Jump to content

Talk:Spontaneous human combustion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CRAW309 (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pyrotron" seems like something unfit for an encyclopedia.

[edit]
Larry E. Arnold in his 1995 book Ablaze! proposed a pseudoscientific new subatomic particle, which he called "pyrotron".

Is quackery of this degree actually useful in an encyclopedia? Is it notable enough to warrant inclusion? It feels like undue weight is being given to absolutely ridiculous woo in this article. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for Arnold's ridiculousness. Yes ok, this article is a woo magnet. He gets a slight comeuppance from Joe Nickell. Perhaps the balance could be made more explicit. And I'm not sure Arnold belongs, based on just that primary source, in the "Overview" section. But every article needs a slight spark of novelty? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Formal request has been received to merge: Mary Reeser into Spontaneous human combustion; dated: March 2023. Proposer's Rationale: There is nothing notable about this individual besides the fact she allegedly died from spontaneous human combustion and its article has a paragraph about her in the "Notable Examples" section. ~216.165.127.20. Discuss here. GenQuest "scribble" 13:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think to oppose this. The daughter-in-law and FBI thought her combustion wasn't spontaneous. The leading source cited in the article for the "spontaneous" claim says nothing of the sort, only that it was a mystery, and the only claims are from people speculating and passing on other people's speculation on the matter. I accept no end of people may have claimed spontaneous combustion (possibly sufficient for notability) but there was no evidence for "spontaneous" and the opinion of anyone involved was either unsure or thinking it was not. The article should either be deleted or changed to make it clearer the claims were uninformed and speculative. Thincat (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1720-ball-lightning-scientists-remain-in-the-dark/ I believe this is the link to the page citation 28 is trying to reach. 49.177.136.152 (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've now seen to it. Thincat (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: LIT 3319 Contexts

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Envylivion (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Envylivion (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]