Talk:Oakland firestorm of 1991

---

Proposal to Rename/Move

I propose to rename the article to conform with the most common (by far) name that is used for the fire: the Oakland firestorm 1991, because: (1) there is as yet no proper geographical name "Oakland Hills"---they are still officially the Berkeley Hills. They may well be the Oakland hills (no cap), but until the Geographic Nomenclature Poobahs say otherwise, they're still the Berkeley Hills. If I had my say, they'd go back to being the Contra Costa Hills; (2) Google shows 175,000 entries for "Oakland firestorm", but only 48,100 for Oakland Hills Firestorm, and only the first page or so of these are verbatim. Tmangray 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The title I propose above, while conforming to the most common name appearing, seems nonetheless awkward as is. Alternate proposed titles: (1) Oakland Firestorm of 1991, or (2) 1991 Oakland Firestorm. Tmangray 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Or (3) Oakland Firestorm (1991). Tmangray 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All three paragraphs of this proposal are by the same person, and the name change seems to have been made without any discussion. FEMA's link FEMA: California Oakland Hills Fire seems to suggest that the "Oakland Hills Fire" is the declared emergency name. Furthermore, is there really no such thing as the Oakland Hills? People seem to call it by that name here all the time (perhaps informally)? I'd like to see some sources cited that will convince readers that geographers have only named the entire stretch of hills after Berkeley. Gordeonbleu 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to the discussion page for Berkeley Hills. In fact, there is no such proper name "Oakland Hills" for the hills of Oakland. Yet. Tmangray 23:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging from what I've seen in the Berkeley Hills talk page, there's an unsettled dispute over the "Berkeley Hills"/"Oakland Hills" definition that only started yesterday. It hardly seems fair to make such a decisive change to other articles when the discussion is very recent and still very open. Gordeonbleu 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the FEMA link, there's nothing there anymore. The title they used is a title, so they used caps. The USGS GNIS (official geog. nomenclature index) has no listing for "Oakland Hills", except as a possible alternate name for the San Leandro Hills. Tmangray 23:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was improperly moved and renamed such that the talk and history were omitted. The name assigned was not the most common name found on search engines such as Google. I restored the talk and history to the article and renamed it in accordance with the most commonly found name. Tmangray 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Deaths

My recollection at the time was 80 people killed. I am probably wrong. Does anyone have a source for the number 25? --AStanhope 00:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is one: http://www.sfmuseum.org/oakfire/overview.html Lagringa 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Fires

I removed the discussion of other fires in the past 100 years. The fact that major fires occur somewhere in a large metropolitan area with some frequency is not noteworthy. Lagringa 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Except for the SF quake fire and the 1923 Berkeley fire since only these two others razed large numbers of homes inside the urbanized area. These two fires are the ones which were most mentioned in discussions and media coverage of the Oakland fire. Tmangray 00:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I thought is would be less confusing if north was at the top. I'm not sure if my attempt to upload the flipped image was successful. If not, could someone else please fix it? Lagringa 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this goes in the article,but...

As I was watching a Detroit Lions-San Francisco 49ers on Sacro's KXTV that very Sunday,I saw the plume of smoke from a angled live shot during the game as the assigned NFL on CBS play-by-play announcer informed viewers of what was unfolding across the bay from Candlestick Park at that very moment.Though it's unknown whether there's a reliable online source,I'd figure I'd make this suggestion anyway... Ranma9617 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We were there

My husband was in our apartment in the Oakland Hills when he saw the fire blowing through. The apartment building had no alarms going off and many people were unable to get to their cars and get out. My husband grabbed only what was sitting near him (and my engagement ring, which he hadn't yet given to me), and left before most people even saw it coming. He was just looking out the window while on the phone. He left in his car and watched the flames engulf the entire complex while on the bridge just outside the Caldecott tunnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.241.247 (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Eucalyptus

According to several sources this firestorm was neither caused nor enforced by the eucalyptus trees, which are claimed as fire resistant. I'll think it's a difference between Californian eucalyptus (which stems from Tasmania) and e.g. the Australian eucalyptus. What's the truth? Pål Jensen (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not have references for this. However, I recall the area experienced an unusually cold winter a few years prior to the fire, with a frost that killed a significant number of eucalyptus trees (which are subtropical or tropical and not hardy). Many of the dead trees were left standing, partially because eucalyptus wood is hard enough to dull saws quickly. Unlike live eucalyptus, dead eucalyptus burns quite readily; in many areas, it is a common firewood. User:DERoss Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:40:34 -0800 —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)