This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black triangle (UFO) 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
TR-3 Black Manta was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 August 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Black triangle (UFO). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from Black triangle (UFO) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 September 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article deals with a military
black project.
Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative. Please ensure that the article is well and reliably sourced and does not contain unverifiable information or vague predictions.For more details, see the black project working group of the military history project. |
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)
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)
such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. That is not the case here. MrOllie ( talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black triangle (UFO) 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
TR-3 Black Manta was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 August 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Black triangle (UFO). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from Black triangle (UFO) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 September 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article deals with a military
black project.
Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative. Please ensure that the article is well and reliably sourced and does not contain unverifiable information or vague predictions.For more details, see the black project working group of the military history project. |
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)
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)
such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. That is not the case here. MrOllie ( talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
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)