Talk:Spontaneous human combustion
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spontaneous human combustion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Paranormal||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Proposal for Merger <- Spontaneous human combustion controversy
- 2 "Wick" used too many times in one sentence
- 3 Nickell being promoted too much
- 4 Spontaneous human combustion : salpeter
- 5 Inclusion of King Tut
- 6 A man bursts into flames in a London Street
- 7 The word "paranormal" is not used in the intro
Proposal for Merger <- Spontaneous human combustion controversy
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.Thank 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
This fat, once heated by the burning clothing, wicks into the clothing much as candle wax (which typically was originally made of animal fat) wicks into a lit candle wick to provide the fuel needed to keep the wick burning.
- 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
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, 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Spontaneous human combustion : salpeter
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.
- 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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion of King Tut
- 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 - usatoday.com - 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.
A man bursts into flames in a London Street
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)