Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Escape into the Sea

Per Politico the local coast guard said they rescued a dozen people who had jumped into the sea to escape the fire. This seems pretty important. Swyix (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned now. –Fpmfpm (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yale Climate Connections article

There is a lot of useful information in this article posted today on the Yale Climate Connections website: What caused the deadly Hawai‘i wildfires? by Bob Henson and Jeff Masters, August 10, 2023. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful article! I will try to incorporate it into the Background section as soon as I'm able (or someone else can!). I'll note that the list of deadliest U.S. wildfires at the bottom may be inaccurate; it lists the 2020 August Complex in California as having caused 32 deaths when in reality it caused only 1. Penitentes (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

2020 in California had 33 according to the article and all fires from the August lightning had 23 which could cause a typo of 32, maybe whoever they got their list from mixed that up with the August Complex fire or all fires from that lightning storm. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That would make sense. 'August lightning fires' versus 'August Lightning Complex'. In any case, the number of fatalities looks likely to rise significantly... Penitentes (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

8-09-23 Police Launch Arson Investigation into Ka‘ū Wildfire

https://www.hawaiipolice.com/8-09-23-police-launch-arson-investigation-into-kau-wildfires

https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-fires/ka%CA%BBu-arson-investigation-initiated-by-hawai%CA%BBi-island-police/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Structure of "Impacts" and "Damage" sections.

I believe the current way the article is organized makes it difficult to follow chronologically and feels more like a fact list. We know Dora was a catalyst for the fire, which was producing gusts from the south. The New York Times observed two regions of extreme destruction in Lahaina, suggesting two regions of ignition. The fire most definitely spread towards the coast due to the west-southwestwardly winds, something we see in Satellite imagery from NASA. They also most likely occurred from the dense dry trees northeast of the town. This destruction should be detailed in chronological order. Similarly, sub-sections on the initial fires, first sparking in Hakalau and then another sparking in Makawao, should preface the Lahaina fire, also detailed in order. Wikiwillz (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The two sections follow the rough convention for many wildfire/disaster articles and I think need less alteration, but I agree that the chronological aspect is lacking. I'm in favor of altering the 'Fires' section to a 'Fire progression' section and starting to build out the timeline, especially as salient information comes out about when the fires began and how people fled. Penitentes (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

911 is down

The Lt. Governor of Hawaii has said that the fire has destroyed several cell towers, rendering emergency services communication unavailable. Is this notable for inclusion under the Damage section? Swyix (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Feel free to add it, or I can when I have time later. Penitentes (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty common thing.--Troutman1113 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Sources about another building that was destroyed

According to several articles I found, among the structures lost in a fire was a resturant owned by Mick Fleetwood:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mick-fleetwood-maui-wildfires-lahaina-fleetwoods-on-front-st-hawaii/

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/hawaiian-wildfires-mick-fleetwood-maui-restaurant-celebrities-reaction-donate-1235389898/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/11/entertainment/mick-fleetwood-restaurant-maui-wildfires/index.html

https://www.mashed.com/1364224/mick-fleetwoods-iconic-restaurant-burned-maui-wildfires/

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4149771-fleetwood-mac-musician-mourns-loss-of-maui-restaurant/

I'm not sure if this info is appropriate for the article, so do as you will with the sources. Mobius Gerig (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Given how some people are losing everything, why should anyone feel sorry for a building belonging to a (well-paid) pop star? Then again, while people were drying in the sea, a just along the coast holiday-makers are swimming and generally enjoying themselves - not willing to let a few local events Disturb the Dream. So perhaps this article could have a Section about such a total disconnect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.128 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wildfire or urban fire?

Judging from the heat pattern of the fire that scorched Lahaina, one might argue that the fire mosty occurred in town, which might make it a mostly urban fire even if it began as a wildfire. Anyone got a clear map of the fire? [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If I were to give that fire a name, it would be the Great Fire of Lahaina. But I guess that's OR. [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll amend that to "Second Great Fire", as Lahaina suffered a smaller one in 1919. Interesting. [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to mention, there is a Reddit user who has been regularly posting updates (often minutes after new death tolls are released) to the /r/news subreddit in which they are purposefully editorializing news headlines and changing any mention of the fires to be called "the Great Maui Fire", presumably in attempts to coin/canonize this as the name. I just want to point this out since some of these links/posts are getting quite a lot of reviews and are beginning to appear in Google search results. I hope this will not be used as a trustworthy source which the decided-upon article title (which I just created a new section to discuss, below) reflects; instead, we should base it on language & the name(s) that are actually being used (and, in the process, standardized) by the greatest number of people as this event continues to be discussed, nomenclature which is seen most frequently in actual news headlines, etc. –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Great Maui Fire would need to be reported sufficiently in reliable sources before it could rise to become the common name or even to be mentioned as an alternate name. Peaceray (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Video could be migrated

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/893359/national-guard-aviators-battle-devastating-wildfires-hawaii Victor Grigas (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not related but I don't know how to post a new section, so I will post here instead:

When hovering on "wildfires" embedded text, a disturbing image of a human swelled genital appears. Someone should change that, please. 109.107.242.67 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

offensive images

title and intro contain offensive images 174.109.114.107 (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandal blocked, images blacklisted. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

With the amount of vandalism, I'm wondering if it may be necessary to add an autoconfirmed locked? It's been pretty concerning with the amount shocking images recently. Pacamah (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oop nvm I just saw the edit log. I don't see the lock though? Pacamah (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected, but only through the 14th. I will keep an eye on the article and extend the protection if it is needed immediately. However, I will be Away From Computer after the 14th, so if later protection is needed you could request it from any admin or at WP:RFPPI. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@174.109.114.107

fuc I had been wondering why this picture was on my screen

I spent a good two minutes clicking and exiting the page over and over again on the mobile app cos I couldn't make out what it was

then another minute trying to screenshot it instead

time ill spent :( Dc.2023 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Map?

I can't do the map on my own [1]. CostalCal (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Maps are not an area that I'm familiar with technically, but I noticed that the linked map data (which links to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:2023_Hawaii_wildfires_-_season_to_date.map) does not seem to exist. Perhaps this is part of the problem? Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@CostalCal: I replied to c:User talk:Phoenix7777#A Little Help With A Map_2.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@CostalCal, I commented out the map for now since it was not displaying correctly. When you're ready to re-add it, just delete the <!-- and --> in the image parameter. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I notice the fire on Oʻahu is still present on the map in the infobox, but the subsection that related to it (just a small 1–2 sentence mention) has now been removed. Should these not be in alignment? –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Put Oahu back even if it has to be even briefer mention? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times just published an article on August 15 with a more detailed timeline

The article can be found here. It clarifies when the fire was first spotted before 6:40 a.m., when it first flared up again, sometime after 2:30 p.m., and when it began to approach the downtown area, around 4:14 p.m.

It would take over half an hour to add all this detail to the timeline because it's way too complex. I don't have that time today, but I'm raising this now so if anyone is able to add these details, please do so. Coolcaesar (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Coolcaesar! I will try to add some of that tomorrow Neo Trixma (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Neo Trixma and @Coolcaesar, please also see this timeline in the Honolulu Civil Beat – https://www.civilbeat.org/2023/08/tapped-out-maui-firefighters-were-trying-to-cover-a-lot-of-ground-the-day-lahaina-burned/ –Fpmfpm (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Great thanks ! Neo Trixma (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Creating a separate timeline without supporting each time with a cite to a specific source didn't help. Now the article is unreadable. I propose to delete the additional timeline, which appears to be a violation of WP:NOR.

The link to the NYT blog at the end of the new timeline doesn't help. That's a lengthy blog in which the NYT is posting breaking news in chron order on a rolling basis. Without citations to specific entries in that blog, it's impossible to verify the times in the timeline.

Also, User:Wikiwillz put in a great many unsourced statements without adding cites to sources, such as this edit. This creates an obvious risk of OR getting through in violation of WP:NOR. I propose to delete any statement which fails verification against the next citation or set of citations immediately downstream in the article from that statement. The burden is always on the editor adding content to add citations to support it. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Um, please actually check the sources before claiming I added any unsourced information. The bumper-to-bumper traffic and everything I've said in my edits can be found in multiple sources. Specifically for this one, it's actually documented with video analysis and first hand accounts in the recent New York Times article. It's also mentioned in numerous other sources. See 1, 2, 3 Wikiwillz (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree the timeline should not be inserted verbatim into the article as a list. The article looks… not great at the moment. The "timeline" right now is just reporting times things were posted to Twitter/on the County website. By linking the Civil Beat article I wasn't implying the content should be directly lifted and inserted straight into the article with no context but rather it should be used as a source to provide further context or sources to existing information in prose, or add a few extra details where needed. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For sure, it was looking very strong yesterday, and over night things like the bulky "timeline" have made it appear very poor quality. Since the article is pushing almost 100,000 page views a day, we should try to address this ASAP. Wikiwillz (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and manually reverted the edit where it was added. If someone wants to take the time to synthesize the info linked in the two news articles mentioned in this thread, and add in any parts they think would improve the article, that would be nice! That said, I think it's already quite detailed & good as-is, so it's not like absolutely crucial/critical details are missing, from what I can tell. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I can try to do it another day, so you prefer to include the synthetized infos in existing sections rather to create a new section right? Neo Trixma (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay sorry I missunderstood the request then, I didn't know that one source wasn't enough for this timeline Neo Trixma (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

To respond to User:Wikiwillz: Saying that everything "can be found in multiple sources" is not a substitute for providing actual citations at the time an edit is made. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Either no inline citations were provided with the edits I am challenging, or one source was cited at the end to support a great many preceding sentences.

For example, here's the problem with the new text in the edit I challenged above, which currently appears in the article as follows: "At this time, bumper-to-bumper traffic developed from residents attempting to escape en masse. The combination of inaccessible roads due to fire damage, and virtually stationary traffic for miles, made it even more difficult for people to escape the blaze." No citation was added for those sentences, which were inserted before this preexisting sentence: "By 5:45 p.m. HST (UTC 03:45), the fire had reached the shoreline, when the United States Coast Guard first learned of people jumping into the ocean at Lāhainā to escape the fire." The next citation after that (which I added) is to a August 12, 2023 Wall Street Journal article (available via Apple News) in which the infographic clearly supports the proposition about the Coast Guard first learning of people jumping into the ocean at Lahaina at 5:45 p.m.

The Wall Street Journal article does not support the two new sentences. The WSJ article doesn't say anything about bumper-to-bumper traffic developing because residents were trying to escape en masse, or that roads were inaccessible because of fire damage, or that traffic was stationary for miles, or that the combination of all of that made it difficult for people to escape. So that's original research in violation of WP:NOR. The article does stand for two distinctly narrower observations: that the main road out of town was "jammed with cars" (but the article doesn't try to attribute that to everyone escaping at once) and part of the main road was closed with "downed power lines from the earlier windstorms". It's very important when adding new sentences before existing sentences to make sure that the new sentences are supported by citations to sources that actually support those sentences, if they lack support in the sources for the existing sentences. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

New image update

Just want to give everyone a heads up about a new set of images that User:Infrogmation uploaded over at aftermath of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires category. Some of them are really good and should be added to parts of this article and other related articles by those users who are active in that area. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Article title

Discussion regarding moving the article to "2023 Maui wildfires".

This discussion is intended to branch off from the "Maui" section above which discusses a potential article split. The coverage regarding this series of events (especially in national news) is 99% focusing on Maui, as this is where the most significant damage was done, where lives lost, and considering these are the fires which are are ongoing (not yet fully contained). While wildfires on the Big Island (HawaiʻI Island) I believe meet notability standards, and should be mentioned, I want to start this discussion to get thoughts on whether the article title should include the word "Maui" in it instead of "Hawaii". (The "Oʻahu" subsection of the article talking about the small bush fire was already previously removed from the article, I notice, presumably for being not significant enough for coverage.) So, currently, this article is focusing on events on two islands: Maui and BI. The latter of these events has been over for days, but the ongoing Maui fires and resulting devastation will continue to get reported on for weeks if not months considering the magnitude – and thus the article will even more heavily focus on the Maui. In comparison, the fires on the BI were relatively insignificant… insignificant enough that their past existence should perhaps not influence the entire title of the article. Thus, I'd like to propose renaming this article to "2023 Maui wildfires". Fires on the BI (or even Oʻahu) could and should still be mentioned in their own section titled "Related wildfire events" or similar.

For what it's worth, the County of Maui also re-focused & updated the official website at https://www.mauinuistrong.info/ today to refer to the fires as the "Maui wildfires", e.g. in the context "Our hearts go out to the many families and businesses who have impacted by the Maui wildfires." The County's twice-daily alert bulletin titles have likely referred to them as the "Lahaina, Pulehu and Upcountry Maui Fires". It seems this – "Maui wildfires" – would be a good way to refer to this event the article lede/opener (bold text, etc.) and article title, especially if this continues to be the most heavily-used & popularized term in news coverage. –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Support I have indeed seen most of the articles treat about "Maui fires" Neo Trixma (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment to other editors – this is already being discussed above (Talk:2023_Hawaii_wildfires#Maui); comments would be best added there first than in this section. – GnocchiFan (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Comment - I strongly disagree. The above discussion refered to regards a proposed article split. This current, separate discussion regards the title of this article, with reasoning provided. Jusdafax (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's also what I thought and understand, 2 separate discussions Neo Trixma (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - While I prefer use of the word "Lahaina" in the title, as I indicate in the discussion regarding the proposed article split, this proposed title change aka move to "2023 Maui wildfires" at least narrows the focus appropriately as Wikipedia policy per Wikipedia:Article titles. I strongly suggest this policy be read and considered. In my view the stated policy is clear, and reflects an accurate emphasis on the Maui location of the highest U.S. fire death toll of the past 100 years. Jusdafax (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fpmfpm, I think this request needs to be formatted as a Wikipedia:Requested move to ensure that the proposed move is advertised in the proper locations, and to flag this request to administrators or page movers so they can perform the move when appropriate. See WP:RSPM for instructions. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to formally request the move (yet) but just open the discussion about it to see what people think. I'll probably get around to it soon, though, as I believe it should be done… if no one does before me of course. :) Thank you for the links and info on how to do that – very helpful! I'll also gather some more sources & try to put together a short profile of how/what they're being referred to, and where, and over what period(s) of time, as @Super Goku V suggested in their comment below (thanks as well!) –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I would advise against this at this time. Part of this is due to speculation, "the ongoing Maui fires and resulting devastation will continue to get reported on for weeks if not months" along with some COMMONNAME concerns. If you do still believe that a move should be done, then WP:RM will be useful. I would recommend noting where is it being mentioned as the Maui wildfires as there are a number of mentions of this event as the Hawaii wildfires by Al Jazeera, BBC, CBS News, CNN, Euronews, The Guardian, NBC News, Reuters, and the US Government. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - While I understand what you are asking, it seems that this is also up for discussion a few talk points up. I believe it would be easier to address this in one talk page as oppose to having multiple discussions about the same issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes agreed, let's wait for the end of the first discussion Neo Trixma (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Impact of Hurricane Dora

There seems to be some emerging discussions among meteorologists questioning the role of Hurricane Dora in the Maui fires. I've come across a thread by Philippe Pappin, a hurricane specialist for the National Hurricane Center, and a separate commentary by meteorologist and storm chaser Trey Grenwood. While they are shared on platforms like Twitter and YouTube, their analysis indicates that Hurricane Dora might not have had as significant an impact as we initially thought.[2][3]

https://twitter.com/pppapin/status/1689757464487395328 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0SfiJomAmI

Pappin's thread includes a computerized simulation that suggests the event would have played out similarly even without Dora's influence, with only minor differences in wind speeds (~3 knots). The YouTube link is from meteorologist Trey Grenwood who references Pappin and provides his own insight into the event while observing data from the region. In his own words, Grenwood states Dora's role in the event is a "misnomer" and that Hurricane Dora, while being a powerful storm in its own right, was too small and too far away from Maui to attribute as the cause for the wildfire event.

Given these expert analyses, it might be an oversimplification to attribute the Maui fires predominantly to Hurricane Dora. While Dora was undeniably a significant meteorological event, it might have been too remote and insignificant in scale to be a primary cause for the Maui fires.

As writers, we should do some work to verify these claims and make sure we aren't spreading misinformation about the meteorological conditions leading to this event. I recommend we revisit this section of the article, fact-checking with these and other sources, to provide a more balanced narrative.

EDIT: I reworded this section to be more clear about my position and prescriptive statement. Xelapilled (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In technicality, there was never any evidence Dora directly influenced the fires on August 7-9. Unfortunately, almost all reliable sources since the initial spark sensationalized the Hurricane Dora claim, and per WP:NPOV it was best we covered the general consensus of notable sources. Since actual experts and authority in meteorology are now shooting down the claims, I definitely agree we should consistently revisit the section. Wikiwillz (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As a newer editor, I want to ensure I am approaching this situation with as much care as possible while not potentially spreading misinformation or violating Wikipedia's policies.

I've carefully looked into the matter and consider myself well-read on the situation and how to go about sourcing the matters properly, and it seems evident there's need to amend these sections. That said, I also understand the importance of consensus and collective input.

Would it be best for me to start drafting potential edits and share them, or wait for a consensus before making any moves? I'm eager to contribute, but I want to do so responsibly considering the significance of the event and the ongoing media attention. Xelapilled (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following the merits of this discussion. Dora influenced the fires in Hawaii, causing sustained high winds, which are thought, quite speculatively at this time, to have downed power lines leading to fires. There may be some similarities to the Camp Fire conflagration, but dismissing the winds from Dora in this case doesn't seem tenable. Three things to keep in mind: the area in and around Lahaina is notorious for fires. I've personally gotten stuck on the side of closed roads due to fires on Maui for many hours, several times. In one instance, when the road was open, I had to drive home with fires burning on both sides of the Honoapiilani. So fires in and around Lahaina are a yearly occurrence, mostly due to drought, fallow agricultural fields and out of control grasses. What was different this time around was the wind, which was attributed to Dora. According to the National Weather Service, Dora "was partly to blame for gusts above 60 mph that knocked out power as night fell". One wonders if the power lines were also downed and lit fires. I've seen fires start that way before, particularly the Maalaea fire several years ago. The wind knocked the power lines down right in front of me and sparked a grass fire that burned up and around the mountain all day. So the notion that Dora contributed to the fires is supported. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't make such confident convictions without any meteorological backing. Hurricane Dora's winds had 0 effect on the islands as the wind field was hundreds of miles away from the islands. The discussion would be on the pressure gradient that Hurricane Dora potentially induced, with interplay between a high pressure system to the northeast. The strong sustained winds would STILL have been there regardless of Dora because of the trade winds formed by the pressure gradient already present from that existing system. Wikiwillz (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were going with reliable sources, not speculation by a single person using the tweets as press release model.[4][5]. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, our guidelines emphasize the reliance on verifiable and objective sources, rather than personal accounts. While the events you've witnessed on Maui offer a vivid picture, we must base our article primarily on expert analyses and documented evidence. The discussions I referenced from Philippe Pappin and Trey Grenwood provide recent expert analyses that challenge the prevailing narrative. Their expertise in the field of meteorology lends weight to their assessments, but I have never stated that the tweet nor the YouTube video alone should be used as a source to amend the sections I am questioning.

What I initially said was that these sources from experts in their fields show that there is disagreement that Hurricane Dora is to blame for the wildfires in Maui. As it can be argued as to whether the tweet is a proper source in its own right, I suggested that we should consider these statements and do more work to verify claims (find more proper sources and come to a consensus involving the matter). That being said, tweets can be used as sources in certain circumstances and given the author of the tweet in question I believe it is worthy of discussion and consideration. It's worth noting that many experts and organizations use platforms like Twitter to share their findings and opinions, it's not the platform but the credibility of the source that we should focus on.

The purpose of my starting of this discussion was to create a discussion on this topic after learning of expert disagreement, so we can ensure we are being accurate and responsible given the nature of this event. Also, regarding the statement from the National Weather Service that you mentioned, can you provide the specific source for that claim? I'd like to review it in more detail as well as know about the specific meteorologist that issued the claim. The word 'partly' suggests there might be other factors at play, and I believe it would be beneficial to understand the complete context of the statement. Xelapilled (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The source was an August 8 Associated Press wire story by Jennifer Sinco Kelleher.[6] NWS made a related tweet just after that story was published (AP posted HST): "While well to the south of the Hawaiian Islands, Hurricane Dora is creating strong winds across the Islands which are creating dangerous fire conditions."[7] We experienced the gusts on the south side and they were not normal trades. On Tuesday evening and into Wednesday morning, a lot us were logging in to the Maui Ocean Center web cam to watch the Kihei fires from the camera in Maalaea. I logged in around 11 pm, which is around the time (11-12am) Kihei was receiving multiple alerts to evacuate, mostly North Kihei and Maui Meadows. It might be interesting to get your hands on that video footage or something similar, as the gusts were blowing the fire around in ways that I had never seen before. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this discussion is a good example of the problems that occur when one uses news media as a source for analytic claims. Deciding whether Dora caused the wildfires isn't really within the remit of journalists; that should be left to meterologists, especially those with experience in wildfire behaviour. Papin's Tweet is a good start. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following you. No journalists made the claims. The journalists were citing other meteorologists. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

From the National Weather Service (NWS)'s Area Forecast Discussion from 3:40 AM local time on Tuesday, August 8: Deep layer ridging combined with an anomalously strong pressure gradient over the area between Hurricane Dora passing well to the south and the surface ridge to the north will support damaging easterly winds and dry conditions into midweek. Most journalists, at least in Hawaii, were/are simply repeating what NWS meteorologists had said for several days before Hurricane Dora passed south of the state. For example, Hawaii News Now reported that it was the combination of Dora's low pressure and high pressure to the north that fueled the winds; the Washington Post also cites these conditions as a cause for the high winds.

I've seen a couple of articles that attributed the winds solely to Dora; this seems to be a major oversimplification (and because of this, I would not argue against removing the reference to Hurricane Dora in the infobox--simply saying the fire was propagated by "dry conditions and high winds" is sufficient, IMO).

As for what should be included in the article body, WP:DUE applies. The current version of the "Weather factors" section of the article generally summarizes what the NWS said in its forecast: that the strong pressure gradient between an area of high pressure to the north and Hurricane Dora to the south supercharged the winds over Hawaii. This seems appropriate to me because 1) the NWS is a reliable source, and 2) the NWS's summary has been repeated widely in other reliable sources.

Now, as for the question of whether the NWS was putting too much weight on the presence of Hurricane Dora? I have no idea. Perhaps this will be settled by other reliable sources in the coming weeks, months, or years. However, until other, non-SPS articles that contradict the NWS's published viewpoints begin to appear, it would be undue for us to give any more weight to self-published tweets and YouTube videos beyond what is already in the article. (Also, if the eventual consensus of reliable sources is that Dora's role was overstated, I don't think journalists can be blamed--it's not as if they were making things up, they were only restating what the NWS said.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like we should leave the sourcing at NWS and Papin, then. The other pitfall with news sources is when they amplify a contestable analytic claim until it gets undue prominence. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Twitter isn't a reliable source, and our best reliable sources say otherwise. For example, meteorologist Dan Stillman writes in the WaPo: "Because Dora passed much farther away, about 500 miles south of Hawaii, not all meteorologists agree on the extent of Dora’s role in fanning this week’s deadly flames. But the consensus is that the hurricane, which has traveled about 4,400 miles across the Pacific, played a role."[8] Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Twitter isn't really the source here, rather it's the platform that another source (Papin) has published on. My issue is when people say "but it's been mentioned in a news source" when many of them are only barely suitable to review the reliability of the "it's" claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaving it to meteorology in general and the boffins at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) specifically to parse Dora, the trade winds, and the whole gestalt. The professional studies will take a while, particularly given the sheer scale of the disaster and total collapse of public safety kencf0618 (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Validity of Police Blockades Lahaina Fire

I am calling attention to the claims that cars were being directed towards front street, where there was bumper to bumper traffic, which was supposedly caused by a police blockade at the end of front street. This blockade, if verified could have caused countless deaths of people who were still in their cars when the fire came. Can anyone confirm or deny these claims? TiktokTiktok LK5127 (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maui-residents-say-utility-trucks-blocked-roads-tried-flee-rcna100200 suggests police and Hawaii electric pickup trucks and heavy plant were blocking roads to try and fix downed cables. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

CNN's Hawaii wildfires timeline

I am calling attention to CNN's Hawaii wildfires timeline, which might be useful.

• Williams, Ashley R.; Pettersson, Henrik; Rigdon, Renée; Alwahab, Clint; Chacón, Marco; O’Kruk, Amy (2023-08-18). "Hawaii wildfires timeline: The hours that brought Lahaina to ruins". CNN. Retrieved 2023-08-18.

Peaceray (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ABCs looks quite good too. It shows the electric cables starting fires, and also videos of this. Sensors too of electricity dropoff over different parts of Maui. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow up on OR issues

Also, while on the subject of OR, I just noticed some more obvious examples in this edit on 15 August 2023. The lawsuits section appears to be WP:SYNTH, an WP:NOR issue. The cited sources do not actually discuss "public speculation", "correlation", or "public belief" about "causative factors". Also, there's a citation to a tabloid newspaper. (See WP:DAILYMAIL.)

The AP article doesn't actually say anything, expressly or impliedly, about "alarm fatigue among residents, where frequent, less urgent alerts can diminish the perceived significance of real threats."

The sentence "The climatologist Abby Frazier emphasized Hawaii's extreme wildfire vulnerability and called for more serious fire prevention efforts" is not actually supported by any of the three citations at the end of the paragraph in which that sentence appears. Her name doesn't appear in those articles. (Google News reveals that she has made remarks to that effect in sources not cited here, but again, the burden is on the editor adding new content to add citations to support it properly.)

And that was just one edit. This is exactly why WP:V requires inline citations, to make it easier to catch original research contrary to WP:NOR.

Another example. This edit adds a reference to "dense neighborhoods" supported by a citation to a CNN video, 1 minute, 18 seconds long. Which, if you watch it, is coverage of the panicked evacuation. It doesn't actually say anything about dense neighborhoods in the northeastern part of the town.

With this much OR, it would take hours to scrub all those edits for OR on a sentence-by-sentence basis. It may be easier at this point to excise them altogether.

Anyway, I have to focus on other WP priorities like the California State University, so I will leave this to others to follow up upon. -Coolcaesar (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

While I would love to address every single OR claim you're trying to make, it seems you're just not doing diligence in actually reading any of the citations past what was either added at the time of the edit, or is directly following the sentence. Also, WP:RSCONTEXT is incredibly important, especially in situations that are current, and have limited information but substantial demand for information. For instance the "dense neighborhood" statement isn't what the source is backing up. The source is backing up the claims of "attempted to flee in vehicles while surrounded by flames." which if you would have read, makes plenty of sense.

Also, the fire burned dense neighborhood. That's not OR, it's WP:BLUE. We know there was a fire, we know where it was. Lahaina has homes! You can observe that by looking at any map. WP:CK

Regardless however, these claims are cited. A lot of "unsourced" edits I make are because sources already added had integral information users did not include. If you want to remove or tweak something you believe is unsourced, please WP:BOLD. Causing issues where there aren't issues, and then saying you have "other WP priorities" like you have more important matters is against the nature of an online encyclopedia anyone can edit. Thank you :) Wikiwillz (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiwillz, unless you are working in your own sandbox or draft space, it's no longer considered best practice to add unsourced claims to any article in mainspace. In the far past, Wikipedia was far more loose about this kind of editing, but it is no longer allowed. If anyone needs a specific claim cited and doesn't have time to find a source or to verify, just leave me a brief message on my talk page and I will help. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where anywhere in my message you got the impression I've added any unsourced claims to the article, and or my writing ever on the site. Wikiwillz (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Viriditas is inferring that admission from these words: "A lot of 'unsourced' edits I make are because sources already added had integral information users did not include." That's not right. If a new claim is not expressly connected through a directly adjacent citation to a supporting source, it is unsourced. This is taken for granted in every field where people traditionally cite their sources.

It is not sufficient to contend that existing sources already support the claim and leave the reader to figure it out. This is why most citation systems (including Wikipedia's own citation system) have mechanisms to expressly link back to sources already cited in full earlier in an article.

Viriditas is correct that WP was much more tolerant of unsourced assertions in its early days. That is no longer the case, especially in articles like this one about recent events where there are a great many sources available and it's just a matter of citing them properly.

Anyway, someone will have to mark all the unsourced or improperly sourced sentences in the article with a "citation needed" tag. Then if no one has the time, energy, or interest to add citations for them, off they go. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar, thank you for flagging this issue. I added a couple of sources that back up the Abby Frazier statement and other statements about wildfire risk and non-native grasses. I believe there are still OR or SYNTH issues with the siren paragraph, but I have to get back to work in a bit and won't be able to look at this issue in-depth just yet. I will try to take a closer look later.

I also want to echo what @Viriditas said above about adding unsourced claims into mainspace, and I am also available to help look for specific citations on request. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

AI generated photos in Wikipedia?!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hawaii_wildfires#/media/File:Os-lahaina-town-fire.jpg is an AI generated photo! Just look at the TREE, are you kidding me?! That same tree I can see on A LOT of photos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2chkyBAsA&t=2s Hope you understand a little German! Delete this AI generated photo. This is Fake! P.S.: I want the Wikipedia Staff to respond to this message. This is serious and not a joke. What is happening? What is a wikipedia with fake photos? Double Check the photo, please. But you already know that it is fake. If you don't respond or delete my message: this message is archived. We are not sleeping, my friend. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule, there is a discussion on Commons Administrator’s noticeboard that may be relevant. Tails Wx 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule: — The image is hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia (just linked to on Wikipedia). As Tails Wx mentioned, there is an ongoing discussion on the Common’s Administrator Noticeboard. If this image is fake, please report it in that discussion. You seem to be determined to have a Wikipedia admin reply, when they won’t be able to do anything. Report it on the Commons. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Just watch the video (and look at the tree) and you will see that that same tree is everywhere. This is not my job! This is your job! --TheGoldenRule (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for everyone, this image was discussed extensively on the Common’s administrator noticeboard (discussion perm link) and was proven to have been taken by the U.S. Air Force. On the noticeboard, this was stated: I was able to confirm and verify that the image is considered the work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties, which places it in the public domain in the United States. Image is not AI generated and is real. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so if THIS image is REAL, how do you describe the hundreds of fake photos with that same Tree and the same Cars that are on the internet? So this special photo is not fake?! Sorry, I am not believing this. If you haven't watched the video, don't talk to me. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death Toll

Is now 115: [9] --Kuzwa (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated Neo Trixma (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/were-the-maui-fires-arson-internet-users-believe-they-have-closed-in-on-cause-of-spark/ar-AA1ff4cV

Looks like global warming/climate change fanatics started this fire. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Not in any way a reliable source. Article's only source is speculation on twitter. This has no basis in fact or reason. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Msn.com is not reliable to source such a controversial claim Neo Trixma (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Might be true but you gotta get a reliable source for that claim sorry. EytanMelech (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Biden visit

The Bidens then boarded Marine One where they were given an aerial tour of the devastation

Not sure why that source says that, but they clearly had boots on the ground and took a tour of the devastation from that vantage point. I haven't yet uploaded those photos because they are not so great, but it's odd that this source focuses on the aerial tour when it was clearly both. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Very odd for an AP article, but they split it up later in the article: "During his tour, Biden walked down a street from which many Lahaina residents made their harrowing escape from the flames." I'm going to clarify this, as it seems oddly strange to me to imply, using the same source, that Biden only took an aerial tour. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also can't help but notice that the AP played up the protests by Trump supporters, which were literally less than a dozen people (as seen on video), and made it seem like there were major protests. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The inconsistencies you've pointed out are actually quite common in AP stories. Keep in mind AP specializes in breaking news, not investigative journalism. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the AP, just like Wikipedia, was their usual liberal-biased selves. They touted Joe Biden while leaving out people’s rightful anger at the Biden regime for their response to the wildfires.If Trump had done the same things Biden did in this situation the media would spin it a whole other way and you would be accusing him of neglect.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bjoh249: AP is rated center, not left, but conservatives criticize any source that doesn't fawn over Trump and regressive, reactionary politics from yesteryear as "left", particularly sources that rely on data, facts, and evidence–things that right-leaning sources tend to forgo. The right's obsession with Biden's response to the Hawaii wildfires was literally written up and distributed to their partners as disinformation before the fires stopped burning and before Biden ever arrived in Hawaii. And the right's ground game on Maui was invented, written, and created by a failed GOP candidate who made fake viral videos for Alex Jones et al. I followed the propaganda as it was occurring in real time. There was no truth to any of it and Biden has nothing to do with the response by the county to the initial fires. And yes, Trump did engage in neglect, in almost every major issue that faced the US and its allies for four years. This is history, not spin. The problem is you can't tell the difference. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I know what AP has been rated, but that doesn’t make it true. I’ve read plenty from the AP to know where they stand. I don’t believe I ever said I supported Trump either, but pointing out that the media treats politicians of a different political affiliation differently than they do do the other is just fact. Your own opinion on Trump is just that. You can call it history all you want, but it’s still just your opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. You clearly have a bias here. If Trump had waited days to go into Hawaii like Biden did the mainstream media would have crucified him. I saw the video of people showing up to bash Biden as his motorcade came through. They may not have all been Trump supporters either, but people genuinely angry about the response). But that doesn’t matter to you. That being said I agree that the video of people flipping off Biden’s motorcade is not worth mentioning in the article (although if it was a President of another political affiliation I’m sure you would have mentioned it all over the place), but neither is your Biden praise propaganda. I’m not the only one who dislikes Biden either, as Biden’s approval rating is even lower than Trumps was at this point in his presidency. You can worship Biden and the Democrats all you want, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool either. Bjoh249 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're spouting conservative echo chamber, manufactured talking points, devoid of facts, just as I said. Biden "waited" because the area was still burning, toxic, and a disaster zone in the process of being contained by the military. You're welcome to live in an alternative-fact-free world, but please don't try selling it here. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Facts are obviously not allowed on Wikipedia. I figured that out a long time ago. Despite claiming to be an encyclopedia you aren’t and most people acknowledge that fact. If this was a Republican president he would have been crucified by the press and communists like you, You aren’t reality-based as you claim. You are a radical left commie Democrat wanting an article to fit your view of the world.Bjoh249 (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried Conservapedia? It's a great place to learn about supply-side Jesus, and how he loved riding dinosaurs with his trusty AR-15 while guarding his flock. That's the face of conservatism. 100% "facts", 24/7/365. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This user is clearly a Bidenac, wanting to inject opinion into the article than facts. He can’t even handle facts about his beloved Biden when they are even mentioned in a left-leaning publication. Bjoh249 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Trump supporters still don't get it. The reality-based community doesn't worship politicians or belong to cults of personality. Stop thinking that everyone does what you do. We don't. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I never said I was a Trump supporter. And you people being reality-based is total fantasy in your mind. Bjoh249 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoosh. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill out. Please review WP:CIVILITY and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

actual Maui death toll?

Seems odd that the number has stayed pinned at 115 for over a week... anyone have any updates on this? 158.123.57.254 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

From news reports, search parties have gone through most, if not all, of the burned area. The several hundred people who are missing may, as the New York Times reported a few days ago, include those who were in structures that burned at such a high temperature that are no remains left to easily find. An analogy that's been used is the 9/11 attack--of the of the 2,977 victims of 9/11, the remains of 1,106 have not yet been accounted for. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What Aoi said; also, my understanding is that the numbers will rise just as soon as the DNA samples and missing people reports are reconciled. There’s also been a lot of strange conspiracy theories being spread by people on social media who should know better, often originating from people and accounts outside of Hawaii. The one that was recently debunked and being spread was that bodies were washing up on the shores of other islands. There’s no evidence that ever happened. It’s odd to see people spreading these and other rumors in real time. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"The official death toll remains at 115, a figure that hasn’t budged in more than two weeks. Maui County has publicly identified 55 people after notifying their families, and says it has identified five more whose relatives still need to be reached." "That leaves 55 people whose remains have not yet been identified, and it is possible that they account for some or all of those missing. If there is overlap, the ultimate death toll may not rise far beyond its current level." (Per NYT on the 8th.) Currently the number of missing is down to 66 people per the joint Maui Police Department-Federal Bureau of Investigation operation. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

388 missing?

This article (https://apnews.com/article/maui-hawaii-fire-missing-names-f0b02f12fad83690d9dfcedfd414b726) contains the following paragraph:

"The 388 names represented a portion of a broader list of up to 1,100 people reported missing that the FBI said earlier this week it was working to validate. Maui County said the newly published list included those for whom it had first and last names as well as verified contact information for someone who reported them missing."

Which would seem to argue that the figure of 388 is some fraction of the total. The FBI decision to release a partial list may be a necessary inclusion in the section on the response but may also dictate a more comprehensive source than AP. 2A02:C7C:4C00:8500:7578:F06D:20F2:5866 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Previously, I had the same concern so I spent some time looking into this yesterday. As far as I can tell, there is no longer a list of 1,100 people, as many of them have been found. So the AP article was published just before many of these people were found safe. I admit, this is confusing, so there’s no real way to know just yet. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Having monitored this page since Aug. 9, I know that it cannot possibly suddenly switch from saying about 1000 are missing to simply saying 388 WITHOUT any mention of the fact that 1000 had thought to be missing for three weeks! Of course if 388 is the correct number, that should be used, but it has already become part of the history of this event that 1000 were thought to be missing for multiple weeks! Qc1okay (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to keep this updated, the number of missing is down to 66 people per the joint Maui Police Department-Federal Bureau of Investigation operation. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)