Talk:Wick effect

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use in 'Bones' episode 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Generalise ? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The supposed original research was removed here, in August 2012. Mateussf (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Description ambiguity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Counterargument 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 TC 23:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing incorrect information with no citation