Talk:2023 Canadian wildfires/Archive 1

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

Semi-Protected Status

Events currently happening tend to receive a lot of vandalism and although it hasn't happened yet I'm still going to pre-empt it with a request for Semi-Protected Status. JBrahms (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

:Go to WP:RPPI to suggest an increase in page protection. Never mind, it's already there. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for concision

Hey y'all! One of the sentences in the introductory paragraph could use some work for better wording. I'm putting it in here so it doesn't clash with any edits on this very active page might be going through. Here's the problematic section (weird parts in bold):

"Between March 1 and June 5, 2023, 2,214 fires had burned 38,000 square kilometres (9,390,000 acres), out of the country's total 9.985 million square kilometres, making 2023 the worst wildfire season in Canada's modern history. That distinction had previously belonged to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire."

That sentence could be better by reversing the first 3 clauses, and detaching the following clause to a new sentence with the other one. Here's my suggestion (American English, sources detached):

"Out of the countries near 10,000,000 square kilometers of land, 2,214 fires had burned over 38,000 square kilometers between March 1st and June 5th. This is the worst wildfire season in Canada's modern history, previously being the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire."

Ecco2kstan (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this had been the previous sentence until a good faith revision. NYMan6 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I have made edits for concision. It now reads As of June 5, 2,214 fires have burned 43,000 square kilometres (10,600,000 acres).[1] The 2023 season is the worst wildfire season in Canada's modern history, eclipsing the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire.[citation needed]
I added {{Citation needed}} as (1) it's uncited, and (2) it doesn't really make sense to compare an entire wildfire season to a more centrally-located fire. Wracking talk! 23:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Wracking added source that I could find which fits the text NYMan6 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Andrews, Hillary (June 5, 2023). "'Unprecedented fire weather season' chars 9.39 million acres across Canada". Fox Weather. Retrieved June 6, 2023.

Arson Causes

I think some details in this article need to address that there is also the possibility of arson also being causes of these wildfires. This article is not balanced coverage if there is no mention of this because it is leaning all towards climate change when there is also not only climate change and lightning, man made causes should also be mentioned. Reference link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pictou-county-fire-arson-rcmp-1.6863542 70.54.59.175 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked says nothing about arson being the cause of these wildfires. They are completely unrelated. However, I agree that there should be some mention of human-related causes.ARandomName123 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
1) Man-made causes are mentioned. 2) As ARandomName123 notes, the article discusses three scenes which were set on fire (one of which was a structure put out by local volunteers, the second of which was a "green bin", and the third of which were recycling bags on the side of a road, none of which is mentioned as having contributed to a wildfire). 3) Please don't wikilawyer about WP:BALASP while conspicuously overlooking WP:NOR and WP:FALSEBALANCE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems that few scientist will attribute one or series of events as caused by climate change.

The article claims this was caused directly by climate change. The references for that appear to use similar media and not scientific consensus. 

  "Roughly half of all wildfires in Canada are caused by lightning; due to climate change, lightning strikes are happening more frequently" Is this an agreed scientific assertion? Logically if this were true, there would be more fires not just increased burn area.

It is possible,without denying climate change, that poor forest management may be the cause of greater burn areas. 70.59.146.230 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about consensus, but there are multiple studies showing a least a slight correlation: [1][2][3][4] ARandomName123 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say between the facts that 1) Specific scientific literature in the world's foremost journals attests to this phenomenon (including that linked by ARandomName123), 2) said literature is cited in the reliable news source (CBC News) we cite in our article, and 3) climate change has been shown over and over again ad nauseum to be contributing to the increase in severe weather events, this isn't a concern. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Most wildfires are caused by poor forest management. That's what happened in California in 2022. Buildup of trees due to putting out every fire leads to a large uncontrollable wildfire. Privately managed forests in Cali were fine then because they were managed correctly. PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 14:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"They should've just raked the leaves, guys!!" If you'd like to use libertarian drivel as a scapegoat for the growing impact of climate change on wildfires as established by innumerable credible scientific sources, please do so with your own scientific sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@TheTechnician27 I never said climate change didn't play a role, I said most wildfires are caused by forest mismanagement. As you requested, here are some sources.
Center for Biological Diversity - The vast majority of western dry forests are at risk of large, high-intensity fire because of the effects of poor forest management over the past century. The primary factors that lead to current forest conditions include logging large trees, fire suppression, and livestock grazing. Since the beginning of the 20th century, all three of these factors have been present in western forests, and they continue to play a role today.[5]
NBC News - Decades of mismanagement led to choked forests — now it's time to clear them out, fire experts say [6]
WaPo - The fires are worse because we managed the forests badly. [7]
Daily Mail - The origins of the fires are yet to be definitively identified, but Canadian officials have for years been warned that better forest management is required to avoid such a catastrophe. [8] PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
That you felt like citing an obscure NGO and the Daily Mail rather than the sort of enormous corpus of scientific literature backing climate change's role here is all I needed to know. Both news articles you linked to, of course, noted that this is an issue to begin with due to climate change. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
PalauanLibertarian, I think you have a point. Climate shouldn't be the go to scapegoat, bad fire management policy and lack of implementation plays a role. Best to stop blaming climate change for government incompetence. The article listed above does not necessarily provide a direct link between climate change as the cause of wildfires but instead points to Lightning as a major driver of large fires in North American boreal forests. Instead this article states that its climate-driven lightning ignitions causing the fires. But how they came to that conclusion is not clear, nor is it detailed. There has been a clear lack of proper implementation of protocols to prevent and address the issue of wildfires from getting out of control. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/kenneth-green-canada-s-burning-because-of-bad-forest-policy-not-climate-change/ar-AA1clpt5?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=33e90b6fb3b243948c07ebad39acbc59&ei=26 In addition, The Premier of the Province of Ontario, Doug Ford blames careless campers and lightning for Ontario wildfires. All possible causes. Arson should not be ruled out as well. It seems that the wildfires have become politicized in Canada. If TheTechnician27 claims that there is a growing impact of climate change on wildfires as established by innumerable credible scientific sources, they should be cited. I would be interested to review. Please share your knowledge of these innumerable credible scientific sources, thank you. PersonZ777 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we should mention human-related causes, but the role of climate change should not be ignored. Around half of Canada's wildfires are lightning-related, and the other half is human caused. However, lightning related fires make up more than 85% of the destruction since they are usually in remote areas.
Regarding the article, we have to trust that they are saying is correct. Considering that Nature is highly reputable, I'm inclined to trust them. Additionally, what they are saying has been corroborated by other studies (see my reply above).
Regarding the National Post article, is it not possible that both climate change and bad fire management is to blame? Also, the sources the article cites doesn't even support it:
- The first source, from the IPCC, states "Medium confidence"
- I'm just going to paste this section in from the second source:
"The decline in global average area burned has indeed been misused to support false claims numerous times. There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. Even the decrease in fire in tropical savannas that we just mentioned does not mean that climate change is not having an impact there too; actually, quite the opposite. This reduction has been in part attributed to conversion of savanna to agricultural land but, also, to shifting rainfall patterns that reduce the overall flammability of grasslands."
- The third source explicitly states the projected impact of climate change on wildfires, namely "longer wildfire seasons [[49], [50], [51], [52]], increasing fire weather severity [[53], [54], [55]], increasing wildfire occurrence [56,57], and increasing fire intensity and area burned [[58], [59], [60], [61], [62]]," and includes those "innumerable credible scientific sources" you've been looking for. That last source, 62, also states that "there is a general consensus that...in general the fire environment will become more conducive to fire."
To reiterate, I support adding a bit about human causes, whether bad land management or human started fires, however I also support mentioning the impact of climate change. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Climate Change?

Should climate change be mentioned in the lead section? I could add it myself, but since this change might be controversial I'd like to discuss with others what they think. MasterRichinator (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, as it is too early to pinpoint the exact cause of the fires. However, we could add it when we have more details. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Trudeau trying to deflect blame from his adminstations failures doesn't mean anything. Let's wait till we have an actual cause of the fires (forest management) PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Not now. It isn't covered much in the article, and as TheCorvetteZR1 says, we should wait until we have more details. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with Corvette and RandomName that we should wait until there are more reliable details. Until the cause can be more definitively established in future scientific literature and/or reports by relevant government agencies, I think it's going too far to put it in such a short lead instead of the 'Background' section. Also, PalauanLibertarian, please read WP:SOAPBOX. You were already topic banned last month on abortion, ostensibly for reasons echoed in your approach to this article. With slight modifications, your contribution to the 'Background' section was beneficial to the article, and you're clearly capable of doing genuinely good work here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Photos

would it be acceptable for one to add their own photos of the wildfire smoke in their region to this page? Unknown... (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course! -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Updates

Here is a good source for updates. Seems to be updated every day. Andol (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Presenting risk factors and causes in lead

Climate change and weather (warm and dry spring) have been cited as a cause of wildfire risk more than forest management, as far as I can tell. In my opinion, given current sources, presenting them side-by-side as equal causes, especially in the lead, goes against WP:DUE. For reference, I removed the following text from the lead.

Climate change and poor forest management played a major role in creating the unusually strong wildfire season.[1] Wracking talk! 19:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there is currently a discussion about this a few sections above. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Alot of the research puts climate change side by side with forest management as the primary drivers. Either way, I do agree with your removal from the lede. Crescent77 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
That research isn't cited in the article, so I haven't seen it. The reporting I have seen (including the source cited in the text I removed) mentions forest management in passing while focusing on weather/climate. Wracking talk! 23:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
wildfires caused by lighting happen when the air is so hot that the rain vaporizes before reaching the ground
so that only the lighting reaches it and since there is not rain touching the trees to put out any starting fire and I doubt that in such forests located so far to the north it will be so hot even with climate change. 142.255.38.69 (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Dry lightning is a thing. There is little water vapor in the storm, due to dry conditions, and the water that does fall evaporates before it can reach the ground. Also see: Virga ARandomName123 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kaminski, Isabella (June 12, 2023). "Did climate change cause Canada's wildfires?". BBC Future. Retrieved June 12, 2023.

Claims of Arson

Recently, someone added a subsection to the Background section titled "Claims of Arson". In my opinion, this gives WP:UNDUE weight to this conspiracy theory, and we should remove it, though a shorter mention (ex. 1 or 2 sentences) could be appropriate. Thoughts? ARandomName123 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I did that (before seeing this post). Let me know what you think. [9] Wracking talk! 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Claiming that the claims of arson are conspiracy theories is unfounded since there is no way to know if whether the fires have been made on purpose or not while it is widely acknowledged that most fires are caused by humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.38.69 (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfounded? What proof do you have for this conspiracy theory?
"It is widely acknowledged that most fires are caused by humans" While humans may cause 55% of the fires, which is more than the 45% caused by lightning, human-caused fires only represent 19% of the area burned while lightning-caused fires represent 81%. Source:Lightning and forest fires - Canada.ca ARandomName123 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

start date march

I'm editing Polish version of article, and I'm having hard time finding evidence that wildfires started in March. Sources here don't seem to show it actually started in March, most materials are from May and point to May. In the Alberta article there is information that there were evacuations in April. I understand it may be difficult to pinpoint exact date when the fires began, but should article be bit more clear about it? Pawelmhm (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Usually search up when it started and that's how we managed to date it back to about March. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:B119:D617:8866:EBE9 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 2601:183:4081:FEA0:B119:D617:8866:EBE9 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Photos of End of June-Beginning of July wildfire smoke

Anyone living in the following cities:

  • Chicago
  • Detroit
  • Cleveland
  • Akron
  • Philadelphia
  • Harrisburg
  • Indianapolis
  • St. Louis
  • Lexington
  • Cincinnati
  • Dayton
  • Columbus

etc

Could you please upload photos of the skies, bridges, buildings even the outside of your homes or streets onto here so we can have material to put on the update.

Thank you 2601:183:4081:FEA0:B119:D617:8866:EBE9 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There are enough US photos on this article, we could use some more photos from Canada, where the fires actually are.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes I understand, I am talking about the current smoke. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:B119:D617:8866:EBE9 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and the current smoke has to get through Canada before getting to the US. Plenty of Canadian cities are also facing severe air quality issues.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, how can people post photos taken in the future? Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Im talking about a current event which has effected several major cities, this is not a future event but a current event @Canterbury Tail. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:44F3:B75B:2EFE:3C16 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The title is asking for photos from the beginning of July, which as of the time of writing is in the future. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking for End of June (now) to beginning of July which is the time smoke might stop, that is why I put that time range. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:D1CE:9FD9:3FEC:E0BC (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
There are some nice pixes of the smoke on The Weather Channel, Accu Weather channel, even on some of the news channels. I'm currently in the US Heartland and the area had &/or has Air Quality issues going on, incl. Alerts related to asthma, other respiratory problems. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Accidental causes

Is it possible that these are the result of a accident, like someone had thrown out a lit cigarette or a campfire was left burning? I was with someone who smokes and caught this person throwing out a lit butt out of the driver's side at some dry grass near the road, and it started a small easily put out fire on the road. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We'll be sure to include the crucial piece of information that 216.247.72.142's friend threw a lit cigarette butt out of the window and started a small fire as WP:BALASP to the overwhelming scientific consensus of climate change's effects on wildfires. (in this case, we do already mention accidental causes in the prose; please see the fourth paragraph of the 'Background' section) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are there three very short articles?

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 consensus to merge 2023 Nova Scotia wildfires, 2023 Central Canada wildfires, and 2023 Alberta wildfires into 2023 Canadian wildfires. A duplicate discussion determined consensus to merge Smoke from the 2023 Canadian wildfires into this article as well. No discussion was had to merge 2023 Canadian drought into this article; another discussion may be opened to determine consensus on that issue. See WP:MERGETEXT for instructions on merging articles. Combefere ★ Talk 20:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this, but I'm trying to make sense of why we have six very short articles instead of one larger master article that subsequently gets forked to smaller ones as needed. Instead we have:

Also, the discussion at Talk:2023 Central Canada wildfires#Central Canadian province of Québec? seems to indicate there is not a lot of coordination among these articles as it stands. So I'm starting a discussion here in the hopes folks could explain the situation and perhaps optimize the organization. Courtesy ping some of the folks involved: NYMan6, B3251, Earl Andrew, Jennytacular, LilianaUwU, Bosshunter351, ForsythiaJo, Nsediter, MainlyTwelve, Knightoftheswords281 - Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should merge the 3 pages into one and include a lot more info about the wildfires in America as well. (There's only a few sentences about them in each page) Bosshunter351 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Plus the "2023 Canadian wildfires" page is already attempting to be the main page. Bosshunter351 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I am open to merging the pages. Having a central page makes sense to me. That said, I'm not sure how much information we can find on each of the regional fires - if the three subpages can be substantially enlarged, then merging them now might result in a overly huge single page later. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
One large page is better than four small separate pages covering basically the same topic. Bosshunter351 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
yeah i think so 2601:188:CB7E:BB60:59DA:9C44:5CA3:AE98 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe that the US one should be kept brief - like the US Eastern seaboard smoke consequences, yet, I agree that it should be merged to one central that includes major incidents in provinces/territories Moonsoftoday (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTE FOR THOSE READING AND PARTICIPATING - there is also an article covering wildfires in Alberta (2023 Alberta wildfires). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I completely missed that! Adding that to the list. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - Personally, I think it's a much better idea to merge them all together and then split them off later. It made sense when the Alberta wildfires were created considering that there weren't other areas with many active wildfires. But, now there is and It would be better to just merge them. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
support - this reason B3251 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - I agree with this. IDon'tLikeTheNewInterface (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - It would make more sense to merge everything and split them later as newly available information becomes available, as @Onegreatjoke mentioned. Cocobb8 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support per others' reasoning ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support merge to 2023 Canadian wildfires per nom and Onegreatjoke. Wracking talk! 19:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support merging Nova Scotia and Central Canada to this page, but not Alberta per Yeoutie & others. Alberta has been hardest-hit and its article goes into detail of specific, notable fires. Wracking talk! 19:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Support per above reasoning. And while I'm here, I'd like to bring up that perhaps BC's fires should be added to this page when someone is able to. We've already had a ferocious and fast start to our fire season here. Blysse (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
agreed followed by other fires that could be happening across other Canadian provinces and possibly U.S states NYMan6 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. There's also now 2023 United States East Coast wildfire smoke. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to merge that page as well. The main Canadian Wildfires page already has more information on the US smoke than that page does. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I 100% agree. Ezra RG (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@ForsythiaJo I disagree that we should merge that article, because there's already a similar article Orange Skies Day. Event is already pretty significant on its own. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the existence of the Orange Skies Day article doesn't really have bearing on whether we should merge this one or not. Additionally, that article was created in March of this year, not immediately following when it happened (and personally, I don't know that it needs its own article anyway). I think having one article with the affects of the smoke is fine - if it needs its own article in a couple weeks time, there's nothing stopping us from splitting the article again. ForsythiaJo (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@SWinxy merge that whole page into this article as well, also any other article talking about this or any wildfires that have happened currently near the border with Canada or American wildfires right now. NYMan6 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support merging the articles listed in nom, as well as 2023 United States East Coast wildfire smoke. As it stands, they're just smaller pieces of one subject. If any of the topics eventually expand to the point of needing a separate article, they can be made at a later time when necessary. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - As more fires have sprung up across the country, would make logical sense to merge all articles into one. No need to have individual articles for a country wide event.
PascalHD (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. One long article is better than 3 start-class articles and one B-class article. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
SUPPORT - Makes more sense to have one article then three. Alexcs114 :) 20:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE - VOTE CHANGED due to the comments brought up by other users. Alexcs114 :) 00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons given. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose – Yes, it's the same country, but the fires are spread across the equivalent distance of a continent. While all of these fires are likely related to similar patterns of climate change and weather, Alberta has very different "normal" climatic/weather patterns from inland Quebec or maritime Nova Scotia. Just as you wouldn't want to lump articles together for wildfires in Colorado and Florida, it probably shouldn't be the same article for fires in the Canadian Rockies and the Maritime provinces. And the current 2023 Central Canada wildfires are having a much higher impact on major eastern population centers (NYC, Toronto, Philadelphia, etc.) than the Alberta or Nova Scotia fires. Scanlan (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment - At least keep the 2023 Nova Scotia wildfires article separate. The province has a very different climate from the rest of Canada and the fire in southern Nova Scotia is the largest in the province's recorded history. Scanlan (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment - and the fire as a whole is the biggest in Canadian history, plus the Nova Scotia wildfire article dosen't have enough information yet. NYMan6 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
well I will say that Australia has articles talking about all bushfires in every year regardless of their location in the country. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
It's called a bushfire season, its a whole other thing than a wide-spread wildfire, which almost can't even be categorized as a seasonal wildfire NYMan6 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, although I would suggest specifying which of the 2214 fires are where, along with any corresponding deaths/injuries ARandomName123 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support but more specifically merged them as 2023 North American wildfires as fire already impacted US East coast. 125.167.57.192 (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    The wildfires are unquestionably in Canada, even if the effects are beyond Canada's borders. Calling it the "North American wildfires" would be inconsistent with our naming conventions. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Canada is a huge country, geographically and there should be separate articles on each region. Are we going to merge all of the US fire articles into one? And I strongly oppose the previous user's suggestion of re-naming the article to North American wildfires, just because there is one fire in the US. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I don't believe there is an issue with having all the information on one article; it's not like it's an overlong article as it is. ThalassocraticEmperor (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep 2023 Central Canada wildfires as its own page, and merge the rest. I think that the 2023 United States East Coast wildfire smoke is best covered in a broader article on the wildfires that generated that smoke (and should thus be merged to 2023 Central Canada wildfires). The rest, however, seem to be of limited geographic importance, and could be upmerged into the broad article on wildfires in Canada in 2023. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    But even "2023 Central Canada wildfires" is very short, and a large chunk about its air quality and effects outside of Canada, which is not much different than the other articles. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think that one has the most potential for growth; large portions of the effects were outside of Canada, but I think that having an in-depth article on the current central Canada fires is going to better in the long-run than merging all of the fires that will take place in Canada this year into a single page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose for all mergers. The main reason is that the incident is on going, the after affects are not fully known yet and could be large enough to warrant their own article, even the smog in East Coast America could warrant its own article. The main article is already large, we don't want it to be unnecessarily massive when it can be broken down. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    A slight quibble - by Wikipedia standards, this article is generally not considered "already large" and it also replicates what is in other articles under consideration. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    COMMENT - existence of other bloated articles doesn't justify the existence of more bloated articles - I've supported for example deleting some of the nonsense in the 2020 US PRES ELECTION article, but not bold enough to do it. I've proposed it on the talk page to no response, so I may do so soon. Alexcs114 :) 17:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It's not helpful to the reader to spread out the information about these wildfires across five web pages. Most readers will want to read about all the wildfires together, as a group. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Alberta and US wildfire smoke and merge the remaining three. The Alberta wildfires have enough information in the article to warrant its own article and a merge would be difficult. The US wildfire smoke works well as a split off article, with lots of distinct information separate from the wildfires. Nova Scotia and Central Canada are almost entirely copied information from the main article and size would not be an issue. Yeoutie (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    the entire U.S wildfire smoke article is a copy, right off of this page, it would be better to incorporate it into here, but I see your point for the Alberta part, overall im still thinking abt it @Yeoutie. NYMan6 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and others. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 23:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It makes more sense to merge them to keep them separated which could lead to confusion. LoomCreek (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scanlan and Yeoutie, at least for the Alberta wildfires, the fires for each region are separate and notable events on their own, that I think have high potential to be expanded as the situation progresses and the differing impacts on each region becomes more clear. I would think that many readers would look for each article separately. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 03:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Support they are all talking about the same event (aside from the US one) FusionSub (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - easier to develop in one space. If the fires extend into the USA later in the year, then renaming the single article then becomes a possibility. Nfitz (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Wait and/or Weak Oppose per the reasoning laid out by Red-tailed Hawk, Lucie Person, Scanlan, and Yeoutie. Zorblin (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - It's confusing to research across multiple pages about the same event Jaidenstar (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely agreed, it would fit the article way better. 11:59, Gam3rEncyclopedia (talk) 9 June 2023 (EST)
  • Support: Just because there's some news on wildfires in some province, doesn't mean it warrants setting up its own article. Not really notable, should be merged. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support All the wildfires can comftorably fit in the main article per WP:SIZERULE. Until the article size is at least 50 kB, all the articles should be merged into the cohesive article. (Although some of the smoke information could be incoporated in…like specifying which MLB games were postponed or including the Nationals game.) 204.107.19.38 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
CostalCal (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support - Canadian wildfires per province/territory, if they are covered, do not always warrant a separate article if there are not enough notable resources. All those smaller area wildfires could fit well into the main national wildfire article. Hansen SebastianTalk 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Mostly support - All articles (except for Alberta) should be merged due to the inability to create an article long enough because of the lack of resources to cover the event as its own article. Alberta, however, meets the criteria to be sufficient enough for the event to have its own article per User:Wracking. 📖 (💬/📜) 17:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait - Six articles, this is starting to get big should we just merge some of the articles.
CostalCal (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Idgaf, just merge them 86.21.112.55 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose NS and AB - I think its important to note how disconnected these events are in the sense that they are from particularly separate weather and take place over wide time ranges. There are also wikipeda pages for several years of Alberta wildfires in the past as well as other large fire events in Canada. Specifically related to NS which is what i know the context of i think it is important to understand the scale of the events. NS has not had a significant fire in well over a decade and has not seen any decades before that. Several hundred homes were destroyed and widespread evacuations occurred. On a human impact the effect is close to the Alberta fires. Its also important in noting that the NS fires took place over a narrow point in time and as part of a largely different weather systems as the rest of the country. They took place over about 3 weeks and there have been no major fires before or since.
I think the wildfire smoke part should be merged with the 2023 Canadian wild fires or the 2023 central Canadian wildfires if it is significant enough to remain on its own. Nsediter (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not merge everything into "2023 North American wildfires", (or something like that). It seems like all this related content should be on one page. (jmho) - wolf 23:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose very misguided to propose merging Alberta into the main article, a lot of content there and obviously notable. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose - As I said previously, Alberta, however, meets the criteria to be sufficient enough for the event to have its own article per User:Wracking. Not only that, but the province has been the most affected out of all the provinces and territories (e.g. Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is seperate from Hurricane Katrina due to how noticeable the effects on the city than the other regions affected). 📖 (💬/📜) 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
CostalCal (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the impact, which Alberta was more significant than the rest. 📖 (💬/📜) 02:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, unless the resulting article would be too long and detail would be losts, in which case a subarticle can remain or be recreated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't like doing this, but it appears to be time to close this discussion. It appears consensus is in favor of merging, and there has not been a vote in half a month. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Comment. Yeah I'm actually surprised no one has closed this yet 2601:183:4081:FEA0:D1CE:9FD9:3FEC:E0BC (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Comment.I think this close requires some care with which articles to merge or not, given many of the oppose votes cite specific articles to not merge, while the support votes do not, for the most part. Zorblin (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Comment It's further complicated by the fact that other articles were added after the discussion began (some very long after). Very few editors voted after 2023 Canadian drought was added to the list. As Zorblin said, this is a messy collection of votes and will require some care. Wracking talk! 00:09, 5 July 2023 (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.

"alerts and evacuations.. in Europe" ??

Very surprised to see this in the Lead as I am in Europe and no evacuations have taken place as far as I am aware - the source cited doesn't say that either. The smoke did reach us for a day 29 June, but it was in the stratosphere. I don't think there were even any alerts for air quality due to it, not checked. I think the fact that it crossed the Atlantic has been confused with the devastating effects in US and Canada. It's nothing like that in Europe - just interesting optical effects from the light scattering. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Just noticed this is confirmed under 'international' - I've adjusted the last sentence in the lead. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think someone just saw the "Smoke emitted from the wildfires has caused air quality alerts" part and ignored the evacuations part. ARandomName123 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Continuing smoke events in the U.S.

Now that the smoke article content has been merged here, it's probably best to deemphasize the initial event in the U.S., since, as long as the fires continue to burn, there will be intermittent significant smokiness in the northern tier of the Lower 48, whenever the winds favor it; for example, there's another plume currently progressing from the BC/Alberta fires which is likely to be notable soon (yes, that's a bit WP:CRYSTAL, but it seems that it's going to be consistent with prior instances). The photos are already there to distinguish the initial event from the rest if distinguishing it is important. Mapsax (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Update statistics

We should update statistics to reflect the current happenings (examples: Exacations as of 7 July instead of 24 May) 64.114 etc 05:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have more recent numbers, feel free to add them! If I see more recent numbers, I'll do the same. Renerpho (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@64.114 etc: To my knowledge, CIFFC (or other reliable sources) have not published an updated total number of evacuations since 7 July. Renerpho (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have updated the numbers for British Columbia with a source, if ever usefull for this discussion Neo Trixma (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent CIFFC data

I have made almost daily updates to this article for the past month or so. One problem I faced was that the fire progression numbers are not consistent from one day to the next. I have usually omitted days when I had reason to believe that the numbers were wrong, and I restarted when consistency appeared to be restored (example). However, I think this approach was not appropriate. It is not our job to clean up official data, and so I just added it all back in (with this edit).

The chart looks a lot less "clean" now. That shouldn't be a problem, but I believe an explanation is in order. The fact that the numbers don't always increase from one day to the next may be confusing to the reader. Any suggestions how this should be worded, and where to put it? Renerpho (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your method and your proposal: I think we could add a note at the bottom of the chart saying: "The data are estimates and may have varied slightly from day to day." or something like that Neo Trixma (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Neo Trixma: Thanks! A note at the bottom sounds good. I am not happy with your exact wording, because "varied from day to day" isn't really the issue. Of course the numbers vary from day to day, because the burned area is increasing. The problem is about how it varies. But something along those likes could work. Renerpho (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
"The data are estimates and might not be completely linear from day to day"? Neo Trixma (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The data is mainly estimates from sources with the closest as of right now being 34 million acres making this the 3rd biggest wildfire season in human history behind the 2019-20 Australian bushfires and the 2003 Siberian wildfires which ended with over 50 million acres burned.
I would make a section like the chart or a list to name these days, even tho the wildfires don't always stop.
Thanks for the work and the data you have provided the Wikipedian community!
NuestroBrasil (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) NuestroBrasil (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem really is consistency, mainly due to the fact that the estimates are near real-time. I have changed the wording to The data are estimates and might not be completely consistent from one day to the next. I am thinking of amending this to The numbers are estimates, based on data published in near real-time. They might not be completely consistent from one day to the next. Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) I have amended it accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes I agree with your proposition: more accurate. Thanks, Neo Trixma (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Governmental response

Is there some reason the subsections are named "governmental response" instead of the more common "government response"? I was going to change them all but then I thought there might be a reason for this word choice. Cauldron bubble (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Don’t believe so. I say just go for it. If someone reverts then just discuss here. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok thank you! I'll just make the change. Cauldron bubble (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes I think there is no specific reason Neo Trixma (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Facebook (Meta) blocking news stories about the wildfires

This seems noteworthy to me. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, should be added in the article Neo Trixma (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed Should definitely be added to the article NuestroBrasil (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Claims of climate change exacerbating wild fires

WP:FALSEBALANCE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the article...

Due to climate change, weather has been warmer and drier...

That statement implies that it has been scientifically demonstrated that the climate-change theory is fact. Where’s the citation supporting that?

The above statement probably should read...

Due to alleged climate change, weather has been warmer and drier...

There continues to be ongoing debate about climate change, especially whether it even exists. Climate change theory is based upon about 150 years of scientifically-accumulated weather data, which is about a millisecond’s worth of data compared to the amount of time that has elapsed since human beings began maintaining written records of significant events. It’s about a nanosecond’s worth of data when considered against the amount of time that life has existed on the planet. A huge amount of extrapolation has been used to support climate change theory. That’s not science. That’s ideology and politics, and should be treated as such in any article that tries to link climate change theory to current events.

I’d like to see some iron-clad proof that the wildfire season is being influenced by “climate change.” It seems more likely that the vast amount of unmanaged forestation in Canada, as well as the difficulty of bringing fire-fighting resources to bear in remote areas, has more to do with the size and scope of the fires than a somewhat-warmer-than-usual summer. We know that naturally-caused fires have long been part of nature’s balancing of the ecology. Who’s to say that isn’t what is going on right now?

216.152.18.132 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Canadian_wildfires/Archive_1&oldid=1199324759"