Talk:Snipe hunt

"Blaulichtwasser" in German-speaking countries

In German-speaking countries, trainees in ambulance services (rarely in Fire services) are sometimes at the end of the day asked to refill the "Blaulichtwasser" ("Blue-light-water", "Blaulicht" refers to the blue emergency lights of ambulances). Supposedly within the blue beacons, it is the blue-light-water that is important for best visibility and genuine blue colour, similarly to the green and red lamp oil (BTW, also common on German submarines). Usually the trainee will after a short check in the storage area find out that there is no such thing as blue-light water, however, some fire departments have arranged to always store 20-liter-canisters or even 100-liter-barrels of the mysterious fluid. Paramedics and nurses are also sometimes asked to retrieve some new AV-blocks from the storage (which is impossible, as an AV-block is a heart rhythm disorder).

The big problem is: Since this is an inside joke, there is nothing I can really cite as a reference, which would obviosly not be sufficient to the requirement of being verifiable. All I can do to prove it is to google "Blaulichtwasser" or "Blaulichtwasser nachfüllen" ("refill blue-light-water"), and there'll be some really nice pictures of how refilling blue-light-water should be part of the daily maintenance of an ambulance vehicle. --ImmernochEkelAlfred (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Examples section

The long list of supposed examples of the topic, which dwarfs the main part of the article, looks like original research implying a connection not made by the sources. Which of the sources cited explicitly refer to the concept of the snipe hunt and/or fool's errand?

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful". At the very least, this extensive list gives undue weight to trivial examples of the topic. I suggest removing the material in this section entirely unless sources exist that show how any of these various other practical jokes are relevant to the subject of snipe hunt. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. Back in December I deleted some of the worst examples but I guess the rest aren't any better. Dr. K. 04:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Most of them seem to be types of fool's errands added when that term redirected to this article. However, I haven't found any published source that treats fool's errands as varieties of snipe hunt. If anything, sources suggest that fool's errand is the more general term – see Fee & Webb (2016, p. 514) and O'Neil (2014).

These examples – sending neophytes to fetch a "box of curveballs", "left-handed screwdriver", "bacon stretcher", etc. – seem only very slightly related to the idea of snipe hunting, which is as much about being left alone "holding the bag" as it is about the quest for a non-existent thing – see Bronner (2012, p. 260); Palmatier (1995, p. 357); and Smith (1957) for instance. Bill Ellis (1981) states also:

Only after being taken to the 'snipe ground' and enduring an eternity of bag holding, flashlight waiving, and clucking, do the uninitiated campers realize that what they had initially taken as a serious event was in fact a joke at their expense.

And Joyce Bynum (1988) states:

'Snipe hunting' is a traditional trick still popular because it is so easily used on a gullible person, who is sent to a remote place to stand for hours holding a bag, waiting patiently for the snipe which never comes.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC) (updated 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

Y I've removed the list of fool's errand examples. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Bronner, Simon J. (2012). Campus Traditions: Folklore from the Old-Time College to the Modern Mega-University. Univ. Press of Mississippi. ISBN 978-1-61703-616-3.
• Bynum, Joyce (1988). "Practical Jokes". ETC: A Review of General Semantics. 45 (4): 369–373. JSTOR 42579481. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ellis, Bill (1981). "The Camp Mock-Ordeal Theater as Life". The Journal of American Folklore. 94 (374): 486–505. doi:10.2307/540502. JSTOR 540502. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Fee, Christopher R.; Webb, Jeffrey B., eds. (2016). American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore: 3 Volumes. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-61069-568-8.
• O'Neil, Gerard (2014). "The Squonk: A Small Tale From Franklin County". In White, Thomas (ed.). Supernatural Lore of Pennsylvania: Ghosts, Monsters and Miracles. Charleston, SC: History Press. ISBN 978-1-62619-498-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Palmatier, Robert Allen (1995). Speaking of Animals: A Dictionary of Animal Metaphors. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-29490-7.
• Smith, Johana H. (1957). "In the Bag: A Study of Snipe Hunting". Western Folklore. 16 (2): 107–110. doi:10.2307/1497027. JSTOR 1497027. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Fool's errand

Sources seem to distinguish between snipe hunt and fool's errand, some stating that the snipe hunt is a particular kind of fool's errand (Marsh 2015, pp. 8, 23, 45–48; Watts 2006, p. 206; O'Neil 2014) – or wild-goose chase (Paris 2008, pp. 104–105) – others suggesting that they are related kinds of pranks (Brunvand 2001, p. 331; Glimm 1983, p. 187). Brown & Brown (2013) state that "A fool's errand is sometimes also called a snipe hunt or a wild-goose chase" by way of introducing a ghost story, but this source is specific to Kentucky and deals mostly with paranormal tales, not practical jokes.

In any event, there seem to be enough reliable sources to create an article such as Fool's errand (prank), or to add to the page April Fools' Day, since April 1st is evidently the traditional occasion for fool's errands (Watts 2006, p. 21; Roberts 2013). Brunvand (1996) is another source on fool's errands, and Marsh (2015) has probably the most coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC) (updated 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

* "Fool's errand" is also classified as Tale type 1296 in the Aarne-Thompson-Uther classification system. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Brown, Roberta Simpson; Brown, Lonnie E. (2013). "Fool's Errand". Kentucky Hauntings: Homespun Ghost Stories and Unexplained History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-4382-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Brunvand, Jan Harold, ed. (1996). American Folklore : An encyclopedia. New York: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-8153-0751-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Brunvand, Jan Harold (2001). Encyclopedia of Urban Legends. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-076-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Glimm, James Y. (1983). Flatlanders and Ridgerunners: Folktales from the mountains of northern Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 0-8229-5345-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Marsh, Moira (2015). Practically Joking. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. ISBN 0-87421-983-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• O'Neil, Gerard (2014). "The Squonk: A Small Tale From Franklin County". In White, Thomas (ed.). Supernatural Lore of Pennsylvania: Ghosts, Monsters and Miracles. Charleston, SC: History Press. ISBN 978-1-62619-498-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Paris, Leslie (2008). Children's Nature: The rise of the American summer camp. New York: New York University Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN 0-8147-6750-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Roberts, Kai (2013). Folklore of Yorkshire. Stroud, UK: The History Press. ISBN 0-7524-8954-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Watts, Linda S. (2006). Encyclopedia of American Folklore. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 0-8160-5699-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

What... what happened?

December last year, when I first saw this article, it featured a series of examples of snipe hunts as in initiation rituals on newbies in certain professions, which is why I created the discussion section "Blaulichtwasser", asking how to include it. So now I found the time to get a source for it, and POOF, the examples are gone?! I tried reading myself through the edit history, but I can't find why the examples were removed and where to find them now. In the German wikipedia there even is a "List of initiation rituals", featuring all the different pranks played on new employees in certain professions, such as "gear sand" (always the blue, not the red), Siemens air hooks (perfect tool to fix WLAN-wires) and so on and so forth. There was a short list of such ritual pranks in this article, and I was planning to contribute a ritual that I consider to be quite interesting and relevant to a list of examples. Long story short, where have these examples gone and where could I add my famous item? -- ImmernochEkelAlfred (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I literally saw when you edited it, sorry, overread it first. Still, my question stands: Is there anywhere now where I can put in my example? --ImmernochEkelAlfred (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do would be to create a new article for it if significant coverage of the topic exists, or else create a List of ritual pranks or similar article. As I mentioned above under § Examples section, my concern is that adding indiscriminate examples to articles runs into undue weight and likely original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I will investigate, whether significant coverage can be claimed. --ImmernochEkelAlfred (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@ImmernochEkelAlfred: After going on my own fool's errand trying to look up such an example in Wikipedia ("striped paint" redirected here, an article which said nothing about striped paint) I've created this article at Fool's errand, restoring the content that was cut from this article.--Lord Belbury (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate content

The initial two paragraphs contain information that is largely duplicated in the "In North America" section. An attempt should be made to consolidate this to remove unnecessary duplication. Boardhead (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Has anyone suggested including a Pop Culture section? I know the movie "Up" features a Snipe Hunt. Are there any other popular media examples? 164.153.61.44 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I was going to edit the article to add this. I agree it is an appropriate reference and should be added. Do you want to do it? Godsfunambulator (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed it. Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable sources and not be a laundry list of every instance of a term or concept. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Imaginary/non-existent creature"

Maybe this is just a quibble, but something strikes me as wrong about the way the article repeatedly describes snipe as imaginary or non-existent. It's true that the object of a "snipe hunt" is (except in rare instances) not an actual snipe, although you could argue whether this is because A) no snipe are present, B) the victim is not expected to find one, or C) at least some of the participants may not know what a snipe is, or may make up some fantastical creature bearing no resemblance to a snipe. But presumably many pranksters, and perhaps even a few victims, are aware that there are real snipe, and they may even have an idea what they look like or where to look for them.

As to whether it's reasonable to describe snipe as imaginary or non-existent, I think perhaps it doesn't matter whether the participants are aware that snipe exist, or that they're birds, or have the faintest idea what they look like. They still have some concept of a snipe as a creature—which it is, whether they're aware of it or not—and so no matter how outlandishly it's described, no matter how unlike a real snipe, it still exists. Just like elephants exist, even if someone who's never seen one describes it as a hairy, green, six-legged monster with horns. The description of one may be completely imaginary, but it would make no sense to describe an "elephant hunt" as a search for an imaginary creature, except in the sense that the particular elephant being hunted may not exist, or the sense that no elephant matches the specific description of one. And that seems misleading or confusing, since elephants are scientifically documented creatures.

Even if someone erroneously believes that snipe are imaginary and/or wildly different from reality, describing them as imaginary or non-existent creatures in the article makes no sense, because belief does not affect whether something exists. Besides which, in many cases the participants must be aware that snipe are not imaginary, although they may or may not know what they look like, or describe them accurately to the victim of the prank. Again, accuracy is irrelevant—a real creature is being described, even if wrongly or unknowingly.

I would have tried rewording this already, but I have a feeling that the authors of the passages in question want to distinguish between an actual snipe and an imaginary version of one, or the mistaken belief that they are imaginary. So I'm bringing my thoughts here for discussion before making any changes. But I don't think it matters whether any of the participants know that snipe exist, can or do describe them accurately, or whether there are any snipe in the area where the hunt takes place. Snipe generally do exist, even if an individual snipe—or a bizarre nightmare that someone calls a snipe—may not be present at a particular time and place. So I don't think it makes sense to imply that the snipe in snipe hunts don't exist, or are imaginary, when we can't make a broad statement of that kind without relying on differing and inconsistent reasons in each case. P Aculeius (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia merely summarizes the descriptions given in published, reliable sources. Sources such as Brunvand (1996) and Marsh (2015) do, in fact, describe the object of a snipe hunt as an imaginary creature. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is not merely a mash-up of text from other sources. If those sources use misleading language—which apparently they do, if they imply that nobody believes that snipe exist, or that everyone thinks that snipe are imaginary creatures—then we're under no obligation to follow that usage. At best it's careless use of language to conflate some people's mistaken beliefs with a definite and universal understanding. Particularly when it isn't even clear what that understanding is: is it that there's no such thing as a snipe? Or that the version of a snipe they describe doesn't exist? Or that there simply are no snipe around for the victim to catch? Any of these could be implied by the language, but no one of these can be established as representing a general view.

This vague and unhelpful description may pass muster in the literary world, but it's not encyclopedic (digression here: even though the word encyclopedia may be used in the titles of their works—accurate in the sense that they're compendia of material, but not necessarily in the precision of their language or descriptions. Believe me, I have great respect for Brunvand in particular, having read most of his collections on the topic. But that doesn't mean that he was writing with encyclopedic precision). Countless people know what snipe really are, and more than that are at least aware of their existence. It's absurd to suppose—without evidence—that everyone who engages in this prank is under the illusion that snipe are imaginary creatures. We shouldn't describe the situation in a way that implies something that is obviously untrue, when it's easy enough to reword things and clarify the situation. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

This armchair philosophizing is fun, but ultimately pointless unless there are published, reliable sources that frame the issue differently than the ones cited in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not "philosophizing", and Wikipedia editors have nothing to do with "armchairs"—it's absurd to suggest that we're less able to use plain English than the sources we're citing. And the fact is that when a source describes something as "imaginary", but immediately has to (or worse, should, but fails to) qualify that assertion by admitting that the thing exists, but may not be known to some people; or that it exists, but looks nothing like the description; or that it exists, but that the hunters are not expected to find it; then that language is used loosely and misleadingly.

People consult encyclopedias for fact, not careless and inaccurate statements, however many written sources contain them. And Wikipedia shouldn't seize on language that is plainly misleading as though it were the real reason for citing a source. Snipe aren't imaginary or non-existent, and there is no way of proving that the participants make a knowing distinction between actual snipe and "some imaginary creature called a snipe". It's impossible to show that, because we know that many people are aware of the existence of snipe; and if they're unaware, then they can't make such a distinction.

The article as worded incorrectly implies that a snipe being hunted is imaginary—not that it isn't present, not that the hunter or any of the participants don't know what it looks like, not that they're under the mistaken impression that there is no such thing; and even if all of these were true in some instances, they are certainly not in all of them. We can't judge how many people involved believe any of these things; there's no way to measure that. So a blanket statement that can't be proved, based solely on obviously careless language in written sources, should not be blindly copied here. Rewording the passages in question so that they don't make untrue and completely unverifiable claims should be simple enough; what's the justification for misleading readers? P Aculeius (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

No one is being misled; the only relevant question is whether the description fairly reflects published, reliable sources. Feel free to suggest an alternative wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)