Talk:Cedar Fire

Untitled

It's true that we will never know if the Cedar Fire could have been stopped by earlier, more massive, intervention. However, it's better to say "We did all we could." than "We didn't bother because it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference." Rsduhamel 01:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks to user Minesweeper for adding a photo, but a trio of politicians looking earnest is about the most irrelevant photo for this article. Aren't there any PD photos that show the fire? -Willmcw 21:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Found a satellite picture of the smoke plumes instead. Rsduhamel 08:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

It seems the news media can't get it straight on what Martinez was charged with. I think we may have it straight this time. Rsduhamel 22:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Why is the "Why was the Cedar Fire so bad?" section written so poorly and in such an odd way?

Because you (or another editor) hasn't yet fixed it! Be bold! Rewrite it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

--- Modified narration of fire to follow chronological order (i.e. Julian area and firefighter burned after fire turned east, put approximate time ("noon") of Scripps Ranch fires. "Noon" is approximate but definitely many house were burning (or burnt) by that time. The first houses in Scripps Ranch area were likely burning as early as 8:00 or 9:00 AM. Removed mention of "merger with Grand Prix fire" as no citation is provided and the statement is incorrect (http://www.geog.utah.edu/~cova/kim-etal-nhr-2006.pdf).(The Grand Prix and Old Fires, which were also burning at that time merged but were well to the north of the Cedar Fire. Removed mention of where firefighter was from as while efforts are greatly appreciated, did not seem of first order relevance. 146.244.227.73 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Causes of fire severity moved to talk page

I've moved this section here. It's not encyclopedic, completely unsourced, and reads like an essay. It needs a complete rewrite:

Would the results have been different if alleged mistakes had not been made in fighting the fire? We will never know, but there is good reason to believe that the Cedar Fire would have been cataclysmic anyway. Once the Santa Ana wind-driven flames took off, there was little that could have been done to stop them.

Some have suggested that fire suppression leads to conditions that caused the Cedar fire to be so large. However, extensive research by Jon E. Keeley and C.J. Fotheringham has shown that burn patterns have not changed significantly in southern California since 1878. The California Statewide Fire History Database indicates that since 1910, the mean size of fires in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties has remained constant. The timing of fires is equally consistent, with most igniting June through November with September representing the most flammable period. In a study by S.A. Mensing and others, seabed charcoal deposits off the coast of Santa Barbara County have shown that the frequency of large, Santa Ana driven fires has not changed over the past 500 years. Similar results are produced even when comparing years before and after 1950 when advanced fire suppression technology was developed and utilized on a massive scale.

The only important change revealed by these studies has been an increase in fire frequency during modern times, not a decrease. Fire in chaparral is a natural, unpreventable event. Despite efforts to control them, large chaparral fires have continued unabated since our arrival in California. The assumption that old stands with an "unnatural accumulation of old brush" encourage fires to spread and become more dangerous is inaccurate. Studies by Max Moritz have shown that fuel age does not significantly affect the probability of burning.

Why did the Cedar Fire happen when it did? All fires require a fire triangle whose three vertices are fuel, heat, and oxygen. In San Diego County in October of 2003 fuel was in abundance, and strong Santa Ana conditions had driven daytime temperatures above 90 °F + (32 °C) in the days leading up to the fire. In addition, on the night of October 26 the Santa Ana winds meant humidity was down to single-digits, and 40 miles-per-hour (64 km/h) easterlies were blowing from the desert toward the coast. The result was mass ignition, a rapidly-moving fire, and extreme fire behavior, including large fire whirls. With all elements of the fire triangle present and at high levels, the Cedar Fire rapidly became a record firestorm.

BuddingJournalist 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List of vicitms

I'm proposing deleting this section as non-encyclopedic. I'm moving this section to here, below. This is more the kind of material I'd expect to find in a newspaper article. As tragic as the loss is for the families of those killed, none of the folks are notable in an encyclopedic sense, and we typically don't have such lists for other disaster articles. The way the heading is, it appears that someone was trying to use Wikipedia as a memorial page, which isn't really in our scope of purpose. Any objections? AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The following individuals lost their lives in the Cedar Fire

• Galen Blacklidge — 50, Lakeside, teacher, artist – Died October 26 2003 while trying to escape in her vehicle
• Christy-Anne Seiler-Davis — 42, Alpine - Died October 26 2003 while in her home on Vista Viejas Road in Alpine
• Gary Edward Downs — 50, Lakeside, small-business owner – Died October 26 2003 while trying to escape the flames on Wildcat Canyon Road
• John Leonard Pack — 28, Lakeside - Died October 26 2003 along with his wife Quynh trying to escape the fire on Wildcat Canyon Road
• Quynh Yen Chau Pack — 28, Lakeside - Died October 26 2003 along with her husband John trying to escape the fire on Wildcat Canyon Road
• Mary Lynne Peace — 54, Lakeside, nurse - Died on October 26 2003 along with her sister-in-law Robin Sloan near the Barona Indian Reservation
• Steven Rucker — 38, Novato, firefighter, died October 29 2003 in Julian fighting the deadly Cedar Fire
• Stephen Shacklett — 54, Lakeside, construction superintendent - Died October 26 2003 while trying to escape the fire in his motorhome on Muth Valley road
• James Shohara — 63, Lakeside, correctional officer - Died October 26 2003 along with his wife and son while trying to escape the deadly flames near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside
• Solange Shohara — 43, Lakeside, correctional officer - Died October 26 2003 along with her husband and stepson while trying to escape the fire near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside
• Randy Shohara — 32, Lakeside - Died October 26 2003 with his stepmother and father trying to escape the deadly flames near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside
• Robin Sloan — 45, Lakeside, Walmart employee - Died October 26 2003 attempting to escape the fire near the Barona Indian Reservation
• Jennifer Sloan — 17, Lakeside, student - Died October 26 2003 along with her mother Robin while attempting to escape the fire near the Barona Indian Reservation
• Ralph Marshall Westley — 77, Lakeside, retired retail clerk, discovered October 27 2003 at 1088 Barona Road.
• Unknown found mid-December in the I-15/SR-52 area.

• Actually, we routinely have lists of victims. Please see List of Charles Whitman's victims and List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

Please do not confuse the idea that we are not a memorial service (true) with the idea that a list of victims constitutes a memorial (not true). The list of victims is encyclopedic and it is useful. For instance, it may help the reader spot where the most fatalities occurred, etc.

I am going to go ahead and restore the list, since it does comply with policy. I will try to find wording that eliminates any confusion over the possibility of it being a memorial. Johntex\^talk 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article calls the I-15 and CA-52 by their named designations ("Escondido Freeway", "Mount Soledad Freeway"). Those are indeed correct, but it is not the custom in San Diego to use those names when referring to freeways. See LA Times style guide referenced here: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/19/local/la-me-rr-southland-freeways-are-a-number-not-a-name-20120919, the first sentence of this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California_freeways#Naming. Local media in San Diego never uses the names, but instead the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilthouse (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Speculation section moved

This is being moved here due to lack of citations and the statement of uncertainty in the last sentence:

Although firefighters were almost universally praised, some citizens reported firefighters making no effort to prevent houses from catching fire. Many houses were saved by citizens who refused to evacuate as the fire approached. A group of citizens is credited with saving hundreds of homes in the community of Eucalyptus Hills, near Lakeside, by cutting a firebreak and fighting flames with a privately owned water truck through the night. At one point a helicopter-borne Sheriff's Deputy threatened the group with citations and arrest if they did not cease their efforts and evacuate. They left only after firefighters arrived in the morning after the brunt of the fire had passed by. The validity of or the circumstances surrounding such reports were often unclear because emotions were running high during the crisis.

I can not site for the privately owned water truck but i can site for the Sheriff's Deputy threatening to write citations and possible arrests for residents not leaving the private road across from magnolia. The intensity of the fire in the eucalyptas hills area only lasted the short 15 minutes with the gust of winds raining embers from muth valley but snuffed its self out from lack of oxygen once the winds changed. The fire spread from embers to flames rapidly because of the large Eucalyptas trees on the hill (some of which we have been told were the largest in the hills)They acted like torches and fell quickly on to roof tops. I personally lost everything i owned including the shirt on my back from the embers raining down. In this 15 minutes of chaos not a single fireman/police officer was in the area because they had been dispatched to the much more dangerous area of wild cat canyon. An area which city officials have recently approved a massive development (muth valley) despite the efforts of residents to remind the officials of the devistation and lives lost from lack of escape routes from a high winds canyon. The morning after fire fighters were dispatched but quickly removed and placed into hotter areas to try and contain the fire. Like i stated before the flames only lasted about 15 minutes and then quickly snuffed themself out as the santa anna winds forced the smoke down and into the hills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.238.104 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Curfew section moved

This sentence: "In the aftermath of the fire the curfew for firefighting aircraft was extended from 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunset and pilots have been given more discretion in deciding whether to attack a fire or not." has been removed because it is not cited, and the Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations still lists the operational times as was at the time of the fire. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Would explain why I couldn't find a reference for it. ;-) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removals

I've once again removed the victims list. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article...this isn't a newspaper. Second, I've remove the comparisons section, as the first paragraph merely restated material already found here, and the second was just an overview of the 2007 article. SA entry is sufficient AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I restored both sections.

The list of fatalities is encyclopedic.

Please see List of Charles Whitman's victims and List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

Please do not confuse the idea that we are not a memorial service (true) with the idea that a list of victims constitutes a memorial (not true). The list of victims is encyclopedic and it is useful. For instance, it may help the reader spot where the most fatalities occurred, etc.

The comparison to the 2007 fires is also valid.

As to the first paragraph, please see WP:LEDE. It states that information should not be in the lead of the article unless it is also in the body of the article. Therefore, the information needs to be in the main body of the article if we are putting it in the lead.

As to the summary of the 2007 fires article, I see no problem with it. People reading this article will naturally want to know how this fire stacks up against others. This is particularly true with regards to recent fires they may have heard about it. We could do this as a "see also", but the prefered way to do it is really to put this into text form. Please see WP:ALSO for information about this. Johntex\^talk 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick fail. The drive-by nominator has not addressed citation needed tags in place since 2007 (!), the criticism section seems out of proportion, the section order makes no sense, the lead does not summarize the article, and the Fatalities section does not WP:USEPROSE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

List of fatalities

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

---

.

I am in the process of cleaning up this article in hopes of getting it to WP:GA status. One of the last main things that needs to be addressed is the list of fatalities. Now lets get one thing clear, no one is suggesting the loss of life is not tragic. The question here is does a LIST of those killed warrant placement in this article? If so, how and in what format. I took a look at WP:USEPROSE (thanks David Eppstein (talk · contribs) for pointing me there!) and it states Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Now I would like to point out the last 2 words may not. It is possible that a list is still the right format here. I am having a hard time seeing what would be gained by having a bunch of sequential sentences that give the name, age and location of death for each of the 15 people killed. I took a look at a couple of other articles that contain large lists of individuals killed: Yarnell Hill Fire, Charles Whitman and Virginia Tech shooting. Each of these use a box on the right side of the page to list the names (not sure what the technical name for this box is... Not an infobox and not a navbox...). I am very much leaning in this direction.

My proposal is to rewrite the fatalities section to have a paragraph or so about the causes of death, how the fire spread faster than predicted, how people thought they had time they didn't really have, etc. (All well referenced of course). Then to have a side box that contains a list of the killed to include Name, age and both date and location of death. Perhaps broken up by date. I welcome any and all feedback! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Froid, Rcd178, Evancahill, Missvain, Antandrus, Michaelh2001, LightandDark2000, NorthBySouthBaranof, SounderBruce, and DerekELee: as members of WP:WILDFIRE I'd love to hear your input! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A list of each individual fatality is completely unnecessary. Look at articles for large-scale disasters like plane accidents and there's a nice summary of fatalities and a table of nationalities, at most. I think the proposal would work well, with only names, ages, and locations in that small box. SounderBruce 02:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: that is an excellent point. However, I would counter by pointing out that in large-scale disasters such as a plane accident, all fatalities occur at the same exact moment, in the same location and the cause is obvious. With a fire that lasted multiple weeks and covered some 280,000+ acres I think that it is more important to include the info. That being said, perhaps that is a strong argument for putting it in a better written paragraph. For example, the list in its current form mentions James Shohara, Solange Shohara and Randy Shohara who all died while trying to escape near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside. I think that could be written as "Three family members, James Shohara, Solange Shohara and Randy Shohara, died while trying to escape the fire near San Vicente Reservoir on October 26." (referenced of course) That includes the pertinent information but puts it in prose and not just in a list. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Zackmann08 and SounderBruce — it doesn't feel like a list of fatalities is necessary on the article to me. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC), via the feedback request service

• Called here by bot. Thanks for your work on this. As Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia and therefore space is not such a concern, i'd be inclined to follow the lead of Virginia Tech shooting and list the names. But it could go either way. Thanks for doing the daily work of Wikipedia and improving articles. SageRad (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• I'd prefer not to see a list of names. If a decent prose narrative can be written that tells the story and names are included (as Zackmann08's Shohara family example illustrates) then that would be ok. I think there's something sick going on in articles where it lists each and every victim when none of those people are notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I see multiple articles with victims, and articles that had a separate list where the victim names were merged into the article. I do not perceive any harm, and the victim names are historical facts. CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Cedar Fire (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160623225606/http://www.lakesidehistory.org/CedarFire/cedar_fire_memorial.htm to http://www.lakesidehistory.org/CedarFire/cedar_fire_memorial.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/fire/information/story/part_1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/10/27/california.wildfire/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/fires/weekoffire/20031026-sosdmainbar.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/10/07/news/top_stories/22_24_2910_6_04.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/18/news/top_stories/20_24_4711_17_05.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/documents/documents/sandiegocountyfinal.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/03/04/news/top_stories/3_3_0414_21_16.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nifc.gov/red_book/2007/Chapter17.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003/10/30/in_depth_nature/whoswho580954_0_1_person.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   referencing issues resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   • Ref # 18 is problematic -please check that it is the most current URL.
   • Ref #31 is dead.
   • Ref #20 is dead.

   @Shearonink:  Done --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Zackmann08: Many thanks for taking care of those. This week, am slightly swamped with other commitments but I will get back to the article & its Review as soon as I can. Just don't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   With the fixing of the referencing issues this issue is resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran copyvio tool - no problems found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Wind shifts.jpg is lacking source & author information.

   @Shearonink:  Done --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   That photo of the fire crossing the highway...((shivers)).

   And kudos to whoever uploaded it and used it in the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Any further comments on other possible issues and the article's status are on hold for a few days due to other commitments and also pending a few more readthroughs. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Comment. This article was previously nominated for GA status: Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1. Its structure, wording, citation issues have all been improved and cleared-up since then. I particularly commend Zackmann08 for their writing concerning the aftermath of the fire and the various controversies as well as fixing all the various referencing issues. I am certain there are some improvements that could be made but at this time I cannot think of any. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (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.

Requested move 28 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Cedar Fire (2003) → Cedar Fire – It obviously looks like a primary topic for me - Why? When compared into Cedar Fire of 2016, this is absolutely VERY destructive and as such it's much more notable than that. Compare the 2003 incarnation and 2016 incarnation with the Wikimedia's pageviews tool, the 2003 version fully trumped the 2016 version. I cannot doubt that this is the primary topic. SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose – I think because the 2016 fire was more recent, this should not be considered the primary topic. How much it spread or how many page views this article gets does not matter, having this as a primary topic is not the best option at this time. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:9994:4438:446F:641D (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since there is more than one fire with this designation I think "Cedar Fire" is more appropriate for a disambiguation page, which, btw, already exists at Cedar Fire. WP:PRECISE applies in this case. In the minds of Wikipedia's readers, "Cedar Fire" could be an article about either the 2003 fire or about the 2016 fire or even about a possible future fire and is, therefore, too imprecise to be the article title about the 2003 fire. The present titles and disambiguation page should be left as is. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Size

@LightandDark2000: Please justify using that memorial service source when nearly all reliable sources covering the Thomas Fire have quoted the Cedar Fire as being ~273k acres, and CalFIRE officially has that figure as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)