Talk:Naga fireball

More explanation
I felt that the article needed a better explanation on the makeup and possible causes of the fireballs.

I found this information:

"But, on the other hand, science has challenged folk belief in the fireballs and fired a controversy. It began with skepticism by one of Nong Khai&#8217;s own citizens, Dr. Manas Kanoksilpa, who for a decade has conducted scientific experiments to explain the fireball phenomenon. Dismissing a human hand in their creation (a charge initially levelled at the villagers), he says that the Bang Fai Phaya Nak are globules of methane and nitrogen formed from decomposed organic matter trapped in pools deep beneath the Mekong. When the balls break the water&#8217;s surface, they self-combust and remain alight until they eventually run out of fuel and fade. This is the explanation generally given for the formation of swamp gas and will-o&#8217;-the-wisp.

In 2002, the Ministry of Science and Technology appointed a committee of experts to study the issue. The team collected soil and water samples, developed a submarine robot to probe the riverbed, and set up eight gas-collecting and gas-monitoring stations in swamps and rivers where sightings had been reported. After a two-year study, they concurred with Dr. Manas that the fireballs are caused by the sun warming organic matter on the riverbed, causing it to decompose into flammable phosphine and methane gas and combust in the presence of ionised atomic oxygen. This explains why the fireballs are of uniform colour, do not emit flares, smoke or sound, and eventually dissipate without a trace."

more info here: http://www.tatnews.org/emagazine/2215.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.1.52 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Nāga
It has been proposed that Phaya Naga be merged with Nāga. I'm greatly in favor of a merger, even to include Naga fireballs, as it would help greatly in editing Rocket Festival and Funan. But then there's that paranormal tag.... I've been told by someone who has been there that the event is just a tourist draw on the Thai side, but on the Lao side, still an event imbued with religious awe, which should rate this article a Buddhist swastika.Lee 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. While I am in favor of the Phaya Naga and Nāga merger, which makes sense because Phaya Naga is duplicative, I feel the Naga fireballs is a unique enough phenomenon on its own to warrant its own article. How does merging the fireballs article with Nāga help in the editing of Rocket Festival and Funan? Perhaps Naga fireballs could even be expanded? — WiseKwai 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Disagree. It wouldn't help all that much. Pawyilee 03:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed line
"While local adherents of the legend insist they have personally seen these fireballs or know others who have, scientific discussion of the phenomenon is frowned upon and can cause considerable anger."

I removed this line as the ending seemed quite odd for an encyclopedia. "can cause considerable anger." that seems a bit dodgy. What do you lot thing? Mishka Shaw (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

True, or at least Alleged Explanation as per Film
The film Mekhong Full Moon Party should be linked here. 85.179.244.59 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Article does not discuss religious context
Currently, this article does not discuss the religious context of the beliefs associated with Nagas at the Mekong river, either Buddhist or animist. The article seems to push a skeptic POV, immediately jumping to debunk report, without discussing the religious and social context of the festival sufficiently.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where the source is? The article already covers the "naga fireball" phenomenon and the skeptic POV comes from the majority of the evidence which, so far, indicates that there is no mythical creature living in the river and most likely caused by man. So I would like to remove the POV template until you address my points. --Horus (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , at WP:DETAG, it is recommended that an uninvolved editor remove a tag on an article page. To remove it yourself, without waiting discussion, goes against established practice.
 * I am not saying you should find a source that defends the existence of the phenomenon, but rather that you discuss its place in Buddhist or Thai history. You could first discuss the role of nāgas in Buddhism, from a historical perspective, before proceeding to a debunking section. Try for example the Encyclopedia of Buddhism by Buswell, or the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. You can download both from the reference list at Faith in Buddhism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides context and should give an overview of all views and perspectives. It is not a debunking website from a sceptics' society.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think a sentence "The phenomenon is named after the Phaya Naga, legendary serpentine creatures said to live in the Mekong." is not enough? To discuss the role of nagas in Buddhism is not necessary at all. At best you can include folklore about "Maekong naga", not just any nagas. And when you said Wikipedia is not "a debunking website from a sceptics' society", I would like to remind you that Wikipedia summarized from sources available and minority views are included just proportionally. You can insert your view with secondary sources here but to tag the article as "unfair" is too far. --Horus (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I do not think you need to cite minority views. The sentence "The phenomenon is named after the Phaya Naga, legendary serpentine creatures said to live in the Mekong." is exactly the sort of information I meant, but it is not much. You could relate more about how the cult arose. I am not saying you should start talking about the possibility that naga fireballs actually exist, since there are no secondary sources about that anyway. I am just saying describe the phenomenon more before you proceed to debunking it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, you are trying to say that the article should have substantial text describing the phenomenon and then proceed to debunk it. Well to be fair to the majority view, there is no need. You can tag the article as incomplete and wait for some supporters to write it themselves and it would be more acceptable. --Horus (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

, I wonder who the "majority view" is, and who the "supporters" are. Anyway, fair enough, I have added another kind of tag.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)