Talk:Brocken spectre

Merge Brocken

Just passing by and noting that the text here have some overlap with the section at Brocken. Probably the text there should be moved here and replaced by a link. Thue 21:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Glory/Brocken

I don't know much about Brocken spectres, but it seems very closely related to the idea of a glory. This isn't really obvious except the small little link. An explanation of the relationship would be nice if someone understands it better. Timbatron 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

glory vs. Heiligenschein

On this page:

"The head of the figure is often surrounded by the glowing halo-like rings of a glory (Heiligenschein), rings of coloured light that appear directly opposite the sun when sunlight is reflected by a cloud of uniformly-sized water droplets."

That sentence appears to equate a glory and a Heiligenschein, which is at odds with the distinction between the two made on the page for Heiligenschein:

"When viewing the Heiligenschein, there are no coloured rings around the shadow of the observer, as in the case of a glory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.115.235 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Glockenspectre

I can find no reliable indications that this term has ever been used prior to its insertion into this article by User:Jxm. I suspect a hoax. I've notified the user. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on this. There indeed doesn't seem to be an authoritative source for the term. However, it's certainly not a hoax, as I know of the word being written by older people numerous years ago. In retrospect, they were probably mistaken. As you pointed out in another msg, most current online usages probably eventually link back to this WP entry. Although some of them (eg [1]) date from well before my 2011 edit. Anyway, what to do? We can simply remove all evidence of glockenspectre and be done. OTOH, perhaps an edit that indicates "sometimes incorrectly known as..." might be more helpful. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! I feel that if there is evidence that it is a frequently-used alternative name, even if wrong or based on a mishearing or whatever, then we should perhaps include it. Descriptive not prescriptive, and all that! :) But if there's only one or two, that are not dependent on this, then I think perhaps it could come out, on the understanding that if good evidence shows up for it it can always go back in. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for questioning your good faith, Jxm. The thread on the Fortean Times forum seems like compelling evidence that the term was already in real (if rare) use at the time and not invented by you. It does sound like a mishearing, though, and glockenspiel may well have inspired this corruption – the alternative possibility I've suggested that it is an intentional pun crossing glory and Brocken spectre sounds too far-fetched to me. "Sometimes incorrectly known as ..." is an acceptable solution: the word may have been even more rare prior to your edit, Jxm, as far as it has helped popularising it, but now the damage has already been done and it is better to correct the mistaken variant rather than to omit it completely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me, with the sole limitation that a thread on the Fortean Times forum may not be the most reliable source ever. But I see your logic regarding the other newer usages. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For documenting language usage, a thread on a forum is as reliable a source as can be, except for the fact that forum threads could potentially be manipulated/hacked (or simply edited years after the fact). But that would be pointless and extremely unlikely in this case, and other online content is equally vulnerable to manipulation, even static websites. That the forum is hosted on the Fortean Times website would not seem to matter at all in this case. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First reference to the phenomenon

There is a reference to this phenomenon that predates the one mentioned in the article. The older reference is in Pierre Bouguer´s La figure de la Terre, page xliiii, paragraph beginning with "On voit presque tous les jours sur le sommet de ces mêmes montagnes..." The book was published in 1749. It is an account of the French expedition to Peru to measure a degree of latitude conducted by Charles Marie de la Condamine and Pierre Bouguer in the 1730s.132.248.66.253 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, and a very accurate description at that! Thanks, this certainly deserves mention in the article (perhaps along with a translation of the passage), also in Glory (optical phenomenon). If you use the version at Archive.org you can add a direct link to the passage: https://archive.org/stream/BUSA297_192#page/n73/mode/2up Drabkikker (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Looks like the display included a fog bow/cloudbow as well: "& enfin à un grande distance nous voyions un grand cercle blanc qui environnoit le tout." (p. xliv). Also, his remarks on the same page on how each individual sees his own personal rainbow are surprisingly accurate. A great find! Drabkikker (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)