Talk:2010 Mount Carmel forest fire

Materials

Relevant sources:

• http://www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?ElementId=ir20101214_43432

Illegal garbage pile?

Was the garbage pile itself illegal (then burned), or was the burning of said garbage pile illegal? ← George ^talk 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The dump was illegal, as the source states. I have modified the text a bit to clarify that this was not a small/private pile, but something bigger. It is common practice in some Arab villages in Israel that garbage is incinerated on the spot instead of dumped in central locations. I hope that answered the question. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. In the U.S., sometimes it's illegal to dump garbage, and sometimes it's illegal to burn garbage, so was a bit confused which this was referring to. Thanks for clarifying. ← George ^talk 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Units of measurement

I have noticed that people keep adding the amount of forest burnt in acres and removing other measurements. Please do not do this, as acres are neither a metric or SI unit, nor is it used locally in Israel. I was under the impression that according to the relevant guidelines, the units that should be used as the local (in this case, the metric dunam) and the SI (in this case, square [kilo]meters). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Someone changed the first sentence to refer to the "2010 Mount Carmel forest fire". Should we move the article to match that name, and have 2010 Israel forest fire redirect? I'm also curious if we should call it a "forest" fire. It sounds like it's spread to more than just forests, no? ← George ^talk 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename to "2010 Israel conflagration". Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's probably not the best name, as conflagration can also mean "war" (see the second definition on Wiktionary). ← George ^talk 11:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is a forest fire in France called the "France forest fire"? This fire is local, and takes place in Mount Carmel only.93.173.60.184 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: 2010 Mount Carmel fires or 2010 Israel fires--Metallurgist (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire. -- 89.138.83.78 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire. I was cautious at the beginning, since AFAIK, there are many locations called Mount Carmel, especially in North America, still I guess we're safe with Mount Carmel pointing to the location of the forest fire. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire. Flags-Chaser (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: This is known as the "Israel forest fire" in international media and should be reflected in the article. If there are multiple disastrous forest fires in Israel in 2010, then the article name should be changed. The current name is too specific and obscures the general location of events. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is It Really Necessary To Have The Reaction Of The Palestinian Extremist Group In The Article?

Yeah I think the tile of the heading pretty much speaks for itself. It's good that Obama's reaction is there but is it really necessary to put the reaction of the Palestinian Jihad group? "On the other hand, official identified with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad said: "There is no need to tell you how delighted we are that more than 40 cadets who tortured prisoners were killed in this fire. We never met with your compassion when Israel attacked us. Let the fire consume the spider state"

The above quote by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group isn't really intelligent or relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.90.209 (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article because it shows reaction to the fire is not uniform and that radical Islamist groups have a different response to the events. A reliable secondary sourced deemed it notable enough to publish the comment, making it notable enough for Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, people have to be told the truth in whatever context it arises. Too many people like the above do not want to know what is happening, or want others to know. Then they wonder why a magic peace doesn't suddenly appear. If we want to prevent such fires in the future, as well as other catastrophes, we need to make sure that the world is confronted with the facts at every opportunityPedantrician (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkish-Israeli/Palestinian-Israeli reaction(s)

I've added some qoutes via my anonymous adress, which is 217.120.210.96. I REALLY reckon them quotes to be part of the article, for they give a more than a glipmse of how the other 'important' parts of the Middle East (Turkey and the Palesinian Authorities) care about this all, and how Israel reacts on that. Whether it would do the relationship between Israel and them both Middle-Eastern states (Turkey and 'Palestine') good or whether it would harm the relationships, time has to tell. All I know is that both Turkey and the Palestine Authorities has send their help, and that Netanyahu has been 'peaceful' about these conversations. At the same time, I think it is usefull to álso show the responce of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. We are Wikipedia, and we COULD/WOULD/SHOULD deliver a story from AS MUCH POINTS OF VIEW as possible! Many of us might not agree with it, but it, nevertheless, is a point of view! And in this case it is relevant, for they responded to THIS (= the article) current event. Again, not everyone might agree with it, but it ís a statement (that represents a certain point of view involving this case). Robster1983 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Chief Rabbinate reaction

It appears at this stage, the Chief Rabbinate reaction is not supported by any source. I'm removing it till relevant reliable sources could be found. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Jihad

I just want to point out that Ynetnews is the only outlet reporting this. I guess they qualify for WP:RS (maybe) but it all seems pretty thin to me.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22who+tortured+prisoners+were+killed+in+this+fire%22&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=%22who%20tortured%20prisoners%20were%20killed%20in%20this%20fire%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.134 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

Should we also make a section in the 'reactions' part about the internal (=Israeli- and Palestinian) reactions (since them reactions are very diverse in both in Israel (groups hailing Netanyahu and groups blaiming Netanyahu) AND Palestine (groups sending help, and groups wishing Israel ill))? Robster1983 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we include a map of the fire?

There is currently a map, which can be foubd at File:Carmel Map 2010.png. The map is on the commons, is released into the common domain, and was uploaded by MA1988. The only down side of this map is that it's labeled in Hebrew. Should we include it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote nay. The map doesn't seem to add much to the article and the detail, IMO, is rather amateurish. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess a better map could be useful, but this one is indeed amateurish and I doubt it is properly licensed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you guys think the map is amateurish? It looks perfectly encyclopedic to me. de Bivort 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The clumsy font of the green writings on the black area, the funny fire icons, and it's in Hebrew. But that's only my humble opinion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Evergreen supertanker photo

Do we have any free image of the supertanker? It just made few sorties over the fire. Free images of the ill-76s would be also desired here as they made a change. --Gilisa (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Arab Reactions" section

Currently, this section contains too much Israel-bashing; it needs to be more balanced. Also, Iran is not an Arab country; perhaps Iranian reactions to the fire should go in their own section instead. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The section doesn't include Iranian reactions, and it's a thorough collection of the reactions that have been reported in the media. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the word "Iran" in there. A closer look indicates that the section wasn't actually referring to the Iranian media. Sorry, my mistake. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep this section specific? "Arab media" is a general term, and certainly I didn't see any "rejoicing" in Al-Jazeera, arguably one of the most popular Arab media networks. If blanket accusations are to made, they should be attributed to the source, since they're clearly opinion and not fact.VR _talk 05:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed two things:

• I've changed the name to "Anti-Israeli reactions". If the section is named "Arab reactions", then we have to mention the Arab countries that helped Israel, since surely that too is a "reaction". We could also, in theory, mention every single Arab website that commented on this, and I don't think that was the point of this section. The point of the section seems to be to show that some rejoiced Israel's misery.
• Blanket terms such as "Arab media" are highly unencylopedic. Either we give specific examples. Or we use the term "Arab media", then we attribute it.

Also, maybe we should remove the Jerusalem Post article. Its assessment of "Arab media" is actually based upon "comments on the blaze from readers in several leading Arab media outlets and websites." Stupid, hateful comments are routinely made by anons on notable websites. They shouldn't be in wikipedia.VR _talk 06:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to see this section trimmed. Not much encyclopedic knowledge there. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual reference uses the term "many Arab media outlets" which is a lot more reserved than the blanket "Arab Media", I've amended the article accordingly. Poliocretes (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of the changes, but I changed a couple of things back. First, the section is properly titled "Arab reactions", not "anti-Israel reactions", because all the reactions in it are Arab and not all are anti-Israel. Help from Arab countries is a separate matter and is covered in a separate section. Indeed, some of the negative Arab reactions were criticisms of the help given by Arab countries. Second, it may not be clear to everyone that Islamic Jihad refers to a formal political organization with declared members; membership is not typically disputed or controversial, so using scare quotes and "allegedly" just looks weird. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The bit by Khaled Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post should certainly be removed. He is basing his "survey" of general Arab reaction to the fire on the comments of readers on Arabic websites. Needless to say this is a ridiculous and unverifiable way to have a reliable survey/poll especially for something like this. If somebody could find a real poll or survey on Arab reaction to the forest fire from a reliable source (not saying The Jerusalem Post isn't reliable) then I guess we could include that. Until then Toameh's survey should be deleted. Any disagreement? --68.205.222.249 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC) --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's disagreement. Khaled Abu Toameh is a notable journalist covering the Aab world, and The Jerusalem Post is a high quality reliable source. Your POV regarding Abu Toameh's methods are - no offense - irrelevant, though if you find a notable observer who levels the same criticism that you do, feel free to put it in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

On your user page you said: "To the extent possible, write things the way they would be written in a real encyclopedia (Britannica, etc.)."

Would Britannica ever quote anons trolling the internet and include their views in its article? That's precisely what Abu Toameh does, (and what we end up doing once we quote Abu Toameh).VR _talk 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think if Britannica had a detailed article on this forest fire that was updated in real time, and its writers could only use English language sources, it would cite Abu Toameh's article at this point, because it's the best (English-language) information we have right now regarding public opinion in the Arab world. If and when better information came up, such as rigorous opinion polls, they would use those, and so should we. Note that the part of Abu Toameh's article used is not his quotations of individual people but his overall assessment of public opinion based on his informal survey. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist: to include only negative Arab reactions that under "Arab reactions" - when it is clear that Arabs helped Israel in extinguishing the fire - is a gross violation of NPOV. It paints all Arabs as anti-Israeli, when, once again, there are clearly those who aided Israel. And if you insist on adding an "Arab reactions" section, perhaps I will add an "Arab efforts" section to 2010_Mount_Carmel_forest_fire#Extinguishing_the_fire. (Both of which would be silly of course).VR _talk 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The section includes all the reactions from the Arab world that could be found, which happens not to include only negative reactions. But if you're sure that more non-negative reactions must be out there, then instead of complaining why don't you just do the research and put them in? As I already explained, Arab aid is separate from Arab reactions, just as non-Arab aid is separate from non-Arab reactions; aid from all sources is treated in the appropriate section. I think that a sub-category "Aid from Arab countries" would be a good idea if the amount of relevant material is large enough to warrant it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that a sub-category "Aid from Arab countries" would be a good idea if the amount of relevant material is large enough to warrant it.

Except in general, when natural disasters happen, we don't single out races for the good or bad that they do (we may single out nations and/or regions, but not races).

Don't be silly. The Arab world is both a region and akin to a nation, because it's a political entity manifested in the Arab League, which also happens to be formally in conflict with Israel. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

But if you're sure that more non-negative reactions must be out there, then instead of complaining why don't you just do the research and put them in.

Because there are just too many.VR _talk 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you being honest with yourself? If there were too many, you could just put in the most notable ones. But these links are just international wire service articles in Arab newspapers. They don't contain any Arab reactions (except for a single Palestinian firefighter in the first one). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Undue arson claims

The article gives undue weight to arson claims. I attempted to fix this, but have been completely reverted. While others have since fixed some of the issues, other issues still persist:

• in the lead:
  • "The fire triggered a wave of arson attacks" - suspected arson attacks. No one has admitted or has been found guilty of arson, let alone indicted. The most conclusive evidence that has been suspicious people seen nearby.
  • "The Jerusalem Post stated in an editorial that ..." - undue weight given to an opinion piece.
  • "two arson attempts per day" - an opinion piece is not a reliable source, definitely not for a statistic like this.
• in the "Causes" section:
  • "According to Catholic news site AsiaNews.it, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for starting the fire." - what is this news source? Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. The claim seems pretty wp:fringe if this is the only source for it.
  • Arutz Sheva (next paragraph's source) is not a reliable source, especially not for issues surrounding Palestinians or Arabs.
• in the "related arson attacks" section:
  • (as in the lead)"An editorial in the Jerusalem Post called these arson cases "homegrown terrorism"." - undue weight given to single opinion piece (which is by definition not a reliable source).
  • "At night, an Israeli Arab and a Palestinian were arrested after allegedly trying to start a fire near Jerusalem" - again, unreliable Arutz Sheva as source.
  • "A small fire that erupted in Haifa’s Nave Yosef neighborhood" - the source doesn't even say there was anything suspicious about it.
  • "Additional suspicious fires erupted in Kiryat Tiv'on, ..." - the source makes no mention of why these fires were suspicious.

Rami R 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All the reliable sources refer to these incidents as arson. There is not one reliable source that disputes or even questions this characterization. And if one comes up, please add it to the article. AsiaNews.it cannot be wp:fringe in this context because it is not expressing an analysis or opinion but a fairly banal statement of fact, which is that an unknown group claiming links to al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the fire. This statement of fact is also not disputed by anyone, and the statement is explicitly attributed to this particular source. The Jerusalem Post editorial is only given a lot of space because right now it's the only reliable source that provides an explanation for the arson attacks. When other sources begin to do so, they should be added and JP should be pared down. But JP is a credible source, and there is no problem with sourcing statements of fact to its editorial as long as the attribution is explicit. I agree that INN should be used with caution, but in reasearching this article I did not find significant differences between what INN was saying and what JP, Haaretz and Ynet were saying. I would ask that you not remove any material sourced to INN without first making sure that it is not included in more mainstream sources; I think you will find in each case that it is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RamiR on most of these points, but specifically I'd like to address the AsiaNews.it source. The source is not very reliable, and the claim is pretty extreme; extreme statements require good sources. Surely if al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the fire, it would be all over the news. But it's not. In fact, this is the only organization I can find that makes the claim. I waited a couple days to remove this, to see if some actual reliable sources would step up to support the claim, but they haven't. I have, therefore, removed it, but only until a reliable source can be found that supports it. ← George ^talk 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who also edited this part, I think Rami's point is valid to an extent. There are reliable sources that at least some of the fires were likely due to arson, and evidence of arson does not necessarily mean the apprehension of a suspect or a conviction. However, the explanation suggested by the JPost has not been substantiated by any objective report and their editorial is an opinion, not an unbiased report. While I see no problem with referring to it as a possible conjecture, it should not be given too prominent a place in the article, and I would suggest removing the reference to it from the introduction and leaving it in the arson section only, clearly identified as an opinion piece. Tamarenda (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More details please

Great article. Since the fire is over now, you should try to finish the article too.

1. Put in a map of the entire area, and the area destroyed by fire.

2. List up more accurately which villages that was burnt down and which villages that were only damaged.

3. Did the fire spread outside the Haifa district? Say into the Northern district?

4. Exactly how many km2 was burnt up? (Current siting is over 40 km2).

--84.209.100.54 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Stein S., Oslo, Norway

Arbitration?

Why is this article under the 1RR arbitration? It's about a forest fire, and isn't related to the conflict in any way. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Edenc1 • Talk 10:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the article content is related (loosely, though), and I guess Looie496 afraid it can be edit warred. See these topics here: Reactions, Islamic Jihad, Is It Really Necessary To Have The Reaction Of The Palestinian Extremist Group In The Article --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Looie496 is the admin who added the ARBPIA notice --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mount Carmel forest fire (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101205094346/http://www.deredactie.be:80/cm/vrtnieuws/buitenland/101204_Isra%25C3%25ABlBosbrand to http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/buitenland/101204_Isra%25C3%25ABlBosbrand

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

National day of mourning

Despite Netanyahu saying he'd declare a national day of mourning, quoted by the Jerusalem Post as cited in the reference and also by Ynet according to Channel 12's N12 it didn't happen: אחר אסון השרפה בכרמל בדצמבר 2010 קרא נתניהו לציון יום אבל לאומי, אך הדבר לא יצא אל הפועל.. Mcljlm (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References