Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Refutation vs. Documentation

When discussing fringe theories it is important to both refute the claims made and document the arguments of the adherents. This page, as of the current edit, does this well. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't :-) Levengood is only cited to say that he has been criticized by the CSICOP, which is a bit extreme even for me. Heck, Levengood is not even mentioned in the running prose. Not even to explain why his papers weren't taken seriously by other scientists.
Basically, there are only 3 published scientific papers taking the phenomena seriously, all in Physiologia Plantarum Journal:
The 4th paper was negative, explaining the multiple problems in the previous 3 papers. The editors of the journal refused to publish it! It had to be published here:
Nickell also comments on the problems in Levengood's research, the relevant articles are already cited in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Crop Circle Challenge 2012

Victory of the hoaxers in «Crop Circle Challenge 2012», will be confirmation and improvement of the article in part the text «... the most likely theory is that all of them were made by hoaxers ...» . A defeat of the hoaxers (or waiver of participation ) will negative to affect the article . (http://www.cropcirclechallenge.co.uk/contest.html ; http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/789264 ) TVERD (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Crop Circles are made by USA Goverment Masers mounted on Satellites

Excited delirium is a Cover Hoax for Victims of USA Government Satellite Masers. A Maser is a Microwave Laser. The USA Government uses psychiatric victims as their targets for deniability reasons. These Microwave weapons or directed energy weapons can be in the ceiling of psychiatric holding cells or rooms and they are also mounted on Satellites in Ordit as Masers which are Microwave Lasers. Masers have been used in industrial welding for years and now they are government weapons in orbit. The crop circles are created with satellite masers. They can also with diferrent focused frequencies make a victim experience "missing time" that can not be accounted for. 2602:306:C518:62C0:9DAA:5D0C:CF83:7BC (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this absurd statement? If not, go away. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This was spammed a few days ago by User_talk:2602:306:C518:62C0:3475:D8EA:2921:5A47. This editor later made some conspiracy theory accusations against another editor. These theories are occasionally notable, like 9/11 conspiracy theories. But this needs reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval "... I think it's better to reply and clarify the problems". «... Clarify the problems ...» - what problem? About assumption, that "Crop Circles can be made with facilities like HAARP in the US, which is a facility for projecting large amounts of microwave energy into the ionosphere", speak not for the first time. (comments Fionn_MacTool Aug 02, 2011. http://phys.org/news/2011-08-physics-secrets-crop-circle-artists.html, etc.). Facts about the appropriateness and implementation of such assumptions are not known. Discussion this assumptions in Wikipedia? Is there a need? Let administrator gives a respond. Cresix «absurd statement». The assumption, that «The crop circles are created with satellite masers», was expressed repeatedly. There is no reason to believe this assumption is absurd. The rest of the text 2602:306: C518: 62C0: 9DAA: 5D0C: CF83: 7BC not relate to "crop circles" and can not be the subject of discussion here. The intriguing images of crop circles, size, complexity, etc. correspond to the name of the article. Talk technology creation of crop circles generates controversy. This controversy can not be overcome in this article. TVERD (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The HAARP thing is from a comment in the comments section. That's not usually considered a reliable source.
Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, based on reliable sources. wikipedia is not a forum of discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of discussing - how to improve articles. In the discussion may use different source, including «a reliable source».
Relative to a reliable source: comments Fionn_MacTool - a source for failure 2602:306: C518: 62C0: 9DAA: 5D0C: CF83: 7BC is in authorship on a conspiracy theory, which is described in the text.
Inclusion in the article a conspiracy theory, as described in the text 2602:306: C518: 62C0: 9DAA: 5D0C: CF83: 7BC, not help to improve the article.
By the way, you have paid attention of users to the fact that «This editor ... made some conspiracy theory ...».
I think that the discussion about the proposed conspiracy theory, is not useful for improving the manuscript.

TVERD (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"comments Fionn_MacTool" is a comment in the comments section of a website. It's not a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbiased? Not Really

When I read the article yesterday I could hardly get through any of the sections. The people with credentials who were quoted never did an ounce of actual research on actual physical crop circles yet were quoted as though their views were the final word. Lots of recognizable names and seemingly important departments of governments were utilized as if adding credibility to one of the most biased accounts of a topic that I have ever seen. My attempt to remove some of the more flagarant bias and balance some of the other biases was totally removed by an individual who seems to have some important investment in this topical article. How is it that one individual can hold a topic hostage to bias in this manner and somehow make assertions about sources when the sources in the original article are highly flawed as well. How can you add actual scientific works and data to an article when it is disallowed with the preference of opinions by individuals with recognizable names? Who decides what is good legitimate material? The problem with some topics is that by relegating them to sudo-science one can get around any actual arguments or supplied data by disqulifying them outright. Subjects such as crop circles are doomed in wikipedia because of this jump start on categorizing them first and then disallowing credible works while supplying arguments (opinions really) by well known names that add credence to why these topics should stay categorized this way. This is why so many folks consider wikipedia a sudo-reliable source. We have these self proclaimed gatekeepers making sure it stays that way. Makes me wonder if they are getting paid to do this.CorrectionsPlease (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly not. --John (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
CorrectionsPlease, I respect your attempt to improve the article. I do not agree with the unwarranted removal of your text. Unfortunately, your questions - the result of the fact that «... Wikipedia editors can't decide which if any are natural and which are manmade ...» crop circles (Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)). Is no clear understanding of the subject article ( Natural crop circles?; Man-made crop circles ?). Hoaxers and their commentators in the media are interested in advertising, including paid.The uncertainty of the subject article, a small amount of scientific research (Enric Naval (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)) - reason of neutralization of «Wikipedia editors» and reason creation of conditions for all kinds of advertising , with using a article in Wikipedia.

TVERD (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added more research from respected scientists.

A photo of Reynolds' attestation is here: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7451/reynoldsb.jpg Also, many researchers including Reynolds cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_4 Hope this helps show that the superlative 'all are compatible with hoaxers' is not universally supported by scientists. Also added that GPS and lasers were never tested against claims like this and that Kaku did not test this after declaring it the most likely answer. Since skeptics ignore Reynold's testimony as well as that of Dr. Iyengar and several others, this should be mentioned in order to ensure that a superlative is not in an encyclopedia article where there is disagreement that is yet-to-be-addressed by skeptics. This important qualifier should only be removed if somebody can post a skeptic's response to these researchers regarding the mineralogical changes I have specified (available on Sunday Times and also documented by Levengood; also, it was discussed in the archive and never settled). 204.99.118.9 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your calling someone a "respected scientist" doesn't make it so. http://www.ufoevidence.org/ is not a reliable source for scientific evidence. Emphasizing a "Dr." in front of someone's name does not bestow unimpeachable infalliblity on that "expert". And Reynolds attestation is hardly conclusive about how any crop circles are formed. Cresix (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The original source is linked from there, I am just not able to access it through my firewall; I agree the original source is a better reference, but the title being Sunday Times should have indicated this to you. Reynolds was an expert in x-ray diffraction and clay, this is not disputed because he won the Roebling medal in 2000, 2 years before this article and 4 years prior to his death. The respect he gained in his scientific career can be read in obituaries; sure I'd love to see a more respected authority discuss this but can you try to name one?

It seems that you reject the authority of those subject matter experts that propound the view that not all circles are hoaxes; you show extreme bias when you do this to the well-respected Dr. Reynolds--see for yourself his qualifications and research, both are documented unlike the unqualified claim that all circles are hoaxes. 204.99.118.9 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you could be so kind as to revert those deletions/edits and reference the original source on Sunday Times (linked at the top just below the title) then you would be promoting scientific research and experimentation relevant to this topic. I will do this myself in 24 hours because obviously I was talking about the phrase "*ALL* characteristics of crop circles are fully compatible with them being made by hoaxers" and how Reynolds had shown that hoaxers could not use methods or 'energies [known] to science' in order to create the soil in the Canadian circle that he tested.204.99.118.9 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"I'd love to see a more respected authority discuss this but can you try to name one?": That's not how things work on Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of the editor wishing to make an addition to provide appropriate sources for that addition. That means it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for your edits, not mine.

"revert those deletions/edits and reference the original source on Sunday Times . . .. I will do this myself in 24 hours": That also is not how things work on Wikipedia. Content disputes are not resolved by the "ticking time bomb" approach to editing (i.e., an editor gives a command for someone to make a change, and if the command is not followed within 24 hours, that editor assumes ownership and makes the change regardless of other opinions). We resolve content disputes by the process of consensus (please click the link and read the policy if you're not familiar with that process). You can either follow that policy by waiting for enough support for your edits on this talk page, or otherwise you can be blocked for edit warring and failing to abide by the consensus process. Your choice.

"Reynolds was an expert in x-ray diffraction and clay, . . . The respect he gained in his scientific career can be read in obituaries": We don't determine reliability of a source from obituaries. If you want to establish Reynolds expertise on this matter, please provide reliable sources that Reynolds provided unequivocal evidence that crop circles are not the result of human activity (and not your synthesis of evidence about "x-ray diffraction and clay"). I suggest beginning with peer-review scientific journals; those are least likely to be disputed here if the conclusions are clear. As you work your way down the reliability ladder to magazines, blogs, and websites your sources are more likely to be challenged as unreliable. Cresix (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Relatively of Reynolds' attestation.

Revision as of 6 September 2012 204.99.118.9 and link http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1207.htm improves an article (of 11:05, 3 September 2012), in which was said «The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank »(http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html). However, in the original of source http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html is said «Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters.». Therefore, the statement that «The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank» groundlessly . Moreover, because of this statement Wikipedia become a source confirming the viability of fringe point of view - «... most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank». Revision 204.99.118.9 («... however, renowned mineralogist and the Roebling medal winner for 2000, Dr. Robert C. Reynolds, Jr. Disagrees, citing mineral and soil changes for which" our present knowledge provides no explanation ") partially corrects the breach of neutrality. Professor of geology and mineralogy at Dartmouth College, Robert C. Reynolds Jr. (Who is former president of the Clay Minerals Society) confirmed the competence of personnel BLT Research Team Inc. (Http://www.bltresearch.com/print/pxrd.html), who carried out the analysis of soil samples from the crop circles. In http://www.bltresearch.com/print/pxrd.html was mentioned seven people. These include workers with MS., MA., Dr. . The results, about which mentioned of Dr. Robert C. Reynolds, Jr. and the staff BLT Research Team Inc. , are refuting assertion of articles about «scientific consensus on crop circles». Quality http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1207.htm excels quality http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html, which is used in the article as «reliable sources». On the whole , groundless «Reverted 4 edits by 204.99.118.9 (talk): Unreliable sourcing. See WP: RS. We must have high standards for sourcing WP: FRINGE ideas » hindering improvement in the article. TVERD (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As usual TVERD, your comments are almost incomprehensible. If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you need to have someone who is fluent in English to edit your comments; sorry, but competence is required to edit Wikipedia. As best I can determine, you are trying to argue that the www.skepdic.com source supports the opposite of what it actually supports. First of all, a few paragraphs from a dictionary is hardly evidence for anything. Secondly, www.skepdic.com provides zero evidence that crop circles have been created by anything other than human activity. But somehow incredibly (I think; again, it is almost impossible to understand your point) you seem to be trying to use www.skepdic.com as evidence that crop circles are not made by human activity. Even more absurd, you seem to be trying to use www.skepdic.com to bolster Reynolds' expertise about crop circles, yet www.skepdic.com has no mention of Reynolds whatsoever. Cresix (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original post of this section by CorrectionsPlease. Why is Stephen Hawking's opinions on the topic relevant? Has he done any research, on crop circles, which is published? Why are skeptic articles on the internet, which do not provide their own references, allowed as references? Why is the Doug and Dave story mentioned in almost every section of the article? They didn't provide any evidence to support their story. This article is serving to mislead people. If an admin isn't going to review the edits objectively I recommend the deletion of this article; it's been misleading people and giving wikipedia a bad reputation for far too long. Stochastikos (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What is this article about? Is it about old clowns?

There is a daily phenomenon completely unexplained. This article mostly talk about few clowns who "confessed" they we doing thousands of crop circles around the world. Well then I confess, this was me who invented electricity and internet. I am not saying we should write fantasy here, but we need to stick to the facts: - The crop circle is a daily event completely unexplained - no crop circle was left unfinished - clowns who say the did it haven't posted on youtube any videos how they do it to prove their authorship like terrorist do, they just do some clumsy ugly looking tiny circles, which even a child can tell are clown-made. - clowns claim they are "artists" but without the proof, diplomas and reputation it is just as valid as a hacker claiming that his uncle just died and left him 40 million inheritance. Yet when I removed the word artist Dougweller reverted - Admins here need to stick to Wikipedia standards about posting verifiable information and reliable sources. Clown John Lundberg was saying he had won multitude of prizes and that his web-site has millions of users and that he did hundreds of circles, all this with the only proof being the main page of his personal web-site My suggestion: this article should be about unexplained phenomenon, for example if we have nuclear energy, the article should be about what is known about it, not about a kid who says he have a nuclear bomb at home. In our case - we can mention that there are clowns who say they also do circles - that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.252.80 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol. You're the one who removed easily sourced material saying it was unverifiable, which was obviously not true. It took seconds to find decent material. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about the competition? Who needs to know about it? This article is about the unexplained phenomenon. Let's list all the fools who tried to crawl in the mud in order to do an ugly crop circle or even better let's list all the fools who killed themselves fixing electric wires in Electricity section. But this was not the only edit you deleted. Why you reverted my edit about John Lundberg? Where is the proof he is an artist or have done any decent crop circle? He is writing this stuff about himself everywhere as if he is on a mission.207.204.252.21 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, by 'not verifiable' you meant you didn't think it should be in the article. As for Lundberg and art, we've got "Art in action: nature, creativity and our collective future - Page 82

Natural World Museum, Achim Steiner, Autodesk, Inc, United Nations Environment Programme - Art - 2007 - 174 pages john lundberg JOHN LUNDBERG is the founder of Circlemakers, a collective of artists who claim responsibility for a large number of the mystery-shrouded crop", [1], [2] and more. You're trying to answer the question "What is art" here, and that's not our role. We just go with what the sources say. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please inform yourself about reliability of the sources according to Wikipedia standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
some quotes for your kind consideration:
"If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars."
"One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_index. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index , especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context."
Random ebooks are not unnecessary a reliable source for making a statement about a person who even himself is saying he tries to deceive people. 207.204.252.21 (talk) You are citing books about urban folklore by a woman who's profession is "Storytelling"? You made my day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.252.21 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thing that I'm not citing random ebooks then, isn't it? You will find it difficult to show that someone whose books are published by a university publishing house and ABC-CLIO isn't a reliable source. I don't really care about this issue, but as I've said, you claimed something was unverifiable that was easily source, so it's hard to take you seriously. In fact, you seem to have an axe to grind here. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
These books are not reliable sources, they don't comply to the standards of Wikipedia. I am curious did you read the standards? Are you admin? 207.204.252.114 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In five (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) from seven-point of the content, is discussed: -Whether this is "obviously a hoax" or an "unexplained phenomenon," ... Andrewaskew (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC); -this article should be about unexplained phenomenon, ... 207.204.252.80 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC). The phrase «... You're the one who removed easily sourced material saying it was unverifiable, which was obviously not true. It took seconds to find decent material. » (Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2012 ) and subsequent similar sentences - variant of ignoring the issues mentioned. Ignoring these issues - does impossible improving the article. TVERD (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Do you think this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia? I know there are scientists who are studying the phenomenon for years, I don't see anything about this, instead I see mostly how some clowns want to imitate it or make self-advertisement. I am not saying these clowns should not be mentioned at all, but let's remember - this article is about the phenomenon, not about the clowns! Otherwise there wouldn't be any article at all try to understand this. Again remember "Electricity". What would the article be about: the unexplained phenomenon and all known facts (rather than theories) or somebody who tries to fool people and sell them fake generator207.204.252.114 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"... So what do you propose? Do you think this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia? " Object of the article: "A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop such as wheat, barley, rye, maize, or rapeseed ". The indicated object may be by the result of influence : 1. a Man (technogenic crop circle); 2. the Nature, without human intervention (natural crop circle). The text of the article (12 August 2012) violates the basic principle of Wikipedia - "neutrality" - in favor of " technogenic crop circle". Eliminate the violation of the neutrality is possible by division of contents of the article into two equal (in size and structure of the text) sections : 1. Technogenic Crop Circles; 2. Natural Crop Circles. Realization of "neutrality" is possible on the consent of editors and group of participants of Wikipedia . TVERD (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be a violation of our basic policies. Equal size would violate neutral point of view - see WP:UNDUE, and editors deciding which are natural and which are manmade would violate no original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think excellent idea!

This is the point the people want to know for sure if there are registered facts of unexplained natural crop circles, and there are thousands of them, hundreds times more than man-made. Moreover man-made appeared just to imitate natural ones.

Dougweller, are you admin or not? You seem to decide too much here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.124.194 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply telling you about our policies and guidelines. Yes, I'm an Administrator, which hopefully suggests I know something about them, but I'm speaking as an editor with almost 90,000 edits. I'm guessing you haven't read the links I've provided. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I am happy for your quantity, but we also need quality. I think the following is directly applied to us: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief.

I think what is happening here we are mostly talking about Flat Earth theory represented by few crooks.207.204.228.247 (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, You're a good Administrator! Indeed in the WP: UNDUE mentioned «viewpoints» on the object of the article. The main property of the subject article «... sizable pattern created ...by the flattening of a crop ...». If the article reported about properties of «sizable pattern» (geometry, sizes, soil, geography, and other), then there would be no question of «Technogenic Crop circles»; and «Natural crop circles». However, in the formula the «object of the article» included the term «created». More appropriate would be to use the term «consisting of». In the article, at the use term «consisting of», it would be inappropriate «viewpoints» about the mechanism of creation of «Crop circles». These «viewpoints» could be subjects, for at least, of two other articles:

1. Technogenic Crop circles; 2. Natural crop circles. Use of the term «created» - a basis for «viewpoints» on «Technogenic Crop circles» and «Natural crop circles». However, «Technogenic Crop circles» and «Natural crop circles» it is two on principle different physical objects. Only one properties (out of many others) coincides at these objects - «...a sizable pattern ...of the flattening of a crop». Object of the article «Crop circles» are two different physical objects. The neutrality of the article is not violated concerning of «viewpoints». The neutrality of the article violated in respect of objects article , which are not mentioned in Xia WP: UNDUE. With regard to the above-mentioned «Earth», object of virtual article «Earth», (analogically article «Crop circles») could be described as: Earth is a spherical figure, created from chemical elements. In this case, is possibly «viewpoints» about : Natural spherical figure and Man-made (technogenic) spherical figure, i.e. about two objects in one article. The subsequent history may be same as in the article «Crop circles». TVERD (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh??? No offense, but you may want to get someone to help you express your ideas more coherently. I have no idea what position, if any, you are arguing. But if you're opposed to the changes made by Dougweller, you need to very carefully read WP:FRINGE. Cresix (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Fringe theories does not apply here, because we are not discussing a theory. It is not a theory that daily there are unexplained formations in the fields. Which part you can not understand?? He is saying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight is violated152.226.7.201 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)



:When we talk about a phenomenon like "crop formation" (to be more precise), we know only that they exist, we don't know if they are created or brought there etc. Created is already a theory, we can discuss it in the article. But the main point is thousands and thousands of crop formations appearing everywhere. I think the article should inform about this fact as fully as possible. And reference to people who study them. Just look at the Gallery - there are only 3 crop circles, look at Further reading, there again this idiot John Lundberg who uses it as a self promotion. 152.226.7.201 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are talking about a theory; a theory about how crop circles are formed. WP:FRINGE is quite relevant. "Thousands and thousands of crop formations appearing everywhere": Over what period of time? Decades? So what. Or do you mean monthly or weekly? If so, please give us the reliable sources for your claim. Cresix (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. What is mainstream view on this? That two old man created thousands of formations hundreds meters in size and sometimes hundreds parts each, never left unfinished, never left traces? That's why this article must not propose theories too much. Just facts. Here is some statistics http://www.iccra.org/reports.htm, but we need to work on it more. Here is latest article in New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13418267.100-letters-crop-circles----.html
That's a gross misrepresentation, our own article says "Doug and Dave reportedly made more than 200 crop circles from 1978–1991 and claimed to be responsible for most if not all circles made prior to 1987." The rest of circles were allegedly made by copycats. (And that's not the "latest article in New Scientist", it's a 1992 letter to the editor). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why this article should be improved, because this is unverified informatoion. Sources [10][16][17] does not prove it in any way. I can say I confess that I went to the Moon, then what. And then again "After their revelation, crop formations started appearing in countries all over the world, increasing in number, size, and complexity.[10] They are most likely made by imitators of Bower and Chorley.[10]". The whole article is just trying to convince people that crop circles don't exist. We need facts, non rubbish theories
If this is really a contact and it looks like it is, we can not just let ourselves be fooled by two old idiots.
220.255.1.69 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

152.226.7.201 convincingly answered on questions which were set in my address of Cresix.

Source («... please give us the reliable sources for your claim ...») is indicated in the article «Crop circles»:

«To date, approximately 10,000 crop circles have been reported internationally, from locations such as the former Soviet Union, the UK, Japan, the US, and Canada. ...[11 ".

Mixed discussion in an article two different subjects («Technogenic Crop circles»; «Natural crop circles») is a variant of original research on the method creation «Crop circles».

TVERD (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, we need to separate the man-made (fool-made) circles and circles which origin is unknown, 99% I would guess. And just describe their characteristics: size (up to 1 km), complexity (hundreds of inner elements), embedded mathematical formulas etc etc. 220.255.1.24 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose we start to draft a new article

Admins can work with us. The main point of this article should be facts about the phenomenon Crop Formations, no fringe theories, just facts. We can invite collaborators - scientists, researchers and ask them to provide reliable information. If somebody wants to squeeze in his own circle, no big deal, we can give him "see also" section.220.255.1.24 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Useful suggestion, realization of which is able to improve in Wikipedia information about «Crop circles».

TVERD (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is entitled to "start a new draft" of the article, but do not do so in the article as it is, and do not replace the current article contents without a clear consensus. Instead, write your draft in a sandbox in your user space, then link it here for others to read and comment. That's the best way to proceed, instead of reverting and arguing back and forth in the current article and its edit summaries. But please take the time and effort to conform to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:RECENT, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE (and yes it is relevant; one editor does not declare that policy off limits here), and WP:NOR. Otherwise, you're wasting your time because it will never make it into the article. If we need more eyes from the wider Wikipedia community on a proposed draft, we can set up an RfC. Cresix (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the research of Dr. Reynolds since none have responded to it here or in CSICOP; he was a respected authority in mineralogical imaging and concluded from using Talbott's data that the spherules were formed by 'an energy unknown to science'. It is saddening to see any references to this eminent man and Roebling medal winner deleted from this article simply because he had disagreed that any circle could be attributed to hoaxing as a result of the tests that he ran. If this was not verifiable or biased then that would be something different.

"All characteristics of crop circles are fully compatible with them being made by hoaxers" This is wrong per the research of Dr. Reynolds and the superlative should be qualified as I have mentioned elsewhere on this page (search 'Reynolds', and also see this direct link already discussed in talk archive: http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.php#personnel).204.99.118.9 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the point made about the Doug and Dave story being laced throughout the article unjustly. This story had no evidence to support it. Therefore how is it justified to spam mention of it in nearly every section of the article, including the introduction? This (the main point) was not addressed by a single subsequent comment in this section. Furthermore the final point made by this individual (above) is crucial to the validity of this article and has yet to be addressed by anyone other than myself (see the section "Review of recent deletions" Exhibit H). Stochastikos (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of recent deletions

Exhibit A:
"While it is not known how all crop circles are formed, the most likely theory as put forth by scientists and

skeptics is that all of them were made by hoaxers."

  • This is biased speculation. What makes it the most likely theory? There are scientists who actually get into

the fields and do research who would not "put forth" this theory. Thus a sweeping generalization such as

this is erroneous and misleading.

Exhibit B:
"After Bower's and Chorley's 1991 confession that they were responsible for most of them, circles started

appearing all over the world."

  • This sentence implies responsibility. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) This is the fallacy of assuming that A

caused B simply because A happened prior to B.

  • Also, the use of the word confession implies some validity. Claimed is the proper word when

addressing the Bower and Chorley story, due to the fact that they did not provide any evidence to support

it.

Exhibit C:
"Hoaxers Bower and Chorley were inspired by this case to start making the modern crop circles that appear

today."

  • This implies that they are making the modern crop circles that appear today.

Exhibit D:
"The concept of crop circles began with the original 1970s hoaxes by Bower and Chorley."

  • This assumes their claims of creation were true.

Exhibit E:
"Bower and Chorley confessed in 1991 to making the first crop circles in South England. "

  • This sentence does not need to be in the article more than once. And again, the use of the word

confession implies some validity. Claimed is the proper word when addressing the Bower and Chorley story,

due to the fact that they did not provide any evidence to support it.

Exhibit F:
"When some people refused to believe them, they purposefully added straight lines and squares to show

that they couldn't have natural causes."

  • This assumes all "natural causes" have been documented. Nature does in fact produce straight lines.

Exhibit G:
"In a copycat effect, increasingly complex circles started appearing in many countries around the world,

including fractal figures."

  • This assumes that A) the subsequent crop formations were made by copy cats and B) that Bower and

Chorley actually made the crop formations they claimed.

Exhibit H:
"All characteristics of crop circles are fully compatible with them being made by hoaxers."

  • The statement from the reference is actually: "These and other characteristics are entirely consistent with the work of hoaxers." And this is after the author lists five characteristics of the phenomenon not physical crop circles. This is a clear twisting of words.

Exhibit I:
"The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank."

  • A skepdic.com article does not validate this sweeping generalization.

Exhibit J:
"The weather theory suffered a serious blow in 1991, but Hawking's point about hoaxes was confirmed,

when Bower and Chorley confessed that they had been responsible for making all those circles."

  • The first part would need a bit of elaboration.
  • The second part once again implies that Bower and Chorley's story was true.

Exhibit K:
"They are most likely made by imitators of Bower and Chorley."

  • This is biased speculation.

Stochastikos (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you tried this before[3]. Your last version of the article after you edited in November 2010 is [4]. You didn't have consensus then and you don't now. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Digging up revisions from two years ago doesn't address any of the points made here. I will refer you and others reading this to my recent reply on your talk page [5] Stochastikos (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Doug, there no consensus for the deletion. If you really want to write an article about Crop Circles that fits your own personal opinions, then may I suggest Wikia, for example http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/ or http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Crop_circles or even start your very own wiki there. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't added any opinion to the article. I have simply removed redundant, false and/or misleading information. Please direct me to where it says I need consensus to remove false and/or misleading information. I have no interest in writing about crop circles. My intention is to purge this article of anything that is false and/or misleading which compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. I was asked to discuss my edits thus I wrote the list above. Suggesting I go elsewhere is not discussing the points I have made, nor is it in the spirit of Wikipedia. Stochastikos (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Neither is constantly missing the point of other's comments. Everything on Wikipedia needs consensus. There is no consensus for your removals. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob Re-born: «Everything on Wikipedia needs consensus». This is true. Stochastikos identified 11 proposals in the text. Stochastikos proves (Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K), that these proposals misleads and creates worsening the article. None of the 11 statements is not rebutted opponents. Therefore, the consensus is that point of view Stochastikos not disproved. TVERD (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. There is clearly no consensus about these edits, and although I can see a case for some rewording, I don't see a case for all the deletions of material source from skeptics nor for the addition of unsourced material such as "However, they did not provide evidence that supported these claims". Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No one has suggested the deletion of all material sourced from skeptics. Stochastikos (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Artistic/commercial crop circles

I would like to make a point that is hopefully unrelated to the endless "debate." (And please, remember your WP:EQ.)

It seems to me that there is a slight contradiction between the discussion of Art and business crop circles, and the Explanations section which says that most or all (sometimes it says most, sometimes all) are pranks or hoaxes. That is, not all of the crop circles can be pranks if some of them have other motives. Even "most" is problematic without a source discussing the proportions of hoax versus other motivations.

I would make the edit myself, but I am unsure how to proceed.

Opinions? --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Off topic
I have just addressed this in the section directly above. The sentence in question has no validity, because the citation is unacceptable by the standards set by Wikipedia. This is why I originally removed the sentence. It needs to be removed again. No amount of discussion will make the citation or statement valid. Stochastikos (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Stochastikos, I am not sure if you have understood my point. I am not discussing WP:Citations or WP:NPOV, I am simply trying to smooth out any contradictions in the article. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Removing the erroneous sentence removes the contradiction you are talking about. I was referring to: "The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank." Are you talking about something else in the Explanations section? Stochastikos (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
As discussed above, I am not talking about the endless debate over the true nature crop circles. Nor am I addressing your proposed version of the article. If you feel other editors have removed your edit unfairly, I advise you to read WP:COOL.
I would like to remove contradictions from the article as it stands. Not oppose the validity of one or other side. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say anything regarding "the true nature of crop circles". I'm not involved in that "endless debate". The citation for that sentence is bogus. The unreferenced diatribe is contrary to all three article policies listed at the top of this page. My opinion as you have ask for is: remove the sentence which we have been speaking about, and then the contradiction goes away. Stochastikos (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, teach the controversy. But assuming we don't follow your above plan of removing all refernces to scientific consensus. Do you have another suggestion for removing the contradiction? Andrewaskew (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue that these "art" and "commercial" crop circles are still pranks. Look at the definition of "prank" in Wiktionary:
  • A practical joke or mischievous trick.
Can't artists and commercial organizations play practical jokes or use mischievous trickery? When a company makes a crop circle with their logo in it and presents it as if aliens (or whatever) made it - then isn't that a mischievous trick or a practical joke? Unless the circles were indeed made by aliens or some bizarre natural phenomenon, then IMHO, they are all pranks. SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps there may be cases where a circle was created for artistic or commercial reasons but presented as real. (I'd argue that this is a more complex case than a simple prank, but that is neither here nor there.) Several of the cases presented in the Art and business section were never purported to be real, so were never designed to trick anyone. These days there are many more reasons to create crop circles than simple pranks, and our Explanations section should reflect that. Andrewaskew (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician

The article is clearly biased, as UTC says in the first paragraph of this page. UTC and others, you may be interested to know that others have raised this concern in previous (now archived and out of sight) talk articles. Wikipedia is fantastic, I actually think they might have a gun to their head on this one. They are just so blatantly lying here, yet in most articles they are honest, intelligent, incredibly thorough - I love Wikipedia, but they are not going to acknowledge the truth on this one. I don't know why.

Anyway, here is a link to an interview with Gerald S. Hawkins. http://www.share-international.org/archives/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm

Subtitled: "A radio astronomer reports on the mathematical relationships within the elements of crop circles in England."

New Euclidian geometry found in crop circles.

This interview is amazing, and destroys the Bower and Chorley claim on two levels. Also the scientist wrote to them - they never replied. If you are interested in this subject or in gathering new evidence to put to the Wiki team, please read this article - you will be amazed. Cheers to all, Dave, blucat. 121.91.24.174 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was torn apart in Glassner, A.; , "Crop art. Part 1. Computer graphics," Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE , vol.24, no.5, pp. 86- 99, Sept.-Oct. 2004. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Hawkins interview is lent absolutely no credence by the fact it is published in Share International magazine. Those whack-jobs make Crop Circle UFO believers look as sober as a judge. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Doug and Dave scam

The Doug Bower and Dave Chorley story has its own section. The MANY redundant entries placed through out the article have been removed. (Well that's now all been undone with a single click of a button after I spent the time to address every single item I removed with a comment.) Not only were they redundant, many of them were being used as a device to imply certain things that have no validity. There is a serious distinction between a skeptic and someone who uses implication and bogus citations to mislead the reader. Stick to the facts. Keep the information about them in their section. Their story never had any evidence to support it. It is worth mentioning (within its section) due to the widespread coverage it received. The fact that the story was covered to the extent that it was, without any credibility, also shows the integrity of the companies that ran the story. The question is why do people feel the need to lace this article with bogus and misleading information? If the phenomenon is so cut and dry: wouldn't the facts, the evidence, show it as such? Why would you need to use implication as a device? Wouldn't a true skeptic be skeptical about Doug and Daves claims of using a single metal loop on a baseball cap to create straight lines in the dark? Wouldn't a true skeptic be skeptical about Doug and Daves claims of having jumped or pole vaulted (more than eleven feet) to explain how they didn't leave tracks in certain cases? They would have been doing this in their late fifties. Wouldn't a true skeptic be skeptical simply because they claimed to have made all of these circles, without providing a shred of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stochastikos (talk • contribs) 03:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll discuss this later when I have time. Meanwhile, my removal was not vandalism, as you call it. And see WP:BRD. You made some bold changes, I reverted them, now we discuss them. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editor Guy Macon:

While I do not agree with simply deleting the multiple references to Bower and Chorley, the articles makes several claims that do not appear to be in the sources cited.

Wikipedia:
"The concept of crop circles began with the original 1970s hoaxes by Bower and Chorley..."

Source:
"However, even then hoax circles were not original: Wood (2000) admitted that as an evacuee in 1940 he was sent to a farm in Gloucestershire, where he and several friends marked out ‘patterns in standing cereal crops by running around in them.’ Later, he admits, ‘one of our gang hit upon the ideas of making circles and other shapes using a length of rope..."

Wikipedia:
"After Bower's and Chorley's 1991 confession that they were responsible for most of them..."

Sources:
"It appears that the numerous circles he created with Dave Chorley encouraged numerous imitators."
"It appears that many of the British circles were created by hoaxers Doug Bower and Dave Chorley" (Note: "many" is not the same as "most")
"Even after Bower and Chorley confessed to making 250 formations, that still left more than 1000 other formations unaccounted for."
(Emphasis added.)

Our "The concept of crop circles began with" and "responsible for most of them" claims are directly contradicted by the sources cited. Deleting the multiple references is not the answer, but neither is leaving a bunch unsourced claims. What is needed is for someone to carefully go through the sources and to make the article follow what the sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. However, suggesting we can't use Hawking is ridiculous. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly right. The sources we have are sound. We just need to make sure the article follows the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy. I have tried to fix those two problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "However, suggesting we can't use Hawking is ridiculous." This is a Red herring. It does not have context in this section. I will assume you are making this comment in reply to my questions in the section "Unbiased? Not Really". Note that they are legitimate, straight forward, questions rather than a suggestion that "we can't use Hawking". To quote myself on this: "Why is Stephen Hawking's opinions on the topic relevant? Has he done any research, on crop circles, which is published?"
  • "The sources we have are sound." Not all of them.
  1. First of all this statement: "The concept of crop circles began with the original 1970s hoaxes[2] by Bower and Chorley.[3]" can not be validated by any reference. And the first reference does not appear to address this statement at all.
  2. The reference for the statement: "The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank." simply states: "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters." There is no citation. This is completely unacceptable as encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The article might as well be diatribe on someones blog. Stochastikos (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing two separate issues; whether a source is sound and whether the source says what Wikipedia claims that it says. The Skeptics SA guide to Crop circles and The Skeptic's Dictionary are reliable sources. We just need to make sure that they say what we say they say.
The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands. This is well-supported by multiple reliable sources, and there are no reliable sources documenting a scientific consensus for any other theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your claiming that "The Skeptic's Dictionary" is reliable does not make that true. Their article saying: "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters." does not validate the statement "The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank." Where can this scientific consensus be found and verified? Stochastikos (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

History introduction

Because no one has objected to my reasoning in the Review of recent deletions section I will start with the removal of the first sentence in the history section: "The concept of crop circles began with the original 1970s hoaxes by Bower and Chorley. " Reasons:

  1. It assumes their story is true.
  2. It is contradicted by the following sentence (which will be removed due to losing context).
  3. It can't be proven where a concept started.
  4. It is unverifiable information.

The remaining third sentence seems like it will be awkward alone. I suggest moving it into the first section. Stochastikos (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hum, I typed that text months ago [6]. I don't remember where I took it from, and it's not in the references of that paragraph. I have rewritten it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You didn't change the sentence in question at all. Nor have you addressed any of the four points listed. Stochastikos (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You can see the change in this diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have recently reviewed the original Doug and Dave article "Men who conned the world" (Today 1991). The "evidence" they provided consisted of pictures they had drawn and making a crop circle in front of the Today crew. Drawing a picture of a crop circle from years earlier does not prove they made that crop circle. Going out and making a new crop circle in front of Today employees does not prove that they made a crop circle from years earlier. So someone would need to provide the evidence they failed to, and validate their claims for them. Until then the sentence is erroneous and unverifiable. Stochastikos (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Where do we use that as a source? I couldn't find it. Your analysis isn't really relevant as the sources for the sentence are fine. The main problem is the 2nd sentence which misrepresented the source, which doesn't say earlier reports of "crop circles" but of "circular formations". Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You claim that the sources were fine. The first one actually didn't say anything regarding the sentence. It's OK though, I have rephrased the sentence to be verifiable and added the original story as a reference. Stochastikos (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see more information about the Doug and Dave story has been added to the history introduction. While the sentence is perfectly valid it only serves to elaborate on the Doug and Dave story. Isn't the purpose of a section's introduction to give a concise overview of that section? As it is, this introduction is a concise overview of the Doug and Dave story. On the same topic, the sentence: "They said that they were inspired by the Tully "saucer nest" case in Australia, where a farmer found a flattened circle of swamp reeds after observing an UFO." again serves to elaborate on the Doug and Dave story and is repeated two more times in the History section. At what point is information considered redundant on Wikipedia? I'll wait for an answer to that and start by moving the new sentence into the Doug and Dave section. Stochastikos (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The overview was a lot clearer before you started removing references you don't like and replacing them with details about Bower and Chorley[7]....
And I see that you removed Carl Sagan's mention of Bower and Chorley [8]....
Bower and Chorley are at the center of the mainstream and most accepted explanations for crop circles. It's only natural that they appear at many places. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus and editing

Stochastikos, please stop making edits which go directly against Wikipedia:Consensus. If you feel that other editors are not listening to your concerns here on the talk page, there are systems of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Andrewaskew (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say regarding the points made? Stochastikos (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We are encouraged to be bold. Wikipedia:Be_bold: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." I was bold and moved a sentenced after adding my reason here. You have edited without explanation. The content is only now in dispute and you need to make your objection. Stochastikos (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you do not fully grasp the point of WP:BRD, i.e. WP:CAREFUL. Boldness is an excelent way to begin editing an article, but there are two other key points in the cycle, revert, and discuss. It is fairly clear from the talk page that other editors had addressed your points. You have not constructed a compromise, instead you are maintaining your own position against consensus.
From BRD:
Maintaining boldness without compromise begins to become disruptive. I think you should also check out WP:FRINGE for why the scientific consensus is important.
Also, one minor point, the Outdent template you enjoy using looks alot cleaner if you include the number of colons being removed, as outlined on the documentation page. Andrewaskew (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding: "It is fairly clear from the talk page that other editors had addressed your points." Your saying that doesn't make it true. Could you list a few of the points I've made which have been addressed. I can't find any.
Since you took this discussion out of context by moving it to its own section, let me start by giving reference to the edit discussed link. The information that I moved was just added. I was the very first person to address it when I did that. I stated my reasons here first so that I could link to it. You then reverted without giving a reason. We are now in the discussion phase. Your accusation that I acted "directly against" consensus is erroneous. This was a simple case of the WP:BRD cycle.

Here are some points you have ignored. (Your saying that another editor is wrong doesn't make them wrong.)

See WP:CONSENSUS. There is clearly no consensus about these edits, and although I can see a case for some rewording, I don't see a case for all the deletions of material source from skeptics nor for the addition of unsourced material such as "However, they did not provide evidence that supported these claims"

— Dougweller

Where do we use that as a source? I couldn't find it. Your analysis isn't really relevant as the sources for the sentence are fine. The main problem is the 2nd sentence which misrepresented the source, which doesn't say earlier reports of "crop circles" but of "circular formations".

— Dougweller

You appear to be confusing two separate issues; whether a source is sound and whether the source says what Wikipedia claims that it says. The Skeptics SA guide to Crop circles and The Skeptic's Dictionary are reliable sources. We just need to make sure that they say what we say they say. The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands. This is well-supported by multiple reliable sources, and there are no reliable sources documenting a scientific consensus for any other theory.

— Guy Macon

There are probably others.

Also, if you felt that a discussion was going on, why did you continue to make edits? --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your examples don't show any of my points, or justifiable objection to any content currently in dispute.
  1. I never went on to reinstate the content quoted in the first example, nor is it in dispute.
  2. One source mentioned in the second example was shown to be invalid. Further, the information in question was not verifiable. I rephrased the sentence to be verifiable. There was no objection.
  3. I did not go onto remove the information that the third example was about. In fact I started a section to discuss it: link. No one has addressed a single point made yet.
I have made many other points that have not been addressed at all. This section is only serving as a distraction from the improvement of the article. I have put in significant effort to try to further my understanding of Wikipedia policy since Dougweller first informed me of the BRD cycle. Every edit I have made has been a good-faith effort toward improving the article and ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia. I'm requesting that you try to focus on helping in that endeavor. Stochastikos (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: "I have made many other points that have not been addressed at all", see that pot over there? What color is it? How about that kettle? Really? The same color? Well, how about that.
I said the sources are sound. You claimed that they aren't, but your reasoning confused two separate issues; whether a source is sound and whether the source says what Wikipedia claims that it says. I responded, pointing this out, and now you claim to have "started a section to discuss it", but the section you referenced did not in any way discuss whether or not the sources are sound. Thus, my point "has not been addressed at all" by you.
BTW, continually creating new sections on the same topic rather than answering people under their comments is annoying. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First sentence of Man made section

The sentence in question is:
"The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank."

The source actually says: "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters."

  • This doesn't validate the sentence in question.
  • Even if it did the author doesn't provide a citation or any reasoning; it appears to be his opinion.

I would remove the sentence. Are there any other justifiable alternatives? Stochastikos (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We have already explored the topic of when to refer to scientific consensus at length on the various climate change pages. The term is not a weasel word in cases where most or all peer reviewed science agrees about something. If you wish to remove the phrase, I would suggest starting by coming up with a single peer-reviewed paper that argues for any cause other than humans. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The term scientific consensus is specific and technical. It is entirely correct in context. The scientific consensus is that most crop circles are man made, and the few that are not have prosaic explanations (e.g. meteorological effects). Feel free to show any significant scientific dissent form this, in the form of papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. In any matter of science, the scientific consensus is a valid and relevant concept. The scientific consensus is that earth is warming due to human activity, the scientific consensus is that life on earth evolved from common ancestors by means of natural selection, the scientific consensus is that homeopathy is a placebo. There are so many supporting references in each case that it is sufficient to cite review articles which state the consensus view and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Still not tidied up

The History section continues to start with what is a demonstrably false assertion. It is backed up by five references, but all of them seem to be by people and groups openly hostile to the subject. Since these are not impartial, nor particularly scientific sources, they carry no more weight that five references, which could easily be added, from believers in the supernatural.

The statement I am referring to is "The concept of crop circles began with the original late-1970s hoaxes by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley".

1. There is no evidence that D&D made any circles in the late-1970s, except inasmuch as they say they did.

2. Even if they did, it is not the case that these were in any way "original". There are several published photos of circles prior to the late-1970s, from various countries.

3. If the "concept" of crop circles means that's when they started appearing, that's just false. Again, there are photos published before 1978, and even a magazine article on circles in Canada published in 1979.

D&D should feature in the history of the subject, but not in the sense of believing their claims are true. What they did, what is verifiable, is their claim to have done something. That's what the article should report rather than taking a POV that their story is (or isn't) true.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.197.177 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 April 2013

Doug and Dave claimed all circles made before 1978 (in their area), not just late-1970s circles. See later in the article " Doug and Dave claimed to be responsible for all circles made prior to 1978, and for more than 200 crop circles in 1978–1991 (which other 1000 circles not being made by them)". Scratch that, see a 1991 article by The Economist: "Flattened (crop circle hoax)" [This year, however, the owning up of hoaxers has become a chorus that even the credulous can no longer ignore. Among the confessed are: * Dave Chorley and Doug Bower, who have been making circles for 13 years [1991 - 13 = 1978] (...) The experts are hastily inventing new arguments: (...), that the recent appearance of circles in Canada proves that hoaxers cannot be the cause (illogical), that the sheer number of circles defies the hoax explanation (why?), that they can always tell hoaxes from genuine ones (see above), that circles pre-date 1978, (...).
Other people might have made other circles in other areas, but they didn't keep doing it over years. D&D kept making circles in that area of England until it became a sociological phenomena, which means that their work is a central aspect to the origins. And their confession destroyed the reputation of crop researchers, which makes the confession very notable. Reliable sources accepted in 1991 that D&D were most likely the originators of the circles. D&D make a hoax circle and it was verified as authentic by crop researchers, reliable sources took this as proof that D&D's claims were believable. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and those sources say that the phenomena originated with D&D, and that D&D's claims are most likely authentic. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I introduced a mistake back in December 2012. I an't find th original Today article, but other articles referenced it, and they cite 1978 as the date of the first circle, for example [9]. You can find similar articles in Questia.com and Highbeam.com. See also the The Economist article in my comment above. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
What does the term mean? "The concept of crop circles"? Crop circles did not start appearing in 1978 as D&D claim. There are several photos and eye witness decriptions of circles published prior to that year. The "concept" of crop circles needs to be clarified. The term itself came into use in the late 1980s. They were universally referred to as mystery circles in the early 1980s - so what does the statement actually mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.151.51 (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Almost" entirely man-made?

The introduction now says that "the scientific consensus is that crop circles are almost entirely man-made with a few exceptions possibly due to meteorological or other natural phenomena." (Emphasis mine.) The man-made section says that "the scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank." (Emphasis again mine.) There is a world of difference "almost entirely" and "most or all." The later means that we have an explanation which may cover everything. The former means that there are some cases we have not explained.

The man-made sentence is an earlier edit. Has the scientific consensus changed? Because these two sentences contradict. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The first remark about the scientific consensus is unsourced, but if you look further down you find a reapeat: "The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank." This one is sourced, but the source is just some amateur skeptic site which offers nothing to indicate a consensus among scientists, and their own references are unrepresentative of the scientific community generally.
To my knowldge there is nothing extant which shows any sort of scientific consensus on the subject. Hardly any scientists even mention crop circles, let alone have a consensus view, and let alone one which is published and could be used as a source. It's just a silly remark to include in the article, unless a decent source can be given.
If you want to make the two read the same, I don't see why not - whether it's going to be "entirely" or "almost entirely" - pick whichever you prefer! There's nothing to back up either except one's personal perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.122.80 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

scientific consensus

A recent edit claims: scientific consensus is that crop circles are made by light balls.

The source is Eltjo H. Haselhoff, the author of "The Crop Circles: Facts and Fictions" and "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles: Scientific Research and Urban Legends"

The publisher is Frogs Books, a "Leading publisher of books on alternative and holistic health, martial arts, bodywork, psychology and spirituality. Other publishing strengths include politics, science, sports, fiction and metaphysics"[10]

The author is the chairman of the Dutch Centre for Crop Circle Studies. Now, Peter Jan Margry, a "Senior Researcher Religious Culture at the Meertens Institute", wrote a scholar book in an academical publisher, and he said that this organization is a "New Religious Movement" belonging to New Age. He also says:

The Dutch cereologist Eltjo Haselhoff and former chair of the DCCCS, who had a PhD in physics, made the balls-of-light theory accepter within the international frontier science community. An article on the subject of the balls of light was accepter in the peer-reviewed journal Physiologia Plantarum, and Haselhoff explains his theory once more in his book The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles (...) The balls of light use the Earth's energy lines, or 'ley lines', to imprint a pattern in a crop. (...) A growing number of witnesses, photos and videos may back up the theory - but skeptics have all kinds of other explanations for sightings of balls of light. (...) Nonetheless, the sighting of light phenomena is well known in folklore and folktales (...). In the past, beings of light have received such names as fairy (light), ball of light, pixie, will-o'-the-wisp and jack-o'-lantern.

Note that he says "international frontier science community". I found this definition: "'frontier science' is not completely reliable. It is just the latest information that has been made widely available through scientific publishing. (...) Frontier science may be unreliable and fraud occurs in the domain of 'frontier science', but the final filtrate ('textbook science') is always very reliable and useful." [11]

I think that this author represents a fringe viewpoint. That the viewpoint got famous only because the author has a PhD in physics (as Margry implies). And it's based on ley lines, which are a New Age concept and are rejected by scientist consensus. This theory is not generally accepted by the scientists in general.

Haselhoof's paper in Physiologia Plantarium [12] does not assess scientific consensus. And the end it says that "By no means does the author pretend to present a ‘lithmus test’ for distinction between a ‘genuine’ crop formation, whatever it may be, and a hand-flattened area of crop" and the data is "interesting and stimulates further study." --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasselhoff's "paper" is in fact just some remarks on the earlier Levengood paper. It's not a peer-reviewed piece of research. In it, he mentions "balls of light" briefly, and gives three points of reference: Van den Broeke; personal communication; Meaden 1991.
Van den Broeke refers to Robert van den Broeke, a Dutch individual who claims all sorts of preposterous supernatural abilities and effects, and who has produced fabricated photos from beyond the grave of crop circle researchers. He is clearly profoundly deluded. There is plenty of info available online.
Personal communications are impossible to evaulate so we have to disregard them.
Meaden 1991 is an abscure book called "Circles from the Sky". I have a copy. Meaden does discuss Balls of Light briefly, but in necessarily vague terms, in respect of a few reports he has had from people claiming to have seen aerial luminosities where crop circles formed, with more extensive remarks from his co-authors on how such things might have implications for UFO reports. This is what Hasselhoff apparently relies on in his published piece, in suggesting Balls of Light are involved in the process of crop circle formation.
I've not read his book, but there is no evidence at all to my knowledge (and I know a lot about the subject) to suggest that there is any scientific consensus whatsoever that crop circles are made by Balls of Light. It is a pure fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.98.192 (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


There should be more information on the organizations engaged in crop circle research: http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php No scientific material is being presented beyond general claims of scientific consensus, which is a barrier to continued research & education by the broader community. either way, there should be more commentary around the 'microwaves' and control studies, whether or not it's currently debated. The central point delivered by this article is that 2 people successfully created hoaxes.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.133.62 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there shouldn't be a section on research organisations, but you will struggle with "scientific material". There is hardly any. The microwaves idea is just that - speculation based on vaguely implied findings. The control studies, by which I presume you mean Levengood's, are scientifically meaningless because they aren't samples of manually flattened crop. He uses untouched crop stems for "controls". The fact that flattened stems differ from undamaged ones is to be expected, but as control studies, manually flattened samples are needed to see what happens to crops when pushed down by humans, and to see if it is different. As for the "2 people" (Doug and Dave) idea - it's ludicrous, but so many people have been taken in by it that it's almost impossible to rectify the slant in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.126.190 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Animal Activity

This section needs better sources or needs to be removed completely. All references to this on the web appear to only come from that highly suspect bbc article that is cited. There are no credible pictures of a wallaby created crop circle. Also, I not sure you çan make crop circles in a poppy field.

Bottom line, it seems like a hoax, and should be removed unless some reliable sources can be found.

Way back when, there was some mild speculation here and there that rutting deer or hedgehogs might make circles in fields. No-one took it seriously of course, but it sometimes got a mention in articles on the subject. This current one about wallabies comes into the same category. It's just a pointless remark with no bearing on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.40.171 (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


I just don't get it, let's be serious: there is a phenomenon, there are no explanations, proofs, only speculations. Let's just say it as it is. Or you mean dancing deer is a plausible explanation of a 500 m butterfly man crop circle. I am laughing as I write — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.67.124 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Refs formatted, refs and notes split, OR in lead section???

I have formatted the references fairly uniformly. I also split the notes out of the references to a separate section. In the process I found many of the refs are far from WP:RS. I tagged 2 that look like unpublished WP:OR. I am particularly concerned about the Northcote reference. I understand some of the information available on the subject comes from enthusiasts, so I didn't tag many self pub questionable sources but Northcote is used for content in the lead section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Northcote reference is an odd one. It looks like someone dropped it in only to push the hoax view. Virtually all crop circles appear in farm land or open countryside, so of course they are easily accessible. How could they not be? There are cases of circles being found in extremely remote places, and even in a field of thistles which investigators couldn't get to because of the sharpness of the plants. He might be right statistically, as we would expect, but the implication is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.157.119 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

Before I make my comment I first want to say that I personally believe that they are all man made. The Explanation section contains the following: "While it is not known how all crop circles are formed, the most likely theory as put forth by a variety of scientists and sceptics is that all, or virtually all, of them were made by people." How, exactly, is it being determined that it's "the most likely theory"? I concur with the view myself but information on Wikipedia isn't determined by personal opinions. The quote could be "according to scientists and sceptics", or "amongst scientists and sceptics", but to simply state that one particular theory is most likely - without specifying the person or group who is making the assertion - surely isn't right? FillsHerTease (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"I think the phrase "the most likely theory as put forth by a variety of scientists and sceptics" means the theory according to them. The theory they put forward.

"... While it is not known how all crop circles are formed ..."? This statement is not correct. It Proved, that «crop circles» are created by people The Crop Circle Making Competition http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/Cropcircles_Michellany.pdf , and are created by the abnormal natural phenomena Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk http://nyos.lv/en/krugi-na-poljah-30324/anomaljnoe---rasshirenie--uzlov-rastenij-30644 , CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY 'SAUCER NEST', CYCLONE 'JOY', UFO http://nyos.lv/en/neobychnoe-52201/krugi-na-poljah-avstralii-tully-saucer-nest-tsiklon-joy-nlo-509731 . Does not exist only one mechanism to create «crop circles». Even people use fundamentally different technologies for creating «crop circles». Hence can’t be «... the most likely theory ...». 188.112.170.48 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Substantial prove for lies?

However, in 1991, two hoaxers, Bower and Chorley, claimed authorship of many circles throughout England and one of their circles was certified as impossible to be made by a man by a notable circle investigator in front of journalists.

Where's the proof of this claims? Anybody can say anything. In fact, it was me who created the circles. Bower and Chorley are just liers. --178.197.236.101 (talk)

The proof that the hoaxers made this claim is in the New York Times article linked in the footnote. There's no proof that they actually made the circles, but the article doesn't say that they did. --McGeddon (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move "Archeological remains" text?

I just wondered if this text in the 2nd paragraph:

Archeological remains can cause cropmarks in the fields in the shapes of circles and squares, but they do not appear overnight, and they are always in the same places every year.

...should be moved elsewhere, as it seems to be only one comment of many re possible crop-circle origins. – AndyFielding (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This sentence should be moved to the body of the article. I didn't move it because I don't know where to put it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to move it yourself to an appropriate place, or make a new section. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The unjustly accused in vandalism.

Dear Dougweller, usually your actions helps to improve Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately the same can not be said about your estimates: "11:26, 22 December 2014 Dougweller (talk | contribs). . (45,037 bytes) (+51). . (Adding (TW)) (undo | thank) »; "11:26, 22 December 2014 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m. . (44,986 bytes) (0). . (Protected Crop circle: Persistent vandalism ([Edit = Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 11:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)))) ». User 77.162.22.34 has replaced the text «... The scientific consensus ...» on more justified text «... The wikipedia's authors consensus ...». Disagreement (removal from article, the punitive actions) with the text «... The wikipedia's authors consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank ...» means, that are not exist the consensus between wikipedia's authors relatively the phrase «... on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank ...».User 77.162.22.34 one from authors. Moreover «... most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank ...» - these are two divergent views. In article the refusal from the text «... The wikipedia's authors consensus ...» automatically makes in the article unjustified to using, in relation to Crop circle, the conception of «... The scientific consensus ...» . Moreover, to which of the science are Crop circle: physics, mechanics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and others. In the article is not reported name of such science. At the article, in which not specified name of science, can not be used concept «... The scientific consensus ...». In The vast majority of the links in the article are mentioned writers, artists, people without profession, volunteers and others. All of them are not scientists. With that said, a User 77.162.22.34 raised the issue of improving of the text of the article, and for this he was unjustly accused of vandalism. TVERD (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole concept of a scientific consensus is to say the least strange. For one thing, virtually no scientists ever mention crop circles, much less research them. There's no place I am aware of that scientists have ever expressed a collective view of the phenomenon.
The article itself is built on the flimsiest of references - skeptics' websites, newspaper cuttings, opinion pieces and so on. The actual crop circle literature is barely considered - presumably on the basis that it isn't robust enough - but a tabloid news story apparently is. Go figure.
There is no scientific consensus to remark on here. 149.241.229.173 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe - but one could certainly write "academic consensus." Re TVERD's comments - where exactly has the anon IP you refer to "raised the issue of improving the text of this article"? I can only see a couple of edit summaries and then a whole series of reverts. (I'm assuming the point you are trying to express is about "Those unjustly accused of vandalism") Nickm57 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
What academic consensus? Where? Where and when did academics ever put forward a collective view of crop circles?149.241.229.173 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The article does cite scientific sources, so I don't think your characterization of the references as poor is completely fair. The scientific consensus on crop circles includes scientists who have looked into this issue and, while they may be few, none have exactly endorsed any explanation other than human artifact (i.e. hoax). The article seems quite fair and NPOV to me in that it goes out of its way to describe (without derision or mockery) claims for other causes beyond people having fun. (C.f. the Bigfoot article in which a few legitimate scientists have championed the claim that bigfoot is a real animal, and their arguments are described in detail.) Since most of the alternative explanations for crop circles are so unlikely, outre, and outrageous, the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to argue them. If you have any sources which provide that kind of argument or evidence, please add it to the articleMichaplot (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"With more than 10 000 patterns documented over the years, crop formations remain a major scientific mystery" Richard Taylor (August 2011). "Coming soon to a field near you" (PDF). Feature: Crop circles. Physics World. 78.250.165.14 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
149.241.229.173 very accurately pointed out the shortcomings of the article.

Opinion Michaplot - "... The article seems quite fair and NPOV to me ..." not substantiated evidence that: • article describes all opinions, with sufficient detail; • Advertisements in the article the scientific consensus is a fact; Interested people (hoaxers) creates (different ways) man-made crop circles in places, which accessible to the person. After that, they attracts other people who study these images. In the end, all participants play, together and argues «that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank». However, is not exist work, that has convincingly proved «that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank». It is impossible prove that in the creation of crop circles people surpassed nature. Nature creates Crop circles in different ways. Man rarely learns about these crop circles and their quantity. More rarely, they become the object of study. Some natural processes are described in a number of publications. For example, in the section «Explanation» were mentioned works: The Crop Circle Making Competition http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/Cropcircles_Michellany.pdf , and are created by the abnormal natural phenomena Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk http://nyos.lv/en/krugi-na-poljah-30324/anomaljnoe---rasshirenie--uzlov-rastenij-30644 , CROP CIRCLES OF AUSTRALIA: TULLY 'SAUCER NEST', CYCLONE 'JOY', UFO http://nyos.lv/en/neobychnoe-52201/krugi-na-poljah-avstralii-tully-saucer-nest-tsiklon-joy-nlo-509731 . Does not exist only one mechanism to create «crop circles».TVERD (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"The article does cite scientific sources, so I don't think your characterization of the references as poor is completely fair. The scientific consensus on crop circles includes scientists who have looked into this issue" - OK - who are you referring to? Which scientists have conducted any research, or published anything on the subject?
There are one or two somewhat respectable sources in amongst all the media articles and skeptic spokespeople, but nothing robust and nothing to demonstrate any consensus.
I could actually give you several scientists who have published to the contrary, and put forward alternative views, in peer-reviewed articles, research theses and so on - but I've tried before. They just aren't going to be allowed for whatever reason. I've tried before and it's futile. No matter - if there is a scientific consensus, where is it, because I don't see it in the references. 149.241.0.56 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what you get if you build an article on sources such as self-appointed skeptiks and media stories. Garbage like this, which is all sourced and referenced, but palpable nonsense nevertheless - because the sources are entirely without authority:

- "There are other pre-1970s reports of circular formations, especially in Australia and Canada, but they were always simple circles, which could have been caused by whirlwinds.[8]" - No they couldn't be formed by whirlwinds. Whirlwinds always flow upwards, away from the ground.

- "The coining of the term "crop circle" is attributed to Colin Andrews in the late 1970s / early 1980s.[14][15]" - Colin Andrews never even saw a crop circle until 1983, let alone coined the term in the 1970s.

- "Sceptics note a correlation between crop circles, recent media coverage, and the absence of fencing and/or anti-trespassing legislation.[22]" - there has always been anti-tresspass legislation in the UK, and in the mid-1990s the Criminal Justice Act made tresspass a criminal offence, not a civil one. After that... crop circles still abounded.

- "In 2000, the BBC reported that Dr. Colin Andrews, who had researched the crop circles for 17 years, stated that while he believed 80% were man-made, some were created by a shift in the magnetic field, that creates a current that "electrocutes" the crops, causing them to flatten and form the circle.[62]" - apart from the fact that the "belief" is utterly without foundation, Colin Andrews is not a doctor, and does not hold a doctorate. He's a former council electrician.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. If the article is going to stand it should be based on research into the subject and not what ill-informed journos or "skeptics" have to say.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_9&oldid=1128584676"