Talk:Bermuda Triangle/Archive 2

Chronological list

The chronological list is very scrappy, containing real mysteries, fakes and 'since-been-explained's - but without saying which are what. _{That sentence was also very scrappy :)} .I'm going to put thumbnail details to each name, if I can find sources (that ship losing passengers - not even the ship's name? Come on!) Totnesmartin 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I did a mere bullet-statement type of entry in the list of Triangle incidents page. I would think that at best, what we should do is to turn that particular page into a links page...just very brief entries which lead the reader to separate articles for more detail, with maybe thumbnail pics for emphasis. Carajou 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article sites 1872 as the date for all of the incidents. Either this date is false or the article needs more incidents that go past 1872. ---> wow that got fixed fast!

Columbus

The article claims that Columbus and his crewmen saw various strange things, but the link given doesn't confirm this. Is there a reference (preferably not a BT book or website) that confirms this? Is his diary or log in print? Totnesmartin 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found, and included, a link to Columbus' log, and it contradicts some of the supernatural incidents related to him and the Triangle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carajou (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ok...I got tagged by a bot...here's my sign: Carajou 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Claims

Intro section: If the claims are in between quotation marks, shouldn't there be a citation for these "quotes"? Otherwise the quotation marks ought to be removed.Anrie 13:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It should be re-worded to say something like:

Claims in favour of a 'paranormal' explanation include: the possibility of a time warp or dimensional vortex; hoistile activity by extraterrestrials, or inhabitants of Atlantis; - or something like that. Totnesmartin 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Totnesmartin

added cleanup-date template

I added a cleanup-date template to this page; while there's little NPoV issues left, the vestiges of it can still be found in bad grammar, general organization, extraneous comments, and informal tone. It needs some serious cleanup work.

I thought about using the story template instead, but decided on cleanup-date.

—auk 01:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and some information needs to incorporated from other articles into this one. Such as dates and times for some disappearances. Yes, they often have their own article with this information. That's not the point. It makes for too much inconsistency when you have to go to three or four different sources for shared information on things that basic. Shadowrun 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 19 and Star Tiger sections

Now that these two sections link to their respective articles, is there any need for the sections to be as long as they are? They could be cut down to (eg) a dozen lines each or something. Totnesmartin 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Berlitz

Doesn't the criticism of Charles Berlitz come a little early in the article? Reading through the article until "Kusche's The Bermuda Triangle Mystery—Solved" you finally encounter a criticism to his work, but there's nothing written about Berlitz himself in the article to warrant it. Isn't it an issue of equality? To provide criticism you first have to have something to criticize, you can't expect the reader to automatically know who you're talking about. Shadowrun 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think Berlitz, and every other author writing on this subject has opened themselves to criticism. For example, there's the Bimini Wall, which has been cited by Berlitz and others as evidence of Atlantis, and used by Atlanteans as either a road or a pier. The critics claim (and these critics are perfectly right) that there is absolutely no evidence of structures and other associated buildings either underwater or on land that would support such a road or pier. There are plenty of people who have written on this subject and proposed many outlandish theories to explain everything, and at the very least these theories simply do not stand up to the documented hard evidence that was collected by Kusche, the Coast Guard, the Navy, newspapers, etc over the years. And collecting, documenting, and displaying such evidence for this subject should be the mission of those using this website. Carajou 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Lawrence Kusche

He is criticised for "holding to his claim that 'nothing out of the ordinary' regularly occurred in and around the area, and yet several times admitting certain cases lacked conventional rational explanation (most notably in the Star Tiger and DC-3 cases)". Sorry, but the Star Tiger and DC-3 cases are exceptional, not regular events, proving that 'nothing out of the ordinary' does regularly happen. If Kusche had said that nothing out of the ordinary ever occurred, the critic would have a point. Subsequently, I do not think such evidently weak criticism should be in the article

I corresponded with Kusche in 1977 and he emphasised that publishers only want books that will make them money - they often do not care about facts or accuracy. Because Kusche was dedicated to accuracy and objectivity (regardless of whether he made some errors, or of his research's conclusions), his efforts resulted in a book that was "dull", wasn't "sexy" and therefore had a hard time getting published. He was even told by some publishers that they would not publish "a book of knocks", however well researched, because it might harm the sales of a garbage-ridden pro-Triangle book. To sum up: The BT is a mystery, like a 1000 others, drummed up by the greedy and the gullible and perpetuated by people who are too captivated by claptrap or bored stiff with reality to realise that. If the Triangle doesn't exist, somebody would have invented it. And they did! Sorry (again), but I've been a fan of the paranormal for over 30 years and as much as I yearn - even need - to prove something exists that would get up the noses of stuffy, narrow-minded academics and scientists, all I've EVER come across is the foul-smelling stuff you find in cowsheds. Rikstar 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you haven't looked obsessively enough. I'm still waiting for scientists to explain the bleeding walls cases of the 1950s, or some of the stuff Fort compiled. As for Kusche, Berlitz used bibliographic references compiled by Kusche (before the latter's —SOLVED came out) for his own material, so go figure. You can read about it on that link at the bottom of the Triangle page. --Chr.K. 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny ...

Funny, I've been a skeptic, a freethinker, and a scientifically trained mathematician for damn near as long. Why do I get tired of of being thought a "stuffy, narrow-minded academic and scientist" simply because I reject all spiritual belief and all pseudoscience like the Bermuda Triangle & psychic phenomena? How many times have New Agers screamed at me, "You're not open minded!" The Christians only condemn me to burn in hell for all eternity. Life's rough.

dino 04:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save it for livejournal mate, this page is for discussing the article. Totnesmartin 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dino, "stuffy..." in my comment should have been in quotation marks. I'm actually on your side. As a newbie, Totnesmartin, I thank you for informing me about the livejournal, mate. Please note my first comments directly concern the article. Rikstar 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I didn't criticise - your bit was relevant to the article. Dino, however, is just ranting about people calling him names. Totnesmartin 11:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the example of weak criticism as outlined in Criticism of Kusche Rikstar 11:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp the article

(moved from top of page)

This article can and should stick to the facts. Incidents that have happened, such as Flight 19 and USS Cyclops, should be mentioned briefly with links to their own, main articles. What I think should happen is:

1) a detailed entry as to the documented history of the area, and if this history is no older than the April 1962 issue of American Legion Magazine (the "Lost Patrol" article), so be it.

2) brief-to-detailed mention of each paranormal reason for the disappearances or whatever else is strange, followed by anything that may refute it. If the article in question is a genuine mystery, such as Joshua Slocum or the loss of the crew of the Mary Celeste, then we state it.

3) why basic facts are missing in many of the incidents, as Kusche has pointed out in his book. For example, it is cited in many Triangle books that a plane crash took place in the surf, in front of hundreds of witnesses, at Daytona Beach, Florida in 1937, but not a trace of the plane was found. Since it would be a major story in the local paper it makes sense to check, but in this case the incident never happened.

4) Links to as much source material as possible, up to and including newspapers from the time it happened; official reports, etc. If we need to order official documentaion from places like the Naval Historical Center, then we do that and post it. It costs $10.00 by the way.

5) brief mentions only of selected incidents, and links to main pages for each one. These pages in turn should just stick to the facts, keeping the whole as balanced as possible. Carajou 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

be my guest, carajou.

1)and 2) we are trying to do that, give us time. it doesn't help that the page is frequently vandalised.

3) That case isn't in the article. "Why basic facts are missing" from books - well you'd have to ask the authors, but I think we can guess.

4)I can't afford to pay for those documents but maybe somebody else can.

5)This is a good idea, there's a separate article for a more complete list.

Please feel free to improve the article in the ways you suggest. be bold! (but don't forget that Kusche made mistakes too...) Totnesmartin 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

make the page off-limits to vandals; I will take a few stabs at it; $10.00 is affordable for a Navy report (who needs cigarettes anyway?); yes, Kusche made mistakes, but they weren't a deliberate attempt to blame the area on paranormal spinning compasses operated by two-headed space aliens looking for scrap metal; and I wont ask the other authors, as one of them is dead, and the others have already had their "facts" refuted! And yes, we can take our time, so smile and think of little dwarfs having their way with that Snow White girl! 74.241.173.131 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Ok, so I forgot to sign in! Carajou 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Revamping begun

First act was to get a hold of something better looking than the white outline map. NASA simply has better imagery, without the copyrights. Carajou 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction paragraph: The article has to be stated as to what it is, i.e. mysterious body of water, etc. It also has to to be stated here what it might really be, which is why I selected "half truths built on sea stories". But this is for lack of something better. Carajou 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History: not finished with it at this time, but since a lot of authors have cited the compasses getting screwy on Columbus' ships, why not do that one thing avoided before: get a link to Columbus' logs...which I did. Carajou 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less done. I am satisfied with the structure of the article. There are still some minor add-ons and possible tweaking, but accomplishing that should be no problem. Carajou 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Feb 1964 Argosy magazine cover, as this illustrates first known use of the title "Bermuda Triangle". The reader, I feel, needs to see evidence that the Triangle stories are not older than the middle of the 20th Century. Carajou 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is DOOM777, and what did he do to this site? Carajou 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have a userpage but he did this: [1] Totnesmartin 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo problem

At the top of the article is a satellite photo of the west Atlantic and the Triangle borders. It was uploaded three times; each time the proper copyright tag was added (NASA image). Apparently the tag was not accepted, and the image is subject to deletion. There is a similar image for the article on Flight 19 that I uploaded with no problems. Anyway to correct this? Carajou 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Theories section

I included this section due to the fact that these explanations and similar theories have been included in some form or fashion about the Triangle. As it stands right now, this entry is pretty weak and looks more like an opinion entry than fact. I just don't have the sources yet to make it better, so if anyone out there can help out... Carajou 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection on the theories of Charles Berlitz says that he attributes Triangle losses to "unexplained or anomalous forces." Does he speculate on the nature of these forces, or is this a long-winded way of saying that he doesn't know? Plazak 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Scorpion

This incident occured outside the Triangle, and has nothing to do with the Triangle, but writers in the past have included it in their works as part of the Triangle, notably Berlitz, Spencer, Winer. The same is true with Mary Celeste and V.A. Fogg, both mentioned in the article. Carajou 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a few others besides. it's called Not Letting The Facts Spoil A Good Story. Totnesmartin 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we should include some of the crazier theories on this article...

I think that with all the published material out there on supernatural and ufo-related explanations of the Bermuda triangle, these theories deserve to be mentioned, sourced, and explained (and maybe some information about the people who give these theories too), as Wikipedia includes plenty of information on pseudoscience and mythology. All we have to do is make sure that everything is written dispassionately, in a neutral point of view. Blueaster 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section on just that (Popular theories). I know some of these theories constitute opinion, but they have been cited and used by the Triangle writers over the years. If you run across something like that, or maybe want to improve what is written, please do. Carajou 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Incidents

This entry may not need to be on the page, as there is a listing of famous incidents above it, and a separate page within Wikipedia linked below. What you you think? Carajou 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the same question several weeks ago, and no-one responded. I'll move it now. Totnesmartin 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on making minor corrections to that page as well. Other indvidual pages detailing incidents will be taken care of as they come; Flight 19 is essentially done in that regard, but I'm still looking for the official Navy report. Carajou 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been merged, to the benefit of both lists.Totnesmartin 23:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is getting better, and that's a good thing. Carajou 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and grammar

Just to let everyone know: when a magazine, book, or newspaper is written anywhere, the name is always in italics. Any article within a magazine, book, or newspaper, is written inside "quotation" marks. Such an example here would be "A Lady Vanishes," one of the chapters in The Bermuda Triangle, by Adi-Kent Thomas Jeffrey. I've had historians at college tell the class how they look with distain on Wikipedia, and part of the problem is writing and grammar, in addition to some inaccuracies on various pages. To remove this problem we all have to do our utmost to be as professional as possible. I know some would think this is extremely petty, and they'd be right, but we all have to begin somewhere if we want even the least of Wikipedia's pages taken seriously. Carajou 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is bad writing on WP, and it is annoying, but it's mostly bad organization or convoluted and overwritten sentences, or inappropriate tone, not something as small as a stylistic error. Blueaster 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers...and I for one have made quite a few spelling mistakes, grammer mistakes, accuracy mistakes...and still I strive for no errors. Carajou 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do an addendum to my own accuracy mistake: I stated the V.A. Fogg's bodies were all recovered by the Coast Guard (in the "Other Responses" section). Reading the report closely, three bodies were recovered, the rest missing. And no body was found with a coffee cup. But I'll tell you what...reading that report was sobering. I could imagine the writer of it, deadpan accurate with the boring personality of a tax man, it was that matter-of-fact. A lot of people are dead because they just didn't get trained in handling a certain chemical; they were pretty much lazy in other things, like lifeboat drills. This crew acted like cleaning benzine out of a tank was like cleaning the algae out of a swimming pool...no big deal. Now they're just Triangular statistics with a captain glued to his coffee mug! Carajou 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If writing help is needed, head to a library or bookstore and get the Harbrace Manual, by Harcourt Publishers. It is standard issue in colleges and universities in the country (including mine, MTSU). Carajou 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guard records

Found a database maintained by the Coast Guard containing actual reports of many ship losses, including those in the Triangle. These are not watered-down or edited; they are photcopies in .pdf form, they are complete, and links were placed on the Triangle page, or you can click here: [2] These records will go a long way in laying out some basic facts on the incidents covered. Carajou 07:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, I also found the full text of the Vincent Gaddis article in Argosy Magazine, Feb 1964. Both of these items happened in less than twelve hours, not including sleep! Carajou 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve a bit of sleep now mate! Totnesmartin 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nahhh, I'm having too much fun! Carajou 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Coast Guard records, I have started a reworking of the page belonging to SS Marine Sulphur Queen, a major incident in the Triangle. At the bottom of the page are as many official sources as I could get, which was posted prior to my laying out the page and adding a write-up. None of the sources pertain in any way to the Triangle...it's just the way they were written at the time. Let's see if anyone here can use the sources and see what they could do. Carajou 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totnesmartin, In answer to your question in page history, no, Keegan did not write that about Marine Sulphur Queen. I did, and I based it on the source material collected on MSQ's page. Carajou 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methane Hydrates

In this section, the article text claims the following:

Laboratory experiments carried out in the Monash University in Australia have proven that bubbles can, indeed, sink a scale model ship by decreasing the density of the water [6], though this would leave a smell and does not account why wreckage would not have bobbed to the surface when water density returned.

Leave a smell? According to the article on methane, it is an odorless gas. I think someone confuses it with flatulence.

Also, I find it reasonable that a ship that sinks in a cloud of bubbles may not rise when the cloud clears, since the sudden onrush of water from all sides may fill it with water very quickly.

Init 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose by 'wreckage' they meant lifebelts and suchlike; although they would get scattered pretty quickly by the gulf stream. I'll just go and edit that bit. Totnesmartin 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On several shows pertaining to the Triangle on the History, Discovery, and SciFi channels videos were shown of such experiments on scale models; and the same thing was accomplished with a full-sized cabin cruiser. But I can't find a good link to any of it as of yet. As to the smell of the stuff, if it happens in the Atlantic, the wind general blows from west to east, so the smell, if any, would head out to sea. Carajou 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph doesn't seams in an encyclopedic style:

"Methane also has the ability to cause a piston engine to stall when released into the atmosphere even at an atmospheric concentration as low as 1%[citation needed]. Well....maybe all this HAS actually happend! who knows?"

More preciselly the last sentence.

Vandalism again

Found this in the record: 07:41, 30 December 2006 218.102.23.116 (Talk) (→Other responses)

What I saw on checking the appropriate block was this idiot who thought he was being slick, i.e. "Lloyd's of London charges higher rates to enter the Triangle"...that routine. What I would love to see is a bot placed on this website that, at the touch of a button, heads straight for the source of the offending I.P. address, gets to his hard drive, and fries it! Carajou 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a naval man :) you'll just have to get used to the idiots on this article, it seems to attract them. Totnesmartin 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At one time on my third ship, a destroyer tender named USS Shenandoah, we had flight deck small arms training, and there was this camera viewing the whole thing, with monitors on the bridge, Combat Information Center, Damage Control Central, and the captain's cabin, and what they saw was everyone and their shipmate brothers wanting a crack at a cartoon that I drew, on a target, of the executive officer! Carajou 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is that why you're ex-navy? :) Totnesmartin 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...I retired after 20 years...clowns like the above were just comedy relief! Carajou 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-1950s correction

I had to remove the mild reference to the mid-1950s in the intro paragraph, which led the reader to think that disappearences have been going on since that time. It is claimed by Triangle writers that strange things have been going on there since Columbus, which is explained; it is also explained that the stories, and I stress the stories, by Triangle authors date no older than the mid-1950s. Carajou 11:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual incident pages

I have done, nearly done, or severely-edited the following: Flight 19, USS Cyclops, SS Marine Sulphur Queen(in progress), V.A. Fogg. My idea for them, and for each one as it comes up, is to have a separate entry within the page titled "Bermuda Triangle connection" which would be a catch-all for the theories and explanations based on the Triangle stories, separate and distinct from the officialy documented evidence. This would also help in tying the whole subject together. What do you think? Carajou 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use photographs!

As much as possible, use photographs to illustrate this page and individual pages of the incidents. They help better convey the article; you can usually find them connected with the source material; and they can refute some of the bad, Triangle theories quickly (see SS Marine Sulphur Queen for an example). Carajou 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Ariel, et al

Ok, if you look in the history section where the I.P. addy was added to record Star Ariel and others, it was me. Dummy that I was, I forgot to sign in! Carajou 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put Stars Tiger and Ariel back in was, according to bermudatriangle.org, their losses, in addition to Flight 19, were responsible for creation of the Bermuda Triangle, even though the name itself would not come to print until 1964. And there still is the genuine mystery surrounding the two planes that has yet to be solved. Maybe someone can get a multi-gazzilion dollar expedition to the mid-Atlantic and drag a sidescan sonar along the route? Carajou 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Cyclops

This is probably not worthy of inclusion; it is my opinion only.

Richard Winer's book "The Devil's Triangle" has a type of writing style which left a "haunted" feeling in me...which was why I read it many times when I was a kid. I felt it better written than any other work on the subject (yes, I believed in the traditional Triangle b.s. back then). But in the author's bio, it stated Winer was at work on a book about the USS Cyclops. The first printing of the book was 1974; it is now 2007, 33 years later. No book on the Cyclops. Could it be that he abandoned it becaause the facts that he might have found got in the way of the theories? I myself would have loved to have read it. Carajou 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he couldn't find a publisher for it. The triangle is a well-known subject, but individual events connected with it aren't really, apart from Flight 19. I also remember Winer's book, in fact I preferred it to Berlitz. Then I started looking deeper than "ooh, that's a good story"... Totnesmartin 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Dates

I've noticed that the dates of many events in the article are ascribed the same time period-1872. For example, Flight 19s disappearance is noted as having occurred in 1872- obviously impossible, since aircraft didn't even exist. Can someone place the correct dates? Achilles2.0 08:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: Its apparently intentional vandalism. A mention of a certain modern film is listed as having released in 1872. ) Achilles2.0 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, by the individual who had this I.P. addy: 138.88.227.90, and it involved changing every date to 1872. I wonder if he knows that an IP address can always be traced to a front door? Carajou 11:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a LOCKOUT of every article in Wikipedia to anyone not logged in and registered. Carajou 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just block the clowns!

Ok, I did fix the page from the recent vandal who thinks he got his rocks off by doing that; and yes, it was an individual, not a bot, as this guy is already recorded coming back to fix a "mistake" he made.

I also put his IP addy in the block list, but I don't know if I did it right. If you see anyone like that in the future, block the clown immediately. Let him be the one slamming his fist on his keyboard at the thought that he can't get back in. All of us have spent too much time trying to improve these articles for everyone's benefit. We're not going to let an idiot try to change things here when he's got mental problems that he can't take care of at home. Carajou 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article, so the vandals can slam their(school) keyboards. While I'm at it, I'll do the same at Loch Ness monster which gets just as much idiocy.Totnesmartin 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a user, I guess he was an administrator, who removed this protection, and said that we should go through the proper link to warn such individual first. Not upset with it here at all; we'll just continue to never let the young punks ruin it for everyone. 72.150.123.36 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Excuse me...I did it again! Carajou 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a mistake and accidently blocked out Zzuuzz's message here, when I was saving my own edit below. He stated we should follow Wikipedia's rules regarding vandals and page protection. Sorry, Zzuuzz! Carajou 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The comments are here. I was just pointing that the only way a page can get protected is by an admin. As you suggest, not everyone knows that. And this page is also on my watchlist now :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise. There's a ton to learn about Wiki... oh well. Totnesmartin 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This individual did it again. ArrgggH!! So, I went to a website that does a WHOIS on his two IP addys he left behind, and it popped up servers in Amsterdam and Verizon in the US. Since I am a Verizon customer myself, I notified them about this individual misusing the internet. They are easy to find. Carajou 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well finally we got the page semiprotected. Now the idiots can go and vandalise Justin Timberlake or whatever else they just saw on TV. Totnesmartin 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is DONE!

This is just to let everyone know that the article as it stands is DONE! The cleanup tag at the top was removed; the Wikiparanormal page was updated; the whole is now very informative, and tightened and tweaked with regard to spelling and grammar. And if one looks at the history page, and overlooks the bad eggs and their vandalizing ways, you will notice there were a lot of people besides me who attempted improvement (I consider someone who comes in and corrects a single mis-spelling to be just as important as one who supplies a whole article). There are good illustrations throughout. And maybe this will bring the grade up from B to A.

This does not mean that there's no more room for improvement. I still feel wee need a bit more detail in history, natural explainations, and popular theories sections of the article. We should also go into some of the links to the famous losses section and work on each article one at a time (I did Cyclops, Flight 19, Marine Sulphur Queen, etc). Always a way to make it better. Carajou 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Of course an article is never complete - they could find Flight 19 tomorrow and make us do lots more writing! Totnesmartin 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! And there's always new information coming up every so often that can be added. But as it stands, I am comfortable with the fact that someone can access the page and find what he's looking for in this article, and I think that's the bottom line as far as Wikipedia goes. Carajou 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic article! Answered every question I had. Brallan 10:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACTUAL ACCURACY STATEMENT

The statement at the top of the article means just that: there are incidents within the Triangle that are just not confirmed by official sources. What we have to rely on is A) those sources that are readily available from the United States Coast Guard, United States Navy, United States Air Force, NOAA; as well as various news agencies, credible witnesses, and the reports from foreign governments should they become available; and B)the various articles and books specifically about the Triangle from the various authors who have believed the popular stories. Carajou 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of my own opinion, I do not believe the Triangle is this paranormal place that caused a lot of problems, which is why I chose the "both sides" route for this page, i.e. briefly list what is written in the Triangle tales and provide anything official which may dispute it. Some incidents are obviously unsolved, and such incidents should still be listed as a question mark. An example is USS Cyclops, and if one follows the link to its page, they are left with the impression that a) the ship was lost in a storm, or b) the ship was handed over to the Germans, or c) the ship was torpedoed, and all three are based on checks of reliable sources. At no time is there an impression that a space alien took it. Some incidents never happened, so the reader is left with an option that he/she can go to a source listed on the page, or can research a lost vessel through an archived newspaper to see if it actally happened. Carajou 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American spelling vs others?

There's some mild differances in American spelling vs British or Norwegian or...

I spell differance with that 'a', but I could be wrong. The other guys in Britain spell tire tyre...so what do they change o a car? Check out the resulting links to see who's right! Carajou 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, my question is, if they get a flat, where is it changed? But is their flat an apartment, or what happens when they drive over a nail...in Lebanon? One can get a severe headache just thinking about it! Carajou 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a danger of mixups happening - when I spell checked this article it was for American spelling (as I understand it). An automated reversion of my edit, suitable only for vandalism, didn't make it clear which words I mixed up. I'll give you skeptical and occured (as variants), but not bouy, disappearence, or mean't (I stand to be corrected). Conclusion - don't use automated rollbacks for edits which aren't vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Spell checking is very important. I did a number of errors here that a few have picked up and corrected. Carajou 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone could point out any error in my edit I would be obliged. My guess is that there was nothing wrong with it in either language. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Occurred", "buoy", "disappearance", and "meant" are all the predominant spellings in American English, and as far as I'm aware, everywhere it's spoken natively. The OED confirms that "sceptical" is the predominant UK and Commonwealth spelling, and "skeptical" the American spelling.

"Difference" significantly outnumbers "differance" pretty much everywhere, but the OED does note it as a possible alternate spelling. —ptk✰fgs 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's nothing to worry about, and yet still vital, even in the least. If you look at the history, someone just did an incredibly minor punctuation correction on the main article a few minutes ago...all he did was shift the position of a period before a quotation mark. I consider that just as important as if he had remade the article with the credibility of an established author, and it's very much appreciated. Carajou 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On other articles a convention has developed: American articles use American spelling, and British articles use British Spelling. As this is more American than British, we should go with American spellings. Totnesmartin 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Graveyard, etc etc Title

A title to the Triangle is "Graveyard of the Atlantic", but it is more correctly used in reference to Cape Hatteras and the area around Sable Island, and both are responsible for a number of sinkings. Good trivia info to make the article more interesting, and the subject more explainale. Carajou 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

explainable! still misspelling words here! Carajou 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really really really needs a spell checker! Totnesmartin 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend FireFox 2.0? When typing things into a text box it automatically underlines misspelled words much like Microsoft Office Mr toasty 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I'd rather not have the automatic spell checker. If you look at the history page, you'll notice I have a habit of going in and doing a lot of adjusting, a lot of tweaking, a lot of fine-tuning, and there's a few more pages that have that. I did that with some fiction that I am currently writing, and I do the same thing here; I like to make an article read better. I just believe that Wikipedia should be a very reliable source for anyone looking up anything. Carajou 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC TV show entry

This is for the individual who made the latest entry in "natural explanations"... If you're going to post something you saw on TV and suddenly post it here, you're going to do several things:

1) You're going to write better English. I didn't work on this article for this long in the way it is now for someone else to place in it something that's written on a 4th grade level.

2) You're going to cite the source exactly. You saw it on TV? What program? What copyright date? Who produced it? And what exactly was the subject you saw? I got a pretty good idea as to which show it was ("Dive the Bermuda Triangle", on A&E), because I knew it was on just a few hours ago...which means he ran to the computer as soon as it was over.

3) The Flight 19 page details what was found in the waters off Florida; there's no need to detail it here, however amateurishly. And what was written just didn't fit in this article in the spot where it was placed. Even your entry on methane bubbles made no sense at all.

So, if you're going to edit stuff on Wikipedia, please follow all of the above! Carajou 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a padlock

I looked at the history page, and there seems to be a few people who's sole purpose is to get into articles and damage them, and it's so nice to see that little padlock at the top of the page. Perhaps it's because there's a lot more people who care about the integrity of what's in Wikipedia then those who don't. Carajou 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bimini Road and Edgar Cayce

Someone did a nice little correction/add-on to the "Atlantis" part of the Popular Theories section. While I don't necessarily object, if they are going to state that a Dr. Greg Little uncovered evidence of Atlantis at Bimini, they are going to write down the FACT that Dr. Little has a well-established connection to Edgar Cayce and the Association of Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia. And it took me less than thirty seconds to run his name through the Yahoo search engine and establish that connection.Carajou 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all the years of collecting money from customers seeking the winning lottery number, not one psychic has ever won the lottery. Think about that when you read the following:

The scientific method demands not only observation, but experimentation to check the results of a hypothesis. Professional archaeologists have been on the Bimini Road site since 1968. How is it that an individual who is connected with a psychic research facility is able to find what an archaeologist couldn't? How is that when this man claims he's finding evidence underwater, at no time did a professional archaeologist of any kind find a support structure on land? Those questions demand answers, and those answers simply cannot come from a bunch of psychics or anyone connected with them. 72.150.123.48 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Carajou 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grading the Page

This page has a B-grade rating. What does anyone say about changing that...maybe to a B+? Carajou 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) We could nominate it... If I knew how. Totnesmartin 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added it for peer review...I think it's the first step. Carajou 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Triangle source page

Added this page yesterday, due to the amount of references that are available, which if placed on this page would needlessly over-do it. Carajou 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Founder vs Flounder

I know that some can get petty when it comes to spelling, including myself. But these same people doing it might not intend to be petty...they just intend to correct what they see as a spelling error. So, from the top...

The word FOUNDER is an old word meant to describe one specific act: that of a sinking ship. Some may also use it to describe what they discover in their underwear drawer after having an emotional upheaval some months before while describing the same object they have lost.

The word FLOUNDER means to flop about uselessly, stagger, etc, usually in reference to a certain ugly fish left by itself on a dock somewhere.

Sooooo, we can and should try our best to use words properly! Carajou 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Acts

I've added a section related to acts by man which could have resulted in losses in the Triangle. This includes war, piracy, acts of wreckers, acts of stubborness, stupidity, etc. Perhaps more can be added to embellish it. Carajou 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]