Talk:Black Saturday bushfires/Archive 1

This archive includes talk page discussions for the February 2009 Victorian bushfires article in February 2009, discussions in March can be found on the article's talk page.

Citations

Rather than continuing to add new, uncited information, we need to concentrate on citing the information already there and then ensure all new information is cited. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. But just consider, citation only comes into effect if information is subject to being challenged. Facts such as the wind change and windspeed are very matter of fact to anyone living in the state right now. ABC News Radio is a very up to date and reliable source of information, they broke news of the 14 deaths before even their TV news, let alone Sky and others, how do we properly cite it as a source? The fact that the stated rail lines were closed is also very 'blue sky', and can be confirmed very easily. I've been adding factual information as it comes to hand and citing basic sources where i can, anyone can slap citation tags on things but actual contribution would be helpful, if they seek sources and help locate references then I'd be much more appreciative, tags ultimately do little to help. Nick carson (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, all information should be sourced before adding. If it can't be sourced, it should not go in. WP:V is pretty clear on that point. I have been adding sources but I can't keep up with the unsourced information being added. You are doing a good job, but everything needs sourcing before adding, even if it means waiting for a while for a print source before updating. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

You're better off just adding cited material and expanding once the fires have settled down and more reliable information is handed out to the public. I'm sure there will be big reports done by each news agency in a few days time. Be much easier to do rather than added a clump of information that came from 774 here and there, then having to find a citation later. Expanding is easier than cleaning up without removing valuable info in my experience. Maybe just post quick updates on the talk page and wait for a published source? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I personally find cleanup easier than expanding. Nick carson (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, i do too. But just in this case we're going to end up with a whole load of info - that's worth mentioning, such as wind strengths etc - and it's going to need citation at some point. Easier just to use the news articles which summarise the events, rather than the ones which are reporting. If you look on the ABC site, there's 20-30+ articles floating around. It'll be easier in a day or two to just use one or two articles. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 14:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No citations for content is bad enough but citations that don't support content are another thing. For example i have just removed from an infobox claims that ignition source was arson (with a citation) and lightning (no citation). For the arson claim the citation has the following relevant text -'...He believed arsonists were responsible for some of the nine major fires ripping across the state. "We suspect a number of the fires have been deliberately lit," Mr Walshe told reporters.'- I guess it will turn out to be started from various sources, but guesses and speculation are not the basis for a credible source for citation. Also, does anyone know how to put a template on the article that advises that claims are unsourced?--Theo Pardilla (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are various ignition but the quote you extracted wasmore than a guess, it was just worded with emergency worker caution. There are many fires with independent causes, one of which was arson. I have re-added arson with a stronger statement. Rather than tag the article as a whole, why don't you tag what you see as the unsupported claims?

I have added "Various sources" to the infobox and suggest that the claim of arson be removed until we confirm the exact sources of the fires. Various sources will likely stay for good as there are just so many fires we souldn't possibly list how over 100 bushfires started. Nick carson (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Not sure how the media might coin these fires, I thought February 7 Victorian bushfires was adequate enough, at least in the short term, I think we'll just see how things pan out in regards to naming. Just don't want to see some terrible move to a media-coined name. Nick carson (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the name was changed overnight to 2009 Victorian bushfires, we should be weary as there could be conflicting fires in the 2009-10 season. Also, these fires are directly linked to that particular day yet the changed name reflects an entire year and can be misleading. Nick carson (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the Herald Sun and a couple of weather forums are referring to the fires as "Black Saturday". I would advise against this naming. Black Saturday has already been coined for various other events, at least 11, a list can be found here. I suggest that we revert naming back to "February 7 Victorian bushfires" and just wait to see what other naming emerges, if any, be it appropriate in all respects for use. I'd like to avoid any edit wars so I'll leave the revert to someone else. Nick carson (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that February 7 Victorian bushfires would be fine. Although much of the fires have also gone across more days it will be Feb 7th which will stand out with the extreme conditions causing other spot fires and smaller fires across places like Cranbourne, Narre Warren etc. 2009 Victorian bushfires may seem a bit too ambiguous as it could imply other others as well as the ones across this weekend. Chalkstar2188 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactally. For example; the Black Friday fires were precipitated by the exceptional conditions on the friday, yet burnt for 50 or 60 days afterwards. Also; 2009 Victorian bushfires is too ambiguous, it could refer to any fires throughout the year and there have been many in January, totally separate from the February 7 fires. Nick carson (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought someone had changed the 2008-09 bushfire season to this name. It's not a very good name to specifythe fire it is referring to. And these fires definitely require their own page, it's only going to grow as more info is released. Revert back to February 7 Victorian bushfires. I'm not going to, as the In the News link will change and i'm not too sure what to do with that. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The February 7 title is not a good one because it is now clear the fires are continuing. Given the scale of the these fires, when discussing the Victorian fires in 2009, this will be the only one thought of. Support keeping the current name unless another name gains currency in the press etc. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people will or won't think of, 2009 Victorian fires is far too ambiguous, 2 other editors are in support and anyone with knowledge on how to revert the "February 7 Victorian bushfires" should do so. Nick carson (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Agree with Matt. It's best left as 2009 Victorian bushfires since these fires will continue to burn until it rains (Area is too large and inaccessible for fire fighters to control the fires) which could be a few weeks to maybe a month. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current name 2009 Victorian bushfires is satisfactory because the time period referred to in the text (currently Feb 7 onwards) does not include January bushfires such as at Boolarra. It could perhaps be called February 2008 Victoria bushfires, along the lines of naming in Category:Wildfires in California. Melburnian (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that these fires will continue to burn doesn't negate the ambiguity of the current naming convention. For examples see: Ash Wednessday, Black Friday, Red Tuesday, etc. Furthermore, the naming "2009 Victorian bushfires" should be reserved for any article in which the subject matter pertains to bushfires in Victoria throughout the year 2009. We now have 4 in support of the revert and 2 against it. I am suggesting to revert back to February 7 Victorian bushfires, February 2009 Victorian bushfires is still to ambiguous to the entire month. Nick carson (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got no issues with February 2009 Victorian (or "Victoria") bushfires. Bidgee (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Ash Wednesday? Black Saturday? They usually name fires after the day that they were worst, or the day that they began. As for now i am leaning towards Melburnian's proposal, February 2009* Victoria bushfires. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We're familiar with the traditional naming conventions of bushfires in Australia. Again, I am suggesting to revert back to February 7 Victorian bushfires, it pertains directly to the fires that began on the 7th and continued burning for an as yet unknown time afterwards. Other fires may occur in feb in Victoria that are not related to these fires, as such, February 2009 Victorian bushfires is still to ambiguous to the entire month. February 2009 Victoria bushfires is bad grammar. Nick carson (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the current title (2009 Victorian bushfires) is fine in the absence of anything more definite. -- Longhair\^talk 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

However, we are not in absence of anything more definite. Nick carson (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention for Australian bushfires is "Year" "Location" fires such as 1967 Tasmanian fires or 1994 Eastern seaboard fires unless it has a names such as Black Friday (1939). So the name should be 2009 Victorian fires unless black saturday gets widely accepted then it should be named Black Saturday (2009) 203.87.9.240 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP bushfire naming convention is out of date and requires amendment and should not be considered absolute. Events such as the 1967 Tasmanian bushfires were named in retrospect as they occurred prior to WP existing. Such names in themselves are still ambiguous as several other fires occurred in tas in 67 that were not related with the main fire event. These articles will be updated and their naming amended in time. Revert to "February 7 Victorian bushfires" still required. Nick carson (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons here, should it be bushfires or fires. Sure the fires are mainly bushfires, but there is a lot of structural damage, scrubs fires and what-not. Fires just covers a much broader subject. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A cat amongst pigeons indeed! hehe. Definately bushfires, structures usually only account for less than one percent of the total fuel burnt. Nick carson (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Continue to oppose rename to February 7. One, it is just wrong; the fires have now lasted into a second day. Two, it goes against Australian date formatting which is day-month-year. Thirdly, it is over specific; given the scale of these fires, these will be the fires that people will call the 2009 fires, not the run-of-the-mill fires earlier in the year. It will be a much much much more likely search term than the specific date. Fourthly, it is in line with WP naming protocol for events. I am not opposed to a rename should a name achieve common currency later on but February 7 is not suitable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a fire that destroyed 29 homes "run-of-the-mill" Melburnian (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Mattinbgn was implying. And the bushfires have destroyed around 130+ homes, likely several hundred. Nick carson (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Melburnian was referring to a different fire, when Mattinbgn collectively referred to all other fires as run-of-the-mill. You can't just call these the 2009 Victoria fires and ignore other fires which happened in 2009 (in Vic). I do agree that over time this will obviously be remembered as those fires in 2009, but we need a more specific title, this is just too ambiguous. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it is too ambiguous, but I'm willing to leave it as 2009 Victorian bushfires until a more specific name can be established in the next few days. Nick carson (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the current name is entirely adequate until, as will inevitably happen, the media arrive at some consensus as to naming over the next few days. Debate 木 06:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Channel 9 seems to be sticking with Victoria Burns. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just chucking in what I think - I'm strongly against February 7 Victorian bushfires as a title for the same reasons as Mattinbgn. In the unlikely event that there is another extreme series of bushfires in Victoria in 2009, I'd rather have February 2009 Victorian bushfires then a specific day. Terlob (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We should not accept any given names coined by the media. If these fires become known by any name over time, it will be reflected here on WP. Channel 9 and their "Victoria Burns" is merely a tag they have put onto their news items regarding the bushfires. Trying to label this event in haste is inappropriate. The only name that would be accepted would be one (if any) that sticks in the future. Trying to push for a particular label to be applied is just plain ignorant. Nick carson (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not implying we use it. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I seen Channel 7 call it Black Saturday once. But who likes channel 7? I think we should call it 'Victoria's Day of Infancy' Ray-Rays (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's neither a matter of whether or not we like Channel 7, nor is it a matter of what one individual thinks it should be called. In the past, names have stuck after many weeks have passed, even longer. Nick carson (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Kinglake fire, Kinglake Complex etc is wrong - The fire that burnt from Kilmore to Kinglake was the Kilmore East Fire while the Murrindindi Mill fire burnt Marysville. These two fires combined to become the Kilmore East - Murrindindi complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.128.243.14 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactally right, but we're compiling information from so many sources, so the lines between description of affected areas and CFA fire designations and fire origins become blurred, but it's all slowly being tidied up. Nick carson (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Saturday

Why does the lead image have the title, Black Saturday? I can find no reference to this name in any recent news articles after a brief online search. -- Longhair\^talk 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above... I noticed that the Herald Sun and a couple of weather forums are referring to the fires as "Black Saturday". I would advise against this naming. Black Saturday has already been coined for various other events, at least 11, a list can be found here. I suggest that we revert naming back to "February 7 Victorian bushfires" and just wait to see what other naming emerges, if any, be it appropriate in all respects for use. I'd like to avoid any edit wars so I'll leave the revert to someone else. Nick carson (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The term Black Saturday is now beginning to get a mention. See the image caption on this news article. Still too early to begin using it IMHO. -- Longhair\^talk 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Continually moving the name around based on what so-and-so station called the fires is a losing proposition. There are no victory points awarded for getting in "first", and anything less than a clear consensus in the media constitutes original research. No clear consensus on naming will emerge for at least a few days, and there is absolutely no need for us to preempt such consensus here. Until such a consensus emerges the current name is perfectly adequate. Debate 木 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought exactly. And if an individualised name does not emerge then they'll stay as 2009 Victorian bushfires or something simmilar. There is no rule book that says we must label these events by colours and days. Nick carson (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chanel 10 has referred to it as Black Saturday. Supt. of Printing (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The commercial TV stations have been calling it all sorts of sensationalist things like "Victoria Burns" and whatnot, hardly reliable sources for the naming of this particular event. Nick carson (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote for a simple title of "Feb 09 Victorian Fires", or "February 09 Victorian Fires" for the pedants. "Black Saturday" is trying to draw on the name of the former most serious fires, but their name of "Black Friday" made a lot of sense because they mostly happened on a Friday 13th, traditionally known as Black Friday, whether there were fires or not. Ash Wednesday was similar. They happened on a day that already had a name. Roblowe48 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Saturday is now being used with some frequency within the media, and the disambing page List of Black Saturdays has an entry that directs to this article, so it is worth a mention. Also, Saturday 7 needs more prominence in the article as it was the day that the fires were worst, the temperature hottest, and most of the fatalities occurred. I have added a reference to this term to the article. Peter Campbell 13:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that 'Black Saturday' is being used, however, I have not heard it in common usage with friends, people I meet, or people I hear talking about the fires, nor have I heard the name used on the ABC TV or Radio, CFA, DHS, DSE or Victoria Police. So the word of 3 commercial TV stations and a few newspapers doesn't hold enough sway as yet, sorry. Need more time to let it settle, if it spreads into widespread usage then the title can always be changed. Perhaps just a reference to it for now would suffice, as suggested by Peter Campbell above. Nick carson (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Marysville deaths

Clearly, there has been multiple fatalities in Marysville but there has been no confirmation from the police yet. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

True. We just need to wait until confirmative word gets through. Some of the helicopter images of Marysville look scary. Last I heard they were evacuating survivors from that area, so it'll take a while for them to confirm any casualties. Nick carson (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The death toll is going to rise. Last i heard there were 9 confirmed deaths in the Churchill area, which started from the embers of the Bunyip fire. 35+ now. I think we're going to be looking at 500+ houses destroyed as well. You look at the size of these towns Marysville (500+ people), Kinglake (1500), were both completely destroyed. An hour ago there was this, saying "In that area of Marysville we haven't had confirmed reports of loss of life." and "Marysville I understand, there's only one building left in the town." k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the number of buildings destroyed will likely ultimately be several hundred. The West Gippsland deaths have been included in the article. The report of one building left is out of date as it came through about 1am this morning. Anything further is speculation and we need to rely on confirmed facts. Nick carson (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On 3AW (radio isn't a source so i'm not going to add it) they just had a channel 9 reporter on, who was just in Marysville. He said they saw around 100 homes, only 2 left standing. So i'm sure by the time the news is on tonight, we will have some reliable figures. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Brumby says at least 49 deaths and many more. This is tragic. Waiting for news updates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

49 deaths makes it the 2nd worst fires, in terms of loss of life, in the states history. 203.87.9.240 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

49, I can't believe that it's still rising. People from Kinglake are explaining that most of them had fire plans and were packed and ready to escape when they got the message that the town was under threat, but within 5-10 minutes the sky turned black and the fire came through very quickly. This would explain why people tried to escape at the last minute. I don't know if anyone else has been to Kinglake or not, but the roads in and out are on steep valley sides and it would have been impossible to get out of the area in such a short ammount of time. Nick carson (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who lives in a fire prone area, as I have done, should know that waiting for the fire before fleeing is far too late. Leave early or don't leave at all (ie on the morning of a Total Fire Ban day, especially the hottest most dangerous day in history, not when you see smoke or hear reports of a fire on the radio). A fire can spread much quicker than you can drive, especially in the winds we saw yesterday. Having your car packed and ready to go isn't a fire plan, it's suicide. The last place you want to be caught in a major bushfire is on the road, surrounded by smoke, in your car - even the worst house is a significantly better place to try to survive a fire than the best car. Debate 木 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It will probably rise a fair bit more. Neil Mitchell was indicating it could compete with the deaths of Ash Wednesday (75). Just the media wouldn't dare announce anything until it's all confirmed, which is the way it should be done. Horrible days. They were saying that there's a few in hospital that may not make it, whether they're included in the 49 i'm not sure. 49 makes it the sixth deadliest in Australia, 5th in Victoria: Bushfires in Australia#Deadliest fires.

I wouldn't consider Neil Mitchell an authority on anything. Commercial radio has an interest in talking up the drama in order to drum up ratings. Debate 木 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was never insinuating we should go by what he has said, i was just saying expect the worst. There's definiely no grounds to start saying radio stations are bullshitting us at a time like this. They've done a hell of a lot for people over the last 48 hours, and should be commended. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be conflicting reports of the number of deaths from these bushfires; in one part it states "at least 65 deaths", whereas further in the article it states 50 deaths. Shouldn't this be corrected? - Sarz (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

65 is now current. It was just released within the last 10 minutes, i'm sure it will be corrected soon. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll now reported to be up to 76. :-( - Sarz (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualities don't add up, the break down of casualities total to 77 not 76 203.87.9.240 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll now 84 - I think the total number is going to move faster than the breakdown http://www.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=301174Chimeralex (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A CFA Officer reported the official toll was now 96 deaths on ABC Radio a few minutes ago, no other sources yet though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.89.119 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

10 have been confirmed in Marysville. We've just got to hold off on speculation and just keep updating the figures as they come through. There are many other figures that also need updating, not just the death toll, but the area burnt, structures lost, injuries, livestock, number of personel fighting the fires, etc. Nick carson (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I read an article where John Brumby said the death toll in Marysville could be as much as 1 in 5! I'll try and find it again. Not that I think it should be added to the article, but I'll put it up for you to read. Obviously we can only put up confirmed deaths. Still, it said something about people not being allowed back in because the government didn't want people to see their locved ones as they were, apparently they couldn't get in to clear bodies yet Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/11/2488463.htm?section=australia Bloody horrible. Says something about a team of 150 detectives too, but I'm not sure if that's part of the "Project Phoenix" buissiness. Also this states that Marysville has 15 confirmed dead, according to John Brumby Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Locator Map

I have created a simple locator map, I'm working on a better version which should be ready later this evening, just in case anyone else might start one so we don't have double maps. Nick carson (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A good start and makes the scale of the Kinglake complex apparent. Probably need separate maps for Bendigo, Beechworth and Horsham. Or perhaps a statewide map. Maps are not my strong point-- Mattinbgn\^talk

Much better making out the area burnt/burning which gives a better view point. I did make a map (File:Victoria bushfires - 9am Feb 8 2009 fire locations map.png) but please don't use it as it's now based on old information. Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made an updated map of the Kinglake fire complex. Better and updated version will follow during the week. Nick carson (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I added some arrows to the kinglake complex map to indicate rough wind directions before and after the change. Nick carson (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but would you be able to put in similar lines to show the direction of the Murrundindi fire which burnt Marysville, it could then indicate how there were two fires which merged. It should follow down that central green ridge and then turn east towards Taggerty, Buxton and Marysville. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sections and sub-sections

I propose we create seperate sections for each different fire complex (eg. Beechworth, Bunyip, Bendigo, Kilmore, Redesdale), and sub-sections for each suburb (eg. Kilmore - Wandong, Strathewen, Murindindi, Clonbinane, Kinglake) . There's a lot tocover for each, especially as death tolls rise and stories are told. Also, we're probably going to need a section on the backlash, wouldn't think that would be covered for a few days at least - a lot of people seemed unprepared, lack of communications telling them of the danger. This article requires some expansion. Thoughts? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, once the incident is over, the article will need a mass rewrite. Feel free to be bold and restructure the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it'll help to make the article look more cleaner and easier to read. - Sarz (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest it myself. (An Argento Fan (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Is it the Kilmore fires or Kinglake fires? Both names are being used 203.87.9.240 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kilmore fires and the Murindindi fires merged in places and have been burning in close proximity, thus are being treated as one fire which is now known as the Kinglake Fire Complex. I'm not sure if this includes the Mt. Ridell fires west of Healesville or not. Nick carson (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted some information about Jihad fires. No news has reported any link associated with terrorism and the cause of these fires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is someone going to mention Climate Change. 3 significant events have occurred which could all be tied together in relation to the fires. The heatwave, the drought and political comments from Greens MP Bob Brown as well as Victorian Premier John Brumby who have associated potential global warming causes with the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The weather that precipitated the floods in Queensland, heatwave in southeast Australia and bushfires in Victoria are all attributale to a weather system that stalled over the Tasman Sea. It has been suspected that climate change has been the 'cherry on the top' of these weather events, causing such high temperatures, such high winds, etc, that led to the extreme conditions at the level they were. Take climate change out of the equation and these events would still have occurred but perhaps not to the same extent as they have. As for drought, it's always an element of all bushfires down here, the largest events occurr in roughly 2 decade cycles as drought dries undergrowth, fires sweep through and then vegetation subsequently recovers until there is enough fuel for subsequent major bushfire events. Nick carson (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, so ill just edit it then. Appears as though what i just said, namely references from two significant sources, isn't "newsworthy" enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fire complex

What is a 'fire complex'? I'm not into firefighting jargon. Ozdaren (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "complex" fire: A "complex" fire is two or more fires in the same area assigned to a single commander or unified command. - according to The Edge Complex - Sarz (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Put that down as my mistake. We need to somehow work this into the article, even i screwed this up, i'm sure readers would be confused. Slightly different descriptions here, here and here. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the CFA definition, a fire complex can be 2 or more large fires that merge or burn very close in the same area. Nick carson (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that an uncommon term to warrant a term explanation in the content. Nick carson (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to us Nick, I assume you're Australian? What if you were from Norway or Iceland and you were looking into this? You'd be like "Vat de fook is a foire complex!?"Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but this article isn't about fire complexes, or even bushfires in general, we can direct readers to where they can find additional information, they can click on the link to bushfire and learn all about bushfires, etc. Perhaps we need a wikilink on 'fire complex' that leads to that particular section of the bushfire article. Nick carson (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL @ Andrew. I believe the link to fire complex leads directly to a definition of fire complex. This is sufficient. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 13:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Using the name "complex" as much as it used in the article is very confusing. It is used by the CFA for their administrative purposes, but serves little purpose for the general public, nor, even more importantly, for people outside Australia. It should be avoided by editors of the article. 218.215.170.10 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Steels Creek

Steels Creek is about 5 km south-south east of Kinglake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.28.53 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

...and about 6km north of Yarra Glen. Nick carson (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Death Toll

Just wondering, but are we keeping to this source? I don't know where 85 came from, but I think we should stick to the government figures. Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I changed to 84 (typo) and source is Sky News which seems to be the most up to date http://www.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=301174, am following closely as am on standby for medical relief. Chimeralex (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The CFA, DHS, DSE and ABC News Radio are the most up to date sources, note that none of them are commercial sources. Commercial media sources are unreliable, they are subject to bias and exaggeration. Nick carson (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

HS and Age have been reliable enough when giving the casualty list, and reasonably quick. There is no need to blanket rule out commercial sources, rather judge each report on its merits. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I was being a little biased myself. The Age can indeed be a fantastic source. HS is usually accurate, but they exaggerate a fair it. Nick carson (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Official Victoria Police/CFA death toll is at 93, as of 1:40am Monday AEDST - reduced due to a counting error from 96. That's off the 3AW broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.239.106 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

3AW is not a reliable nor a verifiable source. 96 has been sourced[1] so please don't change it unless you can find and use a reliable and verifiable source. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4] backs up 96. Bidgee (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[5] backs up 93; double counts, apparently. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should use the Victoria Police wesite, as that is where they are most likely to obtain their information for the news reports. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any report of where it says the death toll is now 111, only that it is 108, this has been rectified unless a source confirming the first figure can be stated. - Sarz (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of casualties has been raised to 130, this is from the Victoria Police website. [6]. Again, this number is expected to rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.78.97 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 131, again reported from the Victoria Police Site. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil.of.firewalls (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't call this the deadliest natural disaster in Australia until it passes Cyclone Mahina's 410 deaths. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I had similar concerns over this labeling. Prime example of WP editors relying too heavily on over-exaggerating commercial media sources. Prime example. Also, the toll supplied by Sky news of 171 has as yet been unconfirmed by Victoria Police who have so far only confirmed 156. I thought we had agreed to rely on Victoria Police and other direct sources rather than commercial entities such as Sky. Nick carson (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ABC News Breakfast now report that official police numbers put the number of dead at 173 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick - it's highly inappropriate that you use this tragedy to underscore your war against commercial organisations. The claim that the Bushfires are Australia's most deadly natural disaster is correct depending on the definition of "Australia". If we take Australia to mean the country in existence from 1901 to present then to call it "Australia's most deadly natural disaster" would indeed be correct. 202.67.91.228 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It didn't become Australia on federation, Australia is understood by people to mean the continent, not the country. Thus the tragedy of cyclone Mahina should be Australia's worst disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.165.249 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no 'war on commercial organisations', I was simply stating facts. If you want to call it the worst disaster since Australia's federation then call it that, but the History of Australia encompasses far more than just the last 108 years, as explained by the unsigned comment above. Regardless, I think there are more important things to consider in this article than worrying about whether or not we can call it the 'worst disaster in Australia's history', regardless of what sources might suggest it. Nick carson (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You will note I said "depending on definition of australia". Nick - I must apologise for my overstatement, I took it a little far. 202.67.91.228 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's alright :] I think whatever definition of Australia we're implying, it's history encompasses the time prior to federation. Perhaps 'the worst bushfires' would be enough for now.

I do admit I am very passionate about problems in the media. I had heard a man who had lost his kids in Kinglake aproach the ABC for an interview because commercial media didn't want to listen to his whole story, just the part about his kids. He continued to suggest that the commercial TV stations donate money gathered from advertising during news times to the victims that they're exploiting. It just echoed the thoughts of so many people. Then to hear about the false urgent threat reviews, very nasty. And that's before adding any bias of my own to the mix. Nick carson (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we need to keep the Timestamp on the deathtoll, to keep the updates...timed. Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well someone put the world natural disaster in anyway using an incorrect Herald Sun article as a source. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It happens quite often because WP policy relies too much on commercial/mainstream media. So the bias, exaggeration and inaccuracy sometimes creeps in. Nick carson (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

death toll is now 200 as of 17 February 2009 1740 hours 218.215.59.64 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Black Saturday 2009

An editor recently created a duplicate stub article Black Saturday 2009. I've PRODded it. If there is any useful content to merge into this article, please do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No new information there that is reliably cited. I have been bold and redirected to this article. Still not opposed to a nma echange for this article in the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just added "Black Saturday": the name coined by media to describe the 2009 Victorian bushfires on the Black Saturday disambig page. Gibbsyspin 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified people on that article's talk page to direct their contributions here. Also note my comments from above, I'll include them below...

I would advise against this naming. 'Black Saturday' has already been coined for various other events, at least 11, a list can be found at the disambig page here. I suggest that we... ...just wait to see what other naming emerges, if any, be it appropriate in all respects for use.

We should not accept any given names coined by the media. If these fires become known by any name over time, it will be reflected here on WP. Channel 9 and their "Victoria Burns" is merely a tag they have put onto their news items regarding the bushfires. Trying to label this event in haste is inappropriate. The only name that would be accepted would be one (if any) that sticks in the future. Trying to push for a particular label to be applied is just plain ignorant.

Please respect reason. Nick carson (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:2009_Victorian_bushfires#Black_Saturday. We don't have to accept the term, but it is now on common use, and there is a link page that points it to this article too. Peter Campbell 13:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

If anyone has good quality images, on flickr, or wherever, and would like to contribute one or two to this article, it would be much appreciated. Nick carson (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some images of bushfire damage to property in Yarra Glen and Steels Creek, obtained with the permission of the owners who were notified that the images would be licensed under creative commons and used in an encyclopedic article on WP. Amazing people, just want to talk to you about things and tell their stories, could have chatted all evening. Just thought I'd run it past people here as to where they'd be best suited within the article. The police get a bit over-worked up about sight-seers in the affected areas who stir up residents by taking photos without their permission and without explaining what they're for, let alone saying hello to them and talking to them. So I just thought I'd make my intentions clear before anyone misjudged them as a bit inconsiderate or tasteless. Images can be found here. Nick carson (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the property owners are fine with the images and gave you permission to take them, I don't see a problem here. You've also released them into the public domain, and not under a creative commons licence FWIW. -- Longhair\^talk 10:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Nick - these are good images. IMHO the four images that show complete destruction of property are fine because they are unlikely to identify persons or property easily. The one with the house undamaged in the distance is less useful (again IMHO) because the house and thus owner can be quite easily identified and because they made it through with less damage that can present feelings of guilt, anger, etc which might be unhelpful to the owners. Just my 2 cents worth in terms of your question on sensitivity.--VS ^talk 10:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :] I'll include some in the article. Nick carson (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use images from news sources if we reference them, because as it stands right now the images don't really convey the enormity of the fires. --218.215.94.121 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is our enemy in this case. I've seen so much amazing photography taken throughout these fires, of all subject matter, but the authors are difficult to track down, media never reply to your requests and some people even sell their images to the media, which makes things even more difficult. I've got one person at least who has some more comprehensive photos who will allow us to upload them and credit her. So the images in this article will improve. Nick carson (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

High-use of CFA website notification

Good work on tagging the link with that info, it had been on my to do list. I don't think our WP contributions constitute 'urgent need' so I'll echo the thoughts of other editors in suggesting that none of us use that link. Our updates here don't have to be that timely. Nick carson (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the easy way to keep everyone from using the link to just not put that link up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.224.65 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship isn't the answer to making people informed and aware. The link is there for people to use if they have the urgent need, if not, don't use it, simple. Nick carson (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. Just a mention here, that people rely on this site for valuable information more than we do. If we can decrease strain on it by keeping off, then no-one should have a problem. I'm sure everyone can wait a few days to put up some reference tags. And if their using this site, there's a high probability that by the time it's reported it's already outdated so maybe holding off as a matter of course is a good idea considering the rate information is changed. Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain, but I disagree. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles reads to me as not permitting these types of disclaimers in articles. I feel either the link goes or the disclaimer goes. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a general information site, and "It's useful" is not a reason to keep it. My 2 c but willing to be convinced otherwise. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably can stay without the disclaimer. I'd just say to anyone reading this talk page to be aware of the high demand on this site and maybe to give it a day or 2 to post non-vital information. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles says otherwise. Why is this an exemption? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not. I just said it doesn't need the disclaimer tag. Are you even reading the other posts? Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, that is right, although I would remove the link altogether. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you can. The only problem with that is if content in the article is verified by that link. We can't keep the content and remove the source without losing our verifiability (Not sure if that's a word) Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Too much unamended WP policy politics. Link and the disclaimer should stay. Nick carson (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

St Andrews

St Andrews has suffered significant fatalities but aside from those fatalities is not mentioned in the atricle and have heard very little about it from the media. 203.87.9.240 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard commercial media malpractice. Listen to/watch sources like the ABC, CFA, etc and you'll get more accurate information. If your after info from St. Andrews, I understand that it is the area north of the T-intersection at the market that has been affectect, everything south of the market and the hotel is fine. The area around Butterman's track is 50/50. They're holding a community meeting in St. Andrews today I think. Also remember that there have been several small communities like St. Andrews that have been further affected, we can't mention them all, but in time we'll be as inclusive as possible. Nick carson (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

'Causes' section

Before we jump into listing or labelling causes, a few things to remember...

The weather that precipitated the floods in Queensland, heatwave in southeast Australia and bushfires in Victoria are all attributale to a weather system that stalled over the Tasman Sea. It has been suspected that climate change has been the 'cherry on the top' of these weather events, causing such high temperatures, such high winds, etc, that led to the extreme conditions at the level they were. Take climate change out of the equation and these events would still have occurred but perhaps not to the same extent as they have. As for drought, it's always an element of all bushfires down here, the largest events occurr in roughly 2 decade cycles as drought dries undergrowth, fires sweep through and then vegetation subsequently recovers until there is enough fuel for subsequent major bushfire events.

I have also been analysing the path of the Kinglake complex from the Kilmore fire origin as it moved through on Saturday the 7th and into Sunday. I won't explain it here but if anyone want's an explaination as to how the fires moved through the Kinglake area so quickly and why the death toll is so high I can offer basic explaination and point you int he right direction for more detailed info.

We should hold off on trying to explain the causes until they have been thoroughly established. There are many fantastic people and websites and things out there that can explain the basics of bushfires to you if your particularly interested. Nick carson (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We get small to medium fires nearly every day in summer. Usually the CFS (CFA in vic.) boys get on top of it pretty quick. Like nick said there are a hundred ways a bushfire can start, both accidental and deliberate. All these conditions like heat and wind are things that make the fires worse, but they don't cause them. I can guarantee that out of 10 fires you'll get 9.99 different causes for them.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The continual reappearance of a 'causes' section, and repeated attempts to describe 'climate change' as a cause, seem very POV to me. While climate change may be a contributing factor it can't by any definition be described as the cause of an act of god fire event. Regardless, any discussion of causes is largely speculative until investigations have concluded. I note that even Tim Flannery has inserted the appropriate caveats in his comments. As is common with some good faith edits, however, it often seems that these caveats are stripped out or ignored when early speculation is added to Wikipedia as 'fact' simply because it got a run in a newspaper somewhere. Debate 木 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to explain the cause of these fires in detail would be an attempt to replicate the dedicated articles on bushfires, Microbursts, etc. we can only summarise and the infobox is adequate enough for summaries of causes. The background section however, is relevant, good addition. Nick carson (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

'Investigations' subsection

Can we please hold off on this content for now. Even spokespeople from the authorities are just bounding about their professional and personal views. A good example is the 'greens preferences' statement. Such statements don't belong in WP even if they can be referenced. The only investigations that should be included here are that of the Royal Comission and the CFA, DSE, DHS, Victoria Police, etc. Randomly placing spokespeople's, politician's and the like, statements is counterproductive, may only serve to propogate misinformation and is merely speculative at this stage. At a later stage we will include an 'Investigations' section but for now the only subsections that should be under the 'Response' section are things like Aid, Government, Community, Media, etc. Nick carson (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion about fire policy has involved a range of politicians, fire officials and experts, and has been covered across many different news media. It would be a problem if the article asserted that the current policy is wrong, or that some other policy should be in place, for example, but the views are identified as belonging to those who hold them. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this section further and agree with you, however, the comments made by David Packham, Wilson Tuckey and Ron Boswell should be removed as they are purely speculative and politically motivated, respecively and none of them hold any authority directly involved with the fires themsleves. Nick carson (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our place to guess the intentions, political or otherwise Nick. While I agree with you, we should use all the sourced information availiable and not pick and choose based on our personal opinions, so long as it's noteable Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just concerned with using individuals opinions (even if they are sourced) who are not directly involved with the responsible authorities. Nick carson (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The statements of Ironbar Tuckey and others should be noted, but not given undue WEIGHT. Tuckey is using this to attack other political parties, which is his right of course. The Greens have a position on fires; they have been for years calling for a international bushfire research centre to be based in Australia, and their response to these fires should also be noted for balance. The how and when of fuel load management and controlled burning is a subject of debate, and we will no doubt get more comment as time goes on. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Could someone include a sentence on the Green's recomendations for the interntional bushfire research centre? Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Police reported today that the initial findings from Task Force Phoenix are that only 1 of the 6 main fires was probably caused by arson. [8] So I think we can rephrase the parts where it is stated arson is the 'major' source like the infobox and add this info to the investigations section. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This recent statement by the Police is not unexpected. As many of the editors here have been stating since this article was created and before, arson is only one of many causes of the various fires. I think a rephrase is overdue. Nick carson (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

False threat messages

Certain commercial media entities have falsely reported that communities in the Warrandyte, North Warrandyte, Research, Kangaroo Ground areas are under threat of ember attack. This has caused a great deal of panic in these areas. The CFA recently reported that this is false, however there is a small grass fire in North Warrandyte that poses no current threat to the surrounding areas and that all notifications should be taken from the CFA and not commercial media sources. This constitutes misinformation and exaggeration on behalf of the offending media sources. Nick carson (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick - this talk page is here to discuss improvements to the article. It is not here for you to discuss the perceived shortcomings of the commercial media. While I appreciate your contributions to this article (which have been impressive) it would be nice if you could do it in a more apolitical fashion. 202.67.91.228 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We also might want to look into mentioning that there's a fair few false fires being reported to the CFA. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the information needed to be shared, not in the article, but at least on the talk page. Point on being a little more apolitical noted :] Nick carson (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Naylor

"...173 people have been confirmed to have been killed by the fires[96] including Brian Naylor, former Seven Network and Nine Network television personality and his wife Moiree, who have been confirmed amongst the dead in the Kinglake West area.[97][98][99]..." Isn't it a little biased to spend half the paragraph on two individuals? 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fissionfox (talk • contribs)

They're two of very few people that have been identified by the media. I suppose celebrities or what-not are those who are seen as more important to report on, just the way the world spins around. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with fissionfox. Why does Naylor get on when others don't? He hasn't been "high profile" for nearly a decade. I can give you the names of 6 people who dserve a mention every bit as much as the Naylors do Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with fissionfox and AC. A person's celebrity or past celebrity status does not make them any more important or significant than anyone else. Nick carson (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so is there consensus to remove mention from the article? Just because the media mentioned Mr Naylor does not mean we need to. -- Barrylb (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Naylor was one of the most prominent broadcasters of the last thirty years, and it damned well warrants mentioning there, certain people's weird issues about "celebrity" notwithstanding. For gods sake, his death was reported in papers on other continents. Rebecca (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just going to be one of those irrational issues. The fact remains that celebrity or prominence in the media does not constitute significance or importance. Nick carson (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a figure known to just about anyone who lived in Victoria in the space of a twenty year period. Thus, he warrants mentioning in the section. This weird attitude toward "celebrity" is bollocks. Rebecca (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not for us to second-guess what the real world considers important. Naylor's death made the tragedy personal for many Victorians; it pushed empathy into sympathy. This is not uncommon with large-scale disasters such as this. It is reflected in the amount of media coverage relating to Naylor, extending to all the major outlets here. And since the ABC is treated as the barometer of all things on this talk page (as it should be), it should be noted that not just presenters but callers have spent quite a bit of time talking about him on 3LO these past days. --bainer (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other figures who are well known amongst their communities who don't get mentioned here. Whatever emotional attachment people felt to a newsreader, however well founded and intentioned, it doesn't match to actual emotional attachment in a real friendship or acquaintance. I'm confident that sympathy was present even before it was announced that Naylor had died. What the 'real world' considers important isn't necessarily what is important (the 'real world' being I assume the majority, mainstream society or perhaps Greater Melbourne? which in all cases are detached if anything from events such as this one). Need I mention that the amount or level of media coverage on any event holds little substance. That being said, I too feel a certain 'false sympathy' for the Naylors as I grew up with him being the 'news man', "Brian told me so", etc. But this hasn't affected my perception of reality. Nick carson (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have zero interest in Brian Naylor, personally. From my perspective his death is but one person amongst many. Nonetheless, he is significantly more widely known (and commented upon) than any other fire death to date. Regardless of whether you feel (as I do) that each person is equally important, in life and in death, Wikipedia doesn't agree. Brian Naylor is notable by our criteria whereas the vast majority of other individuals who died in the fire are not. On that basis alone he warrants a prominent mention in this evolving article. Debate 木 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP policy favoring mainstream POV. A case in point for the need to amend certain core WP policies. Nick carson (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want Richard Zann and Reg Evans deleted too? If someone is notable enough to have their own WP article, and they died or were affected in a subsequent event that gets its own WP article, then we can link back to their original WP article from the latter. Does not seem too controversial to me. I'm sure there's 100s of situations where this has happened in WP. Format (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

This is getting rediculous. Every time i refresh the page, someone has adjusted something, changed some wording or done a total reconstruction. I've seen the words The fire begin three sentences in a row, bushfires mentioned 3 times within 8 words and now someone is incorrectly claiming that the 31 main bushfires were all in Kinglake. Can we have some kind of consusus and just agree to leave the lead simple and easy to understand? I don't agree with the bolded bushfires being linked, it should be avoided. Feb 2009 is repeated, and the Feb bolded also does not constitute the naming of the article that was agreed on. Also, we probably need a section on the heat wave, since it was the whole reason this has happened and it is mentioned in the lead. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Heatwave wasn't the cause of the bushfires. We have a "Heatwave" twice a year down here. It's usually also called "Summer" it's just hot here. We also have bushfires every year like clockwork. If anything you could mention that the Heatwave exacerbated the fires, but mostly it has been the wind that has caused the most trouble. For causes look to arson or other accidental reasons, like lightning strikes. Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is surely notable that the fires came after a extended heatwave (even by the standards of an Australian summer) and the day in question was the hottest recorded day in Melbourne. This does not mean that the fires were caused by the heat, merely that one followed the other and both are of note. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you did, then 'We have a "Heatwave" twice a year down here. It's usually also called "Summer" it's just hot here' is a strange way of saying it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK and then we read on further where I said "If anything you could mention that the Heatwave exacerbated the fires, but mostly it has been the wind that has caused the most trouble. For causes look to arson or other accidental reasons, like lightning strikes." Don't read half my post and assume I'm arguing with you. I agree and I said so. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Temperatures brought on by the heatwave as a result of the stalled weather system over the tasman, no doubt contributed to the conditions observed on the 7th, including the wind, which brings hot air from the continent's interior. Traditionally, extreme bushfire conditions and events have occurred during major heatwaves, such as the 1939 Black Friday fires. So it is correct to state that the heatwave precipitated the fires, but it certainly didn't solely cause them or anything of such nature. Nick carson (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to the original complaint, I've removed some repetition and trivia from the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with kiac concerning the lead, I have only made a few adjustments to it since I first wrote it, but it has been a fair bit all over the place. I do like the version we have at the moment though :] Nick carson (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the heatwave wasn't the sole cause, but it was a factor. And it's not like i don't know what bloody summer is, i live in unaffected bushland in Victoria myself. Obviously it's hot and there's a very high risk of this happening. I have only one problem with the lead now (nice job to those who fixed it up); it states 31 major fires, ignited across the Australian state of Victoria on 7 February 2009. They were not all ignited on 7 Feb, were they? This is inaccurate imo. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this should be corrected, the Bunyip fire had been burning for days previous and broke containment lines on 7 Feb. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I think this sentence The 2009 Victorian bushfires so far have had the highest fatalities of any bushfire to date should be amended considering this list. Perhaps 'In Australia' could be added? --60.241.89.119 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Churchill fire also started burning before the 7th. I think I may have made the mistake of altering that sentence :/ Momentary brain lapse. Regardless, the 7th was when most of them ignited and the rest began to break containment. So conditions on that day were severe across the state and precipitated fires already burning. Nick carson (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been destryed again. blaaa. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On the '31 major fires', is that referring to the 31 fires still burning on 9 Feb as reported in many places such as here? I can find nothing about 31 major fires on 7 Feb, I thought there were hundreds of fires. Reports of major fire fronts on 7 Feb seem to vary by source from 6 to 11. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We should probably just state 'hundreds of fires', unless someone can find the exact figure for the number of fires ignited on the 7th? Rather than merely relying on a commercial source that says "31" which may or may not be true. I have also heard 10, 12, 15, 20 and 27. They can't all be right, we need the facts, regardless of WP:V. Another black hole in WP policy to be weary of. Nick carson (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead talks about "a series of bushfires that were ignited or were burning across the Australian state of Victoria on 7 February 2009". Given the title, we must also include fires this summer that start AFTER 7th February. There have already been several more, and there hasn't been significant rain yet. 218.215.170.10 (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary - the title of the page should be changed to reflect that the article is about the fires centred around 7 Feb. That is the notable event. If some of those fires of note on the 7 Feb were burning before or after that day that can be noted. But, the article doesn't need to cover potentially hundreds of related fires across the state (or even those that might occur next summer in 2009). --Merbabu (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Aid efforts

I have been updating the aid efforts section and have come to the relisation that it will be gow to be very big. See here and here as examples. I am not sure that the section is wothy of its own page. Please provide consensus on how we should proceed. -- E! (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to name every single bank and company and their donation. They're basically just throwing their names in for some good publicity, even though it is a good cause and i commend them. You might be better off stating $10 million was donated by the Commonwealth, National and Bendigo banks and keep it simple. This could demostrate original research, so you may need to find sources stating these figures already. I would oppose creating a new article about just this. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I am an inclusionist here on WP, I think it's best just to use summary style for this sub section, as kiac said above, and perhaps also a total ammount figure. Nick carson (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a section on aid efforts is valuable, but ultimately it's the quantum of aid that matters rather than specific sources. (eg "a total of $X million has been donated.") The criteria for inclusion really needs to be whether the addition of such information genuinely adds to one's general understanding of the event. We do not need to document every single fact. As far as I'm concerned appropriate summaries serve Wikipedia's (and the reader's) needs far better than specifics. Debate 木 14:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I strongly believe that individual company and organisation donations should be available on Wikipedia. Perhaps on a separate page to maintain the integrity and concise style of the main '2009 Victorian Bushfires' page. I created a table which highlights the biggest donors on a staff head count basis. I would like to create a separate page that includes this table - the table would be found via a link in the 'See also' section of the main '2009 Victorian Bushfires' page. This would enable people to judge the relative generosity of corporations and hopefully will encourage some businesses to increase their donations - this having substantial benefit for the fire affected communities. It will also assist in providing an overall figure for the main '2009 Victorian Bushfires' page. I am dedicated to the task of maintaining and updating the list daily as my contribution to the cause. I will provide sources for each figure and realise this is a massive task but believe it is justified as a service to the thousands impacted by this tragedy. If anyone opposes this, please let me know immediately as this is an extremely time-consuming task. Thanks for reading and let's support the victims in every way we can! Cheers Bursta (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I really am not fussed about which way we go here, though one point. I am not in favour of modifying wikipedia standard practice as an encyclopaedic article for a single event. i.e. Bursta may be right in creating another article, but I am not in favour of creating bias in an article by "encourage[ing] some businesses to increase their donations". Having said that, I can also understand that the information provided on that page may be of an encyclopaedic quality for future reference to many people, thus, my vote is to create a new page. -- E! (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to add is that Bursts is correct in saying that it is a time consuming task. Due to that fact, I think we should vote the issue here and now in order to save people (like Bursta) much time if the article will be marked for deletion in the long run anyhow. -- E! (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thousnads of people, business, all sorts of entities, have and are donating not only money but all sorts of things. To do it justice you'd have to list everyone, individuals included, and this is just not practical. Listing certain prominent companies or entities who have the capability of attracting more attention to their donations and whom have the resources and the means in the first place to donate moreso than individuals, is favoring those entities over individuals, which is not excusable. Just because someone/entity has got the profits doesn't mean they should get free advertising on WP. Nick carson (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with splitting off to another article should this section grow too large. It's been done before. -- Longhair\^talk 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair and E! for your input. Especially the reference to the Indian Ocean earthquake where even on the main page they have detailed corporate donations. The reason I am asking for permission to do this, before just doing it, is that this will be a huge investment in time which I don't want to waste if it will later be deleted. I am new to contributing and am willing to dedicate myself to this task because I think it is a worthy cause. How can we reach a final decision on this so I can get going with it? Is there a Mod or similar who can make a ruling? Cheers Bursta (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to name every individual, you would not be expected to. Again, as said above a total sum would have to be used. And you would have to decide whether to include people of note such as Leonard Cohen. If you put in the work i believe this can be done without facing deletion, but if it's not done properly - some jerk will more than likely pop it up for deletion and you will have very little chance of it surviving. Might want to also look into just creating an article about the Aftermath or Recovery Efforts, or something along those lines, may give you more info to work with. Kudos to your initiative. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see such an article ever being deleted. At worst it'll simply be redirected back to this one, keeping the article history intact. Nothing will be lost. -- Longhair\^talk 05:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I am in the process of putting it all together. I would appreciate any feedback early on so I can amend if required. I will post again here when it is up and running. Bursta (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note my initial comments: "Many thousnads of people, business, all sorts of entities, have and are donating not only money but all sorts of things. To do it justice you'd have to list everyone, individuals included, and this is just not practical. Listing certain prominent companies or entities who have the capability of attracting more attention to their donations and whom have the resources and the means in the first place to donate moreso than individuals, is favoring those entities over individuals, which is not excusable. Just because someone/entity has got the profits doesn't mean they should get free advertising on WP." and "Although I am an inclusionist here on WP, I think it's best just to use summary style for this sub section, as kiac said above, and perhaps also a total ammount figure." Nick carson (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a separate page titled '2009 Victorian bushfire donations' with links added to the main '2009 Victorian bushfires'. I used this to help with the formatting and to speed up the process. If anyone wants changes made, please let me know and I will make them. This will be updated regularly. Thanks Bursta (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Task Force Phoenix

The current article states that a task force led by Inspector Greg Hough was set up, however an ABC Source states that Task Force Phoenix was set up to investigate all fire related deaths led by Assistant Commissioner Dannye Moloney of the crime department. Were two tasksforces set up with different objectives or is this one taskforce? High Speed Chaser (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this is the same task force, it was later announced that it was named 'Task Force Phoenix'. Nick carson (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Responses section

To avoid further mess and bloating, I think there should be a subsection for international responses, modelled on something like the International responses to the 2008 Mumbai attacks page. Here are some sources that may come in handy: 1, 2, 3, 4 -- Rehumanist (talk) 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Temperature graphs

Since the high temperature was such a crucial element in this disaster, I have added a graph which shows it in considerable detail. It needs to be reasonably wide, but the current layout is pretty awkward. If someone can improve the layout, that would be great. Robin Whittle (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

Good idea. Looks good. Nick carson (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I will soon have OTRS approval to use new versions of these charts, which were taken off these pages due to me not understanding or following proper commons.wikimedia.org OTRS procedures. Robin Whittle (talk)

Removed "worst natural disaster in Australian history"

In view of claims in article Cyclone Mahina, I have removed the following from the lead sentence: "causing the worst natural disaster in Australia's history."--94.196.91.169 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Australia the federated country was formed in 1901, where Cyclone Mahina struck was still the Colony of Queensland. Return it. --27GV (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove sourced content. Only way for sourced content is to be removed is for it to be discussed. Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss. Is this Herald Sun story, the source for the assertion, a reliable source?--92.40.165.63 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim "worst natural disaster in Australian history" is quite clearly wrong. The death toll from Cyclone Mahina is well documented. In terms of property damage, it is still well behind Ash Wednesday and Cyclone Tracy. 59.167.46.2 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"it is still well behind Ash Wednesday and Cyclone Tracy? Over 180 people dead where as Ash Wednesday and Cyclone Tracy had less (I'm not saying that those were not bad or that they were not disaster when there clearly were). Bidgee (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read carefully. In terms of property damage it is still well behind Ash Wednesday (2,500 houses destroyed) and Cyclone Tracy (5,000+ houses destroyed, 20,000 homeless). In terms of the human toll it is behind Cyclong Mahina (400-410 dead) and the January 1939 Victorian heat wave (438 dead). 59.167.46.2 (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Two reliable sources[9][10] refute the claim that this is Australia's worst natural disaster. 59.167.46.2 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct to remove claims that are easily verified as being wrong such as this one. The Herald sun was simply wrong. -- E! (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. The term "worst" anything is essentially POV. The claims should be rephrased "largest number of deaths", or similar, if for no other reason than this is unequivocally accurate, unlike the current phrasing. In terms of total cost and property damage the 2009 Victorian bushfires are still running well behind 4-5 other natural disasters. The 1989 Newcastle earthquake, for example, caused approximately $4 billion in damage. Debate 木 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's not when more then one "source" states it[11]. Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to differentiate between reporting opinion and reporting fact. If someone is claiming it as the worst, fine, put quotes around it and identify the author in the text. The fact that something has appeared in print, however, even in a reputable "source", does not absolve editors of the responsibility to use some common sense. Plenty of opinion appears in newspaper articles every day. Debate 木 08:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the claim to "highest loss of life from a natural disaster" which is objective, easily confirmed and encyclopedic (not media opinion). 59.167.46.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

However thats not what the article states. The SBS article states this "The bushfires in Victoria have so far claimed 131 lives, making it Australia's worst-ever bushfire disaster. It's also Australia's worst-ever natural disaster in 110 years.[12]". Nothing a bout what you entered. Bidgee (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take inflation into account, Cyclone Tracy caused $5.5 billion in damage in today's prices. 59.167.46.2 (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree "worst" is subjective. It doesn't matter how many media reports use the word, it's still subjective. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake uses the word "deadliest" and I think we should use the same in the lead. ("Australia's deadliest natural disaster since 1899" or similar wording). Peter Ballard (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If a bushfire is deliberately lit, is it a natural disaster? 59.167.46.2 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Arson is one of many sources/causes. Overall, it is a natural disaster. Nick carson (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, wrangling over what exactly qualifies as the 'worst natural disaster' is a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere - this is an encyclopaedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. "One of the worst disasters in Australian history", linked to an appropriate list, should provide readers with all the information they need.

Well put. Nick carson (talk)

They know it's a fire, with suspicions of arson; they can make up their own minds about whether they want to count that as a 'natural disaster' or not. Ditto for the other events on that list. There is enough information here for them to make their own comparisons based on whatever criteria are relevant to them. --144.53.226.17 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See comments above, arson is one of many causes, not the only one. Overall, it can be referred to by definition, as a natural disaster. Nick carson (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Callignee

ABC radio's PM program has just reported that Callignee has been almost totally destroyed. The transcript of the program will be on the PM web site soon. 59.167.46.2 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming

Now I believe in Global Warming but seeing on the 2009 wikipedia page saying that Arson and Global Warming are the main suspisions of the causes of the bush fires is so wrong. May I remind you (and many Australians would agree with me) that February is th HOTTEST month in Australia it's way hotter than December or January, this was expected. Melbourne always gets up to 40-42 every summer and I remember that apparently over 100 years ago the hottest temperature for Melbourne was less than a degree lower than on Saturday, 6th February 2009. It may have had some role no doubt about it but comparing it to arson, please. Bush fires have always been around and always will be, besides records are there to be broken you can't have a record and then never break it over eternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelton1 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in total agreeance. I hate to see a horrific event such as this one being blamed on a ficticious cause. -- E! (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The matter has already been discussed under 'causes' and a more lengthy version of my opinion can be found there. Debate 木 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly your all wrong to not include Global Warming as a prior cause to the heatwave, drought and fires. More importantly Bob Brown and the premier both said it was a reason or factor behind the severity of these conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I, Bob Brown, Brumby and the comment above have all stated. Anthropogenic climate change is not the "cause". It has however, increased the severity/peak/etc of the fires. Nick carson (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we are taking about politicians and looking for something to blame, why not include this -- E! (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Marshall, the national secretary for the United Firefighters Union of Australia has written a public letter to both the Prime Minister and Victorian Premier requesting that Climate Change be taken seriously. The Victorian fires will, according to the CSIRO, become a continuing threat if nothing is done to tackle this issue. His opinion is that "Given the Federal Government's dismal greenhouse gas emissions cut of 5 per cent, the science suggests we are well on the way to guaranteeing that somewhere in the country there will be an almost annual repeat of the recent disaster and more frequent extreme weather events." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489847.htm http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/face-global-warming-or-lives-will-be-at-risk-20090211-84od.html?page=-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An unproven theory—no matter how widely held—cannot be cited factually as a cause or even as a facor in the conditions which led to it. Supt. of Printing (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Gravity is an unproven theory. Do you suggest we remove all references to aircraft falling downwards in articles on them?--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The CSIRO can be cited factually. Anthropogenic climate change was a factor in increasing the severity of this particular bushfire event. To what degree perhaps will remain unknown. But it certainly wasn't the cause, these fires and the kinglake firestorm would have happened without ACC, perhaps with a slightly reduced area burnt and/or slightly reduced loss of life. Nick carson (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where exactly to put that but it is very relevent considering the source and the imminent threat to firefighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that global warming doesn't exist but it seems to me that if global warming was as much to blame as arson then it should have been more than 0.5 degrees hotter then the last highest temperature for Melbourne which was more than 100 years ago and you all have to remember that records are always going to be broken think about it someone has to beat a swimming record in the olympics so some temperature will beat it in one city another time and lets not forget like mentioned, February is our hottest month it is way hotter than December and January you could almost kill yourself in the heat and it always will be, all I am saying is don't compare Global warming to Arson because it isn't a main cause. Mitchelton1 (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the science that is the relevant consideration, not personal opinions. Every major national scientific body that has a statement supports climate change. See Scientific opinion on global warming. The bushfire RC and CSIRO support that climate change has adverse implications for bushfires. They are documented and relevant science. Our peronal views and understandings are not relevant. Climate impacts are relevant background to the intensity of these fires. The relevance of climate change is that these are the first major fires since the BushfireRC published its report and the CSIRO published theirs predicting increased severity of bushfires. These fires occurred during record temperatures. The fire union has expressed concern about climate change as a result of these fires. This is relevant background. Note I do not alleged specific causation.dinghy (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As the Firies union letter about climate change was a response to the fires I have reinstated it under that heading dinghy (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't deny that global warming may have been a factor in these fires, if we need to rely on an opinion piece by a union official to support the case (whose expertise is in industrial relations, not bushfire science or climate change) this should send out some serious warning signals to people. While one's natural reaction may be to associate every extreme weather event with climate change, the link in each individual instance is inevitably speculative. If most qualified observers have been reluctant to draw a direct link between the fires and climate change despite numerous attempts by the media to get them to do so we should be be similarly reluctant. See, in particular, WP:undue. Furthermore, using that letter as a stepping stone to introduce general information on climate change to the article, in my view, steps over the line into original research as well. Debate 木 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Debate, I am not introducing original research or drawing conclusions by synthesis. I am including a response by the firefighters union, prompted by the bushfires. An open letter by the firefighters union is notable. I don't claim that Warming is a direct cause of a particular fire, but the fact that the fire union asks the government to consider the published science from a Bushfire Research Centre is relevant. It is reported by a reliable source. A published, referenced piece by an IPCC lead author, Chief adviser to the Victorian Government on climate change and a Professor of Meteorology at a leading Universtiy (all of which David Karoly is) in response to the fires is also notable, reliable and worthy of inclusion. cheers dinghy (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, Its not enough that all Newscorp media ignore this factor in their publications but that we have to argue this issue to Wikipedians, even when science backs up all these details, is frankly annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.113 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this ABC news report] the Climate Institute (an NGO with Murdoch family funding connections) CEO John Connor told Stateline NSW (on February 20, 2009) that in his organisation's concluded view: "These are the fires of climate change that we've seen in Victoria and perhaps indeed in Port Lincoln in South Australia in 2005. Climate change is not just about warmer weather. It's about wilder weather. Climate change costs ... climate change kills". These claims of a relationship between the severity of the fires and climate change must be adequately reflected in this article, just as any other reputable notable and reliable organisations public statements should be included, particularly as they fires are consistent with the findings of the Bushfire RC and CSIRO. This is not to suggest that other different claimed causes of intensity/frequency etc made by other organisations of similar stature ought not also be included. Continued deletion/severe editing of claims made by notable bodies about a relationship between these specific fires and climate change smacks of POV. dinghy (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If the Murdoch family are saying this was influenced by climate change then I'm all for inclusion in the article. Normally you'd expect a family like that to deny until Melbourne sees its first 55 degree day. That is a significant enough organisation to consider it as something relevant EVEN IF not a proveable link. There are mentions in the articles about the September 11 attacks referring to the numerous, sometimes conflicting theories of government conspiracy. That doesn't make those theories right. In fact it just proves that someone is wrong. But they're known widely enough and discussed widely enough to be considered relevant to the article. So if Murdoch & the Fire Fighters Union think its relevant, if the media think its relevant and if nearly everyone I know has talked about its relevance then its worth mentioning. I'm not saying start the article with "Global warming kills again". Perhaps:

"The Bushfires have caused renewed debate on the subject of climate change since they came off the back of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia's respective hottest days on record as well as a 12 year drought. Principle scientific bodies in Australia such as the CSIRO have been cautious about drawing a direct link as it is hard to demonstrate such a link so rapidly. On the other hand other commentators such as the "Climate Institute" and the "Fire Fighters Union" have been quick to point out the connection."--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be a small number of editors who insist on drawing a direct connection between climate change and the fires. It is a link that cannot be made, according to the CSIRO. All references currently in the article support the contention that climate change will result in an increased number of fires and fire risk days, but none make the claim that the fires were caused by climate change. For example, the current CSIRO information on the fires states that "It is not possible to attribute an individual weather event to climate change. .... The dryness over the last 12 years may be due to natural variability but may also be partly due to an increase in greenhouse gases, however it is still too early to tell."[13] [my emphasis]. Similarly, the Time Magazine article states "It's important to acknowledge that no single weather event can be definitively caused by climate change — and it's possible that the current inferno in Australia might have been as intense and deadly even without the warming of the past several decades."[14] Congratulations on having now found one that does come pretty close, with the Climate Change Institute stating that "these are climate change fires", although I would think that in terms of assessing reliable sources the CCI would still be trumped by the CSIRO. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you add the reference, properly attributed, as long as it's not the lead. While editors who are arguing that the article should make the direct link might think that they are in some sort of battle with climate change deniers, this is a false dichotomy. The only argument occurring here is between editors wishing to ensue that the text is consistent with the references and does not over-emphasize a particular perspective, and with those who for whatever reason feel that they need to make a stronger claim in this article than is made by the vast majority of available sources. Debate 木 06:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the intricacy of this discussion has caused participants to lose the forest for the trees. (Perhaps that metaphor is in bad taste here, but I can't think of an alternative.) It seems to me that the overall theme of global warming can be summarized quite easily, even in the lead. No one is suggesting that the sun heated the surface of the earth to the temperature at which wood catches fire. No one knows definitively that global warming caused the drought, although it is clear that greenhouse gas emissions and Australian temperatures have had a positive correlation (aka "risen together") for the past half-century. So what does that give us? Global warming is a suspected distal cause of the fires, much as arson is a suspected proximal cause. Suspected distal cause. Three words that can fit anywhere in the article. Adjectives can work wonders. As for the Climate Institute quotation, it would fit nicely in 2009_Victorian_bushfires#Climate_change, which I have already reworded to reflect the rather dire tone of the Time article, while maintaining the caution of the CSIRO source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I am not wedded to the existing sentence but this "The 2009 Victorian bushfires were a series of bushfires ignited across the Australian state of Victoria on 7 February 2009" is horribly phrased. Of course the 2009 Victorian bushfires were bushfires and the first phrase in the sentence merely repeating the article title. Also if treats the article title as an official name rather than a title of convenience. Different people, agencies and media outlets are using different names and for us to choose one name to bold like an official title smack of original research. Honestly, you don't have to bold everything. --Mattinbgn\^talk 08:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The bold article name is a manual of style issue (see WP:BOLDTITLE). Other than that, I'd be happy for you to have go at rephrasing. Debate 木 08:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't mandate title bolding; it is only "a general rule" and not set in stone. Secondly, it doesn't solve the other issue raised in the essay which is "It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly-accepted name, or the only acceptable title, when it is actually just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage". We don't have an official or even generally accepted name for this event; this article title at present is only one of convenience. The opening sentence looks fine to me but if someone else can think of an elegant way to include a bold title in the lead sentence that doesn't give undue weight to the term "2009 Victorian bushfires" I won't complain. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The title is descriptive, it is not being used as a proper noun. We know this because the 'b' in bushfires is not capitalised. Regardless of your or my view on the manual of style, your objection appears to be a general one that is not unique to this article. Consequently, your objection would be best taken up on the MOS talk page rather than attempting to make a specific exception here. Debate 木 08:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

highest loss of life from a natural disaster in 110 years

This statement is incorrect many things such as the Tsunami and Indian Earthquake killed alot more people.193.195.192.220 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The poor wording of that version now appears to have been fixed. Debate 木 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. The sentence "The 2009 Victorian bushfires were a series of bushfires ignited across the Australian state of Victoria on 7 February 2009, resulting in Australia's highest ever loss of life from a bushfire, and the highest loss of life from a natural disaster in Australia in 110 years" is arguably incorrect. It is debatable whether this is the worst natural disaster in 110 years. The referenced article does not state this and the Emergency Service database cites other more recent events such as heatwaves which have claimed more lives in 1938 and 1939. (see List of disasters in Australia by death toll) It is worth noting that there appears to be no hard and fast definition on the duration of a "natural disaster". However, the contention that it is the highest loss of life from a bushfire seems to be well supported by independent sources. Scrooke (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, I have no problem with the lead being narrowed to 'bushfire'. Nonetheless, 'natural disaster' does not generally include such things as disease and heat stroke because a natural disaster is substantially more immediate - otherwise the definition becomes meaningless and you may as well include cancer. See natural disaster: "any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences, such as avalanche, earthquake, flood, forest fire, hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, and volcanic eruption" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural%20disaster Debate 木 12:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there are different opinions on this matter ... eg the main body of Natural disaster includes disease epidemics and heatwaves. Ultimately the term 'natural disaster' is probably not all that useful and I suggest we avoid it because coming up with a good definition is likely impossible. Barrylb (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If 'natural disaster' includes disease epidemics, then Australia's worst natural disaster was the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic which killed 66 times the number of people as the Victorian fires. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think they can be referred to as 'natural disasters' as epidemics are usually human-spread, not naturally. Nick carson (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note also, that the 1918 pandemic was a global pandemic, not only limited to Australia. Moreover, influenza pandemics are categorised as separate from natural disasters. It looks like the only natural disasters to have yielded a greater loss of life than these bushfires have been cyclones. Nick carson (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gippsland fires

What's the point of the long section on the Gippsland fires? If these grew into the disatrous Feb 7 fires, the article should say so. Otherwise, the entire section should be moved to 2008-09 Australian bushfire season. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is some overlap between the two articles you mention. Over time some of these problems will no doubt be rectified, but in the interim we should be able to tolerate a little overlap until things settle down and we can sort out how best to integrate the articles. Debate 木 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now re-read the section and, given that the Gippsland section is listed under 'background', I'm even less concerned. Any good article contains background so that a casual reader doesn't have to follow several hyperlinks to get the basics. Good quality encyclopedias have a certain level of redundancy built-in in order to enhance readability and functionality. Debate 木 12:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not about redundancy, but relevance. The article meanders on for 5 paragraphs - almost a screenful - about fires the week before. How is it relevant to the fires on Feb 7? Peter Ballard (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for a start, the article is titled 2009 Victorian bushfires. The events described are bushfires and they occurred in Victoria in 2009. While I'm sure that there is a school of thought that the article should be exclusively concerned with 7 Feb, it's not an opinion that I share. Constructing an article around a single day is unnecessarily arbitrary and potentially misleading. Debate 木 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Of course we need an article dedicated to the events of Feb 7 - one of the biggest natural disasters in Australia's history. Feb 7 is the day that firestorms swept through and killed 180+ people. What happened in other fires is trivial, utterly trivial, compared to that event. Mentioning them clutters the article. It's akin to putting all 1977 train derailments in the Granville rail disaster article. Besides, the other fires can go in 2008–09 Australian bushfire season. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO this is something that really needs to be given some time and distance between events and article content, yes there are going to be an accumulation of unnecessary detail in the short term and there is a lot more to come as the various reports, investigations, and ultimately some prosecutions occur. Gnangarra 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Which shouldn't prevent us from deleting (or moving to 2008–09 Australian bushfire season) irrelevant detail when we see it. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

of course not, point I'm raising is that what relevant/irrelevant now may be different as time passes, consideration of daughter articles for the main sections (including each fire complex) may be necessary as the information disolves into details with recounts, ingnition causes and cleanups. This article is probably going to need to become an overview to focus on overall conditions summaries of each complex, international responses, donations royal commisions etc . Gnangarra 07:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

the general Australian article isnt the right place for the gippsland fire information either, that should be in a broad Victoria article, the 2008–09 Australian bushfire season should be a higher level article which goves broad coverage of each state and the Feb 7 fires as the worst/largest etc should have a section in that one. Putting Gippsland in there is actually saying its more significant relation to the Australian season than the feb 7 event Gnangarra 07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra. The 2008–09 Australian bushfire season article should not be covering more specific info such as the Gippsland fires. It should be summarising information, and then expanding on it in articles such as this one. Since the choice was to leave this named as 2009 Victorian bushfires, what's stopping the Gippsland fires from being included? However, it should be shortened as it is needlessly 7 paragraphs long and could easily be cut down to 3-4. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The section gives a background on the conditions leading up to Feb 7. The fires were also thought to be linked to the Churchill complex at one point, though they're now considered to be separate. Moreover, there's the discussion about building controls and how to deal with arsonists that comes out of those fires, a bad omen in the context of the discussions that are now happening on the same subjects. --bainer (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Water Catchments

I've already mentioned this on the 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave page, but it actually should go here, too. I think there should be a subheading under "Effects" regarding the short and long term impact to the water catchments and reservoirs of the Melbourne area. Apart from that immediately posed by the fires, there is the problem of the next major rain washing all the ash and, more importantly, the flame retardant chemicals used, into the reservoirs. Apparently this happened after the Canberra bushfire in 2003, and they still haven't regained potable water standards. I haven't got time to do full research on this, but read opinion piece in The Age. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an obvious risk, however other than that I don't think we need to preempt anything here. If such an event happens it will be covered in media and added in due course. For the moment, however, this discussion is purely speculative. Debate 木 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

True, purely speculative indeed. Just gotta wait and see what happens. Nick carson (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivanhoe East grass fire

Earlier this afternoon, a grass fire sparked at Ivanhoe East, Victoria (Less that a km from me :P ). Is this worth mentioning? It caused some evacs and road closures. I have a few photos too. It could be part of the main bushfires group. It is mentioned on the CFA website here. What do other people think? Chicken-7 ^talk 08:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some photos of this fire and the smoke through Heidelberg. Not sure if we should include it or not, it was perhaps notable as it occurred in quite a built up area, well in the Greater Melbourne area. We should discuss further. Nick carson (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's notable probably depends on how many homes were destroyed. Remember stuff stays on Wikipedia for years. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No homes so far because it is in a parkland area, near the river. But it is right near a built up suburb. I went to the area earlier (there were road blocks but I know the back way ;) ) and the fire was visible from the road which was lined with houses. I heard the fire has flared up yet again tonight. Chicken-7 ^talk 10:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's notability would lie in the fact that it is located practically in the middle of Greater Melbourne. Note; it started near the Main Yarra Trail in the Yarra Flats park, south of the Banksia Street Bridge. Nick carson (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned it in the 2008-09 Australian bushfire season article as I believe that it is far enough removed from the February 7 bushfires that even if it is notable, it doesn't warrant a mention in that article. I am however of the belief that it is notable, thus my mentioning it in the dedicated season article. Nick carson (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Not sure if vandals will read this but it's worth a shot... If you wanna have fun, go to uncyclopedia or something, play nintendo, go to a gig. Nick carson (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Koala

This is such a nice story. I don't know if it's in the article but maybe someone will find a way to work it in if it's not. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an amazingly nice story :] But such stories are for us to share and be preserved in the memories of those individuals directly involved. Wikipedia is the place for the cold hard facts (although some WP policy would disagree with me). I think such stories would be diminished by their inclusion on WP anyway. Enjoy it and remember it. Nick carson (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An article, Sam (koala), has recently been created. Melburnian (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How many are missing?

I haven't seen any estimate of how many people are missing. Without being ghoulish, it would be good to get a feel for the maximum possible number of people who may have died. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to tell. Through Steels Creek for example, every second property has a police tape tied to the gate indicating that police are required to further search the debris, same with many of the cars on the side of the road. This is just one small town, and I imagine the same can be said of many affected settlements, so we'll just have to let DVI do their job. There have however, been predictions that as many as 100 people could have died in Marysville. If this proves true then the final toll could be as high as 250-270, not counting any further discoveries in other settlements. I find the fact that the figure has stalled for the last few days a bit scary. There had been at least 2 revisions of the toll down due to some DVI mistakes, so I think they're just wanting to take their time. I'd be keeping an ear out if Victoria Police announce a press conference during the day, could be in for a bit of a shock. On the other hand, the final figure could be as little as just over 200 if their estimates of missing residents in Marysville prove incorrect. Nick carson (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is much grounds for optimism with Marysville tragically. The account I heard of a firefighter who passed through marysville before the fire hit told of people banging on the side of their truck to get them to help their neighbour's who were stuck in burning houses.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've seen reports that the toll could be as high as 200, and other reports saying it might be as high as 300. That suggests the number of missing is anywhere between 19 and 119. I know it's a chaotic situation, but I would have thought they'd have had a slightly less rubbery figure than that range. By now, someone must have a list of people of whom nothing has been heard since 7 February and whose bodies haven't been found. But, as you say, no updates have been given out for a few days now, so maybe they're waiting until they're reasonably sure of the numbers before saying any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they suspect it'll be lower now, I think their estimates were a tad high and they had a fair few people unaccounted for. Shouldn't rise much above 200. Nick carson (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Prominent link to the DSE site

I am about to add a brief but prominent section pointing people to the http://www.dse.vic.gov.au site. Within the site, the URLs are ridiculously long and perhaps not very stable. However, there is a wealth of information there, including daily updated fire maps, in great detail, and rapidly updated warnings, guidance etc. This should help people who want to find official, real-time information on the fires. Robin Whittle (talk)

Links to weather maps and animated weather radar images

I added some new material to the end of the Kinglake Complex section. Hundreds of people were killed and I think it helps to understand the role played by the weather. It might be good to add that this is a perfectly typical pattern of hot north-easterly wind and cool change, since this alignment of pressure systems is typical for Victoria - most of the year I think. We would need to cite a reference to this effect. What is not so typical is the high temperatures, the dessicated bushland, and the fires themselves, being in populated bushland areas. Robin Whittle (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Within a few minutes Camw deleted this material and added a note to my Talk page, that my edit "appears to be unconstructive" and "if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary". I thought my edit summary was informative: "Major fires: Kinglake complex: linking to archives weather maps and animated radar images which show the wind patterns and indicate the movement of the fires." I will try a more informative summary when I add this material again.

Camw, if you or other people think this is not a constructive addition, please debate the matter here. You haven't yet given any reasons for why you think it is not a worthwhile, properly referenced, addition to this page. It is a bit rough spending several hours working on this and having it removed so quickly by someone I don't know, with no obvious justification. Robin Whittle (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please wait until the Bureau of Meteorology releases it's report. Problem is images of the synoptic (which the public released version is just basic), Radar and satellite images can be seen as original research. The weather that day was very complex (I have no idea if the BoM will release the full information or basic for the public) and one issue I do see if that the radar image will show the correct direction of the fire for the first few hours but then you have a surface wind change that the radar will not show as radar's can only see a few 100 metres above the ground. Bidgee (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, on my Talk page you wrote in support of Camw deleting my addition, stating that it was original research. OK - but I suppose if I could find references that the plumes from larger bushfires do show up on weather watch radar, and that the wind directions from low and high pressure systems were as I described, then it wouldn't be original research. It would then be helpful guidance in interpreting the weather charts and radar images. The wind direction stuff is common knowledge within the field, but not understood by all readers, including those from the Northern Hemisphere who are used to the systems rotating in the opposite directions. It is axiomatic that weather watch radar picks up clouds, and it is common knowledge that large fires create clouds. Do I need to find a reference that large bushfires produce clouds?

I didn't write or infer that the radar images showed the movement of the fires. Readers already know the fires moved direction when the cool change arrived. This is simply a way of visualising something about the fire movement from the plumes and how this is driven by a wind change - which in turn can be seen to be caused by the various pressure systems and their movement. Readers already know (via various properly cited references) that plume near the fire is probably dropping embers on the ground downwind so while the radar-visible plume extends well downwind of the fire itself, its movement still gives some indication of which way the fire is developing on the ground.

Regarding your objections above, I think you are being overly fussy about how people might misinterpret the weather charts and radar images. On one hand you object to my attempt at giving basic guidance on these images (for instance pointing out that they detect clouds - I did not say that they detect the fires themselves). On the other hand, you seem to object to having the links to these important meteorological records on the grounds that someone might misinterpret them! I don't think that is a good enough argument not to link to these highly relevant resources.

I will add the links without any such explanations. They are clearly highly relevant to understanding this situation. If we keep the links on the page, this enables people look at the charts and radar images and figure it out for themselves - as many will be keen to do.

Even when the Bureau's report eventuates, I think these links will still be relevant. Robin Whittle (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if anything that needs to be added is the details of the day of the disaster which really can only come from the CFA, DSE and the Bureau of Meteorology but not personal analysis. What you added with the smoke plumes as clouds was incorrect anyway as radar's can only see is droplets (IE: Rain) and particles (Smoke and even insects). Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, I will remove the reference to clouds. The addition will consist purely of links to primary meteorological records which are obviously relevant to the fires. The text I will add does not add any analysis or take the place of any kind of report from experts, government authorities etc. It is simply a statement that these primary meteorological resources exist for the day and area in question. Then it has links to those resources. That seems to be 100% "encyclopedic". Robin Whittle (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have spent about 8 hours yesterday and today researching these materials and attempting to put then on this page. I believe I have refined the material to cope with all the critiques which have been raised. If any individual has an objection to the current very short section, I would appreciate them discuss it here rather than deleting it. I accidentally made this into a new section. If someone thinks it would be better as a subsection of "Background" that would be fine by me. Robin Whittle (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Maps, warnings and incident reports" section

This section seems to be for giving advice, which is not what Wikipedia is about. I'll remove it if no one objects.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is intentionally brief and written so as not to constitute advice. It is a statement of fact about the existence of primary sources of information about the fires and contains a very brief summary of what information is available on those sites. By way of references, this section also enables people to find the URLs of these sites. Robin Whittle (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a source for links, or an index for links. People can find these through many other websites, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This section impedes on the article's integrity - it is not encyclopedic, it is not in line with the other information present. The information should be integrated into the rest of the article, if you deem it to be necessary. I vote Weather maps and Weather Watch Radar images and Maps, warnings and incident reports to both be removed, or otherwise moved into the other sections. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it's not a link directory, but that doesn't stop us including external links to outside sources of information that are still useful but don't belong in an encyclopaedia, for whatever reason. I do think that the links should be moved to the external links section though. --bainer (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

All it is is link dropping, saying: 'such and such can be seen here, as well as here and here' just does not belong in the article. Also this is off topic but the flags shouldn't be there either, but whenever i remove those from an article - people seem to add them straight back up even though it's against WP policy, that's another issue though. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Detailed Melbourne temperature chart for 6, 7 and 8 February

I am about to add a chart showing the Melbourne temperature in detail for 7 February and the days before and after. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melbourne-temp-2009-02-07.png I will add it to the "Kinglake fire complex" section, because the temperature in Melbourne would closely resemble the temperature of the winds entering and fire area and driving the fires so fast. Also, the timing of the cool change in Melbourne is clearly visible. This image is public domain and is derived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melbourne-temp-2009-02-10.png which has had its public domain permission status verified and archived in the OTRS system. Robin Whittle (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Should also be included in the 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave article. Nick carson (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Building codes section

I notice that this section has been reinserted, however in my view the commentary is too far removed from the events we're discussing in this article for inclusion here. It is not the job of this article to document all issues relevent to bushfires, of which there are potentially an infinite number. Perhaps the paragraph could be reinserted in a general article on bushfires, but the entire section as it stands reads as an argument to influence a prospective process developing national standards rather than adding anything substantial to the events of and around 7 Feb. Debate 木 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I was about to remove this myself, along with "Increased risks from climate change". It appears as if the article is trying to push some sort of agenda. This info instead belongs in the "bushfires" article --Biatch (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that if a bushfire takes hold, it doesn't really matter what type of house, design or materials you use, therefore building codes are negligible when bushfires are concerned, the frequency of major bushfire events is also too small. If you look at cyclones, they occurr more often and there are all sorts of simple things you can do to reduce property damage in the event of a cyclone. The best thing for bushfire prone areas is to have a small, airtight, masonry outbuilding or bunker or basement, provided it's built correctly, you only need to seek refuge inside until the fire front passes. Many people had them during these fires and they saved many lives. Nick carson (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Today in most houses it's called a bathroom. ;-p Which, as the CFA will tell you, is a significantly safer place to survive a bushfire when fully prepared than almost anywhere else this side of some place else entirely - provided you leave it and start putting out embers immediately after a fire front passes (ie about 15 minutes) and don't wait for the house-fire to really get going. Debate 木 08:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bathrooms obviously didn't work. Standards Australia and the Victorian government have reacted with fastracking of standards and a debate today in the Vic parliament respectively. I have updated and reinstated building codes under Consequences dinghy (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it's not at all clear that anything is "obvious" at this point. A great number of deaths are clearly attributable to people being caught in the open rather than in their houses. Furthermore, we have no good information about the level of preparation undertaken by those who did perish. I don't propose to engage in an extensive discussion here about fire safety and preparaton (people can take it to my talk page if they like), suffice to say that there's a fair amount of assuming going on all around at the moment and not much of it is particularly helpful. Debate 木 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As well intended the amended standards are, they still don't cover extreme firestorm conditions. In addition, there is little anyone can do in many cases if the conditions are right, to prevent property loss or damage. We have to live with the fact that bushfires happen in this region of the world and Australia, and that we must either leave the affected or potentially affected area early, or retreat to a properly constructed underground bunker/outbuilding whilst the fire is at it's peak. It is also worth considering the frequency and likelihood of such events, even factoring the affects of climate change, compared to the likelihood of an event such as a motor vehicle accident, to understand why standards and codes for structures in bushfire-prone areas must not be too extreme. This is relevent on WP because we should not include any information to the contrary, predominantly speculative and/or opinionated, as it may propogate misinformation.Nick carson (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your view on shelters/bushfire survival is at odds with the vast majority of qualified commentary to date, including from the CSIRO[15][16]. The current recommendation remains that a well prepared home is the best place to shelter [17][18], despite your opinion to the contrary. Debate 木 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Even the best prepared home is still suseptible to ignition, one ember located near exposed timber or other combustible material is all it takes, in the midst of a firestorm or even average bushfire conditions, it's difficult, sometimes impossible to spot embers within a structure. A masonry outbuilding or underground/basement, air tight and perhaps equipped with various preparations decreases the size of the structure and removes flammable material from the reach of embers or fire itself, provided it is constructed properly. Such a refuge can be sought if the option of leaving the area no longer becomes timely. Some of the CFA, CSIRO and other entities information regarding such issues will be amended following findings of such entities and the royal commission. But these aren't new ideas, many houses had such structures and they saved many lives. Nick carson (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dandenong Ranges fire

"On February 15, another threat alert was issued by the CFA due to a 5-hectare fire in the Belgrave/Tecoma/Sherbrooke area. The fire was contained within hours and by 8:30pm, declared to be 'under control'." - is there a source for this? Because I just came across a news article stating a different story, saying that although the intensity of the fire has been reduced, it still remains out of control Fire breaks out in Dandenong Ranges - should this section be changed to reflect this article? - Sarz (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a primary source, but current CFA advice is that the fire is no longer a threat. See http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/incident_updates.htm#1477352502884 Debate 木 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The CFA is more reliable. Nick carson (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the scope that has been undertaken previously, the new fires in Upwey and Belgrave should probably not be in this article. On a sidenote, has anyone heard about the petrol station fire in Emerald? I was about 30 metres away from it when it started, scary shit. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 11:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign nationals?

Someone has placed information in the article about foreign nationals killed in the fires. Reading the links provided it doesn't really say in any case that those people were actually still citizens of the foreign country, and in at least one article, refers to the people having emigrated to Australia. Naturally given the fact that this has made news worldwide, overseas (in this context, I mean 'non Australian') news sources would natrually take an interest in people killed in the fires who originated in that country. But as we can't really ascertain from those specific articles that the people's nationality is with the overseas country so I don't know that this section is accurate. If it's simply Australian citizens who originated from overseas then it's likely there are many more than the people cited, and the information is incorrect regarding the nationality of the people. If they are foreign nationals, there's not enough information in the articles cited, nor is there a single source, to categorically state that they are foreign nationals and/or that the list is definitive. However I'm just a noob so I don't want to remove or mofidy information unless a consesus is reached, so this is simply to get the discussion rolling... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.175.138 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is problematic. Tragically, this is a thoroughly fraught issue on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality) and you are right to raise the issue here on talk. For many of the reasons you describe issues of citizenship and nationality are controversial and it is not always possible to infer the preference of an individual after their death. Nonetheless, the general approach is to let the facts speak for themselves. One approach is that country of birth can usually be inferred from those articles and is a factual way to describe the situation. Issues of citizenship and "nationality", on the other hand, are generally open to interpretation, or at least difficult to determine. Regardless, please consider creating an account and contributing more often since you seem capable of making an extremely worthwhile contribution. Debate 木 12:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually citizenship is pretty clear cut - all countries have laws that define the criteria for citizenship, and Australia recognises dual citizenship. Deaths by foreign nationality are covered in other articles. We can just say that of the victims x were A, y were Z etc, without implying that people can only be of one nationality. Kransky (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a particularly notable area for overseas tourists, especially in February, so it puzzled me as to why apparently 5 or 6 foreign nationals died. If they have Australian citizenship then I wouldn't mention their nationality or include them in such a list. Nick carson (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Citizenship" might or might not be relatively clear cut (case against: dual citizenship, people who acquire citizenship for employment or other reasons but who otherwise still associate strongly with their country of birth, etc.). Regardless, a significant number of editors don't accept that this is the most relevant information, hence why it has not been possible for Wikipedia to arrive at a policy on the topic (see the commentary at Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality). The use of citizenship as the primary national categorization inevitably leads to edit wars as editors attempt to claim various individuals as their own. These edit wars are largely unnecessary where a less controversial categorization can be used. Country of birth simply doesn't have the baggage that citizenship brings with it. Debate 木 23:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Scope

In my view it is now becoming worthwhile discussing the scope of this article. Although the title is currently ambiguous, most of us seem to accept that it largely concerns fires on or around 7 Feb. Personally, I oppose restricting it exclusively to 7 Feb. Nonetheless, some boundaries appear to be in order. Consequently, I propose that we refer any editors adding information about bushfires not related to complexes active between approximately 6 and 8 Feb to 2008–09 Australian bushfire season. This would include such additions as the 15 Feb Belgrave fires. Additional activity by ongoing 7 Feb fires could continue to be added. nb. I don't propose to reconsider the title here. As above, and as several of us have argued, in my view it remains far too earely to revist that particular discussion. Debate 木 12:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that article should be limited to the fires directly related to the 7 Feb. If those particular fires last for more than that day it is fine to include. But not a fire that breaks out elsewhere in Victoria say in March. I would also expect the cleanup, investigations, etc to be covered here. --Merbabu (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should focus on fires directly related to 7 Feb. Currently, it doesn't really do this. 7 Feb was by far the worst day by several measures, yet this is not really prominent in the article. That is why the term Black Saturday is getting use more to describe that day, but I don't think the article name should reflect that at this point in time. Peter Campbell 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 'Debate' on all counts. the Yarra Flats fire is a good example of how to handle fires that occur prior to feb 6-8. Nick carson (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronology not clear

The chronology of fires is currently not very clear. You have to read the details on each fire to determine when they started, and some don't have a start date. I suggest a chronology section be added to clarify this. For example, the Bunyip fire predated Feb 7, and some other fires came after it. But Feb 7 was the worst day, and the sequence of fires on this day (and what they burnt when) if of particular signficance. Peter Campbell 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although we could also perhaps just be consistent throughout the major fires section, then have a small chronology section where we can briefly state what happened when and where. Nick carson (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a small chronology section is a good idea. I will prepare some content for this. Peter Campbell 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Needs some perfecting/tweaking. Nick carson (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Injuries & Hospital

I think the information we have about the number injured, the number in hospital, in intensive care, etc, is out of date. Particularly, the sentence about injuries & the number in hospital in the lead. Does anyone have any thoughts on good sources for this info? Nick carson (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wind change?

The article doesn't really make clear the impact of the wind change on the fires and the timeline provided is appallingly poor. As I recall form speaking to a friend and the radio, Kinglake - the main street at least - was impacted by fire at around 7:00pm - 8:00pm while the timeline doesn't really make any of this clear. Either remove it or improve it. --218.215.25.139 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We only recently added the chronology section, it should be perfected soon enough. If you read the section on the Kinglake Complex fire it briefly explains the movements of the fire and the impact of the wind change on it's direction. Nick carson (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found a reference for the wind change at about 19:30 for the Kilmore and Murrundindi fires. It is amazing how poor the time references are in most of the news reports. Events unfolded so quickly that news reports seem to come out in a rush (panic even) without much detail. I think the chronology (or lack of it) will be very important for assessing the spread of the fires, warnings, responses etc. I can't find a reference for when the fire front hit Marysville, but it would appear to be about 19:00. Maybe we could list chronologies under fire headings too? Peter Campbell 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Meteorology will be releasing a report on the fires (If I can recall it will be for the whole event but will focus on the 7th). The Media don't really have a great understanding about weather conditions were as the CFA have some understanding (not as much as a Meteorologist) and I'll think it will be sometime before we see a report from the CFA and DSE however the greatest of details will no doubt be in the Royal Commission into the fires. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is useful but the Four Corners "Two Days in Hell", available for viewing here, provides a fairly good chronological account of some of the fires. It also explains how the early reports eventually filtered through, how authorities reacted on the 7 and 8 February and I think it mentions the wind change. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee said it all. I think the best or only sources to use will be the various reports as they are released. Nick carson (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a wind chart for Fawkner beacon on Port Phillip Bay showing the wind change around 6pm. It seems to have reached the fire fronts of the southern parts of the Kinglake Complex fire around 7pm, a couple of articles say this. By the way, Marysville was burnt by the Murrindindi Mill fire prior to the wind change as far as I can tell, not the the Kinglake fire heading north east (which burnt Flowerdale). Peter Campbell 12:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Animated Map

Can someone with the appropriate software (illustrator/photoshop) and time, using the DSE, DHS & CFA as sources, create an animated map of the fires from when they started and where they spread. Perhaps just start with the Kinglake/Murrindindi Complex and see how we go. A good example is the map in the 2003 Canberra bushfires article, shown to the right. Just be mindful of arranging the dates/times appropriately, the fire spread quickly on the 7th, so we may need frames in hours or something. I just don't have the software or the time. Nick carson (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait for the fires to be put out and some information is released about the fires to get the map right rather then having it incorrect. Bidgee (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The CFA and the DSE put out media maps which show the extent of the fires at various times, but they delete material from their sites that is more than a couple of days old, so unless anyone has saved copies, there's no way to obtain the early data. --bainer (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there'll be plenty of info later on, if we want earlier versions of maps I'm sure we could ring/email the CFA and request to use them as a source for any maps we create. Nick carson (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That map gives me chills, the anamated map of this disater is sure to do the same.

Define article scope and change name...

There are a few discussion here related to the scope and title of the article. It seems most think the page should focus on the fires of 7 Feb or Black Saturday. If fires directly related to that day's catastrophe started before or were still burning after that date that can be noted, but I think reference to unrelated fires (say Jan 2009, or fires yet to start) not be mentioned in this article. Further, this would be helped by a name change to something like "Black Saturday Fires of 2009" or "7 February Fires in Victoria" or "February 2009 Bushfire Disaster in Victoria" - or anything that better defines the article to that day.

Any other thoughts? --Merbabu (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are that Black Saturday is becoming the commonly used term for the Fires of Feb 7[19] I would say if its used with any frequency during the day of morning service at the Arena then we can be sufficiently certain that the name has broad acceptance, leaving this article to be developed to cover the whole season. Gnangarra 11:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Black Saturday" term is being used by some sections of the media, but at only two weeks after the event, it's too early to tell whether the term is going to catch on. Even those in the media who use it are being inconsistent from one day to the next. At this point, the plain "Victorian bushfires" is the far more common name ([20]). There's nothing wrong with the current title either; compare 2003 Canberra bushfires, for example, which are referred to everywhere by that name. --bainer (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the name's not so important to me. What about the *scope* of the article? I thought it would make far more sense if it centre it around the 7 Feb disaster. That's when I understand all the fatalities occurred. We already have an article for the fire season in general. Also, a separate point is that at some stage we will need to look at putting a cap on article size. It's long already. --Merbabu (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the main focus should be on the scope of the article. Regarding the name; something like "Black February" would be as, if not moreso, appropriate as "Black Saturday". We should not let the mainstream media dictate the common usage of the term applied to this event. Determine the most appropriate one, and be more creative than merely stealing the name of a previous event in history to name an entirely new one. Nick carson (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 Black Saturday bushfires? • \ / (⁂) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If it ends up being Black Saturday then there'd only be one black saturday bushfires for 2009, or ever for that matter. Nick carson (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Memorial Service

Is a section on the memorial service for the victims of the fires appropriate for this article? Scrooke (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Definately, but waiting until after the service and consider what occurs before deciding on how much prominance. Oh and if anyone does attend please take a camera and try to get some photos remebering to be respectful to all who attend maybe focus on showing scale over individuals but if you want to focus on individuals be sure you have their permission to publish or they are public people who could reasonably expect to be photographed ie clergy, pollies, Princess Anne and other dignataries. Gnangarra 11:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeal article?

The red cross bushfire appeal has raised over $150 million last I heard and could be much more. Surely the biggest fundraising effort in Australia's effort, and spending it will be a massive task. Is it time to have a specific article on it? Stevage 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not able to help create it at this stage, but I will offer comments and suggestions in the meantime. Nick carson (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll sources

The official toll stands at 209, despite what media sources may be reporting (some are reporting 209, others report 210) the actual toll as determined by Victoria Police DVI unit in conjunction with the Pheonix taskforce, stands at 209, as stated via VP Media Centre. If the toll is revised to 210, VP will announce it in their media centre. In this particular case media sources are unreliable as there are conflicting reports of both figures, therefore we must wait until VP revise the toll, if at all. Nick carson (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard the 210th victim from Strathewen died in hospital over the weekend. Would the police really report that and not the hospitals? The media are reporting that the police are reporting it but the police website has not updated. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No doubt about it, the police will notify the death if it is confirmed as being related to the fires. They are keeping the official toll. Scrooke (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Nick carson (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I read through the talk page and based on the consensus that seemed to be established I renamed it as several times I saw people requesting a name page at the end of the discussion, as if they didn't know how to move it themselves. If anyone objects to this then the discussion should be reopened again to establish a new consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Grave Rob (talk • contribs)

7 February 2009 Victorian bushfires isn't very succinct, restricts the scope significantly, (the fires went on for more than a day) and is an unlikely search term. I suggested 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, but there are many more suitable names than this. • \ / (⁂) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is vastly too bold for an editor who has barely edited this article to unilaterally rename it based on some inferred 'consensus' over a series of discussions, and with respect, significantly misunderstands the meaning of consensus. If any name is under consideration it's 'Black Saturday', which for better or worse appears to be gaining more currency even on the ABC. 7 Feb is way too narrow. Debate 木 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and moved it back because of lack of consensus. I am not against someone re-moving the article if a consensus can be reached, but right now there isn't one. Tavix (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

while I don't particularly like the wording of the moved page, I do feel it is about time we narrowed the focus. Currently it is an unwieldy giant (although well done to those who are keeping it well referenced). Do we really want this article to remain about any fire in this season? Surely the focus is in the deadly events of a few weeks ago. Surely that is what is exceptional and notable. There is already a 2008/09 fire season article What is the advantage of having it about any fire still burning? The 1983 ash Wednesday fires article is much better focussed. --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Either this page should be about all Victorian fires during February (more will come on Friday) or just 7 Feb. In time they will all be treated as the one event anyway. Comparisons to the Ash Wednesday fires are hard because they had rain soon after, it's not often deadly fires burn on for weeks. I don't really mind either way, perhaps if the Kinglake complex flares up again on Friday and more homes are lost from the older fires then we should keep it as the month of february. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this page shouldn't have been moved before a real consensus was reached - the concern for us in the sections above was the fact that the page was being used in the In the News section on the main page, and we didn't want to screw up the links. I think perhaps February as a whole could work, as the media has described these new fires (Upwey, Daylesford) as additional fires on top of the others, sure they're new, but it is really just an extension. However i do believe the events of 7 February 2009 deserve its own page - whether this is it, or not, I need convincing. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of the fires that started on 7 February are still burning. Until they are all out, the natural scope of the article will continue to expand. At some point sections can be broken off into child articles, leaving this as a summary style article, though that's not urgent and should be avoided anyway when the article's contents are still changing relatively rapidly. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we please not change the article name from 2009 Victorian bushfires unless another name such as Black February, Black Saturday or such enters common usage. Bear in mind that this may take a long time or may not happen at all. No more moving/name changes, especially if they haven't been discussed here first. Also note the fact that many past major bushfire events have continued for weeks and even months (as was the case with the Black Friday fires in 1939). Also note that fires separate from the fires that began or were precipitated from the conditions experienced on the 7th of Feb are being included in the dedicated 2008-09 Australian bushfire season article. Nick carson (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Worst bush/forrest fires ever in world history?

can anyone remember when a fire of this nature, bush, forrest, etc, hav killed so many? its not the wrost firestorm, as the 1906 San Fansico Earthquark and Fire, even at its "officail" death toll of 478, was wrose, and it isnt the wrost fire ever, as building fires like 9/11, have claimed more lives, but i wonder if this is the wrost fire of this nature.

There have been deadlier fires but not for some time. Several fires in the US pre-WW1 killed over 200 people with the Peshtigo Fire being the worst. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's not alot of info on that fire, some even speculate that it was caused by a Comet, so it's perhaps best described as a series of unconfirmed bushfires. The 2009 Victorian bushfires have by far claimed the most lives of any bushfire in recent history (the last 130 odd years). It goes without saying that the WTC and city fires like san fran, chicago & london are not classified as bushfires. Nick carson (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even 130 years, the 1918 Cloquet Fire claimed 453 lives and was a true bushfire. And there have probably been worse fires in China, Russia and Indonesia during the last 100 years. --60.241.89.119 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good find. Articles on bushfires in the US really need to be organised better, and their list of disasters by death toll doesn't even list them by the US death toll, lots of work to do over there. So I wouldn't be surprised if more events pop up. Nick carson (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

False precision in temperature reports

I know the SMH article cited helpfully converted Mark Chladil's temperature estimate of 1600K to a very precise-sounding "1327°C", but this is false precision. An unqualified figure of '1600K' indicates that the figure is given to the nearest hundred degrees; the conversion should be rounded to the same level of precision rather than giving readers a mistaken impression of super-accuracy.

Building standards, OTOH, are in theory exact numbers, so I've left those as they were. --144.53.226.17 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good. Nick carson (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (but remember, precision and accuracy are not the same thing ;-) ). --Merbabu (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ross Noble trivia inclusion - comments please

I am a little concerned that the following albeit referenced part of the article (under the sub-heading Other) is not of enough serious relevance to warrant inclusion - however before I remove/adjust I would appreciate other comments etc please:

Amongst those who had their homes destroyed in the fire included the comedian Ross Noble, whose farm in St Andrews was burned down. Noble, and his wife Fran, both managed to escape the fire unharmed. Noble also decided to continue with his already planned stand-up tour despite the disaster.

--VS ^talk 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it's fine, it's worded very well, though the last sentence may not be relevant in this article. Nick carson (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Firestorm article by William Kininmonth

I am about to add a link (in the external links section) to this article on the air movements and conditions of 7 February 2009. I don't have time to quote from it, but maybe someone else does: http://www.theage.com.au/national/anatomy-of-a-firestorm-20090225-8hvi.html?page=-1 . It contains descriptions of how hot air from the middle atmosphere somehow descends (I don't understand how) and is heated by compression. BTW, I was glad to see the links to the radar image archives have been preserved and moved to the external links section. Robin Whittle (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a great article. I've had a read through and there's some good info for inclusion into the Bushfires in Victoria and Bushfires in Australia articles. Nick carson (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index

The information in this section is completely and utterly erroneous. The FFDI is an estimate of the likelihood of fire occurring, taking into account factors such as temperature, relative humidity, days without rain etc. It has precisely nothing to do with the speed, spread or behaviour of any existing fires. Who wrote this and why? It seems like obvious vandalism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.67.124 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.67.124 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Nick carson (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Heatwave dispute in lead

I noticed there are OR tags in the lead on the sentence explaining the heatwave as one of many contributing factors to the fires. This is a 'sky is blue' statement and additionally, sources are provided in the dedicated article and the section further below. Nick carson (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick, if you feel that the OR tag is unnecessary then feel free to remove it. However, there is no reference to heat waves as being a proximal cause of the fires in any cited article that I can see. Although heat waves may seem an obvious contributor to these and other fires to most people it still requires an expert reliable source to confirm it as a "proximal cause" and that has definitely not been provided. Anything else is pure conjecture. Also, if heat waves are such an obvious "the sky is blue" notion in relation to fires, is it necessary to state it as a cause?

Thinking about this issue further, are heatwaves actually a "cause" of fires? They obviously contribute to making conditions worse but they are no more a cause of fires than the dry conditions or the fuel load in the forests. Wouldn't a cause have to be something that actually ignited the fires e.g. lightning, arson, cigarettes etc.? I guess the test is if the temperature alone can cause spontaneous combustion of forests and grasslands etc. Is there any evidence supporting this hypothesis? Cheers Scrooke (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The royal comission and the BoM and the CSIRO and all those mobs are currently preparing such reports which will be big sources of factual complete information for us on these interrelated events.

I'm not sure the use of the term proximal cause is as clear cut as a term could be, I reckon something more like ...X & Y & Z & the heatwave, contributed to the conditions experienced on the 7th of February that led to the Kinglake Complex Firestorm etc. Nick carson (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like much better phrasing for the current state of our understanding of the situation. Scrooke (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I don't have the time at the moment to update it so if someone else could that'd be rad. Nick carson (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)