Talk:Cattle mutilation/Notices2

Natural criticisms

From the article, the common criticisms of the natural hypothesis are:

   * A lack of teethmarks on carcases
   * A lack of tearing on the hide as predators enlarge holes in order to gain entry to the body
   * A lack of tearing on flesh around the mutilated areas caused by feeding predators/scavengers
   * A lack of predator's footprints around the site of the carcass (particularly in snow or soft ground)
   * A lack of secondary predation, even after several weeks

Now my problem with this is that none of this is actually unusual. Bloating, desication and insects (even a few crows) are more than sufficient to cause the majority of the symptoms given, but this criticism doesn't address them, instead focusing on the false idea that canine predators would have to be involved. How should we address this in the text? Jefffire 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe adding other physical signs like feathers from carion birds, droppings etc. Really, this is just an addition to the bit about the lab reports. It's of secondary importance to the 'fact' that there were sythetic coumpound and other anomolies in the animals. Do you have any ideas?

perfectblue 13:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalous chemicals would pose an actual problem to the "Natural predation" hypothesis. However, as far as I know there is no reliable source that there have been such observstions. Jefffire 13:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the the Kissinnee Diagnostic Laboratory at the Florida Department Of Agriculture & Consumer Services count as reliable? They found Furaltadone, Oxipronolol Acetate, Amfetaminil in a cows liver and autic system. None of those chemicals should be there.

I have a feeling that you will just discount anybody that I pick.

perfectblue 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do provide links to the original articles. Jefffire 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Furaltodone is a common additive to animal feed. Did you mean to say Oxyprenolol Acetate? Jefffire 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoting somebody else, I meant to say what they said. If the chemical is wrong then the source is wrong.

perfectblue 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source is mistaken. Looks like he has insinuated that a bunch of common agricultural chamicals are unusual, and mispelled one. This illustrates the importance of Reliable Sources. Jefffire 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a load of reports from the FBI, they are badly xeroxed so they are hard to read, but I presume that they are official enough for you.

perfectblue 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so good as to prove links to said FBI files? Otherwise we are discussing Original Research. Jefffire 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my work, it comes directly from the FBI. The link has been on the page ever since I put up the 'Official Explanation' section. http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/ufoanim.htm

I've read them already. There does not appear to be anything of note there. Jefffire 09:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I think that in the first section, especially, certain persons are shown in a negative/derogatory light. "For each reasonable hypothesis proposed by skeptics, Larson proposes an even wilder counter-theory." This language is highly biased, and seems to scoff at Bob Larson. Regardless if he is a quack or not, more neutral words should be chosen to represent both him and those who oppose him. NCartmell 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this seciton and removed that comment. It's now a bit more level

perfectblue 13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources

I have found some interesting stuff on http://www.paranetinfo.com/UFO_Files/ufo/english1.txt attempting to debunk Bill English and his mutilaiton stories, as well as a pro english long peace at http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/government_ufo_coverups/grudge13.html. Maybe somebody could work them in to the article.

Verification

Much still needs to be done on verification. Many paragraphs are entirely unverified. Of paricular note is "Government/Military Experimentation". For a start who, if any one, even claims this? Why would the government be able to afford laser scalpels, but not their own cattle and disposal facilities? Jefffire 12:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why would the government be able to afford laser scalpels, but not their own cattle and disposal facilities?".

Are you asking me to speculate? perfectblue 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important one now: WP:RS. Jefffire 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also the guidance on "Undue weight". Jefffire 12:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I've given undue weight to something, you are perfectly free to put in a counter section. I've already done this with the natural causes section that shows two views on comon mutilation sign. Could you also please be a little more specific. Which sections exactly? There is a lot here, could you please point me towards the key areas so that I can consentrate on them.

perfectblue 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the "Common Criticisms of the Natural Causes Hypothesis" section (aside from the fact that it's the only criticism section). Basicaly the criticism is that it doesn't explain all mutilations. But the natural effects hypothesis doesn't claim to explain all mutilation, just most (since it seems fairly obvious to every one that were will be a few sociopaths with a cow fetish whatever else may or may not be happening). It seems to me that this point is not being neutral explained. Jefffire 12:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it.

The main reason that it is the only critisism section is that most of the other arguments are completely speculative, and so are their critisisms. It's like trying to clear the mist by pumping smoke into a room.

I'm trying to fight a crank by citing a kook. I so much prefer working with Wiki's on pure fiction.

perfectblue 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well put. I'll give the page a once over later and see where that leaves us. Jefffire 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bovine Excision?

First off, thanks to perfectblue for all the hard work on this article. This isn't an easy subject and feelings on both sides of this are strong. Finding a path down the middle hasn't been easy. I'll do my best to support your efforts in this endeavor. My one question is this: Can we get a scholarly definition of the term Bovine Excision? It seems to be analogous to the Blown Nodes of crop circle researchers. Do non-biased researchers use the term? Do only proponents of the mutilation theory use it? I've seen a few sources that use it but only as a way to lend a psuedo-scientific air to their commentary. Who orignated the term? I'll be looking for this info myself but any help is appreciated. Thanks Lisapollison 16:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do non-biased researchers use the term", I have found more evidence for the existance of cattle mutilaitons than I have for the existance of non-bias researchers.

perfectblue 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great comeback! Still, do you know when this term first came into use and who coined it? Without that info, the claim that Cattle Mutilation is also known as bovine excision is weak and undocumented. When I googled, I found a few references to the term but it was like s snake biting its tail - they all led back to eachother.Lisapollison 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I 'suspect' that the term was first coined by the NIDS or a like minded individual who wanted to draw cattle mutilation away from the freaks and geeks camp and into the science/psudo science camp, but I don't know where it first originated from. At this point I think that it's best to recognize that the term exists neutrally, rather than say that its a psudo-science con term.

perfectblue 10:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked long and hard to find a use of the term that didn't originate with the one cited source and I cannot. I would respectfully suggest that you consider removing th term altogether since it is not in general use. It also sends up a red flag for me that reads : Watch out, psuedoscience gobbleydeegook to follow. You've worked so hard on this article. I feel that tossing this made-up fake-sceince term in at the beginning undermines your efforts to bring the article in line with verifiable sources. if the term were in general use by Cattle Mutliation researchers, then yes, it should stay. However, it is not. I feel you gain more credibilty by losing the reference to Bovine Excision. Just my opinion. Lisapollison 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some this and Some that

This article needs a general sweep of phrases such as:

Some people believe....
Some people say...
others say....

etc etc. These are known as weasel words because they cannot be verified, identified or quantified by the reader. Just say who believes what. Name the person or organization or loose group or if you don't name them, you must link to quote or a page that documents that belief. I'll try to help out with this. It's not as easy as making a simple edit here and there. I don't expect it will be easy to get this done quickly but it needs doing. Lisapollison 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that we standardize to using the word 'proponents': Meaning anybody and everybody who believe that cattle mutilatins aren't the result of natural phonomena, unless we are talking about a specific group or individual. In which case that person should be named.

I would also like to try to avoid using labels like Ufologist or Paranormal Investigator etc because these terms automatically sets up a bias in readers who are skeptics as it assosciates this phenomona with the supernatural and thus with kooks and cranks. Half of this article is about things like cults, sexual deviants and alleged animal experimentation, which are firmly down to earth and really don't need to be wrapped up in the paranormal.

We also need to be careful, some of the weasel words were edited out a while ago in a way that made it sound like an individual was the original source of some of the information on this site, when he was just a third party citing somebody else's work in his own.

perfectblue 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual calls himself a Ufologist then that's their business, no ours. It's up to the reader to decide if a man who describes himself as such is reliable, not us. Jefffire 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is up to the reader to decide who is reliable and who isn't, I may re-insert all of those links to the NIDS, and begin quoting George Onet again, yes?

perfectblue 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims are claims, but fact need reliable sources. Geocities sites are still ad laden garbage, and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:RS still stand. Jefffire 09:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were's talking verb usage here, not judgement of content. A claim and a report can both be inaccurate but it's important that we differentiate between the two.

perfectblue 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my original comment - there are too many sentence that begin with some people say this and Some people say that. If you mean proponents of CM theory (CM = Cattle Mutiliation), then just say proponents. I'm cool with that. I just wish there was a single group to refer to. I don't think there is. Some fo the proponents throw their weight behind the balck helicopter/govt conspiracy theory, other proponents hold to the aliens did it theory. I just think that where you can identify the some people subject of the sentence, you should. For example, you could say:

Some cattle herders believe (and link to the source)..blah blah..
Some Law Enforcement officers who have investiagted... believe...
Skeptical Researcher so and so says....(with link).. blah blah
CSICOP or MUFON Dude (insert name) says... blah blah

Do you see my point? The more you nail down these some people folks, the better the article will read. FYI,perfectblue, your hard work is not unappreciated. This isn't an easy subject to take on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisapollison (talk • contribs)

Very true. However I am concerned about the volume of the article which appears to be individual opinion. Specificly, I'm thinking of trimming (not cutting) John Lear. Jefffire 08:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

2nd hand Oregon UFO review and NIDS cites are not acceptable for verifying outside labratory reports. Either cite the original, or make it clear that thise is what the organisation is claiming the originl report said. Neither of these two are even halfway considered reliable sources as per WP:RS. Jefffire 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private labs don't print necropsy result on their public websites so primary sources are impossible in some of these cases. I have contacted more than one of these groups, including university labs that have conducted necropsies but have either been blanked or goven the 'buy my latest book' answer.

In other cases these lab reports are 20 or 30 years old and never were computerized. It is likely that some of them have been shredded and no longer exist in an original form.

perfectblue 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

In defense of the restored sections.

1) Cattle are not the exclusive victims of mutilation. The similarities and differences to other types of animal mutilations are relevant. This is especially important as the 'Animal Mutilation' page automatically redirects to 'cattle mutilation', and there exists no page to deal specifically with unexplained non-bovine mutilations.

2) It is a 'popular belief' that cults are responsible for cattle mutilations. Therefore it is appropriate that they be discussed in depth. This includes the reasons why cults may not be responsible, as well as who says that they are. The media attention given to this hypothesis alone makes it worthy of inclusion in a significant section.

4) Cults have also been shown to have committed large animal mutilations in Europe for decades, but not in the US, it is therefore important to discuss the similarities and differences of these cases. Particularly as it impacts significantly on public opinion (again, as 'animal mutilation' redirects to 'cattle mutilation' this seems an appropriate place to highlight the issue).

5) This page deals with both natural and unnatural mutilations (Predators, perverts and UFOs). It is therefore important that natural and unnatural be given equal weight, and that distinctions be drawn where they exist (eg horse ripping V horse/cattle mutilation and human mutilation V Muti killing).

6) Unmarked helicopters and aircraft were clearly associated with cattle mutilation by witness statements given to the FBI, and are therefore a viable part of mutilation folklore/fact. The section needs revision and downsizing.

perfectblue 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've missed the crux of my arguement. Could you verify that these phenomenon have been linked to cattle mutilation. I don't see why the vast majority of the cults section should comprise of the opinions of just one man and the debunking of his opinions. It's a clear Undue Weight issue. Jefffire 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific, which phenomena. You deleted rather a lot of text.

1) This page isn't about mutilated cows it is about 'the phenomena of cattle mutilatoin'. Showing that other animals are mutilated too is clearly relevant as it shows both links and discrepancies to facts and popular myths of the phenomena. You left the section about Lady the horse in. as well as the foreword about sheep and horese being mutilated, so it must be relevent that other animals suffer the same thing.

2) How, exactly, do you suggest that I verify something that is part of an unexplained phenomena? The best that I can do is to find proof that people believe that there are links and then show the reasons why they believe this. Can you verify that they are not linked to CM?

3) The PP were near identical to the cattle mutilations, except not with cattle. There's a trace link right there.

4) The best way to solve undue weight is not for you to delete the section, it is for you to ADD weight to the other side of the argument. Create, don't destroy. The anti-cult arguments are all valid. If you feel that it is out of balance, then YOU need to ADD some pro-cult.

I did this by adding information later on to say that cults had been shown to be involved in horse mutilations, and so could be involved in cow mutilations too.

perfectblue 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firsly, undue weight isn't the only problem, there is also notability. The opinions of a single kook do not warrent an extended section. Secondly, I'm asking for the verification that these phenomenon are being reliably linked. If they are then mention that, but extended sections on it are clearing violating OR. It is up to the editor wanting inclusion to provide evidence that the two are linked, and not the other way around. Jefffire 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just telling me to do something, why don't you suggest how I can do it in a way that satisfies you. If you don't tell me what you think is good enough, it's kind of hard for me to level. What would you consider to be sufficient?

I can drag out 10 kooks, or link to 10 website, claiming that there is a links. I can even find you a couple of reports from officials asking the FBI to investigate possible links. In fact I specifically started off on the horse trail to show that there are real links between 'some' animal mutilations and cults but not others However nobody has ever been convicted of it.

"It is up to the editor wanting inclusion to provide evidence that the two are linked, and not the other way around."

That was an invitation to participate in expanding this page. I'd much rather that you filled in the missing bits yourself than having to keep searching this page every few days to find out what you don't like about my edits.

I don't want this to be an edit war, but I can't tell what you're thinking so I can't do it.

perfectblue 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in textbook original research. You must provide verification that the subjects you write about are directly relevent to the article and none other. You've written a lot on horse ripping, but this is an article about cattle mutilation, why not put them into horse ripping instead and leave a brief mention that some have linked them? Wikipedia is not about quantity. loading it up with loads and loads of extranuos information will render it unusuable, which is why I am and will continue to delete any information which is not verified as correct and notable. It's nothing personaly, I've laid waste to vast swathes of Wikipedia. Jefffire 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be specific. I cannot read your mind.

perfectblue 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a total overhaul

I have reread this article carefully and began citing each sentence that contain a POV statement, a weasel word, a passive voice hedge or other such inadvertant weasel devices and the list got so long as to be unproductive. I have come to the conclusion that this article needs a total re-write to come into compliance with Wikipedia standards and style. I know perfectblue has worked long and hard on this article and I mean no disrepect by making this suggestion. I simply feel that a citation here and an added specification there are inadequate to bring the quality of this article up to par. I would ask however, that we not delete this article or tamper with it too much until I've had time to come up with some sample opening paragraphs for perfectblue to look over. Give me a week. if I don't come up with anything suitable, then continue patching and fixing the article as is. I believe we can do this right and still use perfectblue's basic layout. In addition, beefing up other articles on related topics and then linking to that material could help us with length and tangents.Lisapollison 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]