Yarnell Hill Fire 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 Yarnell Hill Fire was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 July 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 either Mmallico ( 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)
The UK Daily Mail article has 46 pictures and some video [3] — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The names of the firefighters that died should be removed per WP:MEMORIAL. BV talk 03:15, 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. -- B2 C 05:43, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think the article should reference the upcoming feature film that is based on the disaster. /info/en/?search=Only_the_Brave_(2017_film) -- Westwind273 ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yarnell Hill Fire 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 Yarnell Hill Fire was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 July 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 either Mmallico ( 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)
The UK Daily Mail article has 46 pictures and some video [3] — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The names of the firefighters that died should be removed per WP:MEMORIAL. BV talk 03:15, 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. -- B2 C 05:43, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think the article should reference the upcoming feature film that is based on the disaster. /info/en/?search=Only_the_Brave_(2017_film) -- Westwind273 ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)