Talk:Bermuda Triangle/Archive 5

203.101.109.226 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

To say that "According to the US Navy, the triangle does not exist" is simply wrong. That is like saying that the South Seas does not exist, simply because some nations geographical body happens to not use the term. The Bermuda Triangle - however defined - certainly exists. Whether there are any paranormal phenomenon there is another matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. To me, the statement isn't making a blanket claim that the triangle itself doesn't exist, but merely that one nation's military doesn't acknowledge its existence. A more apt analogy, to my mind, would be, "The Royal Air Force does not recognize the existence of the South Seas." DonIago (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And such a statement would be stupid. While the source does say that the US Board on Geographic Names doesn't recognise the name, this is rather irrelevant, especially as the supposed Triangle is largely not in US territorial waters. For that matter, the Board doesn't recognise the name "South Seas" or "South Sea" (as applying to the Pacific Ocean or a part of it). The Bermuda Triangle is not a normal geographical name in any case, but is only used to describe the supposed phenomenon. I think this part of the text should go, as it only confuses the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bermuda Triangle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070406124939/http://www.csicop.org:80/si/2004-01/geologists-adventures.html to http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-01/geologists-adventures.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Paine  ^u/c 11:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bermuda Triangle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709202845/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq8-2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq8-2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709202845/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq8-2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq8-2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Paine  ^u/c 11:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition to "Violent weather" section: Scientists are currently investigating whether "hexagonal" clouds may be the source of these 170-mph "air bombs". Source: [1]

Simdrew (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done  Paine  ^u/c 11:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the "In popular culture" from this article for lacking sourcing for over a year. Editors are welcome to re-add these items, bearing in mind that per WP:IPCV they must include a reliable source to establish that the reference is considered significant in some manner. DonIago (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Another example was the ore-carrier recounted by Berlitz as lost without trace three days out of an Atlantic port when it had been lost three days out of a port with the same name in the Pacific Ocean." The name of the ship is Freia - she was a german ore-carrier, and that of the ports - Mansanillo - one of them in Cuba, the other - on the pacific coast of Mexico. - Kusche, Lawrence David (1975). The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. Dino Rediferro (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I sent an edit request about this by surface mail. Unfortunately the ship vanished before it reached Florida.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Location: Explanation Attempts - Violent Weather

Change "Tropical cyclones are powerful storms, which form in tropical waters and have historically cost thousands of lives lost and caused billions of dollars in damage" to "Tropical cyclones are powerful storms, which form in tropical waters and have historically cost thousands of lives and caused billions of dollars in damage"

Essentially, remove the word "lost" so the sentence makes grammatical sense. GabrielHotz (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed edits to this article which said an island had began forming "in the area of the Bermuda Triangle....located off the tip of Cape Point in Buxton, North Carolina". The problem is North Carolina is not part of the Bermuda Triangle. A ref mentions the triangle, but it is from METRO, a freesheet tabloid which boasts it has "NEWS... BUT NOT AS YOU KNOW IT". Unsurprising, considering the tabloid is owned by DGM Media which is part of the Daily Mail group. A google search shows that when reporting the appearance of this sandbank, National Geographic, CNN, Fox News, etc, did not sensationalise it with a mention of the Bermuda Triangle. Moriori (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

well, several reliable news sources including Newsweek, Daily Mirror, The Independent, The Sun, CNN reported that the area is within the Triangle. That fact can't be ignored. Note: Cape Point is located near the southern tip of Hatteras Island on the coast of North Carolina and is also the nearest landmass to Bermuda, which is about 563 nautical miles (648 mi; 1,043 km) to the east-southeast. Stanleytux (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it also. It belongs in the article Graveyard of the Atlantic which doesn't discuss the Bermuda Triangle, but with the sensationalism deleted. It hasn't suddenly appeared, aerial stratigraphy showed it developing in February. Sloppy reporting isn't an excuse for including it here. See the interview with the Superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.[2] Doug Weller talk 06:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It is "Bermuda Pyramid" not Bermuda Triangle. Uzorkachikwu (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you picked the right thread to put that under. DonIago (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bermuda Triangle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://website.lineone.net/~dmerrill/html/bermuda_triangle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828190605/http://graveyardoftheatlantic.com/Deering/CADeeringHome.html to http://www.graveyardoftheatlantic.com/Deering/CADeeringHome.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What is this? Shani group (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You should link the term "rogue wave" ([[]]) to its article. 157.107.45.179 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 157.107.45.179 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The introduction of this article should refer to the mystery of the disappearance of Flight 19 and its rescue ship. 73.85.200.144 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Flight 19 did not create the Bermuda Triangle. Edward Van Winkle Jones wrote about the triangle in 1950, mentioning various ships and aircraft. In 1952 a George Sand article mentioned the disappearance of various planes and ships. He mentioned Flight 19 in passing only. The title of the article was "Sea Mystery at Our Back Door", not "Air Mystery at Our Back Door". Moriori (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Caiti says that it's the most traveled. That's probably the reason why it has the most incidents. Makes sense. 173.75.245.242 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What change are you suggesting? RudolfRed (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The bermuda-triangle.org domain has been turned into a redirect domain that leads to either commercial sites or ones that try to infect your computer.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Also Gian Quasar has a current website which contains Gian Quasar's Bermuda Triangle making it more current then the old archive site. Given Gian Quasar is considered a reliable source (otherwise he wouldn't be used) then using the most current version of his ideas makes sense. I should mention that I found a copy of the BBC version of The Case of the Bermuda Triangle on Internet archive--Professor Phantasm (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it if we have an archive of an author's view via the web and a more recent view we should use the more resent view. So why not replace the defunct bermuda-triangle.org links with more current ones?--Professor Phantasm (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It sounds very good i guess we could use that

Neo005wcommonwiki (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence in this article reads "The idea of the area as uniquely prone disappearances arose in the mid-20th century, but most reputable sources dismiss the idea that there is any mystery". I believe it should read "uniquely prone to disappearances". 92.19.17.136 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The writer of this page is completely biases to their non comprehension of the subject. Horrible metaphors that don’t relate to the subject, just distract. Sources named are completely irrelevant. 2601:647:5B00:F520:4D4B:67D2:32FF:8B03 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't have a single writer. If you feel things can be improved, improve them. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Requesting you to update previous link which is 'https://www.thequint.com/environment/2016/10/24/has-the-mystery-of-the-bermuda-triangle-finally-been-solved-hexagonal-clouds-florida-bahamas-puerto-rico' Titled- Has the ‘Mystery’ of the Bermuda Triangle Finally Been Solved? by this latest link 'https://www.thequint.com/news/environment/has-the-mystery-of-the-bermuda-triangle-finally-been-solved-hexagonal-clouds-florida-bahamas-puerto-rico'. Ali Afsar09 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: Under 3.2.4, Violent Weather, the last line reads "Scientists are currently investigating whether "hexagonal" clouds may be the source of these up-to-170 mph (270 km/h) "air bombs".[33]" Can this be removed?
• Why it should be changed: All mentions of these hexagonal clouds online seem to trace back to a single episode of a sensationalist tv show, "What on Earth?" which attempts to explain strange phenomena seen by satellite. The show is clearly not a reliable source - other episodes include topics like "Mafia Ghost Ship", "Nazi Stonehenge", "CIA Killer Monks", etc. What's more, the original sources don't even seem to exist anymore - reference 33 here leads to a website's front page, and although you can find the article from there, it doesn't link to a specific episode, just the Science Channel's website. The IFL Science article on these hexagonal clouds, which also mentions What on Earth? as a source, also fails to link a specific episode (honestly, if one of the top web results on a theory is IFL Science, that's already condemnation enough.) No mention of hexagonal clouds traces back to any other source but this single missing episode of television, and the Science Channel page about the episode itself is defunct - basically, solid evidence here is a wild goose chase.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): ^{[1] [2] [3]}

207.38.142.232 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eilFp0FhiI0164.47.179.32 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the Bermuda Triangle county as a conspiracy theory? The article does not mention the word "conspiracy" except in ther template at the end of the article, and the Bermuda Triangle seems much more like a legend or tall tale than a conspiracy theory, after all a CT supposes an evil power covering up a sinister plot, but the Triangle seems more like a recent legend of seafaring, of a dangerous place where ships mysteriously disappear, which is clearly a myth because the traffic of cruise ships and airplanes between the East Coast and the Bahamas and Bermuda is very busy and disproves the danger of disappearance. The Bermuda Triangle seems much closer to other sailors' legends such as the Kraken than to conspiracy theories like QAnon. 177.34.169.165 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. It doesn't sound to me like a conspiracy theory, and I don't see anybody else saying otherwise. As you say, it is not being called that anywhere in the article. Also, it is not in the wiki-category of conspiracy theories, and not on the list of conspiracy theories. (One of those things which get added to Wikipedia randomly, and then it takes a committee to get rid of it.) --2607:FEA8:86DC:B0C0:52E:F579:28E8:965E (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Note: The Conspiracy Theory section seems to be there due to the Paranormal explanations section (quite a light section). It also mentions UFOs lightly, which seems to have gotten the UFOs template put at the bottom too. If its going to be changed here, its probably also going to have to need to be removed from the conspiracy theories template and to have the UFOs template removed along with it. Im not gonna make any edits myself, as im unsure, but ill leave this note for any other editors looking at this. Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Also note that there are UFO theories, conspiracy theories, and UFO conspiracy theories. --2607:FEA8:86DC:B0C0:52E:F579:28E8:965E (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: The article lists several mentions of UFOs, which are currently included in the conspiracy theories template. If you disagree about the inclusion of UFO sightings or mentions in the template, you should instead start a discussion here so that other people involved in the template can weigh in on the discussion. Removing this designation is not uncontroversial and as such could not be implemented through an edit request without prior consensus in the first place. As for this article, I can only observe that it does mention UFOs and such and thus legitimizes its current inclusion on the template. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 17:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

yes you are right that it is not an conspirancy because it is like a theory ......... of the ancient activities of god but it is a scientifical reason of altitude 2405:201:5C21:B84E:24AB:2F96:14DF:CD55 (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

KC-135 Stratotankers On August 28, 1963, a pair of US Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft collided and crashed into the Atlantic 300 miles (480 km) west of Bermuda. Some writers say that while the two aircraft did collide there were two distinct crash sites, separated by over 160 miles (260 km) of water. However, Kusche's research showed that the unclassified version of the Air Force investigation report revealed that the debris field defining the second "crash site" was examined by a search and rescue ship, and found to be a mass of seaweed and driftwood tangled in an old buoy. 196.191.60.69 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the text of one section of the article. Why did you copy it here? Are you suggesting a change? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a slight error in the "Flight 19" bit under the "Notable Incidents" section. 141 miles is converted to 227 kilometers, which is correct. However, in the same sentence, 140 miles is converted into 230 kilometers, which cannot be possible since 141 > 140, yet the conversion of 140 > the conversion of 141. Either 230 kilometers should be converted to 225 kilometers, or 140 miles should be converted to 143 miles, depending on whatever the actual figure is, I am not aware of it. Noel Malik (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. I thought maybe the numbers had been hard-coded, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I've requested assistance at Template talk:Convert. DonIago (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed For details, see the Template Talk page referenced in my prior message. DonIago (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Doniago Good on you mate Noel Malik (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not a believer in the tale. However, I do not think a fair comparison was made in the article between the arguments for and against the mystery. The arguments against were a lot more focused upon. For example, a decent-sized part of the article was attributed SPECIFICALLY to Kusche's notions, as well as the "Further Responses" section. But I do not find that the specifics of the writings by the authors that supported the mystery were as thoroughly covered, which should be the case because they are after all, the reason for the existence of this article to begin with, no matter how outlandish they may sound. Noel Malik (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:FALSEBALANCE: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. See also WP:QUESTIONABLE: Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling No. That is not the point. A distinction between a fact and an unestablished view can be made, and there is nothing problematic concerning that. However, the very reason this article was ever put forth was because of the unorthodox views, which I do not find to be thoroughly discussed. Noel Malik (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The title of this section is Arguments "For" the Mystery, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. That is why we have external links: if you want to know more, you can check those.

In articles on creationism, proponents used to include reasons for believing in it (there are hundreds of those), then the refutations had to be included too, then the proponents had more stupid ideas they took for refutations of the refutations, and it ended with removing all those details.

Wikipedia summarizes crappy worldviews, it does not elucidate. For such things, there are other venues: the Encyclopedia of American Loons or RationalWiki, for example. Or, if you do not want any refutations, Conservapedia or any random site you find when you google "Bermuda Triangle". --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling is right, we cover these fringe theories from the perspective of what reliable sources say about them, not the claims of its adherents. Per WP:WEIGHT, if there are "for" arguments that haven't been covered at all by reliable sources, then we simply don't include them. –dlthewave ☎ 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The agonic line often runs through The Bermuda Triangle, explaining electronic disturbances in the area. It hasn't ran through there for years, making more recent disappearances unexplained. 139.130.15.178 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This claim assumes that earlier disappearances are "explained" by the agonic line, which they are not. At the line, only the gradient of the magnetic declination "disappears". See the article for the actual explanations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Why bermuda traingle is dangerous 60.243.161.30 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the article to learn more about the Bermuda Triangle. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The journal of Columbus was the first noted statement that something was unusal in the area known as The Bermuda Triangle. He noted odd readings from his compass, rising of the sea, and a mysterious light. 2A02:C7C:8286:6100:6B8B:C9A9:68CD:C9CA (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Please provide a reliable source and state the text you wish changed, and what you think it should be changed to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the over-the-top title, but I couldn't help it. Anyway, in the "Further responses" section, it goes into detail about the (nonmysterious) sinking of the V.A.Fogg. There's a specific line about "one Triangle author's claim that all the bodies had vanished, with the exception of the captain, who was found sitting in his cabin at his desk, clutching a coffee cup", with a source link to a book by John Wallace Spencer. The issue here is that, according to the source information provided, that book was published in 1969--but the article claims the V.A.Fogg sank in 1972. I don't doubt that Spencer's book includes a claim that a ship was found with no crew except for the captain (and I don't doubt that the facts tell us otherwise), but Spencer can't POSSIBLY have been writing about a shipwreck three years BEFORE IT HAPPENED. Does anyone have access to the book, maybe, and can clear up what wreck Spencer was writing about? 2601:408:C404:3E5F:28D6:A3A4:C7C6:2980 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

After further research, the book came out in 1973. That makes a lot more sense. The page is semi-protected, so can someone who can edit the page edit the year of the book's publication? First in the source link, and then again in the bottom list of books which are the only source of some of these mysteries. 2601:408:C404:3E5F:28D6:A3A4:C7C6:2980 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoop, seems the book was originally published in 1969 and republished in 1972. Does that need to be reflected in the thingy? 2601:408:C402:D483:8475:D0C3:9795:AFB7 (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)