Talk:Mann Gulch fire

message: Article says:
:Lessons learned from the Mann Gulch fire had a great impact on firefighter training.
It would be great to have someone with experience in fire fighting expand this to explain what those lessons are. Or someone who has access to this journal article:
Evans T. The lessons from Mann Gulch. Iowa medicine : journal of the Iowa Medical Society. 2003 Sep-Oct;93(5):6-7. (found on pubmed.gov)
mennonot 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lessons learned from this fire? 

message: MontanaBW,
Thank you for your continuing assistance and excellent edits.
I've expanded on the topics in this section for clarity and greater information content, while leaving your edits as unchanged as possible. Please feel welcome to improve it further.
Question: Is there a way to refer, in a named reference, to a particular page number? In other words, I'm using a reference cited previously but at a particular page. I've done it by putting the page number in the main text. But maybe there's a better way.
Thanks,
Yankeepapa13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeepapa13 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several methods for noting page number, I took the one already being used in this article and added it where you had indicated page numbers.  I like a different method a bit better, but it's more complicated to set up (though easier once it is). This will do for now.  One thing to be aware of is that your edits cannot speculate or extrapolate too far from the source material (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH ) and that's why I tossed a couple things.  The rest, I hope, was mostly cleanup.  Montanabw(talk) 05:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate outcome 

message: Per NRHP designation, this is the Mann Gulch Fire, not wildfire.  Montanabw(talk) 17:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRHP can cap Fire, but most sources don't, so I'll fix that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title move and restore 

message: The Timeline of Events I've posted is based primarily on Mclean, Lillquist and Rothermel (See sources). Grammatically, I've used past tense - present tense seemed awkward. 
The "blowup" as described by my sources occurred before the retreat by the Dodge and his men. The blowup was the fire that swept down the south slope, creating intense crowning and fire "whirls" that launched firebrands across the gulch bottoms and over to the north slope. These spot fires grew and swept up the north slope and engulfed the crew - but this inferno was not the "blowup". See citations in footnotes. CerroFerro (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is probably Maclean, Norman. Young Men and Fire.  I gotta say,  that while your detail is impressive, I think it's overkill and removed a lot of previous properly cited content.  This is going to be a mess to restore the useful material you threw out.  Montanabw(talk) 03:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  It's not.  Are you perhaps citing to the 25th anniversary edition, republished in 2017??  if so, clarify... Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I must say, CerroFerro, that your wholesale replacement based primarily on N. Maclean's posthumously published book, and its progeny that repeat its errors, is not as useful as the previous page that you summarily disposed off. The previous page cites to sources to which N. Maclean didn't have access, such as Cooley's book. N. Maclean, while an accomplished story teller and writer, was not a scientist, nor was accuracy necessarily a central aim of his work. N. Maclean's book is old news, in spite of it being reissued. Its faults need to remain exposed. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Restored Timeline for ease of review by Administrators and interested editors. Montanabw's hostile and aggressive wholesale deletions only start edit wars, not a reasoned exchange.  CerroFerro (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text: There has been no "rewrite", major or minor. The timeline is a supplement that subsumes a previous, poorly documented narrative overview, a rather skimpy one at that. Using words like "massive", "excessive" are inflammatory, and are launched so as to justify a wholesale assault. As of yet, no sources have been cited from mainstream publications or scholarly journals that discredit Maclean, Lillquist or Rothermel, nor my handling of the material. And by the way, somebody posted the following remark: "I also spoke to a fatality's older brother..." Nobody at Wikipedia cares who you "spoke to". Wikipedia:Reliable sources   CerroFerro (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: CerroFerro, we have explained that your wholesale rewrite was badly done, contains excessive detail, is not compatible with Wikipedia's "house style," and relies far too much on a single source.  Listen to us and learn.  You are the individual refusing to do anything other than to copy and paste what looks like your term paper.  Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline - comments 

message: @CerroFerro: Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and calling other editors sockpuppets with no evidence can be construed as a personal attack. Please work with other editors to improve the article incrementally and via consensus, rather than via wholesale replacement.
@Yankeepapa13: Please avoid the word "vandalism." Vandalism usually involves the work "poop" - use "disruption" if you must characterize another editor's bold edits. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that, Acroterion. Thank you taking a look at Yankeepapa13's edit history. As to the democratic nature of Wikipedia, that was just wishful thinking. CerroFerro (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for protecting this article. I have alerted WikiProject Wildfire of this discussion.  My own position is that SOME of the additions of  will, most likely, help the article.  I shall defer to  and other users who work on wildland fire articles, such as  to discuss content additions. I think  some of the maps might be suitable to add. (though at the huge size they were inserted, they reduce the text on a laptop screen to 3-word columns.  People can click to view a full-size file). I also think that a bulleted at-a-glance timeline that is much reduced in size from CerroFerro's version, not used to replace the narrative (WP style discourages "listy" sections) could, in theory, be useful. I am not a wildfire expert, but I do think the revision had quality problems that I have already discussed.  Other editors need to decide how to improve this article. Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't done anything but express an attitude towards the timeline section, now deleted by administrator, of undetermined repute. This foulmouthed Administrator User:Ymblanter left a message on his talk page for you. Wants to know, and I'm quoting here, "what the fuck are you talking about?" His words, not mine. CerroFerro (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  So basically you insulted me, for basically enforcing the policies of the project, suggested that I should be blocked, and took my question as a permission to continue insulting me? Do I understand the situation correctly? May I please suggest that you strike out "foulmouthed". Otherwise I will seek administrative intervention.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I withdraw the offensive term, Ymblanter.  I merely insist that, henceforth, you refer to yourself as the "What the Fuck" Administrator, or simply "Mr.WFA". Your words, not mine. But lets get back to this exciting and stimulating hijacking. It's really fascinating! CerroFerro (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has hijacked anything at all. Several other editors have expressed concern that your changes have not been beneficial overall and some feel we can integrate it to a degree but I prefer that we do so as part of the text and not in a bulletpoint format. In addition, while I support some enlargement of the maps and images certainly not to 900px as was done.--MONGO (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Anyone object if I change "in the state of Montana in the United States" to "in the U.S. state of Montana"?  It's simpler, and by avoiding repeating "state", it sounds a little more natural.  Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus, to quote WP:PP, so I'm not making this edit without agreement here first.  Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not controversial so full speed ahead!--MONGO (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Non-controversial.  Montanabw(talk) 16:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick intro bit 

message: The article appears to be using “north slope” to indicate “northern side of the river” and “south slope” to mean “south side of the river”; which is both incorrect and not explained.
 In wilderness, forestry firefighting, and biology terms “north slope” means “north facing slope” or “slope with an northerly aspect”. This  would mean that the north slope is further south than the south slope, but facing towards the north. 
I’m going to pull up an incident map and get the directions sorted out, as they are currently unintelligible, as one can’t tell whether the writers mean north or south in any specific use of either word. I’ll include qualifiers, ie “north facing slope” instead of just “north slope” to make it intelligible to both people who know the terminology and people who don’t.
Likewise, “Up” and “Down” can have multiple meanings: “up-river” (toward the river’s origin”, or “up-slope” (toward a higher elevation”. I’m not sure if I will be able to catch all of these with my current knowledge of the incident, but I’ll fix the ones I can. 2001:5A8:60B:691A:F043:C0DF:9B69:A2DF (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  North vs South, Up vs Down