Talk:January 2025 Southern California wildfires

A map is needed

Without a map, this article is very confusing to follow. Is the entire city of Los Angeles in flames or smoky? ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree that a map would be a major improvement. Jusdafax (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Can this NYT map be used as a source Waleed (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably not, and it’s behind a paywall I believe, at least for me. Jusdafax (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Penitentes - the fire mapper Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do when updated fire perimeters are released for at least the Palisades and Eaton fires. Penitentes (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I originally thought Rancho Palos Verdes was on fire. No, it's the area north of Santa Monica. This is a link to a BBC map. A Wikipedia map could be made to point out the general area. If necessary, credit the BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg525q2ggl4o ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone could even scan a hand drawn map. We, Wikipedians, don't need to steal intellectual property of news sources. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the NASA FIRMS Map isn't copyrighted https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:24hrs;@14.5,-9.0,3.0z ExiaMesa (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is not fire perimeters, just heat signatures. Best we have right now until an unnamed editor saves our asses with good looking QGIS maps. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That's correct. Here's a good explainer on how it's done. Note that satellites are not part of the perimeter mapping process.

Satellites, are however, vital in detecting new fires as well as determining fire behavior which is in turn vital to direct resources. Delectopierre (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

i vote that we wait intill it over then we can have a full map Shawdowpouncer (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) shawdowpouncer

I'm working on a new map update to the one in the article (which was made by me and my friend) to include Kenneth fire and remove sunset fire and update the fire perimeters for some of the others Waleed (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Combining Articles

I don't know how to formally nominate it but currently there is lots of articles discussing the same topic. I feel like we should combine the Palisades Fire (2025), Eaton Fire, and Hurst Fire articles into this article. Besides this article and the other 3 already mentioned there is also the 2025 California wildfires article. I feel like the three individual fire articles should be just redirects to this article (January 2025 Southern California Wildfires). What are your guys' thoughts on the matter? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pending full assessment of the impacts from each I think the Palisades and Eaton fires will each have more than enough notoriety and content to justify keeping their articles separate. 2025 California wildfires will grow as the year goes on to cover all significant wildfire activity for the calendar year, so it's not really relevant here. Penitentes (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense! Thank you @Penitentes! -Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like Hurst should be merged though; doesn't appear to have that much effect so far.

f Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't know the exact amount of damage, though. If above 20, it should have its own article. WatchOutBroo (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. None of them are going to be specifically remembered individually in a few months. Eg224 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eg224: No. Both the Palisades and Eaton fires will go down in history for, respectively, being the costliest wildfire ever and the shear geographic penetration into populated areas.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning the Storm Prediction Center (SPC)

NWS SPC also predicted that the weather on Jan 7-9 would be critical, with the 8th being extremely critical. Can I add the SPC FireWX outlooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't make it too cramped with images. Maybe only include 1? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Added January 8 17z outlook. Feel free to change it. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

SPC Storm Prediction Center also added a Critical Fire Weather Risk for Jan 7, 9 and 10 as of late. Hanami-Sakura (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like that would clog up a bit too much space, unless you want a multi-image similar to that in the infobox of Tornadoes of 2024. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hanami-Sakura: added multi-image, might get reverted though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks. I believe SPC forecasts are critical Hanami-Sakura (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yet again @Wildfireupdateman, we have critical fire weather risk mentioned for Jan 11 and Jan 12 Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

They just keep coming! The SPC has outlined critical risk areas for D3 and D5 as well. I feel like including all of them will eat up too much space. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I believe meteorologically, this is a different Santa Ana event caused by a different trough. I'll hold off for now; if you want them added, feel free. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I have never added an image before on wiki Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes do it lol 68.188.129.247 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Wildfireupdateman we have yet another Extremely Critical Fire Risk for SoCal on Jan 13 2025 115.42.188.226 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning the previous winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24

These two winters were very wet in SoCal, so is it possible I mention that too, on top of the fact that ENSO changed to La Nina from El Nino, meaning that storms would be directed to the PNW and NorCal instead of SoCal unlike the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24? This meant a lot of fuel grew in these last two winters, now all dried out and become wildfire fuel once 2024-25 winter arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If you can find an RS for it feel free to add Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh it’s already there :) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, its a critical part of the story.

Wildfires that become this severe do not just happen.

They are triggered by a chain of events. Hanami-Sakura (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this was on my list to add. Glad it was mentioned and added! Delectopierre (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Water Year in California is Oct-Sep Hanami-Sakura (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Am I missing something? Are you suggesting adding that info? Delectopierre (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Thats the definition of a water year in California. no need to add that. Will add the context we are in a weak la nina Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for adding all of that! Delectopierre (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Np. I have interest in meteorological disasters and the meteorology behind the disaster Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Notability

With the new table added, it is becoming evident to me that we need guidelines on what fires to include, both in the table and the article itself. IMO, some of the 1 acre fires with no structural damage can be removed. Any suggestions for rules? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific:

Riverside: keep table(structures damaged)

Sunset: remove from table(no damage)

Gulch: remove from table(no damage)

King: remove from table(no damage)

Huntington: remove from table(no damage)

Bert: Leaning on remove from table because unknown if damage.

Tyler: Keep table(damage)

Scout: remove from table(no noted damage)

Woodley: remove from table(no impact AFAIK)

Olivas: keep table(injury reported)

Lidia: keep table, no section(large size, 348 acres, but no damage reported)

Sunset: keep table, no opinion on section(wide ranging evacs but no known structure damage, location gives it lots of coverage)

Pinging @Middle Mac CJM: for thoughts Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There are notability guidelines at WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE for articles, but I'm not aware of any for a fire complex. I agree that it would be good to prune and develop some guidelines. Delectopierre (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to keep the ones in large population areas at least for now as they provide a small barometer of the danger of the event. They can be removed later as the list of notable fires grow. 2603:8000:CD01:5181:F1A7:9CC9:620F:1F3A (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a general notability to the number of fires during this extreme event even if the fires are small. This should not be lost in any pruning. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 05:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

How about the list of fires, and include the fatalities, injuries and damage cost Hanami-Sakura (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

National Interagency Fire Center

This is the federal echelon (not updated on the weekend).

https://www.nifc.gov

kencf0618 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

More useful sources:

https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/ - within NIFC site

https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents - CAL FIRE Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've decided to focus on the Timeline of the 2025 Palisades Fire; these'll come in handy. I anticipate that much of it shall be down to the minute...! kencf0618 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If I were you, I would merge that into the palisades fire article. Just a thought though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Such is being discussed. kencf0618 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Another Fire??

Okay I may be wrong but according to the Associated Press,

"Another fire has broken out in the Hollywood Hills, officials say, As officials were providing a media update about the fires around 5:50 p.m., Los Angeles city Fire Chief Kristin Crowley announced that a new blaze had broken out in the Hollywood Hills near Runyon Canyon. She said all available resources were responding and excused herself to attend to that blaze."

Is this information already reflected but under a name I don't recognize in the table of fires? Or should it be added?

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been named the Sunset Fire. ExiaMesa (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ExiaMesa! Also, just out of curiosity, who names the fires? Also, is there a place where they post info about them specifically. Right now I am just looking at the live updates from the Associated Press. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NP, I think it's generally the first responders who name the fire based on a criteria. For active fires I've been using this as a source.

https://www.fire.ca.gov/Incidents ExiaMesa (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ExiaMesa! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

it's often named by dispatchers as first responders are arriving at the fire. a fire a 123 main st is more easily referred to as the 'main st fire' over the radio. once first responders have organically settled on a name, they will also use that name when releasing public info. so far as i know, there are no official guidelines. Delectopierre (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Haha169, I see you added the Sunset Fire to the table of fires but I believe we already have an entry for that fire in the table. :) Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

They're different fires but called the same thing, I believe. The earlier one happened yesterday and was contained, this new one broke out this evening and it's not yet contained. --haha169 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Wow this is so insane Middle Mac CJM (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Too, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has its own nomenclature, typically on the order of Whatever Complex, which I have yet to see here. kencf0618 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Celebrity homes destroyed

Is there a section for celebrities homes that have been destroyed? I’ve read about many now, and I expect that there will be a loss of cultural artifacts that were in private collections too. Victor Grigas (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a section dedicated to it but I do know I added info on that somewhere in the article. Just Control F for "Paris Hilton". Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would do something similar to the Woolsey Fire by listing(not in table format) all the celebrities who lost properties. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Fire and Woodley Fire

Hello! Can we agree that both the Woodley Fire and Sunset Fire, although both spread rapidly and are devastating, are not notable to have their own sections, let alone their own page. I thing categorizing them in "Other Fires" and listing them in the table is fine. Heart ^(talk) 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This. Both are not nearly as destructive/large as the main focus, Eaton/Palisades/Hurst. IMO Hurst isn't even notable enough for its own article. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiment for the Woodley fire, however I think the Sunset Fire is sufficiently notable to have its own section (not article) for the time being given that, as opposed to the Woodley fire, it rapidly spreading in a residential area, and the current magnitude of evacuation orders pertaining to it. ExiaMesa (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point I agree that both aren't notable enough to warrant their own sections. ExiaMesa (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

California FAIR Plan

I just created an article for the California FAIR Plan, an insurance program backed by the state of California which many homeowners in the region affected by the fires are enrolled in. Thriley (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a good addition, and will likely be a huge part of the aftermath. Delectopierre (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A twitter user is tweeting their experience in filing a claim with FAIR. While not necessarily a RS, nor noteworthy, I'm following to see how it goes. Should anything noteworthy happen, I'll report back and look for RS. Delectopierre (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Mayor Bass

(1) Was MIA. (2) Refused to answer any questions. This needs mention. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a source and better details including how it is relevant. Wikipedia is not a place to push a political agenda. This seems objectively false, though, seeing as she was at a televised press conference on the subject of these wildfires yesterday evening. How can someone be "MIA" and at the same time "refuse to answer questions"? A person can't be asked questions if they are MIA. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Straight from the source: Skynews. This isn't political. she is a public official and needs to answer to the press. The relevancy: Their sole existence is to serve the people they represent.

Source:

https://news.sky.com/video/los-angeles-mayor-silent-when-asked-if-she-owes-citizens-apology-over-handling-of-wildfires-13285826 65.124.72.203 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not in the scope of this article to pass opinion or comment on whether or not public officials must answer the press (in no legal sense is it an obligation), this topic is inherently political given the reason for it's prominence in the media. ExiaMesa (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@ExiaMesa 10-4, thanks! Justwandering981 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this is correct. Delectopierre (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There's at least two paragraphs that are 100% political. Misinformation - Trump's and Musk's claims have been proven right. But... As a political entiry wikipedia has an agenda to sell. 84.229.94.149 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. Delectopierre (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

They were not "missing", they were on a planned trip to Ghana. Further, refusal to answer questions about her absence is not particularly pertinent to the goal of the article. ExiaMesa (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the points mentioned in the comments, I am opposed to mentioning LAFD budget cuts enacted last year by the mayor. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I take that back since it is already mentioned, there's no point deleting it. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

LOL. Wikipedia rears its ugly "left"-biased head. Yet again. (1) Bass was in Ghana during the fire. That is referred to as "MIA". (2) Bass was stone silent ... refused to answer questions ... when asked by the media about her role in the fire ... in her very own city. (3) Bass advocated for a reduction of millions of dollars toward the Fire Department budget. But none of this is "relevant" to the article. LOL. OK. Thanks for the gaslighting! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not necessary to cover it in great depth as it stands. MIA is certainly not the right term given that being in a different place doesn't mean a person is missing. Please clarify what you mean by "needs mention" the criticism section is sufficient as is in my opinion. ExiaMesa (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks! I have a better idea. We can add something like Mayor Bass has been commended for her outstanding leadership during this crisis. How's that? I'm sure Wikipedia would love that edit. LOL. Such gaslighting being done here. What a joke. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

We won't write that either because it's WP:PUFFERY. The fact of the matter is she didn't know this was going to go on and then came back as soon as she could. But the cut of firefighting funding is indeed a legitimate concern and has been included. Now is that "gaslighting"? No.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaslighting, yes. The, ummmmmm, Honorable Bass was warned ahead of time, and chose to ignore the warnings. I assume she had some very important official "Los Angeles" business to do in Ghana. LOL. Source: New York Times: [1]. In any event, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. She will resign or lose re-election or get recalled. Let's see which. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence from reliable sources that she ignored warnings, and what she did or did not do that she was advised to do, please provide it. Otherwise, see WP:FORUM. Delectopierre (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Read my above post. The source is right there. I even labelled it, ummmmm, "Source". If your reading comprehension skills are lacking, see if you can find a local third grade teacher ... or maybe even a local third grader. Maybe they can help out or offer some good resources. Good luck! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation about the content, and do not insult me. Delectopierre (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, LEARN HOW TO READ. My prior post said Read my above post. The source is right there. I even labelled it, ummmmm, "Source". Which was a direct reply to your question, asking for a source. Holy chit. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Predicting in January 2025 that a politician will be defeated in an election in November 2026 is ludicrous, especially since it is not yet known whether Bass will run for re-election. Equating a visit to Ghana as part of an official US government delegation to the inauguration of their new president to being "missing in action" is also ludicrous. She was representing our country there in an official capacity. Also, the notion that the absence of a single official somehow made the situation worse is also ludicrous. Bass is the mayor, not the fire chief or the disaster response coordinator. The purpose of this talk page is to propose and discuss improvements to this article. It is not to engage in personal attacks against a politician. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this the Honorable Madame Bass replying? LOL. You will see that my very first post says "these items need mention in the article". So, get off your high horse. Read some RS's. They are all saying the same thing about the Honorable Madame Bass. Or ... keep ypur head in the sand. Whichever. Maybe we can throw a parade in her honor, for her outstanding leadership? God forbid she answers questions from reporters. I thought she was a public official who works for the constituents. Maybe I was wrong? LOL. Sorry if I offended you, Honorable Madame Bass. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, keep the conversation about content. It is self evident that @Cullen328 is not the mayor (sorry to say, Cullen). Delectopierre (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The trolling by the 32.209 IP is mildly amusing but completely contrary to policy. Although Bass and I are roughly the same age and we are both Californians, she is a woman and I am a man and I live 440 miles from Los Angeles and have never been elected to public office or even lived in Southern California. The 32.209 IP is warned that personal attacks are contrary to policy, and that Wikipedia articles do not incorporate trolling. Also, Wikipedia does not organize parades. This is a project to write a neutral encyclopedia, not to pillory some politician who has been criticized from certain quarters in the last 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI I also told them to stop here. Delectopierre (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This entire article is written from a leftist point of view. 2600:8804:1C01:D100:25AC:B188:6039:64E4 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What -- specific -- changes would you like to see on the article? If they have reliable sources, are relevant, and are in a neutral point of view, they will likely be well received. Delectopierre (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge Heart ^(talk) 04:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

---

I think Hurst Fire should be merged into this article. Compared to the other two fires with articles (Palisades and Eaton), this fire hasn't had as severe impacts and isn't really notable enough for it's own article - a section on this one would suffice. harrz ^talk 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: The references section show that the Hurst Fire meets WP:GNG on its own. Yes, it was less impactful, but it does have decent news coverage. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Weak Oppose: Defo not nearly as notable as Eaton/Palisades, but probably warrants its own article. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Strong Oppose: has a lot of news coverage, and still is impactful Thewetroadinsummer (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose How about you wait until we see which fires ended up as major ones. There is zero need for administrative shuffling this early. Just let articles grow organically and you can reorganize them AFTER things have settled. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Snow oppose. While harrz has a point about the Hurst fire being less notable than the others, it is still notable. We should wait to assess lasting significance when things are over. With a rapidly-changing situation like this, this merge request could come to look very silly and shortsighted very quickly (or it may not). Consensus to merge will not be found while this thing is on the main page and we have no idea how it will end. Toadspike [Talk] 20:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose/Wait as per above

Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose/Wait I agree that the Hurst Fire has significantly less of an impact than the other two fires. However, the fire is only 10% contained and S&R teams are only combing through now. Its far too early to pass judgement on severity or make any administrative changes. ExiaMesa (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now - It is too early to make an informed decision, anything we settle on now will likely be debated again in a week. I would support a WP:SNOW closure as well. ASUKITE 22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait This may make sense at some point, but there is no rush. Let's wait and see how things develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1 No need to rush a merge now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It is true that it isn't as significant in the context of the current wildfire season because of the lack of damage to properties; however, I'd take into consideration that it exists in the context of previous devastating fires in the same area, the 2008 Sayre Fire and the 2019 Saddleridge fire, and is definitely notable, at the very least for the local population in the northeast San Fernando Valley. It's also potentially notable how quickly this fire has been put under control despite extreme weather and the historical precedent for devastating fires in the area. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (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.

Death toll

Please watch for possibly rapid changes to the listed death toll. With so many burned out cars in front of so many burned out homes, simple physics means that many people did not escape in time, although of course there were other ways to escape. In the days ahead, there is not much hope that media reports will achieve consensus on the death toll. Let's wait until consensus is reached. Right now, the media is saying 5 dead. That number will change, but it's what we are working with at the moment. I wish everyone who lives in the area well. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. 11 already killed Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Fire suspected as arson

This reddit user says his friend was in Runyon Canyon before closure, and say 1 or 2 people who broke into the park after closure. I have zero doubt they were entering to possibly start a fire. https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1hxhcu2/comment/m69o2to/ ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This "friend" can report their observation to the authorities, if they like. And the authorities can report this to the media, if they think it's credible. Then we can cite a WP:RS. But this article is not the place for rumors. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I know you mean well @ロドリゲス恭子, but I completely agree with @Suffusion of Yellow. This is speculation and harms the credibility of this article as well as Wikipedia as a whole. In America, everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. We don't even know if these alleged individuals were charged or apprehended by law enforcement. You are always entitled to send in information to law enforcement over there investigate but Wikipedia is not a forum (Per WP:FORUM with more info provided in this essay). I highly encourage you to also check out the following wikipedia policies: WP:BLPCRIME, WP:CRIME, and WP:N/CA

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If there are news sources that claim or speculate that the fire was caused by arson (and there are), it should be fine to report about these speculatively. Reporting on the speculation it doesn't mean that article unambiguously agrees, it just means that some high profile media speculated about it and we report on that. 2603:8000:CD01:5181:E082:AFFA:6920:E0E6 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the news sources meet the reliable resource policy: WP:RS Middle Mac CJM (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also to all writers, if this ends up being true, watch out for BLPCRIME stuff. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to add some credence to this topic, I run a bank of recorded surveillance cameras in the LA area, some of which have provided some amazing imagery of the fires (see the top pic on the 2025 Palisades Fire). I have a camera on a high rise in the immediate area (Hollywood Blvd & Orange Dr) of the Sunset Fire and was listening to LAFD radio traffic as it began and immediately trained that camera to the fire, well before any PD or FD units were on scene. On Friday, LAPD detectives from Major Crimes Division requested (in a friendly manner of course) access to view the footage as part of their investigation into the fire's origin. I'll keep you posted. Toastt21 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fire department budget in "Lead-up"

(1) This seems unrelated to the lead-up to the fire, which is largely concerned with the opening stage of the disaster. (2) It seems to contradict what's written in the "misinformation" section. Should it just be struck? Edit and moved lower down for some reaction/analysis section? Some third option? Citing (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the misinformation section is about false claims of mismanaging water. The lead-up thing is about cutting costs. Agree that it should be moved/deleted, but IDK where. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've trimmed it. It's widely covered by news outlets but we don't need such intricate detail.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks for clarifying/editing. The article will probably need a "Background" section eventually that could encompass the first three sections but this works for now. Citing (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would 100% make a background section and put the meteorology stuff in there. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

(Very) Junior editor here. Should it also be mentioned that the cut was roughly 2% of the overall budget to give some context? CirclePulse (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The Kenneth Fire

The Kenneth Fire is spreading really fast and has a chance to merge with the Palisades Fire. Should it be moved out of "additional fires"? MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not yet. kencf0618 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Often in California, when one fire merges with another, they both become called the name of the larger fire.

Additionally when there are many spot fires and significant fires all in one area, they assume a new name of "XXX Complex Fire". I suspect that this will happen in the next few days unless they make significant progress on all the fires. Delectopierre (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources on background information

The article would be better if it mentioned all of these things.

This 2017 article from Mother Jones makes it very clear how this could have been prevented. And many other sources have been giving this same warning for decades. The article is called "A Century of Fire Suppression Is Why California Is in Flames"

The first paragraph states (I'm citing fair use to post a bit of copyrighted content):

"The acrid smell of charred wood still permeates the air as Sasha Berleman, a fire ecologist, and I walk along a dirt path up through the middle of a canyon in the Bouverie nature preserve in Sonoma Valley. On the left side, the earth is black as tar, and scorch marks as tall as a person scar the trunks of the mature oak trees scattered throughout the field. But on the right side, the ground is tan and brown, and you have to look hard at the still-green oaks to see any evidence of the fire that raged through here just a few weeks before. It’s no mystery to Berleman why the fire behaved so differently on the two sides of the trail at Audubon Canyon Ranch’s Bouverie Preserve. When flames hit the field on the left of the path, they met a dense wall of thigh-high grass that hadn’t been mowed, grazed or burned for 20 years. The flames must have been 5 or 6 feet tall. On the right side, however, Berleman had set a prescribed burn just this spring. So when the October wildfire hit, patches of fire blazed, but with so little fuel, the flames remained only inches high."

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/a-century-of-fire-suppression-is-why-california-is-in-flames/

That's basically a controlled experiment. It shows the difference between clearing away the excess plant growth, and not clearing it away.

This article says California chose to send trillions of gallons of rainwater into the ocean instead of saving it for future human use.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-20/anger-flares-as-california-stormwater-washes-out-to-sea

This article is about how California has not built any new major reservoirs in a very long time.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/sites-reservoir-lawsuit-newsom-18566639.php

This article says California choose to not build enough desalination plants:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/09/los-angeles-fires-can-firefighters-use-ocean-water/77575501007/

By comparison, this article shows how Israel used desalination to turn their water shortage into a surplus, in the middle of the desert, where there is constant and perpetual drought:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220815040943/https://www.haaretz.com/2014-01-24/ty-article/end-of-water-shortage-is-a-secret/0000017f-e986-dc91-a17f-fd8ffb120000

All of these things are choices that California made, and they are all reported by reliable sources.

All of these things should be included in the article.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You've mischaracterized nearly every single source here.

• The Mother Jones article is about the challenges the state faces in using prescribed fires.
• The SF Chronicle article is about a push to build more reservoirs.
• The LA times article is about how claims like yours oversimplify water runoff.
• The USA Today article is about how it isn't as simple as using ocean water.

The haaretz article isn't relevant, and CA does not want desal plants for some very good reasons. If you're actually serious, and not trolling, I recommend you read up on the rejection of the HB desal plant. It's an interesting story with many moving parts and competing interests. Cal Matters has a number of good pieces on it. Delectopierre (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read my comment, and to offer your own comment.

The Mother Jones article is the one that I most interested in, as it is the most relevant. The title, as well as the part that I quoted, are extremely relevant.

Reservoirs hold water. The fact that they haven't built enough of them is also highly relevant.

Their refusal to build enough desalination plants is also relevant.

There are huge numbers of other sources that are covering those first two things. Both are extremely relevant to the subject.

I'd like to hear what some of the others here think about including, or not including, these issues in the article.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

NBC News article from 2020: "Decades of mismanagement led to choked forests — now it's time to clear them out, fire experts say"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599

That's says pretty much the same thing as the Mother Jones article.

Fox News article from two days ago: "Trump has long history of warning Newsom over 'terrible' wildfire prevention"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-trump-has-long-history-warning-newsom-over-terrible-wildfire-prevention

KQED article from summer of last year: "California Heat Turned Brush Into Prime Fuel for Fires. Forests Will Be Next"

https://www.kqed.org/news/11993386/california-heat-turned-brush-into-prime-fuel-for-fires-forests-will-be-next

This is extremely notable, and very well sourced. It should be included.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and more sources.

First, Fox is not a RS for politics or science, which are the two topics that article is about. See WP:FOXNEWS

Second, let us be clear -- there is no single cause of any catastrophe. Off the top of my head, some factors that contributed to this catastrophe are:

• Drought
• Difficulty of conducting prescribed burns
• Refusal to follow cultural burning practices
• Homes in WUI
• Water pressure dropping
• Climate change/Burning of fossil fuels
• Extreme winds
• Water use policy
• Land use policy
• The Colorado River Compact
• Agricultural land use and water use
• The 10 am rule, its impact, and the change in USFS chiefs and their beliefs about the 10 am rule and how its impacted federal rule-making for the USFS
• The impact of commercial logging interests on USFS policy regarding wildfire
• Difficulty in determining and exercising jurisdiction between USFS, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation Cal Fire, California Parks, LA City Fire, LA County Fire, CARB, and frankly many more.
• Inaction and/or misguided action by the CA Legislature and by congress on a myriad of issues
• Drones
• Refusal to evacuate
• Tensions between private and public firefighters
• ... and so many other factors

Which is all to say, it's a very complex issue.

Given all of that...is there a specific change you are requesting? Delectopierre (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

I agree with you that there are many factors.

I think it's a huge deal that California chose to ignore the multiple, repeated warnings about the dead, dry plants. The paragraph that I quoted from Mother Jones is extremely relevant.

Thank you for letting me know that Fox News is not reliablle for wikipedia articles. I found this CNN article which covers the same thing:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/08/politics/trump-newsom-los-angeles-fires-analysis/index.html

Anyway, my point is that it is extremely relevant that California chose to not remove those dead, dry plants. I think they are the only state in the country that does not do that. Everything that I have ever read about forest management strongly advises to do that. This is very important, and I think it should be included.

I am not arguing against any of the many excellent points that you raised. They should all be included.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm still not sure where you're seeing that the state ignored warnings about dry vegetation. Could you point me to that, directly?

I agree that there's more that can be done, I would have liked to see be done.

I am a resident of California and have called my state reps to push for more funding for prescribed burns. But I also know that funding isn't the only obstacle, as I detailed above, and @Toyonbro detailed below. Delectopierre (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I think your sentiments about fire management and the deleterious effects of fire suppression are very agreeable, but there is quite a lot of nuance and context that I want to fill you in on.

Prescribed burns are essential, as they were used by indigenous peoples for millennia to manage the land of California and are in fact the reason why a number of species like the giant sequoia are still here.

The articles you are citing are mainly in reference to a number of unrelated vegetation and ecosystem types, like coniferous forests and oak savannas. Fire ecologists consider California to be "pyrodiverse." While a significant plurality of species in the state are dependent on fire, the intervals and intensities of the fires they evolved with are extremely variable depending on the type of vegetation community.

The origins of the fires in Palisades and Eaton Canyon are both within southern chaparral communities. Chaparral historically only suffered from catastrophic Santa-Ana driven fires like these ones on much longer time scales than they do today, typically 50 - 100 years. Smaller fires, like lightning fires and prescribed burns by indigenous peoples, occurred much more frequently but had much, much smaller impacts, usually only burning the lighter fuels, and were beneficial.

The issue becomes complicated because a number of other factors (as Delectopierre notes) are at play. In particular, chaparral communities have suffered from invasions of non-native species, mostly herbaceous annual plants and grasses , which create an "altered fire regime". These invaders modify the fuel composition of the communities by creating heavy layers of thatch, which can create light, flashy fuels that ignite easily and carry fire. These are the main contributors to the "dead brush" in this case - not the plants that were already there. (p.185 of the following technical report)

When the chaparral's fire regime is modified by these non-native invasive plants, prescribed burning actually worsens the situation. As noted in the Forest Service's technical report, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, in the chapter 9 Chaparral section:

"From the standpoint of invasive species management, there is virtually no rationale for promoting management burning of stands of chaparral or coastal scrub. The reduction in fire-return interval more than anything else has exacerbated problems with invasive species in shrublands, and programs using fire to control nonnative plants in shrub communities may contributed to increased invasion rates" p. 187

Prescribed burns are still useful for some of the areas affected by the current wildfires, like the coniferous forests of the Angeles National Forest, and they are actively carried out. But in the case of chaparral, as the technical report notes, to decrease the risk of invasions (which lead to dangerous altered fire regimes), it is in fact better to let the native plants of the chaparral fully develop their canopy. From my anecdotal experience working with land managers, unfortunately, there is not a lot of funding going to managing invasive plants, and it is further complicated by efforts to ban useful herbicides like glyophosate.

Like Delectopierre notes, the background to these fires is complex and multifaceted. However in the case of prescribed burning, I think that it has less relevancy to the ignition of these fires than the degradation of chaparral habitat does.

But the most destructive parts of these fires have little to do with the wildlands or the plants, as it was structures that served as the fuel. What we saw in that case is more of an urban firestorm akin to the ones that used to historically ravage cities in the "great fires" of the past.

The source for a lot of the background information in this comment is "Fire in California's Ecosystems" by the University of California Press Toyonbro (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Great comment, thank you. I can't believe I didn't mention ecology in my off-the-top-of-my-head-list. Doh! Thank you for expounding!

Additionally, to this point

But the most destructive parts of these fires have little to do with the wildlands or the plants, as it was structures that served as the fuel. What we saw in that case is more of an urban firestorm akin to the ones that used to historically ravage cities in the "great fires" of the past.

I see a lot of commonality with the Oakland firestorm and frankly with the 1923 Berkeley fire. While Berkeley/Oakland and PP are not the same environment, I am unsure of the specific ecological differences between the two.

That said, the homes-as-fuel/urban wildfire are common across those events.

Delectopierre (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could address why they used such flammable building materials in the desert.

I am reminded of an episode of the Flintstones where Fred wondered why their town had a fire department when everything was made of stone.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things: First LA is actually not widely considered a dessert climate. I thought it was straightforwardly not a desert, but a quick search shows that there's actually some debate. Perhaps @Toyonbrocan help clarify this point.

Second, to your point about building materials, there has been tremendous effort to do so. Unfortunately there has also been tremendous pushback. Furthermore, even when new building codes are mandated, they apply to new buildings. Homes that are already built are more difficult. The state would have a hard time forcing every homeowner to pay for a new roof out of their own pocket, for example. What happens if one cannot afford it? Would the state then evict them from their home, for example?

That said, there has been tremendous effort and progress made from our lawmakers to pass new legislation to address wildfires over the last ten years. More needs to be done. I'll put a list in a comment below.

This article is a good explainer on that same effort, in Washington state, and the difficulties they are facing.

Here is a bill in the CA legislature that unfortunately failed, but would have improved defensible space requirements.

Lastly, I admire that you've been agreeable to learning new context and been open minded. Thank you for that, it is often not what I encounter on the internet. I would like to encourage you to read up more on wildfires and prevention of them. One such resource is this episode of the podcast 99 percent invisible. This episode discusses building materials extensively, as the host is a licensed architect in California.

Another is this hour-long documentary from Frontline PBS.

Another is the book Paradise by Lizzie Johnson, who used to be a reporter at the SF Chronicle and was one of the first reporters on the ground in Paradise after it essentially burned to the ground and 85 people were killed.

If you would like more resources to learn about wildfire, I encourage you to check out the Wiki Wildfire Project. Folks there may be able to point you to more resources to learn about wildfires. Delectopierre (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

CA legislation that has been passed to help prevent wildfire tragedy (I was going to create a list, but found this list - which while not comprehensive, is a good place to start):

Assembly Bill (AB) 38 (Wood) creates a new program that will direct state and federal money to modify buildings and manage vegetation around properties.

Senate Bill (SB) 190 (Dodd) requires the State Fire Marshal to develop model “defensible space” guidelines that local governments can use to enforce rules on reducing flammable vegetation around at-risk homes.

SB 209 (Limón) creates a centralized state office for predicting and communicating wildfire weather threats to electric utilities, firefighters, and communities.

SB 670 (McGuire) improves local emergency operations by requiring the Office of Emergency Services to share information about outages with 911 telephone services in threatened areas.

SB 632 (Galgiani) accelerates the approval of permits for fuel reduction to mitigate wildfire risk.

SB 70 (Nielsen) requires utilities to justify decisions not to bury power lines, which can reduce wildfire risk.

SB 247 (Dodd) subjects vegetation management activities required by utilities’ annual wildfire mitigation plans to increased oversight by the California Public Utilities Commission.

And SB 167 (Dodd) requires those plans to also evaluate how power system shutdowns can affect vulnerable populations (such as people with medical conditions) and consider ways to mitigate these impacts.

SB 560 (McGuire) requires utilities to provide advance warning about power shut-offs to entities that are essential to wildfire response, including public safety offices, health care facilities, and mobile telephone carriers. Delectopierre (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your very lengthy and informative comment.

I posted the links. If anyone here thinks that those articles contain information which is relevant to this article, they can add them.

But I see your point about the different areas having different kinds of vegetation.

I won't press for this any more.

I do very much appreciate you taking the time to post such a lengthy and informative reply.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Worst fire-related structural loss in world history?

Has any system of wildfires ever destroyed this many structures before? Are we looking at the worst wildfires in recorded history - not in deaths but in terms of structure loss? At this point its a fair question. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The Camp Fire is by far the worst, at over 18,000 structures destroyed. Not saying this one isn't destructive, though. E_F⁵ 00:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussing it is off-topic here though. We have no way of knowing until comprehensive post-mortem surveys are done and then have the issue of inflation when comparing different years.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

By the time these fires are put out, it may be possible that Camp Fire is surpassed Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Camp fire - 18k structures Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. I've stricken the text. (I didn't want to delete your comment.) I was unaware of the rule. Thanks for filling me in. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This can be measured in different ways to find out which is the biggest.

- The number of buildings.

- The square footage of those buildings.

- The dollar cost (adjusted for inflation) of those buildings.

- The number of people who were displaced.

And there could be other ways too that I haven't thought of.

We should just go by whatever the reliable sources say. That's how wikipedia works.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Evacuation warning sent to all county residents by mistake

It just happened, but can we put this near the top somewhere?

• https://ktla.com/news/california/wildfires/evacuation-warning-alert-sent-to-all-l-a-county-residents-by-mistake-officials-say/
• https://www.foxla.com/news/emergency-alert-sent-error-all-la-county-residents-increasing-panic-amid-fires Kire1975 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there specific wording you are looking to add? What is the material relevance to the fire and its impact? Delectopierre (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Drone

There are RS reports that a drone collided with a firefighting plane over the Palisades Fire; the aircraft landed safely. Should this be put in the article, and if so, where? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that it has been added by Noble Attempt. :) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Sunset Fire section into the Additional Fires section.

The only noteworthy thing about it that sets it apart from the other fires is that it was around the Hollywood Signs. This is such an insignificant fire that lasted one day, and does not warrant having a featured section. This is an official proposal to gather consensus since my previous edit yesterday was undone by another user, and a continuation of the conversation above. Heart ^(talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Evacuations for it are being lifted slowly and it turned out to be very minor in the grand scheme of things here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797 it was about a mile west of the Hollywood sign and on a different ridge.. those of us who live in Los Angeles don't really associate it with being near the Hollywood sign but I guess if you're not from here it could be a different story lol... while it was active it was burning West so it was actually burning farther away from the sign.. it was never threatened Toastt21 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's really what reliable sources associate it with, not our own personal opinions, that counts. Whether it is WP:DUE weight is another matter though. Anyways, I'll remark that I did implement the merging since the Sunset Fire was getting WP:UNDUE weight relative to the other minor fires, especially the Kenneth Fire which is already an order of magnitude larger. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the extra information about the Sunset Fire WP:UNDUE. The fire may have been relatively small, but it received significant media coverage because of the apparent threat it posed to the Hollywood area, and that attention alone means it deserves the additional weight. I also wouldn't remove the information about the evacuation order in Hollywood Hills as that was another thing that made the Sunset Fire more significant (the other fires in the Additional Fires section didn't warrant evacuations). RyanAl6 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Saying it caused evacuations is fine. We don't need the exact boundaries because the main media interest was over the sign and boulevard being threatened, which is documented still.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Lidia Fire also caused evacuations. It was knocked down not much before the Sunset was considered knocked down.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng I may have given a personal opinion but the reality is the Hollywood sign was never under any threat.. look at the location of the fire and the direction that it moved relative to the location of the sign.. that's the BBC across the pond manufacturing their opinion that it was threatened ... I would hardly call them a reliable source in this instance and that's my opinion again !! lol Toastt21 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

KTLA Sources

For some reason, KTLA sources are not being cited properly throughout the article. I’ve had to use manual citations on multiple occasions. 2603:8000:1801:65F1:7C48:DF88:5E10:D4BB (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Be patient. There are a lot of moving pieces right now. CalFire, a reliable source, now says that over 10,000 structures have burned, but the media has been slow to update the totals. These things take time. With so much changing by the minute, it's best to let things work themselves out. Thank you for your efforts. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, as I read this, this comment is about auto-cite not working for KTLA, not about any of the facts in the article or which sources to use. Delectopierre (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I had the same experience. Unclear why. Delectopierre (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

photos

there is litle dispite the size of it. can somebody find some, thanks. Shawdowpouncer (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"Kageff fire" a mistake?

I can't find any other evidence online for the existence of the "Kageff fire" (mentioned under Additional fires and in the List of wildfires). I've been following Watch Duty pretty closely and have not seen it mentioned there.

The sources presently cited in are an article on LAist ("Death toll jumps to 10 as fires take staggering toll on LA". January 8, 2025) and an article in LAmag ("Pacific Palisades Wildfire Forces Mass Evacuations as Flames Devour Hillsides". Retrieved January 8, 2025). As of 20:00 UTC on Jan 10, neither of those articles mention a "Kageff fire".

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to edit anything myself before I learn more about how to do so correctly, but I did want to bring this to someone's attention. KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. I've removed the fire from the table. Penitentes (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

(and from the 'Additional fires' subsection) Penitentes (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Kageff fire was added back in by @PRRfan: in this edit. The sources given once again do not have any mention of a "Kargeff" fire or any new fire near Woodland Hills. I have reverted this edit unless a proper source can be found. I do not see any mention of a "Kargeff Fire" in my research. --haha169 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I'm not sure what happened; I certainly didn't mean to readd it. Probably a case of overlapping edits? PRRfan (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Penitentes and @Haha169! KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please verify your sources.

Hey, I've been tracking these wildfires closely. I have not seen the "Kageff Fire" anywhere, or even the "Granada Fire".

There is also absolutely no way or evidence that the Lidia fire destroyed a single structure, especially 1,000. It's the same thing with the Taft & Bert fires, there is no evidence a single structure was destroyed in the Taft Fire, and no official sources that say over 10 structures were affected by the Bert Fire. Please, make sure your sources are completely verified and referenced before you edit a page like this.

I also kindly would like to ask of you: If you do not know how to edit a fire table or fire page, please leave it for the people who do. I just had to remove an edit because the table was not managed correctly. Thanks. WatchOutBroo (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You have deleted several fires, with sources, from the table. This comment is very hostile. Maybe don't remove sourced fires. Thank you. 142.162.127.30 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not a hostile comment. I am trying to make sure this remains a credible article.

The fires were deleted from the table because they were not formatted correctly WatchOutBroo (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I also plan on adding the fires back with correct formatting soon when I have time. WatchOutBroo (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I guess I'm just being irritable. Thank you for fixing the formatting! 142.162.127.30 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, it's fine you're good. I added back the fires with the proper formatting now. WatchOutBroo (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Trim the "List of wildfires"?

I think the table list of wildfires needs some trimming down. The vast majority of the impacts of this event stem from the Palisades and Eaton fires; the majority of the fires in the table burned less than five acres, received little to no coverage, and had no lasting effects.

Thoughts? Penitentes (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think most of the small fires from January 10 and 9 should be removed, but the January 7-8 ones should stay. WatchOutBroo (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I say this because the event was strongest those two days, and those two days had the most impact. WatchOutBroo (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have some specific criteria regarding impacts. What makes a one-acre fire on January 8 any more notable than a one-acre fire on January 9? Penitentes (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe two separate charts in the same section? One with the bigger fires, and one with the smaller fires. 142.162.127.30 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's evident that several of the fires are worth distinguishing and the smaller ones are not, why include the smaller fires at all? They are not inherently notable just because they were also wildfires; wildfires are only notable when they produce major impacts. Penitentes (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Because they are still a part of a notable event, however, and smaller, and therefore should be put in a different section. It seems like a fair compromise between keep or delete. 142.162.127.30 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Because they may be small, but they are still notable since they were part of the wind event, even if they are small. I just say since the strongest event was Jan 7-8 that we remove Jan 9-10 besides Kenneth. WatchOutBroo (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My conditions for inclusion would be: fire damages structures OR injures someone OR forces evacuations. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree some need removal, but it's probably best to wait since data is preliminary and other factors like deaths and structures destroyed that would make a fire notable need time to be released and/or confirmed. ExiaMesa (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@ExiaMesa I'm not sure how the fire in studio City on Sunswept that burned less than 1/2 of an acre was included since that call initially was a structure fire, a multi-level hillside home was consumed and the fire spread to the brush.... in all technicality it was not a "brush fire"in the sense that it did not destroy a house after starting as a brush fire.. it was the opposite.. not sure if that makes the guidelines or not but I wouldn't think so Toastt21 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that there are definitely things that need removal, but that can of worms shouldn't be opened until there's a better understanding of the facts. (the death toll and missing count both nearly tripled today alone.) ExiaMesa (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@ExiaMesa https://lafd.org/alert/knockdown-structure-fire-01082025-inc3094 I'm sorry I forgot to add this to my initial message Toastt21 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Kageff fire

Someone is saying the Kageff fire does/did not exist. Can we get some clarification on this? Ûtrechtâl (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Not sure why it keeps being added. E_F⁵ 23:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It has never been present in the references attached to its mentions and there are no Google hits for it. Penitentes (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you were the person who added it to the list in the first place, where did you originally hear about it? Ionmars10 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Archer Fire

Do we have any reliable sources for the Archer Fire? I can’t seem to find any. Umbra826368254 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I found several news articles, including from the LA Times and from KTLA. Here is a link to the CAL FIRE page on the Archer Fire. KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

“MODELLED”

Someone changed “modeled” to “modelled” although both versions are acceptable, does it matter which is used? Ûtrechtâl (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a gray/grey area.

This is an American fire, so I think there's a slight bias towards single L. But I don't think it matters. Delectopierre (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Granada Fire

@Ûtrechtâl Please confirm that the "Granada" fire exists. The only mention of Granada Hills in the source associated (The Guardian) refers it as the Archer fire.

Can you please find another source for the fire? CAL FIRE's API includes historical fires and their names and locations, but does not mention a "Granada" fire or any other fire started on 2025-01-09 that isn't already on the list. 2603:8000:E800:1B67:928A:7BC8:68EC:6506 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the Archer fire was referred to as the “Granada fire” before it was named, since it is located in Granada Hills. 76.170.147.28 (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"Fake" fires

For the people adding questionable fires, are you guys getting info from Watchduty? Just wondering as there is no consensus on the reliability of Watchduty(the question went unanswered on WP:WILDFIRE talk page). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless I am looking at it wrong, I don't see the questionable fires on Watch Duty either. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope, they weren't on Watch Duty. WatchOutBroo (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Watch Duty, in my opinion, is a highly reputable breaking news source.

Which is to say that I completely trust their judgment and process, but in breaking news scenarios with rapidly evolving situations, there are bound to be some mistakes.

Their info is compiled — by firefighters, dispatchers, and other fire professionals who they vet — from satellite data, primary sources such as fire cams, and radio transmissions.

They have a code of conduct they follow, and their advisory board is staffed by numerous (relatively) high ranking officials and experts in related fields. Delectopierre (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/us/watch-duty-wildfire-app.html?smid=url-share Delectopierre (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

List of fires does not sort by area

It looks to me like edit 1268689582 may have accidentally broken the table containing the list of fires, since it is no longer possible to correctly sort the fires by area (e.g. a descending sort by area no longer puts Palisades and Eaton in the top two positions, respectively). Does anyone know how to fix this? KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I know why. It is detecting the comma as a decimal point, and sorts it based on that. You can use small gaps instead of commas per WP:NUMBERS but I've never seen wildfire acreage been displayed like that. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It should hopefully be fixed now. Thank you to Wildfireupdateman for looking for a solution. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Unprotect page

As this is a rapidly developing subject the page should be unprotected to allow editors with different perspectives to collaborate on the page. 76.170.147.28 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Misinformation concerns have warranted the protection. Others need to use edit requests. It's not something we do lightly but a situation like this requires strong measures against misinformation. You can request unprotection at WP:Requests for unprotection but will almost certainly get told the same thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

As this is a rapidly developing subject and there is now a political charge to the discussion outside of Wikipedia, page protection is important in preventing disruptive editing. This page had disruptive editing earlier, which is why the page protection was put in place. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article was protected by an administrator due to "persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content" until January 14, 2025. This is only semi-protected, which means anyone is free to edit the article as long as they (1) have a registered account that is at least 4 days old and (2) have made at least 10 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. This was done to help protect the article from trolls and vandals who wish to disrupt the article. Editors who are unable to edit the page due to this protection are still able to collaborate with others via edit requests on the talk page. The article will be automatically unprotected on January 14, but you are free to make an edit request until then and another editor can make the edit for you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: No, it is extended confirmed-protected. The requirements for that are 30 days and 1000 edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's semi-protected. EP also needs 500 edits, not 1,000. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe EPC is 500 edits. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

ECP is 500 edits and Jasper Deng, it is semi-protected: See this confirmation at RPPI. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's clearly been a long day. I know some other fire article that's related got upgraded to ECP if my memory serves me right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Australian victim

A 32-year-old British-born Australian man died in the Malibu fires on Thursday, as reported by his mother. ABC News Australia has a source. 2001:8003:ADA6:CB00:EDFD:F98E:31C0:3CD9 (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

top speed of wind in intro

The intro says, "The fires have been exacerbated by very low humidity, dry conditions, and hurricane-force Santa Ana winds that in some places have exceeded 80–100 miles per hour (130–160 km/h)." I edited this to say "have exceeded 80 mph" because 1) the fastest recorded wind actually mentioned in this article is 84 mph ("By the morning of January 7, an anemometer in Magic Mountain Truck Trail in Santa Clarita reported wind speeds of 84 miles per hour (135 km/h; 38 m/s)...") and 2) there's there's no apparent reason to give a range instead of simply the top reported speed. My edit was reverted by Jasper Deng, who asserted in the edit summary, without citation, that "there were direct observations up to 98 mph (station near Malibu) so no". The intro, of course, should only reflect properly cited material from the body, so I'll switch that back unless Jasper Deng can update the article accordingly. In any case, the intro should give a single figure, not a range. PRRfan (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@PRRfan: If you had simply bothered to check observations yourself, you would've found this. This isn't even claimed to be the highest observation as there are reports of 100 mph in the San Gabriel Mountains.

The only thing I agree with is that it should be a single number, but that single number should not be "80 mph", and it should be an upper bound, not a lower one.---Jasper Deng (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This mentions 100 mph at the Mt. Lukens Truck Trail (not a permalink). What's clear from these statistics is that 80 mph is more or less an arbitrary cutoff and doesn't convey much. The maximum gust is a much more useful summary statistic of this data.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng, I'm not the one who changed the intro so that it didn't reflect the article. Feel free to add text and citations to support your proposed change. And yes, obviously, the upper bound; that was the point. PRRfan (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Nor am I. But your edit was based on a simple lack of research. Maybe I'll insert it tomorrow but if you really feel strongly about it, now that you have the sources, you should WP:BOLDly go ahead and update the body; it's not even clear where in the body these observations should go because they happened well after the first fire start, meaning it's no longer "background" information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: if the article doesn't say something, it doesn't belong in the intro. Nowhere in the article does it mention actual winds above 84 mph. If you want the intro to say something else, put it in the article. PRRfan (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Kenneth fire getting its own article?

I'd say it's time to make an article for the Kenneth fire, but I wanted to get other opinions. As of now, the fire's section in the article is the longest of the other "featured" fires' sections (Palisades, Eaton, Hurst), likely owing to the fact that it's the only place where we can put information about the fire. And that's not even considering the fact that there's still other crucial information missing from the fire's description including the evacuation orders being lifted and its growth being slowed since the day it started. RyanAl6 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE it fits the guidelines for its own. Delectopierre (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Agencies Involved in the Inbox?

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know if this is something that is usually added, but I think it would be nice to have the agencies involved (ie, LAFD, LAcoFD, OCFA, CalFire) in the infoxbox. CirclePulse (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe fires normally don't have that. AFAIK only battles have all parties listed in the article/infobox. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's QUITE difficult to track mutual aid deployed, so it would be very difficult to ensure comprehensiveness. If you're interested in reading more about it, here's a 43 page doc about it (I don't recommend reading it, though): https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Fire-Rescue/Documents/CalOES_-_Fire_and_Rescue_-_Mutual_Aid_Plan-3.pdf Delectopierre (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This could be a section, if not an article, of its own. The Valley Fire in the Boise foothills (which began in October 2024) lasted for weeks, burned 10,000 acres, and cost $3M. Mostly Boise Fire Department and BLM, but a lot of agencies were involved, and it just takes a while to figure out who owes whom what. Accounting procedures are in place, yes, yes, there are protocols, and it's insanely complicated. kencf0618 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

These two reliable sources contradict each other

This first headline is interesting, but so is the second. As far as I can tell, the second one contradicts the first one.

Does wikipedia have a policy on how to deal with this kind situation?

Headline #1: “Here is why California can’t use ocean water to help fight the wildfires”

https://independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/los-angeles-fire-ocean-water-debunked-b2677916.html

Headline #2: “Los Angeles Firefighters Are Getting an Assist From Canada’s Water-Bombing Planes”

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-10/los-angeles-s-firefighters-get-an-assist-from-canada-s-water-bombing-planes

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

at the end of the first source it says "firefighters sometimes do use saltwater" which fits with Headline 2. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Until this crisis is over, a lot of info is going to change. For one, I believe the number of structures damaged and destroyed, as well as the number of dead, will end up being much higher than listed. But until authorities can get in and make an accurate count, we won't know. The same will be true of salinated water use in fire fighting. Right now there are well over 100k visitors to this article daily, and the incidents are still very much in progress. Let's be patient. The facts will sort themselves out. As I said above, I appreciate everyone's efforts here. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point about waiting to see. Thanks for your comment. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Good point. But still, it was only when the Canadians arrived that they started using seawater. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Structural damage

There is also absolutely no way or evidence that the Lidia fire destroyed a single structure, especially 1,000. It's the same thing with the Taft & Bert fires, there is no evidence a single structure was destroyed in the Taft Fire, and no official sources that say over 10 structures were affected by the Bert Fire. 2603:8000:1801:65F1:E93A:BA2:79B1:E757 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Pictures

Lets not try to remove pics unless they are truly bad (like off topic, blurry or otherwise bad). A totally prose (meaning reading material) article is very boring to readers.

Also, some pictures (like dark neighborhood) is obviously going to be all black. By low quality I mean blurry, or otherwise low quality. If it depitcts a dark neighborhood, it is expected the pic will likley be pretty dark, while if the pic depicts helichopter, it is expected that the blades might appear blurry. JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Misifomtion section

should i add section of misinfomation? because ai misnfiomation on wildfires and musk speard lies by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there's certainly a case to be made about general political impacts. Especially now that the governor has gotten involved

1. on twitter

2. by requesting a report on the lack of water pressure as a way to fight against the misinformation.

I don't think just misinformation makes sense though. Thoughts? Delectopierre (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean people used ai image gentatior on hollywood sign on flames and grassroots organization codepink blame israel for wildfires which i find misinfmotion and climate change deniel Sunuraju (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe it was removed by an editor (I don't remember who) who argued in their edit summary that things like this happens with almost every disaster, so it should not be added. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You're likely right that it's misinformation and climate change denial. But on its own, I'm not sure it's related enough to the fires -- again on its own -- to merit inclusion on the page about fires. What if you draft something and add it to the talk page to solicit feedback?

Alternatively, you can always start a new article about the misinformation around these fires.

Delectopierre (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are some fact checking articles that could be useful:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czj3yk90kpyo

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/394283/los-angeles-wildfires-trump-newsom-delta-smelt

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-trump-claims-los-angeles-california-wildfires/

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/politics/fact-check-trump-california-wildfires-fema/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/conservatives-play-blame-game-california-wildfires-pointing-fingers-de-rcna186983

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance section

with Albertian Premier Danielle Smith saying that "Good neighbours are always there for each other in times of need, and we will assist our American friends in any way they need during this crisis." Intheforesttrees (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Typo in the province name and cherry picks a quote from one specific premier, while excluding other's quotes. Intheforesttrees (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction in province name, I felt that adding 5ish quotes essentially stating the same thing would be somewhat redundant so I provided details where possible and picked a quote I thought conveyed the general idea best. I apologies if that disturbed some sensibility or hit a point of contention, I'm not Canadian so I wouldn't know. That said, I'd favor leaving it in (or adding other quotes). ExiaMesa (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Greater Los Angeles Fires

Term is being used in media and is probably more specific, as everything here is in the Greater Los Angeles area.

Given the rising death toll and massive cost giving it a more specific name is probably wise. This is the costliest wildfire in US history and is on track to be one of the deadlier ones this century. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:F440:3ED2:C65E:1932 (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need a longer name because it would not be WP:CONCISE. "Greater Los Angeles area" is a mouthful compared to the already-long "Southern California". Since there has been a minor fire in OC, and additional threats for winds and fires in the SD area this weekend and early next week, it's best to wait in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s not longer than January 2025 Southern California Wildfires tho 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:E4B5:FDCC:4AC5:36F4 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Well these are wildfires, so we don't get to cheat by removing "wild". You can start a requested move but are unlikely to get it to pass. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Poor-quality image

Do I improve this article, or should I be removed?

User:JonTheSucculentDude has re-inserted this dark and blurry image, despite MOS:IMAGEQUALITY specifically mentioning "dark or blurry" images. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Blackout image

I prefer this Blackout image to the "dark or blurry" image you mentioned above. I vote to delete the image.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC).

I think it should be kept because this can be considered a execption to that rule as its the subject of the image JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this is a case where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would apply JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because you uploaded the image is not a reason to ignore a policy. Please provide a reason why this low-quality image--that doesn't show the fire--should be added to this article about a fire. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It was in the power outages section, and this is a neighborhood in a power outage, I think the blackout image (The totally dark one on the left) is NOT the apporiate image in for this article because its black and I feel like it does not depict it nicely. The section this was in was not fire releated (power outages) so I believe in this case it is a apporiate image despite being in possible violation of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. So for my answer to "Do I improve this article, or should I be removed?" My answer is it improves the article despite maybe being in violation of a MOS. JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The image is not helpful. You can’t see much. We really don’t need an image of a power outage. Maybe if there was a zoomed out image of hundreds of homes with no lights that would be interesting, but this does nothing. JFHutson (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that we keep this photo and replace it in the future if we get a better one. Also, yesterday I made this edit to try and stop it from only being a long text, but it got reverted by Magnolia677 as described here. I added this photo where it was explained that the California National Guard was deployed but it still got reverted. // Kakan spelar (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yea, I think for now, we just keep the image but if we find a image of more houses under outage from this event, then we can change it JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGEQUALITY specifically mentions unless absolutely necessary. It is necessary when we don't have a better one, because it will best illustrate the subject matter. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Media help

Can anyone find a video at this link that could be inserted in the article? // Kakan spelar (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Response, Reactions, Critisism

Looking at the Response and Reaction sections, I feel like reactions could be merged under response, and perhaps there should be a subsection for criticism under response. ExiaMesa (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Kern Water Bank

I just created an article for the Kern Water Bank. It may be relevant to this article as it has been part of present and past discussions of California water usage. Thriley (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)