Talk:Yarnell Hill Fire

Suggestion

Just a suggestion to keep this wiki organized, ie. paragraphs and such. Thanks, --Txtrooper (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This needs to have the current event message on it.

Significance

This appears to be tied for the fourth-largest loss of firefighter lives in US history, and the single worst for a wildfire. There's a source to create a list [1] but we don't have one that I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll create the page soon, and thanks for the link! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of victims from Granite mountain team

The number of dead is 19. The confirmed number within that 19 as beeing from Granite mountain team is being reported locally as 18, not 19. One of the people killed with that team is thought not be a member of that team. "Officials said 18 of the deceased were members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots team. It’s unknown what fire crew the 19th firefighter belonged to. The firefighters are part of a team that is typically sent in first to help cut off the fire, Reichling said." www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20130630crews-fighting-small-fires-around-Arizona.html 108.18.66.133 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial reports indicated that one of the 19 firefighters was from another crew, but the Prescott Fire Chief refuted that.Mmallico (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

UK Daily Mail reports there was a surviving firefighter but he was not with them, but the 'spotter' who told them the wildfire was shifting and to get out. {good picture and info on the heroes and their families.] [2] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I now see Brendan McDonough is listed at the bottom of the list, right panel. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Conditions

Isn't there a formula firefighters use that relates the ambient air temperature and humidity to the intensity (or is the the rapidity?) of combustion? Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Video

I'm not sure if it's just for me, but the Wikinews video used in the article doesn't want to play. --Matt723star (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me eitherMmallico (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should delete it as uncited. The reference links to the LA Times report about the statements from Obama and Brewer, but if this video is there, I can't find it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It worked earlier for me earlier in the day. I have seen the video on ABC News, so I know that it is of the fire burning, although I don't know from where it was filmed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I just pressed play again and it still didn't play. --Matt723star (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Video never worked for me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to delete it but I see someone already did. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if someone could get a working video up that would be great, it's be good to actually have video of the ongoing destruction or the previous destruction, something else besides pictures. --Matt723star (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The UK Daily Mail article has 46 pictures and some video [3] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial

The names of the firefighters that died should be removed per WP:MEMORIAL. BV ^talk 03:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. They are a legitimate part of the story, and a mere mention of their names in no way damages the article. (In fact I was considering gathering more information about them.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point in listing 19 random dead ppl. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

One point might be that right now hundreds of people are coming to this page looking for information, and the names you so sneeringly dismiss as "19 random dead ppl" are part of what they may be looking for. Another point might be that WP:MEMORIAL is irrelevant here. WP:MEMORIAL does not say to omit the names of people whose death is part of a news story; it says not to create articles about non-notable "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances." That is not what is being done by listing the names of the victims. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty much neutral. But, I would lean toward removing the names. United States Man (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The names don't bother me and I once fought to have the word "deceased" banned from Wikipedia as too kind, so I'm definitely not pro-memorial. They're a valuable "who" here, that's all.

These reactions are more than just leaning to the sappy side, though. We shouldn't have the full quotes. Just note that the people required to spout hyperbole did so in a timely manner befitting their position (or similar). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Objections to including the names, which are only known because they have been cited in reliable sources, are based on WP:MEMORIAL and WP:JDLI opinions. "I would lean towards removing". Seriously? Why, man why? Do you really think just saying you're leaning is going to sway anyone? Well, we must dismiss the JDLI comments because opinions not based in policy, guidelines or conventions carry no weight in evaluating consensus. Then we have MEMORIAL, which basically says you can't memorialize people who are not notable, like your uncle. These firemen are not that. MEMORIAL has no application to people whose deaths were covered in countless reliable sources, which these were.

There is no reason to exclude them; at least none that have been presented here. --B2C 05:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Memorializing is having shit like "When a tragedy like this strikes, all we can do is offer our eternal gratitude to the fallen, and prayers for the families and friends left behind. God bless them all.”

Or "This is a tragic loss for the citizens of Arizona and the nation as a whole.”

Ridiculous hyperbole. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the names have been removed, despite the fact that the discussion here was split but was leaning toward keeping them. Let's keep this discussion open; consensus might become more clearly in favor of keeping/restoring the names. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue as far as I can see with having names of victims might be when the investigation commences and fault is assigned.--MONGO 16:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As long as the names are cited in reliable sources, which they are, there is no issue with them being cited on WP. No reason has been provided here for excluding them. --B2C 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that MONGO has restored the names. Thank you. I do think we have consensus here for keeping them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how reporting the names ans their age is a violation of any guidelines...as the article stands now names and age reporting of the victims is fine.--MONGO 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a funny statement about this site not being a memorial, it's true that it isn't, but let's think of other pages that show names of people who died due to tragic circumstances, like for example the 2012 Aurora shooting, that page shows the names of the people who were killed, but not as a memorial, it's just to show who died, and their ages. To accuse Wikipedia as being something used as a memorial is just outlandish. --Matt723star (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You best get adding nearly 3,000 names to the 9/11 article then. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The dead are more central to this story's notability than 9/11's dead were. Even if nobody was killed that day, the structural damage would have been article-worthy. If this was just a routine forest fire where only thousands of plants and animals die, this talk page wouldn't exist. These dead firemen are the story.

I wouldn't be opposed to a list of 9/11ers (their deaths were still a big part of the story), but I sure wouldn't want to type it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The 9/11 article has links to the list of dead. Abductive (reasoning) 16:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This same issue comes up with every air disaster - include the names or not? If WP aims at completeness then it should include. Paul venter (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Air disasters are a little different, since the collection of people killed is just a random slice of the population. Here we have guys that volunteered to go into danger, and possibly made bad decisions that resulted in their own deaths. Abductive (reasoning) 16:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I say include the names. Abductive (reasoning) 16:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The statements

Why are we quoting the entirety of the statements people have made? This isn't a WP:QUOTEFARM. The entire section is essentially quotes and should be trimmed down. Beerest355 Talk 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I cut them yesterday, but here they are. From my experience with recent events, if I cut them again, they'll be back again. Best to wait until the hype dies down before trying to apply encyclopedia standards. Till then, we're doomed to have people popping in with whatever they find in a newspaper, whether it has educational value or not.

But yeah, if you'd like to try now regardless, you have my moral support. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't resist trying again. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hulk, I think your approach - just mention the statements, with a link - is the correct one. A brief (one sentence) summary or quote from Brewer and Obama would also be OK. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not all quoting is bad, sometimes quite good. The important thing is substance, not poetic appeal or level of authority. If some obscure scientist declares a vow to eradicate fire forever (or someone announces a new firehouse name), that's worth an entire Capitol Building of rehashed condolences, even short and pithy ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And yeah, even a "Get well soon" type of quote can be alright, if it's not given undue weight. No problem with something like that from Obama or Brewer, inline and brief. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the quotes to only pertain to 19 firefighters. I agree that they were overused previously, but cutting them out entirely is not the way to go.216.75.99.37 (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. (I was in the process of tidying them up when they were removed.) I have asked that editor to come here and discuss the matter. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they are a little confused. Better wait than get caught in an editing war. Interesting how they chose a quote from a governor over the President of the United States.216.75.99.37 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I also felt there should be a little more about Obama's reaction, and I have added the newsworthy bits of his statement. (Not just my opinion- the LA Times thought those were the newsworthy bits also.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times also claims Matt Osborne was fired as Doink the Clown in 1996 instead of '93, despite me correcting them three days ago, with evidence. Our article is better than theirs, so why not this one, too? But yeah, that's not a bad Obama summary at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I still felt that the quotes were still the dominant part of the section. But, Cyclonebiskit has fixed the problem. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Cyclone's quote is fine by me, too. A bit of a poor metaphor for a fire, but it shows she thinks this is the worst thing she's ever seen, and governors typically deal with a lot of "dark days". Substantial enough. The other was still too long, and even worse, it used ellipses where none were spoken. That's always a bit sketchy looking, even if the context stays the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ellipses are never spoken. They are used to shorten a quote without changing and this is hardly the only article to use them. I feel that there is a lot of misinformation concerning the overuse of Quotes and the idea that stating the names constitutes a memorial violation. 216.75.99.37 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I could have probably been more literal with the spoken part. Sorry. I know what they do. They subtly change a quote, or they cause a quote to appear as though it's been subtly changed. Still too long. There's no memorializing in a mere name and age. Those are facts of the story. Talking about what their lives meant and how tragic their loss is is like you hear at eulogies. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) Things are moving too fast here to keep up - partly because this article is on the main page as In The News. Let's stay alert, this page is going to get a ton of visitors. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been replaced by terrorists on my Google News top hit (linked to 2013 in Canada for lack of a better option, I guess). That gets more business than our front page. How I found this article yesterday, actually. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 in Canada? Weird! --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And if I click on the World tab instead of Top Stories, I get a story about Edward Snowden...linked to Portal:Current events/2013 July 2. With the word "Portal:" in there and everything. I think the Internet might be broken. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See Also

Is there any rhyme or reason to the pages linked under See Also? Looks like a random assortment of other fires. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't seem like it to me. I changed it to two relevant lists. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Caught me in the middle of making edits so I just threw it in :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback

Just a heads up to people, but it would be a good idea to monitor the article feedback, as if one person is saying something, there are many others wondering the same thing. I used this early on to add the map and images, and someone right now is asking about the surviving firefighter, which is something we had previously but removed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Y Added and updated information about him; there is actually a lot more being published about him that doesn't need to be in the article. I wish we could get updated information about the fire's extent, and about whether the road has been reopened, but I haven't been able to find it. Anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed everything seems to have dropped off the morning of the second, so I feel your pain. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yay, I did find a recent update and posted it. Nothing about the highway, but since it goes through the center of Yarnell I'm guessing it's not open yet. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fire Shelters

Why didn't the fire shelters work? Were they defective? Are they only effective in limited conditions? Any experts out there on fire shelters? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a nine-member commission of experts on the scene right now, investigating what happened. They wonder these same questions, but it will take them a month or two to figure out the answers. --MelanieN ([[User talk:Me--Westwind273 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)lanieN|talk]]) 06:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an "expert" but we use them in training. Fire shelters basically work up to about 300 degrees, and for SHORT periods like a flash-over fire. They were never intended for fires that burn extremely hot or for long periods of exposure to intense fires. They are a last-ditch measure when you have no other option. A fire shelter MIGHT not save you, but in a case where you're trapped, with no other option it's certainly going to increase your survival odds exponentially vs NOT having one in the same situation.

It's not practical to design a "fire-proof" fire shelter. It would be too heavy, not practical to carry, not practical to deploy, and comparatively expensive. My FD already has to sell T-shirts and have BBQ pork cook-offs just to but the regular gear we need. Funding simply isn't there to manufacture a device that would cost $1500 per man to purchase and only be beneficial in 3% of fires. Fires such as the Granite Mountain fire exposed the 19 to temperatures over 2,000 degrees (F). According to the coroners reports that I read on all 19 deceased, cell phones melted, some wristwatches melted, and aluminum tools used to service chainsaws inside one of the hotshots trouser pockets melted. Several of the coroners reports stated he found "melted metal objects" in several of the HS's pockets that were melted to the point that they were "unidentifiable" as to what they were. You simply aren't going to design something lightweight, carry-able, easy to deploy, that can withstand that type of environment.

Sure, technically, but not practically, one could design an iron "coffin" type device with an internal cooling system and breathable air supply that might withstand any natural fire exposure. And how would you get a 500 lbs device like that in? Pack it on your back? Most HS's are already packing 80* lbs of gear on their backs.

Aluminum melts at about 1200 degrees (F). Iron about 1250 degrees (F). We simply don't know of an element on earth that would permit a human to be exposed to a 2,000 fire for 20+ minutes and remain uncooked, yet still be practical to carry on a belt, and lightweight enough to hump into a fire line.

I think the issue is similar to the "life jacket" problem. Why don't most recreational boaters wear them? They're just to bulky and inconvenient.

Not all the HS's bore the brunt of the blaze. From the coroners reports, some died of inhalation of hot gases, and a couple were burned so badly that their femur bones cracked from the heat. That's an extremely drastic heat. For those that had bones cracked from heat, or their flesh totally burned off them according to the coroners reports, NOTHING we have in the fire fighter inventory would have saved their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.5.1 (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Still burning?

In this story, the fire is 100% contained four days ago. Mentions a perimeter, but doesn't say the size, so hard to guess how long it should burn. Anyone know whether it's still burning today? If not, past tense should be used in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The inciweb site posted its final update 4 days ago, so I think past tense would be appropriate. BTW there are references to a Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial Overlook, is that new? We should add something about it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No clue or opinion about the overlook, but that's a neat site. Followed a link here and saw the fire behaviour described as "diminishing amounts of smoldering". Whether it's diminished by now or not, a smoldering is not a wildfire anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Analysis or Why?

This article says that 19 expert fire-fighters died but there is no information about why they died or the conditions that led to their deaths. There must be a post-accident analysis of how to avoid such a tragic loss of life that details whether the team was deployed to a dangerous area or they didn't have enough air support or the wind shifted or some explanation. I hope whenever this information is released, it can be incorporated into the article because it seems unfinished. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Blame

I think the article should include information about the analysis of multiple experts who say that: (1) Leader Eric Marsh made a serious mistake in leading his team out of the safety of the black zone and into a limited visibility un-burned box canyon, when there was a forecast of an incoming thunderstorm, and (2) that senior Forestry Division leaders had ignored previous emails about Marsh making bad (risky) decisions on previous fires. The desire to "do something" about the fire, rather than sit idly in the black zone, led Marsh to lead his team into death. Lives are more important than structures, but these lessons have not been learned by the Forest Division. It is a cover-up. See these resources: http://www.investigativemedia.com/forest-service-ignored-information-from-hotshot-leaders-about-granite-mountains-history-of-bad-decisions/ http://www.investigativemedia.com/granite-mountain-hotshot-leader-eric-marsh-violated-safety-protocols-while-acting-as-a-division-supervisor/ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/wildfire-expert-alleges-arizona-forestry-division-covering-up-yarnell-hill-tragedy-8186962 --Westwind273 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Feature Film

I think the article should reference the upcoming feature film that is based on the disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_the_Brave_(2017_film) --Westwind273 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Brendan McDonough was not about to deploy his shelter

There is a mistake in the article. Brendan McDonough was not about to deploy his shelter when he got picked up. He was trying to hike out, and he was about to call for a pick up, when the UTV suddenly showed up anticipating his need for evacuation. At no point did McDonough give up on getting away from the fire, which is what deploying a shelter means. For reference, read McDonough's own description of this event in his book about the fire. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

False Claim in Fatalities

The last sentence of the section titled fatalities contains three claims about the Yarnell Hill Fire. It reads now:

According to the National Fire Protection Association, it was the greatest loss of life for firefighters in a wildfire since 1933, the deadliest wildfire of any kind since 1991, and the greatest loss of firefighters in the United States since the September 11 attacks.

The bolded specifically is now False. I am therefore reverting back to my changes of 11/30. Furthermore, I can find no reference in the actual article cited that it 'was' the deadliest wildfire since 1991, and therefore a citation for that fact is now needed.Malan88 (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a false claim...just that specific claim was not referenced. This source supports the claim.--MONGO (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The falseness of the claim rests on it no longer being the deadliest wildfire since 1991 (since the Camp Fire is now the deadliest since 1918). The true fact, which was perhaps not initially clear to me, can be stated "It was the deadliest wildfire of any kind since 1991." I do think that, irrespective of the truth or falsehood of the deadliest claim, the reference to the Camp Fire is relevant to the page at hand since we are discussing fatalities and wildfires and the significance of the Yarnell Fire is further established by referencing the fire that surpassed it. It, further, clarifies the full statement "It was the deadliest wildfire of any kind since 1991.", which, as you can tell by this conversation, was not initially clear to me (nor will it be to future readers). If you want to take it out again, that's fine, I won't put it back in. I am a new editor and will defer to your judgement.Malan88 (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No you did fine. There was a disputable claim that was not backed by a reference. I appreciate you adding the reference as I am on a mobile device today and formatting a correct citation is cumbersome at best.--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Maclean and Yarnell Fire

What of the anticipated history of the Yarnell Fire by John N. Maclean. Delays in publication? --Lord Such&Such (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Investigation

There is significant criticism of the Forest Service investigation. The current article correctly states that "no evidence of negligence nor recklessness" was found. However, this flies in the face of what actually happened. By leading the crew down into the box canyon, Marsh and Steed violated multiple important precepts of their training. When the NTSB does an investigation, they always assign probably cause. But the Forest Service was too afraid of disagreement within the investigation team to determine any probable cause. The sympathy of some members of the investigation for the dead led them to avoid findings of probable cause that could save the lives of future firefighters. Sources: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/06/yarnell-fire-lessons-future/2932335/ and https://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/why-are-the-conclusions-of-the-yarnell-hill-fire-investigation-so-timid Westwind273 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation leads to Thai Gambling website

In title 2600:1700:5570:B410:880C:62E:5910:AD8B (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)