Jump to content

Talk:Fart lighting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mythbusters

[edit]

Mythbusters had an "unairable" episode where Adam successfully lights his own flatulence on fire which was recorded using a high speed camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqFRBHPIE-w&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.248.45 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistence on the gas odor

[edit]

The hydrogen sulfide is stated to be odorless first and then to be partially responsible for the fart odor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.47.140 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a Spike Milligan reference

[edit]

From memory he rights about it in "Hitler and my part in his downfall". - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Book wikilink --> My Part in his Downfall. Benjiboi 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

[edit]

This is, without irony, possibly my favourite article on WIkipedia. Thank you to all involved in its creation! --MrTrilby 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article puts to rest any notion that Britannica is better than Wikipedia. --Foxhead (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that Britannica is definitely better than Wikipedia, no doubts about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.250.189 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, if:
“meaning that britannica is definitely better than wikipedia, no doubts about it.”


wasnt actually just a sarcastic response, and someone in the future really doesnt understand, and would like some clarification of the actual meaning of the statement that triggered it:
“this article puts to rest any notion that britannica is better than wikipedia.”


then we can make:
“puts to rest” == (invalidates or proves to be false)
“notion” == (thought or idea or argument)
“x” == (britannica)
“y” == (wikipedia)


and we can say if:
this article “puts to rest” any “notion” that “x” is better than “y”


then that means the same thing as saying:
"this article invalidates or proves to be false any thought or idea or argument that britannica is better than wikipedia." Snarevox (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed the following two sentences because of the poor grammar, syntax, punctuation, and phraseology:

  • In the internet show Angry Kid he is farting on his sister. His sister then farted stronger, on him. He then attempted to bring his fart on fire but it only blew out.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Angry Kid and/or the episode(?) in question, so I was unable to reword it accurately (e.g. does Angry Kid actually fart on his sister, or is this just a poor translation from the contributor's first language?). EmmetCaulfield 10:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

So, umm, someone want to take a pic so we can remove the pic tag at the top? lol -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing it! :-) Bearian'sBooties 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie references

[edit]

1981 movie Caveman

[edit]

I think the "References in popular culture" section needs a reference to the lit fart scene in the 1981 movie "Caveman" with Ringo Star, Barbara Bach, Shelley Long and John Matuszak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucepick (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think the references to popular culture are quite interesting and relevant in terms of background on the overall stunt of fart lighting. I suggest reverting the "popular culture" section from [1]. There's not much scholarly or academic discussion of fart lighting, so popular culture is the best reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references are trivial, and therefore unsuitable to an encyclopedia article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually trivia sections, especially unrelated, unsourced items are discouraged but not forbidden and an area that many feel wikipedia excels as is another example where wikipedia publishes information relevant and current to our readers. And these are mostly sourced and all correctly related in the section. Ideally the list would be updated and put in date order, oldest to newest. True trivia also aren't to be simply deleted but integrated into the main text as appropriate. This, however, is a list at the moment. Benjiboi 11:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it it discouraged, we should remove the section. It merely invites users to add more nn trivia items. Tell me, how are these notable enough that they can be integrated into the article? Perhaps include the first line of the trivia section in the lead, but there is no need to list the fart lighting references in pop culture--it's simply non-notable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding unsourced and unrelated trivia is indeed discouraged but this is mostly sourced and all related. Juvenile, lame and gross perhaps but perfect material for an encyclopedia that doesn't censor. Sometimes material is better presented as a list which I think might be true in this case. Benjiboi 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, ok. I disagree but give in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to look at this to see if it can simply be converted to prose. Benjiboi 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

I am going to remove these per relevance and WP:ALSO. Maybe they can be worked into the article? Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those are exactly what a See also section if for, links awaiting introduction into the article. Banjeboi 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic content

[edit]

The current image, while slightly humorous, is not particularly illustrative of the topic at hand. Actually, it just looks like a man whose posterior (bum, ass, butt, etc.) is inexplicably on fire. And as for the Zappa quote... well, that's just totally out of place (nothing to do with the section it's placed under). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a quasi-comedic, semi-serious blog. I know it can be difficult to be serious (objective, encyclopedic, etc.) when writing about a topic such as this, but we must honestly try. The article in its current state is almost... well... laughable.Fuzzform (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US bias

[edit]

The whole "Motivations" section seems to be about why and when Americans light their farts (e.g. the reference to "fraternity houses"). Believe it or not it has also been known to happen on the other 93% of the world's land mass as well.

80.7.16.160 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide documentation?216.67.46.134 (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true but as 216.67 anon notes, we need sources, they actually lead the way as to what we should include. Personally I think it would help to show that the activity is worldwide and/or cultural differences. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flamability

[edit]

It should be mentioned that you need some kind of diffusor (underwear or pants) to make the gas ignite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.151.124 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Air is often swallowed with food. This can provide enough oxygen to allow the flatulence to ignite inside the anus. I assure you this can happen if attempted without clthing on the anus. The underwear or pants can be considered a flame holder to minimize the chance of internal flame injury.[reply]

Safety

[edit]

There should be an expanded section on safety. Particularly pointing out the hazards of the ignition of pubic hair, clothing, internal anal burns and the potential for the flame to extend some distance igniting the surroundings particularly bedding, curtains, christmas trees and furniture upholstery. 

98.164.99.154 (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Seriously, wtf is up with the image in the lead? I mean, I recognize the need for an image, but this is a really amateurish, ms-painted, captionless monstrosity. Is there really nothing better that can be done?Sithman VIII !! 02:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image is pretty ridiculous, I have to agree. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Spectrometric Analysis

[edit]

I'm sure a few lab geeks have carefully characterized human emissions using mass spectrometry.

Sadly, this article is sorely lacking supportive documentation.

We need to include objective and reproducible flammability quotients as well as fire-risk assessments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Making an Awesome"?

[edit]

After some Google searching, I can't find a single instance of the phrase "making an awesome" used to describe fart lighting if I exclude content that is quoting (or plagiarizing) Wikipedia. It's also not listed in Urban Dictionary, which is reasonably strong negative evidence. This claim is so dubious (and suggestive of vandalism) that I'm going to remove it outright rather than adding a citation-needed marker. If somebody out there feels that this really is a common term, feel free to add it back—but not without a reference. Gerweck (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fart lighting. 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).

  • 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) 00:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fart lighting. 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).

  • 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) 14:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article should be deleted

[edit]

In my humble opinion, this does not belong in Wikipedia. It is frivolous, juvenile and wholly in conflict with Wikipedia's mission of providing a serious reference tool. Let's have some discussion on this: do you agree? Disagree? I can't find a specific Wikipedia policy that prohibits an article like this, but let's use common sense, people. Yes, you found some references to this crude topic (including some on YouTube) but that doesn't mean it merits an article. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now...

[edit]

"In order to "fire fart", one must have a fart prepared in the anal cavity, and a lighter at the ready. Then they fart onto the lighter."

Really? "Have a fart prepared" and "fart onto the lighter"? this does not feel like encyclopedic language. Wikipedia isn't meant to be instructional, it's informational. Furthermore, I see no source suggesting that "fire fart" is a commonly used term for this. 155.33.134.29 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Scientific Data

[edit]

Data is interesting, but process of combusion could do with more detail. Do we have any scientists working in this field who might be able to push a bit of gas into the discussion and illuminate the area for us? Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooked vandalism?

[edit]

Surely, the words “and Lake Titicaca” in the lede are nothing more than tongue-in-cheek infantilism, and thus vandalism requiring removal. I tried scanning through recent edits, and it seems this grade-school humor has been allowed to stand for a considerable length of time. Unless, by pure coincidence, the local South American population call pyroflatulence “llama azul,” I’d suggest deleting the content (and, optionally, having the editor warned). KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fart_lighting&oldid=1219557904"