Jump to content

Talk:Firefighter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Opening heading

hola/Goals of firefighting: I removed "incident stabilization" hi 

and added "protection of the environment" since I think we need to set out strategic goals here not firefighting tactics.  "Incident stabilisation" is indeed the second tactical objective after saving life but it is not what we need here.  Unfortunately I do not have an English-language published source to cite for the three goals, maybe someone else can find one.   r 84.50.91.222 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

" Firefighter is preferred to fireman because, firstly, not all firefighters are men, and secondly, because a firefighter fights fires. Given the definition of the term snowman, the term fireman is somewhat ambiguous (a fact that was exploited in Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451). " so please call them firefighters

It is, however, a fact that the term "fireman" was deliberately replaced by "firefighter" as an official job dssignation because the former term was considered sexist - at least that's how it worked in Australia. We can't say that without a source, so I'm not suggesting we put it back. However, I happen to have been around when it happened in the 1980s, so I'm pretty sure I'm right. If anyone ever comes across a source, feel free to make some such claim. If I were to make it on the project page it would fall afoul of being original research. Also, I agree that the words deleted were POV/OR as they stood. Metamagician3000 14:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


"....five trusted public service professions." Anyone have a source for this. A google search showed no such list as five trusted public service professions. Benjad (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--I second this, what are the other ones? --Dasbrick (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"No life has ever been lost to fire in a residence with sprinklers. "

this site http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/FireService/FSFacts.html says

"NFPA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a completely sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional or residential building where the system was working properly." - Omegatron 12:48, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

The history section claims that organized firefighting in Rome began in the second century AD. However, in contradiction to this, the page on Emperor Augustus (63 BC - 14 AD) claims that he started the world's first fire brigades a century earlier. Which one is correct? 84.239.128.9 17:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Quintus Sutorius Macro, Prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Tiberius, Augustus's successor, had previously commanded the Vigiles, Rome's fire brigade. They were actually formed by Augustus in AD6. -- Necrothesp 18:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of terms "brigade" and "department"

Hi all! Can somebody pls explain the meanings / differences of "fire brigade" and "fire department" to me as a non-native english speaker. I like to edit the section about the german fire .... (?) and use the appropriate terms avoiding confusion on readers side. thanks --Fortythree 15:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a difference between countries. In the United States, for instance, it's usually Fire Department. In the United Kingdom it's Fire Brigade or Fire Service. -- Necrothesp 21:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, in the United States, "Fire Brigade" usually refers to an Industrial Fire Department (ie, Industrial Fire Brigade). The brigades are employed by high risk industries to provide specialized fire suppresion to a given facility. A good example is a brigade at a large oil refinery. They require high volume pumps (frequently >3000gpm) and monitors on their apparatus, as well as specialized tactics not usually employed by municipal fire departments. Malakhi 22:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In Australia, the term "Brigade" usually refers to an individual fire station/unit. Additionally, the word "Service" is used to refer to the entire firefighting service (e.g. "The Service is isuing new turnout coats to all firefighters"). The term "department" is usually used to refer to the Government department responsible for the Fire Service. A single department might be responsible for many services, for example the NSW Department of Emergency Services is repsonsible for both the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Fire Brigades (NSW has two seperate fire services). Jpmanalo 04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A few doubts...

The article says: "At least one Roman may have become very rich from this fire, buying properties in advance of the flames and using teams of slaves in attempts to defend his recent acquisitions from being consumed." However it is not very clear why a person would buy property in advance when the property will get devalued in case of a fire and the slave part surely makes no sense to me.

Secondly, why is that firefighting is such a major task in the western world despite high budgets for firefighting there are still much more fires in US or Europe than in many countries like India? Is it because the construction of houses is basically wood and not concrete as in many parts of asia? As far as I know the expenditure and the number of firefighting units where i live is quantitatively and qualitative far smaller than the ones in US. Yet the incidence of fire is minimal which I'm presuming is primarily due to houses constructed mainly out of concrete etc. wildfires too seem pretty rare despite thick jungles. obviously there's something I missing in this. Idleguy 16:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • First, the Roman fellow I think said, "hey, your house is going to burn up. I'll buy it from you, since it's no use to you now." Then, when he had bought it cheap, he had his slaves keep it from burning up. Second, yes, the amount of flammables in the US and Europe is pretty large, with paper and plastic materials filling most houses. The construction (wood frame, usually) is also quite flammable. Wildfires are common in the Western US due to very dry periods. DDerby 15:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. Thx for the info on fires in US. I also pretty much had the same idea on the roman part, just wanted to confirm it. Idleguy 16:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dues vs Tax Based

I came to the article hoping to find some details on the history of tax-funded versus dues-funded Volunteer Fire Departments, after seeing discussion on an incident where a rural Missouri fire department refused to fight a fire because the property owner wasn't paid up [1] . I have found in searches that the practice of funding by dues has been going on for some time [2], but I was hoping someone could shed more light on its history.

--Robotech_Master 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

smoke-beater

I checked Google, and there are very few references to fire fighters being called "smoke beaters." In reading the first sentence, it really looks rather silly with that reference in place. Rklawton 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC) The term should be Smoke Eater it goes back to th early 50's and 60's for a firefighter who would go into a fire without respiratory protection. and usually upon emerging from the IDLH atmosphere he would promptly vomit. [ User:Pfd9816 ] 02:30 5 May 2006

Firefighter Assist and Search Team merger proposed

It makes sense to have a paragraph about RIT/FAST teams in the main article, but that does not mean that the articles have to be merged. I agree with the points that lupinelawyer makes below. Also perhaps an entire page can be made for firefighting techniques/tactics (although i know that many people will point out that RIT/FAST teams dont fight fires). Also, to the writer below, the term FAST team is used as the primary description for firefighter rescue teams in New York, in fact, RIT is rarely used if at all. Another note, this time to Jpmanalo: In the fire service in New York, a designated FAST team is almost always standing by at a structure fire, and if that FAST team has to go in for a downed or lost man, a back-up fast team is almost always activated just in case the initial FAST team needs help or in the event that another firefighter goes down in a seperate incident. Also, i should point out, that the first FAST team is not "called in" as you imply, but is there as early as possible, as a precaution (usually members of a Truck/Rescue Company, or sometimes the entire 2nd due truck, depending on the department). The difference being that it is proactive instead of reactive. To me, at least, the idea that the "Incident Commander" would direct other firefighters away from the duties that they are currently undertaking and send them in for a downed man WITHOUT special training seems ludicrously dangerous and negligent.

The appropriate place for the FAST/ or RIT topic would be as a paragraph of the Firefighter page. More specifically it would be best used as a sub paragraph in the section that discusses the NFPA 2in/2out rule. As a 15 year fire officer in the U.S. I can attest that a RIT is always in place on all structure fire in our career department to comply with the 2in/2out mandate. CWS-Florida, U.S.A.--Big Haole 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Firefighter Assist and Search Team article is very short and I doubt the content on it can be expanded to a length that would merit an entire, seperate article. Since FAST (or Rapid Intervention Teams/ RIT, or Rapid Intervention Crew/ RIC) teams are related to firefighting operations, I propose that the content be merged here. -- backburner001 17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I think they are fine as separate articles, you have a point about the content not being very exapandible. I guess it would be okay to merge, but see what other people think. -- Natalya 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The term FAST is very specific to American-style firefighting practices. During my eight years as a firefighter, I haven't heard of the phrase "FAST" ever used during firefighting operations. The concept of creating a team to rescue other firefighters is more of a tactical concept that is used when required operationally, rather than a "hard-and-fast" operational procedure that is part of every operational deployment. Most Incident Commanders, if they ever needed to rescue a firefighter in distress (a very rare occurance in Australian firefighting), would direct other firefighters to their rescue, rather than calling in a specialised team. I support the merge of the FAST article into this article as one facet of firefighting operations, perhaps with a note regarding it's use. -- Jpmanalo 04:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on department protocol and personel available; FAST crews may be on standby during firefighting operations. This gives the nozzle and rescue teams inside an added safety net and precaution for the "just incase" possibilities.

I oppose merging the Firefighter Assist and Search Team article with this article, because the FAST is a very specific concept whereas this article is very general. If there was a separate article about the operational aspects of firefighting (i.e. how to fight a fire), then maybe the Firefighter Assist and Search Team article could be merged there instead. 68.50.203.109 07:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Depending on the objectives of the wikies, Search Team involves a huge amount of information, because there are Sub-Aquatic, mountain, urban, etc search teams... so.. if we want a small reference or a detailed manual... there is the dessition. Pedro Torruella, Ptorruella, Caracas Venezuela.

Do not merge. The RIT/FAST function is a separate function from firefighting: immediate rescue of our own, not to say other FFs won't also be directed to help. Those privileged to serve on RIT may have advanced training, equipment and tools. They are NOT fighting the fire when they are assigned to RIT, they are an emergency backup team for missing or injured firefighters. Why not put pitcher and shortstop together in baseball player? They are separate jobs in support of the team. Here, RIT is a separate job, performed by "firefighters", specifically assigned to that task, as part of operational safety, whether or not they are deployed in a specific rescue -- they are on standby. Lupinelawyer 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of and training for RIT/FAST teams differ from that of other fireground activities, but there is still a lot of overlap, is there not? Wouldn't it be better to have a description of RIT teams in the article where readers will already be looking for various aspects related to firefighting? I think the question here is this: are the differences in the function of RIT teams significant enough to merit a completely seperate article? I'm not saying it isn't a possibility. But if it is, I would like to see a major expansion of the Firefighter Assist and Search Team article. -- backburner001 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with those opposing the merger. FAST/RIT is a subset of firefighter and denotes a specific assignment within the fire service, much as chauffer or aerial apparatus operator would be specific assignments. Alan 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Noise Induced Hearing Loss

Hi everyone. I'm going to be working on adding "Noise Induced Hearing Loss"(NIHL) into the "hazards" section of this page. I will discuss what kind of noise hazards they are exposed to in the job, how often they are exposed, and what is currently being done to protect against NIHL.

Here are the sources I plan to use:
Crawford, J. O. & Graveling, R. A. (2012). Non-cancer occupational health risks in firefighters. Occupational Medicine, 62(7), 485-495. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqs116
Hong, O. & Samo, D. G. (2007). Hazardous decibels: Hearing health of firefighters. AAOHN, 55, 313-319. doi: 10.1177/216507990705500803
Institute of Medicine (2011). Certifying personal protective technologies: Improving worker safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
Taxini, C. L. & Guida, H. L. (2013). Firefighters’ noise exposure: A literature review. International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 17(1), 80-84. doi: 10.7162/S1809-9777203000100014
Tubbs, R. L. (1995). Noise and hearing loss in firefighting. Occupational Medicine,10(4), 843-85. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=and+hearing+loss+ in+firefighting
Lauraware4 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Spanish Firefighters

"Spanish firefighters are famous for their collaboration with Third World countries. They are led by Jorge de Miguel San Martin, the chief of staff of the Spanish fire department." I would just like to know who wrote this. The thing is that those who help are members of an NGO with staff from all the country and all over the world and that there isn't a Spanish Fire Department.I am going to edit it, I just wanted to say that. I don't .

Miscellanea"

"In popular literature, firefighters are usually depicted with Dalmatian dogs" As far as I was aware this is only the case in the US, and thusly only in American literature. Does anyone know if Dalmatians are connected to any other countries fire services? I know there is no relation in the UK. --Myfanwy 18:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The statement "Of course when a life is at risk, all attempts are made to save it." is simply not true. To the extent that firefighers' safety is not put at excessive risk, they will do almost anything. But, few will excessively risk their own life unless the potential payoff is very high ... ie. your own life for many other lives. It's true that when lives are at stake, firefighters are willing to accept an increased amount of risk.

  • What about Firemen as sex icons in Miscellanea? They appear in a lot of calendars directed towards women and gay men. --Dara 19:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Communication and command structure

I have added a section on this. A few years ago, when I moved from the town where I served as a volunteer firefigher, the amount of training time devoted to the Incident Command System had increased substantially. Further, there was a great deal of criticism of the communications during the 9/11 disaster, so I belive this area is worth a brief mention. Gerry Ashton 06:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit on the communication myself. I thought a bit more credit was deserved towards dispatchers and the public should be somewhat aware of it's structure.K3rn3lkill3r 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the section could use more on the general structure of fire departments—e.g., in the U.S., fire companies, battalions, and brigades (?). DocWatson42 08:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Called Only "Firefighters"?

If a firefighter is "a person who is trained and equipped to put out fires, rescue people, pets, aid and assist during natural disasters and, increasingly, provide emergency medical services" why are they just called "firefighters"? If they rescue people and pets from natural diseasters should they be called something like Natural Protection And Rescue (NPA)? It would make more sense since there are a lot more natural disasters such as flood, tornadoes, hurricanes, ect. What do you think? Zachorious 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the *primary* responsibility of a firefighter is fight fires. The other tasks they complete are generally secondary to their primary role. --Jpmanalo 10:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In Montgomery County, Maryland I believe the name of the position is "Firefighter/Rescuer." 68.50.203.109 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Most firefighters are also paramedics or at least EMTs, but there are still some fire departments that exist seperately from departments that provide emergency medical services. The term "firemedic" has been increasing in use for firefighters who are also paramedics. -- backburner001 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Backburner, it is simply not true that "most firefighters are paramedics or at least EMTs". Most firefighters are CFR's or Certified First Responders, but firefighters that are full paramedics are few and far between. Although many are EMTs at a basic level (BLS as opposed to ALS) it would be incorrect to say that "most" are. Take for example one of the largest fire services on earth, the FDNY. With over 11,000 firefighters, there still is the need for a seperate EMS command (which, up until recently, was not even a part of the FDNY). The vast majority of FDNY firefighters are CFR's only. I would have to agree that the term "firemedic" has been increasing in use (my department, too, has begun using the term) but it is often used for firefighters that are only BLS certified, not paramedics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.42.215 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I take it you mean in the USA? In Australia "most Firefighters" are not paramedics, this is an American trend. While they are first aid trained, they do not run the ambulances. Please try not to forget the rest of the world ;) Mazzone 04:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. Yes, I meant in the United States. -- backburner001 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
In Central Ohio most full time departments require their firegighter to become paramedics within a set time after their date of hire. There are even departments that will not review an application unless the applicant is a Firefighter/Paramedic--Rsgard 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

it does not matter in the least what they do, it matters what they call themselves, in the united states theyre called firefighters and at least in the san francisco bay area where i live all of them also work as rescuers in earthquake and flood situations theyre more fire stations than hospitals/ambulances so fire fighters almost always show up first followed by police then the ambulances all of them have basic paramedic skills and every company has a one or two EMTS one per truck so when they show up he or she (usually she) assesses the situation and provides immidiate care for the medical emergency untill an ambulance arrives. and the whole time theyre still called firefighters. not anything else. teachers and coachs act as male role models but theyre jobs dont change name too dude intructor or masculinity preparer. you cant make stuff like that up although it should be mentioned that its an unmbrella term and that it always means someone whp puts out fires and in a lot of areas it also can deal with other tasks like rescue which is the most common, but its still called the fire dept. not the rescue dept.71.142.88.173 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusing worldwide lead

This is currently in the lead:

"in German called Berufsfeuerwehr."

Frankly, I couldn't care less. If need be put it and other international factoids in a sub-section, the lead is not the place for it. - RoyBoy 800 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

fire fighter fire man what's the difference

Salaries: Propation firefighter start in the range of tro Top Capatins are paid to And Chiefs can make as much as to USD


Firemen has have many more responsiblities then just putting out fires. Alot of time they are not recognized for everything they do even behind closed doors. I want to shine a light on everything these people do and no gives them recognozition for. Anyone have any suggestions?? Bre--B steele90 (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing and Correcting

This article has become more and more monolithic and disorganized over the last year or so. I would like to see parts of it rolled out into separate articles. For example, separate the processes and tactics of firefighting out. There is already an extensive fire fighting article. I see no need to duplicate that information here. The concept of a firefighter is really rather simple to grasp. There's no reason for this article to ramble on as it does now. Barring criticism, I'll start trimming it down and polishing it.

Yes, I agree the article rambles and touches on far more aspects of firefighting than just being a firefighter. Also, can we get rid of the photo of the improperly prepared firefighter with the hood on wrong? Furthermore, the "two-in, two-out" rule description doesn't match the main article on that topic, and doesn't match the ref OSHA reg. You only need two people outside, regardless of how many are inside, and under OSHA, one of those outside can be assigned to another job, such as incident commander. Can anyone provide a source for this particular version of the rule? Lupinelawyer 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


The "Fire fighting tasks" section at the beginning of the article mentions "property preservation" and "salvage" among basic fire fighting skills, but these roles are not discussed in the article. There is a "Property" section but its current content is not relevant to those tasks. Does anyone have the expertise to add a section discussing the property preservation and salvage role of firefighters? (71.174.55.22, 17:04, 30 January 2007)

No, actually the Property section does specifically mention limited salvage operations, such as covering uninvolved property with salvage covers (tarps). I will add a few more elements of salvage, and re-arrange the "ventilation" as part of "fire control." Lupinelawyer 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this section seems much more complete and clear now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.55.22 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I cleaned up a little of what I could. I elaborated more on topics as to make them more filling and to stop the rambling a bit. Communications and Fire control were mostly the ones I touched on the most, but others, such as the history really needs something. If someone is aware of the history and can quote it well, it would be nice to see it filled. K3rn3lkill3r 12:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just noticed that the page is vandalized. The last paragraph under "Self-preservation" has been altered, and since I just signed up, I don't know the right way to change it back. Just thought I'd let you know, in case someone feels like fixing it. I'll try to learn how to fix these things myself though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shimanotaka (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Fixed.Drakonis 16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cancer Section moved here

The editor that initially added this information [3] just removed the cleanup tag on it [4]. This editor has added similar links to multiple articles, and is editing from an ip located in the same city as the provider of these reports. Given that this information is not blatant spam, I thought it worth moving here in case others think it is salvageable:

Occupational cancer among firefighters is a major occupational health and safety concern. Every year, these lesions produce significant human and financial costs for workers and employers. However, it is difficult to establish a link between the appearance of a cancer and the characteristics of the job. Critical reviews of the epidemiological literature related to cancer risk in firefighters include:

--Ronz 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning duties

Is 80% of the firefighting job cleaning equipment? Or is that subcontracted out these days? Fire engines, ladders, hoses, and so forth always seem to be in pristine condition and it seems like it's hard work for somebody. -Rolypolyman 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time, it would seem that 80% is spent cleaning equipment, or ensuring the proper future operation of it. It is, from experience, not contracted out - for safety and training reasons. However, some devices like SCBA require certification to properly repair, test, and so forth. Sullivan.t (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See also

The see also section of this article is too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.80.75 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Shall we remove all individual fire departments from the article? They seem pretty crufty and tangential to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

This article makes references to "Firefighters" and fire fighting. But this is crazy! What's the point in fighting fires? The whole point is to put them out! Change it to Fireman (just like human, policeman etc. ) Btline (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what you mean. In the US, firefighters put out fires. We don't have any firemen; the term, regardless of historical value, is considered sexist and archaic, as is policeman. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual point of fighting fires is not only to extinguish, but to save lives and, when possible, property. All fire will go out, eventually. Sometimes the decision can be made to let the house burn, and do what they call a "defensive" operation - save the exposures, etc. Sullivan.t (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the US the MEDIA uses the term "Firefighter" but by and large, in common speech, the word Fireman is used almost exclusively. However since nearly all sources to be found are by the MEDIA, it'll be pretty hard to find 'reliable' sources.--71.97.138.104 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a real good argument for including a "Misogyny in the U.S. Fire Service" section. If you get around to starting it before I do, feel free. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to greatly disagree with you. The term fireman is not in the least bit sexist. Anyone that thinks so does not understand the definition and origins of the word man. A fireman can be a woman, just as a woman is part of human species, or did you forget where the word human or Homo sapien comes from. The orgional question is correct, the word firefighter makes as little sense as the word fireman, they are both words and they both have origins. Saying the word fireman does not make since because of the word snowman is like saying an attack helicopter cannot defend. Brawler839 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

[moved from article 02:14, 9 April 2008]

Hi all, great firefighter photos from the contributors but some of them are obviously causing image stacks and conflicts with the articles. -please rectify the problem. Thanks.

Please expand, what images are causing problems? I admit that the article is a bit image heavy but I see no direct errors. -Icewedge (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

-Right, in that case it must be my browser which is at fault. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.6 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is in reference to the removal of the image of the firefighter with axe - since the caption directly states the gear is not worn as it would be in a fire, was the removal necessary? Thoughts? 142.107.58.117 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefighting tools

This section should distinguish wildland firefighting tools and urban firefeighting tools. At present, only the tools of the latter are present.

An example of the first type of tools are is a pulaski (tool) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.176.5 (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Images Limits per department

I'm starting to run a limit on how many pictures and images per department can have in the article. This limit is to let no one department to have "fame" over another departments. Each department will have the limits stated below.

  1. One firefighter or personnel image on the article.
  2. Two equipment and vehicle images limited on the article.
  3. Two rare object or history images limited on the article.

Friendly notes... If you a person happens to take a lot images of a department. Why do you make your own article of that department? Firefighter article is to give a world view Rasseru (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggested

Fire brigade redirects to firefighter, but fire department is currently a separate stub article. I see no need for it to be separate and have added merge tags. --208.76.104.144 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A fire department is an organization which may not be fully staffed by firefighters (there are administrative folks as well, you know). It might be a tiny stub, but there's potential for growth there. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Also disagree, Fire brigade can be seen as a group of firefighters (but Fire brigade can also be seen as an organisation such as the New South Wales Fire Brigades). We may need to somehow make an Fire brigade disambiguation page so that Fire brigade (Organisation) redirects to fire department (technically the same just may be set-up in a different way in each country) but also have a Fire brigade redirecting to this article. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree too. The Fire department article should not be merge...But someone needs to work on the article and make it bigger. Rasseru (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No Merge A firefighter and a Fire department are two totally different things, they can't be merged, I say set the Fire Brigade redirect to Fire department, then we work on expanding the fire department page--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Communication and command structure

One particular type of communication hasn't been mentioned: communication between the firefighters themselves. Is it possible to include this, and also mention new firefighter equipment designs such as the Pyro Pack, see http://www.grandideastudio.com/portfolio/pt-robotic-firefighter-assistant/ In addition, the Grand Idea Studio's Stairbot (see link above) also needs to be mentioned; it allows the hoses, ... to be carried up by a remote controlled vehicle. 91.182.199.156 (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Firefighter → Fire service — 06:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead image

I have just made some adjustments to the images in this article, adding a couple of good ones and also changing the lead image (right). I believe this image is better than the preceding one (which I have retained but just moved down into the subheading Worldwide Firefighting) because it shows more of the symbolic aspects most people associate with firefighters, like the yellow helmet, hose, breathing apparatus, and is more focused on the firefighter himself. I hope no one feels aggrieved that I have moved the preceding image down and replaced it but am open to any debate about the best lead image for the article. Tbmurray 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In the introduction: "In India municipalities are required by law to have a fire brigade and participate in a regional fire service. Generally firefighters use gasoline to put out fires"

Surely vandalism?


94.169.98.243 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Prestige Claim

Please read the outcome of this and similar discussions regarding prestige claims: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Harvard_University#Boosterism_in_Lead

Based on the consensus of seasoned Wikipedia editors, the claim should be allowed to remain. If you do not believe that that should be the case, please have a word over on the linked Talk page, or discuss on the local Talk page. Thanks. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


Security Door Paradox with Firefighters

I'm a computer programmer, more interested in computer security, but always trying to connect it to reality. I pay attention to funny situations like how airport inspectors have to open your luggage, whereas you want to lock your luggage from burglars, so they make these stupid padlocks that can be opened by airport employees ...

So on the one hand, the more metal-reinforced, heavily bolted my doors are, the more safe my stuff is from burglars. Fine.

On the other side, firefighters need to break into my house/apartment if there's a fire in the building - and they will go down a hallway and break down doors when nobody answers the door, and even punch thru walls if they can't bust down the door. So:

  • If I fortify my door against breakins, that means I'll suffer more damage from firefighters, I guess?
  • At what point do the firefighters give up if I really fortify my house? They're not like superman or anything.
  • If a firefighter can get into my apartment, that also means a burglar can get into my apartment (maybe by ripping a hole in the wall)?

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Firewoman listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firewoman. Since you had some involvement with the Firewoman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Pfeifer

So the line for Joseph Pfeifer under 'Notable Firefighters' links to a Joseph Pfeifer who died in 1972, but the blurb says that he "was the first to make an official report of 9/11 and headed the operations at WTC." This doesn't make sense. Is there an explanation for this, or is it just wrong? 159.63.167.146 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Language

The complexity of modern industrialized life with a greater prominence of hazards has created an increase in the skills needed in firefighting technology and a broadening of the firefighter-rescuer's remit.

What does this even mean? "Greater prominence of hazards"? Modern industrial life is demonstrably much safer than at virtually any other point in history. Certainly safer than pre-modern, pre-industrial life.

Notable Firefighters

I added Vladimir Pravik as a notable firefighter: he was the Lieutenant in command of the first responders to the Chernobyl disaster, and has been awarded an Order of Lenin and an Order of Courage for his work, so I deemed it necessary he was recognised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:30DD:D800:E18E:3560:EAE0:24AC (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

During this edit, when I tried to fix a ref error yesterday, I had to remove a link, because the wiki said it was blacklisted and would not allow me to save without removing it. Could someone please find a way to put it back in or replace it wih a different not blacklisted link? 78.94.53.130 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Firefighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firefighter/Archive_1&oldid=1214758519"