Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have removed some assertions about word usage that appear to be contradicted by entries in the OED:
Skyraider 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A plausible way for methane to ignite spontaneously has been suggested:
The gas diphosphane (P2H4) is known to burn spontaneously when it meets air, but the missing link here has been that no one knew of a natural reducing agent that was capable of turning phosphate (Po4 3tly into diphosphane). Now two German chemists Gunter Gassmann and Dieter Glindemann of the Helgoland Biological Institute in Hamburg, have discovered that microorganisms can make both the gases phosphane (PH3) and diphosphane (Angewandte Chemie, 1993, p 761).
From: Emsley, John New Scientist (19 June 1993) Science: Graveyard ghosts are a gas --Aspro 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Q - How is "Will o' the Wisp" similar to "Jack o' the Lantern", except that they both have o' in their names? I think that misleading use of the word 'Celtic' ought to be avoided as well. -User:Mon VierMon Vier 13:57, 23 Sep 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of more names from a page I am paring down: ==Other names== Earthlights are known by dozens of different names, including Aarnivalkea, ALP (aerial luminous phenomena),Amber gamblers, Ball of wildfire, Blazing stars, Blud, Bodhisattva lights, Bramaracokh, Burning shields, Cemetery lights, Corposant, Corpo Santos, Corpse candles, Corpse light, Dead man's candles, Death light, Devil's bonfires, Dickepoten, Earthquake lights, Elf-fire, Elf light, Eskuddit, Fair maid of Ireland, Fairy death lantern, Fairy fire, Fairy-lantern, Fairy lights, Fata morgana, Fetch candle, Fetch lights, Feu follet, Fiery coruscations, Fiery dragons, Fiery drakes. Fire of destiny, Fireballs, Flaming torch, Flickering fire, Fluffy fire, Fools fire, Flying flame, Foo fighters, Foolish fire, Fools fire, Fox fire, Friar's lantern, Friar Rush with a lantern, Geophysical meteors, Ghost beacons, Ghost fire, Ghost lights, Ghostly lanterns, Ghostly lights, Going fire, Gorgons, Hob-lantern, Hornet Spooklight, Ignis fatuus, Irrlicht, Jack of the bright light, Jack-o'-lantern, Laim na lasoige, Lambent flame, Lantern man, LP (luminous phenomena), Lumères de la terre, Luminous clouds, Luminous columns, Luminous vapors, Meg of the lantern, Min-Min lights, Money lights, Mysterious flares, Mystery lights, Night suns, Nocturnal lights, orbs, Peg-a-lantern, Peggy with the lantern, Phantom effluence, Pixie lights, Puck-lantern, Robin Good-fellow, Rocket lightning, Sean na gealaige, Sparkling fires, Spirit lantern, Spook lights, Spunkie, Strange lightning, Strange meteors, Teine side, Teine sionnii, The Hessdalen Phenomenon, The swamp ghost, Treasure lights, UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), UFOs, Unctuous vapor, Walking fire, William with the little light, Will-o'-the-wisps, Wisps Speciate 06:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to clean it up while at the same time leaving the the definition of wisp, which I found interesting. --Jk5004 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this sentence
Although Omphalotus olearius has luminescent gills (lamellae) I have yet to hear of luminescent spore clouds. I removed a similar statement under Omphalotus olearius. Unless documented or having a direct quote, this is mere speculation of a possible phenomenon, intriging as it might be. If there is any evidence - a re-phrased sentence or explanation can be added back.Heliocybe 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Will o' the wisp → Will-o'-the-wisp — Will o' the wisp is a misspelling. It is similar to jack-o'-lantern and if one looked it up in any encyclopedia I'm sure it would be spelled Will-o'-the-wisp. See also . Tim Q. Wells 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the explanations section because in its current form it does not offer any information. Instead it is an empty claim that there are other answers out there. OK, no problem with more theories to consider, but what are they? Who put them forward? How they avoid the problems the author of the section below claims they avoid? What are the references? In other words, it simply biases the article and violates NPOV without offering any facts or verifiable statements, references, etc. I would have no problem with the removed text if it included an explanation of what the supposed "similar theoretical explanations" that included at least a minimum amount of detail, explained how they avoid relying on "pseudoscientific elements", and provided references. "Other similar theoretical explanations, however, involving light emanating from naturally occurring electric currents do not involve pseudoscientific elements. Also, electric-based theories more easily account for the claimed seemingly free movement of the lights and claims that the lights react upon the introduction of nearby objects (e.g. humans)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzhugh (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
WTF is that about ?! 65.163.112.205 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone ever managed to photograph or video these marsh lights or will-o'-the-wisps? The image on the page is an "artist's rendering". PhilUK 18:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ghost light was recently redirected to this page, but the last version prior to the redirect appears to have content which is not present here. I don't know anything about the subject, so I can't {{sofixit}} myself — it would be good if an editor knowledgeable about the subject could review the old ghost light page to see whether anything (such as the list of locations?) is useful to incorporate here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge completed due to policy prohibiting original research: Ghost light is a made-up idea that is essentially original research propagated by the usual suspects. Find a reliable source that clearly disambiguates them if you think differently. ScienceApologist 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, please do NOT merge "Ghostlight" into this article. There are reports on this matter. See RealWorldMysteries.com for more, and is THAT a reliable source ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Merging a topic with it's origins in a literary subject such as western folklore with a page that covers international beliefs in the paranormal is a bad bad idea. For a start, it could well breach the established consensus on framing that states that paranormal topics must be clearly and definitively framed as being so by mixing and matching a paranormal topic with a literary one. If you merged these two pages you would be stating that these terms were interchangeable, which would them mean that you could use genuine historical sources about folklore to lend false legitimacy to modern urban myths and unscientific beliefs. You wouldn't want that, would you?
There is also the international perspective to think of. The term Will-o'-the-wisp originates from the UK and was exported to the US and it hasn't spread much further, and it exists entirely in folklore, whereas the term Ghostlight is international and is used to describe scientific phenomona, unscientific beliefs, and miss identifications (eg high beams seen from a distance, etc) that are completely unrelated to US/UK folklore about Will-o'-the-wisp.
The two terms might have superficial similarities, but when you dig deeper they are very different.
perfectblue (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
... is another popular term for ghost lights, but please don't try and redirect it here as well. Although "spooklights" is used interchangeably with "ghost lights", it also has a specific usage, referring to a specific case called "Devil's Promenade". In other words, it needs it's own article and shouldn't be redirected. This is an FYI for merge-happy folks. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have undone the merge. There was no consensus for it, and until ScienceApologist achieves consensus for merging, edit warring over the merge merely continues his pattern of disruption. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggest renaming to "Will-o'-the-wisps and ghost lights" and merging. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just dropped in on this article for the first time. The article is almost totally unreferenced. The quibbling here over minor points doesn't seem productive given the current state of the article in terms of references (and to some extent, writing quality). Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I note that there exists a reasonable explaination for Min-Min lights as detailed here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s818193.htm which I feel should probably be incorperated into this entry (though it is already descussed in the Min-Min light article, it should apply outside of Australia as well I presume) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.181 (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Chime in, what does everyone want it to cover? In other words, what do you feel might have been lost in a merge? I feel it needs to substantially cover the American folklore surrounding these lights. Anything else? --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested that the Pixy-light page be merged into this one, since pixy-light appears to be just another name for will-o'-the-wisp. Alessandriana (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:English folklore is itself a category within Category:European folklore. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the explanations is definitly pseudoscience of the highest order. I have noted it as such. Anyone with any background in Physics or Geology can quickly see it is crap. Curiously, Paul Deveraux also puts forth 'theories' about crop circles and their ilk. Also, word to the wise: anyone who even contemplates ley lines is either ignorant of statistics, or a fraud. -Casito 01:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know of any stories in Ireland for a Will O' The Wisp? Anybody know of any? --Bardcom (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have two independent accounts from different witnesses in Ireland. Interestingly they both were in the 'the late twenties' and within two or three miles of each other in north County Dublin. Though I have no desire to see these accounts added, they are stories of 'Will O' The Wisp' in Ireland (though the name "Jack o' Lantern" was used) and they do satisfy me that we are talking about a real or several different real phenomena. Sir smellybeard (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There's very little about US will-o'-wisps, spooklights, ghost lights, etc. It's all European folklore and no American folklore (except the list of "other names"). If someone would care to start/develop a section under "folklore" about American folklore, that'd be awesome. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Italian chemists Luigi and Mario..." Is there an actual reference for this? Mobagshot (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
People in Eufaula, OK using the word "fox-fire" to describe the same phoneme. Found on a mp3 recording from Clark Davis link below. it's kind of lently. [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfarrow (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, technically wisps are featured in Fable. They are ghostly balls.... http://fable.wikia.com/wiki/Wisps this will explain what I am try to say. 208.96.126.118 (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
"Barn owls also have white plumage that may reflect enough light from sources such as the moon to appear as a will-o'-the-wisp; hence the possibility of the lights moving, reacting to other lights, etc." this seems extremly implausible looking at the picture next to the sentence. How can an owl hover still over the water?--128.39.17.82 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The entire "scientific explanations" section is bs. What is a "scientific explanation" of a folk belief. You may easily list any number of luminescent phenomena which may have helped inspire this folk belief, but by doing so, you are listing luminescent phenomena, you are not discussing the folk belief in question. This article is not called "list of possible natural light sources in swamps", it is supposed to discuss a widespread folk belief. The academic discipline responsible for this is folklore studies, not the pseudo-scientific nonsense about owl plumage and swamp gas. As with all folk beliefs, the tale grows in the telling. It is extremely naive, and indeed proper pseudo-scholarship, to take folk tales at face value and seek for unbelievably implausible scenarios that may account for them happening in this exact manner, say an owl hovering over an eruption of swamp gas or what have you. This is childish, and unworthy of a serious article about folklore.
What this article needs is
Also, it is incredibly naive to treat "old folk tales" as independent of, and prior to, literature. Seriously, who would write an "encyclopedia article" if they do not have the first idea of the field in question? The Rime of the Ancient Mariner dates to 1798. Paradise Lost to 1667. I would be surprised if any of the "old folk tales" touted as primary evidence for this belief are even nearly as old. These descriptions in "literature" are, in fact, likely to be the oldest descriptions we have, and thus of primary importance. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"It is a natural effect caused by the oxidation of phosphine and methane, produced by organic decay." One thing I am sure of: this does not belong in the article in the unqualified and un-refrenced manner in which is stated in the introduction.Sir smellybeard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC).
If "Will o' the Wisp" means "William of the Wisp" then the plural is "Wills o' the Wisp" and not "Will-o-the-wisps".80.203.30.43 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No mention of floating ghostly fireballs as the ubiquitous sign of the supernatural in Japan? Either here or in the article for foxfire? For shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't these just be fireflies? Seems like a pretty likely explanation to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
"In these tales, protagonists named either Will or Jack are doomed to haunt the marshes with a light for some misdeed."
One who is up to misdeeds would be an antagonist, not a protagonist. I will make the change.
Levontaun (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Will-o'-the-wisp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
i saw a light coming towards me. it followed me for a while until i took a fork in the path. there was no sound from it at all. it was just a ball of blueish light.84.212.111.156 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
This article covers the general topic about such light phenomena or folklore (world wide / location independent), but "Will-o'-the-wisp" is a term, which is used only in some few western countries and not world-wide at all. Most of the rest of the world has their own terms for such phenomena or folklore (in fact, no other language use anything related to "Will-o'-the-wisp" - some even share the same or a similar term of "licht" or latin derivation like "follet / fatuo"). Such folklores existed long before the old english language, like the chinese or japanese folklores, which describe such light phenomena. Due to the world-wide "special status" of the english language, which is used for international communication, I think a more general term like "Foolish fire" or the latin version "Ignis fatuus" are much more neutral terms and should be favored instead of "Will-o'-the-wisp". Or, alternatively, the article could be separated and renamed to something like "Will-o'-the-wisp (English folklore)", although I personally wouldn't appreciate it, since this topic describes folklores world-wide, not only the irish ones. I'm personally not from the US or England and I never heard "Will-o'-the-wisp" before, nor do I know a single other person knowing this term. I would appreciate a more neutral name. --185.159.157.11 (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Will-o'-the-wisp. 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:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://sites.google.com/site/realspooklight/homeWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Will-o'-the-wisp. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I just reverted a change by User:83d40m that altered the entire article such that the subject was referred primarily as ignis fatuus. I felt this amounted to a article rename, and thus not appropriate for a single user to undertake unilaterally. If renaming the article is something that should be done, it should be discussed here.
83d40m asserts that ignis fatuus is "the generic name" for the phenomenon, while Will-o'-the-wisp is "the British folklore name". I disagree with this categorization, and furthermore object to the supposed superiority and inferiority implicit in it. Why is "the generic name" more correct? Just because it's in Latin? We are not discussing taxonomy; the Latin name is not less ambiguous. Even if ignis fatuus was the scientific name of an organism, English Wikipedia does not refer to organisms with the scientific name as primary when a consensus common name exists in English. For example, Wolf contains 322 instances of "wolf", 374 instances of "wolves" and only 23 instances of "Canis lupus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.173.2 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.