Talk:Impossible trident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elephant[edit]

Could an image be included of the elephant legs? Simply south (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPR[edit]

Does the NPR link actually have anything to do with this article? Rsduhamel (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Microsoft O - Blivet or Blibbet?[edit]

According to a couple of sites the MicroSoft O was known as the Blibbet, not the blivet:

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Microsoft#Logos_and_slogans http://www.geeknews.net/2007/01/09/word-of-the-day-blibbet http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/07/14/438777.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.97.86 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i doubt the army actually used the word manure. what happened to 'wikipedia is not censored'? which brings to mind a story: harry truman was speaking to a ladies garden group and used the word manure on several occasions. afterwards, one of the members came up to bess and said 'mrs. truman you really should get the president to refer to it as fertilizer'. to which bess replied 'madam, it has taken me 40 years to get the president to call it manure'.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any reference connecting the three-pronged gadget to the word "blivet". In fact, there seem to be no references for any definition presented in the article. One is tempted to think of the whole article as a blivet, in the (claimed but unreferenced) military sense. Those with knowledge of the subject should fix all this. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is/was actually a form of Xerox lore and/or oral lore among military and engineering subcultures (but apparently dating to back before the widespread use of copying machines), so it's not surprising if it's not received much academic attention. However, I would have no objection to renaming this article to "Poiuyt" and focusing exclusively on the impossible figure drawing... AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good idea. It would be a shame to lose all the other blivet stuff, though. I learned that a blivet was "ten pounds of s. in a five pound bag", but I never saw it documented anywhere. Surely some documentation of "blivet" exists somewhere. I'm thinking we should wait around until somebody finds some of it, then redo the article as appropriate. Maybe there's something somewhere that connects the poiuyt to the word blivet. Lou Sander (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't personally know that the impossible figure drawing has been referred to as a "blivet", nor do I have any great skepticism about it. However, it's currently a problem that this article is actually two articles very loosely stapled together -- one on the impossible figure drawing, and another on the general military/engineeering/other slang word "blivet". I think it would be best for the article to be split, whether or not a source for referring to the impossible figure as a "blivet" can be found... AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More cited resources needed[edit]

Since a lot of the article doesn't have many cited resources, we really need to add some cited resources to make sure most of the information on this article is correct and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch exe inc (talkcontribs) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here is a new source: http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/blivet.html 69.168.144.139 (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

requested move/split[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Not moved, a rationle move is difficult without sources in the article. Fix the article. Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]



BlivetDevil's pitchfork – As per the discussion on talk page, Blivet was a placeholder name, that got associated with this object. I propose Renaming the first half of this article to a more scientific name befitting this mathematical object and leaving the less professional second half here, since the second half is only about the name itself, for future wikipedians to decide the fate of. 69.168.144.136 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: I am not sure if I am supposed to do something now that consensus has failed to be reached after so much time. Too bad the name proved unpopular. 69.168.144.139 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
child's drawing of the devil with his pitchfork
  • Oppose this is not the common usage for the Devil's pitchfork, a commonly used imagery in legend and religious art. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support a split; Oppose proposed split name. It would be good to split out the impossible figure (which has several other names) from the military slang meaning of the word "blivet". However, the impossible figure is more commonly known as the "devil's fork" than as the "devil's pitchfork". Anyway, if the article is to be split, the optical illusion or impossible figure should actually go under the name of Poiuyt (which is already the name of the Italian Wikipedia article)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Blivet?[edit]

The Wiktionary blivet entry gives this:

"2. An item of unknown purpose, often unnecessary or useless or annoying."

No mention of tridents, devils, illusions, etc. This seems a bit general to be used here, in the lede, without some kind of source? In fact, the primary meaning there, of "over=full", seems wholly inappropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comes from the very first draft of the article (unreferenced). Currently I am trying to locate the texts of Roger Hayward's "Blivets: Research and Development (1968) or Blivets — the Makings (1971) - to see whether he applied this term only to forks or to other impossible object. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These were a humorous submissions to Worm Runner's Digest; - a snippet:
"The blivet was first discovered in 1892 in Pfulingen, Germany, by a cross-eyed dwarf named Erasmus Wolfgang Blivet. Erasmus Wolfgang was actually trying to develop a ..." Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds eminently plausible..... maybe to develop "the peoplemover, an elevator, which is capable of crossing a road"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A next best ref is from The Hacker's Dictionary: "Blivet" <...> It has also been used to describe an amusing trick-the-eye drawing resembling a three-pronged fork that appears to depict a three-dimensional object until one realizes that the part fit together in an impossible way.. It will do for now, because THD certainly influenced the knowledhe of computer geeks, However I would rather find a more authoritative (domain-specific) ref. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content removal[edit]

I have undid Nick Moyes removal of an art work by a recognised artist that is a valid contribution to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talkcontribs) 10:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Van Carloads: You need to stop trying to promote your own ideas and theories as if they those of another, unrelated person (diff). You have an undeclared conflict of interest, and a self-published paper and a personal blog are of no relevance to Wikipedia. I note that another editor has since re-removed your addition. Please do not attempt to reinsert it without first establishing consensus here with other interested editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

phobia[edit]

I remember reading long ago that this image makes some people uncomfortable. I wonder if something akin to trypophobia is at play here, and it may even be trypophobia itself, but I suspect it's distinct. Because no real-world object corresponds to this image, there may never be a named phobia for it, but I would like to mention the study that found people uncomfortable if I can find it. Soap 06:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optical illusions do make people uncomfortable if one stares at them puzzled for a long time. No wonder, your brain gets twisted. But I doubt that this discomfort may develop into a probia. Anyway, you may want to search for phobia+"optical issusions", rather than specifically phobia+trident. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I look forward to seeing the experimental design for a study that could successfully separate fear of tridents from fear of illusions! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be surprised, but something similar had already been done! Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasnt able to come up with anything. Re, searching on optical illusions, ... the thing is, this isnt actually an optical illusion. Everyone who looks at this knows what theyre seeing and sees it precisely as it really is ... it just happens to be an impossible object. I suspect that any feelings of discomfort triggered by classical optical illusions would be unrelated to whatever happens when people look at this image. e.g. the classic Müller-Lyer illusion does not present us with two contradictory images, it presents us with a single very deceptive image. But anyway, I will have to add this to the already long list of things Ive abandoned because I wasnt able to find what I originally read, let alone a scientific study that mentioned the phenomenon. Thank you all for your suggestions even so. Soap 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impossible objects are optical illusion, because your brain tries to reconstruct a 3D object from a 2D drawing, but there is no such object, hence it is an illusion. And you are wrong about "everyone who looks at this". As for looking in vain, same here; that's the fate of a true wikiholic: to vainly search for a useless piece of info nobody really cares but you. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that link, Staszek Lem. Yes, slightly similar to what I was suggesting. I had never heard of that study before. It doesn't seem to say whether, or where, it was ever published. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]