Talk:Philadelphia Fire Department

New Emblem

• 
• 
• 
  http://www.phila.gov/fire/about/index_homepage.html

Has anyone seen this first emblem anywhere? I haven't ... where is this online?Philly jawn (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it on some t-shirts. Since sometimes (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And there was a post on Phillyblog about it, too. Since sometimes (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Link? Philly jawn (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language names

• Spanish: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%2007.09%20%28Spanish%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBjNxJq - Departamento de bomberos de Filadelfia
• Chinese: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%203.09%20%28Chinese%20-%20Mandarin%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBSSBDu - 费城防火部门
• French: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%203.09%20%28French%29%20Revised.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBntqCO - Département des Pompiers à Philadelphia
• Korean: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%2007-09%20%28Korean%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBUV2N9 - 필라델피아 소방국
• Russian: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%203.09%20%28Russian%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBgRFux - Филадельфийский Пожарный Отдел
• Khmer: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%2007-09%20%28Cambodian%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBaS9mc
• Vietnamese: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%2007-09%20%28Vietnamese%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBX4RHY - Sở Phòng cháy Philadelphia

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Line of duty deaths

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that notable deaths from reliable sources should be the inclusion criteria. There is no consensus on if the deaths of specific firemen are notable. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I am curious about the notability of Line of duty deaths and their inclusion in this article. To be clear, I by NO MEANS want to diminish the sacrifice or anything of that nature. The department I am close to just lost a firefighter last week. But I am curious if this merits inclusion. There are certainly some cases where they do. The Granite Mountain Hotshots for example, or the Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. But in both cases those killed are not listed on the departments page, but in separate articles. I recommend not including this list in articles but would like to get other's input. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The existing guidelines for stand-alone lists at WP:LISTN would seem to apply. A stand-alone list article is a good approach only if the deaths have been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.—Stepheng3 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me...The PFD has not only lost a lot of firefighters but has had some significant incidents where multiple lives have been lost. In my opinion, that's notable in and of itself. Therefore, I could see moving both the "Firefighters Killed in the Line of Duty" and "Multiple Firefighter Fatality Incidents" sections from this page and to their own dedicated page. Maxwellwarner (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Line-of-duty deaths are a significant part of any fire department's history. Listing such fatalities and their causes in every such department's article may even help prevent the deaths (or injuries) of current and future firefighters just by informing them about the fatal mistakes made. Your subjective interpretation of Wikipedia's terms of use seems to pale in comparison to potentially saving firefighters' lives and preventing their injuries.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a statistics book, a shrine, a training manual for firefighters, etc. It is an encyclopedia. This is not about Wikipedia's "terms of service", this is about our inclusion guidelines. There is far more verifiable material out there then we would even dream of including. For example, we do not include the construction costs of various fire houses, lists of current or past firefighters, GVW of various engines, distances between various firehouses, nicknames for various companies, etc. While all of this material is available in reliable sources, including all of it would result in a bloated, unreadable article. Generally, the way we decide is coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the topic of the article in general. An article about a specific firefighter's death is not about the Philadelphia Fire Department, the topic of this article.

A blog by a "fire buff" listing all of the current and past fire houses he is aware of is not a reliable source. It is also not about the Philadelphia Fire Department, it is about one tiny aspect of the PFD.

The section "Firefighters Killed in the Line of Duty" should be trimmed to the three sentence summary at the beginning and moved to a section summarizing the history of the PFD. There is lots of other extraneous material as well. Mostly, the lists. It's all likely true and sourced or sourceable. It is, however, not encyclopedic content. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for disagreeing, one who advertises his alleged PhD (no doubt in a liberal art). Your claims about inclusion criteria are not carved-in-stone facts, they are only your opinions and interpretations. You are merely a contributor to Wikipedia, as anyone who can write his name can be; you do not own it. My interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines is that a list of firefighter deaths and their causes does indeed belong in the referenced article, not just for the benefit of firefighters but also to educate the public. Said fatalities are not the meaningless trivia that your inexplicably angry post has compared them to. If you show me a specific Wikipedia rule or guideline that supports your position and debunks mine, I will no longer dispute your position. Further, you are correct about the firefighter buff's website not being an acceptable source, even though all of the information contained therein is accurate.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Let us please try to keep this civil and not resort to individual attacks people. --Zackmann08 (talk)

My alleged PhD and your guess as to the field my alleged degree is allegedly in are completely off topic here. While I gather that you are upset with my opinion, I am neither "inexplicably angry" nor claiming ownership of this article. I am merely a contributor here, as are you and the other editors working on and discussing this issue. In the end, WP:CONSENSUS will be the deciding factor.

I do not have one policy or guideline that specifically calls out this list as inappropriate. Rather, I have numerous guidelines that -- taken as a whole -- I believe seem to say this information does not belong in this article.

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - This list is neither comprehensive nor selected by some independently relevant criteria. A comprehensive list would include every firefighter who died in the line of duty. This one clearly does not. Rather, it includes some of the deaths that have occurred since 1975. How did we decide on 1975? We didn't. It's simply where some editor's interests and/or sources picked up. How were the names selected for inclusion from 1975 on? Whatever someone ran across coverage for. It might be comprehensive, it probably isn't. As the individual entries are individually sourced, we have no way of knowing. Essentially, this is an indiscriminate collection of some firefighters who have died in Philly. It isn't all of them, it isn't the notable ones (in our terminology, none of them are notable -- they do not have their own articles]], it isn't the ones that fit any other criteria. It is the ones that someone saw a source for and added to this article.
• No original research We do not have a secondary source listing all of the deaths ever (or since a particular date). Rather, this list has been cobbled together from numerous disparate sources. That no reliable secondary sources seem to have seen fit to publish the complete list should give us reason to consider why we would.
• Primary, secondary and tertiary sources While we can no doubt find a primary source for the list (i.e., the city or some similar "official" source likely has a list somewhere), we do not have a published secondary or tertiary source for the list as an entity.
• Wikipedia is not a memorial site
• Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia is not a list of every album Polydor Records ever released, everyone who has ever climbed Mt. Everest, etc. We can easily find sources mentioning various soldiers killed in (whichever war/"police action"/whatever). We do not include these lists unless we have independent reliable secondary sources discussing the list.
• Topic. This article is about the Philadelphia Fire Department. What does the average reader learn about the PFD by reading the name "Robert Fisher" that would not be gained by a summary of the information?
• Adding individual items to a list/People notable for one event/Lists of people Every person on this list is notable for one event. Those individual events are not major portions of this article. If we were looking at an article on an individual fire, it would likely make sense to include the names of firefighters who died in that fire. In the case of individual fires that are significant portions of the PFD's history (we would have to stretch this to get the list above perhaps ten fires), it likely does not make sense to include the individual deaths at, for example, the Bodine Street fire. With this list, we are well past that point, listing firefighters who died in fires that are not notable on their own and do not merit mention in the article (i.e., we do not -- and we should not -- list all of the individual fires these firefighters died in).
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper We do not have a list of murder victims (or murderers) in Philadelphia (whether "since 1975" or not), though we could construct such a list in a way not at all unlike the way this one has been onstructed.

Then again, that's just my opinion. At rock bottom, if the list remains, we need inclusion criteria. Either the list includes ALL of the firefighters who have died in the line of duty in the history of the PFD or all of those who fit certain objective criteria identified in a reliable secondary source. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is respected and duly noted but again, it is merely your interpretation of Wiki's policies. I am not suggesting that my interpretation is any better, but at least I am trying to constructively expand the present article rather than reduce it on perceived technicalities using an electron microscope powered by (sometimes illogical) rationalizations. Obviously, there would be no way to list every PFD firefighter fatality by name, date and cause because that info is not listed in any "google-able" source - although your idea to do so is clever. I suspect that over half of the pages of this encyclopedia violate its rules, so I have no clue about why you are attacking contributions to firefighter and police articles. This website is already filled to the gills with sub-literate, laughably impertinent, incredibly trivial, poorly sourced contributions, so I do not see the harm in listing a FD's line-of-duty deaths and their causes. Don't you want to encourage people to contribute and not hold them to the letter of your perceived law? I was definitely wrong to use a fire buff's website as a source for closed firehouses (I should have first checked its validity), but I suspect that allowing the line-of-duty fatality list to remain will not harm anything except the pride of its several critics. Perhaps we could offshoot the list to its own article rather than delete it altogether?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate content improves the article. That other inappropriate content remains after that removal merely indicates there is more to be done. Yes, other articles have problems. That does not justify keeping problematic material here.

Generally, we have three sets of inclusion criteria for lists. One is the comprehensive list. A list of the mayors of Philadelphia should include every mayor in Philly's history. Next is the "notables" list. List of people from Philadelphia cannot include everyone from Philadelphia, so we include only notable people: those who have Wikipedia articles. Finally, we have the selection criteria list, which I'll come back to.

We cannot include a comprehensive list here because we do not have an independent reliable secondary source for the material.

We cannot use a notables list and none of the firefighters are notable.

This leaves the selection criteria list. "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." WP:LSC We do not have selection criteria from a reliable source. For example, we shouldn't create List of foods with more than 10 grams of fat per serving or List of films that made more than their production cost in two weeks or List of countries smaller than Texas. While we could certainly find sources for these, the selection criteria are those that we, the editors of Wikipedia, dreamed up. (Further, I can't really imagine what criteria would make any sense here.

What we have now is an indiscriminate list. The selection criteria (which no one actually created, they just kind of happened) for the list are:

• Philadelphia Firefighter
• died in the line of duty
• 1975 or later
• someone found a source.

The ONLY reason we have selected these particular firefighters is because someone saw a source and bothered to add them. If we spun this off to its own article, we would have to title it List of Philadelphia firefighters who died in the line of duty after 1974 and someone found a source and bothered to add them here. Independent reliable secondary sources give us comprehensive lists of Philadelphia mayors, List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Fish and Wildlife Service list of threatened and endangered arthropods, etc. We have "notables" lists at List of Penn Law School alumni, etc. We have objective criteria lists at List of films considered the worst, etc. We do not (and should not) have List of fruits and vegetables that are purple, List of people from Philadelphia who have allergies or List of people killed in accidents on Lincoln Drive since 1983. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The firefighter fatalities listed are the only ones available from public sources. This is not an all-or-nothing encyclopedia. You are entitled to your opinions and interpretations, but so am I - and I believe that line-of-duty deaths belong in this article because they are a significant part of the of this fire department's history and modus operandi. You should be encouraging contributions to Wiki, not finding frivolous excuses to delete and discourage them. Whatever axe you have to grind against firefighters and police officers has no relevance to this website. I suspect that there are better causes to fight for than trashing the work of bona fide contributors.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You could make the same case for including the names of thousands of servicemen and women killed in action in every branch of armed services from all over the world, but we don't do that. It's not a case of "trashing the work of bona fide contributors", it's a case of consistency and complying with policy and guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"These are the only firefighter fatalities listed in public sources. I'd bet my eye teeth that several firefighter fatalities prior to 1975 made it into the Inquy, Daily News or The Bulletin. This is not a question of "all or nothing". This is a question of all or objectively selected on the one hand verses "these are the ones that somehow ended up here" on the other. Wikipedia does all inclusive lists (where appropriate) and objective criteria lists. While you are entitled to your opinions, content questions are based on our policies, guidelines and consensus. My reasons are not "frivolous excuses". I am not fighting to discourage contributions. I do not have an ax to grind with firefighters and police officers.- SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok SummerPhD. We get it. You have made your point. Let's move on. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently we don't all get it... - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a memorial . in a history section particularly notable events* that ended with a death may deserve mention, but any attempt to present a complete list as a section is WP:UNDUE focus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(*by particularly notable, i mean events that had other real world impact - an event that lead to new building codes development of new equipment or new training methods or became an issue in following elections or budget discussions or had national/world coverage or lead to sackings of people deemed responsible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

• I agree - WP:NOTMEMORIAL is the principal principle here.--ukexpat (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Protecting administrator note: I've currently protected the page as it seems that some of the editors here are not able to collaborate properly. User:PhiladelphiaInjustice, you are formally warned to discontinue your ad hominem attacks and to comment on the article content only. Please use this time to actually discuss this manner civilly, and abide by the consensus that is formed. Otherwise I will be forced to extend the page's protection, to prevent disruption. Thank you all for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, SummerPhD has been attacking me and my contributions in a less-than-polite manner. Regardless, I do not understand why there cannot be an on-the-job fatality list - possibly in the form of its own article - for the PFD, as there is for, say, the NYPD. Obviously, said PFD article could not list the name and cause of death for every PFD fatality, as a summary Internet search does not reveal all of them. For instance, fema.gov only lists such deaths since 1980. Would you consider allowing such a stand-alone PFD fatality article? Also, I suggest that ANY FD's on-the-job fatality is itself significant enough to warrant inclusion in that FD's article, based on my interpretation of Wiki's policies and how most editors apply them in real life. I had been unaware that trying to make a good faith contribution to Wikipedia would be met with such hostile resistance. I may refrain from making future contributions because I suspect that ANY post could be construed as being unacceptable using a rationalized slant on this site's guidelines.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee thank you. Back to the issue at hand, the consensus seems to be that line of duty deaths, short of a specific, noteworthy event, do not have a place in this article. As previously stated, if there are individual events that are noteworthy and resulted in a loss of life, then I do believe those have a place in the article. Correct me if I am wrong ukexpat & TheRedPenOfDoom but such examples as The Granite Mountain Hotshots or the Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks do not contradict or violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL as these were individuals killed in a specific noteworthy event. That being said, just listing names of individuals would not be useful. They would need to have context. As with the two examples I just gave, there is back story about what happened to result in the loss of life. The names of the individuals are not the focus of the story they are a side note. So IF there is a major fire in the PFD history that resulted in a loss of life (I honestly do not know), then I would think a section about said fire would be appropriate. It would need to be cited just like any other section. Under those circumstances, it would seem appropriate to mention that during this fire, the following individuals lost their lives: John Smith, Jane Doe, etc. Then it is not a memorial list to the fallen, but contextual information. For another example, see the MGM Grand Fire section on the Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Department page. This fire did not result in any firefighter deaths, but if it had, I would find it completely appropriate to end that short paragraph by saying "During the fire, 2 firefighters were killed: John Smith of Engine 22 and Jane Doe of Ladder 38". Again this is a hypothetical example. The point I am making is that the deaths must be of notable significance. Does that make sense? I welcome any and all CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion So long as there are reliable sources, I support the inclusion of a list. People who have died in the line of service of PFD are part of its history and the fact that they lost their lives carying out the mission of the department is noteworthy. Alternatively there could be a list of Philadelphia public servants killed in the line of duty. This might be a better solution in helping to keep the article readable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may: So long as there are reliable sources, I support the inclusion of a list. People who have died in the line of service of the United States Army are part of its history and the fact that they lost their lives carrying out the mission of the Army is noteworthy. Alternatively there could be a list of United States public servants killed in the line of duty. Does this make any sense? No.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A list of Philadelphia public servants killed in the line-of-duty is a good idea simply because there are few such fatalities to list. A national list would be impractical because it would include over 200 times as many people as Philadelphia's, assuming an all-around pro-rating. Nonetheless, I prefer just to have a separate PFD fatality list in the form of its own separate article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. Why is a list of people who died on the job encyclopedic? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Because, as explained above, such deaths are an important and meaningful aspect of the dangerous firefighting profession's history and modus operandi. I suspect that you could find an excuse to delete almost any Wiki contribution using the rationalizations that have been used just on this page. Your username suggests that your mission is to delete noncompliant entries, but I believe that the burden is on you to justify the removal of this more-than-pertinent fatality list. The presented arguments for its retention are more than compelling, in my opinion.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

People die on the job, thats just part of the world, and firefighters regularly die. Unless there is some subsequent action, the deaths on the job provide no encyclopedic value, just part of the daily travails of being a public servant in a dangerous line of work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Then why are their Wiki articles for police officers killed in the line of duty, including those from Los Angeles and Honolulu? Is there a double standard?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

At any moment, there are articles that are pretty much the best articles this project has ever produced and completely unreferenced articles about someone's favorite gym teacher and his dreamy grey eyes. This is the result of our "anyone can edit" nature. While it would be good to follow the really good articles as examples, it would be really bad to follow the horrible examples. As a result, it is generally a bad idea to cite another article as precedence. Instead, we have core policies, supported by other policies with guidance (of varying quality) from guidelines. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

While I understand your position, I believe that comparing an FD's on-the-job fatalities to frivolous trivia is not a fair comparison. Other contributors agree that such death lists belong in other FD and PD articles, so I am not alone in my stance. Also, since supporters outnumber detractors for the Philly FD fatality list, why is there still a dispute? Nonetheless, I do agree that much of the prior PFD page listed meaningless fluff.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

While I do not see more for inclusion than against, this is not a vote. The primary arguments against inclusion include references to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Those for inclusion seem to be based on "I think we should keep it" because "it's sourced" without objective reasons why we couldn't have similar lists for other classes of non-notable people. A list of the individual names, dates of death, etc. of a random sampling of Philly firefighters' deaths is not encyclopedic. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am certain that if I were to spend hours searching through Wiki's policies that I could find more reasons to keep the fatalities section than you have found to ban it. Again, you are expressing your opinions, rationalizations and interpretations; they are not-carved-in-stone facts. Please do not again tell me that I "don't get it". I intend to appeal this matter to a higher authority.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

With few exceptions (e.g. [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons}} and other legal issues), there really isn't a "higher authority" than editors' consensus. Unless others out there feel there is a clear consensus here for inclusion (anyone...?), your next step would be found at dispute resolution. Given the number of editors who have already weighed in here, some of the options are not possible or workable. I'd suggest a request for comment or bringing the issue up at the dispute resolution noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think SummerPHD's list of policies mentioned earlier clear up the doubt completely. There is no need to mention each and every death that has happened. For instance, on articles on Indian Fire Agencies, we have only mentioned the National Firefighters Day and mentioned it with a little backstory about the 1944 on the page of the Mumbai Fire Brigade. Wikipedia is not a memorial, a directory, or a newspaper. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't have a decided opinion on this debate, but I'd like to note that a similar section or subpage is present in most well-done articles on PDs (NYPD, USMS, etc.), but few on fire departments. If a consensus is reaches about this topic here, it should probably be applied to those articles as well. DNA Ligase IV (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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