![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has been linked to from cracked.com. [1] This sometimes results in some minor vandalism, so please keep a watch on the page for the next week or so. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
What Norwegian radio researchers? There's no previous mention of them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.52.26 ( talk) 09:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've reinstated the quote from Martina Redpath. Follow the link to the source and the quote can be found in the text. As to it being the opinion "of one person", it is properly attributed, and we need to satisfy WP:FRINGE by clearly explaining how the fringe view differs from the mainstream view. There is no requirement to give equal validity to the idea that a mysterious thousand year old satellite exists. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but how come a simple blog entry entitled "The TRUTH about the Black Knight Satellite" is a valid source of information ? I can show you numerous blogs stating other truths about the origin of this mystery ? 62.172.176.50 ( talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone removed conspiracy theorists citing:
This is correct. This is not wiki-worthy, nor notable for inclusion. This article exists because it's removal led to a hissy fit and claims we are all reptillian alien overlords for it's lack of inclusion. There is no evidence supporting this, the citations are to different events, and explainable stories. One would have to have a serious mental handicap to believe that a plastic sheet is an alien probe, let alone known tracking signals are somehow unknown sixty years later. So I have removed 'UFOlogists' and reinstated conspiracy theorists as generally UFOlogists aren't mentally handicapped but conspiracy theorists are. If this is indication that the article should be speedy deleted, so be it. I hold that it should, most probably. 121.211.56.55 ( talk) 03:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So, whether you believe in it or not, on some level, the Black Knight is a phenomena. Whether it falls under an anomaly or an outright urban legend is different. Not to mention, that it's not up to you to decide. Wikipedia is meant to be impartial, just deliver what facts there are about the story. It's origins, what supports it, what criticises it and so on, and let people make up their own bloody minds.
No, I don't believe in alien abductions, or psychics or any of that. But, I am an indie video game developer, I like weird and mysterious things and learning more about them. True, or false, it gives me ideas for stuff to make. I came to this page to get an idea of the Black Knight and what it's about. Where it's origins are, perhaps noteworthy encounters or alleged encounters. I came to this page SPECIFICALLY so I could avoid the amateur documentaries on youtube made by people who make The Daily Mail look outright scholarly.
But instead I come here and see it's just a stomping ground for smug Dawkins-esque pseudo intellectuals, who, for some reason, find scholarly pride in stating the bloody obvious. But tell me this: If you're so bloody clever, then how come this page doesn't even have an etymology section? Did it occur to anyone to look that up while you were busy pointing out how little you believe in this phenomena? Did the satellite just drop down from orbit one day, tip it's hat and say "Hello, you may call me Black Knight"?
Do some research, tell the story without bias. Stop using this like your personal blog site. You let me down, and the wikipedia community as a whole. I mean, sure. At times when I feel a bit silly. I like to visit the pages covering concepts in neoliberal economics and write satire about what heartless bastards they are. But even so, I still respect what Wikipedia stands for. I still respect it's purpose. To bring knowledge to the common masses, to educate and inform people. To help people better themselves through a tool that is availible for everyone, at a small click of a button. A library that we can all enjoy. I'd never tarnish that by injecting my own bias as some kind of valid substitute for the facts.
This page is a shambles, and I hope that someone out there who knows a bit more about this topic will turn this page into something other than a monument to the undignified pretentiousness that festers in the underbelly of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 ( talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the dismissal by the article header is quite biased for a neutral page. Something like "There are few reliable sources to confirm the existence of the Black Knight." might make it feel a bit less like an essay. That being said, I appreciate your response, McGeddon. When I have the free time, I might just be a bit bold. I've never written an article before, and I have the formal education of a thirteen year old. But, Darwin was bad at spelling, and he got things done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 ( talk) 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"The black Knight" is currently thought to be simply a thermal blanket. Space junk. -- 172.251.204.186 ( talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Where does that come from?
The first indication of this seems to be some sort of " foo fighter" story in the Cold War. There is no reason why that mythos should cross over into something pre-historic. What was even happening 13,000 years ago? Is this a mythic claim of some ante-diluvian bit of Daniken? 13,000 is too old for recorded history, even that of the Creationists. So where did the claimed age come from, and what other lost civilisation or alien visitors is it being tied to? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It was the Ham Radio operator who apparently decoded a series of signals received from the UFO Satellite and interpreted it as a star-chart centered on the Epsilon Bootes Star System.
According to the decoded message, the Black Knight satellite originated from the Epsilon Bootes Star System 13.000 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.184.177 ( talk) 09:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ansver: The epsilon Bootis or star named Izar is roughly 202,2 light years away. ~~Bynk~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.198.150 ( talk) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A recent addition has added a laundry list of claims. What should we do with them?
I'm broadly in favour of keeping them, but cleanup is needed. I don't care if they're true or not (I do not believe that 'Black Knight' is anything more than a conflation of space junk stories). If we remove "All but the accepted truth" though, we have no article. We should record each claim, however ludicrous, source its provenance and give what refutation is credibly available. That is the encyclopedic way.
That said, some of the stuff here is nonsensical.
My curiosity wants to keep this stuff. But it's not even well written or self-consistent. How far do we prune? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever got round to being able to say - ok if you point your telescope at this latitude and longitude at this time of day you will be able to see the Black Knight? Or what we think is the Black Knight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:41C9:8600:151A:F372:6B6B:2255 ( talk) 04:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
So how did this alleged object receive the name "Black Knight"? Was it before or after the STS-88 photos? (The object in the photo shown in this article could, with some imagination, be said to resemble a black knight from a chess set.) -- llywrch ( talk) 07:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a been a fair amount of edit warring by IPs to insert fringe content lately [2]. They apparently feel that some key details of the story are missing. In a sense, that has been true: our article covered a few basic points, but left the rest unaddressed. So I've updated the article [3] to address the conspiracy narrative using our best academic and independent sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
'... is claimed by some consp theorists to be xyz' - this has to be one of the worst wikipedia first sentences I've read so far. I (and everyone else) want to know what it actually IS, not what whoever claims it is. Even in a case like this there is physical, real facts, right? And that's what needs to be in the first paragraph, obviously. Not even throughout the rest of the article does it tell me what the black knight satellite actually IS - is it that one photo, plus all sorts of rumours following up? If so, I'd suggest a first paragraph like 'The Black Knight satellite is an object that appeared on NASA photo STS088-724-66. After publication of the image several theories emerged to explain this object.' 176.6.126.115 ( talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW. At this point 16-2 in favour of moving. Even taking 'not a vote' into account, no argument has been made (or is likely to be made) that would over-ride the clear consensus here. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The request to rename this article to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory has been carried out. |
Black Knight satellite → Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory – In keeping with our practice of clearly labeling conspiracy theories as such in their titles, I suggest we change the title. (One example is Chemtrail conspiracy theory.) In these days of fake news and alternative facts, it's pretty important that a headline or title, which is often the only thing seen or read, does not allow a false statement to stand alone as a factoid, when it is not a fact. Yellow journalism uses creative, deceptive, and incomplete headlines to draw readers in, but we must not do it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.WP:COMMONNAME (and other policies) speak to using the name that's most common in reliable sources.No, only COMMONNAME speaks to that. Policies exist to address problems. COMMONNAME was implemented to address a different problem than the one being discussed here, as I already pointed out below.
but this is usually for disambiguation or when a descriptive title is necessary.Given that we're discussing the conspiracy theory (which has no name at all), not the hypothetical object, a descriptive title is appropriate. Also, if you take "Conspiracy theory" off of several of those article titles, you do not end up at an article. We have no "Barack Obama religion" or "Pearl Harbor advanced-knowledge" article. Even with "Chemtrail conspiracy theory," the word "Chemtrail" redirects to it, which is how this article should be treated.
Neither is the case here, and as I've shown, the vast majority of articles on conspiracy theories don't call them "xxx conspiracy theory".You have shown no such thing. You have claimed it. Instead, you linked to a couple of categories, in which the vast majority of pages are not about conspiracy theories, but about elements of conspiracy theories or about real-world subjects related to conspiracy theories. If the literature in RSes about this subject were to increase significantly, then it might become appropriate to create an article about the fictional satellite itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Here, all evidence indicates that this is "Black Knight satellite". "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory" is not in wide use even though all reliable sources treat it as fringe.Yes, but WP:IAR tells us to ignore policies when they prevent us from improving the project. As jps points out below, the proposed title improves the project. So even if you are completely correct about your interpretation of the policies, it does not necessarily follow that we should adhere to them in this case.
Category:Alleged_UFO-related_entities: 30 articles, none have "conspiracy theory" or similar. Articles like Reptilians, Energy being, Flatwoods monster, etc., use their common names.Again, those (and subsequent articles you mentioned) are articles about entities, not about the conspiracy theories. The entities themselves are notable, and it might be argued that the fictional satellite here is notable enough to deserve its own article, separate from the conspiracy theories surrounding them. However, it's also very arguable that many of those articles should be re-written to frame them in terms of the CSes in which they feature. I understand your argument and I see the logic in it, but I just don't agree with it. We should be documenting these things in a manner that's most compliant with the real world and with how the reliable source treat them; namely, as conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
As in, Reptilians, Bigfoot, etc., aren't really about the "entities", by and large, they're about the fringe theories and legends that have aggregated around non-existent "entities",Then we should probably get to those, once we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.and the article is not about the satellite, only the lede is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: WP:SNOW? Don't you mean WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:BEBOLD instead? Peaceray ( talk) 18:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Tell you what. If one other editor who has sometime in the past posted a comment to the article talk page or who has sometime in the past edited the article agrees with Cuchullain I will revert the close. Cuchullain is free to increase the chance of someone agreeing with him by posting a couple of those "points that need to be considered that haven't been yet" in response to this comment. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've said twice now that there's no indication that any actual policy point was considered
Guy gave no closing summary
I cited specific policies that argue against the move - most significantly, WP:COMMONNAME ("Black Knight satellite" is the more common name than the constructed title "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory")
but also the various WP:CRITERIA (the new title is less WP:CONCISE
is more WP:PRECISE than necessary
isn't WP:CONSISTENT with related articles, etc)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which may be of interest. The thread is "
Request to overturn administrator's decision". --
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The satellite black knight, whatever you called, is empty now, that was a transport for a thousand beens, now live in this planet. I can not load the pictures were you can see, what I talking.
Neither of the two sources used for it being a conspiracy theory in the lead call it such, thus the tags should not have been removed. If we have sources saying this is a conspiracy theory why not use rhos and not sources that do not make that claim? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That phrase makes no sense. If there's an object, and there is, then it exists. It's just not what is claimed by the conspiracy theorists. Even a UFO is an object. It's not "non-existent". It's just not "identified". The word "non-existent" should be removed. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Before simply reverting Special:Contributions/Ldorrg, can anyone (@ Ldorrg:?) please explain what relates these two incidents? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit citing a tabloid story naming "David Bryant" as an "astronomer", er, no, he's not. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 04:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"A 1998 NASA photo is believed by some to show the Black Knight satellite, but NASA has stated that this is likely space debris, specifically a thermal blanket lost during an EVA mission" - the source ( http://www.armaghplanet.com/the-truth-about-the-black-knight-satellite-mystery.html) doesn't cite NASA. So NASA didn't state anything. Armagh Observatory and Planetarium is stating that it's most likely the blankt. But they're not NASA (not even US-American). -- StYxXx ( talk) 22:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: [15], Black Knight did not appear in the works of Philip K. Dick. I checked the cited source, and it seems the author interprets some of Dick’s work as referring to Black Knight. So even if stated as an opinion, it’s not notable. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not been able to find the February Time Magazine article from 1960. I have gone through the archives. No mention of the Dark satellite in February, only in the March edition. I did find one article in the New York Times from February. 122.151.179.158 ( talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It may be pseudo science or fantasy but not a conspiracy theory. That Wikipedia calls Black Knight satellite a conspiracy theory sounds like a... conspiracy. 94.234.118.189 ( talk) 04:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has been linked to from cracked.com. [1] This sometimes results in some minor vandalism, so please keep a watch on the page for the next week or so. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
What Norwegian radio researchers? There's no previous mention of them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.52.26 ( talk) 09:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've reinstated the quote from Martina Redpath. Follow the link to the source and the quote can be found in the text. As to it being the opinion "of one person", it is properly attributed, and we need to satisfy WP:FRINGE by clearly explaining how the fringe view differs from the mainstream view. There is no requirement to give equal validity to the idea that a mysterious thousand year old satellite exists. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but how come a simple blog entry entitled "The TRUTH about the Black Knight Satellite" is a valid source of information ? I can show you numerous blogs stating other truths about the origin of this mystery ? 62.172.176.50 ( talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone removed conspiracy theorists citing:
This is correct. This is not wiki-worthy, nor notable for inclusion. This article exists because it's removal led to a hissy fit and claims we are all reptillian alien overlords for it's lack of inclusion. There is no evidence supporting this, the citations are to different events, and explainable stories. One would have to have a serious mental handicap to believe that a plastic sheet is an alien probe, let alone known tracking signals are somehow unknown sixty years later. So I have removed 'UFOlogists' and reinstated conspiracy theorists as generally UFOlogists aren't mentally handicapped but conspiracy theorists are. If this is indication that the article should be speedy deleted, so be it. I hold that it should, most probably. 121.211.56.55 ( talk) 03:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So, whether you believe in it or not, on some level, the Black Knight is a phenomena. Whether it falls under an anomaly or an outright urban legend is different. Not to mention, that it's not up to you to decide. Wikipedia is meant to be impartial, just deliver what facts there are about the story. It's origins, what supports it, what criticises it and so on, and let people make up their own bloody minds.
No, I don't believe in alien abductions, or psychics or any of that. But, I am an indie video game developer, I like weird and mysterious things and learning more about them. True, or false, it gives me ideas for stuff to make. I came to this page to get an idea of the Black Knight and what it's about. Where it's origins are, perhaps noteworthy encounters or alleged encounters. I came to this page SPECIFICALLY so I could avoid the amateur documentaries on youtube made by people who make The Daily Mail look outright scholarly.
But instead I come here and see it's just a stomping ground for smug Dawkins-esque pseudo intellectuals, who, for some reason, find scholarly pride in stating the bloody obvious. But tell me this: If you're so bloody clever, then how come this page doesn't even have an etymology section? Did it occur to anyone to look that up while you were busy pointing out how little you believe in this phenomena? Did the satellite just drop down from orbit one day, tip it's hat and say "Hello, you may call me Black Knight"?
Do some research, tell the story without bias. Stop using this like your personal blog site. You let me down, and the wikipedia community as a whole. I mean, sure. At times when I feel a bit silly. I like to visit the pages covering concepts in neoliberal economics and write satire about what heartless bastards they are. But even so, I still respect what Wikipedia stands for. I still respect it's purpose. To bring knowledge to the common masses, to educate and inform people. To help people better themselves through a tool that is availible for everyone, at a small click of a button. A library that we can all enjoy. I'd never tarnish that by injecting my own bias as some kind of valid substitute for the facts.
This page is a shambles, and I hope that someone out there who knows a bit more about this topic will turn this page into something other than a monument to the undignified pretentiousness that festers in the underbelly of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 ( talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the dismissal by the article header is quite biased for a neutral page. Something like "There are few reliable sources to confirm the existence of the Black Knight." might make it feel a bit less like an essay. That being said, I appreciate your response, McGeddon. When I have the free time, I might just be a bit bold. I've never written an article before, and I have the formal education of a thirteen year old. But, Darwin was bad at spelling, and he got things done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 ( talk) 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"The black Knight" is currently thought to be simply a thermal blanket. Space junk. -- 172.251.204.186 ( talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Where does that come from?
The first indication of this seems to be some sort of " foo fighter" story in the Cold War. There is no reason why that mythos should cross over into something pre-historic. What was even happening 13,000 years ago? Is this a mythic claim of some ante-diluvian bit of Daniken? 13,000 is too old for recorded history, even that of the Creationists. So where did the claimed age come from, and what other lost civilisation or alien visitors is it being tied to? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It was the Ham Radio operator who apparently decoded a series of signals received from the UFO Satellite and interpreted it as a star-chart centered on the Epsilon Bootes Star System.
According to the decoded message, the Black Knight satellite originated from the Epsilon Bootes Star System 13.000 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.184.177 ( talk) 09:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ansver: The epsilon Bootis or star named Izar is roughly 202,2 light years away. ~~Bynk~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.198.150 ( talk) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A recent addition has added a laundry list of claims. What should we do with them?
I'm broadly in favour of keeping them, but cleanup is needed. I don't care if they're true or not (I do not believe that 'Black Knight' is anything more than a conflation of space junk stories). If we remove "All but the accepted truth" though, we have no article. We should record each claim, however ludicrous, source its provenance and give what refutation is credibly available. That is the encyclopedic way.
That said, some of the stuff here is nonsensical.
My curiosity wants to keep this stuff. But it's not even well written or self-consistent. How far do we prune? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever got round to being able to say - ok if you point your telescope at this latitude and longitude at this time of day you will be able to see the Black Knight? Or what we think is the Black Knight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:41C9:8600:151A:F372:6B6B:2255 ( talk) 04:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
So how did this alleged object receive the name "Black Knight"? Was it before or after the STS-88 photos? (The object in the photo shown in this article could, with some imagination, be said to resemble a black knight from a chess set.) -- llywrch ( talk) 07:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a been a fair amount of edit warring by IPs to insert fringe content lately [2]. They apparently feel that some key details of the story are missing. In a sense, that has been true: our article covered a few basic points, but left the rest unaddressed. So I've updated the article [3] to address the conspiracy narrative using our best academic and independent sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
'... is claimed by some consp theorists to be xyz' - this has to be one of the worst wikipedia first sentences I've read so far. I (and everyone else) want to know what it actually IS, not what whoever claims it is. Even in a case like this there is physical, real facts, right? And that's what needs to be in the first paragraph, obviously. Not even throughout the rest of the article does it tell me what the black knight satellite actually IS - is it that one photo, plus all sorts of rumours following up? If so, I'd suggest a first paragraph like 'The Black Knight satellite is an object that appeared on NASA photo STS088-724-66. After publication of the image several theories emerged to explain this object.' 176.6.126.115 ( talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW. At this point 16-2 in favour of moving. Even taking 'not a vote' into account, no argument has been made (or is likely to be made) that would over-ride the clear consensus here. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The request to rename this article to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory has been carried out. |
Black Knight satellite → Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory – In keeping with our practice of clearly labeling conspiracy theories as such in their titles, I suggest we change the title. (One example is Chemtrail conspiracy theory.) In these days of fake news and alternative facts, it's pretty important that a headline or title, which is often the only thing seen or read, does not allow a false statement to stand alone as a factoid, when it is not a fact. Yellow journalism uses creative, deceptive, and incomplete headlines to draw readers in, but we must not do it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.WP:COMMONNAME (and other policies) speak to using the name that's most common in reliable sources.No, only COMMONNAME speaks to that. Policies exist to address problems. COMMONNAME was implemented to address a different problem than the one being discussed here, as I already pointed out below.
but this is usually for disambiguation or when a descriptive title is necessary.Given that we're discussing the conspiracy theory (which has no name at all), not the hypothetical object, a descriptive title is appropriate. Also, if you take "Conspiracy theory" off of several of those article titles, you do not end up at an article. We have no "Barack Obama religion" or "Pearl Harbor advanced-knowledge" article. Even with "Chemtrail conspiracy theory," the word "Chemtrail" redirects to it, which is how this article should be treated.
Neither is the case here, and as I've shown, the vast majority of articles on conspiracy theories don't call them "xxx conspiracy theory".You have shown no such thing. You have claimed it. Instead, you linked to a couple of categories, in which the vast majority of pages are not about conspiracy theories, but about elements of conspiracy theories or about real-world subjects related to conspiracy theories. If the literature in RSes about this subject were to increase significantly, then it might become appropriate to create an article about the fictional satellite itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Here, all evidence indicates that this is "Black Knight satellite". "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory" is not in wide use even though all reliable sources treat it as fringe.Yes, but WP:IAR tells us to ignore policies when they prevent us from improving the project. As jps points out below, the proposed title improves the project. So even if you are completely correct about your interpretation of the policies, it does not necessarily follow that we should adhere to them in this case.
Category:Alleged_UFO-related_entities: 30 articles, none have "conspiracy theory" or similar. Articles like Reptilians, Energy being, Flatwoods monster, etc., use their common names.Again, those (and subsequent articles you mentioned) are articles about entities, not about the conspiracy theories. The entities themselves are notable, and it might be argued that the fictional satellite here is notable enough to deserve its own article, separate from the conspiracy theories surrounding them. However, it's also very arguable that many of those articles should be re-written to frame them in terms of the CSes in which they feature. I understand your argument and I see the logic in it, but I just don't agree with it. We should be documenting these things in a manner that's most compliant with the real world and with how the reliable source treat them; namely, as conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
As in, Reptilians, Bigfoot, etc., aren't really about the "entities", by and large, they're about the fringe theories and legends that have aggregated around non-existent "entities",Then we should probably get to those, once we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.and the article is not about the satellite, only the lede is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: WP:SNOW? Don't you mean WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:BEBOLD instead? Peaceray ( talk) 18:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Tell you what. If one other editor who has sometime in the past posted a comment to the article talk page or who has sometime in the past edited the article agrees with Cuchullain I will revert the close. Cuchullain is free to increase the chance of someone agreeing with him by posting a couple of those "points that need to be considered that haven't been yet" in response to this comment. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've said twice now that there's no indication that any actual policy point was considered
Guy gave no closing summary
I cited specific policies that argue against the move - most significantly, WP:COMMONNAME ("Black Knight satellite" is the more common name than the constructed title "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory")
but also the various WP:CRITERIA (the new title is less WP:CONCISE
is more WP:PRECISE than necessary
isn't WP:CONSISTENT with related articles, etc)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which may be of interest. The thread is "
Request to overturn administrator's decision". --
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The satellite black knight, whatever you called, is empty now, that was a transport for a thousand beens, now live in this planet. I can not load the pictures were you can see, what I talking.
Neither of the two sources used for it being a conspiracy theory in the lead call it such, thus the tags should not have been removed. If we have sources saying this is a conspiracy theory why not use rhos and not sources that do not make that claim? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That phrase makes no sense. If there's an object, and there is, then it exists. It's just not what is claimed by the conspiracy theorists. Even a UFO is an object. It's not "non-existent". It's just not "identified". The word "non-existent" should be removed. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Before simply reverting Special:Contributions/Ldorrg, can anyone (@ Ldorrg:?) please explain what relates these two incidents? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit citing a tabloid story naming "David Bryant" as an "astronomer", er, no, he's not. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 04:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"A 1998 NASA photo is believed by some to show the Black Knight satellite, but NASA has stated that this is likely space debris, specifically a thermal blanket lost during an EVA mission" - the source ( http://www.armaghplanet.com/the-truth-about-the-black-knight-satellite-mystery.html) doesn't cite NASA. So NASA didn't state anything. Armagh Observatory and Planetarium is stating that it's most likely the blankt. But they're not NASA (not even US-American). -- StYxXx ( talk) 22:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: [15], Black Knight did not appear in the works of Philip K. Dick. I checked the cited source, and it seems the author interprets some of Dick’s work as referring to Black Knight. So even if stated as an opinion, it’s not notable. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not been able to find the February Time Magazine article from 1960. I have gone through the archives. No mention of the Dark satellite in February, only in the March edition. I did find one article in the New York Times from February. 122.151.179.158 ( talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It may be pseudo science or fantasy but not a conspiracy theory. That Wikipedia calls Black Knight satellite a conspiracy theory sounds like a... conspiracy. 94.234.118.189 ( talk) 04:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)