Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Comparison with other fires in the lead

I am not at all sure that a comparison with other fires in the lead is the appropriate place for such to be done.

The current comparison I have removed a couple of times, mainly because it was badly placed. XavierItzm has restored it a couple of times.

My concerns are:

  1. The non trivial visual of the data for another event detracts from the lead. The lead is suppposed to be about the main subject of the article;
  2. The comparison is not comparing apples with apples, ie, the vast majority of the current season's fires are forest fires, with the exception of NT's fire grounds, whereas the 1974-75 season was mainly grass / scrub / arid / savannah fires. Comparing area alone is not indicative of the relative impact of the fire seasons;
  3. Other fires have been much bigger in terms of their impact on people, both fatalites and injuries;
  4. The impact on diverse ecosystems and species is likely to be much greater this season than the 1974-75 season due to the probably more homogeneous nature of the 1974-75 season, with some areas this season possibly not having been burnt for hundreds of years or more.

If we are to have a comparison, I suggest it should be in its own section, later in the article, under perhaps 2019–20 Australian bushfire season#Ecological effects, and address at least all of the above issues and perhaps more.

In the mean time I suggest any comparison is sufficiently covered by the note at the bottom the Overview table.

Comment? Aoziwe (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My main concern is the stale citation that the NSW fire brigade considers it unprecedented. The cit. is from November 2019, so it is quite obsolete (considering the evolution of the incident since). I've added language clarifying that the cited agency's comment is valid only for that state, and not for Australia; but still, it is quite confusing because the article is about Australia, and here on the lead we have one state agency's characterisation from 2 months ago qualifying the whole thing –––and yes, I know you and I know what NSW means, but the average foreigner reader hasn't got the foggiest about the Federation, the states, the territories, etc. It would be an entirely different thing if this Wiki entry were for 2019–20 New South Wales bushfire season. I think if you removed this problematic ref exclusive to the NSW agency from the lead, then there would be no need add clarificatory material to the lead.
Yes it is stale. And, as you point out, not really about the national season but about NSW. Why don't we just move it, with any required adjustment and other material, to provide context, etc., to be a "lead" at the start of the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season#New South Wales section? Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection. XavierItzm (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to be able to do this for a couple of days ... Aoziwe (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, I agree that there are differences in nature between fires. For example, you could say the Black Thursday 1851 bushfires with 1,000,000 sheep burned alive were the most impactful ever for the livelihood of all Australians; you could say the Black Friday 1939 bushfires were the worst ever for any one Australian state, insofar as it affected 3/4ths of the state and killed 71 people; you could say the ones that cost the most lives were the Black Saturday 2009 bushfires that killed 173 people. Nonetheless, any fires, such as the ones from 1974-75, that burn up 15% of one's country, and a total area larger than France, Spain and Portugal combined, might be worth mentioning. XavierItzm (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I think there should be some relevant comparisons. I just think the current comparison is taking undue weight in the lead, and other fires, like you say, should have some due weight if we are going to make any comparison. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification

Hi XavierItzm.

Re your valid concern hence this edit. Would this reference be good enough?

Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and no need for asking! A small caveat is that the Tumut refers to unprecedented fire in the Snowy Valleys, so we want to make sure the text reflects that. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You beat me to the ref move. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


Yep, I know you said no need to ask for the last one, but just in case this becomes an issue, if not for us then for someone else, re your valid concern hence this edit. Would this reference be good enough? Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for being extra-cautious. Look, I don't see anything in The Leader link you provided to indicate that this is is an unprecedented evacuation notice. It might very well be, but the link does not say, and we cannot do original research. But perhaps I missed something? XavierItzm (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I have moved the FV template to the problematic qualification "unprecedented" only. XavierItzm (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I was relying on this text: "... after unprecedented stretches of the state were declared Leave Zones." ? Aoziwe (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Wow, right you are! Sorry I somehow missed that sentence. Of course The Leader ought to be used as support for "unprecedented". There is a small detail that The Leader makes reference to both "tourist leave zones" and "leave zones" and the present article text doesn't quite reflect this yet, but I am sure it can be worked out. XavierItzm (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not aware of any difference between "tourist leave zones" and "leave zones". (Living in the thick of such - the air is very thick with smoke again today - visibility down to 500 to 800m) I can say as far as I am aware a "leave zone" was "if you do not live there then leave". These were not "evacuation orders" for people in immediate threat of a fire front, but the "zones" were in the projected paths of fires, and excess people were or would create major logistics and supply issues, or the zone was likely to be cut off as highways closed (possibly by other fires), and if the fire did impact then critical life threatening problems. I will update with the Leader ref. Aoziwe (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


Not sure that I agree with this one though. Yes the ref refers to climate change in the US, but it does refer to Aussie fire seasons starting earlier and finishing later. As to your concern re climate change affecting Aussie fires, that is what the next reference is entirely about. So, there are references covering the material in that article content? Aoziwe (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So far, there are no identified problems with the preceding nor the following refs. Nonetheless, the ref. Price, Owen (17 August 2018) is problematic for two reasons: (1) it is an opinion piece, clearly labeled. Opinion pieces are generally not acceptable for facts, unless the opinion is attributed in main text to the author himself. (2) The sentences the ref. supports are either "climate change is a factor known to result in increased fire frequency and intensity in south east Australia" or "climate change is considered very likely to have contributed to the unprecedented extent and severity of the fires" —but Price's opinion piece does not attribute to climate change the fires "in south east Australia" nor does it say that the fires were contributed to by climate change. All it says it that there is evidence climate change is "increasing fire activity in the United States". Wait, you may say, but isn't global warming global? Well, two problems, the effects of global warming vary by region (and therefore its effects in the U.S. are not necessarily the same as in Australia), and two, such a question takes us directly into WP:OR, which we cannot get into. The text which the ref supports should be re-written or the ref deleted.XavierItzm (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Just remove that reference then. The other references I think cover the material quite well. Aoziwe (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done[1]. XavierItzm (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Price, Owen (17 August 2018). "Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer". ABC News. Australia. Retrieved 23 August 2018.

Evacuation orders?

In Victoria residents cannot be ordered to evacuate. Recommendations can be issued, and are. The Victorian part of the article reflects this reality well. But what's the situation in other states and territories? The article mentions evacuation orders in more than one place. Is this actually correct, or just media excitement? HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It depends. We would have to double check. I think this also applies in other states too, but if a "state of emergency" is declared, then I understand that designated officials can order evacuations. Unless such is declared though, then only "prepare, stay and defend" versus "leave early" versus "too late to leave, take shelter" advice can be given. BUT it might take some WP:OR to properly clarify it. Yes, sometimes, the "general" press I think has interpretted/translated the above "leave early" and also the "leave zone" declarations as "evacuate" I think. They are colloquilly evacuations but not formal/technical evacuations. As far as I am aware the ABC emergency information broadcasts were always very careful about the langauge they used. Then there is the "situation" where people have voluntarily left early, but have not been allowed to return, so does this mean that they are now forcibly evacuated? Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
There is also the added complication of the use of langugae to descriptively name things, ie, even if people voluntarily decided to leave, and very large numbers did, if they had no where to stay with friends or relatives for example, they went to the designated "evacuation centres". Aoziwe (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have not read all of this yet but it seems very thorough and very relevant. Also relevant are:

I think the statement above, "In Victoria residents cannot be ordered to evacuate." is probably incorrect. If an SoE is declared they can be. Aoziwe (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Declaration of a "State of Emergency", or similar terms in the States and territories of Australia (e.g. "State of Disaster" in Victoria) may be issued by the relevant Minister (Police/Emergency Services/Premier) that variously include [police/emergency services] taking possession and making use of any person's property to respond to the disaster, controlling movement in and out of the disaster area, and forcing people to evacuate from the disaster area or any part of it. In Victoria, this is a good source – https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/01/03/mallacoota-bushfire-evacuation/ So, the statement "In Victoria residents cannot be ordered to evacuate" is factually incorrect. In NSW, Section 16 of the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 No 165 details the powers granted that include "The Minister may, if satisfied that it is necessary or convenient to do so for the purpose of responding to an emergency, direct, or authorise an emergency services officer to direct, a person to do any or all of the following: (a) to leave any particular premises and to move out of an emergency area or any part of an emergency area; (b) to take any children or adults present in any particular premises who are in the person's care and to move them outside the emergency area or any part of the emergency area; (c) not to enter the emergency area or any part of the emergency area." In NSW, during the emergency period, the emergency powers were granted to Shane Fitzsimmons in his capacity as Commissioner of the NSW RFS for specific local government areas. Rangasyd (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Bali affected by smoke ?

  • By 7 January 2020, the smoke was carried approximately 11,000 kilometres (6,800 mi) across the South Pacific Ocean to Chile and Argentina,[citation needed] and to Bali in Indonesia, prompting the local government to evacuate people from the areas affected by smoke.

Some sentence was hypothetical, particularly when this section mention Bali in list of places affect by bushfire. I don't see in reliable source that Bali was affected only a imagination added by IP users so they imagine that Bali was impacted by smoke in Northern Territory, Australia. It think impact in Bali was fake news. For impacts in Chile and Argentina, this need a reliable source to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.25 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Two things are relevant here. Without a source, the Bali mention doesn't belong. And it's the wet season in the Top End now. Definitely no bushfires. The latter also highlights another concern of mine; the fact that northern Australian bushfires don't fit in articles with names like this one. There is no 2019-20 bushfire season in the Top End. There's the 2019 season, and the totally unrelated 2020 season, which won't begin until perhaps May. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I also Agree. It needs to replace words that Bali was impacted by smoke with Brazil instead. Because I found in Brussels Times and many other sources that smoke from Australian bushfire reach Brazil as well as Uruguay. It is link from Brussels Times
*Smoke from Australian fires reach's Brazil
In addition, I found reliable source that smoke reach Chile and Argentina from 7 News.
* Smoke from Australia's bushfires travels more than 11,000 km across the Pacific to Chile via Australian Associated Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added references for Chile and Argentina. The only sources I could find for Bali where around September and they stated the smoke haze then was "the usual" from fires on other Indoensian islands, so I have removed the mention of Bali. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for added the references. I hope you add info about the smoke that reaches Brazil and Uruguay as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done now as well. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Donation campaigns with nudes

Just wondering if it there was a reason why donation campaigns by sex workers and instagram models doesn't appear in the donation section. There has been some buzz about Kaylen Ward who reportedly has raised $1M, and since her campaign, others have followed suit. https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/47402/1/sex-workers-selling-nudes-australia-wildfires-naked-philanthropist-kaylen-ward Plenty of legit news sites have covered Ward's campaign including the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/style/kaylen-ward-donations-australia-fires.html) so there should be no shortage of reliable sources, and the amounts raised are pretty significant. Not sure if the fact it includes nude photos or maybe that it could be interpreted as self promotion violates the TOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Re Ward. The ref you provide states that Ward is NOT actually donating any funds at all. Apparently, if a donor sends Ward a receipt for a "donation", then Ward will send them a photograph, but I am not sure how the "receipts" are verified by anyone? So, I am not sure that Ward can be considered "reliable" at this time. (And to count "Ward donations" would be double counting because the actual donation has been done via another channel.) But to answer your more general question, if there are IRS available to show donations by anyone or any organisation (of sufficient value so that the article does not get clogged up with minor donations), then they can be included regardless of their occupation. Aoziwe (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Re the NYT article. Its main subject is Ward. It says she claims $1M in donations. As the NYT is generally considered a Holy Book by most Wikipedians, the onus is to include Ward: (1) it is reported by a supposedly WP:RS, (2) it self-evidently passes the WP:GNG, (3) multiple WP:RS cite the same. As such it should be included, noting, of course, that the donations were given to other contributing entities. XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
"Ms. Ward said “I do think it’s very possible that a lot of them aren’t real.” WWGB (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no doubt at all about the reliability of the reporting re Ward. I do have grave concerns about the reliability and verifiability of the efficacy of Ward's actual activity, as Ward herself has stated, and IS reliably reported. I think it would be perfectly valid to include references to all this in an article about Ward, but I do not see how it fits into the 2019-2020 bushfire season article, unless it can be verified that Ward has actually increased donations as is claimed. Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
PS If we correctly follow the RS we would have to write something essentially like "Ward's initiative may or may not have raised a further $1M.". This I suggest is not really encyclopedic nor generally informative. Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess a better route would be that she is raising awareness of the fires, which I think is fair to say & has a lower threshold to meet. Raising awareness alone seems to have been deemed relevant enough for the article (e.g. Burj Khalifa lighting).Wiki-kun (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have not checked, but is there an IRS that states Ward "has raised awareness". If so, then, yes, we can say that. If not, it would be WP:OR on our part. (I too would assume Ward has raised awareness but that is no good fo WP.) Aoziwe (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Notability matter - Burj Khalifa is notable in its own right, so lighting it up is notable. Kaylen Ward, maybe not. (A quick Google yields 31M hits for Burj Khalifa, 2M for Kaylen Ward, all of the first two pages, and most of the first five, of which are about her fund-raising photos.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent developments

Rain and cooler temperatures brought down the number of bushfires to 75 in New South Wales, as of 18 January.[1]

Heavy rains in Victoria reduced the number of bushfires to 14, as on 19 January.[2] On 20 January, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews announced that "there was still a "massive fire edge" of more than 1.5 million hectares from blazes."[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:330C:7420:8189:3F30:5C32:6F96 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51158263
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-51165032
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-51170994

Non home/house structures destroyed

There are currently various different numbers in the article for total buildings or structures other than homes/houses destroyed. So far I have not been able to find any reliable or even partially consistent sources for what might be a "correct" and relatively current number.

Can anyone help with this?

If not, we should stop including such non sourced content?

Aoziwe (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The NSW RFS has been periodically releasing statistics for NSW on twitter, for example, https://twitter.com/NSWRFS/status/1216841870032109569 Nickw25 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of a camel cull?

I have tagged for relevance the paragraph about culling camels in northwestern South Australia, over 1000km from the SA fires, and a similar distance from the WA fires near Norseman. If someone thinks it is relevant to this article, please improve the links to the prior and/or next paragraphs. --Scott Davis Talk 13:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the paragraph. According to the reference, the problem is because of the drought, not any fires. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019–20_Australian_bushfire_season/Archive_2&oldid=938116747"