Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 3

Two issues
The article looks really good, but i wanted to raise two issues with the current version.

1. History of fires in Lahaina

I don't see anything about this in the article, but it's possible that I missed it. I think it needs to be briefly discussed in the background section.

2.  The 2021 report


 * Hawaii officials ranked wildfire risk as "low" despite increasing fire acreage and dangers from drought and non-native grasses

This seems odd and unusual to me. Can we get more details about this? I don't know anyone who lives here who considered the risk of wildfires low, so something is wrong here. Was this report produced outside of Maui? Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the report, I think there might be some confusion here as you mentioned both the 2021 report by Maui and the low risk from the 2022 report by the state. Here is the Maui report with the title, REPORT ON WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND COST RECOVERY ON MAUI.  Here is the state report with the title: State of Hawai`i Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan - Base Plan.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of the Federal Response
While there were previously mentions with RS about criticism of the federal response, which were very much in the news cycle at the time and widespread on social media, it seems the article has removed all such criticism. Some of this was described in the Federal Response section. Should it have its own section or subsection? It seems more significant than having a section on conspiracy theories. Plenty of RS are easy enough to google, but here are a few.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-federal-aid-maui-hawaii-ukraine-1820598

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/17/fema-maui-response-lahaina-fires-biden/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/politics/fema-maui-hawaii-wildfires.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4154180-biden-takes-hit-for-maui-wildfire-response/ entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  18:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is already criticism in § Wildfire risk, § Lahaina, and § Concerns about preparedness. The only things I am seeing is that there was a Controversy section that was renamed to Concerns about preparedness and .  Given that the majority of your sources are about FEMA, is that the issue at hand?  (If so, do note WP:NEWSWEEK.)  I don't see any problems with the Conspiracy theories section and don't understand why it is being brought up given that it is properly sourced.  Regarding creating another criticism section, it might be better to mention the criticism in the Federal government section over creating another section titled Controversy, unless you have a different suggestion in mind.  Pinging  for their input.  --Super Goku V (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be an easy section to write. The content has done its job of grabbing eyeballs for their particular media. As noted here, criticism sections are rarely useful in an article. It takes work to integrate a response (criticism by some) into the what happened so readers can see it in context. The editor has to go past the headline and first few paragraphs to read the entire article. Much easier to have an isolated section full of gripes. It doesn't serve the readers but can be very satisfying to write. The Conspiracy theories section is separate because there is no context, they are just made up or deliberately misconstrue what happened. That doesn't compare to valid criticism so it should not be in a separate section. 〜  Adflatuss  •  talk  22:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. To be clear, I'm not arguing against the inclusion of the section describing conspiracy theories; I only mentioned it comparatively with regard to the relevance and weight of criticism of the federal response. For example, there's probably no shortage of conspiracy theories about Hurricane Katrina, but they'd be of little relevance or noteworthiness compared to criticism of the federal response to that particular disaster (obviously different in scope and scale, but you get the idea). The reason I mentioned the conspiracy section was in response to reasons given in the edit history of the page for removing mention of at least some criticisms of the federal response to the Maui fire.
 * The sources I provided were by no means a comprehensive list, just a few to mention here before making any edits. The article doesn't seem to register that significant criticisms were made of the federal response, especially from Maui residents as they continued to struggle to get help well after the event. Here's another one on that.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/02/hawaii-fires-aid-fema-biden-maui-lahaina
 * It's probably the case that it doesn't warrant its own section and should just be discussed in the "Federal government" subsection of the Response section. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  08:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is a politicized take on the incident promoted by GOP operatives with close links to party politics. The fact-based criticism is found in the response by state and county authorities, not in the federal response.  We have a large body of evidence showing how Republicans manufactured controversy about a federal response throughout social media before the ink dried on Biden’s emergency proclamation.  There’s also evidence showing foreign interference by trolls connected to China and Russia attempting to stoke division, conflict, and confusion between the people of Hawaii and the federal government, with some campaigns going so far as to prevent locals from taking emergency funds and shelter.  I partly documented the federal response to the fires in my Commons uploads from the defense department, and the evidence is completely at odds with the GOP claims. This is not surprising since the GOP was making use of foreign trolls and disinformation behind the whisper and conspiracy campaigns to attack the feds.  One of the point people behind this was a failed Republican candidate in West Maui who flooded social media with attacks on the federal response, and spread these claims using Alex Jones and other extreme right wing conspiracy sites.  Not a single one of his claims turned out to be true.  Wikipedia should not be used to facilitate propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a politicized take? There was initial criticism of the federal response being insufficient to help survivors of the crisis that lost their homes, and numerous reports in the weeks and months following about survivors struggling to get federal assistance. I provided another link in my second comment above, but I don't think lack of RS on the subject is the issue here. Are you making the argument that all criticism of the federal response to the disaster is simply the work of GOP operatives and Russian and Chinese trolls? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's start with your poor use of sources up above. The NYT article you cited doesn't refer to criticism of the federal government, it refers to criticism of the Maui Emergency Management Agency.  According to Wikipedia, "In the United States, all disasters are initially local, with local authorities, with usually a police, fire, or EMS agency, taking charge. Many local municipalities may also have a separate dedicated office of emergency management (OEM), along with personnel and equipment. If the event becomes overwhelming to the local government, state emergency management (the primary government structure of the United States) becomes the coordinating emergency management agency." So that's one down.  Shall I go on? Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're bypassing my point, and skipping over the Guardian article I linked. The initial links were in reference to initial reactions to a perceived lack of federal support immediately following the disaster. The Guardian article discusses the difficulties of survivors getting federal aid later. A couple of quick quotes from said article:
 * "...Maui residents who are struggling to find long-term housing and keep their businesses afloat have found the federal response so far to be scattershot and insufficient."
 * "On the ground in Maui, the federal government faced criticism almost immediately. Displaced and weary residents expected to quickly see a major response to the disaster that had left thousands without homes and killed 115 people, making it the deadliest US fire in more than 100 years. Instead, they witnessed a response effort led by neighbors, local businesses and community groups." entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't bypassed anything. As I said, I started with your poor use of sources, which you are continuing to demonstrate.  In this instance you point me to a Guardian article which you say supports a "perceived lack of federal support".  Let's look at the article you mention: first thing I notice, is that the article is framed by the protest I mentioned in my initial response, a protest organized by a failed GOP representative from the West Side that engaged in a documented campaign of disinformation and conspiracy theories about the federal response.  An image from this protest leads the article.  Strangely, for an article published on September 2, the Guardian cites a single woman from 18 days before who says she doesn't think help from the government is coming, which is the oddest kind of journalism I've ever seen. In any case, there is no specificity referring to the federal government in relation to this comment, just a general frustration with the "government response to the fire", "both the lack of warnings during the blaze and the distribution of aid in the aftermath", both of which were initial failures of local and state governments, not the feds.    Virtually every attempt to attack the feds on this subject comes from, originates, and is funded by the GOP.  As a resident, I've been following this subject very closely.  I have yet to see a single, valid criticism of the federal response.  Not one.  Instead, virtually every criticism of the feds is, in reality, a criticism of the state and local government.  GOP operatives aren't stupid.  They needed a way to attack Biden in the next election.  So they have attempted to turn the tables by distorting criticism of the state and local government into criticism of the federal government.  To this end, the GOP went on the attack on social media, flooding Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, and Facebook with these distortions for a 72 hour period shortly before and after Biden arrived.  I saw this play out in real time, and credentialed journalists and analysts were able to link some of these accounts to foreign state actors. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping. I read through the New York Times and Washington Post articles. While both mention FEMA in their headlines/drop heads, the article bodies focus largely on criticisms of the whole-of-government response (i.e., the response of the state and local governments), not necessarily of FEMA specifically.
 * Some of the criticism toward the state/county government response is included in the "concerns about preparedness" section, but I agree that more could be said about this topic elsewhere in the article. However, I think it would be undue to focus on FEMA or the federal government, given that the news articles don't put a lot of weight on it.
 * I also read through The Hill's article, which basically describes the political criticisms as coming from "Biden’s political opponents and critics" (language taken directly from the article). Put differently, these appear to be political points rather than anything directly relevant to the Maui wildfire disaster. I really don't think those specific points deserve much weight in this article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that the expressed concerns about insufficient federal aid, followed by the ongoing struggle of many affected by the disaster to get relief, deserve mention? I supplied another link more specifically about that, and can probably easily find more if needed. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what would probably be best is a short paragraph about the issue at the end of the "Federal government" subsection of the Response section. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RECENTISM, I would be very, very hesitant to source criticisms based solely on news articles published within the first few weeks following a disaster. When the Newsweek article was published (9 days after the disaster), FEMA had approved $1.42 million of individual and household assistance to 1,567 households (I took those numbers straight out of that article). As of today, that number is up to $29.61 million for 6,208 households. Can we still take those criticisms described by Newsweek to be valid?
 * In addition, as the news articles note, the $700 payments were meant to address immediate, short-term needs like "water, food, and fuel"; it was not meant to be the only federal aid available. For example, the Disaster-SNAP program (which is a federal program of the USDA) has since come online to offer up to $3,000 per household per month for food costs. There are other federal programs to provide people with temporary shelter and to help people repair or replace their homes. (And this doesn't include other sources of aid from state and county agencies, NGOs, and community-based organizations.)
 * Perhaps the criticism you're describing was WP:DUE immediately following the wildfires, but I don't think it is now unless there are recent, reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement about the timing of criticism of federal relief in relation to its arrival being a factor in whether it is due or undue (though in cases where such criticism is causal to a broader or swifter federal response, it would be due). Here's another source for you to consider. This is from Sept 2nd.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/02/hawaii-fires-aid-fema-biden-maui-lahaina
 * One point, while I appreciate that the scope and magnitude of the federal response changed over time, it wouldn't necessarily be undue to highlight criticism, difficulties, or perceived insufficiencies of it in that time, as those initial weeks are critical; of course, this is assuming it is done with due weight in encyclopedic style, like one or two sentences in the place I suggested. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aoi There are countless examples of articles on Wikipedia being supported only by articles that have come out "early", turned out to be completely wrong, but still used to support various claims. Aside from that, I find it strange that the Lahaina fires don't have their own Wiki article due to its sheer significance, and rather its lumped in with all the recent wildfires. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why don't the Lahaina fires have their own Wiki page?
Per the title. Why is it lumped in with all the other, arguably less significant fires? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @47.132.127.113 to add to this point, the Casualties section only relates to the area of Lahaina. Not only that, the section itself starts off with a claim only 100 people died, but then goes on to say the death toll was 14k. Then doesn't specifically refer to Lahaina, but "West Maui". It's placement is also just randomly wedged into the article, and doesn't come after any mention of Lahaina, or "West Maui". Also, how common is it for people to refer to Lahaina as "West Maui"?? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The first claim about 100 deaths is correct, the next sentence is saying "97 have been identified as of November 14" - although the wording definitely makes it look like 14k with a typo. I went ahead and rearranged it to avoid confusion. We could probably add a Lahaina sub-heading to further clarify but I left that alone for now.
 * As for why there's only one article, there was a long discussion about splitting it which failed to reach consensus. Jamedeus (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing Image Discussion for the 2023 collage
This article is a candidate for the ongoing discussion about the 2023 collage image. Feel free to participate here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing people
Does missing people need to be updated? I thought I read an article two days ago that said all missing people have now been accounted for, although I may have misread it. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There are still three people on the missing list. It seems that they have identified the last unknown remains which was one of the people on the prior missing list.  Just the infobox and the Casualties section need to be updated, correct?  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Made this edit. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be adjusted or amended.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)