Talk:Vile vortex

NPOV
This article IMHO is not written from a NPOV. From what I can gather, Vile Vortices are not proven to exist rather they are conjecture. The article also contains many weasel words for example,


 * "was first advanced by _noted_ naturalist and author Ivan T. Sanderson."


 * "As with the Bermuda Triangle _academics dismiss_ the Vile Vortices and any associated New Age or esoteric phenomena as pseudoscience."

Further, all the external links point to sites that support the existance of Vile Vortices. I would like to see some links to people trying to debunk the concept. Journeyman 06:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Ciscop, they "debunk" everything. I once had contact with a Ciscop man once, he "debunked" the fact that he was alive and a human being. Martial Law 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)
 * That is what I call skepticisim. Martial Law 05:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)
 * 1) I think changing the first sentence to something like "The Vile Vortices are twelve areas distributed more or less evenly around the globe that are alleged to have Bermuda Triangle-like qualities" should ease POV concerns 2) I don't think "noted" and "academics dismiss" are particularly weaselly - but if anyone can suggest any more neutral wording I'm all ears 3) If anyone who can find any online sources debunking the Vile Vortices by all means link them. Kiwipat 23:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found one link, and put it in the article. It's not great, but it's as good as there is on the net.Totnesmartin 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes to the article; making it clear that Vile Vortices are on the same plain as the Bunyip and Bermuda Triangle.
 * 1) I've removed the POV warning.
 * 2) On 'noted' having read the article on Sanderson it appears a valid adjective.
 * Re: 'academics dismiss' I maintain my objection, as the sentence seemed to imply a wholesale, knee-jerk writing off of the idea. 'Skeptics' better describes the position, as some academics may believe in VV's; dismissing VV's is not inherent in being an academic - we just want rigourous proof. --Journeyman 03:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it qualify as notable under the rubric of "modern mythology?" With the connection to the "Lost" series and all...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.239.25 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Civilisations"
Civilizations. Haizum 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=civilisations

It's American English versus British... whomever made the article first or whichever better fits the article is used. DreamGuy 23:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this even notable?
Never heard of this, the name is nuts, is this just some wacky neologism cooked up by some minor nobodies, or do real people ever use the term? Might need to be deleted on notability concerns. DreamGuy 23:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles Berlitz's book discusses these things. The Bermuda Triangle's talk page has their locations. Two are located over the Oceans, two or more are appearrantly located in the shipping lanes / major air travel routes - if they're real, these may pose a danger. NOT being "Skeptical", only awaiting further evidence. Martial Law 04:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)


 * Also mentioned in Gian Quasar's latest offering "Into the Bermuda Triangle". Both books added to a Further reading section. Also, within the field Ivan Sanderson wasn't a "nobody", and while the term may be somewhat obscure to a wider audience, for those familiar with Bermuda Triangle-type lore it isn't. Kiwipat 23:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A web search of the topic led me to some forum posts using VV's to explain the events in LOST. -Journeyman 03:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Insurence companies (n particular Lloyd's of London) already know the risks of traveling through any given bit of sea.Geni 02:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But they don't believe in vile vortices, apparently - even though they would have noticed anomalous patterns of ship losses long ago. Totnesmartin 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Refutation by Paul Begg
Paul Begg wrote a series of articles in British magazine The Unexplained about 25 years ago, demolishing most Bermuda Triangle and 'vile vortex' claims. These magazines are sometimes anthologised into cheap-looking books, but their quality was often very good. Totnesmartin 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Did he actually use the term 'vile vortices'? Also, is there anywhere where this material is accessible by Wikiepdia's readership/editorship? Out of This World: Mysteries of Mind, Space and Time is out-of-print, and according to WorldCat is only held by a very few, generally obscure, libraries. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is accessible to any of Wikipedia's readership should they wish to pay a small sum for a copy of the book, which is easily found on book-selling websites, or visit such an obscure library as the British Library. We don't delete references because they are not instantly acessible for free. Also this is a fringe topic, so per wp:fringe otherwise unreliable sources can be used to describe the scope of the relevant beliefs and as evidence of the notability of the topic. We are supposed to be here to make articles better - more informative - not less so. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a good Paul Begg reference fr4om Google Books although the book is written by another person. Read the page to see how it says Begg and others have effectively discredited the Vile Vortices theory.  This may be a useful cite.  Google Books is very helpful when looking for fact confirmation or cites to add balance to articles. Hidden Realms, Lost Civilizations, and Beings from Other Worlds  By Jerome Clark Page 39.  I hope this helps.LiPollis (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange properties
Anyone that claims "something" has "strange properties" needs to go have his mental capability checked asap. I have strange properties (go look up the words in a dictionary). So maybe I'm a "vortex". If you cant specify what the strange properties is... then what the hell are we talking about? Sorry for the rude tone, but I'm just tired of this kind of pseudoscience, no not even that, gibberish! that can't even specify itself. Much less prove itself. Thank god the burden of proof isn't on the debunk side but on the bunk side.

The South Atlantic Anomaly HAS AN EXPLANATION. Theres nothing supernatural about it.

Devils sea is a sea, that much of the two words is right. Located on top of one of the most volatile regions on the planet. Volcanoes and 2 continental plates smashing together. There is earthquakes, most too small to bother with, DAILY in Japan. Not to mention the weather. GEEE, I wonder how ships ever go missing there?

The Bermuda triagle has been debunked alot. I'd like to see some claims that stands up to proper scrutiny. Also there are a ton of possible natural explanations. No need to go get your ghostbuster lincense quite yet.

Fine, lets say this vortices exist as a phenomenon, give me any proof it's not a natural phenomenon. Just like northern lights. Nothing magical or supernatural about nothern lights. But they too can be considered a phenomenon with "strange properties", but still being completely 100% SUPER NATURAL not supernatural.


 * The whole theory is like taking a map of a country, pointing out the densely populated areas, major cities, etc. and claiming that "something supernatural" must happen there because the absolute number of accidents is bigger than elsewhere 170.252.80.2 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lost (the tv-show) Theory
This is a theory that could be used to explain interdimensional travel from the island to exemplary a desert (the polar bear in "Confirmed Dead") and the airplane full with drugs of Mister Eko's brother Yemi.

H.U.H.?.!
This doesn't make any sense. Basically what the wikipedia article says is: "At sea, there's stuff. This has an effect on the wind. And mysterious dissappearences."

So what the hell are these Vortices supposed to be?--85.200.108.5 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not seem clear what they are supposed to be. They seem to be just a subject of wild speculations. The only thing that is clear, is where they are supposed to be. Namely, at the vortex points of a regular icosahedron inscribed inside the Earth globe. Two of them are at North and South Pole, and of the others, 5 at equal distances on the latitude 26° 33' 45" N, the 5 remaining 5 ones at equal distances on the latitude 26° 33' 45" S. (The angle 26° 33' 45" is such that its tangent is 1/2.) Moreover, one of those points on the Northern Hemisphere seems to be (by coincidence?) at least very close to the Zero Meridian of Greenwich, and therefore the other four are equally close to meridians 72 and 144 degrees East, 72 and 144 degrees West, and those on the Southern Hemisphere they are at meridians 36 and 144 degrees East, 36 and 144 degrees West, and 180 degrees. (Maybe this is only approximate: perhaps all of them are some 2 or 3 degrees to the East, or to the West of those meridians?) It can be shown mathematically that these 12 points are at the vortices of a regular icosahedron. These are the original vortices supposed by Sanderson. But later, some other writers have added 50 others, 20 of them at the middle points of the triangles between the original 12 ones (or at the middle points of the faces of the icosaedron), and 30 at the middle points of the lines joining them to each other (edges of the icosahedron).
 * I do not think they really have any special meaning, except as a mathematical curiosity and a somewhat jokeful exercice in spherical trigonometry. But many writers think they have, and indeed they have got such piblicity that I do not think this article should be deleted, no more than ohter articles of well-known pseudosciences. But seemingly even writers who believe they have [i]some[/i] special meaning, do not aggee of [i]what[/i] they indeed are.  Those being in oceans are said to be dangerous areas, whereas those being on land are said to be locations of the most ancient civilisations. Perhaps the most intresting (although highly  improbable) hypothesis I have read of them is that they have been landig points of ancient visitors from outer space! If they wanted to explore the Earth, they might well have located their landing points symmetrically at equal distances!  The writer supposed that they had prompted ancient humans to create the first civilisations. Unfortunately I do not rememember the author (except that he/she was not Däniken, but some if his followers). -FKLS (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, a man named Ivan thinks there are "mystical" parts of the ocean where ships go missing? And how do the land "vortices" work? what are they made of? What measureable effects do they have? Are there statistics supporting his delusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.30 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Locations
These should be sourced to Sanderson. It looks to me as though there's been a lot of interpretation of them. See this book by him which mentions the Bermuda triangle and other locations by latitude but not name. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I haven't read the source, but it sounds like you did, so did I cite it how you wanted? — Smuckola(talk) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better but he makes the point that the Bermuda triangle is not triangular, so I'm removing triangular and doing some rewording. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote for deletion?
This is absurd. One man's delusions does not a wikipedia article make. This isn't encyclopedic, there's absolutely no rhyme nor reason behind these absurd ravings of a conspiretard vanity press 'author' nor any validity to any claims. It appears that someone with apophenia and Dunning-Kruger effect addling his ability to conduct rational thought dreamt something up on his kids etch-a-sketch and decided it was a feasible explanation of the Bermuda Triangle. I would like to request that this be nominated as VfD, I would suggest speedy deletion as patent nonsense but I am on a work computer and thus do not have access to my regular account. This is not encyclopedic. This isn't even 'fringe science' or alternative geology. This is just the deranged rantings of someone who didn't finish high school, like most conspiretard drivel, and it should be treated with the same contempt it rightly deserves as the nonsense that it is. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Get ready for the usual objection, however, that we don't "vote" around here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanderson had a degree from Cambridge. What are you whittering on about? By the way your use of "retard" is bigoted - it is a reference to a disability. I also agree i was hoping for real information like what it is evidence but theses are just ramblings on authors and delusional people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.85.103 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to either "Vile Vortices" or "Vile vortexes", and a merger has been suggested as being a better option. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vile vortex → Vile Vortices – Meets WP:NCPLURAL - Article is about entities that are being considered together as a group - being the 12 Vile Votices. Its comparable to the "Florida Keys". Do not sign this. Kiwipat (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternate move to Vile vortexes. The reference does not capitalize the second word. "Vortexes" also easier to search for.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Ivan T. Sanderson, the originator of the theory, collectively called the phenomena "Vile Vortices" not "Vile vortexes"-Kiwipat (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On further examination, I'd probably say that this can all be solved by merging this article into Bermuda Triangle. It could be summed up in a paragraph explaining the concept of these "vortices" and how Bermuda Triangle is one of them.  Most people will only care or come upon this concept when looking for information about the Bermuda Triangle.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:52, 19 October 2019 (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.

Keep
I vote to keep this content somewhere on Wikipedia (even though it is pseudoscience), because many fringe or “new age” groups/philosophies are based on the idea of a “Planetary Grid” with its associated vortices and ley lines. Dharmadha2 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirected to Ivan T. Anderson
There does not seem to be any evidence that this concept is notable beyond the claims made by this individual. Therefore the article is redirected there. jps (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Codswallop though it is, this clearly passes WP:GNG as it prima facie has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I think deletion requires a wider hearing.-- Laun chba ller 02:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which independent reliable sources are you referring to? jps (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)