Talk:Peshtigo fire

Merge?

Peshtigo, Wisconsin Fire of 1871 is the same think, only a stub, merge the info?--Rayc 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comet Theory

Question -- the comet theory was indeed proposed as early as 1882 and that the comet now known as 3D/Biela was the cause. Why does this article now have a concluding sentence that states: "But now scientists who study meteors now state that meteorites do not pose a threat of starting fires."???

First of all, a comet is not a meteorite. And secondly, as recently May and June of 2007, a group of science researchers asserted that a huge comet hit the Earth's atmosphere over North America approximately 12,900 years ago, wiping out the Clovis culture and large numbers of animal species and (I quote): "wildfires spread across North America". Here are some links:

1. Comet may have doomed prehistoric Clovis 12,900 years ago
2. Ice Age Ends Smashingly: Did a comet blow up over eastern Canada?
3. Comet Wiped Out Early North American Culture, Animals, Study Says

SunSw0rd 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference. When a large comet or meteor hits the Earth, the impact catastrophe is similar to a nuclear explosion (cf. the Tunguska event and other impact events). That a wildfire is also started is secondary. In the Chicago and Peshtigo fires, there was no report of a large explosion. If it was started by meteors or comet fragments, they would need to be small enough not to cause such an explosion.

Far more likely is that environmental conditions that day were just right over this entire area to turn both places into tinderboxes. Another possibliity is that cinders from one fire were carried at high altitude to the other fire, but I don't know of any evidence to support that. --IanOsgood 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The fire jumped the Bay of Green Bay, which is 10 to 20 miles of solid water across and barely visible from one side to the other. There were fires across the 30+ miles of solid waters across Lower Michigan at roughly the same latitude. These three fires line up pretty good, which could support a comet theory. These three fires don't align at all in with the Chicago fire. The weather was the key to all four fires, with winds from a very intense front that fanned the flames in a drought ridden region. Maybe the November gale force wins tha come most years came early that year. The comet section needs to remain a small section for an alternate theory. Royalbroil 04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

comet/asteroid theory

Meteorite experts say that meteorites are cold when they land on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.42.47 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So then please see preceding discussion of the difference between an asteroid and a comet. SunSw0rd 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss revisions made by User:WolfmanSF -- removing supporting evidence for alternative comet hypothesis and retaining only the cold meteorite commentary. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which experts say this??? There is one unverified anecdote from 1917 and that's all there is. Kortoso (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on meteorites reports conflicting opinions on this matter - some authorities say that they are hot when they land, others that they are cold and may even have condensation on them. 173.67.130.115 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not critical to the article, given that there were already numerous small fires burning in the area before the firestorm arose. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikified and dismabiguated mage

Not sure which to use.

1. Magician (paranormal), a person who performs feats using supernatural means
2. Magician (fantasy), a character in a fictional fantasy context who performs supernatural feats. I used No. 1. But it could have been the other. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Number of deaths

It looks like the intro summary misrepresents the numbers. It says "as many as 1,500", implying no more than that. Later, under the Firestorm heading, it says "Between 1,200 and 2,500". Is the intro just wrong? Westphjm (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Movie "Superfire"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303110/ Mentioned one hour and six minutes into the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.164.5 (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious belief as fact

From the entry:

The Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help, located on the Door Peninsula, was threatened by the fire but escaped being burned; it remains standing although not as originally constructed. The site is a Marian shrine, where visitors can make religious pilgrimages. The site was unscathed by the flames after Adele Brise and others who had taken refuge there refused to leave and begged the Virgin Mary to save them.

The last sentence presents religious belief as fact. I thought it was irrelevant so I removed it. Risssa (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Those are all facts. There is no claim of causation. You confabulated that on your own. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What part of "The site was unscathed by the flames after Adele Brise and others who had taken refuge there refused to leave and begged the Virgin Mary to save them" are you having trouble with? The sentence clearly implies that the reason the church didn't burn is because of a miracle solicited by Adele Brise and granted by the Virgin Mary. Sure looks like a religious belief being presented as fact. I stand by my decision to remove it. Risssa (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not your decision. We are now discussing it. Ipse dixit doesn't apply here. Whether the nuns or the Catholics want to believe in miracles (or this particular "miracle") is up to them, and their belief itself can be documented as a fact. If part of their doctrine somewhere is that The moon is made of green cheese, we could document that too, without attesting to, or contesting, the veracity of the belief. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is from the Shrine's cite:

When the tornado of fire approached Robinsonville (Champion), Sister Adele and her companions were determined not to abandon the Chapel. Encircled by the inferno, the Sisters, the children, area farmers and their families fled to the Shrine for protection. The statue of Mary was raised reverently and was processed around the sanctuary. When wind and fire threatened suffocation, they turned in another direction to hope and pray, saying the rosary. Hours later, rains came in a downpour, extinguishing the fiery fury outside the Chapel. The Robinsonville area was destroyed and desolate…except for the convent, the school, the Chapel, and the five acres of land consecrated to the Virgin Mary. Though the fire singed the Chapel fence, it had not entered the Chapel grounds. Those assembled at the Chapel, realizing that they had witnessed a miracle, were asked by Sister Adele to retire to the Convent, where they were made as comfortable as possible for the rest of the night.

What’s more, the only livestock to survive the fire were the cattle brought to the Chapel grounds by farmers and their families who came to the Shrine seeking shelter from the firestorm. Though the Chapel well was only a few feet deep, it gave the cattle outside all the water they needed to survive the fire, while many deeper wells in the area went dry. Hence, the Chapel well has been sometimes referred to as the “miraculous well”.

In the days to follow the great fire, the poor Belgian pioneers needed no more proof that Mary’s visit to Sister Adele was genuine. Father Peter Pernin, known as the “hero of the Peshtigo Fire”, visited Sister Adele shortly after the catastrophe, and wrote…

“I have no intention either of passing judgment on the apparition of the Blessed Virgin and the pious pilgrimages which have resulted from it. Ecclesiastical authority has not yet spoken on the subject; it silently allows the good work to advance, awaiting perhaps some proof more striking and irrefutable before pronouncing its fiat. Far from me be the thought of forestalling ecclesiastical judgment.

“I have but another word to add. If it lay within the power of any of my readers to proceed to the spot and visit this humble place of pilgrimage, as yet in its infancy, and the only one, I believe, of its nature in the United States, I earnestly counsel them to go. There, they can see and question Adele Brise, who, without having sought it, is the soul and heroine of a good work, progressing with rapid strides from day to day; and I feel assured that, like myself, all those who have gone thither with an upright intention, they will return edified and happy at heart, if not convinced, of the reality of Our Lady’s apparition.”

The claim of apparitions and intervention are made. I agree that the procession had started ten years earlier. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you add some of this content to the shrine's article? It is appropriate to include information on this fire incident into that article. Royalbroil 04:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The apparitions occurred in 1859. They were what led Adele Brise to a religious life, but have nothing to do with the fire. (See Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help#The Apparitions of 1859.) What is claimed on the shrine web page may have some relevance to the shrine article, but it seems irrelevant here. 71.139.148.134 (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

She had hallucinations that made her religious. My schizophrenic friend used to talk about the apparitions he saw too. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen; Please consider removing or abbreviating your blockquote. As it stands, it may not qualify as fair use. This article is about the fire, not about an allegation of a miracle. As Royalbroil suggests, with adequate sources, it may be appropriate for another article. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that this content is inappropriate here, just that I think it's also appropriate elsewhere. I think the few sentences that exist in this article at this moment is just the right amount. I think that more content on other survivor's stories is appropriate too. I toured the Peshtigo Fire Museum a few years ago and it had lots of interesting survival and death stories. I agree about censoring this long blockquote, perhaps it should be deleted but left in this talk page's history. Royalbroil 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect, this is fair use. And I do NOT agree to abbreviate it. While you characterize the issues in your way, I disagree as to that. too. If we Bowdlerize the quote, you will then say I have not proven what it says. What you are trying to do is create a self fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.

It would seem that "relevancy" is in the eye of the beholder. I would err, if at all, on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. Let the other editors decide the substance after they have read it. I chose not to put any of the quote the article, as I anticipate your WP:Undue objection. The standard for inclusion in an article is not the standard of some Common law pleading.

So we can agree to disagree on the issue, the proofs, the procedure and the meaning of it all.

If you have a copyright issue, then go the copyright enforcers in Wikipedia. We both know who they are, and I will gladly pick up the gauntlet.

Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pilgrimage

I found a fairly detailed history of the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help in a 1959 newspaper article (Jack Rudolph. "Catholics in Pilgrimage to Robinsonville Today", Appleton Post-Crescent, August 15, 1959, p. 4, cols. 3-7.). It turns out that the pilgrimage held annually at the shrine has nothing whatsoever to do with the Peshtigo fire. The pilgrimage, begun in 1861 (10 years before the fire), celebrates the Feast of the Assumption, which was Adele Brise's favorite religious observance. Please don't reinsert the unsourced statement about the pilgrimage having begun because of the fire. 71.139.148.134 (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

A chapel is not a sentient being capable of cognition or reasoning, so how can a chapel posit? 71.139.148.134 (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. YGBSM. It is those who administer the chapel. See above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peshtigo Fire. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205000000/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_26.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_26.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1870.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127043314/http://shrineofourladyofgoodhelp.com/htmPages/g_hst_p5.html to http://www.shrineofourladyofgoodhelp.com/htmPages/g_hst_p5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325065110/http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMPDC04_865/PV2004_1419.pdf to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMPDC04_865/PV2004_1419.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

An editor renamed this article from "Peshtigo Fire" to "Peshtigo fire" (lowercase "fire") with a summary of "case norm; frequently lowercase in sources" and I have reverted this per WP:BRD on the following grounds:

1. Not sure what "case norm" means (case normalization?), but we use sources for content but not necessarily typography. There are many exceptions and it's complicated, but generally on these matters we look to our own MOS rather than the whatever MOS happens to be used by sources.
2. I'm not sure, but a glance at some article titles shows that our de facto MOS is at least split on the matter. for instance List of California wildfires#Pre-2000 shows seven "Fire"s and two "fire"s (one being a firestorm; "firestorm" and "wildfire" appear to tend not to be capitalized here, while just plain "fire" does). Other list articles use "name" rather than "description" to designate fires, implying that these are considered proper names.
3. On the merits, IMO it's a proper noun since it's the name of the entity. "The Peshtigo Fire was a fire in Peshtigo" would be correct IMO.

It's arguable I guess. Since it's arguable the editor perhaps should not have renamed the article (whether WP:BOLD applies to article moves is itself debated) without first initiating a discussion, but at any rate a a WP:Requested move discussion needs to be initiated now, and the editor to make his case. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization practice varies considerably in this case. Doremo (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that Oakland firestorm of 1991 isn't capitalized because it isn't the proper name of the fire, but rather the common name (which in that particular case is inarguably more widely used). The proper name of that fire is Tunnel Fire. The other article is actually at the properly-capitalized name, Mount Vision Fire. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, how an entity other than Wikipedia capitalizes something bears very little on the question.

For content we rely on sources. That is why our article says that the fire occurred on the eight day of October in 1871. Because this is content and our source say this.

For formatting questions we look to our MOS. Whether we would say "October 8, 1871" or "8 October 1871", we would look to our MOS and not sources. If most sources used the ordinal "October 8th, 1871" would we use that? No we wouldn't.

Now, it is true (I think) that our MOS does not specifically describe whether fires are proper nouns. The next place to look then is our de facto style for fires, created by various editors "voting with their feet". On this it seems we are not consistent, but my quick sample shows more instances of fire names being treated as proper nouns than not. Certainly willing to be shown otherwise by a more extensive survey.

We can also consider the question on the merits, and at that point we want to look at what other people outside Wikipedia think. So I mean what style other sources use is not nothing. It's a piece of data, but let's not overvalorize it.

Also, my saying that our MOS trumps sources has many exceptions -- but mostly for well-known entities. Our article is titled eBay because that term is used a lot and is well known under that typography. However, if someone starts a new company named "MuSCLE*P0WeR" our article would probably be named "Muscle Power" or something unless and until the entity because well-known enough and the odd typography becomes well-used enough for the entity to carry its unusual typography into the Wikipedia.

The Peshtigo Fire is not famous enough to carry its own typography with it into the Wikipedia.

As far as official name / common name (the Oakland firestorm of 1991 given above), point taken but I dunno. The Big Apple and The Big Easy and so on are not official names but are still capitalized. A complicated question I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Oakland firestorm of 1991" comes across as something other than a name, i.e. a convenient way of referring to one of multiple Oakland firestorms. However, "Oakland Hills Firestorm" looks like a proper noun and so should be capitalized. Similarly for "Peshtigo Fire", "Great Chicago Fire", etc. So, I suggest reverting. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WolfmanSF that the change to "fire" should be reverted. It was made without discussion, and the edit summary ("not usually capped") seems false based on this. Doremo (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Consider also this. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The n-grams clearly confirm my claim that it's more often lowercase in sources. Certainly nowhere near the usual criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources". The Chicago one is completely different. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The main point is, the name is clearly a proper noun, arguing it should be capitalized, as the names of nearly all historic fires are in Wikipedia, or at least were until you start moving things. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of people out there who don't understand the concept of a proper noun, and believe that things get capitalized when they're important. That's the only explanation I can see for why "Great Chicago Fire" or "Great Fire of London" would be more consistently capitalized than "Peshtigo Fire". All are proper nouns. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I admit to not understanding what criterion you are using to decide what's a proper noun. Are you saying that the majority of sources on this topic don't understand what's a proper noun? What's your definition or criterion? Should we change what MOS:CAPS suggests, which is "consistently capitalized in sources"? I admit it's not perfect. Dicklyon (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Great Fire of London Ngram. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the usage stats do make it clear why we cap Great Fire of London and Great Chicago Fire, but not the Peshtigo fire. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"not the Peshtigo fire." Why? Big fire, big F? Little fire, little f? That is not logical. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Big F in sources, big F in Wikipedia; little f in sources, little f in Wikipedia. That's roughly it, if you want logic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is where we have to depart from relying on sources. If there is a conflict between sources and our principles (proper nouns get capitalized) we have to go with the latter. Examples are Solar System (Ngram) and Universe (Ngram) which are generally not capitalized, but are in Wikipedia. It is more important to be consistent and capitalize the names of all historic fires, all of which are proper nouns, because they are all unique, named events. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Another example is Sun (Ngram). WolfmanSF (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, based on recent usage you might argue for capitalizing golden eagle (Ngram), but we don't, because all common names of biological species are common nouns, which we don't capitalize based on principle. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Our principles, expressed in MOS:CAPS, are to reserve caps for proper nouns, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources. Yes, I agree there remain other over-capitalized titles and words like the ones you point to (we have a pretty good understanding of when to capitalize Sun, perhaps less sure on Universe, and there's considerable disagreement on Solar System). And it wasn't long ago that the bird common names were all capped, but we got past that. No reason to stop making progress toward our state style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No, proper nouns are determined by applying the definition of a proper noun: any "unique entity" (event, in this case). By definition, the name of any unique fire event, if it has an accepted name, is a proper noun. So Peshtigo Fire and all other named historical fires are proper nouns and should be capitalized here. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Very many unique entities are titled descriptively because they do not have proper names (see Proper noun#Modern standardization and exceptions). If you claim that Peshtigo Fire is a proper name, you are claiming that a majority of sources got it wrong. That's a pretty outrageous claim to make about RSs. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that me claiming the majority of sources since 1988 got it right is outrageous? I don't get it. WolfmanSF (talk)

A couple of points about that. First, even if the number that you're claiming got it wrong were a bit less than half, yes, that would be an outrageous claim. Second, when you use n-grams, realize that many of those hits are of references to titles (in title case). To try to get a more fair estimate, you can put words like "the" in front, e.g. as here. It's very clear that we're nowhere near the threshold criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources", even in recent decades. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well a few points...

"Big F in sources, big F in Wikipedia; little f in sources, little f in Wikipedia". That just isn't true, any more than than "October 8 in sources, October 8 in Wikipedia; October 8th in sources, October 8th in Wikipedia" is true. (Neither is the statement completely without merit tho; it depends on various things, but none of which seem to much demand lowercase in this instance.)

Capitalization is, at the margins, a debatable issue. Is it "20th Century" (the name of a century) or "20th century" (a century which is 20th in ordered list of centuries)? Dunno. For my part, it's fine if we do it differently in different articles. (I think our default for this is "20th century" tho.)

"...and a president of Franistan is frequently present at these ceremonies" vs. "...and the President of Franistan is frequently present at these ceremonies"... see the diff? One of a class vs. a specific instance of that class. Thus, "A Peshtigo fire is a fire which occurs in Peshtigo, which happens often..." vs. "The Peshtigo Fire is the only fire which has ever occurred in Peshtigo..."

If you're not going to capitalize "fire", why capitalize Peshtigo? We are referring to a fire, not the city of Peshtigo. Thus: "There are many types of fires: crown fires, which spread in treetops; brush fires, which spread along the ground; peshtigo fires, which spread underground and were first seen in Peshtigo, Michigan..." in parallel with "20,000 watts" (not "20,000 Watts"). (I recognize this is a lost point, I'm just making the argument from logic.)

Consistency within an article matters too. In this article we have reference to a "Peshtigo Fire Museum" and the "Peshtigo Paradigm", and should not these be changed to "Peshtigo fire museum" (a fire museum which happens to be in Peshtigo) and "peshtigo paradox"(or Peshtigo paradox maybe) in the interest of internal consistency. There is also a Peshtigo Fire Cemetery and maybe this should be "Peshtigo fire Cemetery" (Capital C because it is a particular named Cemetery but lower case f because elsewhere this event is referred to as the (or a) Peshtigo fire. Or maybe "Peshtigo fire cemetery" (a fire cemetery in Peshtigo).

etc. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Peshtigo is consistently capped in sources, and is unquestionably a proper noun, so that's why we cap it. Same with Peshtigo Fire Cemetery and Peshtigo Fire Museum; the Peshtigo Paradigm is more questionable, but looks like it has come to be pretty consistently capped in sources, so we cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the Peshtigo Fire Museum pretty well account for most of the capitalized occurrences of Peshtigo Fire in books. See n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the recent burst of caps seems to be from the made-up proper name "Great Peshtigo Fire".

Also your "President of" example is not so clear. Sources in the last 30 years are about evenly split on this; our own guidelines on it are detailed at MOS:JOBTITLES, which says we do not cap it in "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States". I know, there are plenty of articles violating this guideline, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well but.... I mean can you answer these questions?

• If our sources for an article mostly say "October 8th", should our article also use "October 8th" or should it use "October 8"? Why or why not? How does this differ from the current question?
• Suppose the sources for an article mostly use "Peshtigo fire", and mostly use (say) the Chicago Manual of Style, and mostly use "Peshtigo fire" because of this. Should we replace the Wikipedia Manual of Style with just a pointer to the Chicago Manual of Style and/or rules copied from the Chicago Manual of Style? Why or why not? Is this change likely to occur? Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The manual of style has been built over many years to represent a consensus of editors on Wikipedia style. It draws on the CMOS and many other style guides, trying not to be too US centric, etc. We do not "follow the sources" in general, but the suggested criterion to decide whether something is a proper name is that it is "consistently capitalized in sources". Many styles capitalize for other reasons, e.g. to define acronyms, to emphasize terms important to their topic or area, etc. So if we see something just over half capped in sources, we use lowercase. We need a supermajority at least (exact numbers have never been specified) to conclude proper name status. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"if we see something just over half capped in sources, we use lowercase", what? Why? Is this written down anywhere? Are there other instances of rules to the effect "if about half the sources do X and half do Y, we do X"? Even if there are, are there any specifically covering this sort of thing? Or is it a de facto general practice? If it is, how do explain that my (admittedly non-exhaustive) survey of named fires here found well over half to have "Fire" capitalized? Is this an oddity found specifically here in names of fires or perhaps natural phenomena generally, but not other similar entities? Herostratus (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In the U.S., most modern fires are given unique official names by the agencies that fight them, and the editors involved have generally insisted on using these as proper names. Sometimes common names are used instead, like Oakland firestorm of 1991 instead of Tunnel Fire. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Peshtigo Fire → Peshtigo fire – Per MOS:CAPS. Since it's not consistently (nor even mostly) capped in sources, we don't cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom – Books n-grams clearly confirm that it's more often lowercase in sources. Certainly nowhere near the usual criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources"; unlike some other fires. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This is not a fire that got a formal name like the Camp Fire (2018); it obviously long predates modern systems of wildland fire management. Given that, the rules which should apply to modern fires shouldn't apply here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Not consistently capitalised in RS, so should be lower case per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, as above. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above, and MOS:CAPS in general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose on principle. See thread above. Do not much care about Ngrams for answering formatting questions. What our MOS says, and our common practice, are the main data points. THE MOS doesn't really say, and I believe that more fire names are capitalized here than not. Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Changed my vote, based on looking deeper into common practice (see below), which seems to support lower case for fires that do not have official names (which basically means, older fires such as the Peshtigo one). Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  The discussion above clarified why "more fire names are capitalized here than not": because modern fires get assigned official proper names. The principal in MOS:CAPS is that we avoid unnecessary caps, and cap only when sources consistently do so. So it's not clear what "principle" you are opposing on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Right... well, it's a complicated question and no mistake. The principle is just that, IMO, our MOS mostly trumps sources for style issues such as capitalization. That doesn't mean the article shouldn't be moved, just that the Ngram is not very important. (It's not nothing, but it's not very important IMO.) Our MOS has capitalization guidance for military terms, literary genres, sports, and so on, but not natural events. So, we must look elsewhere -- common practice, and the MOS for the most-similar situations. OK, recent fires have "official names" that some agency give them; the fire in Peshtigo is too old for that. So... looking backwards, in chronological order from oldest, and skipping instances where title case decides capitalization ("Fire of Moscow" etc...) we see 1681 Trondheim fire, but Copenhagen Fire of 1728. Tiverton fire of 1731. Great Podil fire, Richmond Theatre fire. Great fire of Tirschenreuth. Grue Church fire, Great Fire of Turku, but it's reasonable to say that "Great" fires can be treated differently... 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire. And now Great fire of Hamburg, but then Great New York City Fire of 1845... Hofburg fire. Alright, that's enough. I'll concede the point, and change my vote. What can I say? The point of these discussions to change people's minds, not just yell at each other. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And who's to say you can't be persuaded to change back again. This fire was, as mentioned on its pages "the deadliest natural fire in the history of the United States". So it has a mortality notability that no other fire in the U.S. has. Great or otherwise. The upper-cased name is used for its museum and its historically significant cemetery. This is not middling fire, or even a once-in-a-decade occurrence, but the deadliest natural fire in the country's history. It's the real deal, and this page should keep its long-term proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the notability of the fire. It has an article because it's notable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per 1) Ngram ambiguity (there is not a compelling difference in the capitalization patterns), 2) parallel case usage with the (smaller) Great Chicago Fire and various other named fires, and 3) the secondary-primary stress pattern of the name (Pèshtigo Fíre, not Péshtigo fíre/fìre); for this last point, cf. the Chicàgo Cúbs vs. a Chicágo cómpany/còmpany. Doremo (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  As discussed above, the Great Chicago Fire is consistently capped thus in sources, unlike this one. No reason we should ignore that difference. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because I think it is operationally awkward to treat some members of this class (the principal names of notable fires) as proper nouns and others as common nouns. The distinction is a bit arcane and will likely be a source of endless confusion. Also, there dosesn't seem to be a precise definition of "consistently capped". Depending on that definition, "Great Chicago Fire" might actually be improperly capped. If it is properly capped, then its status changed over time (see this). WolfmanSF (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

However, if you can pull off changing "Great Chicago Fire" to "great Chicago fire" (since, in point of fact, that is obviously not consistently capped), as well as changing other inconsistent examples, I may change my mind. I don't think having "Great" in a fire's name qualifies it for an exemption from our policy, whatever it is. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I do. If a fire rises to the level of "great", it's a difference in degree that amounts to a difference in kind. The Great Fire of Boston, for instance, was 145 years ago, but it was an important historical event that greatly affected the development of that great port and city and remains still vivid in popular lore. It's a big deal, and so it gets a proper name. Other fires in Category:Fires in Massachusetts, not so much, so they don't get proper names. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that "Great" in a fire name inherently means "this was a big fire" in contrast to fires elsewhere. It is more likely that it means "this was a big fire" in contrast to all the other fires in the same place (i.e., Boston has had many fires, and this was the biggest of those). There is no "Great Peshtigo Fire" because the Peshtigo Fire is not being compared with other fires in Peshtigo. The epithet "Great" therefore does not make such fires more important than fires elsewhere that lack the epithet. Similarly, one doesn't refer to the Great September 11 Attacks, the Great Challenger Disaster, the Great Attack on Pearl Harbor, or any number of other unique events because there is no need to distinguish them. Doremo (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think so. I think "Great" means "important" in the context of fires. "Great" is applied to fires and not battles or shipwrecks, because people. I think every important fire has also been large, but the important thing is that it's been important. "Great Depression", not "great depression". "Great War" not "great war". Great Plague, Great Hunger, Great Game, Great Terror, Great Yaeyama Tsunami. There are a lot of counter-examples too TBH. Earthquakes, here, seem to capitalize like this: "Great X earthquake; corollary here would would be "the Great Chicago fire" which seems odd... Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Of the 10 deadliest wildfires known, only the fourth has "Great" in our article title. So, obviously there's no accepted or reasonably consistent threshold at which a fire becomes "Great". WolfmanSF (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And Peshtigo is "the deadliest natural fire in the history of the United States", so there's that. That should count for something in keeping this in its stable upper-case title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not really no. Big does not equal important. The Great Chicago Fire is, in an important sense, a character in the history of the United States. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Randy, this idea of yours that important things deserve caps is contrary to MOS:CAPS, has been repeatedly rejected in RM discussions, and is getting tiring. Why can't we just go with Wikipedia's style principle of avoid caps when sources show them to be unnecessary? Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The importance factor is what makes it a proper noun. If "Pesthigo fire" was so insignificant that its meaning could only be determined by context, it wouldn't be a proper noun. The fact that it is important makes its meaning context independent, so that it meets every aspect of the definition of a proper name. The argument for not capping then hangs entirely on usage statistics. That is unworkable, because there is no definition of "consistently capped" and it could be argued that no historical fire name is consistently capped. Then the only logically consistent policy would be to lower-case all fire names that do not have some imprimateur of being an "official" name. Which is unfeasible, unless you're willing to uncap Great Chicago Fire and the Great Fire of London. That would also lead to many absurdities, such as upper-casing the 21,135 acre Duck Lake Fire and not the 1,200,000 acre Peshtigo Fire. Letting "Great" be the determining factor leads to other absurdities, like upper-casing the 200,000 acre Great Hinckley Fire (great Hinckley fire?) and not the Pestigo Fire. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose even though the n-gram evidence shows that not every semi-famous fire is a Fire, upper-case is fine here per such things as the Peshtigo Fire Museum and the historically important Peshtigo Fire Cemetery. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• ...and per six upper-case mentions on Wikipedia's main page in the On this day... section, starting in 2004. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  It seems clear enough that Peshtigo Fire Museum and Peshtigo Fire Cemetery are proper names. But that's not really relevant. Why do you still want to cap everything you think is important? Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Dick on this... the museum is distinct from the fire (we cap “Museum of Natural History”... but not “natural history” on its own). Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ngrams show that since the late 1980s the capitalized version has gained on, and overtaken, the lowercase fire spelling. --В²C ☎ 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  That is not what it shows if you ask it right. If a capped name is desired, then maybe "Great Peshtigo Fire", but that's mostly popular because of so many books using it in their titles, and references to those. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I suggest ngrams require the term in question to be included to get the accurate counts. --В²C ☎ 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support/other Per n-gram by nom, not "consistently capitalized in sources" per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. N-gram of Born2cycle and resp by nom (immediately above) does not change this. WP:OTHER arguement by Randy Kryn assumes that these are correctly titled (not established) and that because of their capitalisation, this article must also follow - it does not need to. Onomastics, proper names are not descriptive. It is descriptive. However, the guidance is to rely on the sources - for each individual case. As observed by nom (immediately above), "Great Peshtigo Fire" may be the preferred, based upon the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Per Dicklyon's research and Cinderella157's comment, how about going with Great Peshtigo Fire. The main reason it hasn't been labeled as 'Great' since its occurrence is that the same-day Chicago fire stole its thunder (and apparently its lightning). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Mild Support - it is a boaderline case, but the n-gram evidence tips me to “not capped”. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

OK, I mean here's my thinking, and why I am of the mind of support for this particular case -- not all cases.

Here's what seems to make to sense to me. See if you agree. Now, this makes sense to me on the merits -- from a practical procedural/political viewpoint, this might be too complicated to get "enacted", tho.

1. Fires which have an official proper name -- which means basically most modern fires -- should be capitalized: Foobar Fire.
2. Fires which do not have an official proper name (mostly older fires) should not be capitalized: Foobar fire, since their appellations are descriptive rather than proper.
3. As an exception to #2, fires which have a generally accepted proper name should be capitalized: Great Fire of Foobar. (Most if not all "Great" fires would fit under this, and few if any which are not named "Great", so the presence or absence of the word "Great" in the name serves as a reasonable basis for determining capitalization, absent other data.)

Basically, this just acknowledges that some fires have proper names (and proper names are always capitalized), and some don't. Messy as that is, it's just the fact.

It's a little sketchy because WP:OFFICIALNAME tells us not to much consider what government agencies say. However, really in most cases by giving the fire a proper name, the agency is also giving it it's common name anyway, which most sources will use. (To further complicate matters, there might be some cases where a fire is officially named "Wayne County Fire Number Two" but sources generally call it the "Ford Canyon fire". In this cases, WP:COMMONAME would trump the official name I would think.)

I think, to some degree, it is worthwhile to look at external sources here. Not to pay any attention to what various publications' stylebook is, but to help determine which fires are generally considered to have proper names and which don't. So the Ngram is a useful data point I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

More comments on capitalization

No doubt many of the editors involved would like to consider this a resolved issue, but that is unlikely to be the case, because of all the absurdities the article move has created, some of which I've already pointed out, as well as the specious arguments used to justify the move.

It is instructive to consider what Wiktionary has to say on the subject of proper nouns:

Definition: "A noun denoting a particular person, place, organization, ship, animal, event, or other individual entity".

Usage notes: "Some references erroneously conflate whether a noun is common or proper with whether it is capitalized or not, although these are not the same."

So, any noun phrase that refers specifically to a given historical fire is a proper name, by definition. There is no basis for claiming a distinction between such noun phrases that are proper names and those that are descriptive terms. They're all proper names. One could draw a practical distinction between widely used terms and those that are one-offs or seldom used. There is no basis in claiming that "official" names are more "proper" than those that lack such status. In astronomy, informally proposed names are capitalized along with officially accepted names.

The bottom line is, it is operationally foolish to claim that the names of some historic fires qualify for capitalization, while others do not, on the basis of an undefined standard of being "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". Given that the standard is undefined, its application will inevitably be arbitrary, and efforts to try to apply it it to individual cases like this one will be an unproductive use of editors' time. The treatment of members of a class should be consistent. Wikipedia has specific policies dealing with the names of organisms and names of astronomical objects to ensure consistent treatment of members of these classes. We obviously need a similar policy to deal with historical events. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Miracle indeed

I removed the following passage from the article:

In Robinsonville (now Champion, WI), Sister Adele Brise and other nuns, farmers, and families fled to a local chapel for protection. Although the chapel was surrounded by flames, nothing inside the chapel's property line was burned. Nobody knows why exactly the chapel survived, but the Church calls it a miracle of God. Others give credit to the chapel's well which was dug unusually deeper than other wells in the region.

And I edited the following passage

A chapel where Sister Adele Brise and others sheltered from the fire has become the National Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help. The site is a Marian shrine, where visitors can make religious pilgrimages.

to instead read

The National Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help, a Marian shrine in Champion, has been established at the site of a chapel where, according to the Shrine, Sister Adele Brise and others sheltered from the fire and were miraculously passed over

Both of these being ref'd to a source I consider substandard: It's the site of Our Lady of Good Help itself, and it's biased and unreliable. (The bit about a deep well isn't in the ref and therefore has no ref so its swept away with the rest. The deep well thing suggests there're other more reliable refs out there about what actually happened.) Herostratus (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Slash-and-burn land management is oxymoronic

It's irresponsible to imply that this is a form of managing the area, as practiced in 19th century Americas 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:DD83:CEA5:8E32:3DDA (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Slash-and-burn land management is a common term in English. Doremo (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

External link

As per WP:ELBURDEN, disputed links should be excluded by default until there is consensus for inclusion. @Sundayclose: please explain what unique value you feel the disputed link provides when there are already several other links that include images of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Jumping" the bay

"However, the fire did not jump across the bay. Most likely, the firestorm spread and created a new ground fire in New Franken which then spread and burned everything northward up until Sturgeon Bay." No definition I know of would not call this "jumping the bay". The source cited after this also makes no mention of jumping or refutes any claim about the fire jumping the river. If material from the fire got to the other end of the bay and it caused the fire to spread there, then using "Jumped" should be appropriate. 2600:6C44:7D7F:3708:6745:1686:67C1:3F (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

So allegedly the Great Peshtigo fire was caused because Jesus was mad that people in Wisconsin weren't Christians? So 12 years later he started this specific area of the USA on fire as punishment (as the phrasing alludes)? And then allegedly they prayed and God sent rain? The rain didn't come because they prayed... the rain came because that's how weather works lol. Why would God start a fire, just to put that same fire out after a small group of people prayed? He allegedly started the fire!! Why are we pushing this as even a little factual when this is incredibly religiously biased? On another note, weird that a loving god (the one most modern Christians push) would torch, at most, 2,500 people and then save a random church (despite I'm sure many other churches being lost in the fire). It's fascinating how much that religion has changed in such a short amount of time. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)