Talk:Sylph

message: You should notice that most japanese media use "shirufido" for speaking Sylphid (check the japanese version of Record of Lodoss Wars).  I think "Sylph" is not the complete word, but "Sylphid".
: "Sylphid" is an occasionally encountered derivative. If you take it to be a Greek root, which it isn't, you can add the "-id" suffix, so that it can mean "sylph-like" or "descendant of a sylph." Paracelsus definitely says "sylph" though in the underived form. I'm reasonably sure he intended it as a vernacular abbreviation of the Latin sylvestris, which he uses as a synonym, but as I haven't written that in a book, that's not citable. The form and spelling are probably influenced by "nymph." That brings up the even odder question why he chose sylvestris to refer to an air spirit, since it means something like "woodsy." At any rate, sylph is the correct headword. Tarchon 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is odd, and I've personally figured that alchemy was the explanation.  I know virtually nothing of their symbology, but I could easily imagine either ethanol -> spirit or an analogy based on supposed astrological/alchemical families that led him to conceive of the sylv as an air spirit.  That's a pure guess on my part, but it helps me sleep at night (both the guess and the ethanol).  Geogre 01:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Golly!  You know, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias only report what is most attested, most agreed upon, most empirically established.  When there are references, citations, and proof of the other energies, encyclopedias will report it.  Until then, it's unencyclopedic to mention them, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and not by any means a platform for negotiating ultimate truth or revelation.  The world, and the world wide web, abound with platforms for such revelatory truth, but Wikipedia is not really one of them.  Geogre 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

message: May I ask whether people feel the reference to Ancient China is at all relevant to this article?  The shenxian certainly cannot be equated to Paracelsus' sylphs and already occupy a separate article.  I move this this section be deleted. --Gak (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The section was added by one Rakibe, who signed it as if it were a comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylph&oldid=184575767), and has been barely touched since. It was that user's only edit, and the account seems to have been deleted. Since the section is unsubstantiated and confusing, and nobody has objected to its removal, I'm deleting it. 87.16.194.100 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese

message: Not really, absolutely no. Wikipedia never was and never will be about most people agree, because Wikipedia it is not a religion. Wikipedia it is about democratically divulge notable ideas to everyone. More specifically, Wikipedia focus in what finds some notability at past or current time. Doesn’t matter if that thought it is constricted to a sector of society, or to a group of scientists, or scholars. The goal it is to make accessible to the world those concepts from past and present.
If Wikipedia was about most people think, therefore would be a return to Medieval Age. No scientific study could be divulged through Wikipedia. No fiction work could be divulged  through Wikipedia. No cultures of minorities could be exposed  through Wikipedia; and etc., etc., etc..
Don’t’ confuse third party reference with accepted ideas. Tertiary sources only mean that the issue may have found some notability in some level of the society. By the way Wikipedia has not rules engraved on rock, it welcomes secondary sources too, but, of course, third parties always supply more grounding. 
At last my personal opinion: I have an academic formation on physics, so I scientifically cannot believe in such sylph creature. On the other hand I will not deny a room in anywhere, exposing what was spoke or studied about this subject. On the contrary, I have scientific curiosity over the issue, I want read any point of view because I want to enlarge the possibilities. Researching what still is unknown, this it is science; other way we have radicalism and narrow minds, something not at all good for none.
Conclusion: Unfortunately this article widely lacks of information and clearly doesn’t show a neutral point of view. It urgently needs improvement.VirtuousWorld (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. This is a very poor article--far too much Pope, and not nearly enough Paracelsus, or other material on the sylph, per se. It should be re-written or deleted.Pernoctus (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs more material and to be rewritten with a neutral point of view.