Talk:Will-o'-the-wisp

(Piezoelectric)

Piezoelectric is the accepted spelling of the word linked in this article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.138.223 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2005

Thanks. I fixed it. You can, of course, fix anything like that which you find by yourself. -- John Fader (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Pseudoscience)

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)

69's edits to the article immediately preceded their 2-edit contrib here. I have assumed that their use of a horizontal rule reflected unawareness of how to indent below what they probably responded to, and reflected that.^{--Jerzy•t 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

• I edited the language, which was NPOV and with a negative bias against science itself. Feel free to attack the theories, or give a criticism of the scientific method, but don't just brush it off. -Anon 06 Nov 2005
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.168.98 (talk) 17:18 & :19, 6 November 2005
  

PB may well have been innocently confused by the horizontal-rule that then began 69's contrib, and have contributed above 69's previous comment on Casito's contrib, without realizing it was a comment on the same previous contrib.^{--Jerzy•t 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

• pseudoscience is still valid here, there is even a category specially for it
  perfectblue 11:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Pseudoscience is by definition invalid. We have a category for it bcz when an invalid claim that a specific form of BS is scientific becomes a notable claim, the claim is worthy of coverage. Pseudoscience is not "valid" in any sense that permits WP articles to present any of its unfounded theories as facts or plausible candidates for scientific verification.
    --Jerzy•t 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    
  • It's not uncommon to confuse "pseudo" (Greek, i think) with "quasi" (Italian, and surely also Latin). "Quasi" means "like", "similar to". In contrast, "pseudo" is quite specific in meaning "false" -- except when it is used to intimate intention: i.e. to mean "fake".
    --Jerzy•t 05:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    

(usage)

The retrofitted section title reflects the contributor's edit summary.

I have removed some assertions about word usage that appear to be contradicted by entries in the OED:

will-o'-the-wisp, n. SECOND EDITION 1989

1. = IGNIS FATUUS; fig. a thing (rarely a person) that deludes or misleads by means of fugitive appearances.

() 7-9 will of the wisp, o' the wisp (8 o' th', 9 o-the-); also with hyphens and one or two capital initials.

1661 BLOUNT Glossogr. (ed. 2), Ignis Fatuus, foolish fire, or (as the Country people call it) Will of the Wisp.

1748 RICHARDSON Clarissa (1768) V. 115 Knowledge by theory only is a vague uncertain light: a Will o' the Wisp. 1760

STERNE Tr. Shandy III. xxxi, All the polemical writings in divinity are not as clear and demonstrative as those upon a

Will o' the Wisp, or any other sound part of philosophy. 1806-7 J. BERESFORD Miseries Hum. Life (1826) XVII. i, Those

Wills-o-the-wisp, the Reviewers. 1831 SCOTT Cast. Dang. xi, Through what extraordinary labyrinths this Love, this Will-of-:the-Wisp, guides his votaries. 1840 DICKENS Old C. Shop l, I'll be a Will o' the Wisp, now here, now there. 1840

THACKERAY Paris Sk.-bk. (1869) 190 No light except that of..the wicked..wills-o'-the'wisp, as they gambol among

the marshes. 1858 GREENER Gunnery 208 Proof positive, that we have been on the wrong scent, and running after a ‘Will

o' the Wisp.’ 1879 HUXLEY Sensation Sci. & Cult. (1881) 247 The metaphysical Will-o'-the-wisps generated in the marshes

of literature and theology. 1918 W. R. INGE Philos. Plotinus I. 188 The utterly unscientific notion of an automatic ‘law

of progress’, that strange Will-o'-the-wisp of nineteenth-century

Skyraider 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Name

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)

A - Outside of the modern Hallowe'en usage of "Jack o' Lantern", the phrase "Jack the Lantern" or "Jacky Lantern" refers to the same range of phenomena as "Will o' the Wisp." I've added a bit on the "Jack o' Lantern" page to clarify this. --Dalejarvis 14:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A plausible theory

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)

other names

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)

Terminology

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)

Omphalotus

I removed this sentence

" Bioluminescent spore-clouds from the Jack o'lantern mushroom (Omphalotus olearius) released at night may produce an effect similar to ball lightning."

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)

Requested move

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 [1]. Tim Q. Wells 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has voiced any opposition, and indeed Britannica spells it "will-o'-the-wisp" (in the article "jack-o'-lantern"). This article has been renamed from Will o' the wisp to will-o'-the-wisp as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(Balts)

I see that they write, "Estonians and Latvians amongst some other groups believed that a will-o'-the-wisp marked the location of a treasure deep." I have checked all the sources listed (and a few others) for the original source for this statement but can't find it. I would appreciate some help. Thanks!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerk22 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 July 2007

Electric Currents Theory?

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)

Ghost light

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 for sure, not that you need much consensus for this no-brainer. I'm in the middle of my NaNoWriMo but if I get a sec I'll try to do it. --24.90.15.204 01:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge My Ass! The individual articles reference "Ghost Light", NOT "Willow The Wisp". Now its all screwed up. 65.163.112.205 06:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge, Ghost lights is about general terminology, whereas will o the wisp is about a specific phenomona of folklore/myth. They might seem superficially similar if you don't look too closely, or if you aren't aware of the backgrounds of the topics in question, but once you look deeper the divisions are clear. Merging these two pages would be like merging George W. Bush into Neoconservatism, or a page a specific fire into the page on the NRA. - perfectblue 15:54, 1 December 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)

"The usual suspects"? who are these "suspects" and what are they suspected of? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not one of them, Totnesmartin. Don't worry. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Glow in the Dark Birds ?! WTF!!!! Are You Shitting Me ?!

WTF is that about ?! 65.163.112.205 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Photographic evidence?

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)

Re.:Ghost Light

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)

I think the point of merging is that will o' the wisp and ghost lights are the same thing (IMO), just with different opinions about them (ie real vs folklore) - there's no reason we can't have both in one article. I've not come across that website, but there are various reliable sources for the real-world phenomenon. Remember that merging isn't deleting, so need to panic about losing information. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:01, 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)

Perfectblue, you're going to have to provide a source to back up your claim that "Ghostlight is international and is used to describe scientific phenomona". Color me completely dubious. I have combed the Columbia University library looking for a third party source that backs up such a claim and have come up with a grand total of zero sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Spooklight

... 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)

Spooklight here at Wikipedia is a reference to a particular will-o-the-wisp. However, I haver read some sources which have used "spooklight" in a more general sense: usually in reference to will-o'-the-wisps seen in the southern United States. Incidentally, this is in marked contrast to the extreme lack of sources that use the term "ghost light" in a universal sense. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's not an extreme lack of sources, by any means. I've had to go really digging for sources on Wikipedia before, but this one took less than 30 sec. "Spooklights" and "ghost lights" are both common terms used all the time to describe the less commonly used (in modern times) will-o'-wisp. Because will-o'-wisp is more WP:N, the under-developed ghost light article could be merged here, no problem. But if an enterprising editor wanted to split it off at some point and actually develop the article well, ghost light could just as easily be justified per WP:NAME, which calls for common names to be used. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the MERGE, people will get the impression that Wikipedia does NOT know the difference between a Will-o'-the-wisp and a ghostlight, since the former is seen in SWAMPY LANDS, while a ghostlight, such as the Marfa Lights, and one in IRAN are seen in a DESERT area. This merge will further damage Wikipedia's reputation. Agree ? Disagree ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Will-o'-the-wisps have taken on a larger connotation than that with which they were originally charged. Since the context of the coining of the neologism was Great Britain, it was only natural that the Will-o'-the-wisp was associated with the moorlands (there are no deserts in England). Today, however, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford Comprendium of Folklore, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and the Houghton-Mifflin Thesaurus all agree that will-o'-the-wisps have been used to describe phenomena beyond their parochial beginnings. If you can point to a reliable source which indicates that this is not the case, please do so. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:13, 8 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see continued discussion at Talk:Ghost light#Won't somebody please think of the sources?. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-European coverage

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)

Rename and merge

Suggest renaming to "Will-o'-the-wisps and ghost lights" and merging. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary in my opinion. Just add a new section called "Spooklights and ghost lights" and fill it up. There isn't anything substantial in the ghost light article that needs a spin-off. It's only after the section becomes to large for the main article that you'd do a spin-off and that doesn't appear necessary here. The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article.

Despite the ideas thrown around about how ghost lights differ from will-o'-wisps, they are essentially the same phenomena with only a cultural distinction. Will-o'-wisps aren't just folklore/myth. People claim to actually see them from time to time the same as ghost lights (ie. phenomena). All the same explanations are given for each. Ghost lights aren't just phenomena, they are just as folkloric as will-o'-wisps (ie. legends and stories surround them), just folklore from a different part of the world. All these ideas about the two terms are interchangeable. The only real distinction is cultural. Will-o'-wisps are predominantly European, spooklights are predominantly American, ghost lights are mostly American. Cultural views are just that, views. The way we deal with various views at Wikipedia is present various sections. When one section becomes too large, we do a spin-off.

What to name the article is covered by WP:NAME which asks for the most common or notable name people use. Will-o'-wisps is more notable than either spooklights or ghost lights because they have a longer history in Europe than the other terms do here. Most in-depth articles covering spooklights and ghost lights mention will-o'-wisps as well.

Just name it will-o'-wisps, make a new section about spooklights and ghost lights, and be patient until someone actually writes enough information to form a spin-off article. Currently this article is roughtly 22 KB. It can take it. That's one option. The other is that someone can develop the other article enough stand on its own, something it currently doesn't do well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, since no one else is talking about spooklights, I was raised in the southern US, in South Carolina and Georgia. We've always called them spooklights. I thought I might be biased on the subject, so I double-checked. Even outside the South, but still in the US and North America, "spooklights" trump "ghost lights" on notability : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's my impression too, Neal. I think, however, that spooklights as a colloquial usage is heavily biased towards the southern US. You said earlier you didn't want spooklights to redirect here, but what about a disambiguation page? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind it redirecting here, but I wouldn't want to see the article that's currently there get lost in the shuffle. So these are the things that would need to happen to make such a move ideal:

1. The current spooklight article would need to be altered to be a standalone article about that specific case. In other words, the information about spooklights in general would be removed from the lead (although it should still contain some information about how its "The Spooklight"). Not necessary, reads fine.
2. A substantial section would need to be written here that covers spooklights. It could include "ghost lights" as well. These are decent sources to start with [2] [3].
3. The top of this page would need a "This article is about Will-o'-the-wisp and Spooklights in general, see also The Spooklight." Done.
4. Rename the Spooklight article to The Spooklight. Done.

That should cover it. Then there'd be no disambig that would end up just being a list of the various spooklights anyway. Might as well just be called "List of such and such". I think the above handles the situation better. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New "spooklights and ghost lights" section

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)

How is a "Willo the wisp" seen in a damn desert, where there is NO water, such as Texas, Iran, similar places ? 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all will-o'-the-wisps are associated with water. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's water in Texas and Iran. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced priorities?

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)

The quibbling was over whether or not to merge the "ghost lights" article into this one, so it's really less about this article than that one. I don't think anyone was discussing improvements to this article so much as they were discussing if the other one should be dumped. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Explanation

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)

Ireland?

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)

Merger proposal

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:European folklore vs. Category:English folklore

Category:English folklore is itself a category within Category:European folklore. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)