Talk:Camp Fire (2018)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Priscilla.mtz330.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

This image of Camp Fire from NASA Operational Land Imager used by CNN in In pictures: Wildfires tear across California article should be okay for upload on Commons. Original source at NASA. --Adam Hauner (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• This image has already been uploaded to Commons. Sevgonlernassau (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: no consensus for a move. I'm closing this early due to the amount of views this page is getting L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Camp Fire (2018) → Camp Fire (wildfire) – Disambiguating by year is not correct because the thing this is being disambiguated from is not something that is associated with a year. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support: I'm not opposed to a page move, but "Camp Fire (Wildfire)" seems like a repetitive title.Juneau Mike (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak supportOppose: Same rationale as Juneau Mike. Perhaps "Camp Creek Road Fire" would work? It would remove ambiguity, remove repetition, and remove title punctuation. -- RobLa (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opposing now. NorthBySouthBaranof made me want to stop participating in this discussion, and BullRangifer has good reasons to oppose "Camp Fire (wildfire)" -- RobLa (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: back to Camp Fire (wildfire) as per OP. "Camp Creek Road Fire" or anything else wouldn't be correct, because that's not the name of the fire. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Camp Creek Road Fire" is merely a longer form of the same name, much like Mark David Chapman is another way of referring to the guy who was usually known as "Mark Chapman" before December 1980. It's not as though "Camp Fire" was a carefully considered name devised by a deliberative body over weeks/months/years of discussion. The lead sentence of the renamed article could read: "The Camp Creek Road Fire, widely referred to as the Camp Fire, is the most destructive wildfire in California history." -- RobLa (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• No. There are zero sources referring to it as the "Camp Creek Road Fire" because that's not the name of the fire. The fire has an official and a common name - that official and common name is Camp Fire. Contrary to your statement, there actually is a systematic way of naming wildfires and other incidents - the name is selected by the first-arriving fire commander and is based on a geographic reference near the point of origin. That's part of the Incident Command System standardization of such incidents. All modern-era wildfires are named in this fashion. The first-arriving fire commander called it the Camp Fire and... that is its name now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. As mentioned above, it's repetitive, and it's not specific enough. The date serves that purpose. Ideally it would be "Camp" fire (2018), or Camp fire (2018), because the fire itself is named "Camp", named after its place of origin, but RS are no help in this regard. They all just write Camp Fire, leading to the common association with a campfire, rather than the likely cause by PG&E power lines near Pulga. There were extremely powerful winds in the area where the fire started. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, the fire is named Camp Fire - the official name of a wildfire includes the word "Fire", capitalized. That's how official and media sources refer to them, because that's how it's been standardized in the fire community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• NorthBySouthBaranof, I agree with you. That's why I wrote that "RS are no help in this regard". They write it as you say, which is unfortunate. Even our own daughter, who lives in the area, thought it was caused by a campfire. That's how confusing this name really is. "Camp Fire" and "campfire" sound exactly the same. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No reason to change the name, the current one works fine. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There might be future wildfires at that location. The current title with the year is sufficient. Sevgonlernassau (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ...also, for multiple reasons mentioned already. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C)" 05:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose – According to standard Wikipedia practice on the Wildfire WikiProject and other Natural Disaster WikiProjects, this is the standard formatting used. The proposed title is both redundant and awkward, not to mention that it is less likely that readers would search for that title over the current one. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@CelticWonder: Please fix the syntax issue with your user signature. It's causing everything after your comment to show up in red font. (I had to make the changes to your signature here to get rid of the white, gold, and red font color spillovers.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Please also see the related discussion at Talk:Holy Fire (2018). The rationale given there is essentially the same. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Damage

What burned, and what didn't, is starting to be reported in better detail. I'm not suggesting that everything that burned needs to be listed in the article. Perhaps some of the more notable buildings, such as hospitals and schools should be listed. We can discuss what to list here on the talk page, and hopefully reach consensus.ArticleJuneau Mike (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: take a look, it seems good now. Granite07 (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

“Civilian”

Is the word "civilian" really necessary in this context? This is a natural disaster, why would the civilian dichotomy mean anything? Juxlos (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

According to the Merriam-Wesbster definition linked in our article on the term, "civilian" excludes armed forces, police, and firefighters. The incident reports for this and other fires report civilian and firefighter losses separately. Kablammo (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

James Woods

Is the James Woods mention Wikipedia-worthy, or just a fanboy addition?

2606:6000:FECD:1400:E498:BFB3:D52C:517C (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. There are other resources to handle missing persons.[1] Kablammo (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it, and replaced it with information on the sheriff's call center. There are a variety of social media active on this matter, but we should limit our links to the professionals, such as the sheriff and the American Red Cross. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Good call. Not worth mentioning. Thousands of others are doing the same. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Cause of fire

I heard somewhere that the cause of the fire was a malfunctioning power line. Are there any sources to back up this claim? Evking22 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There is reporting that the fire was first reported under high-tension power lines, but that is not a definitive "cause." It is unlikely that there will be a definitive cause until the fire investigation is completed, which may take several months. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly looking that way but there is litigation now and it is still officially up in the air Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

So, should the 'wildfire' description be removed for now? Since this fire doesn't sound so wild anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificaldan (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Still a wildfire. What happened happened. That never changes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Need for a "Fire progression" section

This would make an informative section, where the fire's progression, from Camp Creek Road, over to Sawmill Peak, then the west side of the canyon and on to Pentz Road and the whole eastern part of town, progression as spot fires spread throughout town, to the southern end of town, down the canyons and ridges and along Skyway toward Chico. It reached Hwy. 99 and close to Chico as grassfires. It also attacked Butte Creek Canyon, Magalia, further to Paradise Lake, now threatening Stirling City and Inskip. Now the wind is pushing it back to Concow, Oroville, Berry Creek...

All this needs is refinement, maybe some adjustments, a few more communities, and backed by good sourcing, with it written as a timeline. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Per this, a play by play detail is not preferred in such articles. While that is just a Project level guideline, and of course some progression details are needed, we should avoid writing this article to look like a written replay of a football game.--MONGO (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplication

There is significant duplication in the Timeline and Impact sections. Would someone take the time to sort this out so it's more orderly? That may require new headings, and if so, good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:I think it is fixed now. Granite07 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Description of presidential response

I just wanted to note that I did revert a good faith edit regarding presidential statements. I did this so as to avoid the potential of it being perceived as bias, and to better adhere to WP:NPOV, specifically "loaded words". I am open to discussion of this matter for any who would like to contest my decision. dross (c · @) 19:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Dross, thanks for starting this discussion. It's the right thing to do. The removal of the word "falsely", and the numerous extremely RS backing it, actually violates NPOV and BLP. We are supposed to be neutral by documenting the good and the bad.

NPOV makes it clear that neither content nor sources have to be neutral, only editors. They must faithfully document content they find in RS, including from biased sources. Sometimes attribution is necessary. I have written an essay about this: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content

BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE describes how we deal with negative claims: we must include them, backed by multiple very RS. That is the case here. (If there are denials, then we also include them.) That Trump said something false is not controversial at all. The opposite would be controversial. So it's just a matter of sourcing, and that is covered very well. Please go ahead and self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thank you for your insight on this matter. Evidently, there are different viewpoints on whether such speech is necessary (see MONGO's summary regarding inclusion of Trump's statements and descriptions of such). When I first saw the addition, it wasn't clear at all to me whether or not there was a valid claim, especially given one could argue the opposite with sourcing. I'm simply not positive whether or not it is concrete enough yet to warrant the inclusion of a descriptor such as "falsely". Many details on this subject are currently still being debated, and I certainly would keep the edit in mind for the near future when it cools off a bit, and the matter becomes more clear.

I'm also not huge on simply excusing myself, but this certainly isn't about my personal bias, either. I see so much controversy right now, it just isn't clear or fair to me that we would describe it in such a way when there isn't even a clear, developed consensus on the debate yet. dross (c · @) 21:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:BOLD me; I won't war with you, nor will I blow it up into a huge debate. I'm simply not personally sound with the matter. dross (c · @) 21:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored it. The RS say his statement was false, so it's an accurate assessment of his statement, backed by multiple RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Its peripheral to the matter at hand...who cares about what tweet or stupid comment the President said here...so long as he does not cut off funds as he did propose and is worth mentioning. Furthermore, while he likely did not know about actual reports of forest mismanagement, even the SF Chronicle says he isn't entirely wrong about the forest not being managed as well as it should.--MONGO (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the section in its entirety. Frankly, I cannot see that we have more than a brief mention of Trumps response under that section.--MONGO (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I don't agree. You didn't just remove the last addition, you removed everything. Are you ever going to stop your obvious mission to remove all negative mentions of Trump, no matter how well-sourced? That's not NPOV editing. It's extreme POV editing, against numerous policies, especially NPOV and BLP. The content was very well sourced and written neutrally, reflecting the actual content in the sources. I suggest you revert yourself promptly and stop the censorship here and elsewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted to status quo ante - while it's true that BullRangifer's additions and changes don't have consensus, the remainder of the section has been in the article for more than a week and there is no consensus to remove it. It's clearly relevant and reliable sources extensively commented on it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion between two editors is not consensus.

Wikipedia should not, in its voice, characterize a claim as "false". That implies a lie (with the further implication that the person making the claim actually knows the difference between truth and falsity, an assumption that may well be unwarranted here). We should report the claim as just that, a claim; cite the source for the claim, and then cite the sources opposing it (as done here). The facts speak for themselves, and do not need to be—and should not be——further characterized by us. Kablammo (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Kablammo, let's fix it, per a policy, not opinions. We are required by that policy to keep and improve all properly sourced content. Here's the current consensus version:

On November 10, President Donald Trump falsely blamed poor forest management by the state of California as the cause of recent wildfires in the state, including the Camp Fire and the concurrent Woolsey Fire in Southern California.

Currently it says "Trump falsely blamed ". Per our policies, we characterize matters using the terms found in RS, so "falsely" is very appropriate, and for Trump, it's not even controversial. It's rather remarkable when he tells the truth!

But, let's get this fixed. Your concerns could be resolved by removing "falsely" from that location and adding a factual statement, with the sources, at the end:

On November 10, President Donald Trump blamed poor forest management by the state of California as the cause of recent wildfires in the state, including the Camp Fire and the concurrent Woolsey Fire in Southern California. His statements were judged to be false.

Sources

How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia characterizes false things as false. Kablammo, you have a plain misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV does not mean we treat all sides or claims "equally." Rather, NPOV means we reflect viewpoints based upon their weight in reliable sources. It is unambiguous and undisputed that reliable sources declare Trump's claims to be false. So we say they are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer and NorthBySouthBaranof:, I support your points and the text should remain how it is. If you look at the Wildland-urban interface discussion, I have had a similar interaction with these editors; who are excellent editors and very knowledgeable who have made huge contributions to Wikipedia. That said, my first thought was they are pushing a Trump POV and I was dealing with activist editors that had an agenda. I see you have written that claim--otherwise I wasn't going to go down that path. My wife was certain and encuraged me to push back. Having read these editors' pages, I now don't think they are Trump'sters (no offense to actual Trump'sters, right) but I am now more baffled by their intent. Can someone ask for admin intervention that knows these editors and they can clarify/vouch for themGranite07 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have authored several wildland fire related Featured Articles. If the folks here want to turn the article into more anti-Trump nonsense then I'm out. He made a few stupid comments and tweets...so what! Creating paragraphs of this and subsections isn't POV pushing? Right! The article isn't about Trump or his inane comments...it's focus should be about the fire, the deaths, the destruction. You want the whole story, then don't be cherry-picking just the negative...NPOV is not about that. How about where during his visit Trump stated "This is very sad to see, but we’re all going to work together" or, "unlike earlier comments in which he threatened to withhold federal funding if changes weren’t made, Trump provided a reassuring note. “You’ve got the federal government” at the ready, he promised." or how about "As far as the lives are concerned, nobody knows quite yet. We’re up to a certain number, but we have got a lot of people that aren’t accounted for yet. Right now, we want to take care of the people who are so badly hurt,”"..all available here. Nah...let's not do that cause the negative is what we want right? Have fun to all of you!--MONGO (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are playing devil's advocate and that was with a huge /s. Granite07 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Empty platitudes are par for the course and not newsworthy. Reliable sources have focused, as they are wont to do, on what was said that is actually news - that is, that Trump apparently believes that the fire is the state of California's fault, and that if only the state would rake the forests(?) and cut down all the trees, it wouldn't have happened. These beliefs are, of course, utter nonsense, and actual fire experts have had a field day pointing it out. But it's not just "funny" because it's coming from the putative President of the United States - it's "dangerously wrong," to quote a firefighter. I think it clearly merits inclusion and discussion here.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And I disagree. This section should be used for the response to the fire, including firefighting, rescue and recovery, relocation, and the outpouring of support for the people harmed by this tragedy. It should not be used for political points, either by Trump or his opponents. He is not a fire expert and his inane have not altered one bit the actual response to the fire, including the actions of the federal government.

We should not be trolled into reflexive reactions to Trump's inane assertions. Those claims are to make political points only and should not be taken seriously. There is no need for us to report them or reply to them, as they have nothing to do with any actions taken in response to this fire-- which is the subject matter of this article. Kablammo (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

See, here's the thing. Trump is president. When he says and does things that are "dangerously wrong," to quote the source, they aren't just the inane ramblings of an ignorant, out-of-touch moron. They're official statements of the most powerful person on the planet. That makes them extremely problematic because lots of people will think he's right just because he's president. And when the president's "dangerously wrong" falsehoods appear to blame the victims of a disaster for their own suffering, that's even more newsworthy. I don't think the section needs expansive discourse, but the fact that he said what he said (and the immediate, forceful response from people who actually know what they're talking about) clearly merit inclusion here. We follow reliable sources and the sources here are unambiguous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Kablammo, you've been around here long enough to know that NorthBySouthBaranof is right. Here's the basic issue. We are REQUIRED to document the "sum of all human knowledge", as found in RS. Then we determine its due weight, but we still document it, without censorship. NPOV requires that editors remain neutral in their presentation of often biased information from often biased sources. (Read more here.) Often that requires attribution.

Content in very notable sources and from very notable persons, such as Presidents/authors/experts, should be mentioned, often with the weight their notability demands. It is the RS which determine what we include in an article, and thus what headings we create. We do not have (other than some MoS guidelines), nor should we use, some artificially determined template for an article. We should allow the RS to tell us what to include and what headings are needed. RS are the final arbiter. So our heading "Responses" is not binding. Headings should be created as needed.

Like it or not, and I don't, Trump will become part of nearly every imaginable subject here. Our rules for use of RS require it. That seems to be his goal, and he's succeeding at it. He's a master self-promoter, a white trash Kardashian version of a celebrity politician. He is possibly the most notable (and infamous) person currently alive, and one who expresses his thoughts, without reflection, insight, knowledge, or regard for truth, on nearly every subject. That's why his name will be mentioned in myriad articles.

Because of his notability, and the enormous coverage RS gave his remarks, I chose to create a subheading, and in that content the wildland-urban interface issue was raised, because that's how RS treated his remarks. (Granite07 should notice that.) That content should be restored. There was no policy-based reason to remove it, purely a Trump-protective one. That's a direct violation of the editorial neutrality required by NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: is on point. That is all sound logic from a neutral perspective. The situation is what it is. The Wildland-urban interface topic is already buried in the Trump section--it has a long consensus. I didn't have any reason to bring that up. If there are editors here that want to turn this page into a piece of right wing white nationalist propaganda, then go for it dude. Dont think nobody sees it for what it is. Why don't you just make a section called Trump our Lord told us the Truth and then write about logging and raking leaves and how tree huggers suck Granite07 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Here I found a page for you to pull inspiration from for your section, Feuerschutzpolizei, maybe it has some catchy logos you can use.Granite07 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@JzG:, please provide admin support for consensus. There is an ongoing and clear effort by what looks like a small group of editors that have worked together for several years to remove content critical of nationalaism. You are aware of this so as a infrequent user of Wikipedia I am asking for your insight. This edit again removed, without discussion, content that was critical, see diff Special:MobileDiff/870431630. Both @BullRangifer and NorthBySouthBaranof: have worked to head this off. I think they have gone above what is expected of editors and it is time for admin to step in before this becomes a lopsidded effort of good faith editors and an experienced and known group of activist editors that have an agenda (why haven't they been addressed already despite several warnings for them to stop?). Granite07 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Not everything is about Trump, his fervent belief to the contrary notwithstanding. If we wrote about every crass thing he did, we'd have nothing else in Wikipedia other than "shit Trump says". I have no time for him whatsoever, but I doubt his offensive remarks are genuinely notable here. That said, I don't actually care that much one way or the other, so please stop pinging me. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

At least that was clear. Thank you. No denials either. If JzG passes, how about @Neutrality:, you made some key edits relating to this topic--could you assist? Also, @Oeoi: edited this section and might be interested in this Talk. To keep a record, I will post diffs with notes

• Special:MobileDiff/870458580 (changed meaning of withheld funds threat to be against Fed not State)
• Special:MobileDiff/870453963 (same intent as previous)
• Special:MobileDiff/870453711 (same intent as previous)
• Special:MobileDiff/870431630 (Paradise vs Pleasure)
• Special:MobileDiff/870080755 (falsely)

Granite07 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the Trump comments are appropriately covered in the article. A paragraph or two should suffice. He is the president of the United States, after all, and his statements have meaning. (And yes, of course, we should say that his statements were false/misleading, as many sources do.) Neutrality^talk 01:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Granite07, I'll make it easy for you and other editors. Here is what Trump tweeted:

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

Trump did not state that California's management of the forests is poor. He did not write that the "gross mismanagement" was by the State of California. We should report what he actually said, not what we (or anyone else) thinks he said or meant.

As for for Trump's misstatement of the name of the destroyed city, how is that relevant to the fire? Kablammo (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think anything Trump says that we put in Wikipedia should be removed per WP:DFTT. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

the most powerful person on the planet Crescent77 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, the above statement of yours I pasted is a debatable opinion, and to use such as a criteria for neutrality seems questionable to me. As well as stating it appeared he blamed the victims. I would say otherwise, I don't think he blamed the victims, he blamed the bureaucratic agencies tasked with overseeing their well being. Once again, I'm no Trump fan, and in certain forums I'm vocally anti. But this forum requires a higher standard of objectivity, and I believe your choice of wording belies a little more of your Anti-Trump bias than is appropriate. Crescent77 (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I support BullRangifer's proposed rewrite. It's more encyclopedic in style. Fact 1 : Trump said "this". Fact 2 : RS judge him incorrect. Interjecting the adjectives "falsely" or "incorrectly" before his statement come across as bluntly pejorative. Debate continues as to what effect forest management has on fires in the West, and as was referenced above, most folks involved are well aware of its importance, even if they have widely different takes on appropriate methods. Trump may have been spitting out nonsense, but as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The one RS even states his comment was an oversimplification, admitting the partial truth to his statement, and yet somehow equates that to a falsehood. If a partial truth is a falsehood, then we would be guilty of perpetuating the same. With that kind of lack in consensus and consistency the two topics need to be seperated out as the two seperate narratives they are. Trump may personally deserve the adjective "incorrect", but we should let his statements, and commentary on his statements made by experts, tell the story. Crescent77 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources cited here are clear - most of what burned in the Camp Fire was private land without timber of commercial value. Under the weather, fuel, and fire conditions prevailing on that day at that location, little short of a mile-wide cleared firebreak would have stopped progression - and given the spotting distances observed, possibly not even that. Blaming the fire's impact on a suburban community - built haphazardly in a fire-dependent ecosystem with little or no regard to FireWise principles such as defensible space and evacuation routes - on "forest management" is simply not supportable by the facts, and fails to address the real issues facing other Western communities. Build a city in a fire-dependent forest, and forest fires are inevitable. Pace Stephen Pyne, this is not a forest management problem but an urban planning problem. Trump is, of course, entitled to his opinion - but the half-dozen reliable sources cited which say he is wrong are still unrebutted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing opinion. For starters,the California governor declared an emergency over forest management. I could go on, but you should do your own research. I agree with your opinion, but what you're doing isn't right. Selectively referencing the MSM to push your take isn't encyclopedic. Crescent77 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The "MSM"? Yes, mainstream media publications such as The New York Times are reliable sources. Wikipedia content is, by foundational policy, based on what is published in reliable sources. If your argument is that the cited sources are wrong, then the burden is on you to find reliable sources which dispute or rebut what is contained in those cited sources. If, on the other hand, your argument is that mainstream media sources are all biased... that's a "problem" which we cannot solve. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Mainstream media? I referenced actions by the Head of State of California. If you're gonna drive your opinion down fool's throats...I guess that's your thing. Good luck with it. Crescent77 (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's claiming there *aren't* forest management issues in California - particularly related to the lack of prescribed fire. But claiming that this wildland-urban interface fire disaster specifically occurred or was made worse by gross mismanagement of the forests is simply not supported by the facts. The Camp Fire was driven by 70 mph downslope winds into a dense suburban community. There is *nothing* to be done about a fire driven by 70 mph winds except get out of the way and wait for it to run out of fuel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, did you say there may be issues with forest management? That there may be sources that agree with our President? As much as I dislike saying it, he could possibly be right, and it would not be fair to blanket his statement as "incorrect". Crescent77 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That there may be sources that agree with our President? If there are reliable sources which say that Trump was correct that There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor, you're welcome to present them here; if there exists significant disagreement among sources, it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia to make a categorical statement in WikiVoice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You're pulling a bait and switch; you're not even quoting what was written on this page. If you feel the need to maintain "incorrectly" and desire unbiased accuracy, perhaps you need to rewrite the sentence to better identify what was "incorrectly" done. Crescent77 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Air Quality Maps

• http://baaqmdmapsprod.azurewebsites.net/map-air-quality-home.html

embedded at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/current-air-quality

current state of SF Bay Area Air Quality

How to take "snapshots" ?

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

• http://www.met.sjsu.edu/wind/FAQ.html

Wind in SF Bay Area

• https://airnow.gov/state/CA/index.cfm

• Current Air Quality Index (AQI) Conditions - California Cities

• https://files.airnowtech.org/airnow/today/cur_aqi_ca_nv.jpg

• Current Air Quality Map, CA and NV

69.181.23.220 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wildland–urban interface

What is the opposition to this by @Mango, you are en excellent editor so I am not sure what your intention is here. Also, be aware I am a West Coast editor and we are more direct in our communications--if you are not from this area we sometimes come off as too upfront. I don't mean anything other than to resolve this issue with Wildland-Urban interface. 2601:647:4D01:FA4:A052:FC20:5FE7:C5EA (talk)

Its a tangential addition, poorly referenced directly to this fire. and what is the section you added, "Some, like Murphys—which like Paradise is on a ridge at the end of a long river canyon—were once larger. After burning repeatedly, today Murphys is a fraction of its former size." suppose to be?--MONGO (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Good questions and exactly what an editor should ask. Let's break them down individually. you have three concerns--which explains some of my confusion, I was trying to see one.

• Tangential addition
• Poorly referenced to this fire
• Why is there an example (rephrasing "[what is this] suppose to be?")

-What do you mean by 'tangential.' The POTUS and a Fire Representative have made this the crux of the discussion. Nearly all the discussion hangs off this framwork of Wildland-urban interface. It does not seem tangential unless I don't understand your intention.

-By poorly referenced, do you mean the citations? The LA Times article is exactly on topic to this fire. Again, I don't see this unless I don't understand your intention.

-The example is just that. It is a real example that follows up on CalFire's list and recent statement about this fire, there are lots of other places that are the same. Like Murphys which is a good example.

Also, for context, I lost my home in this fire Granite07 (talk)

Sorry about your home...are you using both a username and an IP to edit this article?--MONGO (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. My neighbors have nothing. I at least had a temp apartment already near the University.

For dual edits. No. I am too lazy to login. Anon works. Another editor put a vandalism lock, so I had to find my password and log in.

Granite07 (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So you have been using both an IP and this Granite07 username? You saw the page had been "locked" so you logged in to revert back in the material multiple editors have asked you to gain consensus for inclusion as shown here--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not a very accurate gloss of the situation.

I asked several times to discuss this and you are the only editor involved. That section is cited and has been edited my several editors--you removed it without a comment.

Further, the violation lock was not for me, it was in response to the edit to the Fire Chief's name from Brian to James which I don't know anything about.

I am have been editing the camp fire page for days without a problem. You jumped in with your edit and didn't like the Wildland-Urban content but won't explain why. Please explain your issue and stop changing to topic with an attacking on me over my IP, it isn't cool...

Granite07 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

All I want to know is if you understand that you cannot restore information that you were unable to add due to the nonconfirmed editor protection? The protection was fully about the addition of this wildland interface tangent which you have repeatedly been adding using an IP then once the protection was placed preventing you from adding it back, you circumvented that by using your regular user account. You have been asked by myself multiple times and by one other to seek consensus for this addition before restoring it. I recognize this is not an easy time for you and of course the Wildland–urban interface discussion has a place but the onus is on you to explain here now why this is the case. I suggest you self revert your addition and gain the consensus here to include this material or some form of adaptation of the material. For now the article should be discussing primary issues of loss of life and property, what the entities are doing to stop the fire, recovery efforts and the responses. There may be a way to discuss the Wildland–urban interface matter in brevity at some point but not an entire section with mostly synthesized material.--MONGO (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The protection was not about the addition of this wildland interface--there is not documentation of that. It was for the Fire Chief's name vandalism. My edits are not vandalism--they are cited edits.

I submitted an arbitration request, it said to notify you.. I only did this to get a their party , we seem to be going in circles and better to get an arbitrator now *You must inform all parties that they have been named in this request using You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs)

I'm not certain that Granite07 realizes what he/she has done. In a recent restoration of disputed content, he/she left this edit summary "Please leave cited content, it has been edited by multiple editors over several days.". Granite07, do you not realize that edit warring as both an ip user and as a logged in user is a clear cut case of sock puppeting? Especially when one user is cited as support for the other, as you have done. Sock puppeting cases usually result in a block. Akld guy (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Akld_guy, however, that post was in good faith and is not as a second editor. It is clearly a continuation of the IP as a logged user.

Please see example diffs to additive and subtractive good faith edits to that content by other editors over several days

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869357577
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869305449
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869310002
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869291741

Granite07 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I saw the Arbitration request The content at this diff is extremely bad, and should not be added. Wikipedia should not be used as a reference, the "Prominent examples" is original research, and the whole thing appears to try to push a point-of-view but that view isn't entirely clear. Is there some other article on wildland–urban zones that could be linked in the "See also" section? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Just added the link to Wildland–urban interface to the See also section here--MONGO (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, could you just say what you don't like about the content? In your talk page it says you don't like news sources as citations, is that the issue? I asked specific questions above about your thre concerns and you did not respond. We should wait for arbitration before continued edits. It is only polite. Granite07 (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

All of it actually. I do not think this article is the place to have an entire section about Wildland-urban interface issues. We have an article on that and I linked to it as described. Your edit definitely fits the definition of a WP:SYN violation as shown in the edit summary here. I suggest you look at the links and adhere to suggestions made by others at the arbitration page and your own talkpage.--MONGO (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

We have to agree to disagree that the discussion is out of place. There have been six different reasons. Wavering by you and other posters makes it look like you just don't like it and are throwing reasons against the wall to see what sticks. What do you like, can we start there? Granite07 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with MONGO -- and apparently with JzG who deleted its addition to the article -- that this article about a specific fire is not the place to include general information about the Wildland-urban interface. MONGO's addition of a link to that article in the "See also" section is fine.
  I think I probably would agree that it would be appropriate to add a single short paragraph on the order of "The fire has raised again concerns about..." along with citations to that discussion being brought up specifically about this fire. Anything more than that -- unless this fire has something inherently special about it which makes it highly relevant to that issue -- I believe goes too far away from the article's subject. That the sources must be about this fire and not general in nature is to insure that the addition is not SYN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, you should withdraw the request for arbitration. It's not going to be accepted and it's a total mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• In one of your edit summaries, you wrote: this page cannot present the Camp fire without the Wildland-Urban discussion. That sentiment could equally be said about any major wildfire in an urban or semi-urban area, which means that it's not specifically a concern about 'this fire, but about the general subject - hence the article on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken, MONGO, and others. It may turn out that this fire was caused by PG&E (that is not known) and that its spread was exacerbated by factors from local vegetation management practices to global warming. But that does not mean we should add content to this article on the risks posed at other places which have power lines or steep canyons or high winds, or where the effects of global warming are more acute, or where the forest floor is littered with slash or duff. Other articles can and do address those factors. Here the fire is still burning and there has been no determination of precipitating and contributory causes. And even when there is there is no reason to use this article as a platform to discuss the risks elsewhere. Kablammo (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. Long term after the final horrible tolls are better known about the loss of life and property destruction definitely can see a discussion about the Wildland-urban interface issue somewhat as part of a section on investigations or similar. While Trump has made numerous stupid comments about how the woods should be "raked" like they do in Finland(?) and the state of California has practiced lousy forest management, some of his comments were preceded by a more scientific analysis, (though I doubt Trump knew about them) that have supported the notion that indeed the forest management has been somewhat lacking [2]. These sorts of things along with the Wildland-urban interface issues can be addressed much later but right now believe we would be a bit early to do so until investigators find the evidence they need to render verdicts.--MONGO (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I like that proposal by @Beyond My Ken:, let's do it. @MONGO:, do we have consensus? Anyone else on the point? For reference this is the suggestion made by Beyond My Ken, "add a single short paragraph on the order of "The fire has raised again concerns about..." along with citations to that discussion being brought up specifically about this fire. Anything more than that -- unless this fire has something inherently special about it which makes it highly relevant to that issue"Granite07 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Tweleve-hour bump @Kablammo, MONGO, Akld guy, Power~enwiki, Beyond My Ken, JzG, Kablammo, and Jerry Stockton:Granite07 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. The problem was that you edit-warred to restore "The fire reinvigorated an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of residential development in the Sierra Nevada wildland-urban zones.", and you cited this, which doesn't mention a reinvigoration of a debate or anything approaching it. If this fire has restarted a debate, let's have a reference that says so. Akld guy (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Good point. Except I didn't edit war--which was a point made in the arbitration discussion; I went to talk before it met that threshold, and I don't have an extensive history of being banned for edit warring--also I didn't write, "The fire reinvigorated an ongoing discussion...," that point was contributed by another editor. I missed @John B123: earlier.Granite07 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't edit war. No not anymore we hope. How many different ways do I have to tell you I do not support any variation of a wildland-urban interface discussion here? Stop pinging me...I have the article watchlisted.--MONGO (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a proposal by @Beyond My Ken:, which was given a first by Granite07 and now has a second by @Akld guy: (with modification to follow citation wording of SacBee whatever that may be), on the proposal, there is one disenting MONGO and so recorded, so unless I am missing something, we have consensus and the proposal passes. Let's edit. Who wants to write it? Granite07 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that there is consensus and you can count me as opposed. I am open-minded on the issue, but believe that any new paragraph addressing the issue should be posted here first. Kablammo (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Koblammo, Beyond My Ken, and Akld guy:, the proposal by Beyond My Ken is to "add a single short paragraph on the order of... [following cited sources]," which was modified by Akld guy to include in the topic sentence only the wording in the SacBee they used as the motivation. Koblammo, you claim a dissent on this proposal on 'adding.' You claim nonconsensus which Beyond My Ken has also claimed in Granite07's talk page--that is accepted. Koblammo modifies the proposal that we collaborate here on an edit. The new proposal, "a single short paragraph addressing the issue should be posted here first [following cited sources for content and motivation/relation to this page]." Discussion is closed. We have four approvals, Koblammo|Beyond My Ken|Akld guy and one dissenting, MONGO. Is anyone else in approval or dissenting, I will leave this open for 12 hours to allow time for others to approve/dissent before moving forward. Thank you everyone. Granite07 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute there! You have misrepresented the situation and what I did. I did NOT modify the text, none of which I ever wrote. I posted what you had edit-warred to restore, in order to point out that it was NOT based on the SacBee reference, which didn't mention a reinvigoration of a debate at all. You are going to have to come up with a ref that ties this fire to a restart of the debate. Akld guy (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Akld guy:. You have misunderstood, the text you reference is the text of @Beyond My Ken:'s proposed solution. Right now the text of the proposal is that we collaborate to write "a single short paragraph addressing the issue should be posted here first [following cited sources for content and motivation/relation to this page]." We are simply reaching concensus on that point before we move forward with writing the text for the article which we do not have a draft of until we have consensus to create that draft. Also, as I posted above, a point of the arbitration process was that I did not edit war, I brought the topic here to discuss before it reached an edit war. Further, I did not write the text of the topic sentence you are referring to. I did note in Beyond My Ken's proposal your request that in the topic sentence we abide by the wording of the SacBee, whatever that might be. Hopefully that clarifies the point right now and you are in agreement. Is there anyone else approving or dissenting? We have nine hours left Granite07 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo, Beyond My Ken, Akld guy, Power~enwiki, JzG, Jerry Stockton, and John B123:, nine hours have passed and we appear to have consensus to write "a single short paragraph addressing the issue which will be posted here first [following cited sources for content and motivation/relation to this page]." A draft paragraph is as follows (see next post).Granite07 (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The fire raises a question, why do communities in the wildland-urban interface keep burning? This is an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of residential development in the Sierra Nevada wildland–urban zones. Issues include if development can be safe, and if safe, what building codes and emergency response infrastructure would be needed. The wildland–urban area interface discussion points to other Sierra Foothill communities similar to Paradise (pop. 27,000). CalFire stated that, "Those kinds of geographic features are present in many foothill towns." Those features include a proximity and alignment to river canyons which is what channeled wind-fed flames over Concow and into Paradise. There are 1,329 communities in the Sierra Nevada at risk of catastrophic wildfire. Some, like Murphys(pop. 2,200)—which like Paradise is on a ridge at the end of a long river canyon—were once larger. After burning repeatedly, today Murphys is a fraction of its former size (uncited because it is widely known as true and is in the Murphys Wikipedia page). Other prominent examples include:

• Oroville; pop. 48,000
• Bangor; pop. 650
• Nevada City; pop. 3,000
• Grass Valley; pop. 13,000
• Auburn; pop. 20,000
• Placerville; pop. 10,500

Granite07 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If after 24 hours from the last edit there is no additional edits or comments, then I will post to the page. Please copy/paste the block above and edit below this comment. Granite07 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Oppose. Neither of the news sources fully support this text, which appears in part to be original research, and the last source is from 2001. The tone also is inappropriate, and the Murphys mention does not have a reliable source. This article is not the place for this discussion. Kablammo (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, on the basis of the draft text posted above. It's unencyclopedic to ask a question. This is an encyclopedia, not somebody's blog. A citation that says that a debate has been restarted because of this fire has still not been provided, so the addition of the proposed text looks like WP:COATRACK to me and must be rejected. Akld guy (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo, Beyond My Ken, Akld guy, Power~enwiki, JzG, Jerry Stockton, and John B123:, thank you Kablammo and Akld guy, your comments are appreciated. I think at this point we know you are opposed. That is the same text you already opposed that brought us here in the first place. It hasn't changed. As a baseline of starting, I posted it (I did change the opening sentence to quote the SacBee article per Akld guy). The intention here in this Talk is to collaborate on edits. That is the baseline text and we then collaboratively edit from there. The intent is not to vote which isn't collaborative anyways. Please make whatever edits you think is appropriate so that it does not have the following problems

1. Neither sources support the text (Which two? Let's clarify and make it supported)
2. In part to be original research (Which part? Let's remove that part)
3. The last source is from 2001 (Is that a problem? If it is relevant it should be fine, Paradise in on the list).
4. The tone is inappropriate (tone... can you elaborate?)
5. The Murphys mention does not have a source (true--it isn't sourced in the Murphys' page either)
6. This article is not the place for this discussion (is that even with the above issues addressed--otherwise your comments contradict each other?)
7. Unencyclopedic to ask a question (it is rhetorical, and a quote which you requested)
8. A citation that says that a debate has been restarted because of this fire (it actually doesn't say that anywhere in the draft text?)
9. The proposed text looks like WP:COATRACK (see the previous comment, it doesn't say anything about a debate or restarting a debate).

Hope that listing those concerns as bullets with responding comments and requests for clarification are helpful. I numbered these so they can be discussed by reference numbers. The last three look like irrelevant misunderstandings. The first three look like easy fixes. The middle three look like where we will be working the most. Granite07 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo, Beyond My Ken, Akld guy, Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, and BullRangifer:, removing JzG by their request (has no opinion on this topic, though they deleted the content to begin with), also removing Power~enwiki, Jerry Stockton, and John B123 due to lack of response to previous pings. Adding Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, and BullRangifer to ping due to their support in a discussion that overlaps with Wildland-urban interface discussion. The following draft addresses

1. Neither sources support the text (checked that SacBee and LA Times support the text--added quotes to clarify, I found each topic and verified the content is in each source)
2. In part to be original research (see 1, citations are clearer)
3. The Murphys mention does not have a source (removed--Murphy town history page has that one fire started in a saloon and the other dosen't say where--if it came from the river canyon isn't clear; therefore removed content about Murphys)
4. The last source is from 2001 (it is specific to Paradise, fire, and high hazard)

(the following points are opinion-based--for consensus, every effort will be made to resolve these as a secondary goal)

1. The tone is inappropriate
2. This article is not the place for this discussion
3. Unencyclopedic to ask a question (revised to clarify as rhetorical)

(the text doesn't say anything about a debate or restarting a debate--removing these two comments as off topic)

1. A citation that says that a debate has been restarted because of this fire
2. The proposed text looks like WP:COATRACK

The fire created a situation that raises a rhetorical question, why do communities in the wildland-urban interface keep burning? The SacBee looked at if residential development is still appropriate in the Sierra Nevada wildland–urban zones, they quote a former Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District chief, "There’s just some places a subdivison shouldn’t be built.”. Issues include if development can be safe, and if safe, what building codes and emergency response infrastructure would be needed. The wildland–urban area interface discussion points to other Sierra Foothill communities similar to Paradise (pop. 27,000). CalFire stated that, "Those kinds of geographic features are present in many foothill towns." Those features include a proximity and alignment to river canyons which is what channeled wind-fed flames over Concow and into Paradise. Visiting Professor Moritz (UC Santa Barbara) noted, “And if we were to go back and do the wind mapping, we would find that at some intervals, these areas are prone to these north and northeasterly [strong hot autumn wind] events.” There are 1,329 communities in the Sierra Nevada at risk of catastrophic wildfire..

The above is a revision and is only the first, I am certain there will be a second round of revision. There is no rush. Granite07 (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, we are not consensus voting yet, we are consensus editing. Consensus voting will be after we finish editing. Granite07 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If after 24 hours from the last edit there is no additional edits or comments, then I will post to the page. Please copy/paste the block above and edit below this comment. Granite07 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice for Wildland–urban Interface Discussion (Closed)

Please contribute here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration was declined see diff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869526065

90% chance of rain wednesday

https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=39.7508&lon=-121.6077#.W_Jg06GIa2M Fire should be out then. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/11/19/camp-fire-containment-grows-65-percent-rain-forecast/2053051002/ Should something like this be included in the article? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Its gonna take a long period of soaking rains to put out the fire.--MONGO (talk)

Task is to find a reference that says a fire won't survive 4 inches of rain. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/19/california-fires-rains-finally-coming-scorched-paradise/2052993002/ Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you already added the info...so what's done is done.--MONGO (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's non-encyclopedical and is a form of future-telling. At the very least it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Akld guy (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked at wp:notnews and didn't see anything that applied. Is there some specific guideline that is being violated? For example the fire is news, but that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. I scanned recent articles about the camp fire and about half of them mention the coming rain. Seems like it would be a big omission to exclude that info. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas:, I looked at that too and also saw that many sources have pedicted the rain will put out the fire (it is obvious, right, you don't need a citation for clear truth). The real story is the mud flows and lack of erosion control put in place (zero right). I motion to keep the text how it is. Granite07 (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a prediction. Hasn't happened yet. If it doesn't rain, then the text will have to be removed, because the rain's non-appearance will have had no bearing on the fire. Therefore, what has been added is a news item. Wikipedia is not a collection of might-happens, could-happens, and predictions of day to day events. Ask yourself, does this news item aid readers' understanding about the fire? Akld guy (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a scientific forecast like global warming and receiving significant coverage. It is not an off the cuff prediction. The forecast is 100% chance of rain: https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w0=t&w1=td&w2=wc&w3=sfcwind&w3u=1&w4=sky&w5=pop&w6=rh&w7=rain&w8=thunder&w9=snow&w10=fzg&w11=sleet&w13u=0&w15u=1&AheadHour=0&FcstType=graphical&textField1=39.7508&textField2=-121.6077&site=all&unit=0&dd=&bw=&AheadDay.x=23&AheadDay.y=9 Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removal of these predictions, and of the unwarranted assumption that the fire will completely end when it rains. It may happen, and we can hope for that, but we do not know that it will occur. Kablammo (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What is in the text is a statement of the forecast. There is NO assumption that the fire will completely end with the rains. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of the news item is a very strong implication that it will do so. Akld guy (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The article text says "... is expected to help...", which is far from an absolute. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Daniel, your first post in this thread says "Fire should be out then." Kablammo (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh you are arguing for removal of text from talk page? If so, then go ahead and remove it if it is bothering you. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"...is expected to help..." - a news item making a prediction. Definitely not encyclopedical. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas: post a request for assistance in Wikipedia: Consensus. I agree with your point that is a reasonably certain event--your point about it is in the news is correct. Get someone to help mediate a solution. Granite07 (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas and Kablammo:, can we collaborate on a consensus? Koblammo, you removed the content, however, your reason given in the edit was on content structure not for the discussed reason here about non-encyclopedic wp:notnews. Let's focus on one thing at a time or we don't look like competent editors. If you want to remove as wp:notnews then let's correct that structure issue and then move back to the wp:notnews issue. Please revert your edit and we will have a discussion about content structure and look for a solution. Note: The problem with structure here is that Daniel.Cardenas placed content in the summary section. A summary cannot contain contenct which is not in the body of a document. To place that content in the summary, it must also be placed and discussed in the body, which is nbd. Granite07 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Update Wildfire Template

@MONGO:, are you responsible for the wildfire template? (Asking since Wildfire is your category to monitor) It is missing a field for 'missing people,' which seems like a category many wildfires would have with injured and fatality. I got this msg when I tried to add to the template not knowing it was a template, "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox wildfire with unknown parameter "missing" (this message is shown only in preview)." @Zackmann08:, you have done some editing of wildfire template, can you add a 'missing people' field? Template:Infobox_wildfire Granite07 (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Bump @Zackmann08:Granite07 (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Granite07: sorry I never saw your initial ping. Added a |missing= parameter. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Zackmann08:! Granite07 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of Fire

The section Response should be updated to indicate that the fire originated in the Plumas National Forest. The introductory summary of this article cites Camp Creek Road as the origin. From querying "Camp Creek Raod, California" in the OpenStreetMap Web site, it is seen that Camp Creek Road is entirely within the Plumas National Forest. Thus, the response should note that President Trump's criticism of forest mismanagement should be directed not at California but at the U.S. Forest Service in the federal Department of Agriculture. DERoss (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)DERoss 21 November 2018 17:20 PST

We don't know specifically where the fire originated at this point; it was certainly in the vicinity of Camp Creek Road, but exactly whose land the fire originated on isn't clear at this point. I'm sure we'll find out in due course of the investigation. Moreover, mere ownership is only one piece of the puzzle; for example, we do have some reporting that power lines may have been involved, and if those were transmission lines, then it may have technically originated on land leased or permitted to PG&E. Additionally, the vast majority of the fire did not burn federal land or state land, but rather privately-owned land. So the answer to your question is, we don't know yet, and we shouldn't speculate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There is also PG&E's report of a second point of origin near Concow, so points close to Pulga and Concow are possible fire sources, and PG&E was working in both areas at the time of the fire. They had been warning of possible power shutdowns for a week or so as they did their work, but they didn't shut it down. Electricians have a habit of working on hot wires, but then sparks can cause fires. That may be what happened here, and maybe they should have shut the power off while working on the lines. The details will come out soon. Then we won't be dealing with speculations, but in facts. Their current silence and carefully worded press reports aren't RS for actual events, only what their lawyers advise them to say. They are facing huge lawsuits. Many victims who didn't have insurance are going after them, and the insurance companies will also attempt to recoup their losses. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting!

• Camp Fire: Map shows where PG&E planned to shut off power

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Too many images

Please remove several of the Bay area images. We really don't need so many. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for any of them, but I'd have to disagree. Having the photos is nice to visualize the disaster. Perhaps a couple pictures of the smoke could be removed, but they should be replaced by some sort of aerial photo if there is one. Alex of Canada (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with OP. Now, half the pictures in the article are of bad air in San Francisco. That's a misplaced emphasis. —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

An image that should be added is a fire map. It seems like a page about a fire, if it had nothing else, would have the fire map. I am already knee deep in edit consensus disagreement (which might be why the page quality is suffering, maybe more editing and less of the Trumpsters forcing everyone to spend all their efforts talking about talking about editing). Could someone else take responsibility for a map? Granite07 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. I'm not good at that, and life is a bit too screwed up right now for me to take the time, so someone please add a fire map. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Multimedia

@Beyond My Ken: There are a pair of interactive damage surveys available. One is from CalFire and has still images, and the other is from a multi agency collaboration that has DroneDeploy making a survey with video. 1) What are your thoughts for embedding one or both of these in the page? 2) If you are favorable, then where do we get assistance with the HTML page code? 3) Last, how do we get consensus on that? See https://buttecountyrecovers.org/Maps, https://camp-fire.dronedeploy.com/, http://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5306cc8cf38c4252830a38d467d33728&extent=-13547810.5486%2C4824920.1673%2C-13518764.4778%2C4841526.1117%2C102100 Granite07 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Granite07 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Change to Response section

Hi all, I made this change to the Response section. Please feel free to revert if I've missed the reasoning behind noting Trump's response prior to coverage of the First Responders. It seemed backwards to me, and perhaps exacerbated the POV issue noted by others. petrarchan47คุก 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I did that earlier, but was reverted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No one seems to have a problem with it now; thanks for the support. I think the 3 paragraphs are a bit excessive too. It could use a nice shave. petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It is super concise -- I reread it and I don't think you can cover those three important points encyclopedically with less text. Granite07 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how relevant "an internet phenomenon of Finnish people sharing photos of themselves raking forests" really is for the Camp Fire article. It's entertaining, but encyclopedic? petrarchan47คุก 01:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If we deleted the entire page and kept one thing, that is what I would keep. The towns will rebuild and the trees will regrow and the dead will be mourned. In 500 years all anyone will remember is that the President visited this apocalypse of devastation and said it was their own fault because they didn't take their leaves enough (everyone is already required to rake 100' around each structure--inspectors come through and cite people if they haven't raked; which is the truely messed up part). It is the entire story in a metaphor of a rake--God bless the Finns. Granite07 (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, my home burned in the fire and I raked as much if not more than anyone. I even burned the ground after I raked. My home burned with all the rest. Granite07 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Luckily the encyclopedia isn't written from a single person's POV. It's very possible that you are too close to this story to have a neutral take on what should be included on the page. In 500 years all anyone will remember is that the President visited this apocalypse of devastation and said it was their own fault is profoundly misguided. If you were to ask the over 200 families who still don't know where their loved ones are (who expect little more than a pile of ashes when they do get news), whether Trump's visit and never-ending idiocy is truly the most important aspect of this fire, they would likely be offended. Editors are not allowed to use Wikipedia to take out personal grievances; it's common knowledge that if we cannot edit with WP:NPOV, we aren't allowed to edit at all. It's really that simple. One rule of thumb I live by: if the subject matter causes strong emotions, it's best to edit other subjects. That said, I'm very sorry to hear you were a victim of this fire. The whole thing is just heartbreaking. petrarchan47คุก 20:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Rewording in the lead section.

The final sentence could be worded better, due to the date in the preceding sentence: "As of November 19, insured damage was estimated to be $7.5–10 billion.^[1][2] The fire reached 100% containment seventeen days later on November 25, 2018."

Such as either: "The fire reached 100% containment seventeen days after it began on November 25, 2018.", or even more simply "The fire reached 100% containment after seventeen days on November 25, 2018."
50.1.108.138 (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

great suggestion Granite07 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Change in number of unaccounted

As of November 26, 2018, 203 people are unaccounted for, 88 fatalities are recorded, 54 of which have been identified.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ds_E00FU0AAMLOH.jpg

The Butte County Sheriff released this report with the numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.222.234 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Air quality image

@Neutrality: please assist with copyright for this image Ticket#: 2018112810000223. The copyright request page advised, "We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later." The original author of this image submitted it to Wikipedia Commons (I emailed her and she is donating her time to support this page with her image). @Akld guy: is deleting the graphic which is causing unnecessary extra work on everyone's part, see Special:MobileDiff/871145108 Can you be that administrator that restores the page? Granite07 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The file lacks permission. Even worse, Granite07 has uploaded it and described it as his own work with himself as author. I have pointed out to him in edit summaries that he cannot pre-empt permission that may be granted later, even if he has correspondence that indicates that the permission is coming. Akld guy (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia asked for the file to be uploaded to the page and a link to that page included in the request for permission. So how do I upload the file to the page and provide that link to the copyright holder so they can request Wikipedia copyright the image? Which do you want the chicken or the egg. I don't make up the rules I just try to work within them. I think the Wikipedia upload assumes a single individual is posting and asking for permissions it doesn't have a situation for people collaborating on upload and asking for permissions. Sorry you did not understand the situation. @Neutrality:, please provide some admin assistance on the graphic. Granite07 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy:, since you understand Wikipedia, why don't you assist with the graphic. You should see the situation now. This is the copyright request Ticket#: 2018112810000223 and you have the diff for the image posted in Camp Fire 2018. How do we get Wikipedia to complete their side so we can be done with this? Granite07 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That ticket does not open for me. It seems to be an incomplete link. Akld guy (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a link, it is an email from permissions-en@wikimedia.org that says at the end "If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2018112810000223]." I assume you would send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the subject line [Ticket#: 2018112810000223] and then request whatever is needed to post this image. Granite07 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For those following this thread, the image being discussed is File:AQI_Figure_for_bay_area_during_Camp_Fire.pdf. It relates only to San Francisco's air quality, and I am ambivalent about whether it should be included in this article. Since Granite07 is strongly pushing for its inclusion, why should I be expected to do his work for him when I'm not very motivated to include it? As a side issue, the image is based on data from "Purple Air sensors". Without wishing to denigrate the company's product, these appear to be inexpensive sensors designed for "home enthusiasts". It would be preferable to cite data from reputable government or California state sources by way of reliable sources. Akld guy (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It was produced by health researchers at the University of California San Francisco and published in an academic online publication. I don't want to second guess their judgement. However, I searched online and I don't see anything else citable that provides the context of the air quality seen in the images (like is that bad air or just sort of bad air... the graphic helps to show it is the worst air ever). A metric of air quality seems key to the airticle if it is going to encyclopedically discuss air quality. Granite07 (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko, Kevin Wallem, and Akld guy:, The copyright image is ready, this is it https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Air_quality_in_Bay_Area_during_Camp_Fire..png (it says it is nominated for deletion, however, this was communicated when I checked on the deletion request, "No, I've provided the correct link and it has the correct author and ticket number attached, however there was a deletion nomination for this image which has not yet been closed by an administrator who will see the ticket when they close that deletion nomination. It does not matter who originally uploaded the image because a permission statement has been provided for the image. Besides she never sent an image and it would make no difference because it is the same image and has been verified. I hope that explains everything. Yours sincerely, Kevin Wallem--Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/" from permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I will revert the deletion and post that image in place of the temporary image that was a placeholder until the copyright image was ready. I also hope that settles everything. Granite07 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Apparently the Purple Air units read high compared with DAQ (government) monitors, for what that's worth. They use a different form of measurement too. The Purple Air units measure the number of particles, whereas DAQ measures by weight. petrarchan47คุก 00:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy and Petrarchan47:, that article you linked to raises a good concern. I had to go check the graphic's values against something. I don't want to second guess the authors--they certainly already checked their published values against other sources before publishing. This article says that the EPA measured AQI for: Nov 15 AM the AQI is 177; Nov 15 PM AQI is 211. That is consistent with the graphic. See "Toxic SF air quality gets worse [Correction]," https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/15/18096611/air-quality-sf-epa-camp-fire-smoke Before posting this graphic initially, I had looked at the California Air Resource Board's AQI record and it looked comparable. I feel satisfied with that to feel confident with the graphic. Granite07 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty inclined to agree with you. petrarchan47คุก 00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing Persons Count

Had to correct this, As it listed 3 missing civilians, but somehow had a total of 6 missing persons? Either math was off, a wrong number was entered, or something. If this correction is in error fix as needed. Hemingray (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Call for admin assistance with images

I'd like to bring the images at this link into Wikimedia. My previous attempt to bring in an image showed this task was clearly beyond my ability. Can admin assist? https://www.mymotherlode.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/18-CA-BTU-016737-Camp-Green-Sheet-1.pdfGranite07 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Hauner: ^ Granite07 (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sevgonlernassau: ^ Granite07 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• what do you need help on? Please provide details. It should be possible for you to upload images onto Commons without admin help Sevgonlernassau (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• • I agree but I was unable to do that for the air quality graphic. They accused me all types of terrible things and threatened me. I don't want to take that risk again. Granite07 (talk)

• • I placed a request under heading 'Camp Fire 2018' in https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_requests/Requests#By%20topic Granite07 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• • see the mess here for an example of why I cannot upload images https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_(2018)#/talk/21 ** Granite07 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rmhermen:, that same source about firestorm links to a Cal Fire Green Sheet that has graphics I'd like to use in the Camp Fire page. I need someone to move those images to Wikimedia. I can't because I cannot figure out the Wikimedia upload. Glad to do it if you can walk me through the upload and help if I do something wrong. Granite07 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Firestorm

@Rmhermen:, I 100% hear you but Cal Fire called it a firestorm. Neither of us is an expert to disagree with that. You are an admin so I am surprised you removed the cited content without discussion--you also know you didn't read the citation... It says firestorm three times and you said it dosen't. You are the admin so what do you want to do? Granite07 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy:, it would be nice if once a talk page is established we stop editing. The San Jose Mercury news has a similar article https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/cal-fire-report-compares-camp-fire-to-wwii-bombing-firestorm-details-firefighter-injuries/ Granite07 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy:, let's use the Oakland Firestorm (1991) as an example to test your definition of a firestorm. Your definition that it must be "the entire fire," is not held up by trh example. The Oakland firestorm burned in different phases and some of those were firestorms. The fire is known as a firestorm. See Oakland firestorm of 1991. This is just an example for furthering discussion and not my final point. Granite07 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A Paradise councilmember is calling it a firestorm, "Paradise town council member, said in an interview on ABC News' 'Start Here' podcast. 'That isn't what happened here. This was a firestorm.' " https://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-camp-fire-leaves-entire-paradise-town-council/story?id=59159481 Granite07 (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

While it dosen't mean as much, there are over a half dozen news articles that call it a firestorm--I can list them if you want. Granite07 (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rmhermen:, your point about a cross wind meaning there cannot be a firestorm. The wikipage says that a low-level jet stream feeds a firestorm. The winds you have been calling Diablo winds seem like a low-level jet stream from higher elevations funneled through the canyons into the valley, see Valley exit jet. I don't want to start stepping into a field I don't know but I don't see anything to say this couldn't be a firestorm and I see fire experts and public officials on the record that it is a firestorm. Seems like it passes the duck test. Let's put the firestorm text back. Granite07 (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The labelling of the Camp Fire as a firestorm (in the very first words of the lead, no less) was not supported by the cited ref, which referred only to the destruction of Paradise as a firestorm. It was wrong to characterize the entire fire as a firestorm on the basis of that ref. Akld guy (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

given the example of the Oakland Firestorm, can you elaborate on why it is wrong. You are arguing that it is also wrong to call the Oakland fire a firestorm. Why are these wrong? Granite07 (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to elaborate. The onus is on you to show that this was a firestorm. You tried to do that with an inappropriate ref. Akld guy (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rmhermen and Akld guy:, thank you Akld guy. I appreciate that you feel the initial citation was inappropriate. We seem to have at least moved from where we started and Akld Guy agrees that the citation does say there was a fire storm. Before going too much further, what is the question we are now trying to answer? We agree there was a firestorm. Is the question that the fire was a firestorm? We seem to be dealing with nuances. Or, is the question that the original citation was appropriate. I gave two more citations, are those now appropriate? What is the question and then let's answer that question Granite07 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Posting a revised statement that the firestorm was urban and in Paradise and not in the rest of the fire. We seem to have consensus on that. Please edit as needed. I'd like to continue the discussion about if this is the 'Camp Fire Firestorm', or this is the "Camp Fire that included a firestorm" Granite07 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

People off-hand say lots of things that are not technically correct. This was a wildfire - fast moving yes but not a firestorm. From our own page you are trying to link to: "Large wildfire conflagrations are distinct from firestorms if they have moving fire fronts which are driven by the ambient wind and do not develop their own wind system like true firestorms." and "A firestorm is characterized by strong to gale-force winds blowing toward the fire, everywhere around the fire perimeter, an effect which is caused by the buoyancy of the rising column of hot gases over the intense mass fire, drawing in cool air from the periphery. These winds from the perimeter blow the fire brands into the burning area and tend to cool the unignited fuel outside the fire area so that ignition of material outside the periphery by radiated heat and fire embers is more difficult, thus limiting fire spread." High wind conditions prevent firestorms from occurring. The heat is simply blown downwind horizontally - not allowing it to rise upward and from in-blowing winds. Rmhermen (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Whom uses whom?

@Akld guy:, the term 'whom' is more or less archaic. It just isn't used. In particular, when referencing a large demographic. Quora has a great discussion on the use of whom or lack of https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-so-rarely-use-whom That term has been in steady decline since the late 18th century. I have never heard that word used, ever. Wikipedia is American English. I worked with a guy from London, so I get that Americans has a different language and that people whom speak British English don't see a reason to change, it's a lot of labour for them (which is where we used to really torment that poor London guy). Let's not use 'whom.' Granite07 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just use "whomstd've". On a serious note, I have heard that word before. You don't hear it in conversation so much but it does show up in formal writing. "Whom" is grammatically correct when following a quantifier, e.g. "There are 50 people, of whom 10 like Sushi." so I think in this context it's correct. I would caution against drawing concrete conclusions from Quora since their answers are often just opinions, and they use a proprietary algorithm to rank them. "Whom" has become a major source of confusion even among native English speakers due to it not being very intuitive. The semicolon wording works just as well. Test Subject 51 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a few misunderstandings here. "Whom" is not archaic, but it is formal (a very different thing!) and it is still more or less mandatory in certain formal constructions - but those constructions have become less common which means that the form "whom" has also declined in use. It is not a British English thing (and Wikipdeia is certainly not American English - please do read WP:ENGVAR). The construction "people whom speak [x]" is always grammatically incorrect whatever variety of English you speak, because it is the subject and not the object. In some cases, grammatically correct English requires "who", in a few cases it requires "whom", in a number of cases either one is possible, so "who" is usually a safe bet (since incorrect usage of "whom" is much more jarring than incorrect "who".)--bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think whom is archaic, just widely misunderstood since English speakers are not usually taught grammar in a formal way. It should be used instead of who when it is the object of the sentence not the subject. Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question was "Butte County has a persistent homeless population of 7,500 people, many of which reside in Chico,..." In this edit, I changed to "Many of whom reside..." As I understand it, this is perfectly acceptable even in US English, but I was not willing to enter into another debate with Granite07 over it. A couple of editors above have said that it's formal English. Pardon me, but I thought that formal English is exactly what is to be expected in an encyclopedia article. Akld guy (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Just good-intentioned joking. I even used 'whom' in my post as /s, "that people whom speak British English don't see a reason to change." It is a challenge to get rid of terms that exist only in written and not spoken English, such as whom, hence, thus, however. I have never said the word 'however.' Sometimes these archaic terms can't be avoided. They make a sentence easier to read. I am one of those writers that try not to use them as a choice of style. I try to write as simple as I can. Happy holidays Granite07 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Consequences section needed?

I just updated the article with some lessons learned about emergency alerts and turning off the power in high winds. I managed to find places to put these updates, but both issues are sparking discussion about infrastructure and/or regulatory change and may expand further.

I also did some copy editing and formatting, btw. These changes seemed obvious improvements to me but can of course be discussed if someone disagrees. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Satellite image by Pierre Markuse

This article may be of interest:

• My pick for the most compelling — and scary — remote sensing image of 2018, by Tom Yulsman

That image can be enlarged and is sharper than the one we use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Good picture; it would make a good replacement. Is there a version without text and is it copyrighted? Test Subject 51 (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm the author of said image, don't know much about Wikipedia and its rules but the image is available CC licensed on my Flickr [3], I have also uploaded a version without annotations on my website here [4]. Feel free to grab it, using same licence CC-BY 2.0. PierreMarkuse —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

New LA Times investigative report

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-deathtrap-20181230-story.html Dec 30, 2018

"The fate of Paradise was cast long before a windstorm last month fueled the deadliest fire in California history. The ridge settlement was doomed by its proximity to a crack in the mighty wall of the Sierra Nevada, a deep canyon that bellowed gale-force winds. It was doomed by its maze of haphazard lanes and dead-end roads that paid no heed to escape."

"Historical records show the Camp fire was typical of the catastrophic wind-driven fires responsible for California's greatest wildfire losses. ... The Feather River Canyon, where the Camp fire began, was well-known for high winds. The so-called Jarbo Gap winds rocket down the canyon from the northeast every fall, caused by high-pressure air parked over the Great Basin seeking a path through the Sierra Nevada to fill the low-pressure voids on the California coast. Meteorological records show 36 days since 2003 with gusts of 100 mph or more, and as high as 200 mph. Paradise sat in the path."

Bad place to choose to live. Bad decisions by local officials. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What bearing does this have? Hindsight is 20/20. There are many factors that play into a disaster, including this one. There is no perfectly safe place to build any municipality and there will always be hazards. Our modern technology use depends on understanding those hazards and taking steps to minimize the risks. There's a reason air travel is one of the safest ways to travel, and nuclear power one of the safest forms of energy despite our fears caused by a few rare accidents. Test Subject 51 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Camp Fire was the USA's and world's costliest natural disaster in 2018.

USA had world's 3 costliest natural disasters in 2018, and Camp Fire was the worst

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Further Information Requested ...

How much of the Camp Fire was Federal Land? State Land? Private Land?

Jeff DeMello (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Jeff DeMello

I've looked on CALFIRE's site and there doesn't seem to be a good percentage breakdown at this point... but certainly the significant majority of the fire burned on private land. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A report was put out, I can't seem to find it now, if I do I'll add it. I believe the numbers worked out to be nearly 70 percent private, 10ish state, and 20+ federal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent77 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I was off. Almost no state, it was county, they had more than the feds.

https://ftp.nifc.gov/public/incident_specific_data/calif_n/!CALFIRE/2018_Incidents/CA-BTU-016737_Camp/GIS/Products/FINAL/Ownership&DPA_E_land_FINAL_20181125_Camp_CABTU016737_opt.pdf

Crescent77 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Concow is not in "wilderness" either big or small W

It is inaccurate to describe the community of Concow as being in the "wilderness." Even with the little "w", that can be easily confused with federally-designated Wilderness areas - and Concow is clearly not within a federally-designated Wilderness. Moreover, if we go by Wikipedia's definition, a natural environment on Earth that has not been significantly modified by human activity, the community of Concow is very much not in a "wilderness" there either - that community is a significantly roaded, inhabited, and otherwise-modified landscape. While it is certainly not "urban," it is not "wilderness" either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Camp Fire shouldn't be classified as a natural disaster

Munich Re classified Camp Fire as "the costliest natural disaster of 2018 for insurers", and thus many other articles cited it. However, Camp Fire was directly caused by an human-made transmission line, so it's not a natural disaster.

Perhaps this article could be better reworded from

and the most expensive natural disaster in the world in 2018 in terms of insured losses

to

and 2018's most expensive natural disaster in the world for insurers by Munich Re, even though the incident was caused by a human-made structure

This is my first time using a Talk page, if I did anything wrong, please do tell me!

Labeling presidential response "incorrectly" is misleading

On November 10, President Trump incorrectly[230][231][232][233] stated that "There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor", including the Camp Fire and the concurrent Woolsey Fire in Southern California.[227] In a tweet, he threatened to end federal assistance unless "gross mismanagement of the forests" is remedied.[234][235]

This word "incorrectly" gives me the impression that forest management had no part in the fire. However, there's substantial evidence that forest management is extremely important in preventing wildfires [5] and climate change [6]. And we know that poor forest management has contributed to fires in California specifically [7][8]. Recently California announced an initiative to scale up forest and vegetation management, covering 1 million acres of forest by 2025. [9]

Further, Reason speculates [10] that controlled burns are discouraged due to the fact that Clean Air Act does not count wildfires the same way it does controlled burns.

It seems entirely plausible to me that there would be fewer "massive, deadly" fires with improved forest management.

I'm removing the CNN source, because it only cites partisan sources, CNN makes no claim themselves.

I would like to remove the NYT source because it's primary objection seems to be that the "California’s current wildfires aren’t forest fires" which seems to be splitting hairs.

And I would like to check the Politifact source, because the basis of rating the president False is "Forest management might be part of the issue, but those are mostly federal lands up there". Fortunately we should be able to determine how much of the Camp Fire was in state vs. federal lands and how much each agency is responsible.

And I think we should remove the Fortune source, it has just one expert statement, from CNN's meteorologist (which I can't find directly from CNN), which is refuted by some of my above links, and this study from the science journal Nature Sustainability, which says "California needs fuel treatments—whether prescribed burns or vegetation thinning—on about 20 million acres or nearly 20 percent of the state's land area".

Fire experts refuted Trump's claims, noting Californians are experiencing unusually dry conditions and abnormally high fire danger.

What claim specifically is this refuting? The president never said forest conditions were good, or that fire danger was low.

And really, I think this whole section needs to be rewritten to accurately state the relationship between forest management and the intensity of fires. --Awwright (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the CNN source which quotes the head of the California Professional Firefighters as calling Trump's comments "dangerously wrong" and he goes on to say, "Wildfires are sparked and spread not only in forested areas but in populated areas and open fields fueled by parched vegetation, high winds, low humidity and geography". That is an expert judgment. I oppose removing this source.

Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The California Professional Firefighters quote goes "In my view, this shameful attack on California is an attack on all our courageous men and women on the front lines." which is not a neutral point of view, not an accurate representation of Trump's position on the whole, and it doesn't even say what is incorrect. Qualifying Trump's tweet as "incorrect" is not a NPOV way of summarizing this source. --Awwright (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere do Wikipedia's policies or guidelines require that statements by people quoted by reliable sources be "NPOV". WP:NPOV applies to the article writing we do as Wikipedia editors. The article contains multiple reliable sources stating that Trump's comments were not correct. You are welcome to bring forth reliable sources that say Trump was actually correct that day. Do not edit war and do not remove the CNN source without gaining consensus here on this talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, saying the tweet is "incorrect" is not a NPOV summary of the source; it takes one person's opinion that has no evidence, and presents it as fact. This does not rise to the level of evidence required to label the tweet "incorrect". Further, I provided multiple sources that say California's forest management is to blame, and even the Politifact source says forest management was to blame (it says error is it was the Federal government's fault, not California). Even the sources can't agree what was incorrect about the tweet! --Awwright (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The "one person" that you refer to quoted by CNN is indisputably an expert in California wildfires, and clear statements by experts as reported by reliable independent secondary sources do not require addititional evidence. The CNN source is not the only one calling Trump's statement wrong. Nobody is arguing that forest and wildland management is not an important component of the solution. What was incorrect in what Trump said in Paradise (as he has repeated in recent days) is his stubborn insistence that forest management (lack of "raking") is the only cause of these fires, and that is incorrect according to every reliable source I have read. Do any of the sources you mentioned say that Trump was correct that day? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The California Professional Firefighters isn't cited anywhere else on Wikipedia. I linked to a scientific journal saying that California needs dramatic expansions of forest management and controlled burns; so his position is disputed. Also, please provide some references that people have been confused by the tweet; I am not aware of any person viewing poor forest management is the only cause of forest fires. As I pointed out, California is expanding their forest management plans in the wake of the fires; this fact also refutes the quote.--Awwright (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The California Professional Firefighters are not cited here either. The citation is to CNN, which is a reliable source used many thousands of times on Wikipedia. The source is reliable, the person quoted is an expert, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with relying on a quote where an expert states their expert judgment, and then later goes on to state some opinions. That's perfectly OK. If you disagree, then take the source to the Reliable sources noticeboard for broader input. The expert said nothing that contradicts how you describe the journal article, and if the journal does not discuss Trump's Paradise remarks, then it is not relevant to this specific issue. I do not object to rephrasing the section to attribute the judgment to Brian K. Rice of the CPF, as that would make it clearer to readers that the assessment was by an actual expert rather than a pundit. But I firmly and vigorously oppose removing the CNN source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So in your view, I could add this sentence: "It is one of the fires blamed on climate change." Because the CNN article includes such a quote (from Leonardo DiCaprio). Am I understanding your position correctly? I will take you up on soliciting broader input. --Awwright (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Leonardo DiCaprio is a well-intentioned movie star but he is not an expert in either the causes of California wildfires nor climate change. His political views belong in his own biography or closely related DiCaprio articles (if they exist). Your willingness to conflate the head of California's largest organization of firefighters with a famous movie star is really quite .... unusual. CNN's inclusion of his remarks does not impeach Rice's assessment of Trump's statements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So please rectify this with your claim "The California Professional Firefighters are not cited here either. The citation is to CNN". I propose instead we look at this as an interview. WP:INTERVIEW#Reliability says "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said". If you want to show evidence that President of the California Professional Firefighters is a Reliable Source, then you must show so; and I retort the claim with a peer-reviewed study, a consensus of many experts, specifically on the fire conditions in California in 2018. --Awwright (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but WP:INTERVIEW is neither a policy nor a guideline, but rather an unofficial essay that represents the opinions of one or more random Wikipedia editors. It is not a widely cited or widely respected essay, as far as I know. Even so, attributing the judgment to Rice is a way to address your concerns. I earlier commented that you do not yet have a well-developed understanding of WP:NPOV. Now, you are showing that you lack a well-developed understanding of WP:RS. To repeat myself, CPF is not the reliable source here. It is CNN quoting a CPF official that is the reliable source, and it is the job of CNN reporters and CNN editors to vet Rice and decide whether or not to include his comments in their news coverage of Trump's comments in Paradise. Our job is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say; no more and no less. Our job is not to deconstruct and disassemble what reliable sources say. Of course, if you could bring forward reliable sources that say "Trump was 100% correct in Paradise, and CNN and Rice were completely wrong for the following reasons:", then we would have a basis for re-writing the section. Please bring forward those sources if they exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the statement and of the rather suspect sources. The only thing I would say is that the president specifically states "..no reason..except..", which indicates a single cause for the fires. As you say, forest management heavily contributes, but to suggest that is the only reason...it seems fair to call that incorrect. I do agree that a complete rewrite of the section for the sake of accuracy would be desirable. Crescent77 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that anyone was confused by the wording of the tweet, though? I don't look at the tweet and think "Oh, a well managed forest is immune to fires." I think a reasonable person will read "no reason...except" in the context of "massive, deadly and costly" --Awwright (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, there's a discussion about this very issue under this talk in a discussuon labeled "Description of presidential response". Crescent77 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This objection is slightly different. --Awwright (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's well documented, for example, that utility maintenance (or lack thereof),could be included as a reason behind this "massive, deadly, and costly" wildfire, so once again, attributing it to a sole cause would seem "incorrect". And I have talked to some not so informed folks who really do believe a well managed forest is immune to "massive, deadly, and costly" wildfires, so I do think it is beneficial to have a qualifier indicating the president's statement isn't wholly accurate, though I do agree the way it stands is poorly worded and needs a rewrite. Maybe it should include a statement indicating what is incorrect is attributing it to a sole reason, but that experts agree that his stated reason is a major risk factor. As an aside, I'm not quite in agreement with Cullen's take on the CNN article. It would seem Rice takes issue with the assertion itself, not the information contained therein. It's standard practice for emergency responders not to politicize the issue in the immediate aftermath, and he seeks to be taking issue with our president's well known lack of etiquette, not the accuracy of the statement, as the article clearly shows in earlier sections. Also, I don't see any of the sources using the word "incorrect", so I don't see any support for that particular wording; some of the sources themselves could be labeled as "incorrect" in their poorly worded statements, justified by existing expert opinion already referenced in the article. The whole section seems overly politicized and far less than neutral, and once again, I fully support a rewrite, but that may be an uphill battle against those editors seemingly inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Crescent77 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There are many reasons why the West has experienced serious and destructive wildfires in recent years - ranging from climate change to increasing urban/suburban/exurban development to fire exclusion. Had Trump provided any sort of nuance to this discussion, we wouldn't be here. But he didn't - he drastically oversimplified the issue in order to attempt to score political points. And that's what's up for criticism here. Moreover, the federal government owns and manages significantly more than half of California's forestlands - if "gross mismanagement of the forests" is solely to blame, then isn't Trump actually pointing the finger at himself for failing to lead and fund his own executive branch agencies? There are lots of constructive conversations to be had on this issue, it's going to take work from federal, state, and local government along with private businesses and landowners to reach some solutions, and it would have been great if the president used the Camp Fire as an opportunity to have those conversations. But he didn't, so here we are. We can't impute on the president something we wish would have happened. Trump is the president he is, and he said the things he said, and we can't avoid publishing the inevitable reactions to those things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of the response North, but your comment doesn't address the issue at hand. We should publish reactions, but we shouldn't be synthesizing. Once again, none of the sources use the word "incorrect". Crescent77 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

---

• Camp Fire (2018) → 2018 Camp Fire
• Station Fire (2009) → 2009 Station Fire
• Lake Fire (2020) → 2020 Lake Fire
• Creek Fire (2017) → 2017 Creek Fire
• Creek Fire (2020) → 2020 Creek Fire
• Sand Fire (2016) → 2016 Sand Fire
• Canyon Fire (2016) → 2016 Canyon Fire
• Walker Fire (2019) → 2019 Walker Fire
• Quail Fire (2020) → 2020 Quail Fire
• Strawberry Fire (2016) → 2016 Strawberry Fire
• Valley Fire (2018) → 2018 Valley Fire
• Pole Creek Fire (2018) → 2018 Pole Creek Fire
• Rattlesnake Fire (2018) → 2018 Rattlesnake Fire
• Mineral Fire (2020) → 2020 Mineral Fire
• Gold Fire (2020) → 2020 Gold Fire
• Summit Fire (2008) → 2008 Summit Fire
• Alamo Fire (2017) → 2017 Alamo Fire
• Sand Fire (2019) → 2019 Sand Fire
• Gap Fire (2008) → 2008 Gap Fire

– I understand that Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire likes to have "Fire" capitalised for wildfires, but the titles should otherwise comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), with the date first (nb consistent with 2009 Table Mountain fire). Wikiproject guidelines should not override general naming conventions. Note the case of Camp Fire was discussed above in 2018. My list of pages is taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Popular pages2: if there are others then they could be moved boldy after this RM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:NCDAB. The standard way of disambiguating two article names, including fires, is a simple parenthetical. It's a consistent style, and one readers are used to. This does not fall within the "natural disambiguation" path, either. (Side note: the capitalization of the word "fire" is not a WikiProject Wildfire preference; it's standard MOS of capitalizing a proper noun. Names like "Camp Fire" are the names of the fire, and proper nouns.) TJRC (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per TJRC. Some wildfires are assigned official proper names, and that's what the project prefers we use; sometimes the names get reused, so when necessary we disambiguate by year. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (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.