![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
To differentiate between the media hype and 'mystery' surrounding the sonar discovery of the 'Baltic Sea UFO' and the follow-up expedition known as Operation Baltic Discovery I've thought it best to create two separate wikipedia articles so that people can better appreciate the two with separate headings. I will create this second article within the next two days and will include appropriate cross references. Hope this makes sense. Yogiadept ( talk) 09:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I seems weird that the "scam" paragraph is more then double the size of anything else in teh articel - seems a little biased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.40.148 ( talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a fair amount of cleanup and restructuring [1]. I think the subject is notable only because of the coverage/nickname given it by the media. It certainly has no recognition in academia or scientific journals. The Ocean X people are not scientists or geologists, they are treasure hunters and wreck divers, so calling it an "anomaly" or "USO" or any other term they promote is not appropriate in my opinion. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the problem in using primary sources to document the anamolies descriptive charecteristics or update on current findings/future plans of Ocean X . Ocean X are locked in a contract with titan television regarding their latest expeditions , so have only published nuggets of information on their own website and facebook group WP:ABOUTSELF as long as it does not unduly weight or bias the article WP:UNDUE. I think it's right to label it as a anomaly , rather than a UFO as there it is not encycloepedic to endorse a fringe opinion that it is a UFO. Similarly i would see USO as the correct descriptive label for it. Darwinerasmus ( talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I did agree with your other points. good job on cleaning it up - it looks a lot better and more balanced now. Darwinerasmus ( talk) 02:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits by Baltic Anomaly ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and corresponding material published at "The Baltic Sea Anomaly – Wikipedia" seem to indicate the authors intend to use this article to post news updates for Ocean X Facebook fans. This is not appropriate, please see WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This was in my news feed. I'll try to fiddle with it later, I gotta get ready to leave the house. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lucky Louie. I'm sorry if this isn't the right way to "talk" but I'm not familiar with the function. I have been trying to revise the baltic anomaly wikipedia article. I really am not trying to be biased or promote them. I am simply trying to present some facts because I feel that the facts are not accurately presented on the current page. Unfortunately, many of the images released to the public have been released on their open facebook page. In addition, much of the information about their findings has only been posted to their facebook page. There has been one article that was picked up by the mainstream media that has many facts incorrect, (for example, it makes them look like they are running a scam when, in fact, they have refused on many occasions offers for donations to fund their expeditions and refuse to take money from anybody. People were begging for ways to contribute to find out what it is, so finally they conceded and decided to sell t-shirts because they didn't want donations.)
So I'd just like to ask for some advice.
1. There are many more images that have been presented to the public through their facebook page. How can those images be referenced properly in a wikipedia article without violating copyright and in order to comply with the "reliable sources" requirement?
2. What do you do if a report with obvious errors gets picked up by the mainstream media without any factchecking? (The person who said that the rocks were from pre-ice age did not say that the object was from the pre-ice age, but the story that was run indicates that he did. He simply said that those rocks were from the pre-ice age and the interviewer misunderstood what those rocks were.)
I really do want to do this in an editorially sound way.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.216.202 ( talk) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I have tried to contact the news sources to let them know of the inaccuracies, but they will not respond. I guess the page will just have to stay the way it is until they release the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.216.202 ( talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
So if the major, established news organizations are miss informed, Wikipedia will spread the miss information as fact? Avfourie ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Sign Avfourie ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The arcticle uses the word tablemount which indicates that the formation is "an isolated underwater volcanic mountain". Nothing at this moment makes clear that it is a "volcanic mountain". The formation may be made out of concrete [1], as reported by one diver. I question the word "tablemount", to describe the formation. JJFux ( talk) 18:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
-this is def a ufo except its not wat u think, there was a poleshift 1.7 million years ago and the reason why it didnt erode with all the other material possessions of earth is because the nara didn't crash it on the moon. This ship they crashed is perserved because they crashed it into an area where the water itself doesnt move. That's why its magnefied crystals. The metal they used in those days were silver and gold on their ships. It would have gleamed like the sun compared to the primitive technology we use today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 ( talk) 01:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
JJFux ( talk) 17:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed my addition of the Israeli report on Baltic sea anomaly article. I assume that the problem is that the source (if you consider Ocean X team the source) is not independent. However if you look at the report (or look at what I wrote in the article) it actually says that the anomaly is simply plain rock. Thus the report itself makes no claims out of the ordinary; in fact it rather debunks the mystery. I think this is a relevant contribution to the article, considering that it is the only scientific analysis carried out on samples from the anomaly. I haven't been able to find an alternate source of the report.-- Jaksel ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I found that source was being used to promote Weiner's WP:REDFLAG view that limonite and goethite are not naturally formed, while the orthodox geology opinions were termed "claims", hence, my copyedits. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the disruption of electronics is a major part of the story, it should be IN the story. Also, since such things don't happen often naturally – solar mass ejections and solar flares aside – it is an extraordinary phenomenon, and thus potential evidence for something electronic being there. Since electronics disruptions have been reported to have occurred when planes have approached UFOs, then it is also fair that people consider that a possibility. It is therefore potential evidence for a UFO/USO, whether human, alien, or otherwise. Misty MH ( talk) 20:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
In regards to my edits being edited by Dr.K.
It is wrong to generalise what the geologists think as the article shows different opinions from different geologists. 'Geologists have stated that it is most likely a natural geological formation.' - my edit to this was deleted, has every geologist stated this? According to the page itself, no. - - Tony669900 ( talk)
However, the chemical composition also resembles that of materials found in high tech aerospacePlease see WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG. Dr. K. 05:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. It is not relevant to the point I made, I have not disputed that conflict. Further, maybe I should use the Daily Mail or Yahoo News?
Dr.K. Well, I am simply looking at the references on the page, it seems there is no problem with Yahoo News or the Daily Mail.
Dr.K. You took down my academic title for Steven given to him in the article talking about him. It is from the pre-existing page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K.You have not addressed my dispute at all (it's in the heading). I am disappointed. This is not an answer: 'Let's get real here. You come in this article and use youtube, a junk source,' it is simply not answering the question. Simply questioning a source I provided which is a documentary on the matter. That is a separate dispute, and an edit which I have not disputed. Once again, you are not answering my dispute at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Geologists are divided and are not in agreement: Please supply a reliable source that states this. Remember: No youtube, no tabloids, no UFOs, no aerospace materials, no WP:FRINGE theories and no WP:REDFLAGS. Are we on the same page now? Dr. K. 06:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. I am using the content of the page itself, as different opinions are presented on the page, maybe 'divided' is too strong. If you don't like my edit maybe you should completely get rid of Steven's claim? Of course it must be a 'claim' which is weaker than 'say/said'. I tried, something new, along the lines of, '...geologists have different views on whether it is natural or unnatural...'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs)
Ian.thomson Dr.K. Well your arguments are illogical and my edit is better. I won't edit any further. Cheerio
Dr.K. 'Can't look at the page and draw our own conclusions.' That's exactly what my second edit would stop. You making your own conclusions.
Geologists have different views on whether it is natural or unnatural.Can you specify who told you that? If you made that up, it is not allowed. If you can cite a source which said that, please let us know where it is. Make sense? Dr. K. 06:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. I'm going to have to get rich and do some deep sea coring haha :) then see what it really is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I came here after seeing the claims and the fakey images promoted on Facebook, expecting to see some material properly cited to actual scientists, as opposed tp Swedish treasure hunters and tabloids, but the article at present is very credulous and lends support to pseudoscience. I added the "Disputed" tag since there is no scientific consensus supporting it being what the tabloids claim, a 200 foot diameter spaceship which crashed 140000 years ago. Even the alternative explanations are nonsensical, like the WW2 antossubmarine device or a battleship somehow having lost a 200 foot diameter gun turret. Edison ( talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Th Edison ( talk) 02:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I added a link to this (admittedly somewhat dubious) site, as it appeared to have good images. But it was reverted with the edit summary " WP:ELNO, unreliable source hosting artists illustrations represented as actual sonar scans". As there are currently no images in this article, is any other editor able to find a reliable source with good images, that might be used as an External link? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I have been following the Baltic Sea Anomaly for years. Now I saw that some guys started a project called "Baltic Sea Anomaly". I guess that is pretty new around the activity of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. I had contact with these guys and they said the project is growing pretty fast. Very briefly summarized, the idea of the project is to raise money and do research around the object. You can find a lot more information of the project on their site: www.balticseaanomaly.com. So I wrote a new little section for the Wikipedia page, but someone deleted it and said that I should discuss this in this Talk group. He also said it looked like advertising, but I don't agree to that. I think people want to read it because I think it is a pretty big step to unmask the mystery of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. And (I know, this look like advertising but it is helpfull for the project), they can donate so they can see progress in, again, unmasking the mystery of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. I think there is a lot potential in these guys and in this project, so there will be future in the adventure in unmasking the truth about The Baltic Sea Anomaly!
FlowRiz ( talk) 10:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
"We are looking for people who want to donate money. We are looking for companies that want to sponsor us. We are looking for websites that want to advertise to us."
I note the naming similarity here. Is Ocean X, mentioned in this article, the same as or associated with OceanX? Should the article point out that connection or, if there is none, disclaim the lack of a connection? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I edit the very long "short description" (which is basically the first sentence of the article) to something shorter and more concise? The guideline for short descriptions is about 40 characters. How about this: "object or natural formation on the floor of the Baltic Sea"? Feedback or other ideas, I'm all ears. Netherzone ( talk) 14:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
For example, the summary line quotes references 1 to 5 as expert opinions while most are just people's opinions themselves, and not expert. 223.118.52.185 ( talk) 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
To differentiate between the media hype and 'mystery' surrounding the sonar discovery of the 'Baltic Sea UFO' and the follow-up expedition known as Operation Baltic Discovery I've thought it best to create two separate wikipedia articles so that people can better appreciate the two with separate headings. I will create this second article within the next two days and will include appropriate cross references. Hope this makes sense. Yogiadept ( talk) 09:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I seems weird that the "scam" paragraph is more then double the size of anything else in teh articel - seems a little biased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.40.148 ( talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a fair amount of cleanup and restructuring [1]. I think the subject is notable only because of the coverage/nickname given it by the media. It certainly has no recognition in academia or scientific journals. The Ocean X people are not scientists or geologists, they are treasure hunters and wreck divers, so calling it an "anomaly" or "USO" or any other term they promote is not appropriate in my opinion. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the problem in using primary sources to document the anamolies descriptive charecteristics or update on current findings/future plans of Ocean X . Ocean X are locked in a contract with titan television regarding their latest expeditions , so have only published nuggets of information on their own website and facebook group WP:ABOUTSELF as long as it does not unduly weight or bias the article WP:UNDUE. I think it's right to label it as a anomaly , rather than a UFO as there it is not encycloepedic to endorse a fringe opinion that it is a UFO. Similarly i would see USO as the correct descriptive label for it. Darwinerasmus ( talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I did agree with your other points. good job on cleaning it up - it looks a lot better and more balanced now. Darwinerasmus ( talk) 02:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits by Baltic Anomaly ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and corresponding material published at "The Baltic Sea Anomaly – Wikipedia" seem to indicate the authors intend to use this article to post news updates for Ocean X Facebook fans. This is not appropriate, please see WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This was in my news feed. I'll try to fiddle with it later, I gotta get ready to leave the house. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lucky Louie. I'm sorry if this isn't the right way to "talk" but I'm not familiar with the function. I have been trying to revise the baltic anomaly wikipedia article. I really am not trying to be biased or promote them. I am simply trying to present some facts because I feel that the facts are not accurately presented on the current page. Unfortunately, many of the images released to the public have been released on their open facebook page. In addition, much of the information about their findings has only been posted to their facebook page. There has been one article that was picked up by the mainstream media that has many facts incorrect, (for example, it makes them look like they are running a scam when, in fact, they have refused on many occasions offers for donations to fund their expeditions and refuse to take money from anybody. People were begging for ways to contribute to find out what it is, so finally they conceded and decided to sell t-shirts because they didn't want donations.)
So I'd just like to ask for some advice.
1. There are many more images that have been presented to the public through their facebook page. How can those images be referenced properly in a wikipedia article without violating copyright and in order to comply with the "reliable sources" requirement?
2. What do you do if a report with obvious errors gets picked up by the mainstream media without any factchecking? (The person who said that the rocks were from pre-ice age did not say that the object was from the pre-ice age, but the story that was run indicates that he did. He simply said that those rocks were from the pre-ice age and the interviewer misunderstood what those rocks were.)
I really do want to do this in an editorially sound way.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.216.202 ( talk) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I have tried to contact the news sources to let them know of the inaccuracies, but they will not respond. I guess the page will just have to stay the way it is until they release the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.216.202 ( talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
So if the major, established news organizations are miss informed, Wikipedia will spread the miss information as fact? Avfourie ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Sign Avfourie ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The arcticle uses the word tablemount which indicates that the formation is "an isolated underwater volcanic mountain". Nothing at this moment makes clear that it is a "volcanic mountain". The formation may be made out of concrete [1], as reported by one diver. I question the word "tablemount", to describe the formation. JJFux ( talk) 18:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
-this is def a ufo except its not wat u think, there was a poleshift 1.7 million years ago and the reason why it didnt erode with all the other material possessions of earth is because the nara didn't crash it on the moon. This ship they crashed is perserved because they crashed it into an area where the water itself doesnt move. That's why its magnefied crystals. The metal they used in those days were silver and gold on their ships. It would have gleamed like the sun compared to the primitive technology we use today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 ( talk) 01:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
JJFux ( talk) 17:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed my addition of the Israeli report on Baltic sea anomaly article. I assume that the problem is that the source (if you consider Ocean X team the source) is not independent. However if you look at the report (or look at what I wrote in the article) it actually says that the anomaly is simply plain rock. Thus the report itself makes no claims out of the ordinary; in fact it rather debunks the mystery. I think this is a relevant contribution to the article, considering that it is the only scientific analysis carried out on samples from the anomaly. I haven't been able to find an alternate source of the report.-- Jaksel ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I found that source was being used to promote Weiner's WP:REDFLAG view that limonite and goethite are not naturally formed, while the orthodox geology opinions were termed "claims", hence, my copyedits. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the disruption of electronics is a major part of the story, it should be IN the story. Also, since such things don't happen often naturally – solar mass ejections and solar flares aside – it is an extraordinary phenomenon, and thus potential evidence for something electronic being there. Since electronics disruptions have been reported to have occurred when planes have approached UFOs, then it is also fair that people consider that a possibility. It is therefore potential evidence for a UFO/USO, whether human, alien, or otherwise. Misty MH ( talk) 20:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
In regards to my edits being edited by Dr.K.
It is wrong to generalise what the geologists think as the article shows different opinions from different geologists. 'Geologists have stated that it is most likely a natural geological formation.' - my edit to this was deleted, has every geologist stated this? According to the page itself, no. - - Tony669900 ( talk)
However, the chemical composition also resembles that of materials found in high tech aerospacePlease see WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG. Dr. K. 05:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. It is not relevant to the point I made, I have not disputed that conflict. Further, maybe I should use the Daily Mail or Yahoo News?
Dr.K. Well, I am simply looking at the references on the page, it seems there is no problem with Yahoo News or the Daily Mail.
Dr.K. You took down my academic title for Steven given to him in the article talking about him. It is from the pre-existing page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K.You have not addressed my dispute at all (it's in the heading). I am disappointed. This is not an answer: 'Let's get real here. You come in this article and use youtube, a junk source,' it is simply not answering the question. Simply questioning a source I provided which is a documentary on the matter. That is a separate dispute, and an edit which I have not disputed. Once again, you are not answering my dispute at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Geologists are divided and are not in agreement: Please supply a reliable source that states this. Remember: No youtube, no tabloids, no UFOs, no aerospace materials, no WP:FRINGE theories and no WP:REDFLAGS. Are we on the same page now? Dr. K. 06:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. I am using the content of the page itself, as different opinions are presented on the page, maybe 'divided' is too strong. If you don't like my edit maybe you should completely get rid of Steven's claim? Of course it must be a 'claim' which is weaker than 'say/said'. I tried, something new, along the lines of, '...geologists have different views on whether it is natural or unnatural...'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs)
Ian.thomson Dr.K. Well your arguments are illogical and my edit is better. I won't edit any further. Cheerio
Dr.K. 'Can't look at the page and draw our own conclusions.' That's exactly what my second edit would stop. You making your own conclusions.
Geologists have different views on whether it is natural or unnatural.Can you specify who told you that? If you made that up, it is not allowed. If you can cite a source which said that, please let us know where it is. Make sense? Dr. K. 06:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. I'm going to have to get rich and do some deep sea coring haha :) then see what it really is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I came here after seeing the claims and the fakey images promoted on Facebook, expecting to see some material properly cited to actual scientists, as opposed tp Swedish treasure hunters and tabloids, but the article at present is very credulous and lends support to pseudoscience. I added the "Disputed" tag since there is no scientific consensus supporting it being what the tabloids claim, a 200 foot diameter spaceship which crashed 140000 years ago. Even the alternative explanations are nonsensical, like the WW2 antossubmarine device or a battleship somehow having lost a 200 foot diameter gun turret. Edison ( talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Th Edison ( talk) 02:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I added a link to this (admittedly somewhat dubious) site, as it appeared to have good images. But it was reverted with the edit summary " WP:ELNO, unreliable source hosting artists illustrations represented as actual sonar scans". As there are currently no images in this article, is any other editor able to find a reliable source with good images, that might be used as an External link? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I have been following the Baltic Sea Anomaly for years. Now I saw that some guys started a project called "Baltic Sea Anomaly". I guess that is pretty new around the activity of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. I had contact with these guys and they said the project is growing pretty fast. Very briefly summarized, the idea of the project is to raise money and do research around the object. You can find a lot more information of the project on their site: www.balticseaanomaly.com. So I wrote a new little section for the Wikipedia page, but someone deleted it and said that I should discuss this in this Talk group. He also said it looked like advertising, but I don't agree to that. I think people want to read it because I think it is a pretty big step to unmask the mystery of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. And (I know, this look like advertising but it is helpfull for the project), they can donate so they can see progress in, again, unmasking the mystery of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. I think there is a lot potential in these guys and in this project, so there will be future in the adventure in unmasking the truth about The Baltic Sea Anomaly!
FlowRiz ( talk) 10:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
"We are looking for people who want to donate money. We are looking for companies that want to sponsor us. We are looking for websites that want to advertise to us."
I note the naming similarity here. Is Ocean X, mentioned in this article, the same as or associated with OceanX? Should the article point out that connection or, if there is none, disclaim the lack of a connection? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I edit the very long "short description" (which is basically the first sentence of the article) to something shorter and more concise? The guideline for short descriptions is about 40 characters. How about this: "object or natural formation on the floor of the Baltic Sea"? Feedback or other ideas, I'm all ears. Netherzone ( talk) 14:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
For example, the summary line quotes references 1 to 5 as expert opinions while most are just people's opinions themselves, and not expert. 223.118.52.185 ( talk) 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)