Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season/Archive 4

Black summer
Hi Bidgee.

Re this edit.

I agree it is too early yet to add to the article, but you may wish to google "black summer" bushfire from time to time. (You need to add 'bushfire' to avoid NetFlix stuff.)

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * An important element of Wikipedia is our requirement for reliable sourcing. This means that the term Black summer should not appear in the article until it can be referenced to at least one but preferably multiple quality sources. HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I was not aware I had implied otherwise.  While I still agree that the term is not yet mainstream "du jour", the following are not exactly unreliable:
 * https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F7142478%22;src1=sm1
 * https://www.teachstarter.com/podcast/australian-bushfire-crisis-what-to-tell-your-new-class-au/
 * https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/australias-black-summer/11883332
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/australia-fires-kill-animals-destroy-property-costs-climate-change-become-ncna1112576
 * https://7news.com.au/news/bushfires/as-australian-fires-kill-animals-and-destroy-property-costs-of-climate-change-become-clear-c-643110
 * https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6572685/how-fridays-high-fire-danger-will-play-out-across-the-region/
 * I suspect it will only be a matter of a very short time. Aoziwe (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I shall watch and see. None of those are ideal sources in the sense that they are declaring that (some?) Australians have come to describe the fires as THE black summer. At best they are examples, which require some original research before we can say it has become a common descriptor. Some examples are little more than journalese by writers looking for dramatic expressions for their articles. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems we are in furious agreement. Aoziwe (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I will agree. Until it does become more mainstream it shouldn't be there. I've heard it locally, but being in fire affected area; it adds some location bias. I will continue to watch the nickname to determine if it does become more mainstream from reliable sources. AussieSnouters (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Theonlyoxymoron. I am not sure this edit is supported by your ABC source. That is the name of a 4 Corners episode. It is not a common use coloquism in that source as far as I can tell? Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC). Hi Aoziwe, I've seen it used a number of times in various mediums, such as memes or traditional media. I'll find a few more examples from earlier in the season later today. Theonlyoxymoron 08:39, 4 February 2020 (AEDT). The Prime Minister just refered to the fires as the Black Summer in Parliament. Will add source to main page.
 * Just an observation. Single examples aren't exactly sources telling us that an expression is in common usage. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly believe this needs to be looked at again. We have three sources for the claim that these fires are "also known as the Black Summer". One is simply an example of that expression being used as the headline of an article by the ABC. That is NOT a source saying that it is "also known as the Black Summer". Then we have two references describing what is seemingly a single event, Scott Morrison using the term when announcing his Royal Commission into the fires. So again, just a single example. Two examples in total. This is simply not enough to write in first sentence of this important article, that the fires are "also known as the Black Summer". HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Constant removals
has been constantly removing "accident" and "alleged arson" (recent removal diff) and adding a note saying that they were not a significant cause. Another removal was of 'Black Summer' (recent removal diff). I have requested that they come to the talk page but they have not done so. Bidgee (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, a new editor, who has only contributed to this article, and to their own User pager. (Should have been his own Talk page, but hey, they are new.) May not pay much attention Edit summaries either. Might add a note to their User page to point them in the right direction. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Is this the talk page please? I saw the message in the history, and went to what I thought was the Talk page - but I think it might just be something like a User profile page. If this is the right place, I can copy my questions across to here? Also, please let me know if you want me to format this differently. I'm still working out how to do the editing as I'm not very familiar with the tags or the editor. I've been trying to put citations next to what I'm putting, because I'm thinking this is the right thing, but I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. I'm also not sure if I'm saving things correctly. To be honest, I would have preferred to discuss first before editing, but I couldn't see how to do that. The interface seemed to be primarily about editing and versioning. So, any advice is welcome. If this is wrong, could you put a message here, and then I'll delete this, and do what is advised to fit in with how things are worked through. Thanks. RydeResident - I think I should be using something for my name... but haven't found the tag for this either :/ Oh, if it helps, I'm NSW-based and mostly online in the late evening if there's a delay in my answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryderesident (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We should name the fires the "2019-20 Morrision Fires"
After the blatant awfulness of him as a political leader, which the fires should be considered equal to. AdelaideLuke (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: And another reason, so no one forgets his disgusting behaviour. AdelaideLuke (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Personal point of views and opinions do not belong in the article (see WP:NPOV). Bidgee (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

New references using analysis published by Copernicus Atmospheric Services EU and researchers using its open data
I'd like to propose adding some references for analysis that shows some significant differences between this bushfire season and previous records back to ~2003.

The research is on the Fire Radiative Power (FRP) and is the charts in the following reference. It shows the huge difference between 2019 and the average of the years from 2003-2018. The researcher who did this, has since published the January data, which shows a correlation to January 4 when some of the fires merged in southern NSW. I'm wondering if this could go in the section called Fire Potential, or maybe a new paragraph in Precedents?

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-tracks-catastrophic-effects-unprecedented-australian-bushfires https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/global-fire-emissions as a reference link to help understand the first link.

Also, the animation of CALIPSO data revealed that the smoke plume from the fires has gone through to the Stratosphere is also a significant difference compared to previous Bushfires. Is it ok to add this to Precedents?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/nasa-s-calipso-satellite-animation-shows-smoke-from-australian-fires-spreading-high-and-far https://www.newscientist.com/article/2230017-australias-fire-driven-storms-are-pumping-smoke-into-the-stratosphere/ Ryderesident (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This all seems to be analysis of the fires' impacts and effects, hence it is neither related to the potential for fire nor is it about specific precedents. However, you might consider adding relevant material to the section Environmental effects perhaps?  Aoziwe (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent Australia
I've noticed there was a removal in content today that was using Independent Australia as a reference, there is a discussion going on at RSN. Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An important point of distinction is that in the currently removed article content, the IA is not being used as the source for third party content, it is the subject itself of the reference. This seems to have been lost on some editors.  That the IA has published something, in the IA reference itself, is by definition reliable, factual, and verifiable.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your subtle argument for OR was noted. --Pete (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I draw the attention of editors to the following, from Removal of personal attacks, which is a policy document, and one of the Five Pillars:

''Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. However, there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The template can be used for this purpose.''

I don't mind if someone gets a little emotional or snarky in discussion, so long as the discussion is moving forward. That's how we make progress on improving an article. But if a comment is entirely aimed at another editor, then where's the benefit to the project? Take up behaviour issues on the appropriate noticeboard where the discussion is controlled and monitored; that's what they are there for. But polluting serious Wikipedia work with purely personal comments is not beneficial to the project, and even if all the regular editors know each other, this sort of thing dissuades fresh editors. It's not as if we have enough people to do all the work anyway. Welcoming new users into the community instead of demonstrating a noxious work environment is what we should be all about. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Other names
Skyring In regard to this revert by you. Sorry, but your edit summary was not that helpful. Can you please advise which WP:RSN discussion. Also, it seems to me you have confused the utilisation of the sources used to provide the content, they being the content themselves, as distinct from using a source a verify content about a subject. If I was relying on the sources to provide information about some subject, yes I would totally agree with you. However, I am not doing this. The article content is matter-of-factly describing the source. It is not using the source to provide content about a 3rd party subject. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me put it clearly. Use reliable sources for Wikipedia. If a nickname is notable, it will be widely used. --Pete (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly.  Which is why the content, currently removed, showed that morrison fires was only being used in fringe domains!  Aoziwe (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Suggest we move on to useful work. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was. Can you please explain how any of the content currently removed is not factual and cannot be reliably verified using the sources provided.  Note that article content is about the sources, not the contained subject matter in the sources' contents.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Petitions are used generated content and as such are not WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Should mention that there are people who proposed that name, there are sources that reported that, here is a source for example "A Change.org petition is seeking to name the as-yet-unnamed fires “the Morrison Fires,” arguing the prime minister holds responsibility due to his failure to act"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)
 * We don't mention every tinpot political discussion on the internet, especially when this is an article about bushfires. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As that guideline says, "the "importance" of a fact is subjective". I doubt this isn't an important content and it is reported in RSs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * HTRIVIA applies. XavierItzm (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Intro
I removed 2019–20 Australian bushfire season from the intro of this article, as well as Year–Year Australian bushfire season from the intros of all preceding Australian bushfire season articles, weeks ago. Those removals weren't reverted, bu my removal on this article was (about 2 or more weeks ago) reverted. Wowsers, when you ain't been around for a bit, ya can get your removal reversed rather quick. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your earlier changes seemed to be justified according to WP:LEDE and the first sentence redundancy guidelines, but here there's also a note about the accepted duration of the bushfire season - FYI, it goes until May - and a comment about the PM's preferred name of "Black Summer". We don't really need to repeat the title in the first para here IMO. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Consistency with other bushfire season articles
I've noticed that you look at previous bushfire season articles and they are WAY smaller than this one, to the point where it's actually quite inconsistent. I know this may seem like one basic request for such a big thing but doesn't anybody think that everything regarding the major fires during the season should be spun off into another article ala Black Saturday, and this article have a brief overview of the major fires and concentrate more on the precedents, social/political implications of the bushfire season, etc? It just seems jarring when the preceding five bushfire season articles just contain a brief overview/table of fires and then this one is extremely massive. Just my two cents. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 07:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Typically each season (excluding the quiet ones) only have a couple of major fires (which makes it easy to spin off to its own article), however this season was different and I'm not surprised that this article isn't like the others, after the wide spread nature and impact the bushfires have had this season. Bidgee (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * These bushfire articles are part of that challenging set of Wikipedia articles that are written while the (typically quite dramatic) events they describe are actually happening. They inevitably collect a fair bit of tabloid style trivia. This isn't a bad thing in the short term, but it's in the coming months that we need to clean this article up. There probably is too much detail of some of the events, and a bit of hype in places. I will be looking at it for where such improvement can be made, when I'm in that kind of a mood. However, because of what Bidgee has described above, this will always be a bigger article than those for most fire seasons. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Other bushfire seasons have been worse, with more deaths, and this article suffers from people getting involved in all of the political flak flying around, trying to make mileage out of the fires, rather than looking at the actual fires. --Pete (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you look at it, while deaths were low compared to past season, this season was one of the worst. There will also ways be political flak with any natural disasters, scale and time is what makes it more noticeable. There is a lot to learn from this season, more facts will come out in the months to come. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In short, yes, it needs a complete restructure. When the dust settles this will be done. See this and this for example. I have let the matter go quiet because, sorry, but I am sure that such an exercise will be difficult in the current climate (no pun intended), ie, if something as simple as an "end of season" generates the discussion it has ... Aoziwe (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unprotected
I have left the articles as semiprotected to prevent any IP misbehaviour for the time being. Given the rough consensus of the previous talk is that the end should be listed as "ongoing", the onus is on anyone else to gain consensus it should be different. Certainly Skyring changed his opinion over the course of the discussion anyway. It depends on what sources are provided. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

alleged arson
The alleged arson section is enabling fascists and right wingers opinions so they can continue to deny climate change like the little worthless worms they are

Screw Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.35.221 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid they will continue to do that no matter what we do. We just need to be vigilant about all content. I was about to suggest you can do remove anything inappropriate yourself, but you can't. Only registered editors can do so. It's part of our way of protecting the article. So now I'll suggest you register. I've been a long time user and have experienced no problems at all through being a long time member. And it has it's positives. As an IP editor, I can easily identify your likely location in the world. That's not possible for registered users. And it makes conversation much easier to follow when people have names, not numbers. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit request
Just a minor one, in the opening or anywhere in the first set of paragraphs, mentioning the time period in which the major fires raged and or the crisis around it peaked. While the effectd of the season will obviously be felt for a long time, with there being no big fires/fires at all in NSW for the first time since July 2019, all of Victoria's contained, etc. I think we're beginning to be a little removed from the history of the fires to make this article more retrospectively written. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 10:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're addressing some of the same issues being discussed in the section Consistency with other bushfire season articles just a little way above. Yes, this is the time when efforts need to be made to restructure this article while looking back with less immediacy than when most of the article was written. Feel free to make your own contributions. All help is welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to, the only problem is that the article has been locked, likely due to how controversial the topic is or something epse. That's why I came here to request an edit. I definitely understand why it would be locked regardless. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 05:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I didn't realise the protection was "permanent". I've asked the Admin who applied it if he can unprotect now. I think the tension has died down enough. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! - The article protection has been removed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Coulson Aviation (N134CG) Lockheed EC-130Q Hercules departing HMAS Albatross.jpg