Talk:Spontaneous human combustion
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Envylivion in topic Wiki Education assignment: LIT 3319 Contexts
| 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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Spontaneous human combustion be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Combustion humaine spontanée from fr.wikipedia. (210291419 et seq.) |
"Pyrotron" seems like something unfit for an encyclopedia.
editLarry 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)
- 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)
Merger proposal
editThe 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.
- 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)
- I don't see much to merge. The pertinent information is already at Spontaneous human combustion, and it is made clear there that Reese's death was probably just an accident involving a cigarette. I think a redirect would suffice. Joyous! Noise! 02:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
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.
Citation 28 link is broken
edithttps://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)
- Thank you. I've now seen to it. Thincat (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
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)