Talk:Mann Gulch fire

Lessons learned from this fire?
Article says:


 * Lessons learned from the Mann Gulch fire had a great impact on firefighter training.

It would be great to have someone with experience in fire fighting expand this to explain what those lessons are. Or someone who has access to this journal article:

Evans T. The lessons from Mann Gulch. Iowa medicine : journal of the Iowa Medical Society. 2003 Sep-Oct;93(5):6-7. (found on pubmed.gov)

mennonot 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Immediate outcome
MontanaBW, Thank you for your continuing assistance and excellent edits.

I've expanded on the topics in this section for clarity and greater information content, while leaving your edits as unchanged as possible. Please feel welcome to improve it further.

Question: Is there a way to refer, in a named reference, to a particular page number? In other words, I'm using a reference cited previously but at a particular page. I've done it by putting the page number in the main text. But maybe there's a better way.

Thanks, Yankeepapa13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeepapa13 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several methods for noting page number, I took the one already being used in this article and added it where you had indicated page numbers. I like a different method a bit better, but it's more complicated to set up (though easier once it is). This will do for now.  One thing to be aware of is that your edits cannot speculate or extrapolate too far from the source material (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH ) and that's why I tossed a couple things.  The rest, I hope, was mostly cleanup.   Montanabw (talk)  05:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Title move and restore
Per NRHP designation, this is the Mann Gulch Fire, not wildfire. Montanabw (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The NRHP can cap Fire, but most sources don't, so I'll fix that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline - comments
The Timeline of Events I've posted is based primarily on Mclean, Lillquist and Rothermel (See sources). Grammatically, I've used past tense - present tense seemed awkward.

The "blowup" as described by my sources occurred before the retreat by the Dodge and his men. The blowup was the fire that swept down the south slope, creating intense crowning and fire "whirls" that launched firebrands across the gulch bottoms and over to the north slope. These spot fires grew and swept up the north slope and engulfed the crew - but this inferno was not the "blowup". See citations in footnotes. CerroFerro (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

CerroFerro, your massive rewrite is largely based on one source that is not listed: Maclean (2017). What is the full reference? --Yankeepapa13 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The source is probably Maclean, Norman. Young Men and Fire. I gotta say,  that while your detail is impressive, I think it's overkill and removed a lot of previous properly cited content.  This is going to be a mess to restore the useful material you threw out.   Montanabw (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah. It's not.  Are you perhaps citing to the 25th anniversary edition, republished in 2017??  if so, clarify...  Montanabw (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If the "Grandmaster" editor wishes to correct a source, please do so. That would be more constructive and collaborative than removing the entire rewrite with a few comments. Please use standard English on this site. "Gotta say" should be "I have to say".

In answer to the question as to whether the Maclean source is the 2017 reissue, indeed it is. Fixed. As to my removing "a lot of previous properly cited content", the term "a lot" is a bit sketchy. I removed passages that lacked any citations whatsoever. Subject matter that did possess citations is now covered in the timeline. Altogether, the chronological overview which I have restored is informative and makes for engaging reading. That is what a democratically organized encyclopedia strives for. And to remove the maps, which are integrated with the text to provide greater clarity, does nothing to improve the article. CerroFerro (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I must say, CerroFerro, that your wholesale replacement based primarily on N. Maclean's posthumously published book, and its progeny that repeat its errors, is not as useful as the previous page that you summarily disposed off. The previous page cites to sources to which N. Maclean didn't have access, such as Cooley's book. N. Maclean, while an accomplished story teller and writer, was not a scientist, nor was accuracy necessarily a central aim of his work. N. Maclean's book is old news, in spite of it being reissued. Its faults need to remain exposed. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to point out a single "error", or provide citations that back it up. Rothermel, Linnquist and the USFS all support the material I used from Maclean. The previously posted material and citations under "Findings" - Casualties, Aftermath and Contributing Factors - were left intact, as were the sections on Young Men and Fire (which notes that "The book won the National Book Critics Circle Award for non-fiction in 1992.") and "Folk Songs".

By the way, you established username "Yankeepapa13" in 2013, but never used it until 2015. How many sockpuppets are you currently operating, pal? CerroFerro (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Name calling and nitpicking colloquial English is childish, uncalled for, and probably against the rules here.

Here's the seminal error in Maclean (1992), middle paragraph on page 106: "Dodge later told Earl Cooley that, when the fire went over him, he was lifted off the ground two or three times." Dodge never said that at all, and I cited to primary sources. Neither did Cooley who includes Dodge's sworn statement to the board in inquiry verbatim in his book (that you haven't seen and deleted the reference to boot). It came from a person who would become Maclean's pal, but who got the secondhand story wrong. Maclean and Cooley never spoke much and, according to Maclean the younger, had little regard for each other. I also spoke to a fatality's older brother, now deceased, who visited the death scene shortly thereafter, and also refuted the tale. This is far more comprehensive research than your book report.

Your methods of detective work are unsound. How does registering in 2013 and refraining from publishing an edit until all the facts are in make me a sock puppet?

Defending your vandalism with aggressive talk is not appropriate. Maybe you should start a page for your book report. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, here's the scoop. This massive rewrite is, first off, badly formatted, has excessive detail, is not particularly engaging, and needs a lot of work.  The best approach is to start with the status quo ante and then carefully add in more sources and where relevant, expand the content.  The rewrite has a level of minutae that was virtually unreadable.  The new graphics are interesting but way oversized. Most of the pull quotes are unneeded and the quotations in the footnotes are excessive and unneeded.   Montanabw (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * CerroFerro has been editing this article off and on for several months and it has resulted ina somewhat major rewrite. This is not all bad but not sure the timeline approach or the overly enlarged imagery is best. However, I looked at the "versions" and I kind of like the large view images, especially the maps ones...even though they aren't really in keeping with usual standards of non specified image sizing normative to GA or FA work. Mann Gulch is a pretty big deal in the wildland firefighting history books party due to Macleans subsequently written book even though fires before and since have been worse as far as firefighter deaths. The most infamous wildfire a dozen years before Mann Gulch was the Blackwater fire of 1937 and that article is an FA and follows a traditional editing format. However, I think the timeline details can be added in their own section while still retaining the previous writing so long as the refs all check out. I'd like to see this article pushed through to FA.--MONGO (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Restored Timeline for ease of review by Administrators and interested editors. Montanabw's hostile and aggressive wholesale deletions only start edit wars, not a reasoned exchange. CerroFerro (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There has been no "rewrite", major or minor. The timeline is a supplement that subsumes a previous, poorly documented narrative overview, a rather skimpy one at that. Using words like "massive", "excessive" are inflammatory, and are launched so as to justify a wholesale assault. As of yet, no sources have been cited from mainstream publications or scholarly journals that discredit Maclean, Lillquist or Rothermel, nor my handling of the material. And by the way, somebody posted the following remark: "I also spoke to a fatality's older brother..." Nobody at Wikipedia cares who you "spoke to". Reliable sources  CerroFerro (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * CerroFerro, we have explained that your wholesale rewrite was badly done, contains excessive detail, is not compatible with Wikipedia's "house style," and relies far too much on a single source. Listen to us and learn.  You are the individual refusing to do anything other than to copy and paste what looks like your term paper.   Montanabw (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
@CerroFerro: Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and calling other editors sockpuppets with no evidence can be construed as a personal attack. Please work with other editors to improve the article incrementally and via consensus, rather than via wholesale replacement. @Yankeepapa13: Please avoid the word "vandalism." Vandalism usually involves the work "poop" - use "disruption" if you must characterize another editor's bold edits.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. I will do as you suggest should the need arise again. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll second that, Acroterion. Thank you taking a look at Yankeepapa13's edit history. As to the democratic nature of Wikipedia, that was just wishful thinking. CerroFerro (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for protecting this article. I have alerted WikiProject Wildfire of this discussion. My own position is that SOME of the additions of  will, most likely, help the article.  I shall defer to  and other users who work on wildland fire articles, such as  to discuss content additions. I think  some of the maps might be suitable to add. (though at the huge size they were inserted, they reduce the text on a laptop screen to 3-word columns.  People can click to view a full-size file). I also think that a bulleted at-a-glance timeline that is much reduced in size from CerroFerro's version, not used to replace the narrative (WP style discourages "listy" sections) could, in theory, be useful. I am not a wildfire expert, but I do think the revision had quality problems that I have already discussed.  Other editors need to decide how to improve this article.  Montanabw (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You haven't done anything but express an attitude towards the timeline section, now deleted by administrator, of undetermined repute. This foulmouthed Administrator User:Ymblanter left a message on his talk page for you. Wants to know, and I'm quoting here, "what the fuck are you talking about?" His words, not mine. CerroFerro (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically you insulted me, for basically enforcing the policies of the project, suggested that I should be blocked, and took my question as a permission to continue insulting me? Do I understand the situation correctly? May I please suggest that you strike out "foulmouthed". Otherwise I will seek administrative intervention.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the offensive term, Ymblanter. I merely insist that, henceforth, you refer to yourself as the "What the Fuck" Administrator, or simply "Mr.WFA". Your words, not mine. But lets get back to this exciting and stimulating hijacking. It's really fascinating! CerroFerro (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No one has hijacked anything at all. Several other editors have expressed concern that your changes have not been beneficial overall and some feel we can integrate it to a degree but I prefer that we do so as part of the text and not in a bulletpoint format. In addition, while I support some enlargement of the maps and images certainly not to 900px as was done.--MONGO (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick intro bit
Anyone object if I change "in the state of Montana in the United States" to "in the U.S. state of Montana"? It's simpler, and by avoiding repeating "state", it sounds a little more natural. Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus, to quote WP:PP, so I'm not making this edit without agreement here first. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not controversial so full speed ahead!--MONGO (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Non-controversial.  Montanabw (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

So what is a "blow-up" then?
This article repeatedly describes how the fire quote-unquote "blows up" killing 13 men, but it never once clarifies what that means. I assume from the context that it means a sudden escalation in scale and/or intensity, but it would be nice if it just said so instead of sticking stubbornly with firefighter jargon.

70.16.213.67 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the source listed at bottom:
 * "Blow-up:
 * A sudden increase in fire intensity or rate of spread strong enough to prevent direct control or to upset control plans. Blow-ups are often accompanied by violent convection and may have other characteristics of a fire storm."
 * https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/terminology#:~:text=Blow%2Dup,a%20fire%20storm.
 * Feel free to edit accordingly. Thanks. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

North vs South, Up vs Down
The article appears to be using “north slope” to indicate “northern side of the river” and “south slope” to mean “south side of the river”; which is both incorrect and not explained.

In wilderness, forestry firefighting, and biology terms “north slope” means “north facing slope” or “slope with an northerly aspect”. This would mean that the north slope is further south than the south slope, but facing towards the north.

I’m going to pull up an incident map and get the directions sorted out, as they are currently unintelligible, as one can’t tell whether the writers mean north or south in any specific use of either word. I’ll include qualifiers, ie “north facing slope” instead of just “north slope” to make it intelligible to both people who know the terminology and people who don’t.

Likewise, “Up” and “Down” can have multiple meanings: “up-river” (toward the river’s origin”, or “up-slope” (toward a higher elevation”. I’m not sure if I will be able to catch all of these with my current knowledge of the incident, but I’ll fix the ones I can. 2001:5A8:60B:691A:F043:C0DF:9B69:A2DF (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)