Talk:2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

In the News

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."

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."

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)

References

Name/Scope change

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
PAGE) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating Redirects?

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)

Google Earth KML layer

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)

• • "Google earth layer" (KML).

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)

Are Op/Eds RS?

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." 192.107.156.196 (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)

References

public domain images?

Are these images public domain? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil 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)

Reliable source for scientific claims

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)

Brazil Wildfires

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 parts

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:https://www.lanacion.com.py/ incendios" gets its from their La Nacion paper. --Masem (t) 06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

These fires do not simply concern Brazil

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 Peoplewww.democracynow.org/2019/8/23/headlines/indigenous_communities_say_brazils_president_is_encouraging_destruction_of_forestsOldperson (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)

NASA assessment

I added the August 16 NASA assessment from the NASA.gov 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: 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. XavierItzm (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

satellite photos links request

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 http://www.inpe.br http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/ then I actually got a map for "fire risk", but, alas, copyrighted 2016 :-) http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/risco-de-fogo-meteorologia/ 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.201.178.50.46 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Burying the lede

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: [1] (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 [2] 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". 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 [3] "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)

References

Yikes - this article! Solutions:

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 importance

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)

Oceanflynn's reorganization

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 fires

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)

Requested move 24 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 wildfires → 2019 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: [4]. 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. 109.152.210.68 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Although I am about as thrilled to see this article name as I would be to see Dolphin (extinct species) or Armageddon (current)...._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:04, 25 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
PAGE) 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. Gentle (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• 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%. 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. It is really essential editors voting here, read the full text of articles cited. Cheers.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

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. [5] 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. 109.152.210.68 (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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Most citations as of late are using the latter term, rather than the current title. [6] [7] [8] 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.

About the article's original title

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)

Refs in lead

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)