Talk:Black triangle (UFO)

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

Misc. comments[edit]

This article should probably state what "ULM" and "RPV" means. — Timwi 21:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Can someone categorically state when the first FT was reported? Is there an archive which catalogued the first proper Flying Triangle sighting?

pictures? - Omegatron 19:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Soesterberg Triangle[edit]

I added this text to the page:

February 3, 1979, twelve soldiers saw a huge black triangle fly above the Soesterberg Air Base. It had three bright lights on the front, a red light on the back. It flew over the base and then shot away, like a bullet from a gun, as described by the witnesses.

The source was: https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/3656485/ufo-die-in-1979-boven-vliegbasis-soesterberg-vloog-maakte-onuitwisbare-indruk-op-militairen

I thought it should be of great interest since it's a triangle case ten years prior to the well known Belgian UFO wave, but it was removed with the comment "Credulous anecdote written by a ufologist".

I don't see how this is "credulous anecdote", since it's twelve military witnesses.

I don't see how this is "assume good faith", "be polite", or "be welcoming to newcomers". I'm trying to contribute and I get labeled a ufologist.

How is the above case any different than the 2004–2006 Tinley Park Lights? It also uses news media as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermindway (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is a puff piece about a movie premiere. I agree it isn't a reliable source for the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Supermindway, I didn't call you a ufologist. I was talking about Bram Roza and what he wrote about the claimed sighting. The "twelve soldiers" are unidentified as are the "people" Roza spoke with. In fact the article is very short on any factual detail, it's just a lot of claims that people were "impressed". Wikipedia requires WP:FRIND sources for fringe claims. Media sources that take every fringe claim at face value, with no fact checking, investigation, or expert analysis, are no good to us. I hope you'll agree, a big part of being welcoming to newcomers is assisting them in understanding the encyclopedia's editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be possible to find original sources for this incident. In the new documentary on the incident, original newspaper articles are presented, and witnesses give their testimony on tape. I agree with Supermindway, this is one of the most significant black triangle incidents, and should be included somewhere on the page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU-s7NHPeUo 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should continue to rely on secondary WP:RS, not primary source accounts, as is required by Wikipedia's policy. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we allow vague assertions like this?[edit]

At the end of the section on the Belgian wave, it just says, "This entire Belgian UFO wave, however, has been disputed by skeptics.[14][11]". Isn't this way too vague of an assertion. Ideally, what has been disputed should be explicit. Also, [11] is just a transcript of a podcast, and the dispute seems highly subjective and lacking substance, basically just a person's opinion. It also contains errors, such as "If 13,500 people did all actually see something that they took for a UFO at the time, I guarantee you that more than just a single photograph would have resulted". You can see for example, at least one video not mentioned in the podcast exists, with provenience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBUULtF0TGw

Can we delete this sentence? Or alternatively, if it must stay, can we clarify what was actually disputed. For example [14] specifically proposes a hypothesis that some of the events could have been caused by helicopters, and [15] asserts that the 13,500 eyewitness accounts are the result of a psychosocial phenomenon? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and delete it.
It should be noted that the photo associated with the photo in the Belgium wave section is also fishy, because none of the citations match that particular photo. The podcast cited [11] shows a different photo, although also attributed to Patrick Maréchal. And news article, [13] shows yet another photo different than the one in the section and different than the one in [12] but also attributes it to the same person. Yet the source of the actual image in this section, https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155054/http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm, attributes the image to J.S. Henradi. The source of this image is also a highly fringe website. The image should either be replaced to be consistent with the sources that are cited, or removed all together. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the latest changes - they were generally pushing POV (repeatedly inserting the word 'purportedly') and overall replaced properly sourced content with more credulous text. - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to justify why you added back the photo from abaduct-anon.com, that doesn't even match the photos discussed by Dunning, or the other sources that are cited, neither in their purported origin or the image itself.
Using the word purportedly is preferable to just asserting the thing is true, when that's not the case. Please under the revert. Thank you. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not supposed to revert without good cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did find it necessary, that is why I did it. Second, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's somebody's opinion.
Using the word 'purportedly' is an example of a WP:WEASEL word (that really is a guideline), we do not insert such words to try to undercut the reliable sources. That is POV pushing - even if you personally disagree with the source, Wikipedia policy is that we follow what it says.
You have shown no evidence that the website you linked is the source of the image, and not one of the many, many sites that host a copy of it because the photographer placed it in the public domain, allowing it to be used freely and widely. The image you removed was a valuable illustration of the topic of the article, and contained important cited content in the image caption. That should not be removed. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined"
The reason purported was added, is that the claim was not determined. You did not give a valid reason to undo the revert, and if you were being honest, you'd recognize that the edits I made dramatically improved the quality of the page, as in its previous form it contained multiple misleading or untrue bits of information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've omitted crucial context from your quotation: such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. That is not the case here. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't address the word purportedly in this specific context, but uses criminal trial as an example. In the case of an anecdote from an anonymous person, purported is better than stating what the person said as a being a fact as was previously the case before added. If you don't like that, maybe make a good faith edit, replacing the word purported with, <X> said, or something like that. Or remove the statement in question all together. The goal should be for the article to be accurate. You're just undoing the work I put in to correct obvious errors in the article. Take the time to verify what you are doing makes sense before doing it. Thanks. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting your changes is in fact a 'good faith edit', because your edits made the article worse. You are not correcting 'obvious errors', you are pushing your personal POV in a way that obviously conflicts with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can simply look at the source of the image, and compare it with the images in the cited sources, and see clearly they are not the same image, nor have the same provenience.
Here is the image. It comes from a credulous abduction website, that credits the image to J.S. Henradi.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155054/http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm
Source one, [11] https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4538, shows a different image with different provenience.
Source [12] shows no image, but speaks about the same story from [11].
https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2011/07/28/01008-20110728ARTFIG00353-la-photo-d-un-ovni-belge-celebre-etait-un-trucage.php
Source [13] shows yet a different image (not the one Dunning discussed or abduct-anon.com) but with the same provenience
as [11] and [12].
https://www.science-et-vie.com/article-magazine/photos-dovnis-la-plus-celebre-etait-fausse 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have not seen the warnings on your IP talk page: You must stop revert warring. You have seen that others disagree with your changes - continuing as you have been will get your IP blocked and/or the page locked so that IP editors may not longer change it. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection."
Have you read this? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and I will draw the inevitable and logical conclusion. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you do understand that you have been reverted by multiple other people, correct? MrOllie (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the errors I found and tried to correct are still present. It would seem that this page is guarded too heavily by people with a shared POV who will prefer the errors to persist as long as they promote their own POV, to make it worthwhile for me to attempt to get these errors to be corrected. The information elucidating the errors is here on the talk page, so if anyone with enough authority to get these errors fixed, who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia, wants to take on the burden themselves, feel free to do so. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information in section on the 2000 Southern Illinois incident.[edit]

The text in question is:

"Science writer Brian Dunning has reported that the observed object was identified by the FAA as an advertising blimp operated by the American Blimp Company.[16]"

16. Dunning, Brian. "The St. Clair Triangle UFO". Skeptoid. Skeptoid Media Inc. Retrieved 2021-09-16. <https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4435>

It is true that Dunning and others hypothesized that it was a blimp, and made arguments supporting their hypothesis, but untrue that it was identified by the FAA as an advertising blimp. The inaccuracy may have been carried over from an inaccuracy in Dunning's podcast transcript.

Dunning wrote: "Writing in the St. Louis Riverfront Times three months after the incident, reporter William Stage said he'd been advised by the FAA that the object reported was an advertising blimp."

The riverfront times article cited by Dunning wrote:

'The Lebanon Advertiser, on the other hand, gave the story front-page, over-the-fold prominence in its Jan. 12 edition: "Huge UFO Is Reported to Have Flown Over Lebanon," blared the headline. The story's final paragraph noted that "the Federal Aviation Administration has suggested that the object may have been an advertising blimp.'

Stage, W. "Witnesses testify in the mystery of the Metro East UFO." Space Case. Riverfront Times, 5 Apr. 2000. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/space-case/Content?oid=2474776>

The conflation of the FAA saying "it may have been a blimp", with the FAA identifying it as a blimp is the issue here. It is not true to say it was identified. Dunning, also says, "Unfortunately, nobody at Van Wagner knew of any records showing the details of times and dates of blimps in transit from one event to another back in 2000", and so was also not able to positively identify the object as a blimp.

I will wait a few days for others to take in this information and think about it before proposing an edit to correct the inaccuracy. Thank you for your time. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85CB:859D:215C:9CEA (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified that the FAA suggested it was an advertising blimp. Three sources cover it, so no need to attribute it to Dunning alone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but might as well make it precise according to the source, "may be" as opposed to "likely". Might have essentially the same meaning with some wiggle room, but "likely" has a different connotation, and using this word instead of the actual words reported gives the impression there is an intention of the editor to manipulate the reader. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the rest of the sentence, "advertising blimp operated in the area by the American Blimp Company", is also misleading. It was simply reported that the FAA suggested it may have been an advertising blimp. No need to tack on extra fictional information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario 2010s video[edit]

Hey, not sure how to work this into the article, but the maintainers might be interested to know that a video of a black triangle was shot some time in the 2010s https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14wygn7/this_was_taken_from_a_friend_of_my_dads_while/

The uploader's reddit account had existed for a year before the upload, and wasn't previously involved in the UFOs subreddit.

Would it be worth adding a section for this? Given that it was filmed? It's kinda heartbreaking that there are only two photos here, one of them's a hoax and the other is suggested to be a formation of orbs rather than a black triangle.

--Myas012 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit is a WP:USERGEN source. Wikipedia requires WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a RP be needed here? What would they be adding?
To make this clear though: I'm not making this my problem. See ya. Myas012 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_triangle_(UFO)&oldid=1220529858"