Talk:Fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Torture and execution[edit]

The second paragraph of this section, on torture and execution, is completely irrelevant to the paragraphs above and below it. If there's any point in retaining it, it should probably be moved below the paragraph on fire in warfare. 140.247.0.117 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with you, on both points. Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(issue resolved) cooked food[edit]

In the first paragraph, the sentence "[...] Evidence of cooked food is found from 1.9 million years ago [...]" lacks citation. There is evidence of cooked food from 1 million years ago.[1] Request to make the appropriate edit and add a reference. The article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1603:C00C:15A9:269A:1337:C7DF (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Added your citation and removed [dubious – discuss] tag. User:liua97

Soil erosion and fire[edit]

(The following text was posted on my Talk:User page in rssponse to an edit I made to the Fire page. I'm moving it here so everyone can see it, and comment if they wish. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

Hi there -- I have to say that I disagree with your reversion of my edit to the fire page.

As it now stands, the sentence reads "The negative effects of fire include water contamination, soil erosion, atmospheric pollution and hazard to life and property."

  • Hazard to life and property is obvious, and clearly is very serious and is applicable world-wide.
  • Atmospheric pollution is less obvious (needs some mention of particulates in my opinion) but is serious and world-wide.
  • Ditto water contamination: serious, world-wide but again needs some mention of the physical mechanism involved.
  • Now soil erosion (which is my research background, see David_Favis-Mortlock)... only in those areas of the world which are both relatively arid, and where rain (when it does fall) is intense, is fire an important trigger for soil erosion. In more temperate areas, the effects of accidental fire on erosion are both short-lived and minor: vegetation is not totally destroyed by fire in such areas (the heat does not penetrate so far into damp soils), also fire may well stimulate rapid post-fire new growth of vegetation by release of organic matter (hence slash-and-burn agriculture). Erosion may be increased temporarily and slightly, but it isn't a big deal. There is also deliberate burning: on intensively farmed agricultural areas in temperate regions, burning of crops used to be a regular tillage operation (less common now at least in NW Europe, due to smoke affecting nearby communities; burning of crops may still be practised in less crowded parts of the world). I'm not aware of any soil erosion resulting from deliberate agricultural burning.

So the list of four negative effects of fire consists of three apples and an orange, in my opinion. Soil erosion is the orange, I don't think it should remain in the list. (And other people might wish to say more about two of the apples: i.e. exactly how fire creates negative effects on atmosphere and water).

OK if I remove soil erosion from the list then? Ta!

Dave F-M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Favis-Mortlock (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel that erosion should be included in the list, but if you want to add a comment that it is less harmful than the others, that would be useful. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014[edit]

Under section 1.1 Chemistry, the 3rd paragraph contains a sentence that reads "Without gravity, a fire rapidly surrounds itself with its own combustion products and non-oxidizing gases from the air, which exclude oxygen and extinguish it." The last word, "it", is sufficiently separated from what it refers to, "a fire", that its meaning is unclear. It could be interpreted, for example, to refer to the noun immediately preceding it, "oxygen", which does not make sense. I suggest replacing "extinguish it" with "extinguish the fire". Adventurer61 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: Basic definition as phenomenon, not chemical reaction[edit]

The current "introduction definition" of Fire is as such:

Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.

However, Fire does not typically refer to the oxidation reaction (that would be combustion, oxidation, redox, etc.), rather it refers to the phenomenon of heat, light, and reaction products. So I am suggesting a wording as such:

Fire is the phenomenon of heat, light, and various reaction products emitted by a material that is undergoing a rapid exothermic chemical process of combustion.

This would define the term Fire, and not the reaction behind the fire, which have their own pages 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wijowa (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm with you on this, partially because the emphasis on oxidation has evidently created a perceived need to point out that digestion and rust aren't fire. Changing it to your version would hopefully allow the deletion of the rust/digestion sentence entirely, but even as it stands it needs to be edited. The first sentence contains the definition *of fire*, as such the phrasing of the second sentence means "digestion and rust are not included by this definition (of fire)." I understand it is meant to suggest that slower oxidative processes "are not included in this definition (of oxidation)" but that is not how it reads, syntactically.
This is a bit of a double whammy as well, in that the written definition of fire already includes the phrases "rapid oxidation" and "the exothermic chemical process of combustion". These phrases already eliminate the possibility of rust and digestion; stating that they do so is redundant.99.244.230.178 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems sensible. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

--115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fire in curved space[edit]

Most of reality is nearly flat, the tallest mountain far less than a millimeter above the lowest valley. When I think of fire, I imagine an earthquake of our world falling down a large fault line, a few quanta tall as some atoms come apart (up direction) and fall together (down direction) farther in other combinations, and the quake is felt as light, which is the curve of space, echos outward in many directions like a tidal wave, pushing up the nearly flat surface of reality wherever it may hit and everywhere between.

Everywhere and everything is Event_horizon not just the most extreme parts where we normally think of blackholes.

Fire is Photoelectric_effect extended to molecules instead of just electrons, similar to a nuclear explosion emitting light except it doesnt fall that far.

FIRE[edit]

FIRE IS NOTHING,WE SEE IT BECAUSE ,THE FUEL THAT BURNS IS ACTUALLY CONVERTED INTO GAS,THEN THE GAS STARTS EMITTING HEAT AFTER IT ABSORBS ENOUGH HEAT AND THEN IF IT EMITS ENOUGH HEAT,WE SEE IT AS A FLAME.WE SEE HEAT COLORS AND FLAME OUTLINE CURVED AS THE GAS TRAVELS IN A CURVED PATH AND COLORS AS AT ALTITUDES,THERE IS LESS HEAT FOR MORE HEAT BEING EMITTED115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:B 9 January 2015 (UTC)SARANGA,7B,AKSHARA SCHOOL,KAKINADA

It's good to see your caps lock key works. Σούπερμαν (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Third Introductory Paragraph[edit]

The third introductory paragraph is roughly four times as long as either of the preceding two, yet it primarily focuses on ecological issues. This seems like a severe misrepresentation of the topic at hand. Is nitrogen fixation really so central to the concept of fire that it deserves the better part of a paragraph that is four times longer than the definition of fire itself? If we want to talk about the exact details of ecology as it relates to fire, it seems that it would be better suited to a subsidiary section, and not the introduction itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toph620 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

fire vs combustion vs burning[edit]

It took me a while to figure out what the difference between the fire article and combustion article are supposed to be about because in normal usage they and burning are synonyms. The fire and combustion leads do not clearly define and the difference in scope of the two articles (burning redirects to combustion). Would anyone object to my editing this lead or adding a hatnote to say something like "fire and combustion are frequently used as synonyms but this article's scope is about fire as a phenomenon, an observation or experience, for technical aspects of the chemical reaction and physics see combustion. Jim Derby (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Fire. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fossil record section.[edit]

Hi. I believe the fossil record section should be reworded because the way it is currently worded may give a defence for someone who has done something bad, that being, a gardener who cuts down trees and plants for a reason other than food purposes, by allowing them to claim that if they didn't cut down the trees and plants then a chance of wildfire might occur. Let me be quite clear, such a gardener is guilty of indirectly killing another human being. I suggest someone other than myself edit the section and the appropriate main article. Jondeanmack (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fire. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing referenced picture of Canadian forest fire[edit]

Under section "Flame", second paragraph, the article states, "The photo of the forest fire in Canada is an excellent example of this variation." It then goes on to describe the color/heat variation in that photo. There's no photo of a forest fire in Canada though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.117.13 (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Human control[edit]

Under the section Human control there is a gif that I find offensive. I would like to delete it. I don't know how to edit it and re-upload it et but if someone does then that would be an alternative. I find it offensive on so many levels. The animation is:

  • irritatingly distracting to readers (especially those with poor eyesight)
  • contributes nothing to the article (all readers know what the word "rubbing" means without illustration)
  • racist (if this needs explanation then no explanation would suffice!)

This last aspect is the worst but perhaps too "subtle" for wikipedia to accept and for that reason the other two reasons should be enough to justify deletion or removal of the animation. No editor is associated with the file and I can find no method for reporting or dealing with such files. Advice welcome otherwise I'll delete and take the issue through the relevant process if needed. LookingGlass (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

History[edit]

I was hoping someone would include something about the history of fire in modern civilisation, Tracing back to the stone age, even though this is difficult to research I just think the fact that "lightning igniting a branch" discovered by cavemen then used to cook has been used a lot in fiction that I expected it to be cleared up somewhere. If there is another article where these informations can be found I'd be glad if someone shared it. VictorCreator (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There is literally no information about initial uses of fire - every culture we know about has had fire, the discovery predates any possible evidence of how it was discovered. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fire. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fire. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Fire in its most common form can result in conflagration, which has the potential to cause physical damage through burning

this line is the most retarded one... fire itself can be done without damaging.. or separating"damaging" an estructure? just like o2... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.72.48 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for discussion or chat. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Use as fuel -- updating info fossil fuel use.[edit]

Does anyone want to pull more recent statistics on Fossil fuel usage. Also, would this be a good place to mention Climate change or would that be too off topic? --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017[edit]

change the link INFLAMMABLE to FLAMMABLE - there is no such word as INFLAMMABLE. there is FLAMMABLE, meaning it can burn, and the opposite is NON-FLAMMABLE 82.31.71.235 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: "inflammable; ADJECTIVE: Easily set on fire.'inflammable and poisonous gases'. Usage: The words inflammable and flammable both have the same meaning, 'easily set on fire.'..." Definition from the Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/inflammable), which should be just as authoritative in Lincolnshire as in the rest of the English-speaking word that uses it this way. See also WP:SNODGRASS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"See also" section[edit]

Shouldn't the list include a link to the article fire triangle? It explains the main elements that make up fire, and this article doesn't make mention of it at all, so at leas it should provide a link to that one in the SA section. --2600:1700:5F0:AD20:2178:9AA:B498:DEA0 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018[edit]

Please delete "of course" in "Of course, this does not apply if oxygen is supplied to the fire..." per MOS:NOTE. 5.151.0.111 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Sakura CarteletTalk 02:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018[edit]

202.134.13.140 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK Discuss 04:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

fire is a gas! surprising I know right–°– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.87.88 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018[edit]

External links

 Not done: The external links section is usually reserved for linking to closely related papers and official websites, not generic tip guides related to the subject. — IVORK Discuss 06:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6th December 2018[edit]

Restoration section near the end seems to be mostly US-centric. That's fine, as long as it's marked as such. Could someone with edit-access perhaps reword this section or otherwise make it clear that it's largely for US readers, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.236.92 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Fire for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)The fire was created by trey because he had a basketball game tommorow and he jsaknixniasj

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American Refugee Committee which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

not in citation, etc[edit]

" Fire also kept nocturnal predators at bay. Evidence of cooked food is found from 1.9 million years ago,[19]" <<< The cited source do not have this string "1.9" the closest date is "The basalt member at the base of the Chesowanja Formation has been dated to 1.42±0.07 Ma," and it was site with bones of Australopithecus boisei. Also not only nocturnal predators fire keep at bay; diurnal predators too.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fire&oldid=994520975"