Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory

Link from cracked.com

This page has been linked to from cracked.com.[1] This sometimes results in some minor vandalism, so please keep a watch on the page for the next week or so. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

...the Norwegian radio researchers...

What Norwegian radio researchers? There's no previous mention of them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.52.26 (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Martina Redpath quote

I've reinstated the quote from Martina Redpath. Follow the link to the source and the quote can be found in the text. As to it being the opinion "of one person", it is properly attributed, and we need to satisfy WP:FRINGE by clearly explaining how the fringe view differs from the mainstream view. There is no requirement to give equal validity to the idea that a mysterious thousand year old satellite exists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but how come a simple blog entry entitled "The TRUTH about the Black Knight Satellite" is a valid source of information ? I can show you numerous blogs stating other truths about the origin of this mystery ? 62.172.176.50 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's the planetarium's official blog, ie the official blog of a science museum. Not some random blog. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists vs 'UFOlogists'

Someone removed conspiracy theorists citing:

Rm fringe. If "conspiracy theorists" claim something, it's not necessarily Wiki-worthy. Can we at least get some proper source to identify this as a hoax or faulty assumption?

This is correct. This is not wiki-worthy, nor notable for inclusion. This article exists because it's removal led to a hissy fit and claims we are all reptillian alien overlords for it's lack of inclusion. There is no evidence supporting this, the citations are to different events, and explainable stories. One would have to have a serious mental handicap to believe that a plastic sheet is an alien probe, let alone known tracking signals are somehow unknown sixty years later. So I have removed 'UFOlogists' and reinstated conspiracy theorists as generally UFOlogists aren't mentally handicapped but conspiracy theorists are. If this is indication that the article should be speedy deleted, so be it. I hold that it should, most probably. 121.211.56.55 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Black Knight is a thing, though.

So, whether you believe in it or not, on some level, the Black Knight is a phenomena. Whether it falls under an anomaly or an outright urban legend is different. Not to mention, that it's not up to you to decide. Wikipedia is meant to be impartial, just deliver what facts there are about the story. It's origins, what supports it, what criticises it and so on, and let people make up their own bloody minds.

No, I don't believe in alien abductions, or psychics or any of that. But, I am an indie video game developer, I like weird and mysterious things and learning more about them. True, or false, it gives me ideas for stuff to make. I came to this page to get an idea of the Black Knight and what it's about. Where it's origins are, perhaps noteworthy encounters or alleged encounters. I came to this page SPECIFICALLY so I could avoid the amateur documentaries on youtube made by people who make The Daily Mail look outright scholarly.

But instead I come here and see it's just a stomping ground for smug Dawkins-esque pseudo intellectuals, who, for some reason, find scholarly pride in stating the bloody obvious. But tell me this: If you're so bloody clever, then how come this page doesn't even have an etymology section? Did it occur to anyone to look that up while you were busy pointing out how little you believe in this phenomena? Did the satellite just drop down from orbit one day, tip it's hat and say "Hello, you may call me Black Knight"?

Do some research, tell the story without bias. Stop using this like your personal blog site. You let me down, and the wikipedia community as a whole. I mean, sure. At times when I feel a bit silly. I like to visit the pages covering concepts in neoliberal economics and write satire about what heartless bastards they are. But even so, I still respect what Wikipedia stands for. I still respect it's purpose. To bring knowledge to the common masses, to educate and inform people. To help people better themselves through a tool that is availible for everyone, at a small click of a button. A library that we can all enjoy. I'd never tarnish that by injecting my own bias as some kind of valid substitute for the facts.

This page is a shambles, and I hope that someone out there who knows a bit more about this topic will turn this page into something other than a monument to the undignified pretentiousness that festers in the underbelly of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The article seems more like a four-paragraph stub than a towering pseudo-intellectual folly. From the page history, the article is only a year old, and could probably use more work. If you can see a way to improve the article, be WP:BOLD and make some edits. But if you're frustrated that the article doesn't tell you everything you want to know about it (I'm not sure if your "if you're so bloody clever" means that you know the etymology and are shocked that it's not recorded here, or that you're disappointed that Wikipedia doesn't know either), that might just be the nature of the subject. --McGeddon (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to include etymology from the Brian Dunning piece in the article, please suggest specific improvements. As to the rest of your rant, please read WP:MAINSTREAM. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the dismissal by the article header is quite biased for a neutral page. Something like "There are few reliable sources to confirm the existence of the Black Knight." might make it feel a bit less like an essay. That being said, I appreciate your response, McGeddon. When I have the free time, I might just be a bit bold. I've never written an article before, and I have the formal education of a thirteen year old. But, Darwin was bad at spelling, and he got things done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thermal blanket

"The black Knight" is currently thought to be simply a thermal blanket. Space junk. --172.251.204.186 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article says as much. --McGeddon (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

13,000 years?

Where does that come from?

The first indication of this seems to be some sort of "foo fighter" story in the Cold War. There is no reason why that mythos should cross over into something pre-historic. What was even happening 13,000 years ago? Is this a mythic claim of some ante-diluvian bit of Daniken? 13,000 is too old for recorded history, even that of the Creationists. So where did the claimed age come from, and what other lost civilisation or alien visitors is it being tied to? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the gaslighting in your comment (and in some of the replies), it was from analyses done by Duncan Lunan from two sources, one from Norway, another from France, of sequences of echoes, plotting the delay time versus the sequence number, both showed what appeared to be the constellation of Boötes - but as it would have appeared 13000 years ago. As stated in his Wikipedia article, he backed away from it in 1976, but re-asserted it in 1998 in light of a new analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

So, a crank thought it up based on flimsy reasoning. Good to know.

BTW, you responded to an eight-year-old comment, and BTW, you should WP:NPA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen an explanation of "why 13,000" in any source. Could be the superstitious significance of the number 13. Or it could have been picked at random. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Check the skeptoid reference in the article. It's apparently from analysis done in 1973. It's also utter rubbish, obviously, but I believe that's the origin of the 13,000 number. Zarcusian (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Duncan Lunan first proposed it before later retracting it ("...Lunan discovered that it was a star chart pointing the way to Epsilon Boötis, a double star in the constellation of Boötes. Whatever Black Knight was, it appeared to be transmitting an invitation from the people of Epsilon Boötis, an invitation that was 12,600 years old, according to Lunan's analysis.") - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How far away is Epsilon Boötis ? , if it's 12,600 light years away, then any invitation from there must have been sent 12,600yrs ago to arrive here now, ergo , using some seriously faulty logic, even a bogus invitation would take 12,600yrs to get here, therefore if you hear a bogus invitation it must have come from there, and obviously 12,600yrs ago.Salbayeng (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It was the Ham Radio operator who apparently decoded a series of signals received from the UFO Satellite and interpreted it as a star-chart centered on the Epsilon Bootes Star System.

According to the decoded message, the Black Knight satellite originated from the Epsilon Bootes Star System 13.000 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.184.177 (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ansver: The epsilon Bootis or star named Izar is roughly 202,2 light years away. ~~Bynk~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.198.150 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Twenty questions

A recent addition has added a laundry list of claims. What should we do with them?

I'm broadly in favour of keeping them, but cleanup is needed. I don't care if they're true or not (I do not believe that 'Black Knight' is anything more than a conflation of space junk stories). If we remove "All but the accepted truth" though, we have no article. We should record each claim, however ludicrous, source its provenance and give what refutation is credibly available. That is the encyclopedic way.

That said, some of the stuff here is nonsensical.

8 "In 1957, an unknown “object” was seen “shadowing” the Sputnik 1 Spacecraft."

What does "seen" mean? Who even "saw" Sputnik 1 in orbit, let alone well enough to watch a companion! What's with the scare quotes?

"According to reports, the “unidentified object” was in Polar orbit."

How do you "shadow" a satellite in equatorial orbit using a polar orbit?

1,3,4

"has been transmitting radio signals for over 50 years now"

"a signal from the black knight satellite in 1899"

"Since the 1930′s"

So which is it? 120, 80, 50?

6 "The story of the Black Knight made its media debut in the 1940′s when the St. Louis Dispatch and The San Francisco Examiner wrote about the “Satellite” on May 14th 1954"

1954 isn't in the 1940s

18 "According to the decoded message, the Black Knight satellite originated from the Epsilon Bootes Star System 13.000 years ago."

What was the ciphertext of the message, how was it decoded (Duncan Lunan?), and what is the claimed plaintext? This is a ludicrous stretch to make from a few bleeps and whistles on a recording. The intermediate steps have to be presented if this is to have any value.

My curiosity wants to keep this stuff. But it's not even well written or self-consistent. How far do we prune? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like these are individual sentences copypasted from some ufology blog, so it shouldn't be in the article verbatim. Possibly some useful starting points for research, though. Note that the St. Louis Dispatch and San Francisco Examiner mentions are already discussed in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Has anyone ever got round to being able to say - ok if you point your telescope at this latitude and longitude at this time of day you will be able to see the Black Knight? Or what we think is the Black Knight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:41C9:8600:151A:F372:6B6B:2255 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Another question

So how did this alleged object receive the name "Black Knight"? Was it before or after the STS-88 photos? (The object in the photo shown in this article could, with some imagination, be said to resemble a black knight from a chess set.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Temporal consistency seems to be the weakest part of this story. "Tesla heard something" followed by "It's shadowing Sputnik" half a century later. So how does Tesla's radio observation get linked to something to do with a specific orbit? As you note, the shape of the trunnion thermal blanket is at least as equine as the horsehead nebula, yet there's no visual "evidence" from before this point. Apart from sheer confirmation bias, there's no indication that the name bears any real connection to the shape. My suspicion is that the name pre-dates the photograph (it's a cool name although hardly original) and once NASA released any photo of known space junk with a gestalt shape, the knight-believers adopted it for their own. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 update

There's a been a fair amount of edit warring by IPs to insert fringe content lately [2]. They apparently feel that some key details of the story are missing. In a sense, that has been true: our article covered a few basic points, but left the rest unaddressed. So I've updated the article [3] to address the conspiracy narrative using our best academic and independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

first sentence

'... is claimed by some consp theorists to be xyz' - this has to be one of the worst wikipedia first sentences I've read so far. I (and everyone else) want to know what it actually IS, not what whoever claims it is. Even in a case like this there is physical, real facts, right? And that's what needs to be in the first paragraph, obviously. Not even throughout the rest of the article does it tell me what the black knight satellite actually IS - is it that one photo, plus all sorts of rumours following up? If so, I'd suggest a first paragraph like 'The Black Knight satellite is an object that appeared on NASA photo STS088-724-66. After publication of the image several theories emerged to explain this object.'176.6.126.115 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The WP:FIRSTSENTENCE should give a brief but full overview and "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." - some shuffling wouldn't hurt, but the object is only of note for the conspiracy theories. --McGeddon (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I boldly rewrote the opening of the lead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW. At this point 16-2 in favour of moving. Even taking 'not a vote' into account, no argument has been made (or is likely to be made) that would over-ride the clear consensus here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Black Knight satellite → Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory – In keeping with our practice of clearly labeling conspiracy theories as such in their titles, I suggest we change the title. (One example is Chemtrail conspiracy theory.) In these days of fake news and alternative facts, it's pretty important that a headline or title, which is often the only thing seen or read, does not allow a false statement to stand alone as a factoid, when it is not a fact. Yellow journalism uses creative, deceptive, and incomplete headlines to draw readers in, but we must not do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per the reasons I have given above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per FRINGE THEORIES. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Title change would clarify context and better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Title change is a great idea. RobP (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, because there is no actual Black Knight satellite, just a conspiracy theory claiming that a Black Knight satellite exists. Either that or the folks at http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ are right and we are all wrong. Better wear your Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie just to be sure... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Randy Kryn 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, good catch, agree with your reasoning. --Krelnik (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Unclear why this cannot just be done right now. jps (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support There is no such thing as a Black Knight satellite - there is just a conspiracy theory about a picture of what is thought to be a piece of thermal blanket. It's not a fringe science theory because it doesn't even purport to be scientific, it's a classic CT assemblage of unrelated facts, BS and purported slip-ups by those in charge of hiding UFOs. Calling it "Black Knight satellite" on its own is just plain silly in a fact-based encyclopedia. I'm not sure what goal this recent spate of process mongering serves, and I have yet to see any concrete concern about the renaming. Acroterion (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't my intention to engage in "process mongering", I just wanted to be able to, you know, participate, considering that the discussion had been cut short 6 days early. Clearly, I'm not the only one who had more to say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - per all of the obvious, rock-solid arguments raised by others above. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suggested name runs afoul of too many of the Article titles policy to be useful. Specifically:

WP:COMMONNAME. The current name is demonstrably more common in the sources than the proposed one, which is not in wide use. “Black Knight satellite” gets “Black Knight satellite” 977 Google Books hits and 3k Google News hits; “Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory” returns no relevant hits.[4][5] "Black Knight satellite" is also used in the majority of sources cited in the article.[6][7][8][9][10][11] (some just call it the "Black Knight",[12][13] but never "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory".)--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the current title better fits every point of the article title criteria:

• Recognizability: the present title is "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
• Naturalness: The present title is “one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles”. The proposed title isn't in use and therefore isn't natural.
• Precision: The present title is “precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.” The proposed title is overly precise, as there are no ambiguous topics called the “Black Knight satellite”.
• Conciseness: The present title is obviously more concise.
• Consistency: The present title is “consistent with the pattern of similar articles’ titles.” While some articles do include "conspiracy theory", the majority of related topics in Category:Alleged UFO-related entities, Category:Ufology, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States, etc., do not. We do include the phrase if it's needed for disambiguation, or if a descriptive title is needed, but neither is the case here. There's precedent at the Ancient astronauts RM, where “Ancient astronaut hypothesis” was removed in favor of the common name, “Ancient astronauts”. We have very many articles on legends, conspiracy theories, and fictional topics that don’t indicate it in the title, such as Atlantis, Bigfoot, Grey alien, Philadelphia Experiment, Men in black, Black helicopter, and many others.

I'll address a few of the supporting points made above, since determining consensus in RMs is not a straight vote, but takes policy into account.

One editor cites WP:FRINGE as a reason to move, but that guideline doesn't indicate that we should add "conspiracy theory" or similar to titles. Its central guidance of not making a fringe theory look prominent or accepted can be done by using the subject's usual title, as is done at Atlantis, Flat Earth, Ashtar (extraterrestrial being), etc.

Other editors suggest that "conspiracy theory" should be added to the title as the article is about the theory, and not the supposed satellite. For one thing, it's not (only) a conspiracy theory so much as it is fringe science or a legend. At any rate, sources that discuss the Black Knight satellite as a conspiracy or legend do so using the term "Black Knight satellite". There's no reason to eschew general practice of using the common name in the sources.

Another argument appears to be that since the Black Knight satellite isn’t real, it should be “marked” as such in the title. However, there's no policy basis for that. I’ll quote what Vanjagenije said in their closing summary at Ancient astronauts: “…The only argument against moving is that 'ancient astronauts did not exist, so the article is not about the actual astronauts (which did not exist), but about a hypothesis'. I don't think that is a valid argument, as Wikipedia has a lot of articles about things that never existed, and whose titles are just plain common name of the (non-existing) topic...”

--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I've responded to these points below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

LOL, you can't have, since I didn't say most of that before. However, several of your points are incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME (and other policies) speak to using the name that's most common in reliable sources. That is demonstrably "Black Knight satellite" even though all reliable sources discuss it as a fringe theory and not as a real satellite. Additionally, on WP:CONSISTENCY, as I said, some articles do add "conspiracy theory" to the title, but this is usually for disambiguation or when a descriptive title is necessary. Neither is the case here, and as I've shown, the vast majority of articles on conspiracy theories don't call them "xxx conspiracy theory".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, starting your response with "LOL" is rather arrogant and not conducive to civil discourse. It strongly implies that you are obviously correct, while the consensus is clearly very strongly against you. Statistically and procedurally speaking, it is instead the case that you are obviously incorrect.

WP:COMMONNAME (and other policies) speak to using the name that's most common in reliable sources. No, only COMMONNAME speaks to that. Policies exist to address problems. COMMONNAME was implemented to address a different problem than the one being discussed here, as I already pointed out below.

but this is usually for disambiguation or when a descriptive title is necessary. Given that we're discussing the conspiracy theory (which has no name at all), not the hypothetical object, a descriptive title is appropriate. Also, if you take "Conspiracy theory" off of several of those article titles, you do not end up at an article. We have no "Barack Obama religion" or "Pearl Harbor advanced-knowledge" article. Even with "Chemtrail conspiracy theory," the word "Chemtrail" redirects to it, which is how this article should be treated.

Neither is the case here, and as I've shown, the vast majority of articles on conspiracy theories don't call them "xxx conspiracy theory". You have shown no such thing. You have claimed it. Instead, you linked to a couple of categories, in which the vast majority of pages are not about conspiracy theories, but about elements of conspiracy theories or about real-world subjects related to conspiracy theories. If the literature in RSes about this subject were to increase significantly, then it might become appropriate to create an article about the fictional satellite itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if my "LOL" was bothersome; my intention was to lighten the mood, not to be flippant. Should've included that winking emoji ;)

Obviously, I think I'm correct here, and that this is the clearest reading of the policies. The point of WP:COMMONNAME, many other points of WP:AT, and various guidelines and naming conventions is that we generally use the name that is most common in the best available English-language sources. Here, all evidence indicates that this is "Black Knight satellite". "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory" is not in wide use even though all reliable sources treat it as fringe. In other words, the sources are about the fringe theory about the Black Knight satellite, but they still call it the Black Knight satellite.

As I say, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory are descriptive titles for a subjects that (apparently) have no usual name. They are a different case than this one, where the sources generally are using "Black Knight satellite".

And yes, it's pretty clear that most articles on conspiracy theories don't append "conspiracy theory" to the end. Just from the examples I listed above:

• Category:Alleged_UFO-related_entities: 30 articles, none have "conspiracy theory" or similar. Articles like Reptilians, Energy being, Flatwoods monster, etc., use their common names.
• Category:Ufology: 23 articles; none use "conspiracy theory". Extraterrestrial hypothesis and Psychosocial hypothesis are descriptive titles; articles like Close encounter and Nazi UFOs use their common names.
• Category:Conspiracy theories: 137 articles in the base category. 3 use "conspiracy theory" and a few others use similar phrases; all appear to be descriptive titles. The others such as Cattle mutilation and Lost Cosmonauts use their common names.
• Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States: 50 articles in the base category. 10 use "conspiracy theory" or similar; 9 are descriptive titles, while Pizzagate conspiracy theory was (originally) named to disambiguate with the Battle of the Buffet's "Pizzagate". The others like Black helicopter, Men in black, and Majestic 12 use their common names.

In other words, just from these four categories, hundreds more articles don't have "conspiracy theory" than do have it, even in cases of articles like this one that are about fringe theories surrounding a fake subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize fully with keeping things light-hearted.

Here, all evidence indicates that this is "Black Knight satellite". "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory" is not in wide use even though all reliable sources treat it as fringe. Yes, but WP:IAR tells us to ignore policies when they prevent us from improving the project. As jps points out below, the proposed title improves the project. So even if you are completely correct about your interpretation of the policies, it does not necessarily follow that we should adhere to them in this case.

Category:Alleged_UFO-related_entities: 30 articles, none have "conspiracy theory" or similar. Articles like Reptilians, Energy being, Flatwoods monster, etc., use their common names. Again, those (and subsequent articles you mentioned) are articles about entities, not about the conspiracy theories. The entities themselves are notable, and it might be argued that the fictional satellite here is notable enough to deserve its own article, separate from the conspiracy theories surrounding them. However, it's also very arguable that many of those articles should be re-written to frame them in terms of the CSes in which they feature. I understand your argument and I see the logic in it, but I just don't agree with it. We should be documenting these things in a manner that's most compliant with the real world and with how the reliable source treat them; namely, as conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(MjolnirPants replied while I was typing, but too lazy to change it) I think you're missing a very big point that User:MjolnirPants brought up. This article is not about the Black Knight satellite. It is about the conspiracy theory surrounding the fictional satellite. In most of your examples, the articles aren't based on the conspiracy theories themselves, but rather things pertaining to them. Black helicopter, Men in black, and Majestic 12 are talking about specific things within various conspiracy therories. If there were an article about the satellite itself, it would make sense to not have "conspiracy theory" attached to the article's title, but since this is specifically relating to the conspiracy theory around the satellite, referencing just the satellite is wrong. Just like it would not make sense to have the 9/11 conspiracy theories article be titled 9/11.

Even the beginning of the opening sentence says this is an article on a conspiracy theory.

The Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory is the conspiracy theory that an object...

This article is not about the satellite, but about the conspiracy theory surrounding it, and the title should reflect that.--Bassmadrigal (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I follow what y'all are saying. I just don't really see the difference between this article and others that don't add "conspiracy theory". As in, Reptilians, Bigfoot, etc., aren't really about the "entities", by and large, they're about the fringe theories and legends that have aggregated around non-existent "entities", which makes them very much like this article as written. At least, we don't have separate Reptilian conspiracy theories or Bigfoot conspiracy theories articles on the theories themselves on top of the main article.

As for the first sentence, Bassmadrigal, it was written that way following the last move. McGeddon's edit to the intro here has updated it to follow the existing title. In fact, I think it's a pretty good summary even if the page is moved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As in, Reptilians, Bigfoot, etc., aren't really about the "entities", by and large, they're about the fringe theories and legends that have aggregated around non-existent "entities", Then we should probably get to those, once we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Reptilians has had RM discussions to that effect that didn't pass, similar to the RM at Ancient astronauts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The total !votes in all of those examples combined (excluding where the same editor !voted the same way in subsequent RMs) is less than the total support !votes here. I don't think that's a strong case for suggesting this move is breaking a precedent. I'm also seeing some logical problems with some of the "winning" !vote rationales given, but there's no point in going into that here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a lot less participation, but on the other hand there appeared to be proportionately more participation by folks outside the fringe theories noticeboard circle. It happens sometimes that the preferences of people from a particular project or interest area differ from the usual site-wide practice, which (IMO) would be the present title (that's not to say everyone here is an FTN participant, and it's certainly not a knock on the board or its participants, who do God's work for Wikipedia).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per MjolnirPants's rebuttal. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I think it behooves us to ask what would benefit the reader the most. Imagine someone arriving on this article randomly and glancing at it. Framed as a "conspiracy theory" allows the reader to understand immediately what this idea is all about. Without such framing, it is easy to assume that this is a real satellite. This is not the same as ancient astronauts which are not immediately identifiable with a category of extant things. The idea that a satellite with the name "Black Knight" might exist is one that would confuse casual readers who were unfamiliar with the topic before arriving here. Using conspiracy theory prominently in the title avoids this obvious WP:ASTONISH problem. jps (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I take it from your comment that you support the move? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. But I try not to !vote twice. jps (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed your !vote above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per MjolnirPants's comments.--Bassmadrigal (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. As currently written, the article does actually seem to be more about "the satellite" as a fictional object, than about a conspiracy surrounding it. And it no more needs an in-the-title warning to a hypothetical skim reader who has read the title but not the first sentence than the Sherlock Holmes article needs a "(fictional character)" disambiguator. If this was five pages of detailed claims and counter-claims about NASA coverups and lots of secondary sources discussing the conspiratorial nature of it all, sure, but it's not. --McGeddon (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I just want to point out that your analogy fails once you consider that the average reader will be well aware that Mr Holmes is a fictional character, and that the argument you were rebutting relied upon the fact that "black knight satellite" is not nearly so well-known as that. Indeed, it could be said that your counterargument was countered by the original argument before you even made it. In fact, I thought to give it a little experiment, and asked three of my coworkers if they had heard of the "black knight satellite". All three hadn't, but suspected that it was a real satellite. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Try them on Father Dougal McGuire, Bokononism, Red mercury or Apollo 21. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA asks for "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" rather than an entirely explanatory name for a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject and in danger of assuming from the title alone that a fictional entity might be real. --McGeddon (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA also says Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. and the article is not about the satellite, only the lede is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The article as written is describing a "jumble of completely unrelated stories", not a conspiracy theory - it seems more on the level of Bigfoot, where some hoaxes and misinterpretations have been assembled into a description of an entity that doesn't exist. Looking at the FEMA camps conspiracy theory article, that article is entirely about the history and evolution of the theory, and we have quotes from theorists. If there's an implicit narrative here that NASA and the Air Force have repeatedly encountered the same alien satellite and are working together to cover it up, the article isn't saying that. --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's mostly due to WP:RS; the conspiracy theorists themselves are almost unanimous in claiming there's a cover up. But when RSes discuss the issue, the claims of a cover up are taken as a given; of course they think NASA is covering it up. So there's no point in explicitly calling that out. This is a problem with the article, not the title. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

People thinking that the "jumble of unrelated stories" are all connected (and equals an alien satellite) is the classic description of a conspiracy theory. A sampling of conspiracy-mongering sources, such as HuffPo, Atlas Obscura and Times of India explicitly make this clear. According to the conspiracists themselves, [(blacklisted BeforeItsNews link) TESLA KNEW AND NASA KNOWS] about this 13,0000 year old satellite, but THEY are hiding the truth from us. Even astronaut Jerry Ross (when asked about claims that photos of space debris actually show the Black Knight by James Oberg), joked that "conspiracy theories are fun for those working on them, but a waste of valuable brain power". The point is, we don't need our sources to explicitly state "X is a conspiracy theory" if the implicit context is overwhelmingly in favor of that interpretation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the article moves, I think it's worth considering whether "conspiracy theory" is the best way to describe this. There are conspiracy theory elements to the story, but not all sources describe it like that. It's a fringe theory or legend, akin to Bigfoot as McGeddon says (there are conspiracy theories involving Bigfoot, but it's wider than that).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the best comparison is moon landing conspiracy theories. Note that many of the claims about the moon landing described at that page do not, in pricniple, require the invocation of conspiracies, but conspiracies absolutely are a main point as to explaining the possibility of any given claim. That is similar to this topic where a conspiracy theory is absolutely required belief with respect to the idea that the "powers that be" are hiding the truth. jps (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per BullRangifer. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom as obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- obscure enough that a qualifier ("conspiracy theory") is necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment Is it conspiracy theory or a fringe science theory?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Both, but more conspiracy than fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What RS call it that,, and yes I did look at the two sources in the lead, one dos not call it a conspiracy theory and I am not sure one is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's check those sources:

1. "WATCH: Now UFO conspiracists claim 'alien Black Knight satellite has visited Earth'" (non-essential dubious tabloid, but best not to use on any more serious topic. We're dealing with an obviously fringe topic, so see WP:Parity )
2. "For any story or conspiracy to have credibility..."
3. filed under Urban Legends (a RS per WP:Parity).

I think we can safely say that several RS place this in the conspiracy theory box. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just invoked WP:SNOW and made the move. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - RM has been reopened. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think User:Cuchullain's objection relating to WP:COMMONNAME makes any sense. His example uses the proposed name to search for matching articles, and finds none. That is a nonsensical use case - naming rules aren't to benefit users who are searching away from Wikipedia, they are to benefit users who are searching for the topic and will lead them here. When considered that way "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory" is just fine, because searches for "Black Knight satellite" will STILL find this article in any reasonable search engine. Under User:Cuchullain's overly strict interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME hundreds of articles with parenthetical expressions in them (e.g. Jim Tracy (baseball)) would fail policy. --Krelnik (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow. Jim Tracy (baseball) is a disambiguated title because Jim Tracy is ambiguous. All that is covered by WP:ATDAB. But yes, general practice is to use the title something is called in real world sources, barring cases where it's unavailable or otherwise inappropriate. We wouldn't , for instance, move Hank Aaron to Hank Aaron (baseball), since "Hank Aaron" is available.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mean that the title of the article must match a commonly used name for the thing in its entirety. Nowhere does it say that, and I believe that is intentional. It is sufficient under that rule that the commonly used name for the thing be contained within the article title. I.e. the Jim Tracy article satisifes COMMONNAME because "Jim Tracy" is contained within the article name. The UX goal of such naming - being able to find a Wikipedia article easily using the relevant search engine term - is still satisified. "Black knight satellite conspiracy theory" satisfies all of that because if you type "Black knight satellite" whether in the Wiki search box or Gooogle or Bing or whatever, you will still find this article. --Krelnik (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion after close

@Guy Macon: WP:SNOW? Don't you mean WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:BEBOLD instead? Peaceray (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have requested that Guy Macon reverse this close for further discussion, as there are points that need to be considered that haven't been yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have searched in vain for such points. Please enlighten us. jps (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fair warning: if this is re-opened, it's going to get at least one additional Support !vote, right off the bat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• There is no reason to reopen the discussion. A speedy close was clearly justified here and I was actually considering doing the same thing when I saw it had already been done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that there has been an objection to the bold move, it needs to be opened again for the procedure to take its course.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • What's the objection? It really ought to be supported by more than "I object!" Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This was not a bold move. It was a speedy close of a move discussion where the consensus was incontrovertible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The close gives no indication that policy or guideline arguments were considered, and the result is problematic by several points of the article titles policy, including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY. Procedurally, it was also lacking. I'll explain in more detail when the RM is reopened.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Still not seeing any specific objection. WP:IAR is a policy, and WP:SNOW is an explanatory supplement, often cited in discussions such as these, which has made it a de-facto guideline. If you have specific objections, bring them up and we can discuss them further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW's summary states "But, if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place." Cuchullain has doubts, and seems pretty sure that presenting them may make a difference, so I think it probably has to be reopened due to that SNOW summary. Reading more on this renaming question should also be interestng, so there's that. Randy Kryn 03:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Tell you what. If one other editor who has sometime in the past posted a comment to the article talk page or who has sometime in the past edited the article agrees with Cuchullain I will revert the close. Cuchullain is free to increase the chance of someone agreeing with him by posting a couple of those "points that need to be considered that haven't been yet" in response to this comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It was a speedy close done in recognition of an overwhelming consensus (unanimous actually). We do not run things for a month merely to satisfy some compulsion to dot bureaucratic I's and cross T's. WP:RFCL (1) states...

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 12 February 2017); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

The outcome was about as obvious as it is possible to get and I am satisfied that the close was both proper and correct. If there is a disagreement a request for a close review can be lodged at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have posted a request for a review of the close by an uninvolved admin at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Objections

So Cuchullain has expressed their arguments over at Guy's talk page and I figured we could get started addressing them.

I've said twice now that there's no indication that any actual policy point was considered

That is simply untrue. The OP said "...in keeping with our practice of clearly labeling conspiracy theories as such in their titles," Ad Orientem !voted yes per WP:FRINGE, LuckyLouie !voted Yes because "[The] title change would clarify context and better serve the goals of the encyclopedia." which I might point out is a reference to the ultimate policy; ie the goal all the other policies exist to achieve and finally, Guy pointed out that according to our sources, there's no actual satellite making the current name inaccurate.

Guy gave no closing summary

Again, that is just not true. Guy posted "The result of the move request was: page moved." at the top of the close template, and posted "I just invoked WP:SNOW and made the move." at the end of the discussion.

I cited specific policies that argue against the move - most significantly, WP:COMMONNAME ("Black Knight satellite" is the more common name than the constructed title "Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory")

I should point out that the opening sentence of that paragraph is "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article:" The subject of this article is the conspiracy theory, not the fictional satellite (at least, it should be, the actual prose in the articles varies but leans towards describing the CS). That policy page then goes on to say "However, some topics have multiple names, and this can lead to confusion about which name should be used in the article's title." Well, are there multiple names for this? There might be, but those names are virtually unheard of. So this isn't the problem WP:COMMONNAME was intended to address.

but also the various WP:CRITERIA (the new title is less WP:CONCISE

Conciseness is great, but again: this article is (or should be) about the conspiracy theory, not the fictional satellite.

is more WP:PRECISE than necessary

I disagree. There's a clear distinction between the fictional satellite and the conspiracy theory itself.

isn't WP:CONSISTENT with related articles, etc)

Again, this is simply not true. Observe the following, highly incomplete list:

Pizzagate conspiracy theory	Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories	Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories	Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory	Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories
Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories	Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories	Global warming conspiracy theory
Moon landing conspiracy theories	UFO conspiracy theory	New World Order (conspiracy theory)
GMO conspiracy theories	Chemtrail conspiracy theory	Black genocide conspiracy theory
White genocide conspiracy theory	Bible conspiracy theory	Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory

That pretty much covers it all, so that's the end of my giant post for now. I'm still on board with this rename. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which may be of interest. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

conspiracy THEORY IN THE LEAD

The satellite black knight, whatever you called, is empty now, that was a transport for a thousand beens, now live in this planet. I can not load the pictures were you can see, what I talking.

Neither of the two sources used for it being a conspiracy theory in the lead call it such, thus the tags should not have been removed. If we have sources saying this is a conspiracy theory why not use rhos and not sources that do not make that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm... the Sunday Express source calls it a claim by "UFO conspiracists", the book Pseudoscience and Science Fiction calls it "...an imaginative fabrication by various pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists..." and the Motherboard source calls it one of "the Very Best Alien Conspiracy Theories."

How do you think it's not called a conspiracy theory? It's explictly called one in one of the three sources, and referred to as the idea or claim of conspiracy theorists in the other two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Mmm and that was not the sources I taged as not supporting it. I am asking for those sources to not be used again to support something they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Those three sources are in the lead, and they are cited at the end of the sentence that identifies it as a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As it stands now yes, the point I am making is not to revert it back to this [14].Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm on board with that. (With your sentiment, not that particular version of the page). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, a conspiracy theory presupposes a conspiracy, that is, a secret agreement by people to commit something wrong or illegal. Now, NASA denying that the Black Knight exists or that it's an alien craft, doesn't amount to a conspiracy, no matter what the media sources decide they want to call it. Kortoso (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The label fits because the basic premise of UFO conspiracy theories like Black Knight is invariably that "they" are engaging in conspiracy of silence to hide the "truth" from the public. Also, we have WP:RS sources to attribute it to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"the non-existent object"

That phrase makes no sense. If there's an object, and there is, then it exists. It's just not what is claimed by the conspiracy theorists. Even a UFO is an object. It's not "non-existent". It's just not "identified". The word "non-existent" should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So if I see a Pig and (after drinking a lot) falsely conclude that it is actually a Unicorn, does that somehow means that the Unicorn is no longer a non-existent animal? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. In this case we're talking about an actual object. It exists. It's just the mischaracterization which is the problem, and that this is behind a conspiracy theory, or have I misunderstood something here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple different objects that have been mistaken for the same non-existent object. It is the black knight satellite which is non-existent, not the objects which have been mistaken for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think replacing the phrase "non-existent object" with "non-existent alien satellite" in the History section and massaging the surrounding grammar accordingly would put this issue to rest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is the identification of object(s) as a fictional "satellite" which is the problem. There are lots of objects out there, and their stories and interpretations have become this myth. I have tweaked it even more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Good edits. Getting back to the Unicorn Pig UniPig Pigacorn ManBearPig ??? I saw last night, it also was an actual object. It also exists. It is also just the mischaracterization (and the rum) which is the problem. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rum cannot be a problem! See rum ball. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. Rum is almost always the solution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know... "rum balls" sounds like a painful medical condition to have.... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A new cocktail called the alien urine sample includes a substantial portion of coconut rum. Keep watching the skies! - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I used to collect those when I worked for the govern- <gets hauled off by the men in black> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated See alsos added

Before simply reverting Special:Contributions/Ldorrg, can anyone (@Ldorrg:?) please explain what relates these two incidents? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

David Bryant

Re this edit citing a tabloid story naming "David Bryant" as an "astronomer", er, no, he's not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear god, it's worse than I thought! He's.... He's a full time UFOLOGIST!!! <runs screaming>

But seriously, no. Rule of thumb: if they don't have their own WP page, and the rest of the folks quoted do, then don't add a quote from them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

He's also the "UK's ony full time professional meteorite dealer". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Just like I'm "the US's only full time professional MjolnirPants": it's only because everyone else has too much self-respect to take the same job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was the 'conspiracy theory' page. Oh, wait, it is. I guess press articles https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/600459/WATCH-Legendary-Black-Knight-alien-satellite-captured-passing-ISS-AND-Moon about this are banned from this page too. Ghostofnemo (talk)

You've probably heard that the preferred sources to use to describe a fringe conspiracy theory are independent sources. Sources that specialize in breaking unique WP:SENSATIONAL fringe claims — and making them sound plausible — aren't WP:RS, e.g. the tabloid Daily Express. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that new details or recent developments about anything (including conspiracy theories) have to be established as notable, that is, covered by more than one reliable source. If a single tabloid story includes a claim that Elvis killed JFK, we don't rush to add it to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"NASA has stated"

"A 1998 NASA photo is believed by some to show the Black Knight satellite, but NASA has stated that this is likely space debris, specifically a thermal blanket lost during an EVA mission" - the source (http://www.armaghplanet.com/the-truth-about-the-black-knight-satellite-mystery.html) doesn't cite NASA. So NASA didn't state anything. Armagh Observatory and Planetarium is stating that it's most likely the blankt. But they're not NASA (not even US-American). --StYxXx (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. NASA catalogs the photo as space debris. Oberg speculates it's likely the blanket lost during EVA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick

Regarding this edit: [15], Black Knight did not appear in the works of Philip K. Dick. I checked the cited source, and it seems the author interprets some of Dick’s work as referring to Black Knight. So even if stated as an opinion, it’s not notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

February 1960 Time article

I have not been able to find the February Time Magazine article from 1960. I have gone through the archives. No mention of the Dark satellite in February, only in the March edition. I did find one article in the New York Times from February. 122.151.179.158 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The link contained in the citation works fine: [16]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

It may be pseudo science or fantasy but not a conspiracy theory. That Wikipedia calls Black Knight satellite a conspiracy theory sounds like a... conspiracy. 94.234.118.189 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of sources refer to it as a conspiracy. I think the advice of the WP:VNT applies, unless you can provide reliable sources that call it something else. If you can make a solid case for a different WP:COMMONNAME, then a move would be appropriate.

No one seems to be calling it a fantasy, but there is at least one reference to pseudoscience. Peaceray (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There is claims that Black Knight satellite exists. Every article, even sceptical (or debunking ones), that not use the label 'Conspiracy theory' should do. That don't dismiss that some conspiracy theorists claim tho whole thing is covered up, a conspiracy. The title is misleading. To call it a Conspiracy theory in the title sounds condescending. The Conspiracy theory part could be elaborated in the article if needed. 94.234.118.189 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Claims that "it exists but NASA won't acknowledge it", or "it exists but NASA is covering it up" — that's the 'conspiracy theory' described by our sources, and it's an essential element of the topic. To treat it otherwise would be misleading, e.g. "it exists but some people say its a conspiracy theory". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)