Talk:Fulgurite

message: *Petrified Lightning (as html)
This is an invalid link, I removed it but placed it here in case anyone can fix it if possible.
Also, does this next sentence sound right to anyone?  I think it needs some grammatical cleanup.
"Petrified lightning featured in the movie Sweet Home Alabama where the lead male character 'Jake' attempts to manufacture fulgurite by placing metal poles into the sandy beach during a thunderstorm to channel the lightning into the ground"
It takes a couple of readings to make sense I would suggest a comma after "Alabama"
I think a comma after Alabama would make it OK.IceDragon64 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still wouldn't be a complete sentence. An example of the above sentence completed would be: "Petrified lightning was featured in the movie Sweet Home Alabama, where the lead male character 'Jake' attempts to manufacture fulgurite by placing metal poles into the sandy beach during a thunderstorm to channel the lightning into the ground." Though in that sentence, my preference would be for "in which the lead male character...". Somerut (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Though Chambers Dictionary spells it this way, other people spell it fulgarite-  I would have- and fulgerite.  If you look on the internet its there.  "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Mineral Kingdom" by Dr Alan Wooley spells it Fulgarite.  Is there a way one should deal with varient spellings?IceDragon64 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've always seen it spelled Fulgurite. But the question of variant spellings is a valid one. Are the variants widely used, or limited to mistakes or mis-transcription? Mgmirkin 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * if we're talking notability, check adsabs.harvard.edu. Do a basic search on fulgurite. 16 entries referring to it. Fulgarite: 0. Fulgerite: 0. To me that seems relatively conclusive? Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * If we go with the Google test: try typing in 'fulgurite research' and varying the spelling of fulgurite. 'Fulgurite research' generally returns scientific sites, mining sites, papers as top results. 'Fulgerite research' and 'fulgarite research' on the other hand both tend to turn up "personal" sites, or "vanity sites" written by laymen. To me, that also argues for the user of 'fulgurite' as the correct spelling, and other transcriptions as possibly erroneous? My 2c, of course. Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * The way to deal with an alternate spelling is to mention it at the beginning of the article ("fulgurites (also fulgarite)") and create a redirect. A citation to the alternative spelling would be nice, too. --Eyrian 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry, edit conflict. I've slightly altered the section. As noted above, I think the "alternates" are typos, generally from not-as-notable sources? From a quick basic survey of reputable sources (adsabs.harvard.edu, and several rock/mineralogy sites online), fulgurite seems to be the preferred spelling. If there can be shown to be a number of "notable" variants (not just occasional typos, but systemic uses of variant spellings), then an "alternate spelling" section might be appropriate. As is, I'd still redirect from the other spelling so that concurrent articles don't get written and have to be merged later, adding time and effort (or dividing it, as the case may be). Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Addedd a "Fact" tag, as I think those "alternates" are actually just typos. So, if there are notable citations for the alternates, please provide them. Else, they should probably be removed. Most of the technical literature uses 'Fulgurite.' Did add a redirect from 'Fulgerite' to the proper 'Fulgurite' spelling, with a comment on why, as noted above. That should be pretty non-controversial. Though, I think the "alternates" might be. Typos probably aren't notable, unless widely / intentionally used (why create confusion over what the correct spelling should be? Not that WP is a dictionary, mind you.). Just my 2c. Mgmirkin 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * On an amusing note, the intro even states that 'fulgurite' is based on the Latin 'fulgur'. 2 u's in fulgur... Coincidence that the correct spelling of fulgur-ite uses 2 of them as well? Mgmirkin 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * It's been a few weeks, and I don't see a citation. So, for now, in absence of evidence of the alternates being in wide use (aside from typos), I'm going to be bold & remove them for he time being. If someone can cite a large body of notable sources (papers or whatnot) that use the "alternate" spelling, then perhaps we can add them back in. Otherwise I'll assume for now that they're just typos, and we shouldn't sew confusion by listing typos as "alternates." Mgmirkin 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellings? 

message: I've added a "references" section and a references tag, so it should work right. See WP:FOOTNOTE for syntax on using it. But, let's please use it. IE, cite some notable sources for the materials used herein. I've added one for the term "exogenic fulgurite," which is used for the black glass created by the external melting of rocks from a lightning strike. Mgmirkin 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: > Possibly the finest fulgurite sample on display can be seen in Philadelphia, USA, at the Academy of Natural Sciences. It was discovered in 1940.
why is it the finest? Elvis 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  finest? 

message: There are two inconsistencies. At one paragraph the article claim the fulgurites can reach a length of 15 meters, implying there have been one found with that length. Further down the article I read the longest one found is around 5 meters. Which one should it be?
"Fulgurites have often deep penetrations, sometimes appearing up to 15 meters (50 feet) below the lightning-struck surface."
"The longest fulgurite found is approximately 4.9 to 5 meters (17 feet) in length, and was found in northern Florida, USA."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.137.147 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: I never claimed that fulgurites actually have mystical powers, simply that they are used that way, much as candles and incense are used in other religious ceremonies. John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 02:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "religious use" bit and the book you used as a source might be OK in the charmstone or new age article, but not in a science article. The book used is simply not a WP:RS here. Vsmith (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystical powers 

message: To whomever had the idea of including a stereogram of the two fulgurites: I applaud you! This is an excellent use of this medium. rowley (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to add, though... unfortunately, when you click the small cross-eye view to see it beigger, you get the parallel view. Which makes it seem kind of inside-out. rowley (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent Stereogram Use 

message: Why no reference to fulgurite being formed artificially inside electrical fuses? When a short circuit occurs and the fuse blows the sand inside the fuse turns into fulgurite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.93.171 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Fulgurite

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fulgurite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930024840/http://www.nature.com:80/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo580.html to http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo580.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Geochem PhD here, longtime rockhound, etc.  I became familiar with Fulguritics via Facebook. The user incessantly posts images of smelter slag from the Kennesaw Peninsula, and claims that they are fulgurites.  No rigorous studies have been performed on his samples, and they do not resemble fulgurites, aside from the fact that they are vesicular.  Nearly all are metal rich, and none have typical fulgurite morphology.  In-situ photos suggest slag.  Every visible detail suggests that they are slag.  He states that mainstream science is out to get him, etc., etc.  I've tried removing the images; he simply reverts them back.  Can someone with some clout deal with this?  -Meteoritekid (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsely identified photos 

message: Rigorous studies were performed by Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, but I resent that accusative cliches - provided without evidence - would be applied to me merely because I disagree with the rather outdated viewpoints of a self-described slag expert. The photos will not be restored. All samples were recovered in SE Washtenaw co. in SE Michigan, over 700 km from the the Keweenaw Peninsula (not the fulgurite(not Kennesaw, as Meteoritekid claims inaccurately). The materials in images that have been removed prematurely are identical to examples of the Winans Lake fulgurite, recovered in the early 1980s only 15 km from these sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words and distortions

message: I saw this dispute listed at DRN but I wanted to take off my DRN-volunteer's hat and weigh in before waiting for Fulguritics response there in the hope of perhaps preventing an extended discussion there which, if it goes like it has here, will be misguided. I'm going to only respond to the issue raised there: That the images submitted by Fulguritics are not, in fact, fulgurites.
You're both barking up the wrong tree by arguing your relative expertise in this matter. To apply your knowledge or personal qualifications to an issue here is prohibited original research. Here's the way things work here: The Verifiability policy applies to essentially everything here. It says, in pertinent part, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." That applies to images just like everything else. Now that Meteoritekid has challenged the images posted by Fulguritics, a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia must be provided that the images are in fact what they are claimed to be. General sources describing what that thing should look like are not sufficient. The source must say that the items in those particular images by Fulguritics are what they are claimed to be. Here's why: Those images are a WP:PRIMARY source, which are defined like this:
:Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources.  An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
:* The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
:* The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
:* Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
That same policy then goes on to say:
: analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
What's going on here is that you're both trying to analyze the photos to properly interpret them. That's wholly improper under Wikipedia's rules. I think that I can safely assume that, since these are Fulguritics personal photos, there are no third party sources which say that these particular photos are what they are claimed to be. That being the case, under Wikipedia's rules they cannot be used here unless there simply no reasonable possibility that an average person — not an expert in fulgurites or minerals, but an average person — would not recognize them for what they say that they are. I mention that because one exception to the Verifiability policy is the situation where matters are of such common knowledge that no average person would reasonably disagree that they are true. This is only true for things like "20+2=24" "20+2=22" and "Chicago is located in Illinois." Applying that to photos, most photos such as this one fall into that category: There's just no reasonable room for challenge. (With many others which aren't so certain it's simply a matter that no one has objected.) Applying that to this situation, however, the common knowledge rule relies upon what average people know: The reason that those things don't need to be verifiable is because everyone knows that they are what they are. It cannot be reasonably said that everyone knows whether or not a picture of a rock is or is not a fulgurite. And that being the case then these photos, having been challenged, must be sourced to a reliable source or excluded and, as I say above, I rather suspect that since these are personal photos that they cannot be so sourced and must be removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thank you.  Given that, I think the issue here is that Fulguritics is of the opinion that his specimens are fulgurites beyond any reasonable doubt, and I disagree.  Due to that, we're on different sides of the policy.  I've tabbed all of the pages re. verifiability, original content, etc., and will look them over for future use. -Meteoritekid (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral observer's comment

message: A filing was made for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard.  An experienced editor has suggested that both parties have missed the point and are requesting original research.  Are the parties willing to withdraw the dispute?  Otherwise a volunteer may close it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes on my part, but I think Fulguritics is less likely to agree with the conclusions reached above.  I will check back.  Thanks.  -Meteoritekid (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resoluion Filing 

message: I've reverted the recent additions by . 
* "Fulgurites occasionally form as glazed tracks on rock, or as networks completely metamorphosing the target rock. Ejected droplets and irregular sub-rounded structures are associated with such rock (type IV) fulgurites, as well as type II (mixed soil)" (1) Substandard souce. (2) Not found in source.
* "often quench into bizarre forms - typically aerodynamically-contoured and displaying some degree of structural complexity, are classified as exogenic fulgurites (Type V), and can resemble crater glass forms, impactites, and [[tektites]"</I> (1) Rock & Gem magazine not a peer-reviewed source. (2) Pasek et al is too primary. 
* <I>"Type V - droplet fulgurites, which are exogenous (e.g. spheroidal, botryoidal, filamentous, or aerodynamic)" (1) Dissertation source is too primary (2) Apparent Misinterpretation of Pasek et al / OR in calling it "exogenous". (3) Pasek et al is too WP:primary to declare a new category of fulgurite.
* "A sixth category is proposed to include fulgurites that formed on carbon-rich biological materials...."</I> Not found in source given. Will be removing this momentarily. 
* "Carbon-based fulgurites, produced directly on biomass, such as wood, or as scavenged biogenic...."  Too much emphasis on one paper, too much material out-of-scope for the article. 
* "The long-term survivability of chiral organic compounds native to organisms has been demonstrated reliably in carbonaceous chondrites such as the Murchison, a CM chondrite." Out of scope / WP:SYN.
* "Reduced phosphorus as phosphides and phosphites have been identified through quantitative analyses of a representative sample of 10 fulgurites recovered from most continents, in the form of schreibersite (Fe3P, (Fe,Ni)3P) - terrestrially extremely rare, but common on meteorites, comets, interplanetary dust, and some planetary bodies - and TiP, which is unique to fulgurites. Reduced phosphorus species were necessary for the development of DNA and RNA in proto-biotic systems that eventually emerged as primitive life...."  Original research/SYN, out of scope.
* "There is also experimental evidence that lightning is responsible for greater than 50% of all terrestrial nitrogen fixation" Out of scope, OR
* Thefreelibrary.com is not a reliable source.
* Postings at TheFreeRepublic.Com are not reliable sources.
* "For instance, the fact that fulgurites are abundant in the Sahara Desert demonstrates that lightning once was a frequent occurrence in that region."</I> Misreading of souce/not in source given.
* <I>"A fulgurite was found within the contents of the ash altar at Lykaion, conforming to the Type II typology (mixed clayey/silty soil). It is not known if the object was contemporaneously transported and deposited post factum, or produced authigenically" Misrepresentation of source . Other sources that follow are irrelevant to statement. 
* In general I am concerned about the cavalier manner in which Fulguritics has used sources here. Geogene (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also no reference to "dung" fulgurites was found in the sources given for it, so I took that out of the lead. No idea how long that was there or who wrote it though. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions

message: My attempt to represent the topic for its vastness suffer from its novelty and the limitations of scope permitted to individual articles by Wikipedia quality of content standards. I apologize for any OR. It is tempting to expand where breakthroughs are just now being synthesized in the nascent study of fulgurites, and so, to retain implication without imposing bias, I stated only direct references to peer-reviewed works. Accept my apology for my zeal and intransigence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: corrections of relevant content affected by reversions on Feb 29, 2016

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fulgurite. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150802001819/http://www.sgsmp.ch:80/lichtenberg.htm to http://www.sgsmp.ch/lichtenberg.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fulgurite. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106212409/http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v34.n30/story3.html to http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v34.n30/story3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article reads "When lightning strikes a grounding substrate, upwards of 100 million volts (100 MV) are rapidly discharged into the ground.[2] This charge propagates into and rapidly vaporizes and melts silica-rich quartzose sand, mixed soil, clay, or other sediments."
The wording needs fixing here. 100 million volts is not a measure of charge ("this charge..."), it's a measure of potential difference.  A charge would be measure in coulombs. And it doesn't make physics sense to talk of a voltage being discharged into the ground.
It's not just a matter of changing the units. The figure for the voltage seems to be about right. If it was a charge it would be in the tens or hundreds of coulombs, according to the article on lightning.
Please could someone who knows more about lightning than me fix this? Macboff (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics wording needs correction 

message: Is this going to be a new thing on articles now? -23.125.111.147 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What’s With the Stereo Images?