Talk:Black triangle (UFO)

Misc. comments

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)

Should we allow vague assertions like this?

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)

I'm going to go ahead and delete it.

It should be noted that the photo associated with the photo in the Belgium wave section is also fishy, because none of the citations match that particular photo. The podcast cited [11] shows a different photo, although also attributed to Patrick Maréchal. And news article, [13] shows yet another photo different than the one in the section and different than the one in [12] but also attributes it to the same person. Yet the source of the actual image in this section, https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155054/http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm, attributes the image to J.S. Henradi. The source of this image is also a highly fringe website. The image should either be replaced to be consistent with the sources that are cited, or removed all together. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the latest changes - they were generally pushing POV (repeatedly inserting the word 'purportedly') and overall replaced properly sourced content with more credulous text. - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to justify why you added back the photo from abaduct-anon.com, that doesn't even match the photos discussed by Dunning, or the other sources that are cited, neither in their purported origin or the image itself.

Using the word purportedly is preferable to just asserting the thing is true, when that's not the case. Please under the revert. Thank you. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You are not supposed to revert without good cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

First, I did find it necessary, that is why I did it. Second, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's somebody's opinion.

Using the word 'purportedly' is an example of a WP:WEASEL word (that really is a guideline), we do not insert such words to try to undercut the reliable sources. That is POV pushing - even if you personally disagree with the source, Wikipedia policy is that we follow what it says.

You have shown no evidence that the website you linked is the source of the image, and not one of the many, many sites that host a copy of it because the photographer placed it in the public domain, allowing it to be used freely and widely. The image you removed was a valuable illustration of the topic of the article, and contained important cited content in the image caption. That should not be removed. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined"

The reason purported was added, is that the claim was not determined. You did not give a valid reason to undo the revert, and if you were being honest, you'd recognize that the edits I made dramatically improved the quality of the page, as in its previous form it contained multiple misleading or untrue bits of information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You've omitted crucial context from your quotation: such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. That is not the case here. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't address the word purportedly in this specific context, but uses criminal trial as an example. In the case of an anecdote from an anonymous person, purported is better than stating what the person said as a being a fact as was previously the case before added. If you don't like that, maybe make a good faith edit, replacing the word purported with, <X> said, or something like that. Or remove the statement in question all together. The goal should be for the article to be accurate. You're just undoing the work I put in to correct obvious errors in the article. Take the time to verify what you are doing makes sense before doing it. Thanks. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting your changes is in fact a 'good faith edit', because your edits made the article worse. You are not correcting 'obvious errors', you are pushing your personal POV in a way that obviously conflicts with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You can simply look at the source of the image, and compare it with the images in the cited sources, and see clearly they are not the same image, nor have the same provenience.

Here is the image. It comes from a credulous abduction website, that credits the image to J.S. Henradi.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155054/http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm

Source one, [11] https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4538, shows a different image with different provenience.

Source [12] shows no image, but speaks about the same story from [11].

https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2011/07/28/01008-20110728ARTFIG00353-la-photo-d-un-ovni-belge-celebre-etait-un-trucage.php

Source [13] shows yet a different image (not the one Dunning discussed or abduct-anon.com) but with the same provenience

as [11] and [12].

https://www.science-et-vie.com/article-magazine/photos-dovnis-la-plus-celebre-etait-fausse 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not seen the warnings on your IP talk page: You must stop revert warring. You have seen that others disagree with your changes - continuing as you have been will get your IP blocked and/or the page locked so that IP editors may not longer change it. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection."

Have you read this? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have, and I will draw the inevitable and logical conclusion. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

IP, you do understand that you have been reverted by multiple other people, correct? MrOllie (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the errors I found and tried to correct are still present. It would seem that this page is guarded too heavily by people with a shared POV who will prefer the errors to persist as long as they promote their own POV, to make it worthwhile for me to attempt to get these errors to be corrected. The information elucidating the errors is here on the talk page, so if anyone with enough authority to get these errors fixed, who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia, wants to take on the burden themselves, feel free to do so. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ontario 2010s video

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)

Reddit is a WP:USERGEN source. Wikipedia requires WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would a RP be needed here? What would they be adding?

To make this clear though: I'm not making this my problem. See ya. Myas012 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo attribution

I have concerns about the attribution of one of the photos on this page. Please let me know if you have any information over at the Talk:Ufology page. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)