Talk:Fire

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Chemistry Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Materials High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Fire damage was copied or moved into Fire with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Definition of fire

Hi all. The current lead sentence defines fire as "the rapid oxidation of a fuel in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products." I feel like this is describing combustion more than fire itself. Would it not make more sense to define fire as the visible effect or phenomenon resulting from combustion (specifically rapid combustion)? For example, the flame and heat are observable features of fire, but combustion can occur without flame (like in smoldering or slow oxidation). The current definition could blur that distinction.

Thoughts? ShortTimeNoSee (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear how the first sentence could be confused with smoldering, which is a slower oxidation process. Praemonitus (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "Firefighters play a crucial role" DavidSayzHiiiii (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Slomo666 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Human fire 400,000 years ago

It might be worth adding the reference https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b9da7a6d-165b-492a-8785-235cd10e2e8e ~2025-31812-95 (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it as a ref. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim: Humans lack an instinctual fascination with fire

In Culture section contains the statement:

"Humans lack an instinctual fascination with fire, yet in modern societies adults can become drawn to it out of curiosity. In societies that are dependent on daily fire use, children lose interest in fire at about age seven due to regular exposure."

The whole In Culture section up to that point refutes the statement, citing many important examples of use of fire for no practical reason, going back thousands of years. Many or most people enjoy watching fire, hence the very common use of fireplaces, campfires and candles even when they are not strictly needed.

The claim is backed by a single reference. It claims in traditional cultures children can play with fire and lose their fascination with it about 10 or 12 years old. But it doesn't explain why people have used fire in non-practical ways, in ceremonies and social occasions, for thousands of years, not just recent times when we are supposedly deprived of fire-learning experiences.

Yet I admit it is hard to find a reliable source, especially a secondary one, that says explicitly "humans are fascinated by fire". It's probably expressed in different words, such as a "pleasurable sensation" or "social catalyst". I would appreciate help in finding one. Ttulinsky (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is the interest in fire is cultural and based in experience, rather than being something purely instinctive like fear of falling or blinking our eyes. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong source for pollution?

The reference to humans evolving to resist air pollution (currently ref 26) points to a paper that doesn't actually research that, but points to another paper. Specifically, it links to https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163886 but that itself cites https://doi.org/10.1054/mehy.2001.1385 which is the actual research on the topic. I don't know enough about Wikipedia citation formatting to fix this, however. ~2026-83725-6 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]