Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of wildfires graphic[edit]

Does "containment state" need to be updated? It indicates that the fire is still burning, which it is not. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the last time that the containment state for any of the fires was reported was back in September with no further updates. So neither the table nor the graphic can really be updated properly. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s definitely updates, as I’ve seen them. I believe they are in the form of press releases on the county of Maui website. Also, it’s pretty silly to imply the fire is still burning, so that needs to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've at least removed the colors indicating the fires are still burning/not burning as is usually done with list of wildfires tables once all are fully contained. I've also removed the dates from the two fires where the refs don't actually indicate a final containment date for now, and will search for them later. Penitentes (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is a very good idea. Thank you as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are in the form of press releases on the county of Maui website. Just to be clear, that was what I linked to as the "9/27 MAUI WILDFIRE DISASTER UPDATE" release was the last update under the series of "MAUI WILDFIRE DISASTER UPDATE." It is possible that a later release with a different type of headline has the information, but it is doubtful based on specific Google searches of the Maui website. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but I did see a "all fires are 100% contained" message a while back, presumably from the County, but it could have come from somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. Now I understand your meaning. I tried to look into it and didn't find it, but it is possible that it is there somewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Penitentes and Viriditas: Alright, that took a decent number of searches, but I think I found what we needed. "Honolulu Civil Beat: It’s not unusual for Upper Kula residents terrorized by an Aug. 8 wildfire to wake up to find Pohakuokala Gulch, where the blaze is believed to have originated, filled with smoke from deep-seated hot spots still smoldering three months after 202 acres burned and 17 area homes were destroyed. A separate 1,081-acre wildfire in nearby Olinda that same day claimed three residences. Both fires were 100% contained by Sept. 28 but have yet to be declared extinguished due to fire remnants in difficult-to-reach terrain that the Maui Fire Department said pose no immediate threat." It does not have the date where the fires were declared extinguished, but it does have the fully contained date. (As far as I can find, there is no information like this on the Maui website, but I might try again in the future as it might have an extinguished date as well.) For now though, is this enough to update the article and resolve most of the remaining issues? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. We can only do what we can do. Thanks for addressing the issue. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit/update 2/24[edit]

I took a pass through this article and removed a bunch of obsolete stuff as well as copyediting everything. Feedback encouraged. Seems to be some needed additions (such a huge topic):

  • Federal, state, and international response covered. Local?
  • Recovery efforts didn't cite the local recovery group (Kalepa, et. al.)
  • The article didn't convey the sense of everything going crazy all at once, or the absence of key local officials on the 8th.
  • Aftermath didn't discuss impacts on employment/economy/budgets, or the discussion on waste disposal.
  • It would be great to add some stats on things like meals delivered, people housed
  • Didn't discuss the ongoing housing emergency, the housing fund, the potential to ban STRs, etc.

Lfstevens (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might take me some time to go through all of the edits as there were a significant number of them, but the main things I am noticing is that the time formatting is off in a number of spots, the references to the invasive grass and plants on the islands seems to only be indirect mentions now (despite being a primary factor), and the mention of the death toll at 115 is missing or has been moved and reformatted. Additionally, the Casualties section implies to the reader that the current death toll is at 97. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a second support for more about invasive grass. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfstevens: Other than the invasive grass part as that might need some discussion, I ended up editing the article to address the concerns I had. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Lfstevens (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfstevens: I am a bit confused about this edit removing the mention of the situation of the death toll being at 115 for a number of weeks. Is there a problem with the wording or some other issue? (I tried to change the wording here to see if that resolves the problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favor removing the early, incorrect estimates in favor of the final correct ones. At this point, the early stuff is a distraction, except possibly in the context of discussing the trauma associated with them. Lfstevens (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I gotcha. We could remove it, but I believe there would be two problems with doing so. The main one is that we would lack an explanation for why the Fatalities and Percent searched table goes up to 99 on August 14th, continues on to 115 on August 21st, and then suddenly drops back down to 97 on September 18th. The only way for the reader to figure it out would be to directly click on the reference and read the ABC27/WHTM-TV article. (Aside: Given that the ABC27 article is just an Associated Press article, it likely should be replaced with the actual AP article.) The minor problem would be that it would appear to be an inconsistency due to the lack of explanation, but that could be managed with a hidden note. Still, I don't see it as a distraction, but more of as an explanation as to why the table is the way it is, plus it help explains how officials got the current death toll.
A bit off-topic, but I will note that the lines are currently the only mention of DNA testing despite a number of sources that could potentially be added to the article: Officials are asking family members to head to the family assistance centers set up around Maui to submit any identifying information of their missing loved ones, including dental and medical records, as well as a DNA sample.; Indeed, DNA has become particularly important thanks to the development of Rapid DNA (...) which is currently being used in Maui. Using a small machine out in the field, a process that once could take months now takes (...) 94 minutes.; Rapid DNA-testing machines that were used after a 2018 blaze that largely destroyed Paradise, California, also are being put to work in Maui.; Urgent efforts to identify the remains of those discovered in the ashes have prompted emergency leaders to call on families for DNA samples to aid in the identification process. As of Wednesday morning, only 104 families had submitted DNA samples, limiting the process.; But, for about seventy per cent of the victims, the experts needed DNA. In the majority of those cases, there were still significant amounts of tissue. In a few cases—the most difficult ones—there were only ashes and small fragments of bone.
Back on topic, if there is another method to mentioning this info, then I am welcome to it. The only thing I can think of would be to potentially turn it into an explanatory footnote. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favor removing the table as well. At most I'd leave a statement such as "After estimates reached as high as X, the final tally settled at Y, after errors and duplications were corrected." The interim numbers are just not that interesting at this point. I'd say that the process of reaching the conclusion (DNA, notifications, ...) is worth a brief mention. Lfstevens (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am a bit bummed given the timing, but if it isn't useful at all to readers, then it should be discarded. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Will address.

Some links for future use:

Working on a second pass now. More issues:

  • The Olinda fire is not distinguished from the Kula fire.
  • Whether the main Lahaina fire was a continuation of the morning fire or had a separate cause.
If we are talking about the same thing, then yes, the Lahaina fire was a continuation of the morning fire, that's pretty much conclusive. The sources note that firefighters thought it was out (and I think most of them left the immediate vicinity to do other things), and normally, that would have been that. But this was not a normal day, and the wind was chaotic and ferocious in its intensity, and some embers quickly spread from the area they thought was extinguished. At least, that's my recollection. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No argument, but I would love a strong source. Thanks. Lfstevens (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it’s history at this point.[1]. Are we good? Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfstevens: Finally finished going over things. Feel free to modify my wording in the changes I made if it sounds funky. Also, I looked at the suggested additions above and they seem fine to me, so you have my support there. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Left this for awhile to let things settle. I'll look again. Lfstevens (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the revert, @Viriditas:? And no explanation? Why not just tell me what the problem is and let me fix it? I don't edit war, so I won't revert your revert, but now what? Lfstevens (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was very odd. You introduced typos, and you removed the most significant and important aspects of the topic (deletion of lawsuit against the power company?? One of the most notable aspects of the fire). Just no rhyme or reason to what you are doing. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but please talk about it here. It's not like I'm ignoring your feedback. Lfstevens (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cold case unit update[edit]

Release. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given [2], that means the missing person count needs to be updated to 2. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the new list. Super Goku V (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Made these two edits. Let me know if there is anything else in the article that should be adjusted or amended. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about why the deaths in the infobox read "100+". Isn't it just 101? 100+ is somewhat misleading as it implies many more than a 100. Or am I reading this wrong? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I left that untouched as 100+ does work when it is 101. The main problem is the source for that is just this New York Times article that keeps getting updated every month or so. So I don't know what it said back in November that led to the 100+ text. I will say that before the death toll correction, the text instead read "115+", indicating that it is like a remnant from the first weeks of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Ended up changing it to 101 after some thought. It being potentially misleading was a problem, so thank you for mentioning that. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edits by User:Lfstevens on 5 February 2024[edit]

I'll readily concede that half of those edits were improvements which made the article more concise. Unfortunately, half were not. Several long sentences were shortened and then divided into shorter sentences, resulting in a choppy or halting reading flow. The result is more suitable for a voiceover narration with dramatic pauses, the kind of thing associated with the late Richard Attenborough or Morgan Freeman, as opposed to formal written English.

Please remember that the Wikimedia Foundation maintains the Simple English Wikipedia for readers who have difficulty parsing long English sentences, while the English Wikipedia adheres to the conventions of formal written English. Any objections before I fix this? Coolcaesar (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Please try to fix it. I’m also concerned about content that was removed. Viriditas (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Runon sentences are a plague on WP. Separate things should be separate. I removed content that was outdated by later information already in the article. Lfstevens (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not run-on sentences. You do not understand the term.

For example, here is the first part of the paragraph on 5 February 2024 that explained one of the alleged causes of the wildfires (citations omitted for readability):

"During the 2010s and early 2020s, Clay Trauernicht, a botanist and fire scientist at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and several other experts warned that the decline of agriculture in Hawaii meant that large areas of formerly productive land had been left unmanaged; nonnative invasive species like guinea grass were spreading rapidly and increasing the risk of large wildfires. The state government failed to provide incentives or impose mandates to keep land clear of grass. The state government also did not require all structure owners to maintain defensible space, a standard rule in fire-prone states like California."

You divided the paragraph and revised it so that it now appears in the current version of the article as: "During the 2010s and early 2020s, botanist and fire scientist Clay Trauernicht, at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and other experts warned that the decline of agriculture in Hawaii had left large areas fallow and unmanaged. Homeowners and landlords failed to maintain defensible space around their properties. Power and water utilities failed to fire- and wind-proof their infrastructure. The state government failed to provide incentives or impose mandates to take proper precautions."

The first sentence in the original paragraph, which I drafted, is not a run-on sentence by any definition. It has two independent clauses, separated by a semicolon to imply that the second independent clause is explaining and elaborating upon the topic of the first independent clause.

The larger problem with your revisions is that you missed the entire point of the first paragraph and deleted it from the article. The point is not just that land had been left unmanaged, but that as a result of that, nonnative invasive species like guinea grass are running rampant and increasing the risk of wildfires. That's the specific threat which Trauernicht and other fire experts have been raising hell about for over a decade, as discussed at length in the cited sources. After your revisions, guinea grass is not mentioned at all in the article.

Those are just two errors out of over two dozen in your edits, but I think I've made my point. Unfortunately, the article has continued to evolve, and not all your edits are bad, so I can't do a wholesale revert back to the last good version. I'll have to go through this mess paragraph by paragraph to identify the ones that need to be rolled back and the ones that can stay. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just rollback all the mass changes by Lfstevens at this point. It's unbelievable that the important material about invasive grasses, which received a lot of attention for its primary role as a catalyst for the fires, is still deleted. Simply unbelievable. Lfstevens is not improving things here. Viriditas (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Agree that invasive grasses need to be part of this. Not my intent to remove mention of them. I still think the sentence is overly long and detailed. I would change it to:
Fire scientist Clay Trauernicht and others had long warned that vast areas of former agriculture land had been left fallow and unmanaged, allowing invasive species such as guinea grass to dominate and increase the risk of large wildfires. Lfstevens (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that time would heal some wounds and things could proceed. Now I see that my efforts to act in good faith are not welcome here. So I will proceed incrementally and attempt to gain consensus along the way. But this article needs help. With aloha. Lfstevens (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Hawaii_wildfires&oldid=1219618572"