Jump to content

Talk:Crop circle/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Use of the words "hoax" and "hoaxers"

The article catagory clams that this is a HOAX. How odd!65.173.104.93 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the use of the word "hoax". It is only appropriate when a phenomenon is claimed as one thing but actually has a different cause. The crop circles, whatever they are, do not claim anything about themselves; so even if they are created by people whose methods can be described, there is no actual hoax - no one is pretending. The existence and meaning (if any) of the circles does not depend upon them being understood as (for example) of supernatural or extraterrestrial origin. I see no authority for considering that, in order to be the "real thing", a crop circle must be in some way paranormal. P. Yonge (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. They exist... and they have developed in to an art form. Put aside the "who made them?" question for a moment. They are numerous, usually elaborate and meticulous, often quite exquisite and made at night while trespassing. None of these factors contribute directly to a rational "hoaxer" discussion; when they simply exist, what exactly is the hoax? An actual hoax regarding the circles themselves would be if the photos turned out to be false and the crop formations don't really exist. Obviously, that is not the case. In all fairness media should be referring to the culprits as "artists". Unfortunately there is very little (if any) third party literature that discusses this matter. However, "believers vs hoaxers" is the common supernatural focused reduction for these otherwise anonymous creations... for wikipedia (a sourced encyclopedia) there appears to be very little neutral non-supernatural, or art focused media to draw from. - Steve3849 talk 00:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the article sounds like it was written by psudo-skeptic-activist-debunkers. It says there is "scant evidence" that is is anything but a hoax, when in fact there is plenty of evidence that it's art, advertisement, tourist-hooks, etc. 24.209.227.186 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A hoax is an attempt to deceive: some of the creators were careful to work in the middle of the night and leave no footprints, etc., apparently to deceive the gullible into believing no humans created the circles. But some "pranksters", we'll call them, may sneak around (to avoid being caught) but have no intention to influence public opinion. They just want to impress their drinking buddies. (Next time, they'll tie underwear to the top of a flagpole.) Finally, there are artists and geometers, who are trying to create beauty. If we don't want to differentiate between these groups, let's refer to "creators". Whalesmith (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

sources

This article references BLT research [[1]] and Haselhoff, Eltjo (2001) "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:Scientific Research & Urban Legends", Frog Ltd, ISBN 1583940464 BLT is a pseudoscience group who specializes in crop circles, there is no scientific value in what they do and the Haselhoff book is published by Frog inc which publishes books on paranormal phenomenon. These are not reliable sources, see wp:rs and wp:fringe. The problem is that to remove these sources we would have to remove a lot of material from the article and given the controversial nature of this topic I don't want to create a problem by removing too much. suggestions? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If BLT specializes in the study of crop circles i.e investigating the physical scene,then surely their research has some value? What makes them a "pseudoscience" group as opposed to a science group? Any article on crop circles should have some mention of any scientific research being done. The research may give more insight on how the circles (especially the very intricate ones) are being created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.75.218 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"real" crop circles

i'm confused by the unexplained references to "real" or "genuine" crop circles in this article. clearly all crop circles are real in the sense that they exist (as opposed to being, for example, photographic forgeries). for example:

Circlemakers.org, a group of crop circle makers founded by John Lundberg, have demonstrated that making what self-appointed cereologist experts state are "unfakeable" crop circles is possible. On more than one occasion, such cereologists have claimed that a crop circle was "genuine" when in fact the people making the circle had previously been filmed making the circle.[12]

i assume that the implication is that "real" crop circles would have been created by some supernatural force, while man-made circles are "fake". this seems like the wrong terminology, though; is there a different way to phrase this without being too cumbersome? kate.

The terms "real," "genuine," and "unfakeable," are used solely by the literature that is eager to promote complex explanations with thin foundations (if there WERE circles not deliberately made by artists, wouldn't alien communications still be at the bottom of the list of likelihoods? Possible, of course but, in the spirit of Occam's razor, not a good working theory until simpler explanations have been falsified) and as such, are biased.

However, in your instance, Kate, since they are quotes from "self-appointed 'cereologists'" they could remain, but they need some explanation. Whalesmith (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The references to "Genuine" or "real" crop circles are in quotes and reflect the language used in some of the "cereologist" sources for the article. I think that context as well as the grammar used in the article makes it clear that "real" crop circles refers to crop circles created by extraordinary means. Are you actually confused or are you just nit-picking? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Closeup

I think it worth to mention closer research:

http://www.cropcirclequest.com/beaumont_lodged/beaumont_intro.html

--Varnav (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Geographical distribution

According to this study Avebury is the epicentre of Crop Circle phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Theories - not neutral

Currently "man made" theory in the article is made primary, while others are marked as "Alternative", and the section about human creators is three times larger than section about ALL other theories. It's ok to prioritize scientific view on any subject in Wikipedia, but there is currently absolutely no any scientific view on this subject. And as long as there is no any scientific consensus it would be correct to assume all theories as equal. Here is the example of truely neutral point of view. --Varnav (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A proven view is a scientific view, in contrast to the speculations and theories of believers. Our policies dictate that the scientific view be given prominence. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. I'm removing your tag. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no scientific view on the phenomenon - because there was no any research. So, "hoax theory" is neither proven nor scientific - it is speculation just like other theories are. Actually, the most scientific theories are wind and plasma vortex theories, but these are omitted. Simply removing my tag is not neutrality check. --Varnav (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just because they use big fancy words does not make them scientific; The only explanation for crop circles that has any proof is the one that they are man-made. In addition most if not all of the other explanations require require extraordinary circumstances that are outside the realm of traditional physics which makes them pretty suspect, see WP:FRINGE. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway there is no scientific consensus on this subject due to absence of any reliable results of scientific research. --Varnav (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Varnav, absence neutral scientific view on the phenomen in this article, - truth. Article - the container of: television, commercials, music, pranksters and of others media . In the article research is a poor relative of media. --TVERD (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is scientific consensus on Crop Circles. They are fringe. There is good documentation of man-made circles, it's the "alternative" theories that have no basis in science. There is also no current scientific research about the Earth being round but that does not mean we could claim that the Earth is flat.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the article «Crop Circle» no mention of the scientific consensus on the Crop Circles. Today is no such consensus. According Voiceofreason01, all scientific theories Crop Circles "Just because they use big fancy words does not make them scientific ...". This statement is incorrect. The result - the lack of consensus between us. The lack of consensus does not mean the absence of research on Crop Circles. In the article «Crop Circle» a lot of advertising and very little science. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring any relevant, reliable, scientific sources here for discussion. Verbal chat 15:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Both sides seem to be unable to find any. So, both views on the phenomenon are equal. --Varnav (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not equal. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, the alternative theories: vortices, aliens, microwaves and ball lightning are all mentioned in the article. A few of these haven't been shown to exist at all and none of them have been shown to ever have created a crop circle. These theories are based entirely on speculation or fringe science. There is, however, good documented evidence that people can and have created crop circles, such evidence is presented in the article. There is evidence of the mundane explanation, that they are a hoax, but almost no evidence of anything else. According to the policy's that I've referenced the hoax theory should be given considerably more weight than the alternative theories. The article is neutral. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Man is able to create fire. Evidence more than enough. However, this does not mean that any fire on the earth was created by man. Claims of people on the authorship in the establishment of of any fire on the ground are unfounded. Similarly, unfounded claims of people on the authorship in the establishment of any crop circles. There is no evidence that all crop circles on the earth was created by man. Neutrality means the equal attention and equal amount of text in the article to action of man and action of nature. However, in the article was violated the neutrality. TVERD (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE require that we give topics consideration in the article based on the available evidence, supported by reliable sources, and that the topic is notable and the information we present is factually accurate, again supported by reliable sources. There is good evidence and sources that crop circles are man-made, there is no such evidence nor sources for the alternative theories. This article is written properly written according to wikipedia policy. If you still think there is a problem you can take it to the fringe theory noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard to get the opinions of editors with experience in dealing with these types of issues. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement, that “Crop circles” are created by man, is one of the variants of alternative theories. Choice of a variant theory (as "proven" ) from others possible alternative theories violates the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia. Changing the name of the page Wikipedia "Crop circles" on "Man-made Crop circles" removes a question about neutrality. TVERD (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there has been little scientific research into the origins of crop circles. Such research that has been conducted has tended to oppose the human-made theory. Terence Meaden had a peer-reviewed paper in Nature in about 1989 which rebuts the hoax hypothesis. Levengood has had his research published in peer-reviewed journals such as Physiologia Plantarum which also rebuts the hoax hypothesis. Added to that is the research conducted by the UK with support from the government in 1990 (can't remember the details off-hand) which found inexplicable results such as elevated nitrate levels beneath the flattened crops which could not be accounted for by hoaxing.
What scientific research is there which supports the human-made hypothesis?
Added to this is the fact that the UK Government - and this is on record in Hansard - made a statement in the Commons in 1989 that they were not investigating the phenomenon because crop circles are made by stationary atmospheric vortices (this was prior to their research involvement in 1990). The could have dismissed them as a hoax - but they did not.
So - peer-reviewed papers, government-backed research and public government statements all say the hoax theory is untenable. So why is it presented here as the definitive explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.230.100 (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is Crop Circles , which created by man ("man-made"). There is Crop Circles, which created without human intervention ("genuine'). In the article "Crop Circle" was violated the principle of neutrality in favor of man-made crop circles. Article in Wikipedia - the result of collective creativity. Violation of the principle neutrality in the collective work - the result of the impact on society of the media. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to find any of the sources that IP 86.179.230.100 suggested. Can you provide links or at least better citations to the articles in question? Please read the article before posting here about how there are no sources supporting the man-made i.e. the "hoax" theory. There are sources supporting this theory they are in the article. In fact it is the alternative theories that are poorly sourced, which is one of the primary reasons they are not extensively discussed in the article. If proper sources(reliable third-party sources) can be found supporting non-man-made theories then we can discuss adding those sources to the article, otherwise accusations of bias that are not aimed at improving the article are WP:DISRUPTIVE and are not welcome. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No need for additional sources, justifying the view IP 86.179.230.100. In http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/levengood_crop_circles.htm (References № 3). marked: Levengood «... found a repeating pattern of biochemical and biophysical changes in formation plants and magnetic anomalies in soils ...; ... In addition to these fundamental biophysical and biochemical changes in the wheat plant themselves, Levengood has also studied plants from England and the United States that have been coated with a deposit of iron oxide, hematite and magnetite, that he believes are fused particles of meteoritic origin. ; « 'There is no way that wind or air motion from a helicopter or pressure from boards, feet or string could produce these biochemical and biophysical changes,' Levengood said.». The items listed Levengood, complement reports of eyewitness about brevity of the process of forming a Crop Circles, about light , sound and other events, which was before, which are accompany or occurring after the formation of Crop Circles (http://www.swirlednews.com/article.asp?artID=286 ; http://www.leylijnen.com/cropcircles.htm ; http://davidpratt.info/cropcirc1.htm ). These phenomena do not occur when Crop Circles was created with using man's technology, what described in the Wikipedia article . In principle, the observing phenomenas is main. An erroneous interpretation of the observed phenomena it is problem theory ( "Man-made" or "Genuine') Crop Circles. The observed phenomenon is such that theory of the emergence of all Crop Circles only by human activities is not proved. Underlining in the Wikipedia article of weaknesses in the theory of the natural occurrence of crop circles and hushing up of the weaknesses in the theory of creation of crop circles by man violates the principle of neutrality. TVERD (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

reply to Voiceofreason:
regarding Levengood, three peer-reviewed papers can be read, and their publication details are also cited, here: http://www.bltresearch.com/published.php
regarding Meaden, I was wrong - the journal is not Nature, it is Weather (also peer-reviewed), published by the Royal Meteorological Society. Don't know if you will find a copy to read on-line but the reference is
Meaden, G.T.; "The Formation of Circular-Symmetric Crop-Damage Patterns by Atmospheric Vortices," Weather, 44:2, 1989.
Regarding the government-backed research, I refer you to the 1995 research undertaken by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS), advisors to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (they have since been privatised). To my knowledge they did not publish a conclusive report but their data was disseminated and reported in the crop circle press at the time. The key point is not the matter of their findings - it is that the UK government did not dismiss the circles phenomenon - it undertook research.
Regarding dialogue in the House of Commons, I can direct you to this webpage for example. Please excuse the fact that it's Nick Pope - I just found it via Google - but it contains accurate accounts of what was said in Parliament: http://www.nickpope.net/crop_circles.htm you will note no dismissal of the phenomenon as a hoax. He also cites MAFF again: "the circles were “ … most likely to result from a combination of wind and local soil fertility conditions in cereals which are prone to lodging”. Again, UK government not defining them as hoaxes.
You may or may not find it interesting that prominent scientist Stephen Hawking is on record as saying "Corn circles are either hoaxes or formed by vortex movement of air" (Cambridgeshire Evening News, 30. 9.1991) - note he is open minded.
As a slightly seperate matter, as regards the assertion that there are sources supporting the hoax theory - you will appreciate that mere support is not too relevant. Sources need to be authoritative and there are not authoritative sources which could claim such a thing - there cannot be, which ironically is one of the main criticisms levelled at non-hoax proponents. The burden of proof is not on the hoax supporters. They cannot (and do not have to) prove such a thing. The burden of proof lies with those who believe something other than hoaxing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.230.100 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry MR LEVENGOOD IS NOT A DOCTOR. He faked his title and has been pulled up for this publically. I am surprised this hasn't made its way onto WIKI yet. Levengood said he got an honourary Doctorate from the National Academy of Sciences. When they were contacted they said "we domnt give out honorary doctorates". What makes this worse is had lied twice! If you want to take the science of a man who lies about his credentials seriously then thats up to you. I dont think there is any truth in the "cell change" and "microwave damage" things he talks about. Its quite a sham. If this wasnt bad enough he knows that we know he isnt a Doctor and has sporadically used the title again. Another fraudster is Michael Glickman who was passing himself off as a Professor of Architecture. A quick phone call to Carol Guston of USC where he said he worked found that he was not a professor and has simply given a few lectures at the school, not in a Professor capacity! Then theres Jonathan Sherwood, he was a Doctor so he said. However he was very sheepish about saying what he was a doctor in and where he got his qualifications. This subject sadly is beset by people faking their credentials and when you know this you can see why no real scientists will touch the subject with a barge pole. After all they know the science is wrong because most plant biologists know about phototropism which causes the "blown microwaved nodes" which are infact an natural effect of nodal stretching when a plant is laid down and tries to grow quickly back up towards the sunlight. So if Levengood doesnt know this, what else doesnt he know! Quite staggering dont you think. Now who wants to put this on the WIKI... this is the biggest stinkbomb yet, and Wiki deserves truth. I know my subject well as I am one of the better known Circlemakers. Matthew Williams. Truthseekers666 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:BLP (which applies to comments about real people even on talk pages) and also our policy on conflicts of interest. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Noted: However the issue of Levengood was under major discussion which was a flawed discussion due to very innacurate statements on research being presented as truth. There is no easy way to say that someone is a fraud. However Levengood is used frequently to state circles must be "real" because of plant biophysical changes, all of which are found in man made circles researched by this person who claims to be a doctor but who isnt! Another point that is often overlooked is Levengood was sent testy samples from known made made legally commisioned circles by his own team, to see if he could tell the difference. He found these circles to be "real" also. It is quite clear Levengood has been using the criteria of man made circles all along as there is no difference in his tests. Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather massive edit(s)

[2].

I took out a lot of unreliable sources and rewrote large swathes of the article to conform to different Wikipedia policies.

One thing we need to do is include more of the history of this subject. Before the pranksters identified themselves, there was something approaching moral panic about this subject with news organizations giving significant credulous coverage of crop circles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

When you get around to learning the history of the phenomenon you will realise that pranksters did not identify themselves as you seem to imagine. Two publicity seekers made obviously bogus claims - no-one who knew anything about the subject in 1991 believed them for a moment - and started a fashion for hoaxing. Right now the article is a mess, and has sunk back into the depressing rubbish peddled by the tabloids. Crop circles have been around for decades, probably centuries before D&D "invented" them in 1978. There are accounts, diagrams and drawings throughout the literature. No-one knows what was causing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.45.121 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason the article focuses so heavily on the hoaxes and much of the info about crop in antiquity has been removed is that there are reliable sources for most of what is in the article now but there are almost no good sources for crop circles that are not man-made "hoaxes" or from before the 1990's. If you can find/provide sources that meet wikipedia's standards for reliablity then we can discuss adding more of this type of information back into the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A violation of neutrality in the description of "Crop Circle" is obstacles for Links in the article at «... good sources for crop circles that are not man-made" hoaxes "or from before the 1990's ...» . Links , which describes a «genuine» "Crop Circle", are incompatible with the article's thesis «Prior to this admission, many seriously entertained the idea that crop circles were not man-made, and even after the disclosure of the prank, there were paranormal enthusiasts , ufologists, and anomalistic investigators who continued to offer alternative explanations [3] [4] which are heavily criticized by skeptical groups such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. [5]."

For example, results of «ICCRA - Initial Field Report of the July 4, 2003 Kekoskee / Mayville, Wisconsin Crop Circle Formation» prove «Our research team had at this point in our investigation enough conclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Mayville / Kekoskee crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the eyewitness testimony given to us by Mr. Rantala. ».

Results and text "ICCRA - Initial Field Report..." are incompatible with the basic thesis of article at Wikipedia .

("The team consisted of Gary Kahlimer of Horicon, Wisconsin, Dr. Charles Lietzau and Jeffrey Wilson of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana." http://www.iccra.org/reports/wisconsin_mayville_kekoskee_7_4_2003.htm ). TVERD (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is nearly unintelligible. I think you're angry, but your ability to communicate what exactly you are angry about is lacking. In any case, we will not be using the "Independent Crop Circle Research Association" as a source for anything until they publish in respected peer-review journals. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Or a respected newspaper, or two will do. Seriously, restricting their mention to peer-reviewed articles only??? This is not an article about science. It is about folk-art. Peer reviewed journals? - Steve3849 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I was responding, in particular, to the contention made that "onclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Mayville / Kekoskee crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the eyewitness testimony given to us by Mr. Rantala." A newspaper won't cut it for that sort of contention, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To: ScienceApologist

I'm sorry, there is no reason to be angry. I did not offer and does not offer of using the «ICCRA - Initial Field Report of the July 4, 2003 Kekoskee / Mayville, Wisconsin Crop Circle Formation» and observational data as a source in a Wikipedia article. Field Report and article at Wikipedia are incompatible. In Field Report is said, that the Mayville / Kekoskee Crop Circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means. Contents article suggests that there are only man-made "Crop Circle",which “…hoaxed by people using mechanical means…”. Proof (at article) -alternative theories can not explain the phenomena arising in the «genuine» "Crop Circle". However, theory of man-made "Crop Circle" also can not explain such phenomena. Such the pseudo-proofs ignores the observational data and constructed on errors in the alternative theories. Sorry, but we have different views on the Wikipedia article.

TVERD (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia must be sourced. We have sources for the current statements. If you have sources that contradict these sources, we will have to consider whether they are more reliable than the sources we currently use. It looks to me like you do not have sources which are more reliable than the sources currently used. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, «Everything in Wikipedia must be sourced» (reliable). Sources in this article are reliable relatively about the views of two groups of people. Some studies (References 2,3) demonstrate the reality «genuine» "Crop Circle", others (References 1,21), contrary to the facts, groundlessly declare , that real - only «manmade» "Crop Circle". Unfortunately, the article violated the principle of neutrality in the presentation of the views of these groups of people. Some sources (References 2,3) contradict to other (References 1,21). Without the restoration of the principle of neutrality in the article for additional sources of useless.

TVERD (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources often contradict each other, what's the problem with that? We don't have a principle of neutrality, we have a policy called 'neutral point of view' which is not the same as neutrality. Where is WP:NPOV being violated? Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, at your text the violation of neutrality is acknowledged indirectly. I agree about "... 'neutral point of view' which is not the same as neutrality." However, neutrality - an integral part of WP: NPOV. (Neutral point of view (NPOV): "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias.") Violation of neutrality automatically violates WP: NPOV. If you agree, then, possibly, the mentioned violation will removed other participants . Best regards, TVERD (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources that testify to "reality genuine "Crop Circle" are here deprecated and not considered reliable enough to warrant prominent display in this article. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources (References 2,3) that testify to" reality genuine "Crop Circle" are indicated in the Wikipedia article. Consequently, according to Wikipedia, they are reliable. Your point of view can be taken into account through changes in the title and text of article. Example: "Crop Circle" change to "Man Made Crop Circle"; "Crop circles are sizeable patterns created by the flattening of crops such as wheat, barley, rye, or maize" change to "Man Made Crop circles are sizeable patterns created by the flattening of crops such as wheat, barley, rye, or maize". Changes - one of the variants for removing the previously mentioned violations of WP: NPOV. Sorry. TVERD (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Read the guidelines and policy to discover why. If you want outside opinion, read this. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (I explain, if the previous text is addressed to me) What is «Not going to happen»: «... References 2,3, according to Wikipedia, ... are reliable.»; «Your point of view can be taken into account through changes in the title and text of article.»; «Changes - one of the variants for removing the previously mentioned violations of WP: NPOV .»; or other??? Does not matter «Not going to happen» or «... going to happen». Has value neutrality in the representation of points of view two groups of people referred to in Article .

Best regards, TVERD (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PARITY. The changes you propose are not acceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist The phrases - «Your point of view can be taken into account through changes in the title and text of article.» and «Changes - one of the variants for removing the previously mentioned violations of WP: NPOV.» - are not proposals changes to the Wikipedia article. These phrases do not contain a fringe theory. These phrases are just my opinion about taking into account of your point of view. Main question- neutrality in the representation of points of view two groups of people referred to in Article . Best regards, TVERD (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Crop circles being not being man-made is a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist According to Wikipedia, «Crop circles are sizeable patterns created by the flattening of crops ...». "Crop circles" are not «... a fringe theory.» and exist independently of theories. Main question-neutrality in the representation of points of view two groups of people referred to in Article. Best regards, TVERD (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said "crop circles are a fringe theory". I said, clearly, that the claim "some crop circles are not man-made" is a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist Use a separate sentence ( that you mentioned) in the role of theory - not serious, and no interesting. Main question-neutrality in the representation of points of view two groups of people referred to in Article. Best regards, TVERD (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The theory that all crop circles are human artifacts is overwhelmingly the theory propounded by the reliability-weighted preponderance of modern sources. It must be presented as such, and other ideas must be presented in that context. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The "theory" that all crop circles are man made is not more scientific than any other theories, and sources supporting it are no more reliable than other. There is no scientific view on the subject. --Varnav (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and CSI is far from neutral. - Steve3849 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That's an absurd statement. Of course there is scientific agreement that crop circles are of human origin. Where genuine scientists speak, they call it nonsense (e.g. [3]) but of course most scientists ignore that which is plainly not science, which necessarily means that "cerealogy" has little coverage in mainstream sources due to its being obvious abject nonsense. CSI is a group which specialises in investigating pseudoscientific claims. It's probably the best known source of such investigations and is notable and trusted as such. That crop circles are man-made is not a "theory" it's the default explanation given that we have admissions from the creators of most of them and no evidence to support the alternatives, most of which fail Occam's Razor anyway. Obviously this article is and always has been a focus for true believers, which necessitates constant patrolling and constant explanation of policy. We also have routine input from people promoting their own works via links and content. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious and absolutely compliant with Occam's Razor principle that small sun disc is turning around the flat Earth, and it was the default explanation and mainstream not-a-theory for centuries, with no evidence to support alternative claims. But okay, now science says - things are different, and this is what we are writing in Wikipedia - scientific information. But what does science say about crop circles? Nothing. All you say above is not a scientific approach, what is "obvious" is not always correct. --Varnav (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Classical mechanics explains the reality quite well. Funnily enough the supernatural explanations for crop circles all exist in isolation from any accepted scientific principles. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It not truth, that "... there is scientific agreement that crop circles are of human origin...". Scientists do not deny natural origin of genuine "Crop Circle". Scientists disagree about the natural processes that create genuine "Crop Circle". To deny existence genuine "Crop Circle" are able only dilettantes (for example, a good writer Joe Nickell - who "...obtained a Ph.D. in English (1987), focusing on literary investigation and folklore...", and "...forensic analyst John F. Fischer...") and hoaxers. Their actively support the CSI and media. TVERD (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on WP:TRUTH, we use reliable sources to establish whether information is verifiably true as the key condition for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is policy, those advocating changing the article to emphasize non-manmade-circle theories need to produce reliable sources, otherwise continuing this discussion is disruptive. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We have scientific theories that assume that crop circles are not man made - wind, animals, crop diseases, soil abnormalities, plasma vortexes [4] - lots of natural (but not paranormal) explanations. There is no consensus that all circles are man made! --Varnav (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I Agree «... Wikipedia does not work on WP:TRUTH...». Wikipedia does work with the TRUTH, by using checking up sources for encyclopedia. I Agree «... those advocating changing the article to emphasize non-manmade-circle theories need to produce reliable sources ...», and also those advocating changing the article to emphasize manmade all circle theories need to produce reliable sources. However, the subject discussion is not theory, but unfounded statements that all the "Crop Circle" was created by man. The statement «... otherwise continuing this discussion is disruptive ...» surprising. To whom this discussion is disruptive? For dilettantes, for hoaxers, for scientists, for users, for the encyclopedia? TVERD (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Earlier reference to crop circles

I am quoting from the book A Pirate of Exquisite Mind - Explorer, Naturalist and Buccaneer: The Life of William Dampier by Diana & Michael Preston, Walker Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8027-1425-0.

On page 233, the following appears:

"The published account of the Royal Society's work, the "Philosophical Transactions", became the world's first scientific journal. Royal Society fellow John Houghton in 1692 produced the first agricultural journal. The first report of crop circles merited a pamphlet of its own, The Mowing Devil, or Strange News Out of Hertfordshire. The phenomenon was attributed to "some infernal spirit [since] no mortal man was able to do the like"."

I offer this for what it is worth. I would appreciate it if it were added to the article by someone familiar with the process in that I have never done an edit.

Thank you. Steve00623 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Strategic location of crop circles

Has there been any studies correlating the location and time of crop circle formation with flight paths or significant events and periods of time? Answer: There is a crop circle event database on the internet. This shows the date and exact location of each event in the UK. Website: http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/where/present/cropcirclelocations.html Everytime a link to this database is added, it gets removed. I think Wikipedia is dead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.107.1 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the recent edit warring which took out the opinions of the "crazies," while saying we can "obviously" keep the science, while including the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry site, I have removed the external links to the talk page till consensus can be arrived at. I do believe that one or two of the paranormal links might need to be removed, but we cannot delete them entirely without invoking an issue of WP:WEIGHT, as the article covers paranormal explanations. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Crop circles.

Sceptical and scientific analysis:

Circle creators, and information on making your own crop circles:

Pro paranormal explanation websites:

And why did you remove the interwiki links and the categories?--Oxymoron83 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Got an edit conflict on correcting that mistake- thanks (-: ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem.--Oxymoron83 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the last 3 in the Pro paranormal explanations need not be there, nor www.cropcircles.org given that is doesn't work. i also think we can get rid of the 'Picture Essay' and http://www.nyos.lv/ given its not in English and seems a little crazy.--Mark Barnes 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has thrown the science! 6 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.224.140 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to correct the latvian link (nyos.lv) to point to the English version of the abstract. Having said that, if other editors feel it doesn't merit inclusion I will concur with that. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really an article I know much about. I'm fine with any solution which preserves NPOV and WEIGHT. The two potential problems I foresee are cutting too few or too many links, or only retaining the crazier paranormal sites in an attempt to make them look stupider than they are. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I just read the abstract in English, to tell you the truth it seems just as crazy as most of the paranormal explications. however saying this i do feel the Terence Meaden article should stay in the list but only because he is such an important character in cerealology.--Mark Barnes 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Crazy - well or bad? The basic notions in abstract (and in article) - generally accepted in physicist. Intercoupling between the main notion - well-known in science. As a whole, in abstract (and in article) is given alternative explanation "Crop Circle". This explanation do not describes in the literature. The Right of the reader (Wikipedia), to see of the name of the source of alternative information, not be to limit!--217.198.224.140 , 7 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.224.140 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

i have put the links back as others were adding their sites back any way --Mark Barnes (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wondering why this link was removed They Just Keep Cropping Up - it was a reasonably well linked blog article from a reputable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.231.97 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

USER: Verbal asked me to justify why I think www.cropcircleconnector.com should be a link on the WIKI. The reason is simple, it is the busiest website on crop circles in the world. Its that simple. This fact cannot be ignored. The people who run it are flying aircraft daily to see the circles and the pictures are up within hours of the circle discovery. This starts in April when the season starts and most Americans havent even dreamed about coming to England. It finishes long into September when all the Americans went home months ago. Put simply Verbal, if you think cropcirclesandmore is better than crop circle connector im afraid your mistaken. Besides many sites get their photos from CCC (abbreviated) and the protographers all give their photos to CCC - whereas some other sites only have limited selection of photographers contributing. The reaosn they are able to get all the photographers to work with them is because they dont judge the circles as real or not, they stay neutral. So quite clearly you should not be removing this link, its been top of the pile for about 10 years now.

How do I come to know all of this stuff. Well I happen to be one of the most well known Circlemakers in the UK... and I was arrested in 2000 for this artform. So I do know my stuff, inside and out. Regards. Matthew Williams. Truthseekers666 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - if it's the biggest site dedicated to the topic - the link to it is absolutely necessary. --Varnav (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Link to database is necessary as well. It's not important to which one though. --Varnav (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please present an RS that states it is as you claim, and also the text appearing with the link had errors and was unencyclopaedic. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not about the RS. It's about the external link to the site. --89.175.98.138 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To Truthseekers666:

MR. Matthew Williams, the subject of discussion - "Crop Circle" and their properties, about which data are published. Your knowledge of the subject - "Circlemakers" , your "...arrest in 2000 for this artform ...", as well as personal qualities, the presence of academic degrees at persons , which was listed in your text, are not describing the properties of " Crop Circle " and therefore for them out of place in that discussion. Links to biologists, without specifying the publications, are uninteresting. Indirectly, you recognized the existence of biophysical changes ( «... blown ... nodes», «... nodal stretching ...»), which was described Levengood. You do not agree with the theory Levengood, that it is "blown microwaved nodes". In this I agree with you. Main achievement Levengood's that he discovered and described the biophysical changes of plants in " Crop Circle ", which all "Circlemakers" in the world still are not able to create in " Crop Circle ".

Relatively, «Crop Circle Connector. The world undisputed most visited crop circle site. Most up to date pictures and forum ..» Text «The world undisputed most visited crop circle site. Most up to date pictures and forum .. » - pure advertising. Crop Circle Connector website does not have any significant advantages over other sites, mentioned in the External links. TVERD (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Crop Circle Connector also has a fairly comprehensive archive of photos and first hand descriptions of the ongoing appearance of crop circles. Moreso than any site I have found. It is a premiere direct resource and is quite pertinent as an external link as it pertains specifically in a dedicated manner to crop circles. It should be the first link. Why was it removed? - Steve3849 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) If we are honing down the links as far as they currently are, only the first 2 need remain (google and national geographic)... along with crop circle connector... 3 links: good enough for my vote. - Steve3849 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Verbal:in this case we do not need a reliable source showing notability to add a "see also" or "further reading". With that being said we do not need two links to databases of circle photos; is this new link that much better than what we have now to justify changing them?
Truthseeker666: be careful about adding anything that looks like advertising, it isn't appropriate here and will be reverted regardless of the merits of the link. Also making some appeal to authority argument about yourself is unlikely to win you points and may be a conflict of interest. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the CCC link is much better than the current link as it includes with each crop circle multiple aerial shots and often many ground shots including macros of wheat stock all well organized. BTW it is not a new link. It was the first external link in August and most of September last year before it was perhaps incorrectly removed in a grand sweep as WP:ELNO. - Steve3849 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The CCC link is good for only the last or current season without payment, so one could say it falls out on item #6 of WP:ELNO for prior years. Yet, I still vote for the change because of its comprehensive layout for the current/last season. - Steve3849 17:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The CCC link should not include "The world undisputed most visited crop circle site. Most up to date pictures and forum" which reads as advertising. The following is the way the external link read last September which is far more reasonable:

Also, external links do not require RS.WP:ELYES (rationale #3 for the extensive archive of photos of the year -- photos are neutral) - Steve3849 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not connected to the site in any other way tnan circles we create appear on it and every other crop circle site in the world. I think it carried advertising like every other copr circle site out there. I do not see why the fact all circles sites are selling something makes this one site unworthy of its link being used. I find it odd why Verbal chose to put up a site like www.cropcirclesandmore.com which is a small site in comparison and does not want www.cropcircleconnector.com up there. I find this far more susipicious as to Verbals motives in perhaps promoting an unknown site which has nearly no standing and removing the biggest crop circle site in the world in its place. Highly suspicious and I dont think it is me who should be justifying myself here Verbal it is you for who would you do something as mad as take CCC down. If you know crop circles then you know CCC. There isnt anyone who knows circles who doesnt know CCC. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement "The world undisputed most visited crop circle site. Most up to date pictures and forum.." is not only spammy due to the poor English and its advertising nature, but also requires WP:RS for the claims it makes (undisputed? most up to date?). If you feel other links should be removed then we can discuss that as well - I didn't put any of them up, as you say. Please remember to assume good faith and remain civil. The burden is on people wishing to add content, links, etc. I have no interest in any of these crop circle sites (in all senses), and have only visited each once to check if they were forums or blogs, etc. Slightly off topic, but it isn't always the case that "photos are always neutral". Thanks, Verbal chat 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

With how many edits there are regarding external links I'm surprised more people haven't had something to say here. The most recent edit removed http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/ from external links with the rationale "self-published websites should not be linked to: WP:EL". WP:EL does not discourage self-published sites directly that I have yet read. It has more to do with encyclopedic value and an inability to include the link's information directly into the article, which may include a self-published site (http://www.circlemakers.org/ is a current example of a self-published site that seems to have been approved). Please correct me if I'm wrong. I personally don't advocate one way, or the other on the specific site that was removed just now, but since edit warring over external sites is fairly recent, then discussion here would not be inappropriate. Again the primary topic appears to me to be whether we can include a site that is archival. CCC is rather thorough for archiving publicly the present/last year's crop circles and appears to be the primary choice among the few editors who have voiced an opinion. - Steve3849 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Crop Circle Connector is the biggest, most up-to-date and most linked site dedicated to crop circles. Just google for "Crop circle" to see it first (after the wikipedia link, of course). This article MUST have a link to a site with up-to-date database of crop circles with their photos. There are many, but I personally thing that crop circle connector is the best.
Currently there is no link to any site with crop circle collections at all. That's very bad - there must be a link to at least one source where crop circles with photos are listed. --Varnav (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See WP:GHITS for why google isn't a reliable source or reliable indicator of notability. It might be nice for this article to have such a link, but it isn't required. Find some reliable source saying this or another collection is good/notable/etc and then it might be included. We shouldn't and don't go on personal opinion. Verbal chat 16:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not about archive or not. It is about statistics! Do not look at the Crop Circle Connector or at http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/ as archives. They are databases with statistics. An article on crop circles without statistics (no matter who creates the circles) is lacking valuable information. Information that is actually available. So it is a must that at least one database (archive) is included in the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.107.1 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems "Crop Circle Connector": RS; unacceptably large amount of advertising on the site; there is no guarantee that there are no problems with «contributors' rights and obligations»; not available to readers all of the site materials;

IRRELEVANT: many products and services mentioned on Wikipedia are not available for free. For instance take the New York Times. Big article with a link to their website, but not all the content on that website is for free! Same with Crop Circles and More. The fact that not all the presented material in a link is for free, is not a valid argument to not include that link.

Payment ( «The purchase price for this service is USD $ 24-95 (£ 12.95)» http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer09c.html, Raw Video Footage Of Crop Circles From 1992 To 2005 Peter's video archive, which has been used by ABC's Barbara Walters 20/20 on two occasions, and in over a dozen other documentaries, is available for sale to broadcasters on Mini-DV cassettes. For prices please contact me on my email: croppie2@yahoo.com, http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/Sorensen/documents/footage2005.html; [My footage of the construction is on my 2001 annual crop circle video, which - pardon the advert - is for sale thru the Crop Circle Connector.] http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/Sorensen/articles/APlacetoStayreview.html);

Registration ( «Crop Circle Connector - Registration To continue with the registration procedure please tell us when you were born. » http://www.cropcircleconnectorforum.com/ucp.php?mode=register&sid=3bf9cbab00e580d3c4ac5111d6921115)

Distortion of the original (I have removed the tramlines from within the formation because they were making a mess of the delicate details. If you need them for your geometric analysis, use a straight edge to reconstruct them. Or, there are several other photos of it on the 'net. http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/Sorensen/2001/NavajoSun.html). TVERD (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. - Steve3849 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not insist that CCC is site of a choice, but there definitely must be a link to a site where crop circles are listed with photos and descriptions. I don't care to which one of the sites, but without such link this article is not full. --Varnav (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The currect Lucy Pringle site is fairly comprehensive, does not require membership, has a discreet presentation and has only minimal advertising at the bottom of the page. CCC's only advantage over these points is the wealth of ground shots by multiple photographers for the current/recent season. The Pringle site seems like a good choice to me. - Steve3849 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No thanks. It's not actually that useful and it's selling stuff off the page. A Google image search will do the needful if anyone cares. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"not actually that useful" implies your opinion is that an external link to archived images is inappropriate. Is that what you mean? Also, every single external link is selling something... certainly you'd not consider them all to be removed. As a brief experiment I clicked "random article" several times and found every external link to be selling something. I don't think no-external-link to SPAM applies to the Pringle page. - Steve3849 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I did some browsing of other art articles and found external links to collections of images in every article. - Steve3849 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to understand more about the increasing design complexity of crop circles or any other fact about them should be able to find more information on this Wiki page. Whether or not every single crop circle has been constructed by people like Doug and Dave, additional links would contribute to the neutrality and the value of this page. It's understandable that links to pages which are trying to 'sell stuff' are not appropriate, but a reasonable person who wants to know more about crop circles should be able to navigate to additional content that the Wiki community has agreed is appropriate. I am referring to objective factual content such as unaltered photographs and data regarding the number of crop circles observed each year and where they were located. There must be some appropriate sites that would be acceptable. There is a lot of editing going on here to remove content that dares to raise questions about the possibility of non-human origins. I don't have time to spend on this so I'll give up for now. I will re-read Wikipedia's 'Five Pillars' because I don't think what some people are doing to this page is right. People expect Wikipedia to be neutral. The Crop Circle page should have more links and less 'noise'. Much of the content on this page could be moved to it's 'History' section. JzG / Guy: you should learn to speak for yourself. The 'no thanks' and 'if anyone cares' comments to Steve3849 are so self centered. You're entitled to your opinion, and so is everyone else. It is a fact that there are crop circles, and regardless of how they're made, some people would like to know more about them than what you've decided is appropriate. --Andy12983 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The tag is long over due as dispute is apparent in every discussion on this talk page and with nearly every edit made in this article. - Steve3849 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the edit prior to placement of this tag: who disputes that crop circles are art? The inclusion was well referenced. - Steve3849 00:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC) If we're going with standardized definitions for the lede there is this to tangle with at Oxford: "an area of standing crops which has been flattened in the form of a circle or other pattern by unexplained means" - Steve3849 00:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I kind of agree, the article could do with being about half as long and much tighter, losing the special pleading, but the neutrality of the article on evolution is not in dispute just because a vociferous minority don't believe in it. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I am addressing possible changes to the lede and sections "Creators" and "Paranormal".
  1. The comparison to the article on evolution is pertinent to how this article has been edited and the social dynamics among polarized editors, but I don't think it applies as well to the article's subject. Evolution is specifically a wikipedia science article. Though science obviously has it's place in the crop circle article, crop circles are not primarily a topic of science, but are principally art.
  2. The weighted skeptical/science interest in this article is most likely reactionary to the topic's relationship to paranoramal query and the consequent magical and fringe thinking that appears inevitable (by a minority). The CSICOP has a very worthwhile place in the article as a reference. However, I've not found any notable third party mention of CSICOP (or "skeptical groups" for that matter) regarding crop circles. Therefore I think CSICOP should not be directly mentioned in this article's lede; simply referencing them would be adequate. They do show up with a direct mention again in the section "Paranormal" which is fine as 'the paranormal' is one of their primary interests.
  3. The concept of 'anonymous' is currently missing from the article. Definitions in the Oxford dictionary are generally considered noteworthy for a lede and therefore to include the popular concept that crop circles are of "unknown source" is appropriate. Perhaps more importantly, most crop circles are genuinely anonymous. This has been well reported. I suspect this has been completely removed from the article to minimize paranormal speculation. The anonymous quality of crop circles has been more sensibly and broadly related to trespassing. This would be the primary perspective of farmers and law enforcement. There could be a mention of various farmers' views somewhere in the article. Some farmers are intolerant due to hundreds (thousands?) of pounds of crop damage and trespassing; others compromise and ask entrance fees (collecting thousands?). This has been well reported and is an example of non-polarized content that is missing. The word, or concept 'anonymous' firmly belongs in both the lede and the section "creators".
  4. Popular media does actually give a voice to paranormal enthusiasts (even granting them the term "researchers") by quoting them while maintaining second person distance if only to retain the needed skeptical context; these common news articles rather than entering into a rational skeptic disclaimer instead then differ to discuss known artists, or hoaxers who have confessed (which this wiki article also does). However, unlike popular media (BBC, Guardian), this wiki article gives an intentionally minimal voice to paranormal enthusiasts.
  5. In the section ==...anomalistic speculations== the skeptical POV is reiterated for an nth time in as much detail, if not more (Carl Sagan) than any content of 'speculation' as the section is entitled. Meanwhile and ironically, the detailed studies published in the peer reviewed journal publication of Levengood (1994, 1999 Physiologia Plantaruni) are not mentioned in that section. NPOV would include "…and rational skepticism" in the title of that section and include more actual speculation in it's content. An alternative solution would be to add a section ==Rational skepticism and crop circles== and separate the opposing views. - Steve3849 00:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets Move On

So the discussion about yes/no, about hoax/genuine, etc, has been moved to this page. For how long? We can talk here until eternity, but the very subjective, one-way view, article that is now on Wikipedia does not change. Take in consideration that the hypothesis that all crop circles are man-made is impossible to proof. The hypothesis that at least one crop circle event is genuine is provable and has been proven already by Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff. Reflect these facts in the article. Yes, there is a genuine crop circle phenomenon and yes, there are man-made crop circles (like there are real and artificial diamantes or real and counterfeited money). End of discussion. Write the article and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.107.1 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to put the external links (see way above) back on, even before the article is (re)written. The way it looks now is not Wikipedia worthy.

What qualifies as a "genuine" crop circle? We also need a reliable source verifying that a circle is "genuine". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I did NOT say "genuine crop circle", but "genuine crop circle phenomenon". The phenomenon is genuine. The phenomenon can NOT be explained away by human activity solely, even though many would love to do so. I have not seen conclusive evidence that explains all the facets of the phenomenon purely by human activity. So gor now, we are facing a genuine phenomenon.

We're not putting the link farm back in, thanks all the same. Incidentally, XKCD nails this one quite nicely. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Failing to report the latest evidence about the mechanisms by which crop pictures are made

As of April 2010, there is new and fairly indisputable evidence from Nancy Talbott and BLT Research, that most or many crop pictures from 2009 were created by "plasma discharges" or unknown forms of patterned energy, and not "rope and boards" as many human fakers of doubtful reputation have sometimes claimed, usually with no or little evidence: see http://www.bltresearch.com/fieldreports/uk2009.php and subsequent pages.

By failing to report the latest evidence, as well as to report old evidence objectively, Wikipedia is just discrediting itself.

Red Collie (a professional scientist, and crop-circle researcher since 2002) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.112.221 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We have huuuge discussion, but current article is a complete mess. Maybe we should delete it completely because of LOW LOW quality? --Varnav (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to delete the article. Alternatively, it could be left as a stub including a note such as "the sensitivity of this subject precludes a rational and objective treatment". 86.180.116.114 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) from references .

In references # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud. Article "Joe Nickell" in the Wiki has not of confirms or has not denied the content of article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. Therefore, # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) should be removed from references. Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified and not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(Copied my reply to your AN/I post.) :If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Wikipedia article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Joe Nickell article on wikipedia is not the reference. The removed text refers to an article Mr. Nickell wrote for Skeptical Inquirer. His name is wikilinked in the reference, yes. But that is fairly standard for the author of a reference who also has a bio here. I'll see if I can find a volume/issue/page reference for that article to add to the reference, but I agree with Anikingos and Tide rolls removing it in its entirety certainly is vandalism. --Krelnik (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Opponents, your objections have not shown the user how to access the content links 26. Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer.

It is unclear, what there is reference 26.: a manuscript, printing edition or the online article? Also, may be you could clarify how the user will have access to the content of links 22. Crop Circles and Their 'Orbs' of Light (Skeptical Inquirer September 2002). When you click on this link there appears text: «We've recently redesigned, but hopefully you can find what you're looking for with our site search (at left).» I hope, that will corrected these deficiencies and will removed charges of vandalism. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be accessible on the Internet. Dougweller (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller, I use the formulation «Sources do not have to be obligatorily accessible on the Internet».

However, your formulation or similar wording does not answer on questions : What is reference 26.: a manuscript, printing edition or the online article? How the user will have access to the content of the references 22. and 26. ? Why the reference 22. is recorded in the format adopted for Internet sources? The opponents, whether have the answer on these questions? The drawbacks of references 22. and 26. raise doubts about the significance of these references for «Crop Circles». Desirable that opponents removed these doubts. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The current four external links seem like they were provided by someone who doesn't care about the subject.

■ The article from "The Center for Scientific Investigation" is based on very poor research, and is misleading to someone who might think the writer was a serious researcher.

The writer says: "Hoaxers, most croppies insisted, could not be responsible because the plants were only bent and not broken, and there were no footprints or other traces of human activity. Skeptics replied that from mid-May to early August the English wheat was green and pliable, and could only be broken with difficulty."

Had he or his band of skeptics bothered to do a bit of research, they would know that this is not the case with canola, and crop circles were being made in canola fields years prior to the articles release (2002).

He goes on... "Forensic analyst John F. Fischer and I soon identified several characteristics that suggested the work of hoaxers (Nickell and Fischer 1992):

3. Increase in Complexity. A very important characteristic of the patterned-crops phenomenon was the tendency of the configurations to become increasingly elaborate over time. They progressed from simple swirled circles to circles with rings and satellites, to still more complex patterns. In 1987 came a crop message, “WEARENOTALONE” (although skeptics observed that, if the source were indeed English-speaking extraterrestrials, the message should have read “You” rather than “We”). In 1990 came still more complex patterns, dubbed “pictograms.” There were also free-form shapes (e.g., a “tadpole"-like design), a witty crop triangle, and the hilarious bicycle (see Hoggart and Hutchinson 1995, 59)

Did he forget what he was writing about? How does the increase in complexity correlate to hoaxing? Instead of explaining this, he goes all the way back to 1987 to cite an obvious hoax, which was not complex at all, and points his finger at the grammar, or rather he once again becomes to oracle to the 'skeptics' of the past. Then he moves to 1990 where he claims that pictograms are complex. Had he not seen any crop circles from the subsequent 12 years?

Is this the great modern skeptical mind? Is this the effort the self proclaimed skeptic puts into researching the topics they claim to be 'debunking'?

■ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0801_020801_cropcircles_2.html

Presents hardly anything at all.

■ http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/where/present/cropcirclelocations.html

Is ok... But I recommend replacing it with:

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/imagelibrary/

http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/

http://visiblesigns.de/

As this is an article about crop circles and it should have links to the best possible free archives.

■ http://www.circlemakers.org/

Easily falls into the taboo of advertising.

♦ I highly suggest including: http://www.davidpratt.info/cropcirc1.htm

As this is a well formatted and compendious introduction to crop circles.

Stochastikos (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanations section

How come human activity isn't a subsection, it's the one with the most evidence? --Mongreilf (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Human activity and activity of nature ? Who a teacher, and who student? A man, creating the wonderful images of man made “Crop circles”, imitates nature (a teacher). However, a man does not understand how the genuine images of “Crop circles” are making of nature's forces. A man always aims to unriddle the riddles of nature, becouse the knowledge-base allows to defend people from from the dangerous natural phenomena. Acoustic, atmospheric, electromagnetic and other the phenomenas, accompanying appearence genuine “Crop circles”, can be dangerous for a man.89.191.104.43 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Mongreilf - perhaps you could create that subsection yourself, and detail the evidence you mention. For example, you could present a list of crop circles made by humans, with the following details for each: who made it; why; how long it look; the equipment they used; the weather and its impact on their efforts; were the makers were under the influence of alcohol and if so did they drive to and from the site?; whether they got it right first time and if not how they corrected their mistakes; who saw them do it and did the onlookers take any photos; whether they did it with the landowner's permission and if not were they prosecuted?

In particular it would be interesting if you could present photographic evidence of specific crop circles being made. For example, you could show photos of the 2001 Milk Hill crop circle (see main article) a quarter complete, half complete, three quarters complete etc.

I look forward to your contribution.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/encyclopedia.html There you go, i particuarly like this quote from the story about the world famous Hungary crop patten from 1992 "Then, to their dismay, the host of the show, Sándor Friderikusz, introduced two seventeen-year-old students who produced photographic and video proof that they themselves had made the crop circle, using very simple methods. The effect of this disclosure was rather strong, and the expressions on the faces of the “experts,” who were not prepared for such a confrontation, left the studio audience as well as the TV audience amused." Just because you dont have an instant understanding does not mean aliens are involved. I have NO IDEA how my TV works, but i dont think ET built it. 121.73.246.11 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)EATLEADSUCKER


81.159.15.85 (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to be so hoity toity, remember to assume good faith. I've made a start, which we could all expand upon. I think John Lundberg claims to have made the Milk Hill one.--Mongreilf (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "Animal Activity" bit, as Australian wallabies supposedly getting high and running in circles is not relevant (the article contains no evidence to support their claim).

I moved the "Human Activity" bit to the "Legal Implications" section.

I removed the redundant sentence at the end of the "Paranormal" bit.

I'm proposing that instead of an "Explanations" section, we create a "Theories" section and something along the lines of a "Known construction methods" section. "Explanations" is misleading, because it can be misinterpreted as meaning that everything in that section is a known method for how crop circles are made.

Stochastikos (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro revision

At some point, most likely today, I will be replacing the majority of the intro on these grounds:

• It contains redundant information about Doug and Dave, which is inappropriate for that section to begin with.

• The majority of the information is historical, or irrelevant, and does not present a clear overview about crop circles (which is the point of that section).

• Skeptics calling the theories of paranormal enthusiasts, ufologists, and anomalistic investigators▬ "pseudoscientific" is most assuredly not NPOV, and is not fit for this article in general. An encyclopedia article should not contain wild theories nor the name calling by those criticizing them.

Stochastikos (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics call bullshit on the scientific claims made by crop circles "researchers". They inform the public that claims made by crop circle proponents are not considered scientific by the scientific community.
Indeed, to be considered scientific, a claim must be formed and investigated using the Scientific method. Then, when you think you have an interesting hypothesis, your claim must be published in a peer-reviewed journal with good standing amongst the established scientific community (Nature would be a good start). The reason that not many articles concerning crop circles are published is not because no one submits them, but that the reviewing process is much more stringent than before, to account for our growing scientific knowledge. Definitions of terms must be rigorous and widely accepted, data must be acquired and handled with mathematical precision, etc. Hence, many articles that could pass as scientific in the 19th century will now look like pseudo-science. I would even venture to say that most "scientific articles" about crop circles are so low quality that they would have looked like pseudo-science even in the 19th century. Also, anomalous readings by themselves don't make a theory. Scientists record anomalous readings every day; in fact the whole point of science is to find anomalous readings and explain them. The important part is the explaining and as long as you don't have a coherent, logical explanation one way or the other you don't have science, only readings. Thus I would argue that "pseudoscience" as a term is NPOV, as it is rigorously defined and accepted in the scientific community to identify claims that do not adhere to agreed scientific standards in a particular field of research (see article on pseudoscience).
On another point, historical information is always relevant, especially when dealing with long-standing pseudo-scientific concepts. It can reveal the motivations behind their propagation by well- and less-than-well-intentioned influential figures through, for example, mass media. An easy example is Homeopathy, which some German pulled out of his ass in 1796. Of course he thought he was being scientific, but being scientific also implies admitting you're wrong when you've been proven to be, which he never did or at least had no opportunity to do while alive (just like Newton couldn't well admit he was wrong when Le Verrier proved he was, since he was long dead). Bidouleroux (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is NPOV, but it's the phrasing and context that qualifies it as inappropriate in this case.

"'Among others, paranormal enthusiasts, ufologists, and anomalistic investigators have offered arousing yet hypothetical explanations that have been criticized as pseudoscientific by skeptical groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry."

What happens in this sentence is:

• Through the use of generalization, the author throws everyone into two categories: the "quacks" (their implied view) and the skeptics. This is an easy way to name everyone, other than the skeptics, quacks by saying "Among others" and then listing three classifications that are shunned by main stream science.

• Then the author states that the "quacks" have offered "arousing yet hypothetical explanations"▬ another generalization conveying nothing relevant. Then they finish with one side (the skeptics) calling the other side's methods pseudoscientific, not only implying their superiority, but once again using, now two, generalizations to call everyone other than the 'skeptics' quacks (quacks use pseudoscientific methods correct?).

♦ “On another point, historical information is always relevant”

♦ Here you mix terms. I never said historical information is irrelevant. I said:

“The majority of the information is historical, or irrelevant”

While I intend to include the most basic historical information (e.g. that the exact date they first started to appear is unknown, and that they continue to this day) it's only proper to limit the amount of historical information in this section, as the following section is “History”, especially when there is plenty of other pertinent information to convey in the intro, which is currently left out.

☼ For those who might have the wrong idea about my beliefs on this subject:

I do feel that the collected evidence shows that some crop formations cannot be made with the board and rope, or lawn roller method, and that no one has provided any evidence on how these are actually made. I do not believe in any theorized cause of these formations, but keep an open mind, as this is a truly fascinating occurrence. If humans are making these unclaimed crop formations, I would be no more disappointed by that, than any other outcome, as these people would be the most intelligent, humble, and gifted artists in the world by not claiming them.

Stochastikos (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

History section

The Doug and Dave section is only worth keeping because it was a major news event, and it serves as a great example of how the media can run a story with absolutely no credible evidence to support it, and change the perception of millions of people for years to come. I have removed all bogus and unsubstantiated claims as well as irrelevant information to this article, such as what their wives may or may not have thought. I've also removed information that had nothing to do with Doug and Dave, and which the author apparently didn't know enough about to make a separate section for. I have also added information about their case that was not included before.

Stochastikos (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

New Intro 11-28-10

I'm removing and merging a few parts of your addition to the new intro Jeremy. Removing the unreferenced percentage (20%) of how many crop circles have these anomalies, still allows us to convey the information. While it may be true, by removing statements such as "seemingly impossible to duplicate" we avoid coloring the subject with our perspective, as well as, potentially entering into a debate on semantics. By removing "Scientists and researchers are immediately able to tell the difference hoaxers and 'the real thing.'" we also avoid debate as this is something that would require validation; also, we again avoid an issue of semantics by not referring to one side as 'the real thing'.

Stochastikos (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Effect on the fields

Perhaps an odd thing to come here for, but aside from one brief mention, there's very little information about what effect the making of crop circles (regardless of who/what you believe made them) have on the crops in the field. I find this aspect to be rather interesting, as it seems reasonable that the flattening of large areas of fields would have a negative impact on the yield of those fields, meaning that crop circles could cost farmers a lot of money. - Alltat (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The flattened crop is usually lost, and more can be lost due to flattening by visitors walking through the field. It's a relatively small percentage of a field's yield if you view an aerial shot of a circle, but it does of course cost the farmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.198.47 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

History is still POV and inadequate

It's been said many times, but the history section continues to "push" the hoax explanation and is lacking in facts (presumably because they tend to upset the hoax hypothesis).

The intro to History says: "Certain evidence, such as the Mowing-Devil, suggest the appearance of crop circles well before the 20th century. Nevertheless, there are important differences between that story and modern crop circles. The story of the mowing devil involves the cutting of the crops following a dispute over crop harvesting and an invocation of the devil, no geometric patterns were reported."

This focuses on the Mowing Devil as if it is the ONLY pre-1978 formation known. It also claims no geometric patterns, which is not only inaccurate (the phrase "round circles" appears in the original) but insignificant - one doesn't need complex patterns to be a crop circle - just a single circle qualifies. (The article then goes straight from this to Doug & Dave.)

There is ample evidence of other circles pre-1978. They were reported many times - indeed, further down is an account (under "other explanations" of an event published in the 19th century. The Tully nests too, were from the 1960s, which D&D claimed to have taken as inspiration, and were photographed at the time. Meanwhile Arthur Shuttlewood was documenting UK circles in the early 1970s. What caused them, if D&D began in 1978? There are several other photos and accounts too, eg circles documented in "Project Blue Book". And the book "Circular Evidence" details several pre-1978 circles in various countries, including one in 1976 in Hampshire. If the History section is to be factual it needs to account for the phenomenon prior to D&D and make it clear that they did not invent crop circles. 109.157.114.75 (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Case for Deletion

The intro and history sections both start by presenting the "Doug and Dave" scam with the implication that they started the "phenomenon". This is highly disingenuous, as crop circle researchers discovered, years ago, historical evidence suggesting the existence of crop circles well before the 1970's. My point is, two men claiming, without any proof, that they started this phenomenon, might be worthy of being a side note in the history section, but how it is currently presented can only be classified as prolonging misinformation.

♦ "A simple wire with a loop, hanging down from a cap—the loop positioned over one eye—could be used to focus on a landmark to aid in the creation of straight lines."

♦ This is clearly shown to be absurd in Freddy Silva's book "Secrets in the Fields" when he quotes researcher George Wingfield: "To really make straight lines one needs a backsight and a foresight attached to the instrument with which one makes straight lines. These would both have to be kept in alignment with the remote object. Even with Doug's head rigidly in cement, the baseball cap method would never allow one to keep straight, even if one could sight on a remote object at night."

• Directly following this articles previous quote is: "Later designs of crop circles became increasingly complicated."

• This implies that "Doug and Dave" were responsible for those later designs, and that there is some sort of proof that verifies that. Is this type of trickery or ignorance now passing as OK for a Wikipedia article?

When later confronted about the techniques they used on certain crop circles, "Doug and Dave" claimed to have jumped or pole vaulted and the features were the result of their landing. This is another obvious fallacy, as the distances they would have supposedly poled vaulted would have been a minimum of 11 feet. Both of these men were in their 50-60s throughout the supposed time-line they were creating these.

■ "In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned five aeronautics and astronautics graduate students from MIT to create crop circles of their own, aiming to duplicate some of the features claimed to distinguish "real" crop circles from the known fakes such as those created by Bower and Chorley."

■ The single most important fact that distinguishes non-human made crop circles from the human made crop circles is that the plants are bent at about an inch off the ground, at the plant's first node, and are undamaged. The plants eventually come back to normal position via phototropism. This has been clearly documented by MANY photographs, and it simply is not possible to have this result by crushing them with a board, especially in the cases where the crop is canola. Having graduate students from MIT dream up a device that can roughly simulate the electromagnetic anomalies found at genuine crop circles, in no way equates to them duplicating the features that distinguish them from the man made ones; which is implied by the lack of stating that they did not roughly duplicate anything other than that.

■ This is also a logical contradiction to the proposed theory that “Doug and Dave” started this phenomenon. The aforementioned features of the non-human made crop circles were documented in crop circles in the early 90's when “Doug and Dave” were supposedly still making them. This would imply that it took 12 years for the skeptics to dig up MIT graduates that could only roughly reproduce one anomaly that two bar flies in their 60's were creating that many years prior.

This whole article is written based on almost nothing other than the biased information presented on the television programs 'debunking' crop circles. These shows funded by multi-million dollar corporations, somehow all hire people that either fail to learn about the undamaged/bent plants in the non-human made crop circles, or fail to include that information in the show. This is of course, pretending that they aren't purposely leaving out the information. How could you present a non-biased program without including that most important information?

So, because it's easy for the skeptic to sit at home and stare at a TV screen that's presenting “the facts” they don't feel the need to read a book written by an actual crop circle researcher that has been gathering information for more than ten years. There's a big difference, and just because the discovery channel can hire MIT graduates to try to reproduce a cropcircle, and present cleverly biased misinformation, does not qualify them as researchers on the topic.

Long story short, this article is abhorrent, and should be deleted until someone, who is actually educated on the topic, can write an unbiased article based on information from more sources than a TV show, or completely biased sources.

Perhaps as an alternative to deletion, this article could be renamed "Human made crop circles" and reformatted to fit, as it is indisputable that there are non-human made crop circles, and this will always be a point of contention for this article as long as ignorant people feel they are qualified to write an encyclopedic article about something they are not properly educated on. Stochastikos (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost forgot to address: "Specifically, he pointed out that there were no credible cases of UFOs being observed creating a circle, yet there were many cases when it was known that human agents, such as Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, were responsible."

A) What would pass as a "credible case of UFOs being observed creating a circle"? There are dozens of eye witness testimonies from people around England, and other countries; what makes these people less credible than "Doug and Dave" claiming they made all of the crop circles?

B) "there were many cases"▬ how many?

C) "it was known that human agents, such as Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, were responsible."▬ it was claimed that they were responsible. Doug and Dave as far as I know have never proven their connection to anything other than some of the worst crop circle recreations ever made, after they claimed to have made everything prior.

So, based on generalizations and questionable statements, this quote implies that because there supposedly isn't any credible UFO sitings associated with crop circles, and that "there are many cases" of humans creating their own, that there is no other possible explanation other than that humans have made all of them. This implication is a non sequitur.

Stochastikos (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on point C conlusion as the quality of Doug and Dave circles is a personal opinion and must be references to the time that they were created when even wonky circles and simple circles or pathes of mess in a field were held up as genuine and wonderful. Things have moved on to much more complicated art forms today and you should not measure todays work with the early works. Everyone who reseraches took the Dioug and Dave stuff to be real at the time. --92.25.72.13 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll start working on an "Unexplained Phenomenon" section tomorrow, as this is highly pertinent information to the subject. But this article truly needs a complete overhaul.

Stochastikos (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this great source of information: http://www.davidpratt.info/cropcirc1.htm

It really makes me think "Why bother when someone has already presented it so clearly?". But then the inevitable reply is: "Because, unfortunately, there are a lot more people who will look at this wikipedia article, than that website."

The most important points that need to be addressed are:

• The bending of the plants.

• The selective nature of the force bending specific plants and leaving others upright.

• The various lay patterns.

• The complexity and appearance in daylight of fractals patterns such as: http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/1996/uk1996ay.shtml

Feel free to do this yourself, and I'll give thanks to you while I'm eating turkey tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stochastikos (talk • contribs) 09:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you mentioned just a part of genuine Crop Circles. There are genuine Crop Circles, which formed from the broken (not bent) stems of plants: http://www.nyos.lv/doc/translate__printpoprechnij__text_pru_press___28.03.2010.pdf Expansion of external shells of nodes and internodes does not arises up at the values falling of external pressure on 0.0lMPa or less. The affecting of currents of air on a stalks, on external shell of which happened falling of external pressure on 0.0lMPa and less, able to cause the mechanical fractures of stalks. Genuine images ”Crop Circles" from plants, with fractures on stalks that are arising up after falling of external pressure at external shells of stalk on 0.0lMPa and less, outwardly indistinguishable from man-made images "Crop Circles". At presently, genuine images ”Crop Circles" from plants, with fractures on stalks that are arising up after falling of external pressure at external shells of stalk on 0,01MPa and less, groundlessly are included in class of man-made images ”Crop Circles". 89.191.104.43 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Any paranormal or extraterrestrial explanations for crop circles are fringe science and should be qualified as such in the article and need to be backed by reliable secondary or tertiary sources per Wikipedia policy. Probably the biggest reason non-man-made explanations are not discussed more is that there are so few good sources. Please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not and don't add your own opinions and theories about crop circles into the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I wont bother addressing the gibberish posted by the anonymous user.

"Probably the biggest reason non-man-made explanations are not discussed more is that there are so few good sources. Please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not and don't add your own opinions and theories about crop circles into the article."

What exactly are you referring to here?

I have no intention of adding any explanations. I do intend to include documented evidence, such as elongated nodes and other anomalies recorded in non-human-made crop circles.

I still firmly believe this entire article should be removed immediately, as it's more about Doug and Dave, and irrelevant information, such as the discovery channel making a documentary, than it is about the gathered information about crop circles.

Doug and Dave have no place in the intro to crop circles, this is completely inappropriate. It gives the false impression that they are some major force behind crop circles. A modified segment in the history section is fine, as it was a major news event at the time. Various networks other than the discovery channel have made documentaries about crop circles, this has nothing to do with the history of crop circles. Will we start adding in every documentary about the civil war as part of its history section? No. Rather this section should have information on the progression from simple pictograms to the more complex and three dimensional designs. Also the progression in complexity of the lay patterns should be included.

I also must include that the wikipedia crew seems to be strangely overlooking the absurdity of this article. As there are dozens of unsubstantiated claims with no references, or completely bogus references. Stochastikos (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Which references are bogus? Which claims are unsubstantiated? There are some things in the article that ought to be referenced and aren't but at my last read through I didn't catch any that were particularly problematic. Wikipedia is a collaborative, not a competitive enviroment; It's fine if you don't like the way the article is written, if some of the sources are bad then you can remove them, if you think the article should say something that it doesn't then you can add information and sources. It isn't the wikipedia "crew" against you, we're all here to edit the encyclopdia together. If there is something specific you want to add or discuss then this is the place but simply demanding that the article be deleted because you don't like what it says is not a constructive use of your(or my) time. As far as your compaints about the content of the article, it's this way because it's hard to find good reliable sources for this topic, you mentioned irregularites in the structure of plants in "genuine" crop circles but there simply aren't good sources to support this, a good understanding of WP:FRINGE will serve you well in editing this article. Hope this helps. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_7&oldid=1136643113"