This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Camp Fire (2018) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Camp Fire (2018) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A news item involving Camp Fire (2018) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 November 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 14 June 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2018 Camp Fire. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
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)
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. Article Juneau Mike ( talk) 17:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Michaelh2001: take a look, it seems good now. Granite07 ( talk) 05:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. d ross ( c · @) 19:34, 16 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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 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. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
How's that? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:57, 20 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)
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)
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
Granite07 ( talk) 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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.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!
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)
gross mismanagement of the forestsis 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)
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)
69.181.23.220 ( talk) 23:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
@ 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. [1] 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." [1] Those features include a proximity and alignment to river canyons which is what channeled wind-fed flames over Concow and into Paradise. [2] There are 1,329 communities in the Sierra Nevada at risk of catastrophic wildfire. [3] 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:
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
|
---|
|
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
(the following points are opinion-based--for consensus, every effort will be made to resolve these as a secondary goal)
(the text doesn't say anything about a debate or restarting a debate--removing these two comments as off topic)
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. [1] 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." [1] 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.” [2] There are 1,329 communities in the Sierra Nevada at risk of catastrophic wildfire. [3].
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
|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)
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
Very interesting!
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 07:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Please remove several of the Bay area images. We really don't need so many. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 07:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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.pdf Granite07 ( 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
This article may be of interest:
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)
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)
USA had world's 3 costliest natural disasters in 2018, and Camp Fire was the worst [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
How much of the Camp Fire was Federal Land? State Land? Private Land?
Jeff DeMello ( talk) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Jeff DeMello
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.
Crescent77 ( talk) 16:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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
to
This is my first time using a Talk page, if I did anything wrong, please do tell me!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
– 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Camp Fire (2018) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Camp Fire (2018) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A news item involving Camp Fire (2018) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 November 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 14 June 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2018 Camp Fire. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
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)
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. Article Juneau Mike ( talk) 17:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Michaelh2001: take a look, it seems good now. Granite07 ( talk) 05:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. d ross ( c · @) 19:34, 16 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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 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. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
How's that? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:57, 20 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)
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)
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
Granite07 ( talk) 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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.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!
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)
gross mismanagement of the forestsis 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)
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)
69.181.23.220 ( talk) 23:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
@ 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. [1] 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." [1] Those features include a proximity and alignment to river canyons which is what channeled wind-fed flames over Concow and into Paradise. [2] There are 1,329 communities in the Sierra Nevada at risk of catastrophic wildfire. [3] 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:
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
|
---|
|
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
(the following points are opinion-based--for consensus, every effort will be made to resolve these as a secondary goal)
(the text doesn't say anything about a debate or restarting a debate--removing these two comments as off topic)
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. [1] 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." [1] 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.” [2] There are 1,329 communities in the Sierra Nevada at risk of catastrophic wildfire. [3].
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
|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)
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
Very interesting!
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 07:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Please remove several of the Bay area images. We really don't need so many. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 07:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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.pdf Granite07 ( 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
This article may be of interest:
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)
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)
USA had world's 3 costliest natural disasters in 2018, and Camp Fire was the worst [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
How much of the Camp Fire was Federal Land? State Land? Private Land?
Jeff DeMello ( talk) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Jeff DeMello
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.
Crescent77 ( talk) 16:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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
to
This is my first time using a Talk page, if I did anything wrong, please do tell me!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
– 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)