Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires

Map?

I can't do the map on my own [1]. CostalCal (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Maps are not an area that I'm familiar with technically, but I noticed that the linked map data (which links to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:2023_Hawaii_wildfires_-_season_to_date.map) does not seem to exist. Perhaps this is part of the problem? Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@CostalCal: I replied to c:User talk:Phoenix7777#A Little Help With A Map_2.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@CostalCal, I commented out the map for now since it was not displaying correctly. When you're ready to re-add it, just delete the <!-- and --> in the image parameter. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I notice the fire on Oʻahu is still present on the map in the infobox, but the subsection that related to it (just a small 1–2 sentence mention) has now been removed. Should these not be in alignment? –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Put Oahu back even if it has to be even briefer mention? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Video could be migrated

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/893359/national-guard-aviators-battle-devastating-wildfires-hawaii Victor Grigas (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not related but I don't know how to post a new section, so I will post here instead:

When hovering on "wildfires" embedded text, a disturbing image of a human swelled genital appears. Someone should change that, please. 109.107.242.67 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Maui

I think that the Maui disaster should be a separate article from this overview of all the fires. It certainly is notable in and of itself, and most of the fire has happened there, with the deaths and destruction. Without separating it, it will quickly unbalance an overview article making it a virtual Maui article. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see a balance issue. The balance matches that of our sources, and they discuss all the fires together as a single event. Support Though would prefer the Lahaina fire alone, instead of Maui, be scoped out to its own article. But we can have that discussion after. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 06:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: the user makes a valid observation, but their solution isn’t viable. Yes, most of the coverage is focused on Maui, but there are good reasons for that. I don’t see viable separate articles at this time unless there are more fires on other islands. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  True albeit. Darbymarby (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The vast majority of the articles (local and national) are focusing on Maui and Maui only. This is where the former seat of the Hawaiian Kingdom was burned, this is where deaths were, this is the place without power and cell service and water. Even if not yet, this will have enough information and coverage to be its own article, perhaps with a summary/section in a more general one. I think it's pretty clear to anyone in Hawai'i who has been following this situation hourly for over two days that a separation of articles eventually will happen and will be needed. I'm in no rush, though. –Fpmfpm (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It's a single phenomenon, with as many as five Big Island fires burning through North and South Kohala due to the same winds from Dora. You can read about it here. Treating it as separate articles is totally unnecessary. Yes, most of this article should be focused on Maui, but that's because the impact was greater. Also, all the islands were warned about this threat in June, so it didn't come out of nowhere and isn't unique to Maui.[2] Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

    "You can read about it here"? I live here. I've been following both local national news and government update almost every hour of every day. It's not a "single phenomenon" and news is 99% right now focusing on Maui for good reason… as it will for the next week, and month, and month after that. This comment comes across as insensitive, dismissive, and is frankly ridiculous. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per data pouring from, e.g., FTA channels. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 08:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support: as things are unfortunately unfolding, there will be a massive amount of coverage on this, that will eventually make a split needed. Best to get it out of the way now, before it becomes too integrated into the article. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Really? How do you see that? The fires are allegedly contained, or close to contained. The search and rescue operation is ongoing and will likely end in a few days. More than 2000 people are displaced and seeking shelter, with the rumor that they will be moved to Oahu if they so choose. Reconstruction will take years. How do you see coverage continuing beyond what I've just mentioned? And why would we need a separate article? For what purpose? How do you see this topic expanding? Lahaina is gone. They will rebuild. People died and others lost their jobs. Most concerning, there are people stuck in that area without communication or access to resources like gas, food, or power. Boats have just started launching to bring needed goods to the area since the roads are closed. Climate change mitigation and better fire management and infrastructure are needed, across the islands. How do you see this playing out necessitating a new article beyond the coverage we have now? Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because this one fire is getting significantly more attention than the other fires. That, in and of itself, justifies a split. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe I wasn't clear? The fire is all but close to over (but there are sporadic hotspots that keep popping up. A new small fire was reported in Lahaina and another one in Kihei just an hour ago). The media is like 24 hours behind. The issue is now search and rescue, supporting the people who have sheltered in place, supporting the people who are displaced, and rebuilding. I can't imagine why we need a second article at this point. Perhaps in the future, sure, but this split request is premature. Let the event take its course. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Don't confuse me not agreeing with you with me not hearing you. This fire got more media attention than the other fires. That alone, justifies a split.

  It is easier to make a bold split early where we info dump in that one then try to keep due weight for a single fire in this one. We can always merge the other article later, if it isn't due.

  Having a main article doesn't mean there can't be any info about that fire in this article either. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  This article is not only about actively-burning fires but also about ongoing evacuations (Kāʻanapali was just evacuated today!), emergency response, events leading up to the fires, human casualties, property and cultural damage, etc. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There'd be very little content left about the non-Maui fires, leaving just a stub behind (or duplication of the background). This just isn't long or detailed enough to need a split. Reywas92^Talk 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose These are early days. Furthermore the fires have yet to be official named by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) or anyone else —typically along the lines of "the Topynym Complex". Let's wait for the bureaucracies to catch up. kencf0618 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  +1, good comment. I suspect eventually a split will be necessary and the most logical thing to do, but it's not needed right now. I also think waiting for bureaucracy stuff is a good way to gauge this type of thing. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is way too small for a split. There's no need to be hasty about it. Noah^Talk 14:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article states that the wildfires are a series of wildfires, not just one. Darbymarby (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a split. Even if the article winds up being primarily about Lahaina, because of the destruction and loss of life there, the other fires are part of the same series of events and belong in the same article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support and suggest the article specifically be about Lahaina, where a vast majority of the loss of life and property damage is. I suggest 2023 Lahaina fire disaster for a title. Jusdafax (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree with this, the fires in Kula were/are significant as well. Areas in upcountry Maui were evacuated, multiple new potable water stations got set up there today, etc. The article title should be focused primarily on Maui, but not the state of Hawaiʻi as a whole (too broad) but also not only Lāhainā (too narrow and not accurate). –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: For a larger state, a page like this would serve as a summary of all fires in a state with links to separate pages (for example, the 2023 California wildfires page.) It would only make sense to split if there was at least two separate wildfire events that could qualify for standalone pages and that currently doesn’t seem to be the case. Sewageboy (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If there was a separate article for Maui, the article for the rest of the state would only be like 5 lines long. There is not enough happening outside of Maui for there to be 2 separate articles, and the single article should have the name Hawaii rather than Maui to acknowledge the other islands. Maple Doctor (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Not unless if Hawaii is riddled with wildfires (which it isn't...yet), there's no reason to make this page regional. So far, this is the only notable wildfire in Hawaii. If other regions in Hawaii have fires (heavens forbid), then we can use regional titles. Yucalyptus (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  What is "this"? There is more than one wildfire. These are being referred to in the plural. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. From what I know the fires are largely concentrated in Maui, and the media almost unanimously using the term "Maui fires" Plumeater2 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• SupportI am normally wary of breaking up articles. But the situation on Maui is an exceptional circumstance, separate from fires in other parts of the state. I believe the situation on Maui deserves it’s own article. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - All these wildfires are happening in Hawaii, so I believe it wouldn't make sense to split this article and name it "2023 Maui wildfires" because it is a part of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires. We don't need two articles for the same thing. Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 05:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue oppose simply because the other fires could easily be seen a small minor story that doesnt meet the criteria for WP:Noteworthy. Makes more sense to rename to "2023 Maui wildfires" and move other fires to a section about related fires. GeekInParadise (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd agree here – but I'd call that a "support" (the article should be renamed, which could be classified as a split with then the other article deleted or merged into an "Other islands" subheading here or something… Big Island things are of course noteworthy but any on Oʻahu I don't believe are and were barely covered in the news or known to anybody here.) –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a significant wildfire, both historically to Hawaii and to the United States. The loss of life alone sets this fire apart for most wildfires and the only one in modern history that comes close was the one in Paradise California a few years back. The media is refering to this fire as the "Maui wildfires" and not simply lumping them in to other wildfires. For these reasons, I support the creation of a separate article for the current Maui wildfire. *Jurisdicta (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -They are occurring all across the Hawaiian islands. Information on Maui in the article currently is too small to fork. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The Laihana article is uniquely notable and will receive a deluge of details. This broader article can appropriately link to the article on Maui. This fire is as notable as incidents like the Slave Lake wildfire or the 2018 Camp Fire that got separate articles rather than being mentioned in broader articles about regional fire seasons for that year. That the information leftover in this article would be small after the fork is immaterial to whether to fork or not. Spudst3r (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – There really should be an article focused exclusively on the Maui fires, given the horrible devastation in Lahaina. Thankfully, the Big Island, which would still be included in the original article, had no reported injuries or homes destroyed. Maui unfortunately took the brunt of the worst of these fires. An article on a site as important as Wikipedia should reflect that. Scanlan (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, these fires are increasingly being referred to as the "Lāhainā fire", or at the very least the "Maui wildfires" or "Maui fires" – in official County announcements, local news, and national news. –Fpmfpm (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - A split does not serve the reader. There is inadequate content to justify it. The wildfire on Maui is the sole notable one, which may arguably justify a re-title, but it is ultimately part of a single event. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obviously the devastation in Maui is the main headline, but the article right now is relatively small and very focused on Maui. I fear that if we were to split out the Maui content there would be very little left in this article. There's only one section, comprising only one paragraph, that exclusively covers a fire other than in Maui. There's also no mention of any other fires in the lede, except those on Maui. If we're really concerned, the article should be moved to 2023 Maui wildfires, with a section on the other fires. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – As others have pointed out, the information in the article is mostly about Maui and there isn't enough information about the other fires to exist as a standalone article. I say move to 2023 Maui wildfires per Estar8806. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 20:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "main event" of this disaster is in Maui, and other fires outside of Maui are just not notable enough to become their own article. I would suggest moving to 2023 Maui wildfires. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have a discussion of this below – see the "Article title" section. –Fpmfpm (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. A split should produce a good result both for the source and the target article, and as others have pointed out this can not be achieved, so a split should not be done.—Alalch E. 08:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I have indeed seen many articles treat about "Maui fires" Neo Trixma (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – It'd be best to move the article as multiple people pointed out, for the same reason. Should be moved without any need for furthermore discussion to 2023 Maui wildfires. Reego41 16:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo for now - There are good arguments for all proposals here. It depends which aspect you want to emphasize. Nevertheless, this event is still ongoing and new and it will serve the most readers best to keep it all together, for now. Splitting articles is a necessary evil, keeping it together allows for better context and easier management of duplicate information. -- GreenC 19:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• STRONG support - An entire town has been eradicated. Much like the Camp Fire, this specific Maui fire deserves its own article and would inarguably meet notability standards per se. -- Veggies (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose the split and move to 2023 Maui wildfires. The fires on the big island were notable as well. Most news outlets seem to use the term "Hawaii" rather than Maui as well. Perhaps a good idea would be to put "also known as" at the top to address the Maui part. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes split Clearly sufficient content for both. Current approach is generalized and not encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I think that the split article should be specifically for the Lahaina fire, given that that is the deadliest wildfire in over 100 years. I don't think that the other fires on Maui deserve to be split into another article, and should stay in this one. Calicodragon (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Support - For wildfires with such a high death toll, the precedent is to give that specific wildfire its own page. For example, several cities in the upper Midwest, including Holland and Manistee, Port Huron, Chicago, and Peshtigo all had major fires on the same day, all caused by the same winds amidst an ongoing drought, not unlike the 2023 Hawaii wildfires. Yet, the Peshtigo fire (death toll 2,000), the Great Chicago Fire (death toll 300), the Great Michican Fire (death toll 100-200), and the Port Huron Fire of 1871 (death toll at least 50), each get their own Wikipedia pages. This should be obvious. They, like the Lahaina Wildfire, were notable to their loss of life, and worthy of their own pages. Shootr McGavn (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The fact the fires occurred at around the same time makes the article less deservant to be split Quake1234 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we consolidate The Great Chicago Fire, The Peshtigo Fire, and The Port Huron Fire all into the The Great Michigan Fire page? I’m interested to see if you are consistent. Shootr McGavn (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit of an absurd argument considering that Chicago is in Illinois & Peshtigo is in Wisconsin. The last I checked the islands of Hawaiʻi, Maui, & Oʻahu were all part of Hawaiʻi.

Also, the Great Chicago Fire, the Peshtigo Fire, and the Port Huron Fire all involved major loss of life. Right now, only the Lāhainā wildfire has killed people.

It may be that the other wildfires achieve notability, but right now I think the WP:TOOSOON essay applies. Peaceray (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Support I think a separate article for Maui fires could be made. There is a good amount of information out there. Cwater1 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing absurd about this interaction is to it unwillingness to define your stance. Is your argument that for a wildfire to warrant its own article, it needs to take place in a different state, pivoting away from your original statement that if it happened on the same day (from the same winds amidst the same drought), it should be one article? I am trying to understand your stance and I’m hoping for consistency.

Is your argument:

- one state, one set of winds, one drought, one day = one article?

- two states, one set of winds, one drought, one day = two articles?

If so, back to my original question: should we consolidate Great Michigan Fire and Port Huron Fire?

Should we consolidate Quail Fire, Grant Fire, Crews Fire, Soledad Fire, Mineral Fire, Gold Fire, Red Salmon Complex fire, Apple Fire, Lake Fire, Loyalton Fire, River Fire, Dome Fire, CZU Lightning Complex Fires, SCU Lightning Complex Fires, August Complex Fire, etc. (there are many many more). All of those fires took place in California in 2020, with overlapping timeframes, many in the same day as one another.

Again, what this website is built on is consistency. Provide your stance, and advocate for it consistently. Shootr McGavn (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support The media coverage is virtually focused on Maui, especially the destruction of Lahaina. Coverage that keeps growing with each passing day. The Maui fires therefore merit their own article.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The Lahaina disaster appears to be one of the most significant disasters in United States history and should be considered singular incident, as the toll of the other Hawaii wildfires is almost negligible in comparison. While I agree with some commenters that separating the articles would leave the current one quite diminished, that is pretty much the point – the remaining wildfires aren't worthy of a large article. Moreover, my fear is that this discussion will be closed and then editors will turn back to this as support for future arguments against a split. If anything, this discussion should be kept open for some time while the damage is assessed. Brycehughes (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support The fires in Maui have caused great impact to Lahaina, it has been covered extensively in the news. It deserves its own article. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - given that the article began titled '...Hawaiʻi...' but the sections 'Hawaiʻi Island' and 'Oʻahu' are now a very small proportion of the article as a whole, it seems sensible to separate the major event into an article of its own... Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The Lahaina wildfire badly needs a separate article on its own, given that it's the deadliest American wildfire in 105 years. 1779Days (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Not enough info about the other fires to support a split. The other fires' page would just be a stub. Zimi789 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - There have been wildfires on islands other than Maui, but the ones on Maui have been absolutely devastating for the island. It deserves its own page. PickleG13 (talk)

• Oppose - Sure, Maui has definitely been the main topic for this article, but the issue with many of the support votes has been that they never mention the size of the Hawaii article AFTER the split, assuming they don't have an answer for it. For me, it sounds like it'll end up as a stud, but if it can be long enough to be a lengthy article, then I'll change my vote. In addition, even if the remainder cannot be long enough to be an article and be forgotten, I an not supportive of that ending. It feels like a notable subject is being suppressed because it's too short. Again, I will change my vote IF the Hawaii article can be expanded BEFORE this discussion closes. foobarbaz 03:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with a state-based stub for a fire season article. We migh evenutally create a 2020s Hawaii wildfires to cover wildfires in a state-by-state basis. Other state articles are usually a list of fires and not indepth coverage of specific fires or regions -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose- There's not enough information for the Maui fires to be its own article. It would end up being a stub at best. Rager7 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the article is about Maui, and, Lahaina on Maui; so a Maui article would clearly not be a stub. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose if you split out the Maui fires then there would be basically nothing left. No reason to split out when this article is at a fine size with similar content.Yeoutie (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of Hawaiian symbols in names

User:Pacamah added the appropriate symbols to words like Hawai'i. They were quickly removed. Apparently it is the longstanding practice here at Wikipedia not to include those marks - see, for example, the article Hawaii - even though the state itself does sometimes use them, see Hawai'i State Legislature.[3]

Pacamah also changed the spelling of of Lahaina to Lāhainā. I have changed it back, pending discussion and consensus here at the talk page. That format is not used in our article Lahaina, Hawaii. It is not used by the Maui County government.[4] It is not used at the Town of Lahaina website.[5] It is not used in any of the sources cited in this article. Lahaina is the longstanding spelling used here and I have changed it back, pending discussion and consensus here at the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that it is important to have them listed, as the argument was that multiple sources do not use them. Quite a few sources have listed it with the appropriate kahakō (see [6], [7], [8], [9] etc.) I don't think it's fair to say that the Maui County government doesn't use it, ([10], though extremely outdated), though I understand not using it by precedent.

I feel that given whether or not to use it, maybe adding just a singular note like in the Lahaina, Hawaii article that it is "Lāhainā" in Hawaiian may be able to fix this issue. I'm not sure where to add it, but I feel that it is important to have it at least somewhere as it is the proper name and holds quite a bit of significance. That's why I propose that one line (or three word) solution to quell the problem quickly. Pacamah (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with the issue but WP:MOSHAWAII says, "In general, follow the orthography of use for the kahakō and ʻokina wherever possible when using Hawaiian words and phrases, except in article titles." Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out and linking to that MOS article, @Adflatuss! That's great to hear. These spellings (with Hawaiian diacritics and characters) – not the anglicized versions – are often used officially by the State and County, in official announcements (including regarding the fires), in government documents, business names and trademarks, on many street signs here, and so on. Some local newspapers use them but not all (this is a practice that has changed a lot over the years and often reflects corporate mergers and mainland owners of the publications). They are pronounced when people are speaking place names in conversation – they are part of Hawaiʻi English, the variety and dialect/sociolect of English spoken here. They should be reflected in the article, surely. –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's long overdue to have the correct orthography used. It's used on official state documents and they're not just symbols, but actually a critical part of the language. Omission of an ʻokina can fundamentally change the word in question, since it's a consonant. It's been a very long time since this discussion came up, and I think it's high time we start recognizing that the island of Hawaiʻi and the island of Oʻahu are not Hawaii and Oahu, and that should include article titles. The names are in Hawaiian; not English, and we should respect that the spelling of the Hawaiian language is still considered official.

"Lahaina is the longstanding spelling used here"

I think it's worth considering that the cultural acceptance around indigenous spellings and names has change considerably since this was settled in what, '06? Tradition (of a certain spelling on Wikipedia) shouldn't be considered justification for simply ignoring a whole dang consonant. The characters in question are not (just) simply diacritics. The state has been pushing for the correct use of the ʻokina and kahakō, as well.

The "common English spelling" is typically just a result of "my keyboard doesn't have that character", if anything that's the one which should be in a parenthetical. Warrenmck (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably the best comment I've read all year. Complete support. Thank you for adding this critical comment and being willing to say it's finally time to do better and for us to come around on this – it is! Speaking of the state pushing for the correct spellings, Oʻahu is currently updating street signs to include missing letters and diacritics like this via their Word On The Street campaign/project... it's great to see! –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I also completely support this. Just as other languages have long had their diacritics used and respected, I think it is important to have it also respected when writing words in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. I think it's also important to note the history of the Hawaiian language as well and remember how long it had been banned from being spoken and heard where and by whom it originated. Given the enormous weight of this website and its information, as well and the growth of the preservation of the language (you can even start learning it on Duolingo!), I think it is absolutely necessary to incorporate ʻokina and kahakō wherever necessary. Pacamah (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just use the wording that's most commonly used in the sources, which seems to be Hawaii Neo Trixma (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Pacamah. As you suggest, we could do what we do at the Lahaina, Hawaii article. At the first mention in this article, which is in the second sentence of the lead paragraph, we could say "in the town of Lahaina (Lāhainā in Hawaiian)." And then use the common English spelling in the rest of the article. Would that be to your satisfaction?

BTW I would say that the WP:MOSHAWAII guideline is not generally followed in our articles here. See Hawaii, Molokai, Lanai, etc. In those articles, the English spelling is used, with a parenthetical reference to the Hawaiian spelling in the lead sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like there's editing to be done, then! ;) I would also note that this is not only the Hawaiian language spelling, though – it is also an English spelling. For an example, see https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/. It reads "County of Hawaiʻi" at the top, includes text like "…toward forging a sustainable Hawaiʻi Island…", and so on. I'm sure you would agree the contents of that page are written in English. So, while technically accurate, I'm not sure if a parenthetical like that would be telling the full story or the best way to phrase things. –Fpmfpm (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I left a note about this discussion at WP:WikiProject_Hawaii. I was typing out a reply but keep going back and forth on the issue--I don't think it's clear-cut. I might respond this evening when the temperature falls back to a level conducive to thinking. If I don't respond further, my current mindset is that the compromise proposed by MelanieN is fine (but I have a lot of additional thoughts on the issue). Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Government entities that use the non-Hawaiian conventions should likely be spelt without the ’ (like the Hawaii National Guard). No comment on localities as they predate modern government boundaries. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like whether or not the ʻokina is used in things like the Hawai(ʻ)i National Guard is inconsistent, even on the same website. Though on the hawaii.gov site, an ʻokina is used when listed under the Hawaiʻi Army National Guard, but not the Department of Defense. But, it's also not present on a different Hawaiʻi Army National Guard page.

Also strangely, the second link has three marks used as an ʻokina, mainly ( ‘ ) left single quotation mark, ( ` ) grave accent, and ( ’ ) right single quotation mark, rather than ( ʻ ) modifier letter turned comma (which Unicode lists as for use as an ʻokina). The other links are correct as far as I can tell. Thankfully this article uses the correct one, and it's something to look out for in the future. Pacamah (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper ʻ <U+02BB> Modifier Letter Turned Comma is indeed the proper Unicode character for the ʻokina (which is actually a letter of the alphabet, not a symbol or diacritical mark) but it's oftentimes approximated with other symbols like the single quote, as you pointed out, as these are easier to type on standard (Latin/English) keyboards. Straight or "dumb" quotes (the actual keyboard input) often will get converted to curly/"smart" quotes by certain applications or operating systems. And the grave accent ( ` ) was more common, arguably even the standard way of approximating the ʻokina around 25 years ago, but in the mid-90s this began to change and people transitioned to using apostrophes instead. I'm not exactly sure what was behind this change but I've dug into a bit myself as I study orthography & sociolinguistics, so this is up my alley! You do still see grave accents around from time to time, though, especially on older websites (government stuff, old university pages, etc.) Dr. Keola Donaghy at the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo is who we have to thank for advances in getting important Hawaiian orthography supported on computers & keyboards even back then. ;) –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

My second reply here is to say that yes, indeed there is a lot of inconsistency as to when & where it gets used, and by who, but certain organizations do have it formally in their names, e.g. the University of Hawaiʻi (and even if webpage <title>s or whatnot sometimes leave it out for legacy computing support, to avoid the potential for mojibake, the official logo/wordmark/seal/etc. all include it). I agree that government entities that consistently never spell their name with these letters/diacritics, i.e. consistently remove them, should also be represented here without, as that's most accurate and reflects the actual language use, as @Pbritti said above. (But as was also pointed out, it is almost always inconsistent…)

It seems someone has gone through the article and taken the ʻokina out of instances of "Hawaiʻi" and "Oʻahu" but left the kahakō (macron) in "Lāhainā". This seems inconsistent to me – why one and not the other? I guess because Lāhainā is less familiar and therefore less """standardized""" (see: commonly anglicized, in the recent post-colonial past) than the names of the islands? But unlike what @Pacamah suggested below, I don't think this was what the majority decided, and it seems someone just did an editing pass overnight without seeing any of this discussion. Any thoughts on how to proceed, @Aoi or others? Perhaps this discussion is more suited to the WikiProject linked above (?) and not here since it's not only relevant to this article (but also, this discussion here has been linked on the WikiProject too, so…)

I'm not sure how we could do this, but perhaps we should somehow include both representations, where necessary/appropriate. This would also mirror what is often done here in Hawaiʻi, with an English representation followed by the ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi/Hawaiian representation. An example of this can be seen in the infoboxes in the articles for Haleʻiwa and Lāhainā. Again, not sure how we'd do that here much less for inline text but just musing… –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how we could do this, but perhaps we should somehow include both representations"

The intro to the Oahu article probably shouldn't say that the correct spelling is "Hawaiian", since locally the ʻokina is still widely used in English. Something like

"Oʻahu (/oˈʔɐhu/, /oʊˈɑːhuː/) (often spelled 'Oahu')"

would be a much more accurate introductory sentence, though an issue is likely to emerge with the impression visitors have when it comes to editing articles (i.e. not recognizing the ʻokina is a consonant vs. a diacritical mark). Warrenmck (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm in full support of this suggestion. I'd love to see others from WikiProject Hawaiʻi weigh in as well. cc @Aoi (just to make sure you see this proposition) who will most likely be interested. –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your responses, and I completely agree that there's definitely a need to have one or the other when it comes to diacritics, and that the historical names of locations should be preserved due to their weight. I had no idea about the history of the ʻokina when it comes to unicode, so thanks for letting me know! I'm an avid fan of unicode (aka, I just watch whatever Tom Scott posts about it), so it was a pretty fascinating read.

I think personally that the ʻokina and kahakō should be kept wherever it is needed. Like the Haleʻiwa article you linked, I did a bit of digging around and it seems like some article titles do have diacritics included and in the url (ʻEwa Beach, Kaʻaʻawa, and to an extent Māili and Mokulēia, though both are missing the ʻokina. Others in the census-designated place of Honolulu County don't seem to have it though, and it seems pretty inconsistent.), and I think therefore that it's important to have it. Take, for instance, Lāʻie, whose article title is just Laie. To most readers, it would seem that it is pronounced more along the lines of Lai-ye rather than La-e-eh if the diacritics are not included. While I may know where to put the ʻokina, I wouldn't expect the majority of readers to. I think it's really important when there's multiple leters, like the aforementioned Kaʻaʻawa, as not having diacritics would possibly cause the smushing of the three As together.

While I know it's probably different, I've also thought about why articles that contain languages like French retain their diacritics (and often times write the names of organizations in French), but that is not done for words or places in Hawaiian? Ultimately I believe that it's important, regardless of language, to retain the correct diacritics. Pacamah (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. As a personal preference, I've generally preferred using ʻokina or kahakō everywhere possible. Of course, this isn't generally how Wikipedia handles the issue, as can be seen in the comments here. I had a boring essay written out about conflicts between Wikipedia guidelines over the use of ʻokina or kahakō, but I think I'll sidestep that issue for now.

Instead, I want to note that both the federal and state governments have been working to ensure that Hawaiʻi place names use the proper ʻokina or kahakō in both state and federal documentation. In particular, the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names (which includes representatives from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, University of Hawaiʻi, Bishop Museum, and others) has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to update names on topographical maps and federal databases to reflect proper Hawaiian spellings. The Hawaiʻi Board has a policy of updating a name with ʻokina or kahakō only if there is "solid evidence that there should be ʻokina or kahakō."

For Lahaina (or Lāhainā), the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names indicates that both "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" are acceptable spellings. Apparently, the Board lacked "solid evidence" that the name should use kahakō—at least one source used kahakō, but apparently others didn't.

Put another way—at least as far as the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names is concerned, both "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" are acceptable. Going forward, U.S. topographical maps will continue using "Lahaina" for that reason.

With all that in mind, it looks like omitting the kahakō in "Lahaina" is not wrong. So, using "Lahaina" throughout the article but also noting that "Lāhainā" is an acceptable variation of the name (whether as a note, parenthetical, or something else) would be an adequate way to address the spelling variations, at least in my opinion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was a bit busy with work haha! Anyways, I definitely think that is an okay solution. However I do think that it is important to get a consensus and go with what the consensus decides on. I know it's definitely a bit difficult (I had no idea WP:MOSHAWAII even existed) so I think it's probably best to go with what the majority decides atp. Pacamah (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The ʻAhahui Haku Moʻolelo (Hawaiian Journalists Association) and AAJA-Hawaiʻi released guidance on how to write about the fires that could be of interest. While they leave the decision open, I fully support using the diacritical marks. Tiggeritian (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for linking this, fantastic resource – very happy to see guidance like this being released! –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow the sources, per WP:RS; they seem to all use Lahaina, not Lāhainā, for this topic. —  AjaxSmack  05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers run by media conglomerates on the mainland are in fact not "reliable sources" when it comes to Hawaiian (that is, traditional Native Hawaiian and local, all mix up, modern-day Hawaiʻi) culture. Or they simply don't care there's one place in the U.S. where non-standard English/Latin characters are important and can change the meanings and understandings of words – and they also probably aren't aware of the efforts during colonization to violently erase Hawaiian culture, ban the language from use, and so on. The place name is officially Lāhainā, not "Lahaina" – even if, yes, it's easier to type that for most people, or casually write it that way. "Lāhainā" means "cruel sun" (fitting, when you think of the climate, and now these fires). "Lahaina" is a variety of sugar cane and sweet potato.

Look at how local news publications spell it – written by journalists who live here, not those who have likely only experienced Hawaiʻi as a tourist destination:

• https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/maui-fires-what-you-need-to-know/
• https://mauitimes.news/updated-lahaina-wildfire-death-toll-rises-to-111-police-say/
• https://bigislandnow.com/2023/08/15/death-toll-rises-to-101-following-ferocious-wildfire-in-lahaina/

All "Lāhainā"!

By anglicizing the orthography, are we not also supporting the erasure of culture, history, and memory in the name of "following the norm and common usage"… given that the so-called "norm" is set by people outside of Hawaiʻi who are lacking in knowledge and in care? I fear that in many cases, it's a subtle case of "oh, who cares what those people all the way over there in Hawaiʻi think, but we know better, and our way always becomes the standard because we're more powerful".

I'm a linguist and I'm interested in representing & capturing language how it is actually used, but please don't confuse "big newspaper on the mainland doesn't care enough about Hawaiʻi to use certain diacritics or even entire consonants and hasn't happened to update their style guidelines yet" with "this is not the actual name of the town". And I believe we should be spelling it this way, not the whitewashed way – especially if you know anything about the history of Hawaiʻi. I can't seem to remember or find the link at the moment, but a major publication recently updated their obituary & biographical article about a Vietnamese man to include the diacritical marks in his name. Without those, they were talking about someone else – because it was not his name, even if publications sometimes wrote it as such.

I'd urge you to check out the guidelines @Tiggeritian linked above, too: https://www.aaja.org/2023/08/14/%CA%BBahahui-haku-mo%CA%BBolelo-hawaiian-journalists-association-and-aaja-hawai%CA%BBi-encourage-sensitivity-and-precision-in-reporting-on-the-devastating-lahaina-wildfire/ –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an important distinction, you’re seeing those of us who live here pointing out that WP:COMMONNAME actually is the one with the correct orthography, and we’re citing that fact (since obviously “we live here” isn’t valid evidence). Common perception doesn’t mean the common name if your perception is informed by either a tourism brochure out a news article once a year. It’s easy to mistake a perception that something is the common name if you read it very infrequently and it’s written by people who mistake consonants for diacritics. Just on the merits it seems pretty clear that the usage of the correct orthography has a preponderance of sources behind it.

It’s completely reasonable to point out that mainland sources aren’t reliable for the purposes of correct Hawaiian orthography. Warrenmck (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck's reply above ("I think it's long overdue...") is extremely worth reading as well, and expresses a lot of what I tried to say here in perhaps more effective ways :) –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is correct: please don't confuse "big newspaper on the mainland doesn't care enough about Hawaiʻi to use certain diacritics or even entire consonants and hasn't happened to update their style guidelines yet" with "this is not the actual name of the town". Jingoistic publications do not determine what WP does. WP uses diacritics where they belong, according to high-quality sources (which on style matters is not newspapers; WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy - WP:NOT#NEWS). That said, "Hawaii" appears to be the official name of the US state, while Hawaiʻi (with an ʻokina not an aprostrophe) seems to be the most appropriate way to refer to the culture and the place as a historical location generally not just a US state). WP should be using the spellings with or without diacritics that are official for particular municipalities. That's not going to make every Hawaiian native perfectly happy, nor every "death to diacritics" English-language jingoist happy, either, but that is the nature of compromise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hawaii" appears to be the official name of the US state

Just as a comment, this is specifically true of only the state name, and the NPS has a whole document on this fact. Officially it is the State of Hawaii (since the statehood act omitted the ʻokina), but all other subdivisions (islands, ahupuaʻa, etc.) should have correct orthography, which the government is in the process of fixing themselves for parks, as an example. Warrenmck (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

​"It's completely reasonable to point out that mainland sources aren't reliable for the purposes of correct Hawaiian orthography." Absolutely. But this is English, not Hawaiian Wikipedia, and usage is determined by reliable English-language sources (with a dose of WP:OFFICIALNAMES), not rules of Hawaiian orthography. Whether sources from outside of the island are to be considered generally unreliable is another topic. —  AjaxSmack  19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing macrons

@AjaxSmack as many people have been pointing out here and citing, the delineation of the spellings into "English" and "Hawaiian" is not correct. The Hawaiian orthography is standardly used in English in Hawaiʻi. That some people drop a consonant for simplicity's sake doesn't make it correct. This appears to be an issue with perception vs. reality. Warrenmck (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the macron and ʻokina don't seem to be used much in Hawaii either. Before the events of this article, you could drive into town on the Lahaina Bypass (no macrons), pass the Lahaina Recereation Center I (none here either), the Lahaina Aquatic Center (zilch) and the Lahaina Baptist Church (ditto). Going into town, you would have seen the same. I wouldn't even know where to tell you to go to find any evidence of the existence of "Lāhainā" with macrons in the real world. Usage this scarce borders on an affectation. Even online, while there area few notable exceptions listed in the discussion above, most online mentions from local sources do not use the macrons (e.g. [11][12][13]); this includes the Lahaina News itself. So what about more official sources? State agencies that do use the ʻokina with Hawaii, eschew macrons on Lahaina for the most part (e.g. [14][15][16]). In short, there is not much evidence that "Lāhainā" is the common name. —  AjaxSmack  22:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of state guidance and they're updating signs. I think it's mistaken to differeniate "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" as separate entities, rather than the latter just resulting from American keyboards lacking macrons. That's why my proposal, above, was:

>"Oʻahu (/oˈʔɐhu/, /oʊˈɑːhuː/) (often spelled 'Oahu')"

Because stating that the stripped version of the name is "English" and proper orthography is "Hawaiian" isn't accurate in any meaningful sense, so regardless of the MOS outcome I think that needs to be changed per WP:VERIFY. It's generally just a case of effort and access to keys on a keyboard, which is basically what HTA says in the link above. Warrenmck (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about about whether keyboards can easily render ā or not. I've argued your position on that many times about places where few English speakers have ever set foot (like Sông Công or Ağdam). But Lahaina is an English-speaking town and its English speakers, along with those in other parts of Hawaii, overwhelmingly use "Lahaina". No diacritic has been stripped; it was never there. Wikipedia is (and should be) an encyclopedia of the real world, not an aspiration of what people should type on the internet. That's why UCN is an important policy. —  AjaxSmack  01:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier in the discussion: Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names (which is a state board responsible for maintaining the official names of geographic locations in Hawaiʻi) has been working with the USGS and other federal agencies to make sure that geographic locations in Hawaii are presented using the proper ʻokina and kahakō on maps and other documentation.

If you download the newest topographical maps from the U.S. Geological Survey, many Hawaiʻi locations use ʻokina and kahakō. For example, the maps use Kāʻanapali, not Kaanapali. However, the same topographical maps use Lahaina and not Lāhainā. The reason is that the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names considers both "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" to be acceptable spellings. You can see Lahaina/Lāhainā's listing in their listing here.

Therefore, I'm not sure it's necessary to debate whether we should be using "Lahaina" or "Lāhainā" in the article, since both are acceptable (or, alternatively, neither is wrong) according to the official source on the matter. And I am saying this, again, as someone who would generally prefer to see ʻokina and kahakō used in references to Hawaiʻi place names. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

I helped write the MOS Hawaii but consensus determines content. Am I misreading the consensus here? Perhaps we need a !vote? My exact issue is the pronunciation differences and how they may actually relate to the etymology of the name and whether or not the origins pertain to one story or another. Sources are at least clear that use of the diacritics is an ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi pronunciation in this case and is not the English pronunciation and the two differ. At the very least some explanation should be made in text about the name, even on this article. I am only for clarity and encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading though the above I have to comment about the Asian American Journalist Association article. That is not an MOS. And it is horribly wrong on many counts. Some points to consider;

• From AAJA, "Please use the term “Hawaiʻi residents” to refer to people who live in Hawaiʻi. The term “Hawaiian” should only be used to refer to the islands’ Indigenous people."

Hawaiʻi is an Island. Hawaiʻi is the name given to the Kingdom by the Kamehamehas but Hawaii is the state and Hawaiian residents refer to modern state residents. Native Hawaiians refer themselves as kānaka ʻōiwi or kānaka maoli.

• From AAJA, "Hawaiians write the name of their land as Hawaiʻi, while AP Style uses Hawaii. If you do choose to use Hawaiian diacritical marks, use them consistently. ʻOkina are glottal stops and look like backwards apostrophes. Kahakō, such as in “Lāhainā,” lengthen and add stress to marked vowels"

Use of diacritics is important in the right place. In the wrong place it changes meaning.

• From AAJA. "Consider additional historical context when describing Lāhainā. The town is not only a tourist destination, but also the former capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom"

How does that effect the context here? No...seriously? Kamehameha I called his Kingdom Atooi.

I agree with the association that people should research Hawaiian culture and people, maybe they should do so as well. Lahaina was a center of Maui royalty going back way past the 14th century. That is only when the island was conquered by one ruler, Piʻilani. Also Kamehameha I established the capitol in Lahaina in 1802... not 1820. I am Asian American but not a journalist. I also have kanaka genealogy that I have been endeavoring to research and write about on Wikipedia for ten years but have been a registered editor for 16 years. Mahalo.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's important we stop calling the ʻokina a diacritical mark. It's no more a diacritic than the N in "New York" is.

"Sources are at least clear that use of the diacritics is an ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi pronunciation in this case and is not the English pronunciation and the two differ."

I think we need to not overweight sources with zero familiarity with Hawaiʻi just because they're generally reliable for journalism. The correct orthography is standardly used in official documents in English all the time, with increasing regularity (see the link to the NPS page above). "English: Oahu, Hawaiian: Oʻahu" is not even a vaguely accurate reflection of the situation here with naming, as I'm sure you're aware, and is a whole-cloth invention of Wikipedia in most cases. That most keyboards lack an ʻokina and it's left off for convenience doesn't change the correct spelling, nor does it change that pronouncing the glottal stop in English is pretty common. Warrenmck (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

​The !vote should be at WT:MOSHAWAII or better yet, in the form of a formal move request of Lahaina → Lāhainā. I recommend the latter because using one name for titles and another in the running text of articles is not tenable at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  01:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, use the common English spelling. If somebody wants to write an article in Native Hawaiian for Hawaiin only speakers, then go ahead. But make it a different article. This one is for English speaking countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.186.81 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"I agree, use the common English spelling."

The correct orthography is not the "Hawaiian" spelling, which many people here have pointed out with an abundance of governmental sources. This distinction is an artificial one on Wikipedia and does not reflect reality. Warrenmck (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There is Hawaiian orthography and English. I don't know what governments say but experts on the language indicate the name is pronounced without kahako or okina markings. The name is pronounced by blending the letters together with no lengthening of vowels and no glottal stop. With the Hai sounding as "high", the la and na are pronounced as "luh" and "nuh". Blended, this is Luh-high-nuh (altogether as Luhighnuh).--Mark Miller (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

offensive images

title and intro contain offensive images 174.109.114.107 (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandal blocked, images blacklisted. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

With the amount of vandalism, I'm wondering if it may be necessary to add an autoconfirmed locked? It's been pretty concerning with the amount shocking images recently. Pacamah (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oop nvm I just saw the edit log. I don't see the lock though? Pacamah (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected, but only through the 14th. I will keep an eye on the article and extend the protection if it is needed immediately. However, I will be Away From Computer after the 14th, so if later protection is needed you could request it from any admin or at WP:RFPPI. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@174.109.114.107

fuc I had been wondering why this picture was on my screen

I spent a good two minutes clicking and exiting the page over and over again on the mobile app cos I couldn't make out what it was

then another minute trying to screenshot it instead

time ill spent :( Dc.2023 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Article title

Discussion regarding moving the article to "2023 Maui wildfires".

This discussion is intended to branch off from the "Maui" section above which discusses a potential article split. The coverage regarding this series of events (especially in national news) is 99% focusing on Maui, as this is where the most significant damage was done, where lives lost, and considering these are the fires which are are ongoing (not yet fully contained). While wildfires on the Big Island (HawaiʻI Island) I believe meet notability standards, and should be mentioned, I want to start this discussion to get thoughts on whether the article title should include the word "Maui" in it instead of "Hawaii". (The "Oʻahu" subsection of the article talking about the small bush fire was already previously removed from the article, I notice, presumably for being not significant enough for coverage.) So, currently, this article is focusing on events on two islands: Maui and BI. The latter of these events has been over for days, but the ongoing Maui fires and resulting devastation will continue to get reported on for weeks if not months considering the magnitude – and thus the article will even more heavily focus on the Maui. In comparison, the fires on the BI were relatively insignificant… insignificant enough that their past existence should perhaps not influence the entire title of the article. Thus, I'd like to propose renaming this article to "2023 Maui wildfires". Fires on the BI (or even Oʻahu) could and should still be mentioned in their own section titled "Related wildfire events" or similar.

For what it's worth, the County of Maui also re-focused & updated the official website at https://www.mauinuistrong.info/ today to refer to the fires as the "Maui wildfires", e.g. in the context "Our hearts go out to the many families and businesses who have impacted by the Maui wildfires." The County's twice-daily alert bulletin titles have likely referred to them as the "Lahaina, Pulehu and Upcountry Maui Fires". It seems this – "Maui wildfires" – would be a good way to refer to this event the article lede/opener (bold text, etc.) and article title, especially if this continues to be the most heavily-used & popularized term in news coverage. –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Support I have indeed seen most of the articles treat about "Maui fires" Neo Trixma (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment to other editors – this is already being discussed above (Talk:2023_Hawaii_wildfires#Maui); comments would be best added there first than in this section. – GnocchiFan (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Comment - I strongly disagree. The above discussion refered to regards a proposed article split. This current, separate discussion regards the title of this article, with reasoning provided. Jusdafax (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's also what I thought and understand, 2 separate discussions Neo Trixma (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - While I prefer use of the word "Lahaina" in the title, as I indicate in the discussion regarding the proposed article split, this proposed title change aka move to "2023 Maui wildfires" at least narrows the focus appropriately as Wikipedia policy per Wikipedia:Article titles. I strongly suggest this policy be read and considered. In my view the stated policy is clear, and reflects an accurate emphasis on the Maui location of the highest U.S. fire death toll of the past 100 years. Jusdafax (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fpmfpm, I think this request needs to be formatted as a Wikipedia:Requested move to ensure that the proposed move is advertised in the proper locations, and to flag this request to administrators or page movers so they can perform the move when appropriate. See WP:RSPM for instructions. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to formally request the move (yet) but just open the discussion about it to see what people think. I'll probably get around to it soon, though, as I believe it should be done… if no one does before me of course. :) Thank you for the links and info on how to do that – very helpful! I'll also gather some more sources & try to put together a short profile of how/what they're being referred to, and where, and over what period(s) of time, as @Super Goku V suggested in their comment below (thanks as well!) –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I would advise against this at this time. Part of this is due to speculation, "the ongoing Maui fires and resulting devastation will continue to get reported on for weeks if not months" along with some COMMONNAME concerns. If you do still believe that a move should be done, then WP:RM will be useful. I would recommend noting where is it being mentioned as the Maui wildfires as there are a number of mentions of this event as the Hawaii wildfires by Al Jazeera, BBC, CBS News, CNN, Euronews, The Guardian, NBC News, Reuters, and the US Government. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - While I understand what you are asking, it seems that this is also up for discussion a few talk points up. I believe it would be easier to address this in one talk page as oppose to having multiple discussions about the same issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes agreed, let's wait for the end of the first discussion Neo Trixma (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Impact of Hurricane Dora

There seems to be some emerging discussions among meteorologists questioning the role of Hurricane Dora in the Maui fires. I've come across a thread by Philippe Pappin, a hurricane specialist for the National Hurricane Center, and a separate commentary by meteorologist and storm chaser Trey Grenwood. While they are shared on platforms like Twitter and YouTube, their analysis indicates that Hurricane Dora might not have had as significant an impact as we initially thought.[17][18]

https://twitter.com/pppapin/status/1689757464487395328 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0SfiJomAmI

Pappin's thread includes a computerized simulation that suggests the event would have played out similarly even without Dora's influence, with only minor differences in wind speeds (~3 knots). The YouTube link is from meteorologist Trey Grenwood who references Pappin and provides his own insight into the event while observing data from the region. In his own words, Grenwood states Dora's role in the event is a "misnomer" and that Hurricane Dora, while being a powerful storm in its own right, was too small and too far away from Maui to attribute as the cause for the wildfire event.

Given these expert analyses, it might be an oversimplification to attribute the Maui fires predominantly to Hurricane Dora. While Dora was undeniably a significant meteorological event, it might have been too remote and insignificant in scale to be a primary cause for the Maui fires.

As writers, we should do some work to verify these claims and make sure we aren't spreading misinformation about the meteorological conditions leading to this event. I recommend we revisit this section of the article, fact-checking with these and other sources, to provide a more balanced narrative.

EDIT: I reworded this section to be more clear about my position and prescriptive statement. Xelapilled (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In technicality, there was never any evidence Dora directly influenced the fires on August 7-9. Unfortunately, almost all reliable sources since the initial spark sensationalized the Hurricane Dora claim, and per WP:NPOV it was best we covered the general consensus of notable sources. Since actual experts and authority in meteorology are now shooting down the claims, I definitely agree we should consistently revisit the section. Wikiwillz (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As a newer editor, I want to ensure I am approaching this situation with as much care as possible while not potentially spreading misinformation or violating Wikipedia's policies.

I've carefully looked into the matter and consider myself well-read on the situation and how to go about sourcing the matters properly, and it seems evident there's need to amend these sections. That said, I also understand the importance of consensus and collective input.

Would it be best for me to start drafting potential edits and share them, or wait for a consensus before making any moves? I'm eager to contribute, but I want to do so responsibly considering the significance of the event and the ongoing media attention. Xelapilled (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following the merits of this discussion. Dora influenced the fires in Hawaii, causing sustained high winds, which are thought, quite speculatively at this time, to have downed power lines leading to fires. There may be some similarities to the Camp Fire conflagration, but dismissing the winds from Dora in this case doesn't seem tenable. Three things to keep in mind: the area in and around Lahaina is notorious for fires. I've personally gotten stuck on the side of closed roads due to fires on Maui for many hours, several times. In one instance, when the road was open, I had to drive home with fires burning on both sides of the Honoapiilani. So fires in and around Lahaina are a yearly occurrence, mostly due to drought, fallow agricultural fields and out of control grasses. What was different this time around was the wind, which was attributed to Dora. According to the National Weather Service, Dora "was partly to blame for gusts above 60 mph that knocked out power as night fell". One wonders if the power lines were also downed and lit fires. I've seen fires start that way before, particularly the Maalaea fire several years ago. The wind knocked the power lines down right in front of me and sparked a grass fire that burned up and around the mountain all day. So the notion that Dora contributed to the fires is supported. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't make such confident convictions without any meteorological backing. Hurricane Dora's winds had 0 effect on the islands as the wind field was hundreds of miles away from the islands. The discussion would be on the pressure gradient that Hurricane Dora potentially induced, with interplay between a high pressure system to the northeast. The strong sustained winds would STILL have been there regardless of Dora because of the trade winds formed by the pressure gradient already present from that existing system. Wikiwillz (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were going with reliable sources, not speculation by a single person using the tweets as press release model.[19][20]. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, our guidelines emphasize the reliance on verifiable and objective sources, rather than personal accounts. While the events you've witnessed on Maui offer a vivid picture, we must base our article primarily on expert analyses and documented evidence. The discussions I referenced from Philippe Pappin and Trey Grenwood provide recent expert analyses that challenge the prevailing narrative. Their expertise in the field of meteorology lends weight to their assessments, but I have never stated that the tweet nor the YouTube video alone should be used as a source to amend the sections I am questioning.

What I initially said was that these sources from experts in their fields show that there is disagreement that Hurricane Dora is to blame for the wildfires in Maui. As it can be argued as to whether the tweet is a proper source in its own right, I suggested that we should consider these statements and do more work to verify claims (find more proper sources and come to a consensus involving the matter). That being said, tweets can be used as sources in certain circumstances and given the author of the tweet in question I believe it is worthy of discussion and consideration. It's worth noting that many experts and organizations use platforms like Twitter to share their findings and opinions, it's not the platform but the credibility of the source that we should focus on.

The purpose of my starting of this discussion was to create a discussion on this topic after learning of expert disagreement, so we can ensure we are being accurate and responsible given the nature of this event. Also, regarding the statement from the National Weather Service that you mentioned, can you provide the specific source for that claim? I'd like to review it in more detail as well as know about the specific meteorologist that issued the claim. The word 'partly' suggests there might be other factors at play, and I believe it would be beneficial to understand the complete context of the statement. Xelapilled (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The source was an August 8 Associated Press wire story by Jennifer Sinco Kelleher.[21] NWS made a related tweet just after that story was published (AP posted HST): "While well to the south of the Hawaiian Islands, Hurricane Dora is creating strong winds across the Islands which are creating dangerous fire conditions."[22] We experienced the gusts on the south side and they were not normal trades. On Tuesday evening and into Wednesday morning, a lot us were logging in to the Maui Ocean Center web cam to watch the Kihei fires from the camera in Maalaea. I logged in around 11 pm, which is around the time (11-12am) Kihei was receiving multiple alerts to evacuate, mostly North Kihei and Maui Meadows. It might be interesting to get your hands on that video footage or something similar, as the gusts were blowing the fire around in ways that I had never seen before. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this discussion is a good example of the problems that occur when one uses news media as a source for analytic claims. Deciding whether Dora caused the wildfires isn't really within the remit of journalists; that should be left to meterologists, especially those with experience in wildfire behaviour. Papin's Tweet is a good start. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following you. No journalists made the claims. The journalists were citing other meteorologists. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

From the National Weather Service (NWS)'s Area Forecast Discussion from 3:40 AM local time on Tuesday, August 8: Deep layer ridging combined with an anomalously strong pressure gradient over the area between Hurricane Dora passing well to the south and the surface ridge to the north will support damaging easterly winds and dry conditions into midweek. Most journalists, at least in Hawaii, were/are simply repeating what NWS meteorologists had said for several days before Hurricane Dora passed south of the state. For example, Hawaii News Now reported that it was the combination of Dora's low pressure and high pressure to the north that fueled the winds; the Washington Post also cites these conditions as a cause for the high winds.

I've seen a couple of articles that attributed the winds solely to Dora; this seems to be a major oversimplification (and because of this, I would not argue against removing the reference to Hurricane Dora in the infobox--simply saying the fire was propagated by "dry conditions and high winds" is sufficient, IMO).

As for what should be included in the article body, WP:DUE applies. The current version of the "Weather factors" section of the article generally summarizes what the NWS said in its forecast: that the strong pressure gradient between an area of high pressure to the north and Hurricane Dora to the south supercharged the winds over Hawaii. This seems appropriate to me because 1) the NWS is a reliable source, and 2) the NWS's summary has been repeated widely in other reliable sources.

Now, as for the question of whether the NWS was putting too much weight on the presence of Hurricane Dora? I have no idea. Perhaps this will be settled by other reliable sources in the coming weeks, months, or years. However, until other, non-SPS articles that contradict the NWS's published viewpoints begin to appear, it would be undue for us to give any more weight to self-published tweets and YouTube videos beyond what is already in the article. (Also, if the eventual consensus of reliable sources is that Dora's role was overstated, I don't think journalists can be blamed--it's not as if they were making things up, they were only restating what the NWS said.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like we should leave the sourcing at NWS and Papin, then. The other pitfall with news sources is when they amplify a contestable analytic claim until it gets undue prominence. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Twitter isn't a reliable source, and our best reliable sources say otherwise. For example, meteorologist Dan Stillman writes in the WaPo: "Because Dora passed much farther away, about 500 miles south of Hawaii, not all meteorologists agree on the extent of Dora’s role in fanning this week’s deadly flames. But the consensus is that the hurricane, which has traveled about 4,400 miles across the Pacific, played a role."[23] Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Twitter isn't really the source here, rather it's the platform that another source (Papin) has published on. My issue is when people say "but it's been mentioned in a news source" when many of them are only barely suitable to review the reliability of the "it's" claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaving it to meteorology in general and the boffins at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) specifically to parse Dora, the trade winds, and the whole gestalt. The professional studies will take a while, particularly given the sheer scale of the disaster and total collapse of public safety kencf0618 (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times just published an article on August 15 with a more detailed timeline

The article can be found here. It clarifies when the fire was first spotted before 6:40 a.m., when it first flared up again, sometime after 2:30 p.m., and when it began to approach the downtown area, around 4:14 p.m.

It would take over half an hour to add all this detail to the timeline because it's way too complex. I don't have that time today, but I'm raising this now so if anyone is able to add these details, please do so. Coolcaesar (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Coolcaesar! I will try to add some of that tomorrow Neo Trixma (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Neo Trixma and @Coolcaesar, please also see this timeline in the Honolulu Civil Beat – https://www.civilbeat.org/2023/08/tapped-out-maui-firefighters-were-trying-to-cover-a-lot-of-ground-the-day-lahaina-burned/ –Fpmfpm (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Great thanks ! Neo Trixma (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Creating a separate timeline without supporting each time with a cite to a specific source didn't help. Now the article is unreadable. I propose to delete the additional timeline, which appears to be a violation of WP:NOR.

The link to the NYT blog at the end of the new timeline doesn't help. That's a lengthy blog in which the NYT is posting breaking news in chron order on a rolling basis. Without citations to specific entries in that blog, it's impossible to verify the times in the timeline.

Also, User:Wikiwillz put in a great many unsourced statements without adding cites to sources, such as this edit. This creates an obvious risk of OR getting through in violation of WP:NOR. I propose to delete any statement which fails verification against the next citation or set of citations immediately downstream in the article from that statement. The burden is always on the editor adding content to add citations to support it. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Um, please actually check the sources before claiming I added any unsourced information. The bumper-to-bumper traffic and everything I've said in my edits can be found in multiple sources. Specifically for this one, it's actually documented with video analysis and first hand accounts in the recent New York Times article. It's also mentioned in numerous other sources. See 1, 2, 3 Wikiwillz (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree the timeline should not be inserted verbatim into the article as a list. The article looks… not great at the moment. The "timeline" right now is just reporting times things were posted to Twitter/on the County website. By linking the Civil Beat article I wasn't implying the content should be directly lifted and inserted straight into the article with no context but rather it should be used as a source to provide further context or sources to existing information in prose, or add a few extra details where needed. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For sure, it was looking very strong yesterday, and over night things like the bulky "timeline" have made it appear very poor quality. Since the article is pushing almost 100,000 page views a day, we should try to address this ASAP. Wikiwillz (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and manually reverted the edit where it was added. If someone wants to take the time to synthesize the info linked in the two news articles mentioned in this thread, and add in any parts they think would improve the article, that would be nice! That said, I think it's already quite detailed & good as-is, so it's not like absolutely crucial/critical details are missing, from what I can tell. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I can try to do it another day, so you prefer to include the synthetized infos in existing sections rather to create a new section right? Neo Trixma (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay sorry I missunderstood the request then, I didn't know that one source wasn't enough for this timeline Neo Trixma (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

To respond to User:Wikiwillz: Saying that everything "can be found in multiple sources" is not a substitute for providing actual citations at the time an edit is made. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Either no inline citations were provided with the edits I am challenging, or one source was cited at the end to support a great many preceding sentences.

For example, here's the problem with the new text in the edit I challenged above, which currently appears in the article as follows: "At this time, bumper-to-bumper traffic developed from residents attempting to escape en masse. The combination of inaccessible roads due to fire damage, and virtually stationary traffic for miles, made it even more difficult for people to escape the blaze." No citation was added for those sentences, which were inserted before this preexisting sentence: "By 5:45 p.m. HST (UTC 03:45), the fire had reached the shoreline, when the United States Coast Guard first learned of people jumping into the ocean at Lāhainā to escape the fire." The next citation after that (which I added) is to a August 12, 2023 Wall Street Journal article (available via Apple News) in which the infographic clearly supports the proposition about the Coast Guard first learning of people jumping into the ocean at Lahaina at 5:45 p.m.

The Wall Street Journal article does not support the two new sentences. The WSJ article doesn't say anything about bumper-to-bumper traffic developing because residents were trying to escape en masse, or that roads were inaccessible because of fire damage, or that traffic was stationary for miles, or that the combination of all of that made it difficult for people to escape. So that's original research in violation of WP:NOR. The article does stand for two distinctly narrower observations: that the main road out of town was "jammed with cars" (but the article doesn't try to attribute that to everyone escaping at once) and part of the main road was closed with "downed power lines from the earlier windstorms". It's very important when adding new sentences before existing sentences to make sure that the new sentences are supported by citations to sources that actually support those sentences, if they lack support in the sources for the existing sentences. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow up on OR issues

Also, while on the subject of OR, I just noticed some more obvious examples in this edit on 15 August 2023. The lawsuits section appears to be WP:SYNTH, an WP:NOR issue. The cited sources do not actually discuss "public speculation", "correlation", or "public belief" about "causative factors". Also, there's a citation to a tabloid newspaper. (See WP:DAILYMAIL.)

The AP article doesn't actually say anything, expressly or impliedly, about "alarm fatigue among residents, where frequent, less urgent alerts can diminish the perceived significance of real threats."

The sentence "The climatologist Abby Frazier emphasized Hawaii's extreme wildfire vulnerability and called for more serious fire prevention efforts" is not actually supported by any of the three citations at the end of the paragraph in which that sentence appears. Her name doesn't appear in those articles. (Google News reveals that she has made remarks to that effect in sources not cited here, but again, the burden is on the editor adding new content to add citations to support it properly.)

And that was just one edit. This is exactly why WP:V requires inline citations, to make it easier to catch original research contrary to WP:NOR.

Another example. This edit adds a reference to "dense neighborhoods" supported by a citation to a CNN video, 1 minute, 18 seconds long. Which, if you watch it, is coverage of the panicked evacuation. It doesn't actually say anything about dense neighborhoods in the northeastern part of the town.

With this much OR, it would take hours to scrub all those edits for OR on a sentence-by-sentence basis. It may be easier at this point to excise them altogether.

Anyway, I have to focus on other WP priorities like the California State University, so I will leave this to others to follow up upon. -Coolcaesar (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

While I would love to address every single OR claim you're trying to make, it seems you're just not doing diligence in actually reading any of the citations past what was either added at the time of the edit, or is directly following the sentence. Also, WP:RSCONTEXT is incredibly important, especially in situations that are current, and have limited information but substantial demand for information. For instance the "dense neighborhood" statement isn't what the source is backing up. The source is backing up the claims of "attempted to flee in vehicles while surrounded by flames." which if you would have read, makes plenty of sense.

Also, the fire burned dense neighborhood. That's not OR, it's WP:BLUE. We know there was a fire, we know where it was. Lahaina has homes! You can observe that by looking at any map. WP:CK

Regardless however, these claims are cited. A lot of "unsourced" edits I make are because sources already added had integral information users did not include. If you want to remove or tweak something you believe is unsourced, please WP:BOLD. Causing issues where there aren't issues, and then saying you have "other WP priorities" like you have more important matters is against the nature of an online encyclopedia anyone can edit. Thank you :) Wikiwillz (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiwillz, unless you are working in your own sandbox or draft space, it's no longer considered best practice to add unsourced claims to any article in mainspace. In the far past, Wikipedia was far more loose about this kind of editing, but it is no longer allowed. If anyone needs a specific claim cited and doesn't have time to find a source or to verify, just leave me a brief message on my talk page and I will help. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where anywhere in my message you got the impression I've added any unsourced claims to the article, and or my writing ever on the site. Wikiwillz (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Viriditas is inferring that admission from these words: "A lot of 'unsourced' edits I make are because sources already added had integral information users did not include." That's not right. If a new claim is not expressly connected through a directly adjacent citation to a supporting source, it is unsourced. This is taken for granted in every field where people traditionally cite their sources.

It is not sufficient to contend that existing sources already support the claim and leave the reader to figure it out. This is why most citation systems (including Wikipedia's own citation system) have mechanisms to expressly link back to sources already cited in full earlier in an article.

Viriditas is correct that WP was much more tolerant of unsourced assertions in its early days. That is no longer the case, especially in articles like this one about recent events where there are a great many sources available and it's just a matter of citing them properly.

Anyway, someone will have to mark all the unsourced or improperly sourced sentences in the article with a "citation needed" tag. Then if no one has the time, energy, or interest to add citations for them, off they go. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar, thank you for flagging this issue. I added a couple of sources that back up the Abby Frazier statement and other statements about wildfire risk and non-native grasses. I believe there are still OR or SYNTH issues with the siren paragraph, but I have to get back to work in a bit and won't be able to look at this issue in-depth just yet. I will try to take a closer look later.

I also want to echo what @Viriditas said above about adding unsourced claims into mainspace, and I am also available to help look for specific citations on request. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

New image update

Just want to give everyone a heads up about a new set of images that User:Infrogmation uploaded over at aftermath of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires category. Some of them are really good and should be added to parts of this article and other related articles by those users who are active in that area. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

CNN's Hawaii wildfires timeline

I am calling attention to CNN's Hawaii wildfires timeline, which might be useful.

• Williams, Ashley R.; Pettersson, Henrik; Rigdon, Renée; Alwahab, Clint; Chacón, Marco; O’Kruk, Amy (2023-08-18). "Hawaii wildfires timeline: The hours that brought Lahaina to ruins". CNN. Retrieved 2023-08-18.

Peaceray (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ABCs looks quite good too. It shows the electric cables starting fires, and also videos of this. Sensors too of electricity dropoff over different parts of Maui. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Validity of Police Blockades Lahaina Fire

I am calling attention to the claims that cars were being directed towards front street, where there was bumper to bumper traffic, which was supposedly caused by a police blockade at the end of front street. This blockade, if verified could have caused countless deaths of people who were still in their cars when the fire came. Can anyone confirm or deny these claims? TiktokTiktok LK5127 (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maui-residents-say-utility-trucks-blocked-roads-tried-flee-rcna100200 suggests police and Hawaii electric pickup trucks and heavy plant were blocking roads to try and fix downed cables. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

AI generated photos in Wikipedia?!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hawaii_wildfires#/media/File:Os-lahaina-town-fire.jpg is an AI generated photo! Just look at the TREE, are you kidding me?! That same tree I can see on A LOT of photos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2chkyBAsA&t=2s Hope you understand a little German! Delete this AI generated photo. This is Fake! P.S.: I want the Wikipedia Staff to respond to this message. This is serious and not a joke. What is happening? What is a wikipedia with fake photos? Double Check the photo, please. But you already know that it is fake. If you don't respond or delete my message: this message is archived. We are not sleeping, my friend. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule, there is a discussion on Commons Administrator’s noticeboard that may be relevant. Tails Wx 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule: — The image is hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia (just linked to on Wikipedia). As Tails Wx mentioned, there is an ongoing discussion on the Common’s Administrator Noticeboard. If this image is fake, please report it in that discussion. You seem to be determined to have a Wikipedia admin reply, when they won’t be able to do anything. Report it on the Commons. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Just watch the video (and look at the tree) and you will see that that same tree is everywhere. This is not my job! This is your job! --TheGoldenRule (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for everyone, this image was discussed extensively on the Common’s administrator noticeboard (discussion perm link) and was proven to have been taken by the U.S. Air Force. On the noticeboard, this was stated: I was able to confirm and verify that the image is considered the work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties, which places it in the public domain in the United States. Image is not AI generated and is real. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so if THIS image is REAL, how do you describe the hundreds of fake photos with that same Tree and the same Cars that are on the internet? So this special photo is not fake?! Sorry, I am not believing this. If you haven't watched the video, don't talk to me. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eco-terrorism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/were-the-maui-fires-arson-internet-users-believe-they-have-closed-in-on-cause-of-spark/ar-AA1ff4cV

Looks like global warming/climate change fanatics started this fire. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Not in any way a reliable source. Article's only source is speculation on twitter. This has no basis in fact or reason. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Msn.com is not reliable to source such a controversial claim Neo Trixma (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Might be true but you gotta get a reliable source for that claim sorry. EytanMelech (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death Toll

Is now 115: [24] --Kuzwa (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated Neo Trixma (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Biden visit

The Bidens then boarded Marine One where they were given an aerial tour of the devastation

Not sure why that source says that, but they clearly had boots on the ground and took a tour of the devastation from that vantage point. I haven't yet uploaded those photos because they are not so great, but it's odd that this source focuses on the aerial tour when it was clearly both. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Very odd for an AP article, but they split it up later in the article: "During his tour, Biden walked down a street from which many Lahaina residents made their harrowing escape from the flames." I'm going to clarify this, as it seems oddly strange to me to imply, using the same source, that Biden only took an aerial tour. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also can't help but notice that the AP played up the protests by Trump supporters, which were literally less than a dozen people (as seen on video), and made it seem like there were major protests. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The inconsistencies you've pointed out are actually quite common in AP stories. Keep in mind AP specializes in breaking news, not investigative journalism. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the AP, just like Wikipedia, was their usual liberal-biased selves. They touted Joe Biden while leaving out people’s rightful anger at the Biden regime for their response to the wildfires.If Trump had done the same things Biden did in this situation the media would spin it a whole other way and you would be accusing him of neglect.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bjoh249: AP is rated center, not left, but conservatives criticize any source that doesn't fawn over Trump and regressive, reactionary politics from yesteryear as "left", particularly sources that rely on data, facts, and evidence–things that right-leaning sources tend to forgo. The right's obsession with Biden's response to the Hawaii wildfires was literally written up and distributed to their partners as disinformation before the fires stopped burning and before Biden ever arrived in Hawaii. And the right's ground game on Maui was invented, written, and created by a failed GOP candidate who made fake viral videos for Alex Jones et al. I followed the propaganda as it was occurring in real time. There was no truth to any of it and Biden has nothing to do with the response by the county to the initial fires. And yes, Trump did engage in neglect, in almost every major issue that faced the US and its allies for four years. This is history, not spin. The problem is you can't tell the difference. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I know what AP has been rated, but that doesn’t make it true. I’ve read plenty from the AP to know where they stand. I don’t believe I ever said I supported Trump either, but pointing out that the media treats politicians of a different political affiliation differently than they do do the other is just fact. Your own opinion on Trump is just that. You can call it history all you want, but it’s still just your opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. You clearly have a bias here. If Trump had waited days to go into Hawaii like Biden did the mainstream media would have crucified him. I saw the video of people showing up to bash Biden as his motorcade came through. They may not have all been Trump supporters either, but people genuinely angry about the response). But that doesn’t matter to you. That being said I agree that the video of people flipping off Biden’s motorcade is not worth mentioning in the article (although if it was a President of another political affiliation I’m sure you would have mentioned it all over the place), but neither is your Biden praise propaganda. I’m not the only one who dislikes Biden either, as Biden’s approval rating is even lower than Trumps was at this point in his presidency. You can worship Biden and the Democrats all you want, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool either. Bjoh249 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're spouting conservative echo chamber, manufactured talking points, devoid of facts, just as I said. Biden "waited" because the area was still burning, toxic, and a disaster zone in the process of being contained by the military. You're welcome to live in an alternative-fact-free world, but please don't try selling it here. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Facts are obviously not allowed on Wikipedia. I figured that out a long time ago. Despite claiming to be an encyclopedia you aren’t and most people acknowledge that fact. If this was a Republican president he would have been crucified by the press and communists like you, You aren’t reality-based as you claim. You are a radical left commie Democrat wanting an article to fit your view of the world.Bjoh249 (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried Conservapedia? It's a great place to learn about supply-side Jesus, and how he loved riding dinosaurs with his trusty AR-15 while guarding his flock. That's the face of conservatism. 100% "facts", 24/7/365. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This user is clearly a Bidenac, wanting to inject opinion into the article than facts. He can’t even handle facts about his beloved Biden when they are even mentioned in a left-leaning publication. Bjoh249 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Trump supporters still don't get it. The reality-based community doesn't worship politicians or belong to cults of personality. Stop thinking that everyone does what you do. We don't. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I never said I was a Trump supporter. And you people being reality-based is total fantasy in your mind. Bjoh249 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoosh. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill out. Please review WP:CIVILITY and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

388 missing?

This article (https://apnews.com/article/maui-hawaii-fire-missing-names-f0b02f12fad83690d9dfcedfd414b726) contains the following paragraph:

"The 388 names represented a portion of a broader list of up to 1,100 people reported missing that the FBI said earlier this week it was working to validate. Maui County said the newly published list included those for whom it had first and last names as well as verified contact information for someone who reported them missing."

Which would seem to argue that the figure of 388 is some fraction of the total. The FBI decision to release a partial list may be a necessary inclusion in the section on the response but may also dictate a more comprehensive source than AP. 2A02:C7C:4C00:8500:7578:F06D:20F2:5866 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Previously, I had the same concern so I spent some time looking into this yesterday. As far as I can tell, there is no longer a list of 1,100 people, as many of them have been found. So the AP article was published just before many of these people were found safe. I admit, this is confusing, so there’s no real way to know just yet. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Having monitored this page since Aug. 9, I know that it cannot possibly suddenly switch from saying about 1000 are missing to simply saying 388 WITHOUT any mention of the fact that 1000 had thought to be missing for three weeks! Of course if 388 is the correct number, that should be used, but it has already become part of the history of this event that 1000 were thought to be missing for multiple weeks! Qc1okay (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

actual Maui death toll?

Seems odd that the number has stayed pinned at 115 for over a week... anyone have any updates on this? 158.123.57.254 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

From news reports, search parties have gone through most, if not all, of the burned area. The several hundred people who are missing may, as the New York Times reported a few days ago, include those who were in structures that burned at such a high temperature that are no remains left to easily find. An analogy that's been used is the 9/11 attack--of the of the 2,977 victims of 9/11, the remains of 1,106 have not yet been accounted for. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What Aoi said; also, my understanding is that the numbers will rise just as soon as the DNA samples and missing people reports are reconciled. There’s also been a lot of strange conspiracy theories being spread by people on social media who should know better, often originating from people and accounts outside of Hawaii. The one that was recently debunked and being spread was that bodies were washing up on the shores of other islands. There’s no evidence that ever happened. It’s odd to see people spreading these and other rumors in real time. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)