Talk:Fire breathing (circus act)

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Verhagem.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is not a mention of fire brathing with a starch?

http://picasaweb.google.com/phisica/ToplotaHeatCalor/photo#5199940795119445586

Ambrozd (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention of Black Metal culture?

I am aware that fire breathing/spitting was once a common attribute of the Scandinavian black metal scene. I have seen pictures of Quorthon from Bathory and Frost from Satyricon and 1349 performing this stunt as well as instances in the music video's for Immortal's "Call of the Wintermoon" and Satyricon's "Mother North".Vlad the Impaler 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (fixed)[reply]

That could be mentioned. If you wanted to do a little research a "Fire breathing in modern culture" section including black metal and other cultural items that are connected to fire breathing could be a good addition. Also, try to remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who posted it, and when. Thanks! Phidauex 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include at least one or two pictures of Quorthon performing the trick, however I'm a bit overwhelmed with the wikipedia image uploading criteria. If anyone knows whether I would be able to include the following pictures, please tell me: [1][2]

from cleanup re redirect from fire breather

Shoot! I kind of wish it weren't a redirect, since, according to Shelby Foote, "fire breather" is a term in use in the US Civil War to refer to the secessionist politicians before the war. The term is also generally used for ranters, too. Don't know if these usages are worth an article, esp. since it would be historical dictdef, but it's worth thinking about. Geogre 01:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

How difficult is it?? I have done "fire breathing" quite some times, and I must say that the wikipedia article is a bit too dramatic. It does NOT take years to master any of those arts (perhaps months), and it is not that dangerous. Get real :P -- /Someone else

It IS very difficult. I teach fire dancing and dance as a proffesion. Fire Breathing is the most dangerous art I have performed. "Someone Else" may be refering to the ease of the basic trick, but to be safe and to advance beyond simple blasts is extremely difficult and dangerous. One should never consider fire breathing to be safe or easy. -User:who-is-me

While there are thousands of youthful frat boys who learned how to 'spit' fire on the back patio of a bar, that is definately different from the art of firebreathing. Creating a single pillar of a half second is not a particularly difficult skill, but turning that into an art and a show, and learning advanced acts definately takes time. I've been doing it and teaching it for years, and I still have a long way to go. Spend some time around people who've really mastered the art, and it makes the difference between the art of fire breathing and 'spitting fire' very obvious. Articles like this cannot understate the danger, even if some individuals are ignorant of or oblivious to its risks. Phidauex 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire breathing is one of the easiest and fastest to learn (I learned in 1 hour) but it's the very most dangerous. Inhaling ultra pure lamp oil mist can cause a flu-like infection. If the wind's direction isn't constant there is a chance for the performer and the audience to be injured. There was recently a 6-year old in Turkey who died at this type of fire art performance. I'm not really sure we should even give this information out. If we do, we have to make clear the safety risks! ForestJay 14:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were actually allowed to test fire breathing once, using lamp oil, during chemistry class in 8th grade (Sweden). It can't've been that dangerous... Not to say that you shouldn't apply common sense. --217.213.132.121 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire breathing is definitely not for kids. It's very dangerous! Accidentally inhaled fuel can seriously damage lungs. And of course the fire can burn you. Your teacher was highly irresponsible. I think this article should discuss fire breathing risks more widely. A lot of unnecessary injuries are caused by people who say "It's easy! I can do it too. And without lame practise." and in fact they don't know anything about the art of fire breathing. Read this:http://www.homeofpoi.com/lessons_all/teach/Library-Fire-Breathing-Introduction-Fire-Breathing-11_52_194 188.122.208.3 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

The article states "Fire breathing stunts" [as the header, followed by] "These are arranged in alphabetical order. These acts should not be attempted without professional training."

Yes, they actually are sorted (why use arranged when the common usage is sorted?) in alphabetical order... but not in the common usage of the term "alphabetical order". They are sorted "backwards" (in descending order, while the almost worldwide use of "sorted alphabetically" means ascending order). Yes, it is still in alphabetical order, but... (sorry... just passing through... too tired to think of anything to correct these things). wjmt 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid to be bold! You are welcome to make any changes to that list that you feel are necessary, either reversing the order, or changing the verbage. I'll look at it and perhaps make some adjustments, but don't let us stop you. Phidauex 22:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history

I think that it would be very interesting to have some information about the history of fire breathing. When did it first start? What flammable material was the first to be used?

Can anyone help? --D.Wardle 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing! I started searching on the web in hopes to find more information on the history of fire breathing but could not find anything from reputable sources. --Verhagem (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional training

"These acts should not be attempted without professional training." Why? Do you have a reference? "Should" doesn't seem encyclopedic at all: it's actually telling people what to do, without offering further explanation. I think the previous sections already make it clear what the consequences can be. I propose the removal of the sentence. A.Z. 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rating?

I think that this article needs to be given a rating of quality and importance. Especially as it is now the host to a featured picture, I am very surprised that it doesn't have a rating. Does anyone agree with me? --Sauronjim (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I can't do it myself, as I don't know what criteria to use to do this, or how to go about submitting the result. --Sauronjim (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the guidelines

Hello. As per WP:NOTMANUAL, I have removed the sentence: Fire Breathing should never be performed without adequate training by an experienced person. and have de-bolded other words in the lead paragraph. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a "don't try this at home" notice is necessary. --jftsang 08:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Paraffin"

In the section on preferred fuels, mention is made of avoiding "petrochemicals"; soon after, "paraffin" is cited as the preferred source. Two possible issues I see: (1) "Paraffin" means "wax" in the USA, and "kerosene" in the UK. (2) Kerosene's a petrochemical, no?

The first is a possible source of confusion; nobody in the US would presume "paraffin" to mean "kerosene"; the second, a minor nitpick. Thats all! ~.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fuel Risks"

Under the Fuel Risks section it seems to be implying that peristalsis is another term for diarrhoea, which is not the case. Perhaps someone who knows more about the body's reaction upon swallowing unscented lamp oil can rewrite this sentence more accurately. 94.10.252.251 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Fire Breathing"

Edited due to personal promotion and unverifiable statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVancouver (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As the Internet gained its ground to communicate over vast distances, the meme of the contemporary urban tribal fire dancing culture spread from its Polynesian, Thai, and Australian influences to the contemporary electronic music scenes of the world."

What does this even mean? 98.218.174.69 (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "paraffin" are we talking about?

The article states: Due to its relatively safe (~90 °C) flash point, paraffin, or highly purified lamp oil, is the preferred fuel for fire breathing. But the word "paraffin" is very ambiguous. It can mean:

kerosene
any linear alkane
mineral oil
paraffin wax

Which one is the intended meaning? Devil Master (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Simmons and claims of 'record breaking' fire balls

Removed claim that Gene Simmons has blown 15-20 feet fire balls regularly in his shows. Two reasons - no references and if the claim was true then Gene Simmons would have been a fire breathing record breaker. If the claim can be referenced then by all means put it back into the article but inclusion now makes no sense and is not accurate. Robynthehode (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The length of the overview seems a bit short to me. I'm wondering if I could make it longer to highlight what the rest of the article is about or would that just be redundant? --Verhagem (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire breathing. 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://www.webcitation.org/6GkdnnSvA?url=http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/FIRE+BREATHING?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/FIRE+BREATHING?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=FIRE+BREATHING&sa=Search

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) 06:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]