Talk:Park Fire

Park Fire - affected counties

Cal Fire and Watch Duty both list Butte, Plumas, Shasta, & Tehama counties as counties affected by the Park Fire, because evacuation warnings and/or orders have been issued in all of those counties. Please note that this does not mean the fire has actually progressed into each of those counties. The fire is limited to Butte and Tehama counties, and the infobox and lead should only list those two as the actual location of the fire. See Cal Fire's incident updates, which break the burned acreage down by county. @Sunsetcityy Penitentes (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to thank Penitentes for the lovely map they made and everyone for contributing to this article! Sunsetcityy (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind! I've just updated the map to reflect the most recent fire perimeter (from this morning) and tweak some stuff for aesthetics. I'll keep updating it every day or two as we get new perimeters. — Penitentes (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool picture for infobox

I found a really cool photo for the thumbnail photo but I don’t know how to get permission to use it, is it copyrighted? Sunsetcityy (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also the whole photo album is great for photos! Sunsetcityy (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Containment

According to CAL FIRE, the Park Fire has already been 100% contained on Sept.26 of 2024. The Growth and Containment Table needs to be updated. RaschenTechner (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the table and added a CBS News article for the source. — Penitentes (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern about missing context

Hi, I recently attempted to add a small note about the recall history of the 2007 Toyota Yaris, since it was mentioned as the vehicle present in the ignition area. I understand that without a direct source connecting the model's past fire-related recalls to the Park Fire, this may fall under WP:SYNTH.

However, I feel that some additional context (perhaps even a brief mention in a note or linked article) could help readers better understand the background, especially if the vehicle is part of an official investigation.

Just wanted to share this perspective and see what others think. Thanks! Fernanda Tenerife (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Any "additional context" can be gleaned from the linked article about that car. You simply pointing out that the car has "fire-related recalls" is speculative original research and WP:SYNTH. We don't draw conclusions and shouldn't suggest conclusions for our readers. If a reliable sources makes this connection, then perhaps worth adding that, but not our own conjecture. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Information removed regarding critical aerial delay

Hi everyone,

I'm writing to express concern about the removal of a paragraph I added regarding the delay in aerial suppression efforts due to a drone sighting and the presence of a PG&E helicopter early in the Park Fire incident. I believe this information is crucial to understanding the fire's rapid spread and early response challenges.

The removed content read:

> "During the initial response, aerial suppression efforts were reportedly delayed for approximately 15 minutes due to an unconfirmed drone sighting around 4:00 p.m. According to fire analyst Zeke Lunder, who was reporting live from the scene, multiple air tankers were pulled back to base during this critical period. Lunder also observed the presence of a PG&E helicopter in the area early in the incident. This interruption, occurring at a crucial moment in the fire's early spread, has been cited as a key factor in the inability to contain the fire before it escalated. [Source: Lookout Media livestream, July 25, 2024, 4:20–4:45 p.m.]"

In addition to Lunder’s livestream commentary, the drone sighting is also documented in the activity logs from Chico Fire Department on the same day, confirming that fire operations were indeed affected.

I understand that Wikipedia aims to avoid original research, but this was not speculation — it’s drawn from live reporting by a known fire analyst and backed by official fire response records. Omitting this key piece of information removes relevant context from the article. A 15-minute halt in aerial operations, in the early phase of the fire, could reasonably be considered a factor in its escalation.

I would appreciate reconsideration of its inclusion, or at least a more in-depth discussion about whether and how this can be presented appropriately in the article.

Thanks for your time and input. — User:Fernanda Tenerife ~~~~ Fernanda Tenerife (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Removal of electrical line de-energization context

Hello,

I’d like to raise a concern regarding the removal of a paragraph discussing whether PG&E had de-energized the high-voltage lines near the ignition point of the Park Fire. I believe this is an essential part of understanding both the potential ignition cause and the tactical challenges in aerial suppression.

The removed text stated:

> “It remains unclear whether the power lines near the origin point of the Park Fire were de-energized by PG&E at the time of the ignition. While the fire began directly beneath high-voltage transmission lines, no public statement or report has confirmed whether a Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) was in effect, or if emergency de-energization protocols were implemented. The timing of de-energization — if it occurred — could be a critical factor in both the fire's ignition and the delay in aerial suppression, as active power lines often restrict the safe operation of firefighting aircraft.”

This content was factual, neutral, and flagged the uncertainty. It is **not speculative**, as it highlights the absence of confirmation — a relevant and commonly discussed issue in California wildfires involving utilities.

Given how many fires have involved transmission lines in recent years, and the fact that aircraft limitations near live wires can severely affect suppression, I believe this deserves to be mentioned. If the concern was about wording or tone, I would be happy to rework it collaboratively.

Thanks for considering this. — User:Fernanda Tenerife ~~~~ Fernanda Tenerife (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

IMO, any text that starts "It remains unclear whether...." risks being speculative WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. If there is an independent WP:RS that discusses this, then perhaps with mentioning. But as written, this is a speculative viewpoint that there might be a connection, and pointing out the lack of a "public statement" also is making an inference. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)