Talk:January 2025 Southern California wildfires

A map is needed

Without a map, this article is very confusing to follow. Is the entire city of Los Angeles in flames or smoky? ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree that a map would be a major improvement. Jusdafax (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Can this NYT map be used as a source Waleed (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably not, and it’s behind a paywall I believe, at least for me. Jusdafax (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Penitentes - the fire mapper Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do when updated fire perimeters are released for at least the Palisades and Eaton fires. Penitentes (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I originally thought Rancho Palos Verdes was on fire. No, it's the area north of Santa Monica. This is a link to a BBC map. A Wikipedia map could be made to point out the general area. If necessary, credit the BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg525q2ggl4o ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone could even scan a hand drawn map. We, Wikipedians, don't need to steal intellectual property of news sources. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the NASA FIRMS Map isn't copyrighted https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:24hrs;@14.5,-9.0,3.0z ExiaMesa (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is not fire perimeters, just heat signatures. Best we have right now until an unnamed editor saves our asses with good looking QGIS maps. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Combining Articles

I don't know how to formally nominate it but currently there is lots of articles discussing the same topic. I feel like we should combine the Palisades Fire (2025), Eaton Fire, and Hurst Fire articles into this article. Besides this article and the other 3 already mentioned there is also the 2025 California wildfires article. I feel like the three individual fire articles should be just redirects to this article (January 2025 Southern California Wildfires). What are your guys' thoughts on the matter? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pending full assessment of the impacts from each I think the Palisades and Eaton fires will each have more than enough notoriety and content to justify keeping their articles separate. 2025 California wildfires will grow as the year goes on to cover all significant wildfire activity for the calendar year, so it's not really relevant here. Penitentes (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense! Thank you @Penitentes! -Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like Hurst should be merged though; doesn't appear to have that much effect so far.

f Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't know the exact amount of damage, though. If above 20, it should have its own article. WatchOutBroo (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. None of them are going to be specifically remembered individually in a few months. Eg224 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eg224: No. Both the Palisades and Eaton fires will go down in history for, respectively, being the costliest wildfire ever and the shear geographic penetration into populated areas.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Incorporating referenced confirmed death toll

Currently, the current death toll in the infobox is not part of the current article (as far as I could find), the most recent death toll update refers to the Eaton article referencing L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna.[1]. Since the death toll is likely to increase, would it be better to directly cite this in the infobox or would it better to try incorporating it in prose (and change it when the death toll increases)? 31.44.227.152 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I added a line about the death toll to the Eaton section. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help! 31.44.227.152 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also I see you lurking in ITN/making constructive edits. Maybe consider making an account? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning the Storm Prediction Center (SPC)

NWS SPC also predicted that the weather on Jan 7-9 would be critical, with the 8th being extremely critical. Can I add the SPC FireWX outlooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't make it too cramped with images. Maybe only include 1? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Notability

With the new table added, it is becoming evident to me that we need guidelines on what fires to include, both in the table and the article itself. IMO, some of the 1 acre fires with no structural damage can be removed. Any suggestions for rules? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific:

Riverside: keep table(structures damaged)

Sunset: remove from table(no damage)

Gulch: remove from table(no damage)

King: remove from table(no damage)

Huntington: remove from table(no damage)

Bert: Leaning on remove from table because unknown if damage.

Tyler: Keep table(damage)

Scout: remove from table(no noted damage)

Woodley: remove from table(no impact AFAIK)

Olivas: keep table(injury reported)

Lidia: keep table, no section(large size, 348 acres, but no damage reported)

Sunset: keep table, no opinion on section(wide ranging evacs but no known structure damage, location gives it lots of coverage)

Pinging @Middle Mac CJM: for thoughts Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to keep the ones in large population areas at least for now as they provide a small barometer of the danger of the event. They can be removed later as the list of notable fires grow. 2603:8000:CD01:5181:F1A7:9CC9:620F:1F3A (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a general notability to the number of fires during this extreme event even if the fires are small. This should not be lost in any pruning. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 05:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

National Interagency Fire Center

This is the federal echelon (not updated on the weekend).

https://www.nifc.gov

kencf0618 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

More useful sources:

https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/ - within NIFC site

https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents - CAL FIRE Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've decided to focus on the Timeline of the 2025 Palisades Fire; these'll come in handy. I anticipate that much of it shall be down to the minute...! kencf0618 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If I were you, I would merge that into the palisades fire article. Just a thought though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Name

Should the name be changed? I've seen it commonly referred to L.A. fires. --> 2025 Los Angeles wildfires Teutonkahmun (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

there are likely to be many more fires in LA this year, even after these ones are contained. given that, the month is helpful. Delectopierre (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Another Fire??

Okay I may be wrong but according to the Associated Press,

"Another fire has broken out in the Hollywood Hills, officials say, As officials were providing a media update about the fires around 5:50 p.m., Los Angeles city Fire Chief Kristin Crowley announced that a new blaze had broken out in the Hollywood Hills near Runyon Canyon. She said all available resources were responding and excused herself to attend to that blaze."

Is this information already reflected but under a name I don't recognize in the table of fires? Or should it be added?

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been named the Sunset Fire. ExiaMesa (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ExiaMesa! Also, just out of curiosity, who names the fires? Also, is there a place where they post info about them specifically. Right now I am just looking at the live updates from the Associated Press. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NP, I think it's generally the first responders who name the fire based on a criteria. For active fires I've been using this as a source.

https://www.fire.ca.gov/Incidents ExiaMesa (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ExiaMesa! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

it's often named by dispatchers as first responders are arriving at the fire. a fire a 123 main st is more easily referred to as the 'main st fire' over the radio. once first responders have organically settled on a name, they will also use that name when releasing public info. so far as i know, there are no official guidelines. Delectopierre (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Haha169, I see you added the Sunset Fire to the table of fires but I believe we already have an entry for that fire in the table. :) Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

They're different fires but called the same thing, I believe. The earlier one happened yesterday and was contained, this new one broke out this evening and it's not yet contained. --haha169 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Wow this is so insane Middle Mac CJM (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Celebrity homes destroyed

Is there a section for celebrities homes that have been destroyed? I’ve read about many now, and I expect that there will be a loss of cultural artifacts that were in private collections too. Victor Grigas (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a section dedicated to it but I do know I added info on that somewhere in the article. Just Control F for "Paris Hilton". Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Fire and Woodley Fire

Hello! Can we agree that both the Woodley Fire and Sunset Fire, although both spread rapidly and are devastating, are not notable to have their own sections, let alone their own page. I thing categorizing them in "Other Fires" and listing them in the table is fine. Heart ^(talk) 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This. Both are not nearly as destructive/large as the main focus, Eaton/Palisades/Hurst. IMO Hurst isn't even notable enough for its own article. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiment for the Woodley fire, however I think the Sunset Fire is sufficiently notable to have its own section (not article) for the time being given that, as opposed to the Woodley fire, it rapidly spreading in a residential area, and the current magnitude of evacuation orders pertaining to it. ExiaMesa (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Acreage burned by Olivias

The two sources (Watch Duty & fire.ca.gov) are conflicted regarding the total acres burned. Cane we agree to defer to fire.ca.gov given it's more established to be credible. ExiaMesa (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

first...what do you mean 'by Olivias'?

secondly, watch duty monitors radio traffic, uses satellite imagery, firecams, and and has a code of conduct. meanwhile cal fire has to fight the fire, so they are always going to be behind.

i don't feel strongly either way, but would consider wd a very reliable source. Delectopierre (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Well the fire has ended at this point so it's not a matter of live updates, going to the Watch Duty link, they utilized an estimate at that time and haven't updated it. I'm going to add it as 11 acres. ExiaMesa (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Which fire has ended? I don't believe any are extinguished although I could be wrong.

Note that stopping forward progress is not the same as putting the fire out. Wildfires are fought quite differently than, for example, house fires. Delectopierre (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

VCFD themselves mapped the fire at 28 acres. CAL FIRE did not reflect the change, and this happens quite often for CAL FIRE that the acreage will be outdated. WatchOutBroo (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll defer to that. ExiaMesa (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Why?

Why is "free palestine nuke israel" even there [listed above section titled "Meteorology"]?

Last I checked [as of: Jan. 9, 2025 @ 00:30 UTC-05:00] what is happening in the Gaza Strip (especially since the, Saturday, October 7th, 2023, terrorist attack) has absolutely nothing to do with the active wildfires in the LA area January, 2025.

Sroth0616 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE↙️:

I refreshed the page and it [why I made the initial post to the Talk page] is now gone. To whoever removed it, thank you; however, I will leave this thread up.

Sroth0616 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In the future, you can just click the vandalism tag on an edit to revert it. Oftentimes current event articles are vandalized Middle Mac CJM (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@User:Middle Mac CJM ,-

I wasn't clear in my initial MSG (my fault), when I went to edit it out [on Wikipedia iOS mobile app] I couldn't find it and after a refresh it was still there. In my opinion, I did the second best thing this talk thread.

Sroth0616 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Middle Mac CJM , I sometimes forget about vandalism sadly happens. Sroth0616 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

California FAIR Plan

I just created an article for the California FAIR Plan, an insurance program backed by the state of California which many homeowners in the region affected by the fires are enrolled in. Thriley (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a good addition, and will likely be a huge part of the aftermath. Delectopierre (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Mayor Bass

(1) Was MIA. (2) Refused to answer any questions. This needs mention. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a source and better details including how it is relevant. Wikipedia is not a place to push a political agenda. This seems objectively false, though, seeing as she was at a televised press conference on the subject of these wildfires yesterday evening. How can someone be "MIA" and at the same time "refuse to answer questions"? A person can't be asked questions if they are MIA. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Straight from the source: Skynews. This isn't political. she is a public official and needs to answer to the press. The relevancy: Their sole existence is to serve the people they represent.

Source:

https://news.sky.com/video/los-angeles-mayor-silent-when-asked-if-she-owes-citizens-apology-over-handling-of-wildfires-13285826 65.124.72.203 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not in the scope of this article to pass opinion or comment on whether or not public officials must answer the press (in no legal sense is it an obligation), this topic is inherently political given the reason for it's prominence in the media. ExiaMesa (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@ExiaMesa 10-4, thanks! Justwandering981 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There's at least two paragraphs that are 100% political. Misinformation - Trump's and Musk's claims have been proven right. But... As a political entiry wikipedia has an agenda to sell. 84.229.94.149 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

They were not "missing", they were on a planned trip to Ghana. Further, refusal to answer questions about her absence is not particularly pertinent to the goal of the article. ExiaMesa (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the points mentioned in the comments, I am opposed to mentioning LAFD budget cuts enacted last year by the mayor. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I take that back since it is already mentioned, there's no point deleting it. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think Hurst Fire should be merged into this article. Compared to the other two fires with articles (Palisades and Eaton), this fire hasn't had as severe impacts and isn't really notable enough for it's own article - a section on this one would suffice. harrz ^talk 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: The references section show that the Hurst Fire meets WP:GNG on its own. Yes, it was less impactful, but it does have decent news coverage. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Weak Oppose: Defo not nearly as notable as Eaton/Palisades, but probably warrants its own article. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Strong Oppose: has a lot of news coverage, and still is impactful Thewetroadinsummer (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose How about you wait until we see which fires ended up as major ones. There is zero need for administrative shuffling this early. Just let articles grow organically and you can reorganize them AFTER things have settled. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Snow oppose. While harrz has a point about the Hurst fire being less notable than the others, it is still notable. We should wait to assess lasting significance when things are over. With a rapidly-changing situation like this, this merge request could come to look very silly and shortsighted very quickly (or it may not). Consensus to merge will not be found while this thing is on the main page and we have no idea how it will end. Toadspike [Talk] 20:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose/Wait as per above

Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose/Wait I agree that the Hurst Fire has significantly less of an impact than the other two fires. However, the fire is only 10% contained and S&R teams are only combing through now. Its far too early to pass judgement on severity or make any administrative changes. ExiaMesa (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now - It is too early to make an informed decision, anything we settle on now will likely be debated again in a week. I would support a WP:SNOW closure as well. ASUKITE 22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait This may make sense at some point, but there is no rush. Let's wait and see how things develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1 No need to rush a merge now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

fixed vandalism

just a heads up folks, I removed vandalism from the "meteorology" section, where someone renamed it to several slurs. It is back to normal now! 69.74.161.98 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Death toll

Please watch for possibly rapid changes to the listed death toll. With so many burned out cars in front of so many burned out homes, simple physics means that many people did not escape in time, although of course there were other ways to escape. In the days ahead, there is not much hope that media reports will achieve consensus on the death toll. Let's wait until consensus is reached. Right now, the media is saying 5 dead. That number will change, but it's what we are working with at the moment. I wish everyone who lives in the area well. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Fire suspected as arson

This reddit user says his friend was in Runyon Canyon before closure, and say 1 or 2 people who broke into the park after closure. I have zero doubt they were entering to possibly start a fire. https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1hxhcu2/comment/m69o2to/ ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This "friend" can report their observation to the authorities, if they like. And the authorities can report this to the media, if they think it's credible. Then we can cite a WP:RS. But this article is not the place for rumors. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I know you mean well @ロドリゲス恭子, but I completely agree with @Suffusion of Yellow. This is speculation and harms the credibility of this article as well as Wikipedia as a whole. In America, everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. We don't even know if these alleged individuals were charged or apprehended by law enforcement. You are always entitled to send in information to law enforcement over there investigate but Wikipedia is not a forum (Per WP:FORUM with more info provided in this essay). I highly encourage you to also check out the following wikipedia policies: WP:BLPCRIME, WP:CRIME, and WP:N/CA

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If there are news sources that claim or speculate that the fire was caused by arson (and there are), it should be fine to report about these speculatively. Reporting on the speculation it doesn't mean that article unambiguously agrees, it just means that some high profile media speculated about it and we report on that. 2603:8000:CD01:5181:E082:AFFA:6920:E0E6 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the news sources meet the reliable resource policy: WP:RS Middle Mac CJM (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also to all writers, if this ends up being true, watch out for BLPCRIME stuff. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

---

January 2025 Southern California wildfires → 2025 California wildfires – The title is overly precise. For consistency's sake, nothing in Category:Lists of wildfires in the United States specifies half of a state. We didn't have a half-state article last year, nor any year before that. Edit: There actually was. Withdrawn in comment below.

This article completely covers the other article, which should be deleted to make way, without prejudice to splitting later. Per WP:NCE, The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Fires by year and these are completely different. E_F⁵ 22:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately there is no way these will be the last significant wildfires in the state this year. The content is only currently the same because of the time of the year. Had these occurred last month, then they'd have fallen under 2024 California wildfires.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - will clash with 2025 California wildfires. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - let's wait a minute, as with the merge discussion above, the situation is still developing. Given the significant news coverage of the individual fires, it is likely that we will have enough to merit an article, and it appears we have a convention for having a separate article for fires by year. ASUKITE 22:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There will be more wildfires later this year as they have a yearly season and this article is specifically about the wildfire breakout mainly affecting LA. ColdestWinterChill (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose there is a convention for yearly wildfire articles, which the 2025 article is about. This is specifically focused on a specific series of wildfires that happened in 2025. This series is notable enough to represent it's own article as an entry in ITN. The yearly article's scope will continue to cover future wildfires in 2025, whole this article focuses on the series of wildfires that occurred in Southern California during the Santa Ana wind event. --haha169 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait See if it spreads far and how much damage it does Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Opppose - As per above. TheHuman630 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose There will be more unfortunately, and this is obviously notable enough for a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Withdraw Per above and WP:CONSISTENT with October_2017_Northern_California_wildfires and December_2017_Southern_California_wildfires 172.97.141.219 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Fire department budget in "Lead-up"

(1) This seems unrelated to the lead-up to the fire, which is largely concerned with the opening stage of the disaster. (2) It seems to contradict what's written in the "misinformation" section. Should it just be struck? Edit and moved lower down for some reaction/analysis section? Some third option? Citing (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the misinformation section is about false claims of mismanaging water. The lead-up thing is about cutting costs. Agree that it should be moved/deleted, but IDK where. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've trimmed it. It's widely covered by news outlets but we don't need such intricate detail.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks for clarifying/editing. The article will probably need a "Background" section eventually that could encompass the first three sections but this works for now. Citing (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would 100% make a background section and put the meteorology stuff in there. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The Kenneth Fire

The Kenneth Fire is spreading really fast and has a chance to merge with the Palisades Fire. Should it be moved out of "additional fires"? MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources on background information

The article would be better if it mentioned all of these things.

This 2017 article from Mother Jones makes it very clear how this could have been prevented. And many other sources have been giving this same warning for decades. The article is called "A Century of Fire Suppression Is Why California Is in Flames"

The first paragraph states (I'm citing fair use to post a bit of copyrighted content):

"The acrid smell of charred wood still permeates the air as Sasha Berleman, a fire ecologist, and I walk along a dirt path up through the middle of a canyon in the Bouverie nature preserve in Sonoma Valley. On the left side, the earth is black as tar, and scorch marks as tall as a person scar the trunks of the mature oak trees scattered throughout the field. But on the right side, the ground is tan and brown, and you have to look hard at the still-green oaks to see any evidence of the fire that raged through here just a few weeks before. It’s no mystery to Berleman why the fire behaved so differently on the two sides of the trail at Audubon Canyon Ranch’s Bouverie Preserve. When flames hit the field on the left of the path, they met a dense wall of thigh-high grass that hadn’t been mowed, grazed or burned for 20 years. The flames must have been 5 or 6 feet tall. On the right side, however, Berleman had set a prescribed burn just this spring. So when the October wildfire hit, patches of fire blazed, but with so little fuel, the flames remained only inches high."

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/a-century-of-fire-suppression-is-why-california-is-in-flames/

That's basically a controlled experiment. It shows the difference between clearing away the excess plant growth, and not clearing it away.

This article says California chose to send trillions of gallons of rainwater into the ocean instead of saving it for future human use.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-20/anger-flares-as-california-stormwater-washes-out-to-sea

This article is about how California has not built any new major reservoirs in a very long time.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/sites-reservoir-lawsuit-newsom-18566639.php

This article says California choose to not build enough desalination plants:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/09/los-angeles-fires-can-firefighters-use-ocean-water/77575501007/

By comparison, this article shows how Israel used desalination to turn their water shortage into a surplus, in the middle of the desert, where there is constant and perpetual drought:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220815040943/https://www.haaretz.com/2014-01-24/ty-article/end-of-water-shortage-is-a-secret/0000017f-e986-dc91-a17f-fd8ffb120000

All of these things are choices that California made, and they are all reported by reliable sources.

All of these things should be included in the article.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Worst fire-related structural loss in world history?

Has any system of wildfires ever destroyed this many structures before? Are we looking at the worst wildfires in recorded history - not in deaths but in terms of structure loss? At this point its a fair question. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The Camp Fire is by far the worst, at over 18,000 structures destroyed. Not saying this one isn't destructive, though. E_F⁵ 00:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussing it is off-topic here though. We have no way of knowing until comprehensive post-mortem surveys are done and then have the issue of inflation when comparing different years.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Camp fire - 18k structures Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Evacuation warning sent to all county residents by mistake

It just happened, but can we put this near the top somewhere?

• https://ktla.com/news/california/wildfires/evacuation-warning-alert-sent-to-all-l-a-county-residents-by-mistake-officials-say/
• https://www.foxla.com/news/emergency-alert-sent-error-all-la-county-residents-increasing-panic-amid-fires Kire1975 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)