From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

The Great Fire of 1910 was a large fire caused naturally and ended with the help of nature its self. It scorched 3 million acres. There were several fires split. This occured in Idaho and Montana, which during the fire was experiencing hurricane force winds. Camden M01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)~

The 1910 fire is part of a NRHP thematic study. Einbierbitte ( talk) 17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It wasn't caused by nature. It was caused by embers from locomotives.

picture URL

I took this URL out of the text. (It was added on January 15.)

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1024&bih=653&tbm=isch&tbnid=nqeDTkCaX0UDNM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foresthistory.org%2F1910fires.htm&docid=60L4NMrbcgOqrM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foresthistory.org%2FASPNET%2FPolicy%2FFire%2FFamousFires%2F1910Fires_2665.jpg&w=620&h=315&ei=8NPWUtDaDsylkQenuoH4Ag&zoom=1&ved=0CFgQhBwwAA&iact=rc&dur=1056&page=1&start=0&ndsp=13

It is a picture:

http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/Fire/FamousFires/1910Fires_2665.jpg

from the source:

http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/Fire/FamousFires/1910Fires.aspx

It is probably free of copyright if someone wants to upload it to Commons and use it in this article.

HowardMorland ( talk) 03:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply

NOT a firestorm

The term firestorm is used in the introduction, apparently as a synonym for wildfire. The Great Fire was not a firestorm, as far as I can tell. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Outcome

The main outcome was the destruction of three million acres of forest. The suggestion that the outcome "was to highlight firefighters as public heroes", or the raising of "public awareness surrounding national nature conservation" sounds far-fetched. The latter in particular does not seem supported by the reports. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

sfgate

Just saw this. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Death Tolls

It seems like it'd be worth looking into death tolls for this page. There are a lot of conflicting answers I've found. A USDA document on the fire lists 86 deaths, but I've been able to find this document which lists 85 by my count. Additionally, the article states 87. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwfmu ( talkcontribs) 15:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

The Great Fire of 1910 was a large fire caused naturally and ended with the help of nature its self. It scorched 3 million acres. There were several fires split. This occured in Idaho and Montana, which during the fire was experiencing hurricane force winds. Camden M01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)~

The 1910 fire is part of a NRHP thematic study. Einbierbitte ( talk) 17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It wasn't caused by nature. It was caused by embers from locomotives.

picture URL

I took this URL out of the text. (It was added on January 15.)

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1024&bih=653&tbm=isch&tbnid=nqeDTkCaX0UDNM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foresthistory.org%2F1910fires.htm&docid=60L4NMrbcgOqrM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foresthistory.org%2FASPNET%2FPolicy%2FFire%2FFamousFires%2F1910Fires_2665.jpg&w=620&h=315&ei=8NPWUtDaDsylkQenuoH4Ag&zoom=1&ved=0CFgQhBwwAA&iact=rc&dur=1056&page=1&start=0&ndsp=13

It is a picture:

http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/Fire/FamousFires/1910Fires_2665.jpg

from the source:

http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/Fire/FamousFires/1910Fires.aspx

It is probably free of copyright if someone wants to upload it to Commons and use it in this article.

HowardMorland ( talk) 03:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply

NOT a firestorm

The term firestorm is used in the introduction, apparently as a synonym for wildfire. The Great Fire was not a firestorm, as far as I can tell. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Outcome

The main outcome was the destruction of three million acres of forest. The suggestion that the outcome "was to highlight firefighters as public heroes", or the raising of "public awareness surrounding national nature conservation" sounds far-fetched. The latter in particular does not seem supported by the reports. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

sfgate

Just saw this. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Death Tolls

It seems like it'd be worth looking into death tolls for this page. There are a lot of conflicting answers I've found. A USDA document on the fire lists 86 deaths, but I've been able to find this document which lists 85 by my count. Additionally, the article states 87. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwfmu ( talkcontribs) 15:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook