Talk:Bermuda Triangle

hiya people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.230.212 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See also: /Archive1,/Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4

Mary Celeste

Removed terrible entry about Mary Celeste, already noted above as not taking place in the Bermuda Triangle, and also containing no sources and being poorly written and trying to pass off a number of the fictionalized details of the Mary Celeste incident as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.128.56 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Bermuda Triangle located?

The Bermuda Triangle (Devils Triangle) is located at the Atlantic ocean. The Bermuda triangle's tip touches some part of South Florida and it goes across the bahamas and into the Atlantic Ocean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.35.168 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Scientists have looked at the bottom of the sea, and apparently it does not look like the floorbed anywhere else. There are erupting volcanoes. When the volcanoes errupt like mad the smoke reaches above the surface and possibley pulls the ships down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christifreak (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if this were true, it would explain only some ocean-going disappearances, not the vanishings of such aircraft as the Sting 27 F-4 Phantom II, Pogo 22 B-52 Stratofortress (during a nuclear preparedness exercise, no less), or R7V-1, a Lockheed Super Constellation airliner designated the day of its disappearance as Flight 441. It is not merely ships, but planes, that vanish without trace, and occasionally while in sight of land-based observation posts such as air traffic control towers. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the rest of this article, "scientists" have looked and concluded the behavior of the so-called Bermuda Triangle is normal, and that the supposed mysteries are either exaggerated, inaccurate, or plain lies. No need for ad hoc volcanoes. 201.216.245.25 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no islands in the triangle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.214.243 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording?

"Another form of pirate operated on dry land." - What is that supposed to mean?? Parkthecar (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it (just previously) described what a pirate was and then states that another form of pirate operated on dry land instead of on the sea. So basically a pillager. Dunno who wrote it though. Mabuska (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The comprehensive bibliography at the end of the article

IT violates the MoS that Wikipedia shouldn't be a comprehensive bibliography. These should be moved to the "Further reading" section in each of the sub-article. Anyone else have thoughts about it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the deletion logs somewhere. There used to be such a separate list of sources, but it was deleted. I'm also curious as to the piece of MoS you cite? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

REMINDER

This article is ABOUT the B.T., not intended to debunk it any more than it is to prove it. Lets keep it informative, yet not discredit the mystery.... which is why the article exists. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the purpose of this article is to be informative, in no way do I see an effort to "not discredit the mystery" as being in any way productive or in line with Wikipedia's goals. ClovisPt (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Discrediting" it, by including ludicrously flimsy explanations, does a disservice to the reality that many of the disappearances remain unexplained to this day and all. If the Pseudoskeptics would like a list right here on this very page, I will be happy to provide it. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are "unexplained" disappearances, the disservice would be to claim there is something myserious and special about the Triangle. Any attempt at avoiding a natural, rational explanation is a disservice. If you have allegedly "mysterious" facts, add them to the article; if they are well supported, they will remain there. BTW, there is no such thing as a "pseudoskeptic". 201.216.245.25 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference from Popular Culture

What seems to be missing from the article are reference to the pop culture re bermuda triangle. For instance fiction (novels, movies, animations etc) that base their plots on bermuda triangle. Such section exists on a lot of other articles and sure would be an interesting read in this article as well. I am sure there would be a lot of movies etc based on BT. Qadirma (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. There ought to at least be a section mentioning the films that discuss the triangle, even if only with fictional stories, i.e. 1978's "The Bermuda Triangle" with John Huston. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the reference 21 "Methane Bubble". Monash Univ. - http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monash-news/2003/bubble.html points to a page that has been removed on Monash University's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanbrobinson (talk • contribs) 04:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - searched google and found the identical article posted at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3226787/ - please next time consider WP:SOFIXIT. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Article has 41+ references, so this tag is not appropriate. Furthermore, this tag is not needed in every single L3 heading section. Not every comment in WP needs a reference, only those that are controversial. Suggest that if you see something contriversial you tag it as CN and or delete it. Also, suggest you should consider getting a login. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

can you please tell me more about the bermuda triangle ?? i want to know more. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.142.105 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Raifuku Maru

the supposed confusion between 'danger' and 'dagger' seems specious to me. is there any confirmation for this? would the crew not have been communicating in Japanese, in which, presumably, 'danger' and 'dagger' are not similar words? Shabbychef (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

sukhbir

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.181.28.1 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)