Talk:Ghost light (disambiguation)

Theatrical meaning?

Should this page have some mention of the meaning of the phrase "ghost light" in theatre? (That is, one light on the stage that's left on when you leave the theatre.) See here for a bit more info. —Josiah Rowe 03:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would presume that a new page followed by a disambiguation is most appropriate. While the two share a name, they are most definetly seperate, except for maybe in etymology. ProfMoriarty 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not sure whether the theatrical meaning can support a page on its own — it would pretty much be a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created Ghost light (disambiguation). (Emperor 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

I've removed the stagecraft mention as it isn't appropriate for this page. Such mixed entries are only appropriate for disambiguation pages so I added it there. If you want to go itno more detail then I'd suggest starting the definition over on Wiktionary as there is no such entry. (Emperor 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Re-write Draft

I am currently working on a re-write at User:ProfMoriarty/Ghost light. Any and all help and advice is greatly appreciated. ProfMoriarty 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply no longer have the time. I apologize and I hope the other contributors do very well working on this page. ProfMoriarty 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Any objections to redirecting this article to Will-o'-the-wisp? ScienceApologist 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - Ghostlights are a very broad category of which one of the explanations may well be will-o'-the wisps. There is no need to redirect. (Emperor 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Do you have a citation for this belief? ScienceApologist 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters it says so in the article but yes I can provide more sources and will add them later. (Emperor 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment: Consensus needs more than one person. If you have a problem with the validity of the article, request citations there. Until there are at least a few more users commenting on the merge, it is inappropriate to redirect. -JWGreen 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have requested the citations. I'm going to tag the article. ScienceApologist 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously if this is a low-traffic article, it may take an excessive amount of time for the other users to comment. In that case, it seems appropriate to do so after some reasonable amount of time, perhaps a week. Antelan ^talk 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be worth alerting the Paranormal Project - I'm sure the editors will have some input on this. (Emperor 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Can we go back and keep the article vs. having a re-direct? There are other ghost lights other than the Will-o'-the-wisp. TruthIsStrangerThanFiction (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of the articles I looked for were Marfa lights and Light of Saratoga. They are not listed in the 'wisp' page. The 'wisp' page just gives what looks like translation from other cultures & traditions. I don't know if these two would fit properly here or even here: Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture. TruthIsStrangerThanFiction (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they fit there? They look like they work to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'wisp' page and its content is not as common or generic as the 'Ghost light' page. I would think that an end user looking for "ghost lights" would type in just that, and see an article with a branching of the different subjects to explore. That's my input. TruthIsStrangerThanFiction (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, "will o the wisp" is the term that is usually used for such claims. Although not everyone may be familiar with this term, if a person types in "ghost light" and arrives at that page they shouldn't be astonished. More than this, I'm not sure what is more generic about "ghost light". Can you name something that is clearly a ghost light but NOT a will o the wisp? The two things you mentioned, for example, certainly qualify for the will o' the wisp definition. I also didn't see anything on the previous incarnation of this article that couldn't be included at the will o' the wisp page. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Term "will o the wisp" applies only to literary folklore, not to the paranormal. It's also almost exclusively found in UK/US folklore. You'd not find a serious debunker describing themselves as having investigated "will o the wisp", would you? In fact debunkers don't usually use the terms unless they are either using it as a metaphor (they are refering to sometihn gas bien g insubstantial), or are referring directly to folklore. perfectblue (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Scienceapologist, when redirecting, don't forget to bring information from the source article to the destination article. thanks. I've reverted the redirect for now to make it easier for you to do this. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"will o the wisp" is a purely western term used near exclusively to refer to instances in folklore, Ghostlight is a paranormal term used to describe a wider phenomona that may be completely unrelated to folklore and which is reported the world over. For example, Japanese Ghostlights are said traditionally held to be lanterns carried by spirits as they parade through forests (etc) and they are completely unrelated to western "will o the wisp" folkore. They don't even use the same terminology, let alone have cultural links.

perfectblue (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging as Pro-Paranormal POV Pushing?

I am strongly opposed to any moves that try to lend false legitimacy to paranormal ghost light legends/myths by linking them to established literary topics such as folklore. To do so would be pro-Paranormal POV pushing it goes against Wiki-regs on sources.

perfectblue (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghostlight needs to be referenced to a third party source, or else we cannot have a separate article on it. I have merged the useful content will of the wisp per Totnesmartin's suggestion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue has been making a lot of plain statement of fact, but I need to see some citations backing up his claim before taking him seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a consensus for merging. So please don't do it till consensus emerges. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read over perfectblue's statement. It's a POINT, not an actual argument against merging. Antelan ^talk 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, but I do know that no one has presented any outside citations for or against the redirect, and while no consensus has been reached, it seems to be leaning against redirect right now. Please refrain from blanking the page and redirecting until either consensus is reached or verifiable citations are given for doing so. -JWGreen (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please demonstrate the relevant WP policy for this request. Antelan ^talk 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to redirect, you have to form consensus. You haven't. So try, and if you fail, just accept it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you missed my point. I want JWGreen, who showed up out of the blue, to demonstrate the part of wikipedia policy that states that we have to get "citations" for merging the articles. Antelan ^talk 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think that Perfectblue needs citations, why shouldn't you provide citations. Citations are irrelevant according to policy, however, you think they are, so I think it should go both ways. I think thats fair. However, if you want to stick to policy, reach concensus. At the time of the redirect, the only person who was explicity for the redirect was ScienceApologist and Perfectblue had opposed. 1 to 1 does not constitute concensus. Does that help clear it up? -JWGreen (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, I don't know what he meant by that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure either. I have asked him on his talk page for further comment. It is strange how impartial he sounded in that comment. In looking over the edit history, I see that he is the one person who has vocalized an opposition to the merger. I am discounting perfectblue's comment for the reason I said before. Antelan ^talk 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As for how I ended up on the page, at the time it had a blurb about ghost lights in theatre so it was in my watchlist still. After watching it being blanked multiple times without concensus, I decided to weigh in. The first revert was because it hadn't even been discussed on the talk page before redirecting, the second because no concensus had been reached, in fact from reading the talk page concensus seemed to be leaning towards not redirecting. -JWGreen (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue counts. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked perfectblue for a clarification, since the rationale provided is in opposition to all editing perfectblue has done to this point. At any rate, I think that the argument itself fails. Antelan ^talk 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if as PB says they are really different things and shouldn't be confused, that seems like a valid argument. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PB says that this merge would confer false legitimacy on the paranormal. Hence, my doubt that this is a real concern. Antelan ^talk 01:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please work toward consensus, and assume good faith. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AGF is a policy that explicitly incorporates exceptions and also carries the caveat of "use common sense." By using common sense I can distinguish a genuine rationale from one that is, at best, ironic. Antelan ^talk 06:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I've used that point before. You do have a point here, but what we should actually consider is whether the argument is valid -however PB means it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghost light

The problem with the term "ghost light" is that no reliable sources use it distinguished from Will-o'-the-wisps and other similar phenomena. While it is true that Will-o'-the-wisps have a definite British origin, they have been used in a broader sense to mean any distracting, ethereal light that misleads travelers. For example, while will-o'-the-wisp appears in the American Heritage Dictionary, the Hougton-Mifflin Thesaurus, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, "ghost light" does not appear in any of those locations. If we are going to have an article about ghost light here at Wikipedia, it needs to be adequately sourced. We can source Will-o'-the-wisp. We cannot source "ghost light". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't care whether this article is redirected or not, but I don't feel that the proper procedure is being followed. Concensus still seems not to be met, and now WP policy is being thrown around for and against without concidering the real issue of concensus. Now its been redirected with the rational of WP:AGF, which while I may have violated that policy in my edit summary, I don't feel that the policy is meant to be used to blank an entire page without concensus, especially when there are users opposed to the redirect (Martinphi, perfectblue). I don't have the time (or care that much) to actually read the whole policy to determin whether ScienceAppologist was following policy in blanking the page with the rational of WP:AFG. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to determine that. I'll continue to watch this, but won't take any action until the page is redirected and argument has settled or left alone, and if redirection is the concensus, it will free up the page to be a disambig page pointing to ghost lights in theatre and will o the whisps, (Ghost lights in theatre is the reason I was watching the page in the first place). Until then, in the words of Charles Shultz, good grief. -JWGreen (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All this trumpeting about consensus is meaningless until someone provides us with a reliable source that indicates that there are people who consider ghost light to be an independent topic. See WP:PSTS and WP:FRINGE for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That one's easy, look at the instances of ghost lights (many are wikilinked here), most don't even refer to wil o the whisp except in figurative terms, let alone state clearly that they are one in the same. Do you have sources to show that the terms are interchangeable? and I mean sources from a serious student of folklore, not some scientist who knows his physics and thus can debunk something as being not paranormal, but whom is unfamiliar with the actual topic at hand which is folklore, not science. perfectblue (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

JWGreen, since you no longer contest the merger, that leaves only Perfectblue (since Martinphi has not made a statement about opposing the merger himself). Perfectblue stated that to merge the articles would be to give too much legitimacy to the Paranormal. This is not a valid argument against redirect; it is a valid argument against presenting the material as being truly paranormal in origin. With that in mind, there appear to be no people who oppose the merger on any procedural or factual grounds. Antelan ^talk 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up any confusion, are you for or against for presenting Ghost lights as being paranormal?

I strongly object to any efforts to describe them as being anything other than a paranormal topic. To do so would be to imply that ghost lights are an accepted fact of science. Can you present any evidence that mainstream science accepts ghost lights as being fact? From where I'm standings, the plain fact of the matter is that I've never seen (nor heard of) any mainstream journal or scientist standing up and state "Yes, we have scientific evidence that ghosts cause ghost lights".

As per the arb coms on the paranormal and on SA/MP come 1) Presenting something as being "Paranormal" doesn't imply that the paranormal exists. 2) Failing to correctly frame a paranormal topic as being a paranormal topic is POV pushing 3) Both sides (Eg that there are paranormal beliefs) must be represented where they exist.

perfectblue (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

JWGreen opposes on procedural grounds, that consensus has not been reached. I oppose on the same grounds. While I don't care if the article is merged myself, I oppose till Perfectblue is given the chance to make a case for not merging the article. A few days. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

JWGreen has withdrawn that opposition. The merger was proposed over a month ago. What is your rationale for opposition? Antelan ^talk 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and nobody has stated a plausible opposition to the merger. Provide a good reason or stop the obstructionism. Antelan ^talk 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No one really cares what you personally believe. Perfectblue stated an objection which you dismiss purely because of your interpretation of PB's editing history- disreguarding both the argument itself, and AGF, and the fact that you might be wrong about PB. So, let things go for a while till PB has a chance to respond. It isn't obstructionism to defend another user or request that things be taken slow so as to foster consensus. There is nothing urgent about this page. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The AGF guideline is clear about when it does and does not apply. You may want to reread it. This merger has been in the works for over one month, which is a considerable time to let consenus form. It has formed, and you have not brought an argument to bear against the merger. It will be carried out unless you make some sort of actual objection. If perfectblue still disagrees, they can comment and make changes when they return, and the merger can be reviewed at that time. Antelan ^talk 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't manufacture consensus. If you want a legitimate move, as opposed to a move gang-edited in, you will have to actually convince people. AGF applies to PB. Consensus has not formed, see talk page above. And claiming consensus when not giving people enough time to respond is not consensus. So, wait a couple days more, and if there are not any objections then it will be legitimate to move, and we will do it with consensus. I will not abide the manner in which SA, condoned and helped by you, wish to edit by force rather than consensus- as others basically point out above. The objection here -on my part- is to the nonconsensus style of editing, and the failure to AGF. Till proper process is done, I'll oppose merger- and the desire to give enough time that all points of view can be heard and consensus can be built is a valid reason to oppose a merge. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So as far as content is concerned, you see no objection to the merger? Antelan ^talk 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the subject, except that bogs produce gas and something about little mens with lanterns and one foot. Which I got from Harry Potter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a reason to oppose the merger, SA has done it BACKWARDS.

To put thing in simple terms "ghost light" is paranormal terminology used to describe ANY AND ALL unexplained lights other than those attributed to UFOs. Whereas "wil 'o the whisp" describes a single form of unexplained light as found in folklore. Therefore Ghost Lights are the higher level of categorization and thus the master field.

If there is to be a merger, "wil 'o the whisp" should be added onto the end of "ghost light" as "wil 'o the whisp" IS a form of ghost light, rather than the other way around. For example, think of "wil 'o the whisp" as being a baseball team and "Ghost light" as being a baseball league. You wouldn't merge the page on the league into the page on the team, but you would merge the page on the team into the page on the league.

Of course, my main reason for opposition remains that "Ghost light" is a generic international paranormal term with little or no legitimacy and little or no academic history, whereas "wil 'o the whisp" is a specific instance drawn from a literary subject (folklore) with a strong academic background.

Let me put this in the terms of skeptic who is against pro-paranormal POV pushing. By merging "Ghost lights" with "wil 'o the whisp" you are POV pushing that ghost lights have the same academic status as "wil 'o the whisp". If I were to merge a page on anti-gravity in Ufology with a page on the scientific study of gravity I'm certain that SA would revert it for this very reason.

• WP:Weight: SA's merger is weighed towards the topic being pure folklore, whereas "ghost lights" are paranormal urban myth. the page should reflect this.
• WP:NPOV: SA's merger reflects the folklore beliefs about ""wil 'o the whisp"" but not the paranormal beliefs about "ghost lights". SA was already warned in the SA-Mp arbcom that in order to meet NPOV standards a topic must reflect all significant views. It is a significant view that most "ghost lights" are not folklore, and a significant belief that they are paranormal.
• Arbcom: As per the Arbcom, paranormal topics must be clearly framed as such. SA's merger does little to frame ghost lights as being paranoraml. Thus it implies that they are either scientific or literary (folklore). This could be posed as lending them undue legitimacy.

Arbcom: As per the Arbcom, where debate exists it should be recorded. There is clearly debate as to whether ghost lights are scientifically explainable, whether they are culturally explainable, or whether they are the result of spooks and ghouls, etc. SA's merger does not reflect this debate and therefor implies that there is no debate: lit, that science and folklore accept ghost lights as being real. Again, this could be posed as lending undue legitimacy to "ghost lights" and is POV pushing. In reality, most folklorists don't cover ghost lights unless they form part of a cohesive story rooted to a local area/culture.

• Content: SA redirected a page without copying over content. This amounts to a deletion of the page. There is no consensus that the page should be deleted. Such an action could be construed as an attempt to bypass procedure. Which is not how things should be done here.
• Notability: By redirecting the page without transferring content, SA failed to assert the notability of the term "Ghost light"
• Verifiability: SA's merged page fails to verify that "Ghost light" is a real topic in either science or the paranormal

perfectblue (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue vs Perfectblue: "SA's merged page fails to verify that "Ghost light" is a real topic in either science or the paranormal" ... "SA redirected a page without copying over content. This amounts to a deletion of the page."

If it's not a "real topic," how is deleting this page problematic? Moreover, as SA asks below, are your assertions verifiable? If so, please verify them with sources. SA has already supported his arguments with sources, which is why I support the merger. I'm open to changing my mind, but you'll have to give me a reliable source demonstrating that these topics are not intertwined. Antelan ^talk 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Won't somebody please think of the sources?

In all the rather pointless machinations above, no one (and by no one I mean perfectblue and Martin) has provided a reliable source that indicates that "ghost light" is a term that is of broader "paranormal significance" than Will-o'-the-wisp. I have provided three mainstream sources (the American Heritage Dictionary, the Houghton-Mifflin Thesaurus, and the Columbia Encyclopedia) which all do not acknowledge the existence of the term "ghost light" while attributing the qualities found in the previous incarnation of this article to will-o'-the-wisp. My argument is one based purely on sources and nothing more. I would like to see one mainstream source that disambiguates between will-'o-the-wisps and ghost lights as perfectblue is attempting to insinuate happens. Until then, I'm perplexed as to what the rationale can possibly be against a merge. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you are right about the sources, and you are probably right to merge (based on the fact PB doesn't seem to have any sources). But you are very wrong to have edit warred this change in, and I've reported it for what it might be worth. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just ran ""ghost light" folklore" through scholar.google.com and found it named so in folklore journals. I think that on inspection one would see that this is a more scientific term. I have myself never heard it as will'o'wisps, and you should rather prove that is correct. Also I notice that the lead seems to state that science has explanations for everything. Ugh. Somebody who actually know anything about the subject should rescue Ghost Light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 15:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I see that this is being dealt with. Thought this was all the debate till now. Still think it needs to be reframed as the lead improperly defines the scope of the term.--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation and redirect?

I'm no power editor and maybe I'm off base. But if there is a disambiguation page, shouldn't the default term itself redirect to that? If you type in "Ghost Light", you get sent to the "Will-o-the-wisp" page, with absolutely no indication that there are other meanings. You have to explicitly type "Ghost light (disambiguation)" to reach that page. I submit that most people won't know to (or bother to) look for that page when just looking up a term they've run across.

I suppose I'm just going from my experience, but I've come across the theatrical use of "ghost light" a heck of a lot more than I've ever heard its use as "will of the wisp". It seems absurd that the latter is the default redirect.

Gilroy0 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. ScienceApologist says that we can't source "ghost light". However, think of this as an example - If you think of the word "Search", it takes you to a disambig page with quite a few different applications of the meaning. I think the same applies to the "ghost light". That term "wisp" is something I really hadn't heard used where I am from, so I agree with you. TruthIsStrangerThanFiction (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We should disambiguate ghost light to ghost light (disambiguation). That's a good idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of the discussion and what I meant. This "wisp" label is not as common as you may think. You yourself used these words earlier on: From my understanding..., and Although not everyone may be familiar with this term, if a person types in "ghost light" and arrives at that page they shouldn't be astonished. [1] From your post here [2], granted the wisp term may appear in the sources you refer to. This does not mean that "wisp" is more popular. Do you have a reliable reference to show why it is more popular? All you did was create a link to the wisp page in the disambig, nothing more. I think this should have a broader view, and I believe others would agree. TruthIsStrangerThanFiction (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that ghost light is a parochial term that has not been properly sourced. We have plenty of sources that describe will-o'-the-wisps but none that reliably define (let alone discuss) ghost lights. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)