementation plays a role. Best to stop blaming climate change for government incompetence. The article listed above does not necessarily provide a direct link between climate change as the cause of wildfires but instead points to Lightning as a major driver of large fires in North American boreal forests. Instead this article states that its climate-driven lightning ignitions causing the fires. But how they came to that conclusion is not clear, nor is it detailed. There has been a clear lack of proper implementation of protocols to prevent and address the issue of wildfires from getting out of control. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/kenneth-green-canada-s-burning-because-of-bad-forest-policy-not-climate-change/ar-AA1clpt5?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=33e90b6fb3b243948c07ebad39acbc59&ei=26 In addition, The Premier of the Province of Ontario, Doug Ford blames careless campers and lightning for Ontario wildfires. All possible causes. Arson should not be ruled out as well. It seems that the wildfires have become politicized in Canada. If TheTechnician27 claims that there is a growing impact of climate change on wildfires as established by innumerable credible scientific sources, they should be cited. I would be interested to review. Please share your knowledge of these innumerable credible scientific sources, thank you. PersonZ777 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should mention human-related causes, but the role of climate change should not be ignored. Around half of Canada's wildfires are lightning-related, and the other half is human caused. However, lightning related fires make up more than 85% of the destruction since they are usually in remote areas.
Regarding the article, we have to trust that they are saying is correct. Considering that Nature is highly reputable, I'm inclined to trust them. Additionally, what they are saying has been corroborated by other studies (see my reply above).
Regarding the National Post article, is it not possible that both climate change and bad fire management is to blame? Also, the sources the article cites doesn't even support it:
- The first source, from the IPCC, states "Medium confidence"
- I'm just going to paste this section in from the second source:
"The decline in global average area burned has indeed been misused to support false claims numerous times. There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. Even the decrease in fire in tropical savannas that we just mentioned does not mean that climate change is not having an impact there too; actually, quite the opposite. This reduction has been in part attributed to conversion of savanna to agricultural land but, also, to shifting rainfall patterns that reduce the overall flammability of grasslands."
- The third source explicitly states the projected impact of climate change on wildfires, namely "longer wildfire seasons [[49], [50], [51], [52]], increasing fire weather severity [[53], [54], [55]], increasing wildfire occurrence [56,57], and increasing fire intensity and area burned [[58], [59], [60], [61], [62]]," and includes those "innumerable credible scientific sources" you've been looking for. That last source, 62, also states that "there is a general consensus that...in general the fire environment will become more conducive to fire."
To reiterate, I support adding a bit about human causes, whether bad land management or human started fires, however I also support mentioning the impact of climate change. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arson Causes

I think some details in this article need to address that there is also the possibility of arson also being causes of these wildfires. This article is not balanced coverage if there is no mention of this because it is leaning all towards climate change when there is also not only climate change and lightning, man made causes should also be mentioned. Reference link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pictou-county-fire-arson-rcmp-1.6863542 70.54.59.175 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked says nothing about arson being the cause of these wildfires. They are completely unrelated. However, I agree that there should be some mention of human-related causes.ARandomName123 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Man-made causes are mentioned. 2) As ARandomName123 notes, the article discusses three scenes which were set on fire (one of which was a structure put out by local volunteers, the second of which was a "green bin", and the third of which were recycling bags on the side of a road, none of which is mentioned as having contributed to a wildfire). 3) Please don't wikilawyer about WP:BALASP while conspicuously overlooking WP:NOR and WP:FALSEBALANCE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change?

Should climate change be mentioned in the lead section? I could add it myself, but since this change might be controversial I'd like to discuss with others what they think. MasterRichinator (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, as it is too early to pinpoint the exact cause of the fires. However, we could add it when we have more details. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trudeau trying to deflect blame from his adminstations failures doesn't mean anything. Let's wait till we have an actual cause of the fires (forest management) PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not now. It isn't covered much in the article, and as TheCorvetteZR1 says, we should wait until we have more details. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Canadian_wildfires&oldid=1159856823"