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 articles
Cedar Fire 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to
San Diego and
San Diego County 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.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
It's true that we will never know if the Cedar Fire could have been stopped by earlier, more massive, intervention. However, it's better to say "We did all we could." than "We didn't bother because it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference."
Rsduhamel 01:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to user Minesweeper for adding a photo, but a trio of politicians looking earnest is about the most irrelevant photo for this article. Aren't there any PD photos that show the fire? -
Willmcw 21:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Found a satellite picture of the smoke plumes instead.
Rsduhamel 08:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems the news media can't get it straight on what Martinez was charged with. I think we may have it straight this time.
Rsduhamel 22:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is the "Why was the Cedar Fire so bad?" section written so poorly and in such an odd way?
Because you (or another editor) hasn't yet fixed it!
Be bold! Rewrite it. Cheers, -
Willmcw 23:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
---
Modified narration of fire to follow chronological order (i.e. Julian area and firefighter burned after fire turned east, put approximate time ("noon") of Scripps Ranch fires. "Noon" is approximate but definitely many house were burning (or burnt) by that time. The first houses in Scripps Ranch area were likely burning as early as 8:00 or 9:00 AM. Removed mention of "merger with Grand Prix fire" as no citation is provided and the statement is incorrect (
http://www.geog.utah.edu/~cova/kim-etal-nhr-2006.pdf).(The Grand Prix and Old Fires, which were also burning at that time merged but were well to the north of the Cedar Fire. Removed mention of where firefighter was from as while efforts are greatly appreciated, did not seem of first order relevance.
146.244.227.73 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Causes of fire severity moved to talk page
I've moved this section here. It's not encyclopedic, completely unsourced, and reads like an essay. It needs a complete rewrite:
Would the results have been different if alleged mistakes had not been made in fighting the fire? We will never know, but there is good reason to believe that the Cedar Fire would have been cataclysmic anyway. Once the Santa Ana wind-driven flames took off, there was little that could have been done to stop them.
Some have suggested that fire suppression leads to conditions that caused the Cedar fire to be so large. However, extensive research by Jon E. Keeley and C.J. Fotheringham has shown that burn patterns have not changed significantly in southern California since 1878. The California Statewide Fire History Database indicates that since 1910, the mean size of fires in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties has remained constant. The timing of fires is equally consistent, with most igniting June through November with September representing the most flammable period. In a study by S.A. Mensing and others, seabed charcoal deposits off the coast of Santa Barbara County have shown that the frequency of large, Santa Ana driven fires has not changed over the past 500 years. Similar results are produced even when comparing years before and after 1950 when advanced fire suppression technology was developed and utilized on a massive scale.
The only important change revealed by these studies has been an increase in fire frequency during modern times, not a decrease. Fire in chaparral is a natural, unpreventable event. Despite efforts to control them, large
chaparral fires have continued unabated since our arrival in California. The assumption that old stands with an "unnatural accumulation of old brush" encourage fires to spread and become more dangerous is inaccurate. Studies by Max Moritz have shown that fuel age does not significantly affect the probability of burning.
Why did the Cedar Fire happen when it did? All fires require a
fire triangle whose three vertices are fuel, heat, and oxygen. In San Diego County in October of 2003 fuel was in abundance, and strong Santa Ana conditions had driven daytime temperatures above 90 °F + (32 °C) in the days leading up to the fire. In addition, on the night of
October 26 the Santa Ana winds meant humidity was down to single-digits, and 40 miles-per-hour (64 km/h) easterlies were blowing from the desert toward the coast. The result was mass ignition, a rapidly-moving fire, and extreme fire behavior, including large fire whirls. With all elements of the fire triangle present and at high levels, the Cedar Fire rapidly became a record firestorm.
I'm proposing deleting this section as non-encyclopedic. I'm moving this section to here, below. This is more the kind of material I'd expect to find in a newspaper article. As tragic as the loss is for the families of those killed, none of the folks are notable in an encyclopedic sense, and we typically don't have such lists for other disaster articles. The way the heading is, it appears that someone was trying to use Wikipedia as a memorial page, which isn't really in our scope of purpose. Any objections? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The following individuals lost their lives in the Cedar Fire[1]
Galen Blacklidge — 50, Lakeside, teacher, artist – Died
October 262003 while trying to escape in her vehicle
Christy-Anne Seiler-Davis — 42, Alpine - Died
October 262003 while in her home on Vista Viejas Road in Alpine
Gary Edward Downs — 50, Lakeside, small-business owner – Died
October 262003 while trying to escape the flames on Wildcat Canyon Road
John Leonard Pack — 28, Lakeside - Died
October 262003 along with his wife Quynh trying to escape the fire on Wildcat Canyon Road
Quynh Yen Chau Pack — 28, Lakeside - Died
October 262003 along with her husband John trying to escape the fire on Wildcat Canyon Road
Mary Lynne Peace — 54, Lakeside, nurse - Died on
October 262003 along with her sister-in-law Robin Sloan near the Barona Indian Reservation
Steven Rucker — 38, Novato, firefighter, died
October 292003 in Julian fighting the deadly Cedar Fire
Stephen Shacklett — 54, Lakeside, construction superintendent - Died
October 262003 while trying to escape the fire in his motorhome on Muth Valley road
James Shohara — 63, Lakeside, correctional officer - Died
October 262003 along with his wife and son while trying to escape the deadly flames near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside
Solange Shohara — 43, Lakeside, correctional officer - Died
October 262003 along with her husband and stepson while trying to escape the fire near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside
Randy Shohara — 32, Lakeside - Died
October 262003 with his stepmother and father trying to escape the deadly flames near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside
Robin Sloan — 45, Lakeside,
Walmart employee - Died
October 262003 attempting to escape the fire near the Barona Indian Reservation
Jennifer Sloan — 17, Lakeside, student - Died
October 262003 along with her mother Robin while attempting to escape the fire near the Barona Indian Reservation
Ralph Marshall Westley — 77, Lakeside, retired retail clerk, discovered
October 272003 at 1088 Barona Road.
Unknown found mid-December in the
I-15/
SR-52 area.
Please do not confuse the idea that we are not a memorial service (true) with the idea that a list of victims constitutes a memorial (not true). The list of victims is encyclopedic and it is useful. For instance, it may help the reader spot where the most fatalities occurred, etc.
I am going to go ahead and restore the list, since it does comply with policy. I will try to find wording that eliminates any confusion over the possibility of it being a memorial.
Johntex\talk 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)reply
This is being moved here due to lack of citations and the statement of uncertainty in the last sentence:
Although firefighters were almost universally praised, some citizens reported firefighters making no effort to prevent houses from catching fire. Many houses were saved by citizens who refused to evacuate as the fire approached. A group of citizens is credited with saving hundreds of homes in the community of Eucalyptus Hills, near Lakeside, by cutting a firebreak and fighting flames with a privately owned water truck through the night. At one point a helicopter-borne Sheriff's Deputy threatened the group with citations and arrest if they did not cease their efforts and evacuate. They left only after firefighters arrived in the morning after the brunt of the fire had passed by. The validity of or the circumstances surrounding such reports were often unclear because emotions were running high during the crisis.
I can not site for the privately owned water truck but i can site for the Sheriff's Deputy threatening to write citations and possible arrests for residents not leaving the private road across from magnolia. The intensity of the fire in the eucalyptas hills area only lasted the short 15 minutes with the gust of winds raining embers from muth valley but snuffed its self out from lack of oxygen once the winds changed. The fire spread from embers to flames rapidly because of the large Eucalyptas trees on the hill (some of which we have been told were the largest in the hills)They acted like torches and fell quickly on to roof tops. I personally lost everything i owned including the shirt on my back from the embers raining down. In this 15 minutes of chaos not a single fireman/police officer was in the area because they had been dispatched to the much more dangerous area of wild cat canyon. An area which city officials have recently approved a massive development (muth valley) despite the efforts of residents to remind the officials of the devistation and lives lost from lack of escape routes from a high winds canyon. The morning after fire fighters were dispatched but quickly removed and placed into hotter areas to try and contain the fire. Like i stated before the flames only lasted about 15 minutes and then quickly snuffed themself out as the santa anna winds forced the smoke down and into the hills. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.7.238.104 (
talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Curfew section moved
This sentence: "In the aftermath of the fire the curfew for firefighting aircraft was extended from 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunset and pilots have been given more discretion in deciding whether to attack a fire or not." has been removed because it is not cited, and the Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations still lists the operational times as was at the time of the fire. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I've once again removed the victims list. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article...this isn't a newspaper. Second, I've remove the comparisons section, as the first paragraph merely restated material already found here, and the second was just an overview of the 2007 article. SA entry is sufficient AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Please do not confuse the idea that we are not a memorial service (true) with the idea that a list of victims constitutes a memorial (not true). The list of victims is encyclopedic and it is useful. For instance, it may help the reader spot where the most fatalities occurred, etc.
The comparison to the 2007 fires is also valid.
As to the first paragraph, please see
WP:LEDE. It states that information should not be in the lead of the article unless it is also in the body of the article. Therefore, the information needs to be in the main body of the article if we are putting it in the lead.
As to the summary of the 2007 fires article, I see no problem with it. People reading this article will naturally want to know how this fire stacks up against others. This is particularly true with regards to recent fires they may have heard about it. We could do this as a "see also", but the prefered way to do it is really to put this into text form. Please see
WP:ALSO for information about this.
Johntex\talk 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Quick fail. The drive-by nominator has not addressed citation needed tags in place since 2007 (!), the criticism section seems out of proportion, the section order makes no sense, the lead does not summarize the article, and the Fatalities section does not
WP:USEPROSE. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)reply
List of fatalities
INCLUDE LIST
WP:PROSE says "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists." Since similar articles have a list of victims that died it can certainly be done on this article as well.
Prcc27🌍 (
talk) 01:40, 24 October 2016 (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 am in the process of cleaning up this article in hopes of getting it to
WP:GA status. One of the last main things that needs to be addressed is the list of fatalities. Now lets get one thing clear, no one is suggesting the loss of life is not tragic. The question here is does a LIST of those killed warrant placement in this article? If so, how and in what format. I took a look at
WP:USEPROSE (thanks
David Eppstein (
talk·contribs) for pointing me there!) and it states Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Now I would like to point out the last 2 words may not. It is possible that a list is still the right format here. I am having a hard time seeing what would be gained by having a bunch of sequential sentences that give the name, age and location of death for each of the 15 people killed. I took a look at a couple of other articles that contain large lists of individuals killed:
Yarnell Hill Fire,
Charles Whitman and
Virginia Tech shooting. Each of these use a box on the right side of the page to list the names (not sure what the technical name for this box is... Not an infobox and not a navbox...). I am very much leaning in this direction.
My proposal is to rewrite the
fatalities section to have a paragraph or so about the causes of death, how the fire spread faster than predicted, how people thought they had time they didn't really have, etc. (All well referenced of course). Then to have a side box that contains a list of the killed to include Name, age and both date and location of death. Perhaps broken up by date. I welcome any and all feedback! --
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
A list of each individual fatality is completely unnecessary. Look at articles for large-scale disasters like plane accidents and there's a nice summary of fatalities and a table of nationalities, at most. I think the proposal would work well, with only names, ages, and locations in that small box. SounderBruce 02:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: that is an excellent point. However, I would counter by pointing out that in large-scale disasters such as a plane accident, all fatalities occur at the same exact moment, in the same location and the cause is obvious. With a fire that lasted multiple weeks and covered some 280,000+ acres I think that it is more important to include the info. That being said, perhaps that is a strong argument for putting it in a better written paragraph. For example, the list in its current form mentions James Shohara, Solange Shohara and Randy Shohara who all died while trying to escape near San Vicente Reservoir, Lakeside. I think that could be written as "Three family members, James Shohara, Solange Shohara and Randy Shohara, died while trying to escape the fire near
San Vicente Reservoir on October 26." (referenced of course) That includes the pertinent information but puts it in prose and not just in a list. --
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Called here by bot. Thanks for your work on this. As Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia and therefore space is not such a concern, i'd be inclined to follow the lead of
Virginia Tech shooting and list the names. But it could go either way. Thanks for doing the daily work of Wikipedia and improving articles.
SageRad (
talk) 13:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'd prefer not to see a list of names. If a decent prose narrative can be written that tells the story and names are included (as Zackmann08's Shohara family example illustrates) then that would be ok. I think there's something sick going on in articles where it lists each and every victim when none of those people are notable. Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I see multiple articles with victims, and articles that had a separate list where the victim names were merged into the article. I do not perceive any harm, and the victim names are historical facts.
CuriousMind01 (
talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on
Cedar Fire (2003). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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.
@
Zackmann08: Many thanks for taking care of those. This week, am slightly swamped with other commitments but I will get back to the article & its Review as soon as I can. Just don't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it.
Shearonink (
talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
That photo of the fire crossing the highway...((shivers)).
And kudos to whoever uploaded it and used it in the article.
Shearonink (
talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Any further comments on other possible issues and the article's status are on hold for a few days due to other commitments and also pending a few more readthroughs.
Shearonink (
talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. This article was previously nominated for GA status:
Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1. Its structure, wording, citation issues have all been improved and cleared-up since then. I particularly commend
Zackmann08 for their writing concerning the aftermath of the fire and the various controversies as well as fixing all the various referencing issues. I am certain there are some improvements that could be made but at this time I cannot think of any. Nicely-done.
Shearonink (
talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (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.
Requested move 28 April 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Cedar Fire (2003) →
Cedar Fire – It obviously looks like a
primary topic for me - Why? When compared into
Cedar Fire of 2016, this is absolutely VERY destructive and as such it's much more notable than that. Compare the 2003 incarnation and 2016 incarnation with the Wikimedia's pageviews tool, the 2003 version fully trumped the 2016 version. I cannot doubt that this is the primary topic. SMB99thxXD (
contribs) 10:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I think because the 2016 fire was more recent, this should not be considered the primary topic. How much it spread or how many page views this article gets does not matter, having this as a primary topic is not the best option at this time.
2601:8C:4001:DCB9:9994:4438:446F:641D (
talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Since there is more than one fire with this designation I think "Cedar Fire" is more appropriate for a disambiguation page, which, btw, already exists at
Cedar Fire.
WP:PRECISE applies in this case. In the minds of Wikipedia's readers, "Cedar Fire" could be an article about either the 2003 fire or about the 2016 fire or even about a possible future fire and is, therefore, too imprecise to be the article title about the 2003 fire. The present titles and disambiguation page should be left as is.
Shearonink (
talk) 03:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Size
@
LightandDark2000: Please justify using that memorial service source when nearly all reliable sources covering the Thomas Fire have quoted the Cedar Fire as being ~273k acres, and CalFIRE officially has that figure as well.--
Jasper Deng(talk) 21:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply