Talk:Wick effect

Death of Michael Faherty was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 August 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Wick effect. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Death of Michael Faherty was copied or moved into Wick effect on 16:45, 8 August 2022‎. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Requested move

Wick effect exists as a redirect to Spontaneous human combustion, though the latter already contains links to The wick effect. —Psychonaut 13:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support Makes sense. --L33tminion (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but we don't need a vote (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions). The only reason that I have not move the page is that redirect - I'll look into sorting it out. Andreww 08:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I tried to move it but the old page needs deleting. ADMIN! - Orborde 07:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have left a note on an admin's (User talk:Linuxbeak) talk page to see if we can get this done. Andreww 07:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I removed the following example from the article:

"In an experiment conducted for a cable television program, a pig's body was wraped in a blanket and placed in a furnished room. The body took some time to ignite and burned at a very high tempature with low flames. The heat collect at the top of the room and melted a television. The flames caused very little damage to the surroundings, and the body burned for a number of hours befor it was extinguished and examined. On examination it was observed that the flesh and bones in the burned portion had been destroyed."

As stands, it is unverifiable. At the very least, the show on which this experiment aired should be mentioned (by name and either episode number or date).

The article as a whole needs more references as well. --L33tminion (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw the program when it was first shown on the BBC - there is an rather old news page here and the show was called QED, but I don't know the name of the episode or the exact date. Maybe we should refer to the BBC news website. Andreww 04:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use in 'Bones' episode

The 'wick effect' was mentioned as a theory to explain a murder in a 2009 episode of the popular forensic crime show Bones, however, I don't have information on exact broadcast date, nor title of the episode (although I don't know how relevent to the article that information is).Rickremember (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generalise ?

"The wick effect is the name given to the partial destruction of a human body by fire"

I was expecting this just to explain how a Candle wick works, related to, but not exclusively confined to SHC !
Most liquids and solids must be vapourised (finely divided in a gaseous suspension, or ultimately phase-changed into an atomically-divided gas) before they can combust. The exception, special solids and liquids that don't need to be vapourised, would be called Explosives - they contain an internal source of oxygen. A wick is a fabric which is wet by a liquid, so that the liquid covers the surface of the fibres. This greatly increased surface area increases the evaporation of the liquid, until the fuel/air mixture is concentrated enough to support combustion.
Better ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

"The victim was described as "well nourished": a common pathologist's euphemism for minor to substantially overweight.[original research?]"

The original research tag seems a bit unwarranted - it's a common euphemism in ALL walks of life, IMO. Just wanted to get some feedback before I removed the tag though.

Faraday's Cage (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 years later, the tag was replaced (now it's "[dubious - discuss]) and the explanation of the euphemism is now missing. Mateussf (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed original research was removed here, in August 2012. Mateussf (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description ambiguity

The line "The soft tissues of the right arm, torso and upper legs were consumed. " is ambiguous. Should it be "consumed by fire"? Wisdomthatiswoe (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counterargument

I remember watching the 1998 documentary, burning a pig carcass, when it was on and it seemed pretty conclusive. But that's not the point - any experiment is going to seem conclusive when set up to demonstrate an explanation for the TV cameras.

So, is there any counter-argument? Any scientists who argue that the wick effect is bollocks (ie. unlikely to be replicated under natural conditions) or that it does not satisfactorily explain supposed Spontaneous Human Combustion?Paulturtle (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a paper about it.

A section starts with "Advocates of SHC often deny that the "wick effect" can account for the degree of destruction witnessed in these cases," and goes on to list some arguments.

Christensen, Angi M., "Debunking the Spontaneous Human Combustion Myth: Experiments in the Combustibility of the Human Body. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2000. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4133

Maybe there's something here to account for a "Criticism" section on the article. Mateussf (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing incorrect information with no citation

I am removing " It is one commonly offered explanation for the alleged phenomenon of spontaneous human combustion.^{[citation needed]}" from the introduction paragraph. It's been there from the beginning but has never been cited and isn't even logically possible.

The wick effect requires melted fat. For your fat to be melting you have to be on fire. So for the wick effect to occur, combustion has already started, so it can't be an explanation for that combustion. It's almost like a time paradox, like someone being their own father. It's not possible. JVerity (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems sensible. It feels like there ought to be some sort of acknowledgement that the terms are often conflated, but I agree that the removed sentence isn't it. Perhaps the mention in the Galway case is enough? — Greentryst ^T_C 23:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]