Talk:Bermuda Triangle

Arguments "For" the Mystery

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)

Agonic line

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

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)

A True Mystery That Bends the Laws of Time

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

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)

Human Error?

The Human Error section is very strange. It doesn't seem relevant or contribute anything useful to the article. The last sentence seems especially irrelevant. Am I missing something? DJ Craig (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The section title may be a bit misleading. It appears the point being made is that decision making by people (e.g. the ship captain who "sailed into the teeth of a storm") is a factor. I can review the cited sourcing and look to refine that section, in the next day or two. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)