text:
Web architecture for Wikis

This is a learning project.

Web architecture combines elements of Information Architecture with the technical aspects of developing resources on the web. This learning project aims through a collection of resources, discussions, and real activities on the wiki, to explore the challenges posed by the rapid emergence of large scale, highly participatory wikis.

The project outputs aim to be useful for other wikis by highlighting the implications and challenges in regards to organizing spaces in these types of environments.

This project aims to establish 3 things:

 * 1) A record of existing practices and patterns in Wikiversity;
 * 2) the discussion and development of a set of tools that may be of value in scaling, maintaining, navigating, and other functions within the Wiki environment;
 * 3) suggestions and modifications of significant structural pages within Wikiversity (or other large scale Wikis);

We will, for the most part, use the wiki itself to reproduce and sandbox pages for analysis, discussion, design. Tools to facilitate this process would be greatly appreciated. Please start a separate page if you have pre-existing suggestions; ie, templates, etc.

Case studies
Case studies should involve a particular Wiki or proposed Wikiversity component.

The Wikiversity Main Page
/Wikiversity Main Page/

Redesign of this important page is taking place and is at version 0.3

There is an interesting post here: Wikiversity_talk:Introduction_Overhaul_Taskforce about reorganising the overall structure of Wikiversity.

WAW Discussion: /Wikiversity Main Page/

Portal:Reading clubs
WAW Discussion: /Portal:Reading clubs/

Namespaces
What are Topics? Need to review the existing language of organization that is appearing on WV.

Templates
Template syntax combined with Parser functions can create some powerful tools to assist users in navigation, page creation, and content development. The Web Architecture for Wikis project will develop a variety of tools for these purposes.

 * Template:WAWtranscluder - use to create a viewable version of any page in the wiki. Will be refined with addition of various subpages for discussing relevant issues related to redesign, etc. For some issues regarding the use of transclusion and templates see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits

/ToolSandbox/

Resources
Center for Wiki Science

Generating dynamic content with MediaWiki

Wiki as a tool for learning

Wiki Science at WikiBooks

Introduction_Overhaul_Taskforce - lists pages that need improvement.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Naming_conventions#Main_namespace

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Instructional_Technology

[http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596527341/ Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. 3rd ed.] by Peter Morville and Louis Rosenfeld.

/Glossary/

Images

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Server_layout_diagrams - these diagrams give a bit of an overview of just what we're dealing with here. This thing is big and it changes all the time.

title: Web architecture for Wikis


text:
Talk:Don Franklin

Great resemblance to Blair Underwood
Don Franklin bears a striking resemblance to fellow actor Blair Underwood. ---<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Don Franklin


text:
Talk:David Malcolm Renton

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on David Malcolm Renton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715215312/http://www.rw2.com/Brochures/1415Michigan.pdf to http://www.rw2.com/Brochures/1415Michigan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101203032255/http://catalinamuseum.org:80/history.html to http://www.catalinamuseum.org/history.html

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on David Malcolm Renton. 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/20120316101641/http://www.topproducerwebsite.com/users/12108/downloads/1080-Hill-Ave-Pasadena-David-M-Renton-Craftsman-Bungalow.pdf to http://www.topproducerwebsite.com/users/12108/downloads/1080-Hill-Ave-Pasadena-David-M-Renton-Craftsman-Bungalow.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118125751/http://www.ecatalina.com/catalina-history-mt-ada.html to http://www.ecatalina.com/catalina-history-mt-ada.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Malcolm Renton


text:
Tuoyo Egodo

Tuoyo Anthony Egodo (born 16 February 1997) is a rugby footballer who plays rugby union for Moseley RFC. He previously played rugby league as a er or for the London Broncos and Castleford Tigers, and for Nigeria at international level. Egodo also had loan spells at Hemel Stags, Oldham, York City Knights, Newcastle Thunder and the Bradford Bulls.

Background
Egodo was born in London, England, and is of Nigerian descent.

London Broncos
Egodo has come through the Academy system at the London Broncos.

He spent time on loan away from the capital in RFL League 1 with the Hemel Stags in 2016.

Castleford Tigers
A 2017 move to the Castleford Tigers saw him stepping up to the Super League. He scored a hat-trick on his Super League debut against Hull FC in September 2017. In 2017 Egodo was loaned from Castleford to Oldham and the York City Knights.

In 2018 the Tigers sent him on loan to the Newcastle Thunder and the Bradford Bulls.

Return to the Broncos
Egodo returned to the capital ahead of the 2020 Championship season. He was the top try scorer for the Broncos in the 2020 that was curtailed due to a global pandemic.

title: Tuoyo Egodo


text:
Cookbook:Antioxidants

Antioxidants are compounds that prevent or slow a chemical change called oxidation. A commonly recognized oxidation reaction is the rusting of iron, in which iron reacts with oxygen to form iron (ferrous) oxide. Similar reactions take place within foods and within the human body itself.

Heat is often released in the process of oxidation.

In the Human Body
Oxidation that occurs in the human body can lead to improper functioning of the body. Substances known as free radicals, which are highly reactive (have a strong tendency to take part in chemical reactions), undergo oxidation that can result in cell damage. This general process is thought to be a contributor of many undesirable conditions: cancer, aging symptoms, alcohol-induced liver damage, Parkinson's disease, senile and drug-induced deafness, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's and the iron-storage disease hemochromatosis.

While many studies have suggested benefits for antioxidant supplements in laboratory experiments, clinical trials on humans have failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit, while strong antioxidants, such as oxalic acid and phytic acid can have anti-nutritional effects due to their binding to dietary minerals in the gastrointestinal tract and preventing absorption. While antioxidants supplementation is widely hypothesized to prevent the development of cancer, antioxidants may, paradoxically, interfere with cancer treatments.

Nutritional Sources of Antioxidants
Some foods guard against the negative effects of free radicals in the body, and are commonly referred to as antioxidants. These foods include the following:

 * Fruits. Cranberries, blueberries, plums, peaches, blackberries, raspberries, apples, strawberries, red currants, figs, cherries, gooseberries, pears, guava, peaches, oranges, apricots, mangoes, grapes, pomegranates plums, raisins and dates. Dried fruits are especially high in antioxidants (more so than fresh), because the concentration means more antioxidants per serving.
 * Vegetables. Artichokes, cabbage, broccoli, asparagus, avocados, beetroot, radishes, kale, onion, romaine lettuce, parsley, and spinach.
 * Spices. Cinnamon, turmeric, cumin, curry powder, mustard seed, ginger, pepper, chili powder, paprika, garlic, coriander, and cardamom.
 * Herbs. Sage, thyme, marjoram, tarragon, peppermint, oregano, parsley, savory, basil, rosemary, dill weed.
 * Cereals. Sorghum bran, crude rice bran, corn flakes, oats and granola.
 * Nuts. Pecans, walnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, almonds, cashews, macademia nuts and peanuts (though not technically a nut).
 * Other. Red wine, tea, fungi, essential oils and cocoa.

Vitamin C, vitamin E, and lycopene are noted antioxidants.

In Foods
In foods, oxidation generally contributes to spoilage, and therefore the canning process preserves food by reducing available oxygen (as well as by killing microorganisms that contribute to spoilage).

Some food preservatives are antioxidants, such as sulfur dioxide, which is often added to dried apricots, and BHT which is often added to breakfast cereal packaging.

ספר מתכונים/נוגד חמצון

title: Cookbook:Antioxidants


text:
Talk:Learning to program with Alice

This just reads like an advertisement to me.

Are all the exclamation points really necessary? I agree, the article sounds like advertising; ironically, it's such a turn off to read, such a hard sell, that it's apt to prejudice people against the language it's so strenuously praising.

title: Talk:Learning to program with Alice


text:
Talk:Bruno Cotte

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bruno Cotte. 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/20111016111356/http://www.icc-cpi.int:80/menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/chambers/the%20judges/the%20judges/judge%20bruno%20cotte/judge%20bruno%20cotte?lan=en-GB to http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/structure%20of%20the%20court/chambers/the%20judges/the%20judges/judge%20bruno%20cotte/judge%20bruno%20cotte?lan=en-GB

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bruno Cotte


text:
1989 Penn Quakers football team

The 1989 Penn Quakers football team was an American football team that represented the University of Pennsylvania during the 1989 NCAA Division I-AA football season. It tied for second-to-last in the Ivy League.

Penn played its home games at Franklin Field on the university's campus in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

History
In its first year under head coach Gary Steele, the team compiled a 4–6 record and was outscored 229 to 171. Bryan Keys and Steve Johnson were the team captains.

Penn's 2–5 conference record earned a three-way tie for fifth in the Ivy League standings. The Quakers were outscored 172 to 107 by Ivy opponents.

title: 1989 Penn Quakers football team


text:
List of the winning political parties in the Malaysian general election by parliamentary constituency

This is the list of the winning political parties in the Malaysian general election by parliamentary constituency.


text:
Wikipedia:Meetup/Blantyre/Blantyre 3

Date:
 * 14th February 2015

Location: Society of Malawi, Historical and Scientific, Mandala House, Off Kaoishiung Road, Blantyre
 * Contact number: +265 111 627 317

If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a message on my user page or phone/message me on the day:
 * User page: Michaelphoya
 * Phone: +265 111 627 317

Time:
 * 10:30am - 12:00pm

Reasons to come:
 * Good vibes, good company, and pizza.

Agenda

 * Edit-a-thon, two stubs for Society of Malawi
 * How to apply for Wikimania 2015 scholarship
 * Project Malawian proverbs
 * Micro grants, PEG grants

Attending

 * Michaelphoya
 * PETER LUNGILE CHIDOTHE
 * User:constance naima thyangathyanga

What was discussed:

 * Edited The Constitution of Malawi page on Wiki Africa incubator

title: Wikipedia:Meetup/Blantyre/Blantyre 3


text:
Teletraffic engineering/How does Internet telephony traffic differ

Author: Chilekwa Bwalya

Summary
The growth of the Internet has seen the demand and introduction of new services beyond those originally envisaged by the early designers of what we now call the Internet. One of the new services that has received a lot of attention is the transmission of voice calls on the Internet. Applications have been developed that enable Internet users talk to other users located anywhere in the world. We examine the characteristics of the traffic generated by Internet Telephony and compare it with the traditional PSTN traffic.

Definition

 * Internet Telephony
 * Internet telephony refers to communications services- voice, facsmile and voice-messaging applications that are transported via the Internet, rather than the public switched telephone network(PSTN). The basic steps involved in originating an Internet telephone call are conversion of the analog voice signal to digital format and compression/translation of the signal into Internet protocol(IP) packets for transmission over the Internet; the process is reversed at the recieving end.[1] The other term used for Internet Telephonyy is VOIP or Voice Over Internet Protocal, a term we shall use interchangeably with Internet Telephony.

How does Internet Telephony traffic differ(VOIP) from PSTN traffic?

 * Transmission Mode:
 * VOIP:
 * VOIP traffic is packetised and transported as UDP datagrams. The network does not guarantee the availability of sufficient transmission bandwidth for the call.

 * Figure 1: Packet-switched communications between two systems. Adapted from Gorry Fairhust

 * PSTN:
 * PSTN traffic is transported as streams of data over a dedicated transmission link. The network guarantees the availiabilty of sufficient transmission bandwidth for the duration of the call.

 * Figure 2: Circuit-switched communications between two nodes. Adapted from Gorry Fairhust

 * Transmission Delay:
 * VOIP:
 * Internet is designed to be a packet switched network. Thus VOIP packets are subject to varying amounts of transmission delay(Jitter) which results in periods of silence during the conversation or breaks in some words. The propagation delay between any two links is constant. The variation in delay is caused by the non-constant amount of time a given packet spends at a node awaiting service in a queue. The amount of time a packet spends at a given node is a function of the traffic load on that node or the average queue length.
 * PSTN:
 * The PSTN network is circuit switched in which the traffic channel is reserved for the duration of the call. The delay experienced in a purely circuit switched network is constant is only limited to propagation delay. The reserving of resources along the transmission path ensures that data arriving at any given node is immediately routed onto the next hop towards the destination.

 * Transmission Path:
 * VOIP:
 * Because the Internet is a packet switched network the paths taken by any two packets for a given source and destination node are not necessarily the same. This results in an increase in the amount of variations of transmission delay experienced by packets.
 * PSTN:
 * In a circuit switch network, a transmission path between this source and destination node is first established prior to the transmission of data. This path is maintained for the duration of the call. Thus the data stream flows in the same path during the call.

 * Intermediate Node Failure(Partial Network Failure):
 * VOIP:
 * Packet switched data has a high degree of immunity from network failure than circuit switched data. A single node failure would result in packets taking a different route avoiding the failed element. The packets for an on-going call would still reach the destination node and thus the call would be maintained.[3]
 * PSTN:
 * For circuit switched data, a node failure along the path would disrupt an on-going call and would result in a Call drop.

 * User Identity
 * VOIP:
 * The user in Internet telephony is identified using an IP address.
 * PSTN:
 * User identity in PSTN traffic is through the E.164 Numbering system [4]

 * Signalling
 * VOIP:
 * Signalling in Internet telephony is a best-effort inband system.
 * PSTN:
 * PSTN employs common channel signalling which uses dedicated signalling channels. An example of such a signalling channel is Signalling System No. 7 or SS7[4]

Example
An example of Internet telephony applications on the Internet is Skype which operates on a peer-to-peer model, rather than the more traditional server-client model. The Skype user directory is entirely decentralised and distributed among the nodes in the network, which means the network can scale very easily to large sizes (currently over 100 million users) without a complex and costly centralised infrastructure. [2]

Exercises
Assuming the following topology:
 * Two hosts, A and B, connected by a single link of rate R.
 * Links are un-congested thus there is no queuing delay within each switch
 * Host A sends a packet to Host B. Packet size is L bits
 * The length of each link is M meters and the propagation speed is S meters/sec

Express the following:
 * a) Propagation delay, dprop in terms of M and S
 * b) Transmission delay dtrans in terms of L and R
 * c) End-to-end delay (ignoring queuing and processing delays)
 * d) Suppose dprop is greater than dtrans. At time t= dtrans where is the first bit of the packet?
 * e) Suppose dprop is less than dtrans. At time t= dtrans where is the first bit of the packet?

Solution


text:
Talk:Hiatari Ryōkō!

Live action cast
I'm having trouble finding a cast list showing which actors played which characters. I can find plenty of just plain cast lists which don't match actors to characters, but none that list more than the first three characters (the ones already listed in the article). If someone can find one, that would be great. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

linking problem
it's so hard to link to this page because of the '!' in the URL. =[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yui-kun (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hiatari Ryōkō!. 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://www.webcitation.org/6FjkLJbTc?url=http://www.freewebs.com/adachifan/hiatariryoukou.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/adachifan/hiatariryoukou.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hiatari Ryōkō!


text:
User:VACatlett

I am an employee of the George C. Marshall Foundation, an independent, non-profit institution. I am editing to share our resources with the world, not to promote the Foundation. In fact, I would like to remedy the "sounds like an advertisement" content of our page. If you feel that I am in violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, please let me know.

title: User:VACatlett


text:
Software testing/Test tools

Here there will be presented test tools (also with a video tutorial).

special attention
Following test tools will be made available for public usage for the participants. Tutor Erkan Yilmaz shows their importance in the daily testing, their usage and also common mistakes.
 * bug tracking system: used for recording of anomalies (e.g. here some info on the bug tracking system of MediaWiki, e.g. Wikipedia)
 * trouble ticket system: to communicate with customers
 * version control: so that you can restore old versions (of source code, documents of any kind like user manuals, requirements, ...)

documentation of source code
Following tools are a very simple way to summarize comments (examples for comments for programming languages you can find here) out of source code:

 * Doxygen: can be used for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, Python, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to a certain extent als for PHP, C#, and D. examples and projects, which use it.
 * Javadoc with example
 * PhpDocumentor (also called: phpdoc or phpdocu) with example
 * ROBODoc for e.g. C, C++, Fortran, Perl, shell scripts, Assembler, DCL, DB/C, Tcl/Tk, Forth, Lisp, COBOL, Occam, Basic, HTML, Clarion. And here examples
 * NDoc for .Net projects with example

and here more tools

other tools
more tools will be added over time, see also discussion (at the moment go to German discussion)

title: Software testing/Test tools


text:
Nicolas Chédeville

Nicolas Chédeville (20 February 1705 – 6 August 1782) was a French composer, musette player and musette maker.

Biography
Nicolas Chédeville was born in Serez, Normandy; musicians Pierre Chédeville (1694–1725) and Esprit Philippe Chédeville (1696–1762) were his brothers. Louis Hotteterre was his great uncle and godfather, and may have given him instruction in music and turning instruments. He began playing the oboe and musette (a bagpipe-like instrument commonly used in French baroque music) in the Paris Opera orchestra in the 1720s. After Jean Hotteterre's death in 1732, he took over his post in Les Grands Hautbois, the royal oboe band. He retired from the opera in July 1748, though returned occasionally to play the musette there. When he was nearly 70, he married the younger daughter of a valet who had once worked for the Duc d'Orléans, and was still describing himself as musette player to the king. In his last years he experienced financial difficulties. His ten houses were signed over to creditors in 1774, following which he separated from his wife. He resigned from Les Grands Hautbois in 1777, petitioned for bankruptcy in 1778 and died in Paris four years later. Lawyers were still trying to settle his affairs in 1790.

Jean-Benjamin de la Borde called him "the most celebrated musette player France had ever had", though he mistakenly held the opinion that he was dead by 1780, two years before he met his end. He taught the musette to Princess Victoire from about 1750, and became a popular teacher among the aristocracy, eventually attaining the title of maître de musette des Mesdames de France. He was also a musette maker, and extended the instrument's compass in the bass down to c' (middle C).

Works
Chédeville's compositions were intended for the amusement and pleasure of wealthy amateur musicians; the French aristocracy of the time found pleasure in playing rustic instruments while living a romantic fantasy of peasant life (before the French Revolution presented a rather different perspective).

His first published works were collections of pieces for musette or hurdy-gurdy, entitled Amusements champêtres (pastoral amusements), published in December 1729. He called himself 'Chedeville le jeune', and in later compositions referred to himself as 'Chedeville le cadet'. Another collection of Amusements champêtres followed, which were of a more advanced technical and musical substance. Some variety was found in op. 6, with pieces named after battles and expressing 'war-like images'; it was inspired by a military campaign he had gone on with the Prince of Conti. He turned briefly to more serious music with Italian influences in op. 7, which is his only collection written specifically for the flute, oboe or violin.

Impersonation of Vivaldi
In 1737 he made a secret agreement with his cousin Jean-Noël Marchand to publish a collection of his own compositions as Antonio Vivaldi's op. 13, entitled Il pastor fido. Chédeville supplied the money and received the profits, all of which was attested to in a notarial act by Marchand in 1749. This may have been an attempt to give his instrument, the musette, the endorsement of a great composer which it lacked. (Whether Vivaldi was ever aware of the fraud is unknown; there is no record of him lodging any complaint against either Chédeville or Marchand, and he was already dead by the time of Marchand's notarised deposition.) Vivaldi scholars had doubted the authenticity of Il pastor fido since at least the 1950s, but the forgery was only conclusively proven by French musicologist Philippe Lescat in 1989.

Chédeville's interest in Italian music led to his receiving, in August 1739, a privilege to publish arrangements for the musette, hurdy-gurdy or flute of concertos and sonatas by ten specific Italian composers, in addition to Johann Joachim Quantz and Antoine Mahaut. Le printems, ou Les saisons amusantes (1739) is a particularly amusing result of this privilege; it is an arrangement of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons for hurdy-gurdy or musette, violin, and flute (though the French flute could also mean the recorder). He replaced Vivaldi's original Summer with his op. 8 no. 9 concerto, transferred the middle movement of Winter to Autumn, and replaced Winter op. 8 no. 12. All this was quite freely arranged and combined with some added Vivaldian material by Chédeville.

Compositions
Published in Paris. All solo works are accompanied by continuo. '/' indicates alternative instrumentation.

Opuses

 * Op.[1]: Amusements champêtres, livre 1er (1729); for 1 and 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies.
 * Op.[2]: Amusements champêtres, livre 2e (1731); for 1 and 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/oboes.
 * Op.[3]: Troisième livre d'amusements champêtres (1733); for musette/hurdy-gurdy/flute/oboe/violin.
 * Op.4: Les danses amuzantes mellées de vaudeville (1733); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/oboes/violin.
 * Op.5: Sonates amusantes (1734); for 1 and 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/oboes/violin.
 * Op.6: Amusemens de Bellone, ou Les plaisirs de Mars (1736); for 1 and 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/oboes.
 * Op.7: 6 sonates (1739); for flute/oboe/violin.
 * Op.8: Les galanteries amusantes (1739); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/violins.
 * Op.9: Les Deffis, ou L'étude amusante; for musette/hurdy-gurdy.
 * Op.10: Les idées françoises, ou Les délices de Chambray (1750); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/oboes/violins.
 * Op.11: lost
 * Op.12: Les impromptus de Fontainebleau (1750); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/violins/pardessus de viole/flutes/oboes.
 * Op.13: lost
 * Op.14: Les variations amusantes: pièces de différents auteurs ornés d'agrémens (includes variations on Les folies d'Espagne); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/pardessus de viole/flutes/oboes.

Arrangements and other works

 * Il pastor fido, sonates ... del sigr Antonio Vivaldi [by Nicolas Chédeville] (1737); for musette/hurdy-gurdy/flute/oboe/violin.
 * LE PRINTEMS / ou / LES SAISONS / AMUSANTES / concertos / DANTONIO VIVALDY / Mis pour les Musettes et Vielles / avec accompagnement de Violon / Fluste et Basse continue. / PAR MR CHEDEVILLE LE CADET / Hautbois De la Chambre du Roy / et Muſette ordinaire De l'Academie Royalle / De Muſique. Opera ottava. [arrangement of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons by Nicolas Chédeville] (1739); for musette/hurdy-gurdy, violin, flute, and continuo.
 * La feste d'Iphise [arrangement of airs from Montéclair's Jephté] (1742); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies.
 * Les pantomimes italiennes dansées à l'Académie royale de musique (1742); for 1 and 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies/flutes/oboes.
 * Nouveaux menuets champêtres; for musette/hurdy-gurdy/violin/flute/oboe.
 * [Dall']Abaco, op.4, arrangement for musette/hurdy-gurdy/flute/oboe.
 * La feste de Cleopatre (1751); for 2 musettes/hurdy-gurdies.

title: Nicolas Chédeville


text:
Template:Did you know nominations/Astrangia poculata

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Astrangia poculata, Astrangia solitaria

 * ... that the northern cup coral often contains symbiotic zooxanthellae in its tissues whereas the southern cup coral does not?
 * Reviewed: Mountain trogon
 * Comment: Also reviewed Martin Pistorius
 * The hook fact is based on the word "azooxanthellate" (meaning without zooxanthellae) in the WoRMS source.

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 07:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Symbol voting keep.svg Dates and lengths all good. Hook fact confirmed as well as majority of text in both articles.  No prose or plagiarism issues spotted. One source used in the second article is offline/behind paywall, so AGF.  QPQ reviews completed. --Allen3 talk 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Cappriccieo Scates

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cappriccieo Scates. 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/20111013074126/http://www.grammy365.com/chapters/atlanta-chapter to http://www.grammy365.com/chapters/atlanta-chapter

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cappriccieo Scates


text:
User:Canscorch

Pages I've been helping to maintain
America's Army: Special Forces Community Tactics Guide

Ways to contact Canscorch
Private message me on the America's Army Forums as canscorch.

Private message me on ArmyOps-Tracker as canscorch.

Use Xfire. My Xfire ID is canscorch as well (no suprise).

Messages
1. I think cohesive is a good thing. If you have any ideas, go right ahead and implement them. In the future, if you want to contact me, my email account is a lot faster. Good work.

title: User:Canscorch


text:
lakonisk

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) laconic
 * 2) Laconian

Adverb

 * 1) laconically

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) laconic
 * 2)  laconically
 * 3) Laconian

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) laconic
 * 2) Laconian

Adjective

 * 1) laconic (saying much with few words)

title: lakonisk


text:
Cookbook:Egg Separator

| Kitchen tools

An egg separator is a tool used to separate the yolk of an egg from the egg white.

Those not wishing to purchase a device to separate their eggs for them can simply crack the egg into their hand (fingers a very tiny distance apart) and allow the egg white to slide through their fingers while the yolk remains.

Separating eggs by passing them from one half of the shell to the other is more sanitary, but can cause a risk of the egg yolk from braking and shards of egg shell to end up in food.

title: Cookbook:Egg Separator


text:
Talk:Black triangle (UFO)/Archive 1

St.Petersburg sightings
In the introduction of the article, it's commented that there were a mass sighting over St.Petersburg in 1997. Why is there no other references, nor any subsection under 'reported sightings' about this incident?

 * Well, last I checked, there was more info about the St. Petersburg sighting at the Whyfiles site, (See external links). They've reorganized their website since my last visit, so you'll have to dig around for it. Unfortunately, the authors of the Whyfiles are very stingy about keeping any and all reports they've compiled exclusive to their website. Attempts to use their research for this Wiki article have caused them to protest and threaten legal action in the past, even if its paraphrased and referenced back to them. I tried to compromise with them when I put this article together, but they wanted everything taken down and afterward ignored my requests. I avoid them now, but they seem to have the only detailed info regarding the Russian sighting (if it's true or not), and don't want it repeated in detail here. SkeezerPumba 01:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If it really was a mass sighting, there must be lots of other references than the whyfiles. While googling, I find references to the St. Petersburg Times, February 2, 1997.  Unfortunately, they don't have that old editions publically available at www.sptimes.ru :-(

Saw a black triangle URBANA CHAMPAIGN ILLINOIS 61802 Read please:
A friend of mine and I were hanging out in the Urbana, IL area by Mchenry at around 10:00- 11:30 PM Thursday November 23rd 2006 at night and saw a black triangle object it looked more like a diamond with a tail coming out of one of the corners...Completly silent the lights were on each angle and it they were a red orange dim color. Again NO sound what so ever and it was cruising through the sky fairly quickly it took 10-15 seconds for us to see it and it dissapear..it sort of cloaked in and cloaked out

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>-- email me if you have seen one somehwere in my area or at that time

 * Call MUFON. Cyberia23 07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars
In the original Star Wars Trilogy the Imperial Star Destroyers resemble Black Triangles<IP_ADDRESS> 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Bertman
 * They'd be "white" triangles. Cyberia23 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems?
I added the NPOV tag. My problem with this article is that it seems to give far too much weight to the conspiracy theory and UFO stuff, both of which are, after all, basically fringe opinions, and I assume even more so among widely ACKNOWLEDGED experts in relevant fields, like aerospace engineers, astophysicists, psychologists, etc. Obviously a majority of UFOlogists (or whatever they're called) think they're on to something, otherwise they wouldn't be spending time studying them. The "other explanations" section seems especially biased. The "for some reason" seems like weasel words (unnecessarily editorializing about unlikeliness), as well as the "opens the door to almost any sort of speculation," as if the possiblity that people are mistaken is so bizarre that if that's possible, then ANYTHING is possible.

Also, what about this: "...an intense magnetic field that negates Earth's gravitational forces on the mass of the vehicle by 89%..." Even though it's not reported as fact but as what somebody was saying, should it really go without comment that this has absolutely nothing to do with real physics? Magnetic fields have nothing to do with gravity.

Anyway, I guess I'll do a little editing along these lines myself (trying not to go too far in the other direction), but I think the whole article could use a look, which is why I nominated it.Mycroft7 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There, I made some changes, hopefully towards a more neutral tone and with more appropriate weight given to more skeptical views. I also changed the opening wording to make it clear that it is an article about the phenomenon of all these similar SIGHTINGS and not the actual AIRCRAFT, which may or may not even exist. I suppose it's obvious that I have a personal bias of finding the whole thing extremely dubious, but I think I mostly succeeded in staying neutral in my edits (except where the POV is presented as such). If you disagree and make significant changes along those lines, please explain yourself here so maybe we can come to a consensus instead of engaging in an edit war.

Anyway, it still could use more attention and more thorough looking into various different (and sourced, ideally) explanations, including psychological ones, of which I have little experience and don't know where to research. (I suspect studies of mob behaviors might prove relevant and educational, but that's just a guess. ;-)) Also, a few things could REALLY use sources, like the theory about "stealth blimps." I called it a "sometimes-voiced theory" to be as vague and neutral as possible, but I think it would be much more encylopedic if we knew, say, whose theory it originally was, and where he got his wild ideas about blimps. Mycroft7 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Language of observers - running lights
Do  many  or  most  observers see running lights? I'm definitely not a UFO enthusiast but I think it's important to establish that distinction. Bumhoolery 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My husband and I saw a Black Triangle in the spring of 1983
My husband and I saw a Black Triangle in the spring of 1983. We were driving after midnight (around 2 a.m.) southbound on Missouri Highway 63. Midway between Columbia, MO and Jefferson City (around Ashland, MO), we saw what we first thought were an airplane's landing lights. (There was a very small airport nearby.) As we approached the lights, we saw the Black triangle. The triangle moved VERY slowly and almost seemed to hover at a very low altitude (200 -500 feet). It was a VERY large Isosceles triangle (two sides larger than the base). The triangle had a red globe in the center and was outlined with small light blue lights with brighter white lights on each corner of the triangle. It was very dark, so we could not see the detail of the body other than the lights. We drove under the Black Triangle as it crossed over the highway. The Black Triangle easily covered all 4 lanes of the highway and then some. We slowed down to less than 40 mph and rolled down the windows to get a better look and listen. (It would have been unsafe to come to a complete stop on the highway.) The Black Triangle made no sound at all. It also did not generate any wind below it. It was NOT a helicopter (it made no noise, was way too large, and moved very smoothly). It was NOT an airplane as it moved much too slowly and made no noise. The small landing strip nearby could not have accomodated an aircraft that large. After it crossed the highway, it was not visible to follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Investigated this
I had investigated this matter while getting a $60,000 RV fixed. Got a pix of a UFO. Caught it as it was flying over a used car lot. Problem is that it is one of those "lights", which is a UFO w/o observable structure. Martial Law 10:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Had to take the RV to Phoenix, AZ. Martial Law 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

B-2, thats my guess. if you got a picture of the aircraft it be better to understand, for now im sticking to the B-2 Tu-49 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Triangle on Google
Okay i saw the image for my self on Google maps and it loooks nothing like a radio tower. and if it is a radio Tower, theres no town or city in the area to service it and there is no shadow of the Aircraft. Now i saw a Trangle for my self and i have seen pictures of alot of Black triangles, that defintly looks like a black TriangleTu-49 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I fully agree with you on this one, but I had to put the neutral perspective in to show some people dont think so (I still think its a ufo though hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 15:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral?? u stand there? okay ill live with thatTu-49 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * SOrry i mean i had to add a critic to the idea to make the section in this article neutral (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a party pooper, but shouldn't that be relatively easy to confirm one way or the other? I mean, there's either a tower there or there isn't. Rather pointless to speculate, no? Go look. Mycroft7 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I have asked around and tried to look on the web but cannot find anything on this "radio tower"... if anyone lives in australia or can confirm this is true or not would be helping very much (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another satellite (or other) image of the same location would suffice? Mycroft7 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I tried but no luck (i found some but I could not zoom as far as I could with google maps so I was unable to confirm this) ... but if anyone else can confirm it that would be great (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

here's an idea, how bought someone go to the site and confirm if a tower is there or notTu-49 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

 * what website though? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

what do u mean what site?? i mean actually go there, to the cordinates, and see if there is a tower there or notTu-49 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * woops i thought you meant website, that would be nice if someone could do that (:O) ... i dont live in australia though so not possible on my part (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadow on 8:30 Position
What shadow? I see no shadow; and I'm not even sure where to look -- what is the 8:30 position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)

okay if u wanted to state this you could have said it in the Triangle on Google thing i postedTu-49 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The 8:30 position refers to where 8:30 would be on a clock face. Yes, it's clearly visible, just not in the the thumbnail. Click on the picture and you'll see it. Mycroft7 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i wouldn't use clearly as a right term to see on it, you have to see it closely to know its there

depends on where the shadow angle isTu-49 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8:30 or 8:35 position? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Congressman Spots ONE of these UFOs
A US Congressman has spotted one of these things. He is Congressman Kusinich. <IP_ADDRESS> 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't link to article on AOL
The end of the section on the Belgian Wave included the following: (See, for example, this detailed summary, which also provides references to other sources.) I had to remove it because its presence caused an automatic revert, due to a ban on links into members.aol.com. So I am putting the info here, in case anyone ever finds another source of that article to link to. (It looks like a pretty good article.) <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a black triangle!
I know these things exist because i've seen one in the mid 1990's, just exactly what they are though I'm not so sure. But the one I saw was huge about the size of a two storey house, very low down in the sky, black and triangular shape and moved extremely slowly without any noise. I felt very calm the whole time I and one other person was witnessing it but would love to know exactly what they are! YourPTR! 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If it moved against the wind, call Gandalf right away! Opuscalgary 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it moved against the wind or even if there was any wind but it definitely moved under its own power. Gandalf? YourPTR! 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a Lord Of The Rings allusion. At one point in the first book, a "cloud" is spotted moving towards the heroes, but it is discovered to be a flock of fast-moving birds, as it is moving "against the wind." <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a "black triangle" UFO as well. I was living in Flagstaff, Arizona at the time, in 1997, around the time of the Phoenix Lights incident. As some of you know, Flagstaff is roughly 150 miles to the north-northeast of Phoenix. I was driving along in my car, next to a soccer field, on a cloudy night. I looked up and saw two sets of red, V-shaped light formations with a white light in the front of the "V", travelling slowly and silently through the underside of a cloud. The cloud obscured the rest of the craft(s). The craft had to have been flying low, yet made no sound. As someone knowledgable when it comes to aricraft, I tell you it was like no Cessna or Piper Cub I had ever seen. It was very large, and yet silent. I found this quite eerie, as did the two other men in the car with me. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with USAF stealth aircraft
I have been the priviledged witness of a demo flight from the US stealth bomber which happens to be a black triangle (it was at the paris air show in 1995 or 1997 don't remember the date). I can tell it makes no doubt that the view of this airplane can be interpretated as an ufo. When I saw it it was making a low overflight of the airport in glide (almost no sound, just a faint "propeller-like" sound). I am not saying that all triangle sightings are stealth aircrafts, actually I personally believe that there are unknown objects in the skies, especially if you take into account all the many reports, videos and photographs of objects that couldn't possibly be aircrafts. But it's interesting to note that the stealth bomber is probably responsible for several of the mid-1990s triangle sightings. But it is also worthwile to note that this aircraft doesn't have any spotlights under it's belly and that it is highly unlikely that test flights would have been undertaken over very populated and urbanized areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages
Please remember that the purpose of talk pages is to give an area for discussing the article and ways to improve it, not for discussing the subject of the article. Don't post purported sightings here, and so on; such discussions are subject to removal under the talk page guidelines. --Philosophus T 05:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

so wait, your saying that my post on here will be removed?? no im not being mean or any thing im just wonderingTu-49 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They could be, if they continue, but I'm rather reluctant to remove older discussions. --Philosophus T 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * His post deal directly with the topic in the article, and we are trying to find new sources to get insight on this "radio tower" ... there is nothing wrong with your post Tu-49 (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the attempts there are OR. In fact, the entire section is OR, and doesn't comply with A, so I've removed it. --Philosophus T 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thats what YOU say Nima, however this guy believes other wise, which i don't have a problem with Tu-49 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the triangle UFO turns to a circle due to the UFO's immense speed in spinning it looks like a circle? Then once it slows down, it would be visible as a triangle —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see them
I see these "black triangles" on a regular basis. During the summer and early fall, the prevailing wind is such that airplanes coming in for a landing at the local airport approach my apartment from the south, then turn to the east when they're on line with the runway. The three white lights are the wing and nose landing lights (when they're pointed right at you, they're insanely bright), and the central red light is the lower hazard-warning light. There's usually a temperature inversion that keeps the engine noise from reaching the ground, and those airplanes make an absurdly sharp turn to final -- if I hadn't seen them making that maneuver in daylight, I wouldn't believe it was possible. --<IP_ADDRESS> 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

okay i see two things that i'm confused about, 1 u cant be seeing them on a regular basis with out letting the media no, 2 if u are seeing the Black triangles, ever think they might be a B-2? cuz i know one video on youtube where a kid was paint balling and he saw and captured a video of a B-2 passing by, and the kid didn't know what it was. clear mistaken identy, next time if u see one, take a picture of it Tu-49 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

but on all cases yes i have seen one my self (though my dad said the first one was a plane) on two occasions. both were triangles and even through my bonoculars when i saw the first one i saw no window lights nor heard engins, but in all cases the black triangle is the most known UFO second to the Saucer Tu-49 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

His claim, Tu-49, is that they're not really black triangles, and that they are in fact aeroplanes. From what I can tell - and of course I could be wrong about this - what he's saying is that they are the most often seen because they're just planes on days with heavy wind - if you didn't know this: planes must adjust the route they take when landing, and have different routes for different weather. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your lumping all of the "black triangle" information together and it doesnt make sense.
Why would you lump the articles about smaller black triangles like the Belgian ones in with the sightings of the "big deltas" a.k.a "the stealth blimp"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_Blimp These are two totally separate subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth
The coordinates given, 30°30'41"S, 115°22'56"E, are in Emu Downs Wind Farm, Western Australia, some photos [www.eyeinthesky.com.au/creative_services/photography/emudownswindfarm.html here]. Pfly (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TR-3A BS
Uggg, where does this crap come from? Some guy just shows up, claims to be an engineer from area 51, spouts a bunch of obviously bogus junk, and this gets reported to the wikipedia?! You can't modify gravity with magnetism. Period. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, your hard drive would be levitating (yes, that's a joke).

This whole section should be removed. Spurious storytelling with zero credibility or verifiability are not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopedia! Should I just remove it?

Maury 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It doesn't have to be true, notable frauds hoaxes and lore are all permissible topics. Just look at the page on Bigfoot, for example - perfectblue 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Not defending the claims of the "engineer from area 51" or anything in the article, but please see Magnetic levitation, quickly before you wonder where it is your hard drive flew off to while you were having dinner (yes, that's another joke). --T-dot 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I'm just reading it incorrectly, but the passage seems to be suggesting that the magnetic force is directly effecting gravity itself. Specifically, negates Earth's gravitational forces on the mass of the vehicle by 89%. Ok, so perhaps you could suggest that this means that it's simply providing 89% of the lift needed, but it does not read that way. Worse, it's obviously not possible to countere the mass of the vehicle, but the weight, which suggests it was written (or spoken) by someone with an extremely limited knowledge of high-school physics. Then it continues with these wonderful figures, can maneuver on the spot, vertically and horizontally, at incredible speeds up to Mach 9, and climb to an altitude of 120,000 feet (36.6 km). Well not only do all of those numbers sound completely bogus (not bogus in "can't do that", but bogus as in "just picked them out of the air"), and of course one needs to explain how magnetism can be used for a sideways propulsive force...
 * Making matters even more fun, one needs to remember that the TR-3, or as it was oh-so-cleverly "disguised" by calling it "Tier 3", is now a publically known UAV, the RQ-3 Dark Star. There was a time when the TR-3 was a cause célèbre in the aviation and UFO worlds, and was the subject of constant speculation with ever-inflating capabilities. While the aviation world did not generally say it was a UFO-like device, they did claim it used all sorts of exotic propulsion systems with various Mach-whatever ratings.
 * I still think this section needs to be removed completely. It appears to be nothing more than the ramblings of some guy who wanted to get his 15 minutes of fame among the UFO crowd. This is most definitely NOT something that should be in the wiki. Does anyone out there disagree, or should I just go ahead and clip? Maury

 * Actually no the TR-3 Black Manta and the RQ-3 Dark Star are not related, it is a coincidence. The names are different and the only similarity are they sound alike. The TR-3 designation would be consistent with a USAF aircraft designation. The name Tier III- comes from the DARPA LO-HEA UAV requirement which was first called Tier III but was later changed to Tier III-.
 * The first reported sighting and screen shot of video of an aircraft alleged to be a TR-3 was in 1993 at White Sands by aircraft photographer and plane chaser Steve Douglass. The RQ-3's first flight was in 1996. The TR-3 was theorized to be a USAF replacement for the TR-1/U-2R Tactical Reconnaissance aircraft based off the canceled USN A-12 Avenger II triangle shaped carrier based single seat attack aircraft. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost overruns. The TR-3 is rumored to have been canceled due to problems and the arrival of the RP-4Q Global Hawk. Anlushac11 (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 * The speech referred: http://www.ufomind.com/misc/1998/aug/d26-001.shtml - It does sound like this chap made it up and the went on to sell his book for more information on this thing he made up.

Delete "September 11" editorializing
actually the reports about the black triangles are very true and do have something to do with 9/11 why do you think the "authorities" fired a missle into the pentagon???? they are very much real and disclosure is not far away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperks (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The text asserts that flying black triangles pose new "security implications...after the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001." But do they, really? It's somewhat hard to see how the security implications of UFOs are changed by a hijacking attack carried out by earthlings armed with low-tech weapons. The paragraph in question doesn't add much to the piece, but it certainly detracts from it by casually broaching an unrelated subject (post-9/11 hysteria).

 * So remove it.  :-) - Omegatron 22:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

actualy that bit seems to have been lifted from the NIDS survey of black triangles.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/flying_triangle_040902.html cites it thus

"Rather, it is consistent with (a) the routine and open deployment of an unacknowledged advanced DoD aircraft or (b) the routine and open deployment of an aircraft owned and operated by non-DoD personnel, suggests the NIDS study.

“The implications of the latter possibility are disturbing, especially during the post 9/11 era when the United States airspace is extremely heavily guarded and monitored," the NIDS study explains. "In support of option (a), there is much greater need for surveillance in the United States in the post 9/11 era and it is certainly conceivable that deployment of low altitude surveillance platforms is routine and open.”"

of course it could stand to be clarified.

well on the date of 9/11, people did report seeing something other than a plane or Helocopter in the sky, heck one took a picture of it as i heard. but it don't look like a black triangle, more of one of those "Lights" in the sky Tu-49 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

npov
I added the unreferenced and npov tags, if reliable citations for the sitings can be found then the tags can be rethought. There also seems to be undue weight given to proponents of UFO theories. There is almost no discussion of mundane explanations. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A few months later, I've started to remove unsourced material, especially material that is not encyclopedic. I'll do reference hunting once some of the more egregious stuff gets removed. Feel free to add anything back if you find a good source. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Where can I add my black traingle sighting? I added to the main page but it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear IP user, this is Wikipedia, so you can't add original research. If your sighting is published in an article or makes headlines, you may add it by providing any reliable source. You may also add it to the list of UFO sightings. serioushat 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Declassified UK Ministry of Defense Report sheds light on "Black Triangle" class UFOs
If anyone is following this article, I intend to adding the following relevant information from declassified UK military research on UFOs :

 * UK military research has concluded that "Black Triangle" UFOs are caused by formations of electrical plasma caused by unknown atmospheric conditions. "Occasionally and perhaps exceptionally, it seems that a field with, as yet, undetermined characteristics, can exist between certain charged buoyant objects in loose formation, such that, depending on the viewing aspect, the intervening space between them forms an area (viewed as a shape, often triangular) from which the reflection of light does not occur. This is a key finding in the attribution of what have frequently been reported as black 'craft,' often triangular and even up to hundreds of feet in length."

 * These plasma formations also have the effect through "magnetic, electric or electromagnetic (or even unknown field), appears to emanate from some of the buoyant charged masses. Local fields of this type have been medically proven to cause responses in the temporal lobes of the human brain. These result in the observer sustaining his or her own vivid, but mainly incorrect, description of what is experienced. This is suggested to be a key factor in influencing the more extreme reports found in the media and are clearly believed by the 'victims.'

There is a lot of interesting information in these documents, but it hasn't gotten much attention among UFO enthusiasts, possibly because it is in a format that doesn't allow for copy/pasting text and therefore it is a hassle to convey the information second-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatscaptain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the whole article...
I read the whole article, I didn't really see much dispute about neutrality. It seemed like it might be just a little leaning towards that it's some aircraft, but all the evidence DOES show that there was something there, and it can't be denied. Unibrow1994 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Included various citations to the project condign report
I am removing the neutrality dispute tag. We now have a citations for various causes as opposed to the "aircraft" hypothesis, so I'm assuming that addresses the complaint. Personally I think the all "TR-3B.com" citations should be deleted because that does not appear to be an encyclopedic source, but I will wait until whoever included it responds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatscaptain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Propulsion on Aircrafts
About this part of the artical:

Also, if a conventional nuclear reactor is used, it would have to be designed in an unconventional and otherwise unheard of way: the reactor would need bulky shielding, and the heat produced would have to be converted into electricity to run the coils that produce the magnetic field used to levitate the aircraft, making all the needed machinery probably too heavy for flight.

The USSR did succesfully test an aircraft equipt with an (operational) nuclear reactor on board in the 60s (see Tupolev Tu-119), therefor, this isn't all that unlikely and thus this part might need some editing. Crownsteler 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 * That article does say the aircraft could only fly for 48 hours because the crew was exposed to radiation - shielding must have been sacrificed to save weight. Plus - reading up on the engines the reactor supposedly powered - the NK-12 and NK-14, they're turbo props. So how can a nuclear reactor "power" gas-turbine aircraft engines? Doesn't it need combustible fuel? Cyberia23 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An aircraft can be powered by a nuclear reactor. Unlikely to be a jet aircraft, however. Nor is radiation necessarily a problem. A submarine style nuclear reactor uses a big water tank for shielding, and it works very very well. Assuming air cooling of the secondary coolant loop, you would be good to go as long as you maintained a minimal airspeed. Propulsion would be done by driving propellers (probably electrically from generators driven by a steam turbine) Even better would be a big dirigible -- plenty of lifting capacity. So it is both possible and feasible -- just not economically viable or militarily particularly useful. SunSw0rd 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The US built and flew a modified Convair NB-36H which carried a operational 3 megawatt nuclear reactor and operated between 1955 and 1957 and made 47 flights. It was used to evaluate the requirements and problems of building and operating a airborne reactor.

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/anp.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

Anlushac11 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem here isn't the reactor itself but the propulsion technique suggested. In a nuclear powerplant, the reactor provides heat energy that is used to put the medium (water, steam) under high pressure and because of that it jets out when exposed to a low pressure area. So you put a turbine in between and the movement of the medium causes the turbine to rev up, and you attach an electrical generator to the shaft and the rotary motion generates electricity. On a nuclear ship the turbine shaft powers the propellers. On a nuclear aircraft the nuclear heat is used to heat up the compressed air in the jet turbine or turboprop, thus doing the very same job that the fuel would have otherwise. This magnetic coil nonsense would require a nuclear powerplant of the first kind, that is, with the reactor itself, turbines to provide a rotary motion AND electrical generators to convert it into electricity. So basically that's what we are talking about here, I guess. Again, the problem isn't the reactor stuff but the levitation hypothesis that is physically implausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

other black triangle is US
this is an amazing section of wiki talk- i have never seen it this open and far reaching in allowing viewpoints. I dare say it is important to note that there was a massive cover up of info or images about the Phoenix Lights incident. There are no images available anywhere except those from some films taken by a few people ? How odd. And no police transcripts of Phoenix Ariz during the event? I think we are the black triangle also.WE allow others to control what we are able to know. We are being taken away from the facts. I hope you realize this.oh my i have made a contribution to all the confusion...Blondeignore (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The header image is inaccurate.
I've seen a black triangle UFO. It was wedge shaped, the size of a football field, low to the ground, very slow, and silent. The ship had symmetrical lights, with one on the tip. It surely didn't look like a perfect triangle, as the image header suggests. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows the shape of a UFO depends on the potency of the weed you smoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident
I made an addition to the Rendlesham forest section which has been undone with no reason given. Wiki's own entry on this incident is comprehensive, balanced, and evidenced. Notably it does not refer to any black triangles whatsoever, but refers to lights being seen. There is a reasonable account of what witnesses saw heard and did, then a nicely balanced look at the evidence and its reliability. My addition was an attempt at a brief summary of the article to maintain a NPOV by adding to this piece. I am rewriting the addition and putting it back in place to add an element of NPOV to the black triangle article as I think it is pertinent - even if it doesn't support the contention that black triangles are an alien phenomenon. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "pyramid shaped craft" which was mentioned in this section (and which seems to be the sole reason for this incident to be included on this page) is NOT mentioned at all on the main page which was referenced (Rendlesham Forest incident). In fact, there is no reference even to a triangular craft - which would be the reason to include the section here. By the way - a pyramid is not a triangle. As this seems to be a total non-sequitur, I deleted the section entirely. RobP (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Black triangle (UFO). 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/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nidsci.org/articles/8_25trireport.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140824010135/http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc404.htm to http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc404.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason the sighting reports are not in chronological order? Reports from 1989 and 1997 appear after reports from 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EE8C:6300:ED56:380D:8F43:82E1 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Black triangle (UFO). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806083140/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BA0DA42F-2C56-431E-98F6-19CD45EE7D43/0/uap_vol3_executive_summary_pg2_paras4_and_7.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BA0DA42F-2C56-431E-98F6-19CD45EE7D43/0/uap_vol3_executive_summary_pg2_paras4_and_7.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806083215/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E31E3DF1-FC04-4A1D-A336-3CE1054DFDA8/0/uap_vol3_executive_summary_pg3_para11.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E31E3DF1-FC04-4A1D-A336-3CE1054DFDA8/0/uap_vol3_executive_summary_pg3_para11.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

With articles such as this nobody will take Wikipedia seriously
This article belongs with the likes of telekinesis, telepathy and such nonsense. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of free knowledge, not unchecked magical thinking and pseudoscience. There is no place for aliens and UFOs in here.

I disagree Wikipedia did not claim to see these things other people did Wikipedia also did not share their opinion on these sights they just did there job and wrote about them Meldoythemush (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix Lights
Does any one remember the pheonix lights? there were 7 lights in a boomerang shape floating above arizona/new mexico in 1999 i think. but it seem as if no one really remembers this event. it moved silently, which made it seem likely to be the same, but no mention on it yet. if you have more info post.

Hopefully I granted everyones wish. I added info on the Phoenix Lights and found some images of black triangles to add to the article. I'm a UFO buff myself, but I veiw everything with an open mind and a bit of scepticism. I tried to write this as "neutrally" as possible. SkeezerPumba 22:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an RPV be able to hover? I can go to a hobby shop right now and get a radio-controlled toy helicopter that can hover, and I'm just a civilian. Why couldn't engineers with sufficient funding build a jet-powered VTOL RPV?

 * Why bother? First off you need to remember there were several different "Phoenix Lights", with different properties. Two were most certainly a formation of aircraft. A third (and I believe more IIRC) were almost certainly flares. The UFO supporters have used the confusion between these separate events to make it sound like all of the events were similar, and therefore had properties as a whole that could not be explained.
 * The two "V formation" events were most certainly a formation of small aircraft. This sort of UFO is extremely easy to arrange by even novice pilots. Basically you fly into formation with only the anti-collision light turned on, assuming it is on top (which it normally is for small aircraft) and therefore invisible on the ground. Then, on command over the radio, you all turn on your landing lights. Presto, one "massive UFO". Since the human eye is basically useless at estimating anything at long distances and in dark conditions, at night it is essentially impossible to guess the size or distance of the "object", and different witnesses will give greatly differing accounts -- until they meet, at which point the stories start to merge. Let's not forget that one kid actually got a telescope on these things, and could clearly see they were planes.
 * The second type of event does appear to be of flares. They were in the right place, look right (they dropped flares at Base Borden every so often near my parents place as a kid), and are distributed through the air correctly. These are the ones you see on the main video tape they show on TV.
 * Because the flare events and aircraft events were so different looking, if you don't separate the two then it all seems so impossible. The flares seemed to suggest a long object hovering in the air, while the aircraft looked like a V moving slowly. Sure, if you try to come up with a single explanation for both events you'll have a hard time, but if you keep them separate it suddenly seems much less mysterious.
 * Maury 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yes i have heard of the phoenix lights, that was a two UFO event, or three according to one truck driver whose name escapes me. people did say they saw a HUGE triangle then those chain of lights that scptics (if i spelled it right) call Flares. for one thing those lights were not flares, flares fall to the ground after being released and give of a burning noise. in this case, they didn't move or make a sound. Tu-49 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I saw a pretty convincing debunk of the Phoenix lights a couple of years back. Somebody used the landmarks in the best of the lights images to find the exact spot where they were taken, then they superimposed the images over a higher quality still of the area in daylight and found that the point at which each of the lights vanished exactly lined up with a mountain ridge in the background. This meant that the lights were a lot further away than most witnesses described them, and that they didn't disappear but rather moved out of view beneath the hill line in the distance. - perfectblue 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Nope, they were silent and like changing shape spheres. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

extraordinary claims
The claim on a triangle-shaped body flying near ground level is bold enough that it needs strong, reliable sources to be presented even as a remote posibility. This reads like some crank website content being pushed onto Wikipedia trying to present itself in a remotely neutral fashion. It's very likely these sources can't be found because they don't exist. So don't spread misinformation. 2001:470:600D:CAFE:329C:23FF:FE0A:105C (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

...need extraordinary proof
"Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

"High frequency gravitational wave generator" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/en

"Piezoelectricity-induced High Temperature Superconductor" https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190348597A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:F01B:93AD:D8B8:91E2 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Patents do not prove anything actually works. Honestly the entire 'Candidates' section at the bottom of the page reads like something from the Star Trek technobabble program. A better secondary source beyond the patents are needed if this section is to be kept. Bgovern (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Page redirection
Why does "TR-3B" redirect here, then it isn't mentioned at all in the actual text of the article? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is not obvious, TR-3B should be at least a title. Cghislai (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Unmerge from black triangle
The TR-3B is a speculative black project military american aircraft. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project seems appropriate for that content. There are a lot of other speculated military aircraft in developpment there. It could still be listed as a possible explanation for the black triangle here. Cghislai (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

NIDS article
The Military aircraft section mentions ref 15 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5897539) for the sentence "A geographic analysis by the now-inactive National Institute for Discovery Science suggested that Black triangles might be U.S. Air Force craft.". However the referenced article mentions "That finding has led to a modification of an earlier NIDS hypothesis that the Triangles are covertly deployed Defense Department aircraft.", and ends with: 'Those analyses fall into two camps: One says the Triangles are human-made, while the other says they are not.

“In 2004 it is extremely difficult to distinguish between these two possibilities, since the former option overlaps heavily with legitimate national security concerns, while in the absence of much more physical evidence, the latter option is not testable,” the NIDS assessment concludes.'. I think this nbc news in not an appropriate source for that claim. I think the original NIDS study could be referenced, but if it concludes that way I don't think it adds any value. The quoted sentence should be removed from this article altogether in my opinion. Cghislai (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

External link to space.com
The external link to space.com (https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-triangle-sightings-rise.html) contains the same article than reference 15 (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5897539). Ref 15 should be removed, it sources the space.com article. The space.com article link could be kept, but it only sources a NIDS study, and the NIBS study would be a better source (see point above on military aircraft). Cghislai (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Rendlesham SAS rubbish?
Isn't this story about Rendlesham being a 'prank' by the SAS likely to be nonsense? For example, a quote regarding Dr David Clarke who suggested this theory (https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/raf-woodbridge-ufo-sighting-new-theory-1-5835938) 'He claims SAS soldiers who parachuted into the American base to test their defences were embarrassed at being caught and imprisoned for 18 hours where they were subjected to intense questioning by US personnel, who called them unidentified ‘aliens’.' Does it really seem likely that British soldiers would be subjected to detention and intense questioning within Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A312:C43D:5680:AD4C:CBC0:84FB:8117 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * What you suggest is the opposite of Occam's razor, i.e. alien/ufo landing is more likely than some form of petty conflict between humans. Anyway, the material is reliably sourced and we don't need to balance rational claims with kooky ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Does it really seem likely that British soldiers would be subjected to detention and intense questioning within Britain? At the hands of angry US military personnel? As Captain Renault would say, "I am shocked, shocked." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

SR-71
Couldn't some black triangles actually have been the SR-71 Blackbird? It had a light in the centre of its roof. 2001:4BC9:A43:A8E8:F0DD:696F:4A1A:8F98 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have any reliable, secondary sources that present this idea, go right ahead and add the content. With the source(s), of course. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Revised or Deleted or Merged
As it stands, this article reads more like something out of aTimothy Good book than a responsible and properly sourced and contextualized Wikipedia article. It reads as non-NPOV, conjectural, original research, and irresponsible and sloppy reporting. It should be revamped to be in line with the main article on UFOs, and drastically reduced in scope, especially the incomplete, poorly sourced and irrelevant list of sightings. It should be merged with the main article after such a revamp, or it could be a candidate for deletion for undue importance or simply poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A more unbiased text
I believe this article should be revised in the following way:

 * renamed to black triangle craft
 * add a heading called Possible explanations and list these explanations
 * Previously unacknowledged black projects, such as B-2 and F-117 Nighthawk (as they can certainly explain some sightings, but not all)
 * Still unacknowledged black projects
 * rename the current heading British sightings and UK Ministry of Defence Report to Atmospheric gaseous electrically charged buoyant plasmas
 * Non-human intelligence origin

The article should not be deleted, since people still report this type of craft, and it should not be merged with the UFO article since some of the sightings are verified human crafts. I understand that some of you read UFO the right way (as an unidentified flying object) but many readers will interpret it as an extraterrestrial object. It certainly can be an extreterrestrial object, but it can also be a black project, so a more neutral article is better. At the moment the article reads like it's an extraeterrestrial UFO. A more balanced approach will make this article more usefull, and I hope that a balanced approach will encourage dialog and understanding of different perspectives.

I'm not a UFO debunker. Supermindway (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 * We don't really do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Reliable sources are skeptical, and so to should be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you refering to my inclusion of non-human intelligence origin? Supermindway (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing here is actionable because you didn't provide sources. But I am referring to your suggestion that A more balanced approach will make this article more usefull, and I hope that a balanced approach will encourage dialog and understanding of different perspectives. - which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

TR-3B Redirect?
TR-3B redirects here, but the article only mentions the TR-3A. What is the TR-3B, and can we get it mentioned in the article? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Soesterberg Triangle
I added this text to the page:

''February 3, 1979, twelve soldiers saw a huge black triangle fly above the Soesterberg Air Base. It had three bright lights on the front, a red light on the back. It flew over the base and then shot away, like a bullet from a gun, as described by the witnesses.

The source was: https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/3656485/ufo-die-in-1979-boven-vliegbasis-soesterberg-vloog-maakte-onuitwisbare-indruk-op-militairen

I thought it should be of great interest since it's a triangle case ten years prior to the well known Belgian UFO wave, but it was removed with the comment "Credulous anecdote written by a ufologist".

I don't see how this is "credulous anecdote", since it's twelve military witnesses.

I don't see how this is "assume good faith", "be polite", or "be welcoming to newcomers". I'm trying to contribute and I get labeled a ufologist.

How is the above case any different than the 2004–2006 Tinley Park Lights? It also uses news media as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermindway (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 * The cited source is a puff piece about a movie premiere. I agree it isn't a reliable source for the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Supermindway, I didn't call you a ufologist. I was talking about Bram Roza and what he wrote about the claimed sighting. The "twelve soldiers" are unidentified as are the "people" Roza spoke with. In fact the article is very short on any factual detail, it's just a lot of claims that people were "impressed". Wikipedia requires WP:FRIND sources for fringe claims. Media sources that take every fringe claim at face value, with no fact checking, investigation, or expert analysis, are no good to us. I hope you'll agree, a big part of being welcoming to newcomers is assisting them in understanding the encyclopedia's editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be possible to find original sources for this incident. In the new documentary on the incident, original newspaper articles are presented, and witnesses give their testimony on tape. I agree with Supermindway, this is one of the most significant black triangle incidents, and should be included somewhere on the page.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU-s7NHPeUo 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We should continue to rely on secondary WP:RS, not primary source accounts, as is required by Wikipedia's policy. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in section on the 2000 Southern Illinois incident.
The text in question is:

"Science writer Brian Dunning has reported that the observed object was identified by the FAA as an advertising blimp operated by the American Blimp Company.[16]"

16. Dunning, Brian. "The St. Clair Triangle UFO". Skeptoid. Skeptoid Media Inc. Retrieved 2021-09-16.

It is true that Dunning and others hypothesized that it was a blimp, and made arguments supporting their hypothesis, but untrue that it was identified by the FAA as an advertising blimp. The inaccuracy may have been carried over from an inaccuracy in Dunning's podcast transcript.

Dunning wrote: "Writing in the St. Louis Riverfront Times three months after the incident, reporter William Stage said he'd been advised by the FAA that the object reported was an advertising blimp."

The riverfront times article cited by Dunning wrote:

'The Lebanon Advertiser, on the other hand, gave the story front-page, over-the-fold prominence in its Jan. 12 edition: "Huge UFO Is Reported to Have Flown Over Lebanon," blared the headline. The story's final paragraph noted that "the Federal Aviation Administration has suggested that the object may have been an advertising blimp.'

Stage, W. "Witnesses testify in the mystery of the Metro East UFO." Space Case. Riverfront Times, 5 Apr. 2000. Web. 21 Aug. 2015.

The conflation of the FAA saying "it may have been a blimp", with the FAA identifying it as a blimp is the issue here. It is not true to say it was identified. Dunning, also says, "Unfortunately, nobody at Van Wagner knew of any records showing the details of times and dates of blimps in transit from one event to another back in 2000", and so was also not able to positively identify the object as a blimp.

I will wait a few days for others to take in this information and think about it before proposing an edit to correct the inaccuracy. Thank you for your time. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85CB:859D:215C:9CEA (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Clarified that the FAA suggested it was an advertising blimp. Three sources cover it, so no need to attribute it to Dunning alone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's better, but might as well make it precise according to the source, "may be" as opposed to "likely". Might have essentially the same meaning with some wiggle room, but "likely" has a different connotation, and using this word instead of the actual words reported gives the impression there is an intention of the editor to manipulate the reader. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the rest of the sentence, "advertising blimp operated in the area by the American Blimp Company", is also misleading. It was simply reported that the FAA suggested it may have been an advertising blimp. No need to tack on extra fictional information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Black triangle (UFO)/Archive 1


text:
Henry Chisholm

Henry Chisholm (April 22, 1822 – May 9, 1881) was a Scottish American businessman and steel industry executive during the Gilded Age in the United States. A resident of Cleveland, Ohio, he purchased a small, struggling iron foundry which became the Cleveland Rolling Mill, one of the largest steel firms in the nation. He is known as the "father of the Cleveland steel trade".

Early life
Henry Chisholm was born in Lochgelly, Fife, Scotland, on April 22, 1822. His father, Stewart Chisholm, was a mining engineer. The Chisholms were a respectable, lower-middle-class family, and Henry was educated in the local public schools. His father died when he was ten years old, and he left school at the age of 12 to take a position as an apprentice carpenter. He was elevated to journeyman carpenter at the age of 17, and moved to Glasgow.

When he was 20 years old, Chisholm emigrated to Montréal, Québec, Canada. He arrived in the city practically penniless. He worked in Montréal as a carpenter and construction contractor until 1849, constructing various buildings and other works up and down the St. Lawrence River. He established his own construction business, which in time became one of the largest in the city.

Cleveland and the steel industry
In 1850, Chisholm won a contract to build a breakwater for docks of the Cleveland and Pittsburgh Railroad, which was in the process of completing its line into Cleveland and through the city to its rail yard on the shores of Lake Erie. The breakwater was completed in 1853, and Chisholm won several more contracts to build docks and piers in the city. By 1857, he had amassed a fortune worth $25,000 ($0 in dollars).

Cleveland Rolling Mill
What would, in time, become the Cleveland Rolling Mill was established by brothers and Welsh immigrants David and John Jones in 1856 to manufacture flat bottomed railway rails. The brothers ran out of money that same year, and shut down. Henry Chisholm and his brother, William, made a major investment in the Jones plant in 1857, and the company was renamed Chisholm, Jones and Co. The plant was expanded and began rerolling iron flanged railway rails into flat bottomed rails. In 1860, Amasa Stone and his brother, Andros, made a further investment in the company, which took the name Stone, Chisholm & Jones. The new capital enabled to firm to add a blast furnace and puddling plant, which opened in 1859. A second blast furnace was added in 1860. It was the first blast furnace to operate in the Cleveland region.

On November 9, 1862, Stone, Chisholm & Jones reorganized and became the Cleveland Rolling Mill after receiving investments from Henry B. Payne, Jeptha Wade, and Stillman Witt. The company built a 60 ft high, 16 ft wide blast furnace in 1864 near the west end of what is now Saxe Avenue, and the following year erected its first Bessemer converter. This made the Cleveland Rolling Mill only the second Bessemer steel works in the United States.

Cleveland Rolling Mill expanded its presence in 1868 with the construction of the Newburgh Steel Works next to its existing plant. The new works included an open hearth Bessemer furnace; it was the first continuous open hearth Bessemer furnace west of the Allegheny Mountains and only the fifth such furnace in the nation. By the end of 1872, the combined Cleveland plants had two puddling mills; two blast furnaces; two Bessemer converters; a boiler plate mill; two rail and rod mills; a wire mill; and a bolt, nut, and spike manufacturing shop. The Newburgh plants were producing so much pig iron, cast iron, and steel that Cleveland Rolling Mill became one of the principal metalworks in the state.

Cleveland Rolling Mill continued to expand in the last two decades of the century. In April 1880, the firm issued new stock to double its capitalization, purchased the "Canal Tract" from John D. Rockefeller, built the Central Furnaces on the site from 1881 to 1882 In 1882, the firm erected a Garrett rod mill, the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

Other steel interests
In 1864, Chisholm purchased the Lake Shore Rolling Mill, an iron and steel works which had been constructed on the shore of Lake Erie at Wason Street (now E. 38th Street).

In 1871, Chisholm, Charles Crumb Jr., and five other investors, co-founded the King Iron Bridge Company. That same year, Chisholm founded the Union Rolling Mill of Chicago, and put his son, William, in charge of the plant. He also erected a rolling mill at Decatur, Illinois, which included two blast furnaces to furnish the Chicago plant with pig iron. Chisholm sold his interest in the Chicago firm in 1879.

To supply his mills with iron ore, Chisholm also invested in iron mines in Michigan, which in time employed more than 300 workers. His companies eventually controlled much of the raw material the mills used.

Steel legacy
Unlike fellow Scottish American immigrant and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, whose career and Chisholm's mirrored one another, Henry Chisholm focused on eliminating waste in iron and steel manufacturing rather than lowering the cost of production. Chisholm pioneered the reuse of scrap in steel production. His plants were the first to successfully roll rods and wire from steel, and in 1871 his plants produced the first steel screws.

At the time of his death, Chisholm's companies employed more than 8,000 people and were generating about $25 million ($0 in dollars) a year in revenue.

During his life and since, Chisholm was called the "father of the Cleveland steel trade", and historians consider him the most prominent person in the history of the Cleveland iron and steel industry. Historian William E. Van Vugt has called Chisholm one of the most "outstanding" Scottish immigrants in American history both for his "historical significance" and for being one of the most successful at business.

Other interests
Henry Chisholm also invested heavily in bank and manufacturing stocks. He was elected a director at three of Cleveland's largest banks, including the Second National Bank.

Chisholm was active in both religious and charitable affairs, and was a director of four charitable institutions in Cleveland.

Personal life
Chilsholm married Jean Allen of Dunfermline, Scotland, when he was about 17 years old. The couple had several children: William (born May 22, 1843); Catharine Arnot (born June 30, 1845); Stewart H. (born December 21, 1846); Wilson B. (born July 26, 1848); and Janet (born January 1, 1851). Two sons, Henry and Stewart, died in infancy; a daughter, Christina, died at the age of four.

Chisholm was a lifelong Baptist. He was a member of the Second Baptist Church of Cleveland (later known as the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church). He and his friend and fellow church member, John D. Rockefeller, made the largest contributions when the church erected its new building in 1871.

Death
After a three week long unspecified illness, Henry Chisholm died at his home in Cleveland on May 9, 1881. Several hundred of the city's most important citizens attended the funeral, which was held at Chisholm's home. More than 4,000 employees of the Cleveland Rolling Mill filed past the home during the funeral.

Chisholm was temporarily interred at Woodland Cemetery in Cleveland. A family mausoleum was constructed at Cleveland's Lake View Cemetery. The Chisholm family vault, which has 45 crypts, was (as of 2016) the largest mausoleum at the cemetery.

Legacy
Henry Chisholm erected a Tuscan Villa style mansion at 408 Euclid Avenue in Cleveland. The mansion ranked among the city's finest homes. His neighbors included Samuel Livingston Mather Sr., John D. Rockefeller, Amasa Stone, and Jeptha Wade. This and other magnificent homes helped Euclid Avenue earn the nicknames "Prosperity Row" and "Millionaires' Row" for the large number of extremely wealthy people who lived on the street.

In 1880, Alva Bradley commissioned a wooden, screw-driven freighter, which was named the SS Henry Chisholm in Chisholm's honor. The ship was lost on October 20, 1898, after hitting a reef near Rock of Ages Light off Isle Royale in Lake Superior. The wreck was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984.

In November 1881, workers at the Cleveland Rolling Mill and citizens of Cleveland's 18th Ward (in which the mill was located) began an effort to erect a statue in Chisholm's honor. A fundraising committee, led by local industrialists Jeptha Wade, John Walker, Joseph Perkins, William F. Thompson, and W.E. Way, raised more than $8,800 ($0 in dollars) from 5,000 workers and citizens to build the monument. Cincinnati sculptor Charles Henry Niehaus was selected to design and sculpt the piece. Niehaus completed his work fairly swiftly, and exhibited a model in Cleveland in May 1882. The statue and bas-relief panels were cast by a Cincinnati foundry. The work was erected just inside the Euclid Avenue entrance of Lake View Cemetery on December 6, 1884. Senator Henry B. Payne and Ohio railroad executive John H. Devereux spoke at the unveiling. The memorial depicts a larger-than-life size statue of Henry Chisholm, his left hand resting on a small-scale model of a steel rolling mechanism. Bas-relief panels on three sides of the pedestal depict the conversion of iron ore into steel.

title: Henry Chisholm