Talk:Death of Michael Faherty

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2022. The result of the discussion was merge.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

Is this not a classic instance of WP:BIO1E? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It subjective whatever side of the argument you claim. WP:BIO1E says If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Many would say that a case of spontaneous human combustion is highly significant. Many would also point to the very large coverage in reliable sources (BBC, for example). All sources would devote attention to the individual's role as he is the centre of it all anyway. Maybe the article should be about this case of combustion rather than about the person then it wouldn't even fall under BIO policies.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above relates to original title of Michael Faherty (suspected combustion death. I assume Paste will find Death of Michael Faherty acceptable. Note to Paste: see the list of people in spontaneous human combustion. The other four who have articles all need the same treatment. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected combustion ?

I thought the combustion was beyond doubt ? Cause and mechanism unknown. 'Spontaneous' is pure sensational speculation. RIP. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a smoker? Why was the fireplace ruled out? Highly doubt the man just caught on fire no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobbeekeep (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad taste (or rather bad smell)

I cannot resist the pun: perhaps he faherted and the methane in the fart ignited. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Causes ???

The cause has been scientifically proved, its called the "wick effect". Thats why it happened in front of the fire place.

The coroner has recorded this case as "spontaneous human combustion" to say it fits the same profile as previous cases. There is no way to be sure of cause of death or whether it was intentional or accidental, or whether the man was attending to the fire, or he was merely sitting near it and the ember jumped out due to some small scale explosion...

BUT, WHY these cases are spontaneous human combustion cases is well known. The wick effect causes them. There's a small fire in cotton or polyester clothing, and it burns well for a very short time and there's not enough heat produced to to damage the room. But then some other less flammable clothing ( or wool blanket ? ) acts as a wick and combusts the human's liquified flesh, slowly.... The heat from the flame of the wick is constantly burning the flesh, drying it out somewhat , and turning it into a wick flammable liquid, in that it is a liquid that is flammable when a wick is used.. The fire burns the body slowly so the heat from the fire can escape the room too and this avoids the room itself igniting ..as ignition occurs with temperature , the concentration of heat, not total heat... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.170.18 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

60.242.170.18 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Causes

I dont think a link to Benjamin Radford's blog with his personal opinion is helpful. Especially given that his opinion consists of 'With 5 billion people how come it does not happen more often', which is ridiculous (e.g. if genius exists, how come there aren't more Einsteins, Da Vinci's and Newtons, when there are 5 billion people on the world etc).--Caernunos (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Caernunos I'm going to have to disagree. Ben Radford isn't "just" a skeptic, this is not his "personal opinion" he is a paranormal researcher who has written many books on investigations and so on. The quote I put was one of many that could have been used. That wasn't the reason why he concluded what he did. Also msnbc.msn.com/_news/ isn't what I would call a "blog". Sgerbic (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree, Caernunos. I do think you make a good point, regarding the "why doesn't it happen more often?" quote, and I think taking that specific quote out will make the page stronger. However, I think the bit about "Faherty's case may not be as mysterious as it looks. There was, after all, an open fire close to his burned body. It seems likely that a spark or ember might have popped from the fire onto his clothing, and caught his clothing on fire. It's not clear why the coroner conclusively ruled this explanation out" should be left in. This is not from Radford's blog. This is from MSNBC's "The Body Odd." And as an established investigator and writer on paranormal phenomena, Radford's assessment of the incident is of interest. The questions he raises are worth documenting. They add to the story.Dustinlull (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Radford's quote of "how come it doesn't happen more often" to be slightly confusing, but myself, I instantly recognise it as a "simplified" version of the actual logical analysis of "spontaneous human combustion". Remember we have it that "its very often occuring near an open fire place" and "very often occuring at home". Why is there a correlation ? Also its ALWAYS occuring where there is a time where the victim was alone, and thus the fire had no witness, and the coolness of the room suggests the fire had been out for a long time before the body was found.

BUT what this adds to is to say that the body was burning for a long time, due to the wick effect, with the help of the chimney effect... The chimney correlation IS causation. The chimney causes the fire by promoting the draft that provides the constant flow of fresh air to the fire occuring at the wick (the clothing or blanket) ... That is why its the wick effect, but its actually more often occuring where there is both a wick and a chimney ... Radford is saying "if the human body can just explode into a cold fireball, how come it doesn't happen in the mortuary, or in the shopping centre, or on the footpath ? How come no one ever observed the spontateous human combustion ? Radford just believes this sentence then causes you to think "Because if its observed, then its observed to be "he burnt himself by catching his clothes alight !". ...