Talk:2023 Canadian wildfires

Background needs fix

Greets from Victoria. The Background for this article seems to need a fix. It starts off with "the total number of wildfires in Canada has decreased...." But the next sentence says "the number...of large fires has increased...." Is this about the dates? Or is it saying the number differs for *large* fires? Will-o-the-west (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A new angle is emerging: government-permitted spraying of tons of glyphosate has contributed to drying forests. (That is, it's not just about climate change.)

In the Background, this sentence starts a following paragraph: "Forest management is also a factor in the wildfires."

If we're to add this new angle, this is where it'd go. I'm having trouble finding links, but a Narwhal writer is working on it. Will-o-the-west (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to: "Wildfires are changing in Canada: in general, since the 1970s and 1980s, the total annual number of wildfires in Canada has decreased, however, the average total area burned has increased." The first part is straight from the source and I think globally it helps to understand the paradoxical phrase of decreasing numbers while increasing area. Does that solve the problem for you? Neo Trixma (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi from the GTA. imo, this should wait until it's covered by other sources in regard to this years fires. I would also avoid "government-permitted", as the spraying is done by the forestry industry: [1] ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the forestry industry does much of the glyphosate spraying. However, my understanding is that they need provincial permits to do so. Hydro and pipeline companies also spray under the wires and towers and along the sides of the pipelines, using government permits. And federal and provincial transportation ministries spray glyphosate along most roadways. Will-o-the-west (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the source, large fires are fires over 200 hectares. See: Nationally, trends in both area burned and number of large fires (≥200 ha) have increased significantly since 1959, which might be due to increases in lightning-caused fires. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated wording accordingly Neo Trixma (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yellowknife evacuation, Kelowna wildfire merge + Protecting this page

Yellowknife evacuation

Surprisingly I haven't seen an article or anything serious on Wikipedia about the evacuations in Yellowknife. The closest thing to the evacuation info that I found on wiki was on the official Yellowknife page, I think a part of the article should be made to address the evacuation, possibly a big section.

Kelowna wildfires

I don't find the reason to make a page for the wildfires in the city, when they're directly from the ongoing wildfires within Canada we could use the info from that article and merge it into here as it's significance is mainly from the topic of this article

Protecting page

I wanted to address this because I've seen this article being violated, with people putting random texts and pictures into here, I think it's best if we protect this article for now.

Thank you 😊 NuestroBrasil (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

For Yellowknife if you have multiple sources on this evacuation I guess you can create on article. As for Kelowna which article are you reffering to?

I'm interested to know where page protection can be requested as well Neo Trixma (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This one: McDougall Creek Fire NuestroBrasil (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The Yellowknife evacuations have already been added to the Northwest Territories section.

You can propose a merge for McDougall Creek Fire, if you want. See WP:MERGEPROP.

imo, there hasn't been enough vandalism/disruption to meet the criteria for semi-protection, but you can request it at WP:RPP. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure merging is such a good idea. It seems strange to me that every major wildfire in the US seems to have its own article, but for some reason we've decided to merge all the wildfires in Canada into one single article. This screams of US-centrism to me. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a large fire but it's dosent seem to me that it should be it's own article, it was caused by the ongoing wildfires within Canada along with the ongoing wildfires within British Columbia which were merged into here before. NuestroBrasil (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I will only support merging it if we merge all the US fires (except the one in Hawaii) into one article as well.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is odd that all the fires have been merged into one article. Crescent77 (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! NuestroBrasil (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Arrests of Arsonists wild fires

Were there arrests made or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.83.106 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Not afaik. There have been unrelated arrests of arsonists, but I'd say most (>90%) of fires aren't caused by arsonists. See this quote from the article While false claims of arson have gained traction on social media, arson is generally a minor cause of wildfires in Canada. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, many have, but it still seems to be a minor cause of the wildfires. I haven't found a source providing clear numbers, but cause can be difficult to determine, especially in large fires where any possible evidence is destroyed. Crescent77 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, several fires were started by arsonists and arrests have been made, here is a source "Canadian man who claimed wildfires were a federal conspiracy admits arson": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/canada-wildfires-conspiracy-man-pleads-guilty-arson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.18.130 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Placement of response by Charles III

@Miesianiacal recently moved a quote from Charles III to "Domestic government responses".

I believe that the placement of this information, where it was previously ("International responses"), is fine. Charles III generally represents the United Kingdom (as well as other countries, including Canada). I would consider the belief that Charles III is part of Canada's domestic government to be a non-mainstream one. Maybe others disagree.

The current solution's format is also not ideal. (See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.) Wracking ^talk! 02:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think those edts improved the situation. Crescent77 (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you think Charles "generally represents" isn't relevant. He is the King of Canada and, as such, considered Canadian; you can read all about it at Monarchy of Canada and Canadian nationality law. As such, the message didn't come from a foreigner and, therefore, doesn't belong under "International response".

Additonally, the two lines previously in the article aren't enough to warrant their own sub-section. The message is certainly related to the topic of this article and should be included, but, it doesn't exactly fit into the information covered--economic impacts, evacuation efforts, damages, etc. Having it as a quote keeps it in the article while reflecting its non-centrality relative to this article's content.

WP:BLOCKQUOTE also isn't pertinent. Template:Quote box states it's for "long quotes set off from the main text".

The whole message could be put into the article body as a blockquote and be long enough to justify its own sub-section within "Domestic government responses". But, that really seems like giving it undue prominence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My format comments were related specifically to Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged in MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, sorry for any confusion. As for your assertions about Charles III being Canadian, I'll wait to see if others (in addition to Crescent77) weigh in. Wracking ^talk! 03:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Coloured blockquotes are discouraged, but, we're not talking about a blockquote here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is veering into wikilawyering. I believe that the difference between a blockquote and a quote box, for the purposes of this policy, is moot. The purpose of the statement about colored backgrounds is to avoid placing undue emphasis on any given content, and to ensure accessibility requirements are met. Furthermore, the {{Quote box}} documentation says the template's use is only rarely appropriate in articles, and that {{Blockquote}} is preferred. Wracking ^talk! 16:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's no more wikilawyering than anything you're saying. A blockquote goes in the middle of the page; it's part of the article body. So, of course it shouldn't be coloured. However, a side-quote isn't part of the article body; it's not woven into or drawn from the article text; it's "set off from the main text". A side-quote akin to an illustration. Hence, the "in article" part doesn't apply.

The quotebox template is used on 773,000 articles, including high-traffic articles like Premier League, Stanley Kubrick, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Simón Bolívar, and Battle of Dunkirk. I think that shows a clear consensus on how the template is used. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree there. I think giving it is own blockquote is undue prominence. Crescent77 (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also disagreeing with your presentation of the monarchy. He may be "Canadian" by law, but that doesn't mean he's "Canadian" as the word is commonly understood : he doesn't live in Canada. Crescent77 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Where Charles lives has no bearing on his being considered Canadian by law; where any Canadian lives has no bearing on their being considered Canadian by law. I lived in Australia for a year and in Italy for six months. I didn't somehow stop being Canadian during those periods of time. Someone can be born to a Canadian citizen abroad, never set foot in Canada, and still be Canadian by law. Regardless, by virtue of being King of Canada alone, his message to Canadians, released via the Governor General of Canada, belongs within "Domestic government responses".

Do you really think a side quote is more prominent than a dedicated sub-section with its own header and appearance in the table of contents? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Charles is, for most intents and purposes, not a domestic official. He has no direct influence on domestic Canadian affairs, despite the symbolism and his formal position. Anecdotally, I don’t think the Canadian public think of Harry and Megan as "Canadians", despite them living there for a bit + their status as being "technically" Canadian royalty. I think Charles being placed in Other reactions is fine, personally. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the need to present information factually and accurately outweighs the need to cater to an individual's perception of how they think things are.

That said, while I would agree that in many cases (where they are not acting as in their Canadian capacity), their reactions could be constituted as non-domestic, it is clear in this particular case that they are functioning in their capacity as the Canadian sovereign through the governor general's office. Both of which would be viewed as domestic offices. Leventio (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to explain where you draw the line between directly influential and indirectly influential, since you seem to also place that line between Charles expressing himself as King of Canada and him expressing himself in some other undefined way. Further, you put him permanently on the indirectly influential, or "expresses himself in some other undefined capacity", side, meaning he never speaks as King of Canada, which is an extraordinary claim. One wonders what king you think he'll be speaking as on his next tour of Canada.

Regardless, putting the message under "Other responses" implies the message came from the king of another country, which is not supported by any sources. What's verifiable is that the message came from the man presently regarded by Canadian law as the King of Canada, through the Governor General of Canada, both of which are part of the government of Canada and offices domestic to Canada—as determined in McAteer et al. v. Attorney General of Canada in 2013, "the Queen is [...] a domestic institution."[2] The message's proper place, therefore, is under "Domestic government responses". Whether it's a side-quote or gets its own sub-section is another matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:02, 4 October 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)