Talk:Yarnell Hill Fire

Suggestion

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

This needs to have the current event message on it.

Significance

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

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

Number of victims from Granite mountain team

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Also

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

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

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

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