Open main menu

Talk:2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires

In the NewsEdit

This article may be part of an In the News item. I was thinking of submitting it myself but In the New is quite labour- and time-intense. I look forward to contributions to this article by other editors. I have only begun to integrate content from the RS already mentioned and there are so many more published today.Oceanflynn (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

These are RS suggested on the In the News talk page: BBC, CNN, The Guardian, CBS, Fox News, Reuters, Washington Post.

@Oceanflynn: Can you finish the sentence that begins with "Shortly after the number of wildfires were". It looks like you did not finish your thought. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that.
This is the corrected updated section you mentioned that differs from the archived version.

"More than 74,000 wildfires have been detected in the world’s largest rain forest this year, an 84 percent increase from the same period last year, Brazil’s space research center said."[1]

This is the updated version you referred to: "the National Institute for Space Research, which monitors fires using satellite images, reported on Wednesday that it had detected 39,194 fires this year in the world’s largest rain forest, a 77 percent increase from the same period in 2018."[2]

So as you noted, the 74,000 refers to all the wildfires in Brazil not just in the rainforest. I thought it would be useful to note this on the talk page as other editors might notice the NYT times update too.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ archived version from the earlier August 21 article.
  2. ^ Andreoni, Manuela; Hauser, Christine (August 21, 2019). "Fires in Amazon Rain Forest Have Surged This Year". The New York Times. Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved August 21, 2019.

satellite photos links requestEdit

there are a number of images in social media that look oh so much more dramatic, attributed to NASA, and I was coming to this article to find links to updated images, and no. If someone knows how to access the NASA databases, could you make links, please, and or copies, NASA pics are public domain afaik.YamaPlos talk 15:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have tried and so far failed to get data from the INPE, Brazilian Space agency, quoted by Reuters, BBC and others. Thse links "should" work. I can reach the main page, but navigating from there I can't get anywhere useful. main page then I actually got a map for "fire risk", but, alas, copyrighted 2016 :-) YamaPlos talk 15:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to let you know, there is a satellite picture in the article titled something along the lines of "satellite picture of the fires" and it shows a lot of red pixels over part of the amazon forest, but also mostly over argentina, bolivia, peru, uruguay, and practically all of paraguay. Those are not fires. It might be oxygen production by trees, or maybe solar panels, or non-GMO cultives, but i can assure you paraguay is not on fire, and the whole amazon forest is fine, it is just being turned into farmland, it's not a re-enactment of last year's "firefornia" live performance. (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Name/Scope changeEdit

Given that the fires in the Amazon have spread to other countries, namely Bolivia and Peru, would it be better to move this article to 2019 Amazon basin wildfires? --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating Redirects?Edit

Would it be possible to have other common search terms redirect to this page? I had trouble finding it initially. Some terms that might be helpful: "Amazon forest fire," "Amazon fire 2019," "Amazon wildfire" Climadeo (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source for scientific claimsEdit

An article in “The Intercept” is not a reliable source for scientific claims such as the amount of oxygen originating from the Amazon rainforest. The statements made were bold and politically charged (that is, they imply a crisis), and this article links from the front page at present. The importance of the rainforest (and it is very important) has to be described objectively and with neutral point of view. Reliable sources might include recent review articles in scientific journals, college-level textbooks, and publications by a government or organization (such as one associated with the UN). More than one should be used, particularly to support quantitative statements. For this article, it is far better to paraphrase a reliable source than to quote an unreliable one. The scientific facts are well-established, and there will be many good sources. I retained some geographic statements that are more easily verified, but those too should be supported directly by a reliable source, rather than via a journalistic article. Roches (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that The Intercept is not a reliable source because of its lack of scientific knowledge and history of politically biased reporting. We should stay with science journals or reputable science sources rather than a politically inclined one. —Partytemple (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I have not gotten around to it, but think we do need a paragraph on the scientific determined inportance of the rainforest in this which should be a SCIRS-type source. (Intercept's still being used to talk about the plight of indigenous persons). --Masem (t) 19:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Google Earth KML layerEdit

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This is a downloadable Google Earth KML layer. I had added this as an external link but it downloads. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia protocols? I will remove it from the article pending your review. It is an amazing tool using using data from SIO NOAA US Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Image Landsat/Copernicus.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not advisable to provide links like that. I just clicked it and was really annoyed that it downloads directly. I am sure some people would be more annoyed than me. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

NASA assessmentEdit

I added the August 16 NASA assessment from the source that already existed in the article: As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. Given this, some of the other sources in this article might contain sensationalist claims. --Pudeo (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The 21 August BBC source also stated: Meanwhile, US space agency Nasa said that overall fire activity in the Amazon basin was slightly below average this year. There is a discrepancy in the INPE and NASA data. --Pudeo (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pudeo:, and at least in Brazil, there's people confounding As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.(Amazon basing encompassing Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) as a proof that there's nothing to worrying about in the Brazilian Amazon. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We've got some more clarity, as NASA is now in agreement with the Brazilian Space Agency: [1] Gentle (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Not correct. NASA says there is an "uptick", and any reasonable reading of the graphs NASA publishes shows a slight increase over last year, not at 80% increase over last year.[2] XavierItzm (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Let's be clear. There are two narratives being told right now. One is from the big corporations and first world countries that say Amazon is being destroyed and they need to "protect it", and are calling for "international action" (that is, invading and killing brazilians). Another narrative is of the brazilian people, government, and foreign policy specialists, which says nothing of the sort is happening, and there is a defamation campaign going on against Brazil and the brazilian people, with evil intentions.

I made an edit on this heavily biased wikipedia article, but the edit was deleted. Why is wikipedia reproducing the american-european narrative instead of the brazilian narrative? The Amazon is in Brazil, so obviously the brazilian narrative should receive priority. But instead, it is contained in a small section called "response". It's the american-european narrative which should be contained in a space called "response". I can only attribute this decision to racism against brazilians by the editors of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C0:E3FE:7C81:2664:96AF:2A0 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. It is clear that the Brazilian stance is a minority view. We are not ignoring it - we have responses from the gov't that address their stance this is a narrative against Brazil and their other concerns, but in terms of the presentation of the situation, we've got to go with the world-prevailing view, being this is from unprecedented deforestation.
This is also not racism. --Masem (t) 16:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
How the brazilian stance is a minority view, if it is the view of the brazilian government, state, and Armed Forces? Supposedly, Macron or Merkel know more about the Amazon than brazilian authorities? Brazilian official position, that there is nothing atypical going on in the Amazon, and that fake news are being broadcasted in international media, should be the major narrative in the article. Yes, to suppose american New York Times and Washington Post know more about the Amazon than brazilian authorities is plain and obvious racism against Brazilians.
Only a part of the Brazilian people believe that it is happening with evil intentions and the Amazon aren't only from Brazil, but from Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. Ok, Brazil have the larger part, but is not 100%. Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if "only a part of brazilian people". Every patriot in Brazil knows there is an attack going on and that is the official position of brazilian authorities, generals and Armed Forces. In fact, it is being compared to the campaign in 2002-2003 against the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" of Iraq. It's sad to see that Wikipedia is promoting war and massacre of brazilians.
Define patriot/patriotism in this case. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is not the place for the opinions of one person. If is really happening a campaign of "war and massacre of brazilians." you need to provide really notable sources. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I provided the sources, which were ignored, in my edit of the article. In the !Historical and Geographical Institute of the Federal District", a brazilian think-thank, two of our most important generals, Eduardo Villas-Boas and Alberto Cardoso, affirmed there is an "indirect war" being waged against Brazil, an attack against the brazilian state. This is not some conspiracy theorist, but the high command of brazilian armed forces. Source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C0:E3FE:7C81:2664:96AF:2A0 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
"Generais dizem"/"Generals said"... Is their opinions. Without intel data and more notable and reliable sources, this could be considered as a conspiration theory that worth as much as the accusations from the president that the NGOs started that. At the moment, this is Argument from authority. The only thing that could be inserted in some article about the Amazon (or even here) is their ideas for the administration from the region.Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
If it was the american generals, or american senators, or UN representatives saying one thing, it would be considered a valid source. But since it's the brazilian generals, it doesn't count as source because neocolonialists must keep their defamation campaign against the poor people of Brazil. I don't know how there could be any more "notable and reliable" source than the ex-commander of brazilian army, general Vilas-Boas. The man commanded many troops that serve in the Amazon. People who live in the Amazon. There is no greater authority in the world regarding the Amazon than him. If you can't see there is a coordinated defamation campaign of hate against brazilians going on, you are blind. I just searched "amazon forest" in google news and there were 2 million news related to it just yesterday. A month ago nobody in the first world even knew Brazil or the Amazon existed, and suddenly everyone is repeating the same narrative worldwide and there is no reasonable explanation for this phenomena except for it being neocolonialism and racism. It's the most obvious case of neocolonialism in recent years.
"A month ago nobody in the first world even knew Brazil or the Amazon existed," Are you serious? The Amazon river is the biggest river in the world. The Amazon rainforest is the biggest such ecosystem in the world. Brazil is one of the biggest countries, according to land area, in the world... And you're telling us that the "first world," wasn't AWARE of Brazil or the Amazon up to until only two months ago? This is information that us, in "the first world", learn in elementary geography/social studies classwork. Keep your fake, blown out assertions out of wikipedia, as such things do no one any good. Most people care about the environment, as it effects everyone on this planet and Brazil is not being invaded, nor is its sovereignty being violated, by people wanting to maintain one of Earth's most diverse and fragile ecosystems. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I found an article in Veja (a major news magazine in Brazil) that included quotes from Villas-Boas, in line with the idea that a military response may result, which I have included. --Masem (t) 21:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The only racism going on here is Bolsonaro’s avowed and openly admitted hatred for Indigenous Brazilians and their land which he pledged to destroy. So calm down. Trillfendi (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Brazilians are descendants of indigenous populations. Contrary to americans, we didn't exterminate the natives. It's typical of the colonizer to invert and blame the victims for his crimes.

Brazilians are a mixed population. Indigenous peoples, Europeans, Africans and combinations thereof The Euro-African portion of the population probably outnumbers the indigenous population, which as I understand it is under constant dispossession pressure by the money powers of Brazil (ranchers and resource extractors)Oldperson (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Both US and Brazil were colonized by Europeans. Still exist indigenous populations in North America. Portugal didn't fully exterminate the Indigenous People from Brazil, but tried - or would still exist a lot in the millions - and the currently government are really working against them. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You should study some history. Start by reading the letter of Pero Vaz de Caminha, which I'm sure you never did. Portuguese never "tried" to exterminate indians, that is an imperialist lie created by first worlders to pretend we are "as bad as they are". There are millions of descendants on indigenous people in Brazil. Pretty much all northwest population is half indigenous - that's 50 million people. That UN employee is clearly a first world racist trying to defame and attack Brazil. The new racism is all about saying people from the third world are the real racists - that is, inverting the victim with the perpetrator. Bolsonaro is the victim of world racism right now, as well as the entire brazilian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C1:3FC8:F9CE:3847:7F1:8921 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
When you use the argument that the another "need to study more" in a harsh an non educated way, you "lose" the argument. The idea that Bolsonaro is the victim and that the first world want's to exterminate Brazilians is ridiculous and the argument of "Pretty much all northwest population is half indigenous" also doesn't work, because in the past existed the idea of using miscegenation as in a way to "whiten the race" in a clearly racist politics. The way you talk - and I saw in the whole internet - is from whom tries very had to "protect" the President in any way and see him as a "saint" or even a "messianic figure" after the horrible assassination attempt - and only the hardcore Bolsonaro followers do that. At end, Brazil is not under attack, is not being victim of "extermination plans" and the evidence is that Bolsonaro discourses (the currently division the the Brazilian public - and the extensive use of fake news, like in the 2018 elections) are the one who fueled the things that happens now. Behaviors like the one that you shows here to the entire world (this topic will stay archived for as long as Wikipedia exist) are what really ruins the image of Brazil in the rest of the world. Just stop for a moment and see that the symbol that Bolsonaro represents (and sadly a lot of people - but not 'all Brazilians identify) mainly with his words, are the real threat for Brazil itself. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The page should be moved to 2019 Amazon basin wildfires. As satellite imagery attests, the fires don't magically stop at the Brazilian side of the border with Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Portuguese page, one proposed that the title "2019 South America wildfires" could be better. Erick Soares3 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I have noted that these other countries are also experiencing wildfires, but from the media level, they are all taking responsible steps to halt them, and from what I understand, they also get these year after year. It's the Brazil ones that raising concern due to the gov't attitude towards it. --Masem (t) 02:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. If the Bolsonaro Administration reacted better in the past weeks, the global concerns wouldn't have happened in the same level. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
If there is any racism it is on the part of Bolisario. He has been blaming the indigenous peoples of the Amazon, when in fact, from news reports, the fires are being set by resource extraction companies and corporate ranchers to clear cut the land to make way for mining, petroleum extraction and cattle ranching, and in fact Indigenous peoples claim that Brazil's President is encouraging Destruction of the Rainforest and How Jair Bolsonaro Emboldened Brazilian Agribusiness to Torch the Amazon & Attack Indigenous People (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, your edit was the one which was biased. It is a fringe point of view of those who made those articles. Besides, blaming indigenous and NGOs for the wildfires is racist when it is clear it is the large companies being the main cause of the wildfires. Your edit also seemed to be attempting to spark anger to the Western countries, so it was reverted. Nigos (talk Contribs) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I don't think this is "racism", I could call a type of xenophobia. We know what Americans and europeans really wants from Amazon - what is inside the land, not the trees or forests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
What you are saying is Xenophobic, with the "Americans" this and the "Europeans" that. When it's Brazil's leaders that were enabling irresponsible behavior by their own companies and citizens. Most of the people worried about this, from many countries, are legitimately wanting the preservation of the forest habitat. I suggest that the IP users that have been posting propaganda and casting aspersions, take the time and read more articles on wikipedia and learn why the Amizon rainforest is so important, before posting further nonsense. Persistent Corvid (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Are Op/Eds RS?Edit

This paragraph cites an op/ed. That is not necessarily factual and is largely speculative. I do not think it belongs in a wikipedia article:

"While it is possible for naturally-occurring wildfires to occur in the Amazon, the chances are far less likely to occur, compared to those in California or in Australia. Alberto Setzer of INPE estimated that 99% of the wildfires in the Amazon basin are a result of human actions, either on purpose or accidentally.[3]" (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not an op-ed article. There's no byline to suggest it is opinion. --Masem (t) 18:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

public domain images?Edit

Are these images public domain? Victor Grigas (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, NASA images are public domain and can be uploaded at Commons. --Masem (t) 19:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

These fires do not simply concern BrazilEdit

The Amazon forest affects surrounding countries. The focus on Brazil seems to be purely sensationalist (because Bolsonaro is a far-right politician) and ignorant. —Partytemple (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

We have spelled out that there are also fires in Bolivia, etc. But these countries have taken apparant steps to stop /fight them. It is the fact that Brazil has the largest %age of the Amazon and that Bolsonaro's actions that allowed for the deforestation to occur at a rapid rate is why they have the most attention. --Masem (t) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The title should be changed. The location should be changed. Attention shouldn't overtake factual accuracy. The current article is misleading and needs more science sources. —Partytemple (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
What seriously does this have to do with Bolsonaro? He took office long after 2019 began, right? And anyway, he's largely unrelated, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Jair Bolsonaro Emboldened Brazilian Agribusiness to Torch the Amazon & Attack Indigenous (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
World leaders + others have pointed out that since he took office in Jan 2019, his policies and attitude have enabled farmers/etc. to engage in more slash-and-burn. He's obviously not directly setting the fires, but he has taken steps that indirectly caused them, as seen by the rest of the world. --Masem (t) 23:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Spin. XavierItzm (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait, he's been in office since January? Time flies. I thought he took office ariund the middle of this year. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2019Edit

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (Closing move request from Bageense) Masem (t) 15:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

or "2019 Amazon rainforest fires".

2019 Brazil wildfires2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires – The article only concerns wildfires in the Amazon rainforest—the title should reflect this. Abequinn14 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose There are other wildfires in Brazil; however, the Amazon wildfires are getting all the global attention. --Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)I changed my mind. the article should be 2019 South American wildfires. --Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It is very fair that there are other countries having wildfires but they're nowhere close to the center of attention as those in Brazil's are. I can only readily find information on Bolivia's fires, and almost nothing on Peru and Paraguay. So it is proper that it is the Brazil fires at the center of this, but also fair to note this is happening elsewhere too. --Masem (t) 22:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as Masem says, the story is about Brazil's fires, and the political causes and implications of that. Also the sourcing used for the most part refers to fires across the whole of Brazil, not specifically limited to the rainforest. The fires in other countries can be noted in passing, but they're not the main thrust of this article.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Konli17 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The wildfires affect more countries than just Brazil as Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, and other countries bordering Brazil also have active wildfires in the Amazon Basin and they are spreading. Proposed title is more descriptive since the wildfires affect the Amazon Rainforest. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is clearly focused on events centred on one country - Brazil. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I notice that the proposed move target has lowercase "rainforest" and that perhaps "Amazon Rainforest" vs. "Amazon rainforest" may be an issue. If so, it may be better to stick with the current title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The Amazon rainforest article uses lower case, so I don't see why that'd be a problem. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support While it's Brazil's response that has caused concern, it wouldn't be possible for Brazil to have an awful response w/o the Amazon being on fire. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's absurd to call it the "Brazil wildfire" when most articles call it the "Amazon wildfires" (and other variants), because people obviously know that the fires are spreading across various countries. We're not denying its large impact, politically and ecologically, on Brazil by renaming it. The current title is simply too Brazil-centric and misleading. The Amazon doesn't belong to Brazil; its protection is a responsibility shared among various nations in South America.—Partytemple (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for the following reasons:
  1. What percent of the oxygen produced each day worldwide comes from Amazonia? This is an important question in the discussion about how important these fires are to the future of humanity. A discussion on Quora re. "How much of the world’s oxygen does the Amazon rainforest produce?" claims it's zero and the world needs more CO2, not less. That seems totally inconsistent with the research consensus I've seen elsewhere regarding climate change. A "SaveEarth" discussion of "Deforestation" claims that "Forests contribute around 30% to atmopsheric oxygen - pretty much all of the oxygen balance comes from marine organisms ... and deforestation represents around 15% of greenhouse gas emissions." That's more consistent with the climate change research I've seen. If recent deforestation has represented "around 15% of greenhouse gas emissions", and if the fires discussed in this article represent a dramatic increase in deforestation worldwide, it could represent a dramatic increase in CO2 levels both from the burning and from the CO2 that is not being converted to plant matter and free O2. However, I'm only speculating based on evaluating different sources in terms of what seems most consistent with the research consensus documented in the Wikipedia article in climate change.
  2. The Amazon biome is 6.7 million km^2, of which 4.1 million km^2 (61%) lies in Brazil. However, that 4.1 million km^2 represents only 49% of Brazil's 8.5 million km^2. The Amazon therefore represents just under half of Brazil. However, these fires seem more like an Amazonian than a Brazilian phenomenon. They could become an even bigger problem for humanity worldwide if governments in Columbia, Equador, Peru and / or Bolivia start treating their portions of the Amazon like Jair Bolsonaro seems to be treating the Brazilian Amazon. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Just as a point on #1, related to MAcron's claim of 20% of the O2 supply from the amazon - that claim's been debunked by scientists. The forest may put out 20% of the O@ but it takes much of that back in at night. What *is* significant is that it is a major CO2 sink. nothing. --Masem (t) 04:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Two questions:
  1. Citation(s) for your claims?
  2. How are they relevant to the question of whether this article should be renamed to "2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires"?
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The issue on 20% oxygen is here: [1]. It doesn't matter that much on the move discussion though be aware we base moves on the common naming that reliable sources give and not necessarily because of different weights. Most sources acknowledge the Amazon is burning, but the problem is the Brazilian portion that's burning unchecked due to gov't policies. --Masem (t) 06:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I support 2019 Amazon rainforest fires NOT ... wildfires. The 20 headlines quoted below by User:Ahecht include only one using the term "wildfires", and that term implies something more specific than is documented here. If you want 2019 Amazon fires without "rainforest", I'd support that also, but I think it's better with "rainforest" than without. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't need the environmentalist pseudoscience claptrap here. It was not long after the fake (pseudo)'scientific report' on global warming appeared that the claim about deforestation adding to the CO2 levels was totally debunked. The Amazon rainforests contribute 0.0% (to two sig. figs.) to the conversion of CO2 back to O2. It was established back then that over 98% of the capacity comes from sea and ocean borne organisms. However, having said that, the rainforest's importance to ecosystems and weather systems should not be under played. (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Searching 'Brazil wildfire' on Google mostly brings up results referring to it as the 'Amazon wildfire'. The article touches on the wildfire in other countries like Bolivia, Peru, and Paraguay, but it makes sense that most of the article is on Brazil when most of the fire is in Brazil. —Enervation (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, per nom. The fires have also been started in Peru, Bolivia, and Paraguay. Many thousands of Close to two million acres of forest have been consumed in Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay in August 2019. Foreign firefighting equipment has had to be imported from abroad, as apparently these countries do not have the means to combat the fires in their own soil. Therefore, clearly this is not a "Brazil" article and it should not be so named. XavierItzm (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Calling it the "Brazil wildfire" seems like whitewashing the fact that a major portion of the world's most ecologically important rainforest if burning down. It wouldn't be as big a story if it were just random fires in Brazil. The title is also inaccurate given that it is not just in Brazil any more. Finally, "Amazon fires" or "Amazon rainforest fires" are by far the more common terms in headlines. I just did a Google News search for the term "Fire", and got the following headlines related to these fires:
    • As Amazon Fires Become Global Crisis, Brazil’s President Reverses Course
    • The Amazon Fires Are More Dangerous Than WMDs
    • Amazon wildfires get some help from US firefighting plane
    • We are facing a global emergency in the Amazon. Here's what we can do
    • Brazilian President Bolsonaro deploys military to fight Amazon fires
    • How the Amazon's fires, deforestation affect the U.S. Midwest
    • Raising awareness about fires in the Amazon? Share these photos, not dated stock images
    • As the Amazon Burns, Europe Seizes Title of Climate Champion
    • The Amazon Cannot Be Recovered Once It’s Gone
    • 5 things the media won't tell you about the Amazon fires
    • Amazon rainforest fires: Brazil military begins operations to fight fires today
    • Amazon rainforest fire – Alarming NASA pic shows wildfires raging across Brazil as 40,000 troops battle b
    • Brazil Marshals Forces to Fight Amazon Fires (and Restore ‘Positive Perception’)
    • Here's what we know about the fires in the Amazon rainforest
    • Amazon rainforest fire a 'crisis', Macron says, but Brazil pushes back: What we know
    • What Satellite Imagery Tells Us About the Amazon Rain Forest Fires
    • Amazon rainforest fire: Brazil's indigenous tribe commits to fight until last drop of blood
    • Fires in Amazon rainforest rage at record rate
    • Amazon rainforest fires boosted Ecosia search engine installs 1150%
    • Colorado-based Global SuperTanker helping combat Amazon rainforest fires
Of the 20, 9 call it "Amazon rainforest fires" or "Fires in Amazon rainforest", 8 call it "Amazon fires" "Amazon wildfires" or "Fires in the Amazon", and none call it "Brazil fires" or "Brazil wildfires". There's no justification for the article being at its current title. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:CRITERIA, naming it 2019 Amazon wildfires is more precise as these are not only in Brazil but also in Bolivia. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "Wildfires" and "fires" are interchangeable. I think the media call them "fires" just to shorten the title. According to ScienceDaily: "A wildfire, also known as a forest fire, vegetation fire, grass fire, brush fire, or bushfire (in Australasia), is an uncontrolled fire often occurring in wildland areas, but which can also consume houses or agricultural resources." [1] —Partytemple (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on "Wildfire" says, "Many organizations consider wildfire to mean an unplanned and unwanted fire". While this distinction is not universal, I think it's probable that many of these fires have been intentionally set by people wanting to use the land without the trees. A title of "2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires" implies the fires may all be natural. A slightly shorter title of "2019 Amazon rainforest fires" does not carry this value judgment. I support the slightly shorter title. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no definitive proof that the Amazon fires were caused solely by deforestation. They were caused by a combination of deforestation and drier seasons than before, throughout the past few years. Causes of wildfires are often complex and may include an unintentional spark, but they remain "wildfires" because they devastate mostly uninhabited areas. I still believe the two words are interchangeable, as does most of the media. —Partytemple (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Going with "fires" is fair enough, but we'd just need to work in that the fires are a combination of both slash-burn purposely set ones ("fires") and those that got away from these slash-burn fires ("wildfires") --Masem (t) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because the Amazon is the center of attention. --Bageense(disc.) 21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Simply look at the NASA photo that captures the fires in its entirety - this is not only a Brazilian issue.[1] Gentle (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Almost all of the references in this article refer to the phenomenon in Brazil, to the social history, economics and politics of Brazil. The table that details the fires are all in Brazil. The agencies and technologies that deal with deforestation and wildfires specifically in Brazil. Global protests have focused on Brazil. Even when the titles of the reference do not specifically use the word “Brazil”, although about ⅓ do, others include words such as “Sao Paulo”, “Bolsonaro”, “Macron”, “Ireland”, “Amazonia”, “INPE”, that are specifically referencing Brazil. References that do not mention this in the title, focus on Brazil in the content. I am familiar with this because I have contributed substantially to this article, as has Masem. I agree with Masem and Amakuru that “the story is about Brazil's fires, and the political causes and implications of that. Also the sourcing used for the most part refers to fires across the whole of Brazil, not specifically limited to the rainforest. The fires in other countries can be noted in passing, but they're not the main thrust of this article.” There are redirects to this page that include “2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires”, “2019 Amazon wildfires”, “2019 Amazonian wildfires”, “Amazon forest fire”, and “Amazon wildfires”. If the wildfires in neighboring countries overshadow those in Brazil in terms of number of fires, hectares burnt, emissions, etc. then a separate article “2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires” could be created. At this time, as 60 percent of the rainforest lies within Brazil’s borders, the story is about Brazil. Regarding the list of titles using the phrase “Amazon wildfires”, it is equally easy to generate a list of titles that refers to Brazil wildfires. I suggest the creation of more articles 2019 wildfires in … including countries like Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo where there are more wildfires recently than in Brazil. (From August 21-23 Brazil placed third in the world behind Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo in the number of wildfires.) South America is a continent and individual countries should be treated as such. Historically there has been an article 2010 Bolivia forest fires. There should be a 2019 Bolivia wildfires, with 800,000 hectares of the Chiquitano dry forests in the Andes burnt in the past week. Bolivia' story is also unique and should be treated that way. By attempting to be more “specific” by the renaming, the very real data and historical significance that is relevant to Brazil will be diluted. The NASA image does not provide the texture and detail of what is happening in individual countries. In being more “precise” to satisfy SEO, we do a disservice to the experience on the ground in Brazil, and for now, in Bolivia as well. Saying this, working on this article has been very rewarding. Within days of its creation, there have been 83,691 page views with 114 distinct editors, a lively talk page and an In the News mention.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The media do not limit their coverage to Brazil or its politics at all, in spite of the forest being largely in Brazil. Many people are aware that these wildfires are a ecological disaster that goes beyond national politics. The ecological study of the Amazon consists of all the Amazonian countries. The title should not simply reflect the national politics of Brazil but to cover the ecological phenomenon, as well. Brazilian politics is just a product of the larger environmental politics that is multinational and international. —Partytemple (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
It might be sheer ignorance that keeps people from realizing that the Amazon is not a Brazilian thing. No less authoritative source that Wikipedia says:

Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. Four nations have "Amazonas" as the name of one of their first-level administrative regions and France uses the name "Guiana Amazonian Park" for its rainforest protected area.

Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it is clear that there are nine countries that share the Amazon basin with most of the rainforest, 58.4%, contained within the borders of Brazil. The other eight countries include Peru with 12.8%, Bolivia with 7.7%, Colombia with 7.1%, Venezuela with 6.1%, Guyana with 3.1%, Suriname with 2.5%, French Guyana with 1.4%, and Ecuador with 1%.[1] What is not clear is that these are South American wildfires that are not necessarily burning in the Amazon rainforest itself. The RS articles in Portuguese that refer to Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia are not discussing fires in the Amazon rainforest. Bolivia, which has 7.7% of the Amazon rainforest, also has many other distinct forests besides the Amazon rainforest. The August 18 to August 23 wildfires consumed approximately 800,000 hectares (1,976,843 acres) hectares of the unique Chiquitano dry forests. This is not part of the Amazon rainforest, which is why a 2019 Bolivia wildfires article would be useful if it receives more main stream coverage in either English or Portuguese.[2] [3] It is really essential editors voting here, read the full text of articles cited. Cheers.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Coca-Castro, Alejandro; Reymondin, Louis; Bellfield, Helen; Hyman, Glenn (January 2013), Land use Status and Trends in Amazonia (PDF), Amazonia Security Agenda Project, archived from the original (PDF) on March 19, 2016, retrieved August 25, 2019 Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  2. ^ Wordley, Claire F. R. (August 23, 2019). "It's not just Brazil's Amazon rainforest that's ablaze – Bolivian fires are threatening people and wildlife". The Conversation. Retrieved August 25, 2019.
  3. ^ Kurmanaev, Anatoly; Machicao, Monica (August 25, 2019). "As Amazon Burns, Fires in Next-Door Bolivia Also Wreak Havoc". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved August 25, 2019.
Our article on the Chiquitano dry forests says that they are considered part of the Amazon biome, and as I've read, the same issues related to the potential to become savanna if deforestation is taken too far are in that forest. (Mind you, I have added more about Bolivia's fires from the latest NYTimes article). Compared to the coverage of the fires in the BLA, those in Bolivia would barely scratch the news notability level -- but as a story with the BLA and other Amazon-country fires, its definitely part of the coverage, particularly if the G7 is going to support all those countries affected by fires. If we rename, we can also seed redirects like 2019 Bolivia fires to this article at the appropriate place. --Masem (t) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Concerns more countries than just Brazil, and article lists the other countries too. Coldbolt (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this concerns more than just Brazilian politics.--MaoGo (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    No, this is incorrect. The story is entirely about Brazil and the fact that the number of wildfires is way above average this year, under the Bolsonaro government. Wildfires always occur in the amazon at this time of year, and those in other countries are AFAIK in line with their usual numbers and therefore not noteworthy. The sourcing around this is entirely with regard to Brazil, and it would be incorrect to label it anything else.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    I would actually challenge this now : NYTimes published what consider the first major story on the Bolovia fires, and there while it's not exactly the same situation as with Brazil, there's similar concerns that their president had made deforestion favorable and recieving some political backlash over that. [2] However, it is a minor facet relative to the Brazil ones, but enough of one to make it part of covering the bigger Brazil picture. --Masem (t) 16:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support with observation
  1. As stated: the fires are not confined to Brazil so that part of the title is inaccurate.
  2. I do not believe that 'wildfires' belongs in the title because they are not wildfires since they were started deliberately by farmers and are therefore not wild.
2019 Amazon rainforest fires would be more apposite. (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: The title of the article has also been changed in the portuguese Wikipedia. Now it is called pt:Incêndios florestais na Amazônia em 2019 too. --Bageense(disc.) 11:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bageense the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, to which you have also been contributing, is copied from this article in English and includes with the same RSs, then translated into Portuguese, so its renaming does not give the argument to support a name change, more validity.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support They are what they are.
  • Weak Support There's fires throughout the Amazon. Sure, the wildfires are mostly in Brazil, but there's plenty of other fires in other countries. It's not a Brazil-only issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwarlock (talkcontribs) 18:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Most citations as of late are using the latter term, rather than the current title. [3] [4] [5] Eliko007 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Why the hell did someone move back to the old title? --Bageense(disc.) 04:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The wildfires are not just in Brazil, although most of the fires are there. Nigos (talk Contribs) 05:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It is true that the fire mainly occurred in Brazil, but it is clear that it has not only affected this country. A disaster that affected the entire Amazon rainforest. --Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support per nom. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 15:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support the title must be more specific because there are more forests in Brazil besides the Amazon, and the title does not specify which forest the fire is going on. In addition, the Amazon does not belong exclusively to Brazil, and the fires are also happening in other countries. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 07:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, Brazil is very large country with a large land area outside the Amazon. This topcis goes beyond the Brazilian Amazon. Dentren | Talk 14:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is the proposed title more precise, but also reflects the issue on a global perspective. The Amazon rainforest fires are not only affecting Brazil, but also nearby countries in South America. If they persist, the whole world could very well be affected. 9March2019 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the new title is more clear and specific. Ogat (talk) 14:40, 28 August 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.

Brazil WildfiresEdit

These are not wildfores as seen in California. The forest is cut down and set on fire at the end of the dry season around September. 2804:D41:84A0:7B00:9874:B2CA:76B0:8673 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Peter C. Aune 08-24-2019

They are consider the uncontrolled parts of the fires lit from slash-and-burn and other accidental ones. Everyone is calling them wildfires because once uncontrolled, they are not easy to put out (aka "wild"). --Masem (t) 02:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As a note on the non-Brazil fire partsEdit

At least for Peru and Paraguay, using google's site link search along with the word "incendios" helps to get some local paper stories to flesh out their sides. eg for Paragauy "site: incendios" gets its from their La Nacion paper. --Masem (t) 06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Burying the ledeEdit

I noticed that the summary of the article talks exclusively about the INPE data, while hidden much further down the article is this:

"INPE had reported that at least 74,155 fires have been detected in all of Brazil, which represents a 84-percent increase from the same period in 2018. However, data from NASA's MODIS satellites suggest that the 2019 wildfire counts are average compared with data from the past 15 years; the numbers are above average for the year in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, but below average for Mato Grosso and Pará."

Surely, a summary of this information -- from NASA no less -- should be added to the introduction. Otherwise this article appears to feeding alarmism. Shhh101 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've had a not-great time trying to find sourcing beyond NASA that helps to contextualize this. Im not saying NASA's wrong or the like, but it's trying to figure out other sources have phrased this issue. --Masem (t) 21:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The NASA information is reported in four refs in the article. In any case that's not the issue: The issue is that this information should be included in the summary. Shhh101 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
From NASA's stance. The fact that few sources have actually picked up on that is a little concerting. NASA still agrees that the rates are higher in some parts of Brazil compared to past years. --Masem (t) 22:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually double checking: [6] (dated aug 19) Nasa agrees they are higher. Apparently, the story that said they were average did not include their counts before August 10. (The statement about average [7] was on August 13, 2019 They updated that to say "As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. ". So something changed in the short term, and this source (NOT RELIABLE but giving hint where tolook) says it might have been the Aug 10 "day of fire". --Masem (t) 22:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to think that the data has to be corroborated, but it's only necessary to show that the data was recorded by a reliable organisation (NASA) and reported in reliable sources. This has already been done, and the information has already been added to the article. So the question is: why is the the information not in the introduction? Shhh101 (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
NASA's corrected itself and agrees with the higher numbers now. Technically, it no longer makes it a major issue, outside of clarifying the first and corrected report from NASA. So no longer has the priority it needed before. --Masem (t) 22:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
No, actually NASA says there is "an uptick".[1] And if you look at the graphs NASA publishes, 2019 (so far) is higher than previous years, but, like NASA says, it is an uptick. It is not an 84% increase. I agree that the lead is being buried. XavierItzm (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
See [8] "While the number of fires in 2019 is indeed 80% higher than in 2018, it’s just 7% higher than the average over the last 10 years ago." -- This article is contributing to scaremongering, especially as it does not put any of this information in the introduction. Shhh101 (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Forbes contributor article are not useable as reliable sources. Not saying the analysis is wrong but should not come from this source.--Masem (t) 12:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
and to add... I have seen any mainstream media source that has really highlight that thi s coverage is exaggerating the situation in terms of fires but that said I have actually not looked specifically on that point. They could exist and that would make for talking the exaggeration better. --Masem (t) 12:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'm certain more sources will come out soon. Shhh101 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In any case, this sentence in the intro is wrong: "Satellite images from NASA corroborated the INPE's findings that the Amazon forest have faced more intense wildfires in 2019 than in previous years.[7]" 1) there is no corroboration, because the INPE's figures differ from NASA. 2) The source says "making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010." but makes no mention of comparison to the average, and makes no substantial comparison to previous years.The sentence should be ammended or removed. Shhh101 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

From the source: Morton noted that 2019 fire activity statistics distributed by NASA and Brazil’s Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) are in agreement. “INPE also uses active fire data from NASA’s MODIS sensors to monitor fire activity in the Brazilian Amazon,” Morton said. “As a result, NASA and INPE have the same estimates of changes in recent fire activity. MODIS detections are higher in 2019 than at this time last year in all seven states that comprise the Brazilian Amazon.” —Partytemple (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
What really would be helpful is for some statitican to come out and say something about the significance of the change, something that would be published in a scientific journal. But we don't have that yet and we can't do that analysis ourselves. --Masem (t) 20:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fake News section deletedEdit

I had a section on the fake news surrounding this issue. It got deleted by Masem who appended some of it to the Brazil (!!!) section. I think it should be a separate section within "Reactions", since clearly when the New York Times discusses celebrities or President Macron of France, they mean foreigners, not Brazil. Agence France Presse even ran a fact-check on the fake photos. Here are some supporting links:

  • As Amazon Fires Spread, So Do the Misleading Photos[1]
  • fake amazon rainforest fire photos are misinforming on-social-media[2]
  • Macron in fake news row: Backlash as French leader tweets 16-year-old 'Amazon' picture[3]
  • Amazon fires: How celebrities are spreading misinformation[4]
  • Agence France Presse "fact check".[5]
  • El Comercio (Peru) guide to spotting "lying" Amazonia fire photos[6]
  • Mother Jones (magazine): "most of the photos claiming to show the fires are fakes," including those by Emanuel Macron, President of France. [7]
  • O Globo (largest newspaper/media company in Brazil): "Fato ou Fake?"[8]
  • In his message for the Amazon, Macron uses an old photo ... at least 16 years old. "Une certaine forme de désinformation"[9]
  • "He noted in passing that President Macron posted "fake photos"."[10]

Cheers to all XavierItzm (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • It is not fake news... It is people like Macron using old photos of fires in the Amazon in their social media posts. That is more likely due to ignorance than they to as off fake news. It is discussed in the timeline in that the viral spread of news came from social media postings using the wrong old photos. --Masem (t) 12:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Fake news" has become a loaded term in the last few years with specific political implications. Using an old photo hardly qualifies under the "new" definition of "fake news". --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yay! User Ahecht says "an old photo hardly qualifies" and ignores that articles such as the NYT and AFP are not talking about "an old photo". Mother Jones specifically says "most of the photos claiming to show the fires are fakes." This sort of response is the old tried and true argument on Wikipedia: say some ridiculous thing which is not what the argument is all about. XavierItzm (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
And then Mother Jones goes on to explain the origin of most of those images either being older fires , or fires from elsewhere like California. The photos are not Photoshopped or doctored, they are real photos. Just mistakenly labeled by politicians and celebs as being from 2019 fires. That's not "fake". --Masem (t) 17:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, "fake news" has become a general term for disinformation. If the photos are misleading or intended to deceive to promote a political agenda, it can be considered fake news. But I also agree that just the photos themselves aren't enough to qualify for fake news. Maybe we could rename it to "fake photos" or something. —Partytemple (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
What about all the false claims that there's a record number of fires in the Brazillian rainforest in 2019, when the actual numbers are within recent historical trends and significantly lower than those in 2010, 2007 and 2002-2005? That this is even an international news story borders on being fake news just in how it's been sensationalized beyond what the facts support. Ceran (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Some of these article postulate that these celebs used the more "dramatic" photos as a type of scare tactic, but there's no factual evidence that was the case. Like Macron and "20% oxygen" these all seem to be a matter of being misinformed (themselves or staff) when selecting the images for social media. --Masem (t) 20:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Correction: "fake photos" would probably be more confusing and misleading, since the photos aren't exactly doctored but are simply misrepresenting the fires. I think "Media Coverage" is alright.—Partytemple (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Gotta love all the backwards bending and WP:OR going on here. Above you have five citations of WP:RS that use the term "fake", plus others with the words "misleading", "disinformation," and "lying". But oh, no, what the Reliablee Sources say doesn't matter. What really matters are editor's feelings or personal insights:
  • This was just celebrities and politicos "being misinformed."
  • And this certainly cannot be "fake" even though the WP:RS literally call it, because, well, ""fake" is what I say it is, and not what the WP:RS call it."
Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
A key point is that you need to actually read the articles and not go by headlines - headlines themselves are not considered reliable sources because they are rarely written by the article writer and geared towards drawing readership. The details explained by most of these articles may use the work fake, but all cases they point out are people using wrong pictures. Now, is there is a mis-information campaign going? It wouldn't be from the news, which have generally been careful about what pictures are used, and it would be inappropriate to say that about social media without reliable sources actually claiming that. So no, this is just being aware of what is actually happening and not just reading at a glance. --Masem (t) 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nah, please read the articles, which you are evidently choosing to ignore. For example, Mother Jones. Text, not title, just to show the kind of absurd arguments being laid by some around here:
There are very real fires burning in the Amazon and they do deserve more coverage, but there’s a big problem with this viral campaign: Most of the photos claiming to show the fires are fakes.
Emphasis added to show people are not being straightforward. XavierItzm (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


Yikes - this article! Solutions:Edit

Hi all - the polarized tone of the debate on this article is exposing serious flaws in Wikipedia. Articles like these should be supervised by paid senior editors. This discussion page is completely out of hand.

Title: These are South American Forest Fires. Everyone has their own POV about significance, such as "Brazilian" or "Amazonian", "Wild" or "Anthropomorphic" but the facts are the INPE data and NASA are talking about continental fires. Look at the lead photograph. That tells you.

• The political issues are mainly being reported in Brazil, but that should be noted in a section. • Some fires are in the Amazon, some are not, but again, the article can use a percentage such as 40% • Widfires is a suspect term, as the main root cause is humans, either setting them, or creating conditions that favour them. Forests are burning, hence the term "Forest Fire".

Just because media sling terms around, doesn't mean the Wikipedia article can't step back and take a global view.

The European Heat Wave is titled European Heat Wave. It has relevant sections for impact by country or ecosystem. Same approach here please. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, this article should be called "Brazil–Bolivia–Peru–Paraguay Forest But Likely Unnatural Fires". This is the most accurate and acceptable title. All other forms are someone's POV, regardless of how the media portrays it. —Partytemple (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Billyshiverstick: see the above section. You may want to add your input into the requested move, which you seem to want. Nigos (talk Contribs) 05:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Article importanceEdit

Shouldn't the article be at mid-importance for WikiProject Wildfires, as the wildfires are "unusually strong"? Nigos (talk Contribs) 05:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Refs in leadEdit

per WP:LEDECITE we should not need citations in lede. we need to start moving these out of the lede. --Masem (t) 00:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masem. According to the WP:LEDECITE protocol, "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation...Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."Oceanflynn (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
For example, I question the accuracy, precision, and clarity of the opening sentences. They do not seem to be reflected in the content. I think this is an example of the shoehorning mentioned below, where content on Brazil and Bolivia wildfires is being extrapolated and then used to strengthen a narrative about the international Amazon rainforest that currently lacks really robust focused referenced content that is current to what is happening in August. For example, The hectares destroyed in Bolivia, that are cited in the reference, were in a transitional ecosystem in the Amazon biome, not in the Amazon rainforest.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The contested fact part of CITELEDE is for when facts are contested in sourcing, not by editors. --Masem (t) 19:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oceanflynn's reorganizationEdit

Oceanflynn (talk · contribs) recently did a massive reorganization of the article which I strngly disagree with, given that the article will likely end up as 2019 Amazon rainforest (wild)fires. Core is that the impacts of these fires, whether brazil or bolivia or other countries is the same - and the attention is getting broader to the entire forest as days go on. To segment it up so narrowly is does not make it easy to follow the timeline of events that affect the entire situation. --Masem (t) 02:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Bolivia firesEdit

Portuguese Wikipedia has posted a new article Forest fire in Bolivia of 2019 that does not mention the Amazon rainforest.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

First line of that says the Chiquitano forest is part of the Amazon forest. I don't see the need to try to distinguish the Chiquitano fires from the over Amazon fires in Bolivia, the events are far too close in time, geography, and biome to really be considered separate, since the Bolivian response seems to be the same for both. --Masem (t) 15:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

About the article's original titleEdit

The original title of this article, "2019 Brazil wildfires", is an indication that this year's wildfires have affected other regions of Brazil besides the Amazon, like the Southeast or something (I'm not sure whether that is true or not). I am surprised no one brought this up before the discussion on the page move closed. Jim856796 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the INPE shows there is data from outside the BLA that fires are happening, but the indication is that these are not as varied from last year or previous years, nor have the impact as the Amazon fires. In other words - fires happen year after year, and that's generally routine, but what's happened in the Amazon (coupled with political issues) made the BLA fires a series matter. --Masem (t) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
That was the point I made at the move discussion. We don't have articles on wildfires for any other years, because they are routine and not noteworthy. It is the e spike in fires in Brazil specifically that make this a news story. I don't know what can be done to the article following this ill-advised move. Attempting to shoehorn in figures and discussion on other countries is clear WP:SYNTH when almost all sourcing is focusing on Brazil...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, not quite: Bolivia's got just as a bad an increase in fire rate in 2019, even though its routine year to year. The G7 funding is to all countries affected this year (not from previous years), so the overall situation in countries that have part of the amazon is appropriate. The only thing I might even suggest is to rename to "Amazon biome" as that would more properly include the Bolivia dry forest wildfires which technically aren't exactly proper in the rainforest but adjoin it and are part of its biome, but now we're getting to where COMMONNAME takes precedence rather than technical specificity. --Masem (t) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI: The Intercept at NoticeboardEdit

The content below was removed from this article because a user said that The Intercept was not a reliable resource for scientific statements.

  • The Amazon River basin, which is about the size of Australia, is covered in a dense vegetation including 400 billion trees. The dense moisture-filled forest "exhales a fifth of the oxygen" on the planet; it stores carbon that is centuries old, and "deflects and consumes an unknown but significant amount of solar heat."[1]
  • The Amazon rainforest "fuels planet-scale systems" including atmospheric rivers as 20 percent of the world's fresh water passes through cycles in this rainforest.[1] Since the 1970s, Brazil has cut and burned about 20 percent of the forest representing 300,000 square miles (776,996 km2)—which is larger than Texas.[1]
  • In recent years, "land-grabbers" (grileiros) have been illegally cutting deep into the forest in "Brazil's Indigenous territories and other protected forests throughout the Amazon". Since the October election, they have been cutting in the land of the previously isolated Apurinã in Amazonas, where the the "world's largest standing tracts of unbroken rainforest" are found.[1]


  1. ^ a b c d Zaitchik, Alexander (July 6, 2019). "In Bolsonaro's Brazil, a Showdown Over Amazon Rainforest". Retrieved August 21, 2019.

The issue was discussed at the Noticeboard with comments such as, "It's a reliable source. As WP:BIAS points out, bias and reliability are two separate things. Wikipedia articles must by NPOV, while sources must be RS. In fact all reporting is biased, since media must choose which stories to cover and what aspects to highlight." Newslinger said that , The Intercept's long-form journalism tends to be of high quality, and "Rainforest on Fire" is no exception. of their investigative reporting is their 2016 series "Code of Silence", which documented corruption within the Chicago Police Department that led to a $2 million settlement for two whistleblowers, whose experiences were described in great detail. The Intercept's editorial policies state that they "strive to hold the powerful accountable with truthful and aggressive reporting". The policies "recognize that writers have a point of view", but also list procedures for soliciting responses from subjects, attributing sources, correcting errors, and publishing updates. Biased, but generally reliable for news topics."

I will be adding this content to the article.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind: the 20% oxygen claim has been disproven by scientists and we have noted that in footnotes in regards to Macron's statement. Please do no repeat this particularly from the Intercept- a lot of media is regurgiating the bad data. --Masem (t) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
As the "exhales a fifth of the oxygen" claim has been thoroughly debunked by other reliable sources in the last few days, I've added an update to my original comment at WP:RSN § The Intercept. Taking articles from Snopes (RSP entry), National Geographic, PBS NewsHour, and The Conversation into account, we should use editorial discretion to exclude the 20% claim. Note that even Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry), both highly respected news agencies, made the same mistake. I have no issues with the remainder of the article from The Intercept. — Newslinger talk 06:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the footnotes NewslingerMasem. I had found it too which was why I did not re-insert the entire quote, but I was glad you clarified that.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Internation reactions directed at Brazil fires vs all Amazon firesEdit

Re this diff - there is clearly a large focus on the international reaction to Bolsonaro's policies/attitude towards the fires in Brazil's part of the Amazon - what Bolsonaro could actually control if he had his gov't take the right steps. No one is blaming Bolsonaro for all of the fires in the Amazon, and moreso the international reaction to the fires are the general concern that all fires in all countries in the Amazon basin need to be addressed. It is not appropriate, with how this article is structued, to take the attention to Bolsonaro out of the section dedicated to the fires only in Brazil. --Masem (t) 23:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we bring this conversation down to the section below? —Partytemple (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit proposal: Merge "International responses" w/ "International actions"Edit

The current organization of the sections means there is a distinct reaction toward Bolsonaro/Brazilian fires and the rest of the Amazon and world. We should merge the two sections, because this distinction is not apparent. World leaders and the media have always referred to this issue as the "Amazon fires" (and other variants) and an "international crisis," meaning the Amazon in general and all the countries involved in this. Many people are aware that the bulk of the Amazon reside in Brazil, hence Bolsonaro receives the most attention and criticism, so it's natural that most media outlets and world leaders talk about Bolsonaro. It's confusing if we divide international responses with international reactions when there is no strong distinction. —Partytemple (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is a clear distinction in the international reactions between the fires overall (trying to send aid and awareness), and those in Brazil (strong criticism of Bolsonaro's actions that led to it). It would be 100% inappropriate to merge as to make Bolsonaro appear responsible for ALL the amazon fires. --Masem (t) 02:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the politicians are blaming Bolsonaro for all of the fires, but that the issue of helping with firefighting should include all fires within the Amazon, not just Brazil. So it would make sense if we merge the section together, because the politicians and the media are referring to this as one topic (the Amazon wildfires). The Bolivian government has their own response to the fires, but world leaders haven't responded specifically to President Morales. The WP article should reflect how this issue is portrayed currently, until there is clearer responses to other Amazonian countries. —Partytemple (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Correct, the larger international response to help the fires is not only for Brazil, but Bolivia and the other affected countries. But that's presently only the G7 summit. And no, no world leaders have really responded directly to the Bolivia fires only, or the Peru ones, etc. If they are talking about the fires, it is either the entire bulk of the rainforest (and general concern about how to stop them), or specifically aimed at the state of the Brazil gov't to why the out-of-control Brazil fires are troublesome and Bolsonaro's policies that account for them. That's a very discrete separation that is easy to make, even from the bulk of sources. That's why the international reaction directed specifically at Brazil should be segregated from the general "we have to save the rainforest" comments. --Masem (t) 03:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
There is also the issue of chronology. The references added prior to c. August 24, regarding the international response, were specifically directed at the wildfires in Brazil. The international media did not pick up the story of the fires in Bolivia and Paraguay until later. The fires in Peru are not related to the Amazon rainforest. If you are going to refer to the international response to the Amazon rainforest fires in general not in Brazil, you need to find the articles that actually mention Bolivia and Paraguay or any other country that has had fires in the Amazon rainforest. The response to Brazil was intense because of the dramatic shift in policies in 2019.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The media is treating the fires in Peru in the same terms as Brazil and Bolivia. The international response (in terms of G7 and the Brazilian countries summit) are part of that. That's why the specific response related to Bolsanaro needs to be kept separate. --Masem (t) 13:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Endangered speciesEdit

The article lacks information about the endangered species which are being burned by Bolsonaro, like lions, hyenas, giraffes and elephants. (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Amazon is in Brazil, not Africa. --Ahecht (TALK
) 12:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
About this edit: "happy lions"? Nigos (talk Contribs) 12:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
And let us not forget about the lemurs. They're very precious. —Partytemple (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Partytemple: lemurs live in Madagascar, nowhere near the Amazon. Nigos (talk Contribs) 10:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Scientists discovered recently that lemurs live in Rio de Janeiro, and their favorite diet is the churrascaria. —Partytemple (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing reliable sources through rapid deletion of contentEdit

Masem Eleven reliable sources and related content were removed in one edit. This not only removed content that the editor considered extraneous but it resulted in 11 red ref error notices in the rest of the article. Please confirm that any full RS that is removed is not cited elsewhere.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Masum should have at least moved the citations to avoid the red ref error notices.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Sources that are reused will be rescued by a bot in a short time. I was planning on letting the bot rescue those, and then go through from the history to transfer the rest that were not saved. --Masem (t) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, I'm waiting for User:AnomieBOT to process its ongoing queue that auto-rescues named references, and then I can look through the others removed that were not named/reused and move them to the text, if they need to be there. There's way too much repetitive citations already on this page already, so pruning is necessary too. --Masem (t) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that you do that. I would appreciate it if you would take the extra time to avoid this. I spend a lot of my Wikipedia time filling in complete references including authors names, dates, name="", to prevent loss through deadurls. I also like to have the exact dates of publications to put references in chronological order. Most of the RS that you deleted were my contributions. When they are deleted, other editor add them again with fewer fields. Please take the time to do avoid the error messages. I am an inclusionist and you are a deletionist. We need both for a good articles. When I delete a quantity of text, I usually bring the content to the talk page so the editors know what has been removed. I appreciate the tremendous amount of time you have volunteered to improve this article. Your research and knowledge have added a lot. Thank you for that.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that you are tending to cite things that have already been cited elsewhere in the article. We're trying to summarize, so we don't need to point to all the possible references, but the ones that are most reliable and cover what is being said. And because we are, we also prefer to use English based sources that cover the same details that may be in foreign ones (But this is not always possible, and this is nothing against otherwise using foreign sources for unique information as long as they are reliable and we can assure what a translation says). --Masem (t) 16:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
In any case, I just did this all manually, having only needed to move maybe 3-4 non-named or single use references to appropriate spots. Two references were non-English ones duplicating what we already had from reliable English sources. The rest was all the named ones. --Masem (t) 17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Masem for manually restoring the following references that you accidentally deleted while removing content: BBC_20190821, theintercept_Zaitchik_20190706, euronews_Paraguassu_20190820, BBC_20190828, NYT_Andreoni_20190821, NOAD_20190815, NASA_20190816, VOX_Irfan_20190820, bbc-mercosur-France-Ireland, CNN_John_20190826, CBC_20190826, Peru_20190823Oceanflynn (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Atmospheric riversEdit

Masem You deleted this:

The Amazon rainforest "fuels planet-scale systems" including atmospheric rivers as 20 percent of the world's fresh water passes through cycles in this rainforest.[1] with this summary: "this point about the water is alreay discussed -- and given that the Intercept repeated the 20% oxygen claim, lets not use it for obtuse science facts." Please note that the UN IPCC December report used

an NASA image of atmospheric rivers. So not an "obtuse science fact" There are two Wikipedia articles devoted to the topic: atmospheric rivers, which refers to the global phenomenon, and flying river, which specifically focuses on the Amazon Basin. The section in which I had included this focused on the significance of the Amazon in global environment. In regards to the reliability of The Intercept article which was co-published with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, that is not in question. As already noted here on the talk page, numerous main stream media outlets made the same error of "the 20% oxygen claim". By the way, this National Geographic article "Why the Amazon doesn’t really produce 20% of the world’s oxygen", cited varying statistics for the "net [oxygen] effect of the Amazon" from 9% to "around zero".[2]


  1. ^ Zaitchik, Alexander (July 6, 2019). "In Bolsonaro's Brazil, a Showdown Over Amazon Rainforest". Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  2. ^ Zimmer, Katarina (2019-08-28). "Why the Amazon doesn't really produce 20% of the world's oxygen". National Geographic. Retrieved 2019-08-28.

The Amazon's role source of oxygen is challenged. Its role in terms of water transfer from one are to another is not.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It's stated in the first section "The flora also generates significant quantities of water vapor through transpiration which travel large distances to other parts of South America and contribute to the precipitation in these areas." sourced to the FAO. But for how MUCH water, that should be coming from a scientific source. Also will be adding a scientific paper I just found. --Masem (t) 17:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I look forward to reading your contributions. This does not however, exclude the addition of the atmospheric river concept. Linking to existing articles improves Wikipedia.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
You might enjoy this one Masem. It is "Antonio Donato Nobre's TED Talk: The magic of the Amazon: A river that flows invisibly all around us. Nobre "is a senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research."[1]


  1. ^ Kedmey, Dan (November 24, 2015). The largest river on Earth is invisible — and airborne. Ted Talks. Retrieved August 30, 2019.

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that he has published papers too. The one thing again to keep in mind is that the focus of this article is on the fires; it is important to scientifically establish why the forest burning down is a concern, but we're not writing the thesis on that here. A fuller discussion should be at Amazon rainforest or potentially a wholly separate article. --Masem (t) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree Masem that another article would be useful. I have begun to add content to the article on Brazil and plan on adding to related articles. Brazil had made significant changes and introduced impressive technologies to monitor deforestation and fires.

By 2013, Brazil's "dramatic policy-driven reduction in Amazon Basin deforestation" was a "global exception in terms of forest change", according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) Science journal.[1]:852 From 2003 to 2011, compared to all other countries in the world, Brazil had the "largest decline in annual forest loss", as indicated in the study using high-resolution satellite maps showing global forest cover changes.[1]:850 The annual loss of forest cover decreased from a 2003/2004 record high of more than 40,000 square kilometres (4,000×10^3 hectares)* to a 2010/2011 low of under 20,000 square kilometres (2,000×10^3 hectares)*,[1]:850 reversing widespread deforestation[1]:852 from the 1970s to 2003.


  1. ^ a b c d Hansen, M. C.; Potapov, P. V.; Moore, R.; Hancher, M.; Turubanova, S. A.; Tyukavina, A.; Thau, D.; Stehman, S. V.; Goetz, S. J.; Loveland, T. R.; Kommareddy, A.; Egorov, A.; Chini, L.; Justice, C. O.; Townshend, J. R. G. (November 15, 2013). "High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change". Science. 342 (6160): 850–853. doi:10.1126/science.1244693. ISSN 1095-9203 0036-8075, 1095-9203 Check |issn= value (help). Retrieved August 30, 2019.

The role of that atmospheric rivers is hugely significant and explains concerns the international community have about deforestation and fires, which are inextricably linked, in the Amazon.

Thanks for all your contributions.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, there's plenty of other articles for more scientific details. We want this one on the 2019 events to give enough that a person doesn't have to read the other articles to understand how all the parts work together but have that option if they want. So for example, we could go into a lot more detail on INPE, but to this article it is important they had tools for monitoring deforestation, improved tools more recently, and one is used to estimate daily fires while the other for less-frequent estimates of acres lost; this establishes where these numbers are coming from, and INPE's role relative to Brazil's response. But on INPE's page or a page about Deforestation in Brazil, more details would certainly be good. --Masem (t) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone in Brasília is trying to edit the talk page?Edit made a highly politically biased comment on the issue earlier on. Since the location of their IP address was a bit suspicious, I'll just inform you about it. Nigos (talk Contribs) 13:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We Brazilians cannot opine on the article? -- (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can add comments that are towards article improvement, but what won't be accepted are commented that are slanderous or the like towards named persons or that are insultingly gross about the situation. The deleted commented was attributing animals killed in the fires as being "barbequed" by Bolsonaro -- which, no. --Masem (t) 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Copying Bolsonaro‘s words and poking fun at other countries is not allowed. Nigos (talk Contribs) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible "Media sensationalism" sectionEdit

There is potential for a possible "media sensationalism" topic which is related to the mistaken photos, but we would need more sources beyond this NYPost article. I'm keeping an eye open for this. --Masem (t) 21:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to "2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires" page.