Talk:Spontaneous human combustion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposal for Merger <- Spontaneous human combustion controversy[edit]

For discussion, see the talk section of the article to be merged, here.I would just like to propose that HSC is a result of sodium.This is you for allowing me to participate.May all of your thoughts be positively vibrational.Special thanks to Solfegio Fibonacci.Signed:Steven Allen Bellmer.

"Wick" used too many times in one sentence[edit]

This fat, once heated by the burning clothing, wicks into the clothing much as candle wax (which typically was originally made of animal fat) wicks into a lit candle wick to provide the fuel needed to keep the wick burning.

This sentence says "wick" entirely too many times, and is very confusing Smw23 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's both a noun (the piece of string in the center of a candle) and a verb (the effect of sucking up fluids in such a string). StuRat (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nickell being promoted too much[edit]

Including the paper is a good idea, but this sentence reads like an item from Joe Nickell's resume: "Nickell has written frequently on the subject,[1][2] appeared on television documentaries, conducted additional research, and lectured at the New York State Academy of Fire Science at Montour Falls, New York, as a guest instructor." What does it contribute to the article? I'd suggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nickell Arson 1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yotam Aviram was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Spontaneous human combustion : salpeter[edit]

AUTO-COMBUSTION (E252) Potassium nitrate or saltpeter. i can think that the phenomena of auto-combustion are caused by the nitrate of potassium and the sugar. This very harmful chemical was used very early to conserve the meat. The butchers to put too much of it by mistake then that people after eating the sweet dessert are ready to ignite like torches.

Potassium_nitrate Rocket propellant#Solid propellants (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)jito : 1 September 2017

Consuming something flammable doesn't make you flammable, because of all the water in the body. It's like dumping water on embers. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

then if we listen to your idea [sturat] the spontaneous combustion is not from inside the body and it doesn't even exist. you are not at all an expert but just someone offensive who makes a comment of denial about the general idea that combustion is inside the body. you do not even know if the body consumes whole or partially anyway, you never studied the subject and the water turns into steam except for the ignorant

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC) 

Inclusion of King Tut[edit]

I mean, it’s obviously not a necessity but I feel like it’s oretty notable. So, @Martinevans123:? יבריב (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry I can't read your name. Yes, I agree, in itself it seems to be notable, although I really don't know if experts know if it was unique or not. The main problem I see is that the first sentence of this article defines the phenomenon like this: "term encompassing reported cases of the combustion of a living (or very recently deceased) human body". I'm not sure that Tutankhamun was very recently deceased, was he? It was certainly some time after he was buried. Do we know how long? I think not. The other problem is that his combustion seems to be quite unlike all the other events that are commonly described as "SHC", some of which appear in this article - I mean, it is at least explainable in terms of conventional chemistry? The third problem is the source you've provided - - Kate Seamons, Newser can't be regarded as an expert. The story is attributed to The Independent, of course, and Dr Chris Naunton, director of the Egypt Exploration Society, certainly can be regarded an expert. But he said only this: "The charring and possibility that a botched mummification led the body spontaneously combusting shortly after burial was entirely unexpected, something of a revelation." I'm not sure that is enough support for inclusion here. But other views welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, yes, it would have had to be shortly after he was interred (although this could have been quite some time after he died). If years had passed after he was interred, then any chemical energy converted to heat would have had a chance to dissipate. The only way there could have been a long delay is if the chemicals which reacted exothermically were physically seperated and later came into contact. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense, although I suspect my knowledge of the relevant chemistry is not really adequate here. But I'd expect to see some supporting sources for that. Or would be straying into WP:OR if we had them? It might warrant inclusion somewhere on the basis of "associated phenomena" perhaps. Also note that "Spontaneous human combustion" is not mentioned or linked at Tutankhamun. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'm AGF-ing here Stu.
So where are we at, then? יבריב (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Awaiting a reliable source that describes the event inside Tutankhamun sarcophagus as definitely spontaneous human combustion? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A man bursts into flames in a London Street[edit]


The details of this case are still unclear. The UK police are investigating this unexplained cause of death as the forensics could not find an accelerant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36B5:2400:E0BA:20ED:9433:DEA6 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed this yesterday since neither source explicitly mentions "Spontaneous human combustion." I don't think it should be included yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it again. The words "bursts into flames" are not specifically supported by the reporting, which indicates he was already on fire when found by neighbors. While it is a candidate for SHC, that description would have to be applied by a reliable source after some further investigation. It can't be assumed to be a case, because of the circumstances, by WP editors.
Here's another report that explicitly raises the question. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "paranormal" is not used in the intro[edit]

Can the word "paranormal" be used in the intro? I think it's of vital importance to point out that it's an unscientific belief.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, although there is currently no mention of SHC at Paranormal? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)