Talk:Eaton Fire

Theosophical Society

According to this thread, the Theosophical Society Pasadena was destroyed in this fire. jengod (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Start of the Fire

According to this article the fire started underneath an electrical tower in Eaton Canyon and was spotted by a family who lives across from the canyon. (Extra source: I, myself am from Altadena and know this family and saw these photos during evacuation of the city). EpicTurtle640 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EpicTurtle640,

The article had already been incorporated into the "Progression" section; I've created a section specifically on the fire's cause and moved the Pasadena Now article content there (along with Cal Fire's official assessment that the cause remains under investigation). Penitentes (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

They (Or you) didn't see anyone cause it specifically? Just the location of it? VioletStargazer01 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Southern California Edison acknowledges videos suggest link between equipment and Eaton fire

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/06/southern-california-edison-acknowledges-videos-suggest-link-between-equipment-and-eaton-fire.html

Read through the article, and see the reference direct from SCE. Little bit more than the headline suggests, they have a tower number and known failure of a 200kv line hitting the ground in strong winds. 2601:248:C000:147A:95F5:6C:B82A:CE37 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Change to past tense?

The Eaton Fire is an active wildfire burning in... Should we change this to past tense? I think all the flames are out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It's true that the fire is quiescent but it's still just 45 percent contained, with active evacuation warnings and orders. I would hold off a little longer. Penitentes (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

So they're going to keep building fire lines along all 22 square miles of burn area even though there's currently no flames? Serious question, I'm not sure how it works. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a good question, and yes, that's exactly what they do. It will not be 100 percent contained (and declared "over") until firefighters have scratched out fire line around the entire perimeter and checked inside the perimeter to a certain depth for any lingering heat sources.

It sounds overkill, but a number of highly destructive wildfires have been caused by the incomplete extinguishment, and rekindling, of older fires days to even months later.

• The Oakland firestorm of 1991 was caused by a one-day old extinguished fire that rekindled. It killed 25 people and destroyed 3,000 buildings.
• The Lahaina fire was caused by a rekindle.
• There is some suspicion that the Palisades Fire was caused by rekindled embers from a smaller fire in the same area on New Years Day. (KCRA article)

Penitentes (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC, "100% contained" just means that there are firebreaks around the entire perimeter. Going from 100% contained to extinguished is an additional process in the interior of the fire. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Containment also refers to mopping up inside the perimeter enough that the fire does not threaten to escape it again, but yes, a fire is only "controlled" when it is actually extinguished. News sources and agencies begin referring to a fire in the past tense when it is 100 percent contained and the date of control is rarely reported. Penitentes (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Image source

I'd like to note that the images in https://recovery.lacounty.gov/eaton-fire/ are in the public domain as California government works since they come from the Los Angeles County government. They are not high resolution, but since the fire area is not publicly accessible, they may be the best available for now to illustrate the state of specific notable buildings. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

copied Litigation section into SCE article

KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

LA Wildfire edit-a-thons January 26 and February 3

Upcoming edit-a-thons focused on the Los Angeles Wildfires

In response to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, WikiLA has organized three edit-a-thons to create or improve articles about the historically, culturally, and/or architecturally significant structures that were destroyed or damaged during the fires, and the organizations and entities that stepped up to help. All are welcome. Sunday, January 26, at the Ebell of Los Angeles in mid-Wilshire from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) Sunday, January 26, at the Live Oak Library in Arcadia from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) Sunday, February 2, at the Hammer Museum in Westwood from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.)

- Wil540 art (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Fire possibly over

Mount Wilson and the Altadena area got a fair amount of rain overnight, could the fire possibly be considered extinguished or inactive? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

External link request — Post-fire debris-flow risk lookup tool

Hi all,

I have a conflict of interest disclosed at my user page (publisher of WaterDamageResponse247.com). Per WP:COIEDIT, I am proposing this addition via the Talk page rather than direct editing.

Specific edit request:

Please add the following bullet to the "External links" section of the article:

* [https://waterdamageresponse247.com/burn-scar-flood-risk-by-zip-california-checker Burn Scar Flood Risk by ZIP — California Lookup Tool] — Free ZIP-code lookup aggregating USGS Post-Fire Debris-Flow Hazard Assessment data for the Eaton, Palisades, Hurst, and Hughes (2025) and Woolsey (2018) burn scars.

Rationale:

• The article discusses post-fire debris-flow risk but does not currently link to a reader-accessible ZIP-level lookup
• The tool aggregates USGS Post-Fire Debris-Flow Hazard Assessment data (same authoritative source typically cited in this article body)
• Provides convenient ZIP-area information for readers in the Eaton burn scar buffer zone
• The tool is free and non-commercial in content (no required signup, no paywall)

Per WP:ELYES point 3 (sites containing neutral, accurate material beyond Wikipedia article scope), this provides ZIP-level granularity beyond what a Wikipedia article would typically include.

If a different placement (e.g., as an inline citation supporting an existing claim about debris-flow risk) would be preferred, I welcome that guidance. I will not edit the article directly.

70seventi (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the proposed website offers what, at first glance appears to be, similar information to that offered by the USGS. Thus the question is, what makes the proposed website better for the EL section than say, adding the USGS website?  Spintendo  01:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)