Talk:More than 160 dead in bushfires in Australia

Doesn't seem that objective to me. (WN:NPOV). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Review
Why isn't this pointing to the main article in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.187.85 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. At the bottom, in the Sources. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Move
The Australian term is "bushfires", and this was definitely a bushfire and not a brushfire. If anyone objects, please feel free to discuss here. Daniel (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Worst in almost 25 Years?
Given that the only other fires named killed 75 and 71 people, I would say that using the phrase "the worst fire disaster in Australia in almost 25 years" in inappropriate, considering it is even worse than the other two which have been named. Is this the deadliest bushfire ever? According to the Wikipedia article, at least, it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.184.156 (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the declining value of human life, the other disasters were worse, even though fewer lives were lost. --216.75.93.110 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me nub, but where are you getting this bullshit of "declining human life" from? Judging from your naive statement, I'm assuming you do not reside in Australia and wouldn't know what it's like to have 173 innocent lives in your country lost at the hands of an arsonist. And I doubt that you actually experienced the other bushfires, and I can tell you that this is the worst fire in Australian History. This bushfire was so unexpected and because it was pushed in the opposite direction by strong winds, it took the lives of unsuspecting families who did not have enough time to evacuate. The 24 fires are still burning and they probably will continue to for weeks. But by far this one is more devastating than the Ash Wednesday or 1994 East Coast Fires. So don't you dare undermine human life in favor of property, in my books you are a deadset fuckwit. 58.179.55.114 09:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Restarted
What is the source for the claim that arsonists restarted fires that had been brought under control? I checked all the Feb 9 sources, but could not find it. --SVTCobra 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (under: Arson Probe) - "These people are terrorists within our nation, they are the enemy within and we have to be increasingly vigilant about them," he said. Arsonists were also relighting fires that had been brought under control, a fire authority official in Victoria said. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I missed that sentence. Since it seems like one guy saying it and not a known fact, I will attribute it in the article. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another source from the Heraald Sun, which states that "It was also reported earlier by the ABC that firebugs had been relighting fires in some areas after fire crews had moved on". Can't find anything on the ABC news site as yet that makes that allegation, but will let you know if I do find anything.  Lankiveil (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC).


 * http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1008536/Arsonists-lit-Churchill-fire-Nixon - Ms Nixon is the Victorian Head of Police. (Sorry I'm unsure how to edit this properly...) - David.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.226.130 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is dated Monday. For new developments a new article should be started. The investigation into arson allegations and (if I remember correctly from the BBC) detention of suspects is certainly worth a new story. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, death count is currently 181 and expected to rise. 153.107.103.157 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Start a new article! You are right, there are many developments that are newsworthy, but we don't add them by changing old news. --SVTCobra 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)