Talk:Crop circle/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Explanation section

I have re-added a lot of information that was removed from the article mostly by Stochastikos. There has been a lot of whitewashing going on and removing well sourced and well written information skeptical of supernatural explanations for crop circles. This is unacceptable, I have posted on the Fringe theory notice board requesting help with this issue. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As an example this edit. It's National Geographic and SCICOP, how are those unreliable sources? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

References containes the positions 26. (^ Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer) and 30. (^ Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer). Source, which mentioned in position 26. is same as source in position 30. According “Skeptical Inquirer”, source - Joe Nickell, “Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update,” Skeptical Inquirer , in press. ( http://www.csicop.org/search?cx=partner-pub-7990294390318881%3Akq7omegpkyf&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Joe+Nickell%2C+%22Crop-Circle+Mania%3A+An+Investigative+Update%22%2C+Skeptical+Inquirer&sa=%C2%BB#147 ) Consequently, sources in positions 26. and 30. - unpublished. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a published source. Sources in positions 26. and 30. do not meet this requirement. This is unacceptable. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe Nickell is a prominent researcher and dubunker and the Skeptical Inquirer is the official journal for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, itself a respected organization devoted to debunking fringe science. This is a published journal article and a reliable source. I don't see a problem. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Voiceofreason01, no question was raised about the identity of Joe Nickell, and about the journal "Skeptical Inquirer". The question of information "Skeptical Inquiry": Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update," Skeptical Inquirer, in press. What does it mean «in press», when "Skeptical Inquiry" published an article (Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer), and how user can get acquainted with this publication. I hope you can refute the view that the source in positions 26. - unpublished. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a published source. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what "in press" means nor does it matter. If you follow the link that you posted you can read a copy of the article, which qualifies it as a published source for the purposes of Wikipedia. I'm not interested in engaging in a wikilawyering session with you. Unless you have some other reason to think there is a problem I'd say that the source is fine. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the problem exists. Replacing the position number 26. to number 19. does not solve the problem. According to «TheFreeDictionary» (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+press ) idiom «in press» means: Submitted for printing; in the process of being printed. Taking into account the foregoing and information about this position (19.) in "Skeptical Inquiry"(«in press»), position 19. (^ Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer) it is a "unpublished" source. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a published source. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not "unpublished"; unprinted is not the same as unpublished. You can read the article, you actually posted a link the leads to the article in question, for the purposes of wikipedia that is published. Arguing technicalities will not win you any battles here, if you really have a problem you can take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. Let me know if that's what you decide to do. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01 is correct. It's viewable on a RS, and for the purposes of Wikipedia that's good enough. Take it to WP:RS/N and see what they say if you don't accept our word for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"... unprinted is not the same as unpublished ...". "Unpublished" has definition: not published. "Unpublished" has synonyms: not circulated, not in print, not printed, unprinted. "Unpublished" has antonyms: printed, published. (http://thesaurus.com/browse/unpublished?__utma=1.613652334.1292366559.1292366559.1292366559.1&__utmb=1.2.9.1292366559653&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1292366559.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)%7Cutmccn=(direct)%7Cutmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=35154081 ). Taking into account the above mentioned and information from "Skeptical Inquiry" («in press») with respect to position 19. (^ Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer), position 19. is a unpublished, unprinted source. Reliability a unpublished source I do not comment. Address ( http://www.csicop.org/search?cx=partner-pub-7990294390318881%3Akq7omegpkyf&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Joe+Nickell%2C+%22Crop-Circle+Mania%3A+An+Investigative+Update%22%2C+Skeptical+Inquirer&sa=%C2%BB#147 ) does not provide access to text of source of position 19. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a published source. Without hard evidence , defend the relevance unpublished position 19. for Wikipedia , - a thankless job. 89.191.104.43 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RS/N and see what they say if since you don't accept our word for it. We're finished here until you get a decision from the noticeboard. Their comments may well sway us into agreeing with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, your search DOES provide access to the article in which Nickell cites himself, so we can use that ref: http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/levengoods_crop-circle_plant_research/ It's reference 6, which is used at least three times in the csicop article. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

About the articles published by Joe Nickell ( http://www.joenickell.com/articles.html ) : "For a selection of my articles published in Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and Skeptical Briefs, please go to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) website, CSICOP.org, and search under" Investigative Files. " A list of the articles published by Joe Nickell ( http://www.csicop.org/author/joenickell/text/javascript/ ) contains no article (position 19.) Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update ", Skeptical Inquirer. Taking into account all that was said earlier, inclusion in References from published sources, earlier mentioned position 19. - Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update", Skeptical Inquirer , is unreasonable and should be eliminated. In addition, position 19. is no the proof of text : "There have been cases in which researchers declared crop circles to be" the real thing ", only to be confronted with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud (see above). [19]". 89.191.104.43 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments on Levengood below in "Soil Samples Section" for fraud evidence. --92.25.72.13 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Soil Anomalies

Where's the information concerning soil anomalies in some crop formations?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 14:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, secondary or tertiary sources I would be happy to discuss adding this material with you. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsolved Mysteries did at least one segment about crop circles. I don't recall any details of soil anomalies (although I think they were mentioned), but unless I'm mistaken, this is where I heard about an anomaly at the bases of the stalks in "real" crop circles, suggesting they were flattened by some mechanism other than being simply crushed (as in the hoaxers' method); I think they had some oddity at the point where they were bent, as though the plants had undergone some biological change. This bit of information made an impression on me, and I'm surprised I haven't really heard it repeated often, if at all. I don't know how reliable a source this would be, but I'd guess that their "unexplained" segments held to the same fact-checking standards as their more mundane segments (missing persons, criminal investigations), which sometimes lead to the mystery being solved. B7T (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Soil anomalies and "blown nodes" work was done by a person who claimed he was a Doctor then it was disocvered by Kevin Randle a UFo resercher that the Doctorate was faked as Mr Levengood (the person who cliamed he was a Doctor) had not got his doctorate from the National Academy of Sciences as they stated they do not give out honorary titles. So all research on this soil sampling and blown nodes is nonsense and has been explained away as natural effects by real plant biologists. Look up the term "phototropism" to see why plants bend upwards towards the light and crack (blow out) at their nodes (knuckles). I think discussion of hese and other rubbished facts is pointless as no scientific research has really been done to a peer review standard. Levengood was the only person in 100 years to have his paper later removed from Pschologia Plantarium. I wonder why. --92.25.72.13 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

farmers

how come no one is considering that the farmers could be doing this?--Zed127 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

in addition how come there are none in the USA?--Zed127 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a wealth of knowledge of Circlemaking and no Farmers have ever been implicated in making. Many circles appear in the US. Look websites international sections such as www.cropcircleconnector.com for many circles there. --92.25.72.13 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What about satellite-produced microwave beams?

What about the possibility of the crop circles being products of microwave beams produced by secret military satellites? Has it been seriously examined by anyone? The only relevant references I can find in the web seem to bring forth plausible arguments, but I couldn't find any rigorous scientific research which proves or disproves this hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryfonaration (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the comment at the top about the purpose of this page? It isn't a forum for discussing crop circles, it is a place to discuss how the article could be improved. I would respectfully suggest that you take your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk - choose category other because it certainly isn't science. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In the article «Crop circle» (item «Other explanations») is useful to mention the fact that «Hasn't been examined by anyone - the possibility of the crop circles being products of microwave beams produced by secret military satellites», or usefully give references on such studies. Sorry, prohibition to discuss the crop circles it is a ban on discussion how the article could be improved. You can not improve the article «Crop circle», without discussion of crop circles.188.112.170.48 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the talk page guidelines. There is no ban, just a requirement that the discussion be focused on improving the article. So to address the point made - asking about fringe theories is different from asking whether that same fringe theory (perhaps supported by some references) should be included in the article. The question as it was posed fell into the former category in my opinion, hence my reply. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bans and a requirement, in relation to article, indistinguishable. Your opinion differs from mine, but I respect your opinion. Whose opinion (Tryfonaration, Simple Bob aka The Spaminator, or 188.112.170.48) focused on improving the article? Discussion, on the page «Discussion (about the content page) - Talk: Crop_circle», are limited (by definition) by one only condition - the debate should be about «Crop circle». In texts of three mentioned participants of discussion are executed this condition. Will there a discussion are focused on improving the article, will determine by the participants in the debate. If not, then the discussion stops automatically of - for lack of participants. 188.112.170.48 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This Page is a Joke

I'm not even a "believer" - not even in the slightest - but an article about crop circles that makes almost no reference to their significance in ufology is about as credible as the article on Jesus Christ making no reference to His significance in Christianity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a science journal. That means significant issues and items in the human canon need to be credibly presented in such a way that at least demonstrates why they are significant. As written, one gets the impression from this article that crop circles have no meaning to humanity other than an amusing past-time for people with too much time on their hands. To whomsoever thinks that they are making wikipedia a better source of knowledge with these "improvements," you are most mistaken. - David, July 19, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.124.211 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree completely --Zed127 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

+1 from me --boarders paradise (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What "controversy"?

I think that under Controversy, it should be added a link towards Masers which is an existing technology, with military usage, widely known by physic scientists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maser#Crop_circles). By the way, thanks to this testimony (see http://www.sherryshriner.com/crop-circles.htm) I was able to verify in the first link that Masers not only exist, but that also have the potential to be the source of the Circle Crops. (Hmoraga, contributor of the Masers addition, see original post). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoraga (talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph of the first section seems loaded with POV. I would think this paragraph could be altogether deleted:

"While most of the observed patterns have revealed as products of deception, artistic expression and business[8]/tourist[9] interests, some still elude rational or verified explanation, and are dubbed "genuine". Such cases have been examined by a few researches via the scientific method. Nevertheless, the results—including intense electromagnetic radiation as the cause of flattening—generated even further controversy."

What controversy? How can any crop circle, that can easily be created by a group of human beings with twine, plywood, and (too much) free time, elude "rational explanation"? This "controversy" seems to be of the same ilk as those of the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement would claim that mainstream scientists actively question evolution. Where are the mainstream scientists that are researching crop circles and are hence generating said "controversy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petzl (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to the above question 'How can any crop circle, that can easily be created by a group of human beings with twine, plywood, and (too much) free time, elude "rational explanation"?':

It can't. The most probable (although not necessarily the only) explanation for such crop circles is that they were created by groups of human beings with twine, plywood, and (too much) free time.

But the controversy lies elsewhere. It lies in the crop circles that cannot easily be created by groups of human beings with twine, plywood, and (too much) free time. As far as I can see, these constitute the majority of crop circles.

And regardless of any speculation as to what human beings are capable of: direct, detailed evidence showing that specific crop circles actually WERE created by groups of human beings - with any amount of equipment and free time - is present in only a tiny minority of cases. 86.180.206.238 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... How can any crop circle, ..., elude" rational explanation "? ". The reason is that genuine “Crop Circle” are created by the forces nature of terrestrial origin, which usually escape the attention of researchers. Some researchers believe, that genuine “Crop Circle” and epiphenomenons anomalous phenomenon is result "... the absorption of electromagnetic energy by matter ..." of node, http://www.bltresearch.com/published/dispersion.php . In a difference from this, the "rational explanation" of a genuine “Crop Circle” and the epifenomenons anomalies and set of arbitrarily complex patterns “Crop Circle” is result action of the instantaneous decline of pressure of air on the external shell of stalk of plant: http://admin.nyos.era.lv/doc/engl_main_crop_circles.pdf ; http://www.nyos.lv/doc/correct_printpoprechnij__text_pru_press___28.03.2010.pdf , Fig.5. . The instantaneous decline of pressure of air on the external shell of stalk of plant occurs when arises an instantaneous rupture of a porous rock (chalk, limestone, etc.) under the ground. When an instantaneous rupture of a porous rock occurs, arises electromagnetic radiation that interacts with the electromagnetic field of the Earth, with the atmospheric electricity, and affects all devices and affects all biological objects in the areas of his actions. Instantaneous rupture of a porous rock is accompanied by heat, which raises the temperature of surrounding rock and soil below the figure “Crop Circle”.TVERD (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear above author - I would add to your point that if you look at the amount of references made to circlemakers.org John Lundberg and www.offkilter.org you will see that this Wiki page has basically been hijacked as a publicity attempt for a commercial artist circlemaker company. I think this should be toned down a bit else we should all be advertissing our tshirts and wears next on the page along with calendars and books. I think you get the point. Over to you. - anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.72.13 (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD - fix it then! --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there will be an article on the 'controversy' and ideology on these pages, in part as indications of an ideology to Wikipedia in general.

Concerning these circles, obviously, we all might wish that the plankers (eg Doug & Dave, Discovery Channel, etc) had never intervened to make the distinction between real (natural) circles and fake (man-made) circles so problematic (at least to a macro-level inspection). The question is *not* whether in looking at a crop circle we can quickly distinguish the real from the fake (based on some secondary attribute such as the resultant pattern) but on what features are said to be attributable to natural circles. These attributes are repeatedly said to include: signs of extreme heat in the stalks joints; stalks are bent and not broken; alleged higher nitrogen levels soon after formation which would be consistent with a high electrical charge; some videos of a ball-lightning like object during formation; sounds captured during formation (5.2 kHz); evidence of heat on the ground; and so on and on. Many assert in journals that a real circle have a verifiable signature that could be reliably identified in a double-blind study. The question is not to 'get rid of the article' here altogether, but to make the distinction between the real (natural) and the fake (man-made). To argue that the distinction is not valid, or that natural crop circles are not possible because a macro observer can't always make the distinction between the two is like saying that a hypothetical distinction between two frog species would not be valid since the distinction between the two species is not always clear to the *casual* observer, even if such a distinction can be verifiably and consistently made through DNA analysis.

Peer review articles on these phenomena include Levengood, W.C. & Talbott, Nancy P. (1999) "Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations" Physiologia Plantarum 105:615-624, or Levengood, W.C. (1994) "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants" Physiologia Plantarum 92:356-363

So what about the cause of *natural* circles? Unknown. Clearly all kinds of explanations have been offered, and while some might involve further unverifiable hypothesis (generally contravening Okhamist parsimony), presumably these explanations, including the more fanciful 'paranormal' flavors could be categorized and relegated to a encyclopedia sub-section entitled 'controversial explanations.' However the explanations are separate from the phenomena. Consider this question: what is human consciousness? Some neo-Gnostic group out there might assert that human consciousness is in fact an 'alien spark' that has fallen to earth and been "captured" by a savannah hominid which then co-evolved with this independent entity the way mitochondria were seemingly captured. Fine, but the unverifiable and fanciful explanation should not in itself disqualify other, more measured, scientific, and verifiable inquiry into the nature and origins of human consciousness.

To return to the planker explanation, there is thus no reason to include such extraneous material about pseudo, man-made circles in an article about natural crop circles. I am in favor of providing a *separate* independent article on 'man-made crop circles' and expanding this one with issues relevant to natural crop circles. The rather persistent inclusion of distracting material intro this article seems less a matter of laziness than of deliberate ideology that we live in an era that knows most everything, and a non-scientific spirit disguising itself as a faithful servant of science will not stop at anything to hide the unknown, or to make fun of rational inquiry into evidence using innuendo and sites like Wikipedia to do their work. We might consider a 'pseudo-debunking' prank by several MIT undergraduates that got breathlessly and naively reported by the Discovery Channel 'expose' of crop circles as if it were some peer review inquiry by MIT professors. In fact their explanation and procedures didn't work, and oh, surprise, they were at least trying to explain some of the heat attributes we have mentioned concerning natural crop circles (as opposed to the man-made) which, surprise, did not make it into the Wikipedia article as it stands. Bottom line, use the peer review material, get rid of the planker story, or at least put it in another article, assemble evidence, and if you want, you can include a section on 'speculations' on the bottom, which, I understand, are quite numerous, and don't all include tales of aliens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.40.173 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

reverting some of Thanos5150's edits

Thanos5150's edits removed refed content and added stuff about John Lundberg that is not supported by the ref given (specificaly the term "alien lightforms" does not appear in the ref given.©Geni 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed poorly written and sourced unbalanced material not relevant in the context and added more balanced material and wording. This article is little more than a hack-job psuedoskeptical promo piece and is in serious need of revision. Pathetic really, but with editors like you I now understand why. "Alienlightforms" is the title of the article by John Ludgwig himself on his own website dumbass. Stop being a kneejerk troll and stop undoing entire edits. You, specifically you-are what is wrong with Wiki.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First please read WP:NPA and WP:BRD (okey FisherQueen already told you about that one. ""alien lightforms" is mearly used as a headline and is at no point used to describe Lundberg's observations.©Geni 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, then just edit the word if you have such a problem with it, regardless of the the fact it is his own headline, and stop undoing my edits. Do you understand this? You have an issue with one word and keep trashing the whole thing. Stop it. DO NOT USE UNDO TO CHANGE THIS IS YOU FEEL IT IS NECESSARY. Just edit the word. And it is not lost on me you had your pal revert it for the 3rd time instead of doing it yourself.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, I've done it for you. Stop undoing my edits.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given Thanos5150 a 3RR warning - including his first edits he's at 4RR. And an NPA warning. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As I disagree with his original deletions of cited content (and four reversions) I have reverted them once again. What I would like is for him to explain why specifically sourced material is being removed. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No surprise to find you here Doug. Funny though how I didn't see any history of your edits or in discussion until I got here. Guess I just missed it.

Geni-it is obvious you know exactly what you are doing and why. And yet it is I who am destructive and make articles only worse?

SimpleBob-really Bob? I will assume good faith here. I like simple.

For such a popular topic the content of this article is severely limited, completely unbalanced, and as a whole poorly organized. For someone to Google crop circles and come upon this page as I did I'm sure they would find it thoroughly uninformative with inappropriate bias and move on. Regardless of you POV I assume the reason we are here is to write good articles.

1) the lead of this article does not offer any other possibility for crop formation other than being man-made and implies this is the only accepted method which it is not. The statement "While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what" is true and is not meant to imply anything other than what it says. This does not mean they were made by aliens or Jesus. If you think it should be reworded then by all means please do, but the fact is we do not know how all crop circles are made which should be noted in the lead. Also, isn't "the most widely known method for man-made crop formations" more economical and flow better than "most widely known method for a person or group to construct a crop formation"? Is better sentence structure offensive here too?

2)"Some crop formations are paid for by companies who use them as advertising" is an orphaned one line statement prominently displayed after the lead giving it far too much undue weight and regardless has a whole paragraph devoted to it below. This is a rather recent development and makes up only a fraction of 1% of crop formations in any given year. I think it is worthy to note this, but not in the lead.

3)The history section is pathetic and citing only the Devil's Mower when there are several other credible accounts of crop formations which can be cited prior to 1978. Like Rand Capron in 1880 for example. Regardless, the paragraph I removed is linked to Doug and Dave, which itself should be under the broader title of "Hoaxers" anyways. It says/implies even though they claimed in 1991 to have hoaxed all crop circles up to that point "it was still happening", as if it should have just stopped since they were no longer doing it, which leads to crop circles resembling "extraterrestrials as portrayed by certain science fiction movies" which is not supported by the citations. I'm not sure what formation this even refers to, but this comprises, what-one or two out of several thousand and yet it is given pole position? Come on. That's nonsense. It further says: "Among others, paranormal enthusiasts, ufologists, and anomalistic investigators have offered hypothetical explanations that have been criticized as pseudoscientific by skeptical groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry". Of course this statement is lead by the cranks and ends with "anomalistic investigators" and says nothing of scientists or the British government, but no, the article cited from the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry", which should be considered fringe in it's own right, does not criticize these theories as "pseudoscientific"-at least nowhere does this citation say this, which makes it OR. Regardless, none of that has to do with Doug and Dave. There are many others that have offered explanations and yet according to this article they have been summarily explained away as pseudoscientific by one group. This paragraph belongs in the associated section, not Doug and Dave, and also the wording needs to be more accurate and balanced without clear intent to demean as well as needed a large amount of missing material to be added.

Furthermore, there is nothing offered to challenge the validity of Doug and Dave's claims which are highly suspect.

3)"According to Lundberg, however, "I still believe there is a genuine phenomenon, but I now also believe that we're a part of it". While making crop circles, Lundberg reports on several occasions he and his crew encountered strange bursts of light, which he refers to as "alien lightforms", and describes the experience "analogous to having a flash gun let off in my face". Even the hoaxers, quoting them directly, believe there is a genuine phenomenon only that now they are a "part of it". If the hoaxers themselves think there is something more to it then how is that not relevant because who is better to speak on such matters than the people actually doing it? Lundberg's title of his article is "alien lightforms" so to say he doesn't call them that is incorrect, but if you have a problem with that word then edit that one word as I did for you. The point of using that term is not to say they are "alien", but these are the words of the person being cited, which I think is relevant and lends to their credibility or lack there of. The point of that part is not to bring up the idea of aliens, but the balls of light associated with crop circles which are a well documented integral part of the phenomenon and not even mentioned in this article.

4) The paranormal section is woefully lacking of any meaningful content and is clearly unbalanced. For one, this entire opening paragraph is POV with no citation. It further says that the only evidence comes from eye witness testimony and any other evidence is virtually absent, which is not true, as much other evidence comes from documented field research or statistical analysis or observations of the logistics of being man-made on a world wide scale as well as the fact crop circles have been reported long before 1978. Such evidence may be contested, but it is not even mentioned here what it is. Furthermore, by the same token, there is no evidence that all crop circles are man-made either and many can and have been adequately explained as not being such on equal grounds. "What else could have done it" is not proof either way. This section offers no context for any of these statements and quickly leads to "There have been cases in which researchers declared crop circles to be "the real thing", only to be confronted with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud" which is not even in the article cited saying this comes from "citation 6" a completely different article. The paragraph goes further along this vein but never gives any content or context for why people think all crop circles might not be man-made. Aren't we supposed to say what one view is and why they think that and then cite the reasons why others disagree? To add balance does not mean to give equal weight to the validity of the ideas, it means that both sides are equally presented.

It is obvious why this article is as poor as it is, but improving it by adding material and context should not be this painful. Other than a psuedoskeptic's journal, which Wikipedia is not, no one would treat this subject this way, but this is common with controversial topics in Wiki.

Personally, I agree with this explanation: "Crop circles are Chuck Norris' way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie the f$%k down".Thanos5150 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you looked hard for evidence of my edits - I was posting here two years ago [1] (and later) and my first edit of the article as on 2008-07-26 16:40. But it's only of casual interest to me. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanos5150 proposes changes to certain sections of the article. He explains the changes:«For such a popular topic the content of this article is severely limited, completely unbalanced, and as a whole poorly organized. For someone to Google crop circles and come upon this page as I did I'm sure they would find it thoroughly uninformative with inappropriate bias and move on. Regardless of you POV I assume the reason we are here is to write good articles. ». Herein he is right! Opponents of Thanos5150 are in a great deal wrong . For example, Geni rejects the version text «While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what, the most widely known method for man made crop formations is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. », which was proposed Thanos5150 against text in article « The most widely known method for a person or group to construct a crop formation is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. ». Text of Thanos5150, more cautious and more reliable than the version in the article. But the version of text in the article is too categorical, unreliable and cannot be proven. I suggest looking closely at the proposals of Thanos5150 , and not threaten him with all sorts of taboos. With this approach, the text of article can be improved. TVERD (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Doug. I did not go back 2yrs to find your edits. Like I said, "I guess I just missed it". By about 2yrs apparently. But now that I'm here you're back apparently, but if this subject has little interest please don't let me keep you.

Thank you for your support TVERD! I knew there had to be at least one other non-psuedoskeptic editor left on Wiki.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a crop circles as: "an area of standing crops that has been flattened in the form of a circle or more complex pattern. No general cause of crop circles has been identified although various natural and unorthodox explanations have been put forward; many of the circles are known to have been hoaxes". Essentially the same as my edit, but something to this effect needs to be part of the lead. I would think this could be used as a reference.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanos, all you had to do was look at the current edit history of the article and you'd see I've edited it this year, so it appears you didn't even bother, just insinuated I was here because of you with no evidence. It's also extremely easy to look at a list of contributors to an article. And it's on my watch list, so I notice when anyone edits it. Don't expect other editors to give you good faith when you make insinuations, call people names, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But your here now because of me right? Everywhere I go on Wiki, there you are to incessantly challenge my every edit down to the word and waste my time by your constant nitpicking and arguing. You've never taken my back once ever even when you know I'm right, and as it seems to me at least you make every effort to go out of your way to impede my edits and waste my time. If this is wrong then why don't you prove it for once by your actions. So what if you edited this page once in the last year, you are only actively here now as a response to my being here. Whether you monitor these pages or not is irrelevant as you make the choice to constantly negatively interact with me. I'm not "insinuating" anything, this is your documented history with me and at this point you'll get from me no better than you give. You've never assumed good faith on my part for the simple reason we do not share the same POV on anything and you assume everything I do must be sinister and disruptive. And as far as these other editors are concerned, they did not offer me good faith before I called Gemi a dumbass and if anything offered me nothing less than total irresponsible obstinance for no other reason than to protect their POV. Total nonsense, and if you were being an objective observer which I assume is a requirement of being an administrator, you would have stepped in before things got ugly. But of course you wouldn't because the offending editors share your POV, but if it was the other way around you'd be all over it. And where are they now? They hack these edits and make no follow up to defend their position? This kind of stuff happens all the time here -you know this, but in my experience you only intervene when it suits your POV. Regardless, I'll assume good faith when it is given and if you want a better working relationship with me then you need to be fair regardless of the fact you disagree. Once again-waste of time. Done.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear opponents Thanos5150, for the improvement of the article it is necessary to prove that your refusal to accept the texts that suggested Thanos5150, is justified and useful to the article. For example, whether it is possible to justify abolition of the text « While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what, the most widely known method for man made crop formations is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants.» using a phrase « rv POV edits that missrepresent sources specifically http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html ». Desirably, what for every text proposed Thanos5150, every user was in a position to see proofs on this page ( through one month). Otherwise, should be recognized that the text Thanos5150 is justified and useful for improving the article. TVERD (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've avoided this so far, but thought I'd just pop in right now. The above by TVERD is not how it works. The onus is on the contributing editor to show that the additions are valid, not on the removing editors. If Thanos5150 is unable to convince the opposing editors that the contributions are valid, then they are not valid. a_man_alone (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear a_man_alone, I am not the author changes Thanos5150, at the same time I am not the author (an opponent) of the abolition of the changes proposed Thanos5150. I is the third person in relation to Thanos5150 and to his opponents. As a third person I assess the changes proposed Thanos5150, and I assess validity of actions Thanos5150's opponents on the conservation of the existing text of the article. Responding to opponents, Thanos5150, pointed out that "... the content of this article is ... completely unbalanced, and as a whole poorly organized ...». Opponents have not denied this allegation. This assertion is key to assessing changes to the text of the article. The statements of the Thanos5150's opponents do not contain compelling arguments about the advantage of the existing text of articles against the text Thanos5150. In this connection, there are set questions . Some of them are given on this page. Response to them was not followed. About who and what should prove ... Everybody must prove, if he to aim to bring a benefit to the article. TVERD (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty in understanding yout text, but that's not what you specified above. Previously you were adamant that the removers should justify their removals, on the basis that Thanos didn't neeed to. Doesn't work like that. And no, Everybody does not need to prove - only the contributor needs to prove, as I said before. It is easier to work together, and smoother if everybody does agree, but as I said before - it is up to the contributor to justify. It's unhelpful, but all the remover needs to say is "I disagree. Prove it" and then the ball's in your (or Thanos') court. a_man_alone (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For a_man_alone. Fact, all participants prove (Everybody: the contributor and the opponents). An opponent proves for example « rv POV edits that missrepresent sources specifically http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html». Everybody prove, - this is normal. The problem: which proof is false, and which are correct. Proof « rv POV edits that missrepresent sources specifically http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html», applied to the text « While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what, the most widely known method for man made crop formations is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. », is example of false proof. I thank you for interest to my position . As a result Discussion are found distinctions in the estimation of facts. TVERD (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm backing off from this topic, because I can't understand a word you're saying. a_man_alone (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think this article as it is now how been greatly improved and ironically much of the material and organization I merely restored from earlier revisions. Hopefully it will last a while. Now at least a coherent more balanced article has been formed which should provide a more objective presentation of the information to the reader. While I'm sure it could be further improved, this article in it's previous state was a prime example of the havoc competing POV's cause on controversial topics with no neutral administration intervention. Left in it's wake is often a mish-mash of gobbledygook, poor organization and sentence structure, and incessant negative qualifiers leaving an article nearly incomprehensible. I find this on almost every Wiki page of alternative subject material I find, which I think is sad and not really the reason we edit here. I will be moving on from this page and will check back from time to time.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

A couple of observations for the editors here to think about. The article as a whole seems pretty fair to me except the final comment in the lede, which begins "Formations usually are made overnight...". What follows from this sticks out as being out of place in the lede and trying too hard to establish the 'truth' of what the crop circles are before the article even begins. Since the subject is not without controversy, then either some element of the controversy ought to neutrally reported within the lede, or the lede should remain totally objective in its introduction and end at the point the final comment commences. The text prior to that makes a really good lede and needs no further qualification in my opinion.

Then the remark about how formations are made should be made within the article as a section headed "Explanations". This should be given prominent attention and placed before the section headed "Other explanations" (which I think would be better renamed "Alternative explanations").

One point to bear in mind here is that the subject of crop circles falls under the guidelines given for Fringe theories, of which this comment applies: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article". There is a shift of what becomes due weight within articles that are actually about fringe subjects, which does not require the controversial elements of the matter to be disproportionately subdued - because they are the point of notability: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space". WP gives the example that it would be undue weight to give recognition of the flat-earth theory in an article about the earth, but within the article about the flat-earth theory, then obviously it's not undue weight to explain what the theories are, why they exist, and who have reported on them. As ridiculous as such theories appear to most of us, WP aims to report neutrally with a detached, objective tone, whilst presenting the majority view in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it.

As a reader with no pre-conceptions, one point I felt was missing is why crop-circles continue to generate fascination, even from people (like myself) who don't doubt they must all be either man-made or naturally formed. I felt there should be some coverage on how intricate some of these 'circles' become in their design, because regardless of how they are made, crop circles are able to present extremely impressive works of art, and yet there isn't any sense of this within the article.

Not sure if there is enough collaboration on the page for this to happen, but one way in which an objective tone is created is when editors who favor the mainstream explanation try to make the case for the alternative explanation and vice versa. Just think about the reader who comes to the page in search of information on all aspects of this subject, and base the content around what the notable sources say, even including reference to 'less credible' sources, if those sources are responsible for creating public perceptions or misconceptions that have helped to define public interest in the subject. (Obviously this does not require giving those sources undue credence). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac, good points. "impressive works of art" needs to be emphasized here since I think the logos/symbology of these circles could be an article all to itself (The impressive Pi crop circle comes to mind here). I'm attempting to rejiggle this article to include a more concise step by step breakdown of the phenomena in my sandbox. Perhaps someday we can convince the UK government to invest a summer into some air drones (since they already video-tape everything else in the UK) and at least attempt to solve this mystery. I guess the lack of government interest leans me towards a pre-conceived notion that they are somehow involved. Jason (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

“… attempt to solve this mystery.” “…the lack of government interest … they are somehow involved.” At a commentary (Romans Nazarovs) to article Alejandro Rojas ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alejandro-rojas/crop-circle-microwave-ano_b_929152.html ) it is said: «... To date, succeeded to create a physical theory of origin ( http://nyos.lv/uploads/3420/P-Translate--PRINTPoprechnij--Text-Pru-press---28.03.2010.pdf ) of natural "crop circles" as result of the instantaneous drop pressure of external ambient air at the plant's stems, in which was proved:

how appear the natural mysterious patterns and images in the genuine "crop circles";
how appear the natural an abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat in the "crop circles". »
Why a government must spend money on a problem which is already solved?

TVERD (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is promising researching but only demonstrates the mechanics involved in how these plants are affected by microwaves, Taylor doesn't claim to know for a fact that this method is being used. Doesn't illustrate what kind of machinery would be needed on a large scale or what that would look like. Doesn't illustrator who or what designs the patterns and logos, whether they are random or created by a consciousness entity. This paper shows how plants can be manipulated with microwaves, which like I say is exciting research but far from solving the mystery.

Government should invest tax money because:

1) Farmers are losing money due to damaged crops

2) Research into this technology could have other worthwhile benefits

3) It could be potentially dangerous or threatening

4) It could be important if it turns out to be communication from other entities (either human or non-human)

5) Its worth investing money into deepening our understanding of the world

6) It hasn't been solved and continually effects peoples lives (mostly the farmers)

Granted there are more pressing issues like infrastructure and education. But personally I'd rather divert some military spending to this kinda thing instead of building bombs and war planes, which is getting tiresome. But anyway, why not write this info into the article? Why post this here and then delete your account? People are strange. Jason (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, noticed you didn't delete your account, but just get good sources and write it into the article. Jason (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jason. In my comments are not discussed pros and cons of the proposal Taylor. Taylor not mentioned in my comments . Your suggestion that the Government should invest tax money into the problem, which discussed in this article, will not improve this article. Government should invest tax money in problem, which unsolved. Main problems of genuine "crop circles": how appear the natural mysterious patterns and images in the genuine "crop circles"; how appear the natural an abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat in the "crop circles". The answers to these questions are received. The government has nothing to do with this problem. With regard to the losing money due to damaged crops of farmers: avoid the losing money, due to damaged crops in genuine "crop circles", is impossible; avoid the losing money, due to damaged crops in man-made "crop circles", is problem for the police. Before you make any changes, including those mentioned in your comments, it is appropriate to discuss usefulness to the article of this changes on this page. I agree with your opinion "...divert some military spending to this kinda thing instead of building bombs and war planes, which is getting tiresome." TVERD (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TVERD, I was answering your question - Why a government must spend money on a problem which is already solved? Im not suggesting that Government spending be written into the article as I don't think that's relevant to this article, it should just state facts about the phenomenon and be backed up with reputable citations, but I was suggesting that you add a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of microwaves and how they effect plants; Because that is relevant to the phenomenon. This article is too simplified and is missing a lot of vital information and research. It also emphasizes the Doug and Dave 'prankster' explanation, which is just one of many other possible explanations. I don't read this article as having a neutral viewpoint. I agree its appropriate to first discuss these issues and come to a consensus. Well anyway, Have a great day. Jason (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I agree - It's impossible to "read this article as having a neutral viewpoint". This is the main shortcoming of the article. Neutral points of view recognize equal rights both for genuine "crop circles" and man-made "crop circles". However, the main subject of articles is man-made "crop circles". In the article, genuine "crop circles" are examined as «Other explanations»??? The problem of "crop circles" is solved. It is known how the mysterious patterns and images appear in the genuine "crop circles" and in the man-made "crop circles". It is known how abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat in the genuine "crop circles" appear. Technologies, which create man-made "crop circles", with the abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat and with other characteristic features, which have been found in genuine "crop circles", which are unknown. Your expectation that the «comprehensive and detailed explanation of microwaves and how they effect plants» will create a corresponding characteristic features in the man-made "crop circles" are not justified theoretically and practically. Therefore, for the article, it's not the worthy texts about the microwaves. I agree that the government should increase spending on science.'. TVERD (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TVERD, I hope you are not insulted by this, but I re-wrote your above paragraph with proper English grammar, if you wanted to compare and improve your English (Wikipedia has a nice feature to compare edits in the History tab). Re-writing your words helped me understand what you were saying as simple grammatical errors can profoundly abstract communication. Are you a native speaker of German by chance? Just a guess. I didn't realize this article was specially written for "man-made" crop circles. If so, it should be renamed and moved with the title "Man-Made Crop Circles" Otherwise its too ambiguous. Otherwise if the article is about Crop Circles (in general), it should detail all aspects of crop circles both man-made and genuine(unexplained) and with a neutral point of view. Jason (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jason, thanks for proper English grammar. You correctly estimated a situation in relation to the article of "Crop Circles". This article was more neutral some years ago. Violation of neutrality happened as a result of powerful support of man made "Crop Circles" in medias. It is interesting Your suggestions about reorganization of the article. It is useful, create the separate article about man made circles "Crop Circles". So acted relatively the irrigation method that produces circular fields of crops.( For the irrigation method that produces circular fields of crops, see center pivot irrigation.) Opinions of other users about it are we not heard, unfortunately. TVERD (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin Andrews

Moving four edits from the top to bring attention to it. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. This page is a joke. Scientific research studies of this phenomena are not mentioned here. One research article is even given as source for claims by Committee for Sceptical Inquiry, even if it has nothing to do with it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.55.24 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This page is a joke. The discussions on here are hilarious. Fortunately, the article page is much better. a_man_alone (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree also. I've begun a re-write, or rather expansion in my Sandbox which you are welcome to help with, the only thing is with a topic this large, and with all the data available out there, both good and bad, its going to take some time to track down decent citations; Not too mention that I'm a bit concerned about investing the time into this article since this topic seems prone to vandalism; both with those who resist taking a non-bias Scientific, step by step, approach to this phenomena - as well as those Scientific minds who refuse to accept valid research from people such as Colin Andrews (who don't have scientific credentials, nevertheless are experts in the field). Jason (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I too am discouraged to see this. The structure of this page is obviously written with bias that is cleverly worded to make it seem like it's not. I recently attempted to edit it with scientific research provided by Colin Andrews, a highly respected 20+ year researcher in the field who is recognized as perhaps the leading expert on crop circles. It was revised, and I was asked to post here. I understand that skeptics want their share in the post, which is fine, but the honest data that reflects the actual science put forth by people who actually study the phenomenon should be the most important part, regardless of what their studies say. In this case, the studies show that this phenomenon, at least those crop circles believed to be authentic, currently have no way of being reproduced by humans. I am unfamiliar with some of the writing techniques used to edit wikipedia pages, but I was asked to precursor factual statements of decades of research with "Colin Andrews believes." This is unfair, and I would like my references allowed to return in the proper format. Everything I posted was true, referenced, documented scientifically, and in fact correcting misleading statements that were used by others on the page. Skeptics can argue what the results of the science means, but they cannot argue the facts of the science itself. The science itself is not a belief, it is documented research conducted by professionals. I can accept that there will be skeptics who assume everything unusual HAS to be a conspiracy and we're all out to them with science that *clearly* MUST have been fabricated, but when the the research is available, it is their duty to criticize what it could mean within the information provided, not try to deny and belittle the research that was put into it so they can feel safe in their beliefs. I do not see these quantifiers in other wikipedia pages for other statements of factual science, and it should not have to be applied here. I have provided wikipedia with the book reference so that anyone can see for themselves the research available on the topic, and I would like to see my revisions returned (in whatever altered form the heading / body requires), as they were both fair and scientific. Allthankstoyou (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might help the discussion to reproduce the comment that was removed:

Some crop circles are known to be created by humans, but crop circles that are believed to be authentic display definite biological changes, including internal changes of the plants at a cellular level, that cannot be replicated by humans.

I agree that this point needs to be covered in the main article, not introduced within the lede. The lede should steer clear of anything that could court controversy one way or another; being neither critical or supportative of any particular view in this controversial topic.

I also agree that it is appropriate, and not unfair, for the point to be made with a clear attribution to the researcher who has published these findings. This does not imly that the research is unreliable; it is simply a matter of responsible reporting. It shouldn't, for example, say that this is what Colin Andrews believes, it should talk about what he has found, or what he has concluded. But until such time that this becomes an accepted finding of mainstream science, it is necessary to refer to it as the finding of a specialist researcher, and only fair to identify him really.

Also, in the comment "crop circles that are believed to be authentic display...". What defines an 'authentic' crop circle? If it is admitted that some (not all) crop circles are made by animal activity, then are these not authentic crop circles too? The comment needs explanation. That said, I would like to see the comment given attention and then introduced as a relevant point to the main page coverage of the subject. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. My objection wasn't to using Colin Andrews, although I'm not sure we can say he 'found', but we could say Andrews 'writes', or 'says' or something that doesn't imply he's right - or wrong. As for 'authentic', if we can avoid it, let's just not use the word as it has implications, however used, that I don't think the article should make if it is to abide by WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I wrote the term "authentic" as the way the book referred to them, which was to distinguish between crop circles that they said were "clearly man made" and those which did not fit the bill of being created by humans. The term was not really my own. I'm fine with altering the terminology. In regards to mainstream science, while I understand the argument there, the reason these things aren't mainstream science is because people refuse to post them until they become mainstream science. The fact is that there's a lot of really bizarre science out there (quantum science is a perfect example) that the majority of people aren't being shown out of the fear of the people showing it to be ridiculed, despite the accuracy of the science. Right now, the page is bombed with criticism (a good portion of which is totally incorrect), and is not being challenged because it's what the mainstream arguably believes. That's just sad. Wikipedia should be a source of accuracy. Anyone can go to the top researchers and scientists of the crop circles and ask what they've learned; they will unanimously bring up the fact that even though they may have been extremely skeptical when starting their research, they have had to eventually let go of their preconceptions and accept that humans simply couldn't be responsible. There are many proofs of this, only one of which was the cellular changes that take place in the "authentic" crop circles, but also includes the precision of "authentic" crop circles to millimeters of accuracy in whatever fractal shapes they are (something that trampled crop circles cannot provide, or even usually in professional construction projects), the speed at which some have been identified to be created (which has attempted to be reproduced, even by many of the groups that claim to be crop creators without anything resembling a close success), the lack of human presence that shows up (unlike the ones made by humans), the perfect 90 degree bend of the stalks that cannot be replicated by the trampling (nor even comes close), and so forth. These findings are not just Colin Andrews, and in fact in his book he often writes about the other scientists reporting these things for his own referencing, and merely confirms that his findings are the same. So I appreciate you taking the time to overview this and to ensure that wikipedia is kept legitimate, but my real question here is why are the skeptics being given more credit than the professionals (I'm referring to the university professors, PH.D.s, and other scientific researchers) that are actually out investigating the crop circles? And why is this a consistent pattern for many of the other fringe sciences just because the mainstream is afraid to hear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthankstoyou (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a further point, which is that the "mainstream" consists of people who sit on their computers reading Wikipedia and have no interaction or involvement in the actual study of the subject. If we're waiting for the mainstream to accept the reality of fringe science, how can we expect that to happen if we don't show it to them with anything other than minimal efforts to satisfy the few who are willing to speak up about it? Mainstream isn't going to change until we give them the facts, and it's impossible to expect them to have the facts if you're not willing to provide them with the unbiased reviews of the science. So the only logical conclusion is the the editors of the page need to be educated in the science and be willing to post it as the science is found. But the admins such as yourself are ultimately responsible for the content, so unless you're informed about it, or those who have studied it have been allowed to edit it, there's no ground that we can make on it. And while I realize that I can't just make you go out and buy a few books on crop circles and do the investigative reporting with all of the scientists to confirm this, it's about the only way I can conceive of that would allow this page to reflect the accuracy it deserves. So what can we do regarding the paradox of the mainstream issue as it currently stands? (( Edit: FYI, I don't mean to imply that you're being unfair with how you're proceeding. I realize I'm challenging common perceptions, so thank you for looking into this. )) Allthankstoyou (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read a few of our policy pages such as WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically the sections on WP:NOTADVOCATE. We are not here to "challenge common conceptions" or bring "fringe" pseudoscientific theories to greater public attention. Heiro 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To Allthankstoyou,

It would help a lot if you don’t see this as an issue of new theories struggling to get recognition in mainstream science. That is not a WP problem. Wikipedia has to take a responsible approach, as any non-specialist encyclopaedia must, and place the onus on accepted, mainstream knowledge. Even though modern science has some unproven and highly hypothetical theories, they gain acceptance because those theories have developed out of the principles of accepted science. So they are seen as theoretically acceptable, even if some of them are dubious, rather bizarre, and likely to be rejected when another, more elegant theory, presents an alternative model to work to. On the other hand, science has no accepted precedent or theoretically supported theory related to paranormal or ET formations of crop-circles. Therefore, explanations that lean in that direction – or even those that merely raise issues which accepted science does not understand - are necessarily subject to suspicion and doubt. WP has a duty to reflect that, because it is the fact of the matter in today’s world.

On the other hand, WP policies strive towards objective reporting of verifiable information. You say “the page is bombed with criticism (a good portion of which is totally incorrect), and is not being challenged because it's what the mainstream arguably believes”. I am no expert in this but I just read through the page again and I doesn’t look to me like the page is bombed down with unfair criticism. I consider myself to be sceptical but certainly open-minded to all arguments, and I think I represent the reader who – in turning to the page to get informed on the issue - wants to see all the known information, as well as the pertinent theories and relevant speculative suggestions featured. I want to see that information offered intelligently - I don’t want to be hit with a page full of bias, and I’ve made a few light edits to the page myself when I’ve been struck by a comment or an unnecessary emphasis that is in danger of losing the tone of objectivity.

As it stands I don’t think there is a problem with the content on the page because the criticisms that have been reported are all substantiated. If there is another side to this that is not being reported then the content needs to be developed to demonstrate what the counter arguments are. The editors here will help you if you understand their concerns and take their criticisms on board. For example, Dougweller has pointed out that you need to be careful in how you express the information, so that it is factual, robust, and free from criticisms of inaccuracy or undue weight. To say that Colin Andrews “found” something would raise unnecessary controversy – because, unless it was fully substantiated and corroborated, it could be argued whether this was “found” by his study. However, it is not controversial to say that he reported his findings, or to explain what those findings are.

Heiro says “We are not here to "challenge common conceptions" or bring "fringe" pseudoscientific theories to greater public attention”. WP is cautious about not giving ‘fringe’ theories undue weight, nor being seen to promote them, or giving them more credibility they deserve. However, as I said in my post of 9 August, where fringe theories are intrinsically significant to the content of the page, as is the case here, then they are allowed more weight on the page; they “may receive more attention and space”. And when they are covered, they should be given with the same sense of objectivity and neutrality as any other content.

WP is actually very fair and its policies are sensible and subject to common sense. It allows anyone to contribute providing its fundamental policies are respected. So if you feel there is a problem of underrepresentation of relevant information on the on the page, and you care about this, then the responsibility lies with you to get informed on the policies and learn how to originate substantiated content that reports the facts cautiously and intelligently – then take on the work needed to fix the problem you have identified. Although you have as much right to contribute content as anyone else, I would suggest that, as a new editor, you will get greater support if you propose significant additions or alterations on this talk-page first, so that any potential problems can be fixed, which would make the content more secure and enduring when added to the main page. Take a look at what Jason is doing, by developing content in his sandbox. It helps WP a lot if editors from different perspectives work collaboratively together, and that means listening to each other’s arguments and respecting the criticism that are offered in good faith; not assuming that this place is built on a conspiracy to repress the information found by subject experts and investigators. Regards,-- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of what I've been discussing is that this isn't theory. I'm not contesting what Wikipedia is about, nor would I consider it to be a place to push agendas. As for challenging common conceptions, that argument isn't relevant - whether or not something challenges common conceptions doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the information is accurate. I am certainly challenging common conceptions by trying to bring it to the attention of the page, as I had mentioned, but to consider that relevant in any way to the goal of Wikipedia makes no sense, unless WP has a disclaimer about not trying to rough up the mainstream belief patterns (which I highly doubt). As mentioned earlier, I'm remarking on the fact that in reference to the idea that we need mainstream to catch up to the scientific research provided before we can adequately express it is inherently flawed - the results as the science shows needs to be published in order for that to happen, which ends in a paradox if the proper information isn't provided. We're arguing the same thing here, with differing understandings on what that research may or may not be.

To be honest, I really don't care enough to become an expert wikipedia editor. I made a change to reflect some of the lesser known facts about crop circles, and now I'm arguing on a talk page about how the published professionals in the field of crop circle study are currently less represented by the facts about "authentic" crop circles than some pranksters who get famous for taking credit for stomping around in a field, which didn't happen until after the scientific phenomenon of crop circles was exposed through publishing the unusual traits. So I guess I'm just a little disappointed and upset about what I perceive as an accusation that I'm being unfair about what I see as worthy of valid change on a "unbiased" page. I didn't have an issue bringing up Colin Andrews or any of the scientists he works with. I had a problem with "Colin Andrew believes" which at the time was the reason stated for the removal of my content.

If you want my humble suggestion about what should be included, then it is this: I recommend that there be something to distinguish the crop circles that are easily identifiable by humans and the crop circles that have yet to have any human be able to reproduce the unusual effects that take place, and then follow up by explaining the difference in each of them. Utilize the names of all the researchers that came to these conclusions and what their respective qualifications are. And you can consider this a total cop out, because I don't feel so inclined as to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthankstoyou (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So you have just identified the real problem, which is nothing to do with Wikipedia:

1. "we need mainstream to catch up to the scientific research provided before we can adequately express it is inherently flawed".
2. "To be honest, I really don't care enough to become an expert wikipedia editor." (No one said you had to become an expert editor to contribute; the point was made that if you did care, you would be helped).

What is the point of offering your "humble opinion", which is basically a whinge about what other editors should feel inclined to do, which you don't feel inclined to do yourself? This resource is based on volunteered contributions; so yes, it is a 'cop out' that you find the time and motivation to moan about a supposed problem, admitting that you can't be bothered to try to fix it yourself, in order to leave the responsibility of this supposed problem with other editors who don't even recognise it to the extent you do? For all those who take this attitude and leave discussion page comments here to suggest the page is "a joke", I can only suggest that the joke falls on you. Sorry, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For Zac Δ ."This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crop circle article." TVERD (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

With that logic, unless you become a politician, you have no right to comment on the state of affairs in politics. Brilliant. The fact is, not all of us want to argue endlessly about topics that are going to be bombarded with undue criticism after we've supplied all the facts and references necessary and receive accusations about validity and frustrated mods passive aggressively attacking my inexperience with editing a page. I recognize there are a lot of things in the world I would like to change, but this isn't something important enough to me to spend my time on. I applaud your willingness to contribute to a free, open database, since that is a noble pursuit, but chill out... I'm entitled to my opinion and my personal preference of time and energy. I'd love to collaborate with people who want to learn about what I've researched, but a good example of why I'm not inclined to stay here is the paragraph you just posted. Allthankstoyou (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: If you or anyone else really wants my suggested contribution written out, here: [Heading: Foreign Crop Circles] Foreign Crop Circles are crop circles that exhibit behavior that is inconsistent with crop circles that are known or verifiable as human-created. Unlike the form of crop circles verifiable as man-made, the crops in these circles do not die, and in fact often grow larger and produce more grain than their counterparts do. Consistencies amongst these types of crop circles include biological changes that occur at a cellular level, very accurate 90-degree bends in the stalks at positions above the level of a trampling (the techniques most prominently used in the creation of human-made crop circles), and are extremely precise in their measurements of the formations, down to millimeters of precision. Unlike human-made circles, they are frequently absent of any traces human activity when researchers arrive at the scene. These crop circles also tend to reflect the nature of complicated mathematics and musical scales.

Anyone who edits this page is free to use this, editing however is most suited to the page, assuming they reference the book(s) they use to confirm it. I recommend Crop Circles - Signs of Contact by Collin Andrews. Allthankstoyou (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For Tverd. Your selective vision appears to have left you unable to recognise that my posts concern issues relating to the improvement of this article. But it will help if you bear that comment in mind, limit yourself to it, and refrain from referring to some editors as the “opponents” of other editors. That sort of thing is never constructive and doesn't foster improvement of the article. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For Allthankstoyou: «authentic», «genuine» or «natural» preferred than «Foreign». Your text "Consistencies amongst these types of crop circles include biological changes that occur at a cellular level, very accurate 90-degree bends in the stalks at positions above the level of a trampling (the techniques most prominently used in the creation of human-made crop circles ), and are extremely precise in their measurements of the formations, down to millimeters of precision. Unlike human-made circles, they are frequently absent of any traces human activity when researchers arrive at the scene. These crop circles also tend to reflect the nature of complicated mathematics ... " will do the article better. All that is said in the text is theoretically proved in «Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk. http://nyos.lv/uploads/3420/P-Translate--PRINTPoprechnij--Text-Pru-press---28.03.2010.pdf ». Good luck in the improvement of the article. TVERD (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

'Foreign' doesn't work; but neither does 'authentic', 'genuine' or 'natural' - all of these imply that 'true' crop circles are only the ones that have no explicable origin, (such as animals or freak weather conditions). That would create undue weight. Perhaps you could avoid this by saying something like "the circle formations which are of most interest to researchers are those that have been reported to exhibit ...." ?

“A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop…” At the article uses terms «real» crop circles and «man-made» crop circles. This is clearly and objectively. Interests of researchers, pranksters and the media are subjective. Problem at the article: discrimination of the real circles as compared to man-made circles. TVERD (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So the essential distinction is between 'natural' and 'man-made' circles, since only the latter attract cricisms of being 'hoaxes'. Then you have the problem of those that are not proven to be man-made, but are suspected of that because of their elaborate designs, etc. Here it is relevant to talk about the features that make some of these circles more of a mystery, and of greater interest to researchers, than others. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In the article is no difference between 'real' crop circles and 'natural' crop circles. That is correct. Usually, non technogenic object is regarded as real object or natural object, created by nature. How nature creates such an object it is a problem for solving which man creates models natural processes. Man-made crop circles it is one of the options of modeling natural processes. However, at the article man-made crop circle transformed into an independent object, which replaced the original object of nature. Improve in the article can only be from a position of what is primary and what is secondary. TVERD (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix footnotes

While doing some casual reading on crop circles, I noticed that the footnotes are misaligned. For example, #21 should be where #22 is in the article. I was too lazy and disinterested in crop circles to fix this problem, but someone should get on it. I was very confused for at least 45 seconds.

173.8.229.2 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Animal Activity

How is that ludicrous statement a valuable piece of information benefiting the entry? No, it doesn't even belong as a balanced interpretation of crop circles. In any case, it should be in an entirely different section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.133.11 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So, scientists who observed animals running in circles, clearing a circle in the crop is ludicrous? That attorney general was reporting what was observed and reported to him, it's cited, so it is included under animal activity.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This article as a hoax

The way this article was written (at least before I started correcting it today) strongly suggests that crop circles are a "phenomenon of unknown origin", even though we all know that human beings did it on purpose.

In fact, we should move this to Crop circle hoax. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you reverted all my changes. Are you trying to push the other-than-hoax POV? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My reverts mostly aimed to avoid undue weight on Doug Bower and Dave Chorley who are just a small part of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I see that now. I think I had too much coffee before my last round of edits (both here and at DHMO. I'm gonna take it slow and look for consensus from here on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that "... we all know it was a hoax ...". It is not true that "... that these formations have a mysterious, non-human cause...". In article the processes creating of “Crop Circles” are explained with using ".... various theories ... ranging from natural phenomenon and man-made hoaxes, to the paranormal and even animals. ...". Natural phenomenons on earth (http://nyos.lv/en/krugi-na-poljah/anomaljnoe---rasshirenie--uzlov-rastenij-30644 (Fig.5.)) and man-made hoaxes ( http://www.circlemakers.org/new_documents.html ) creates of the images «Crop Circles». In creating the images «Crop Circles», man-made hoaxes imitates nature. The actions of natural phenomenons on earth and man-made hoaxes fully sufficiently for creation and explanation of the known properties of the images «Crop Circles». Therefore there is not a necessity to explain properties of the images «Circles on the fields» by using the actions of aliens. Decoding of image "crop circles" has the meaning applied to "Crop Circles", created by man-made hoaxes . With regard to "Crop Circles" created by natural phenomenons on earth , it makes sense to apply physical and mathematical modeling. 188.112.170.48 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What??? --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: "... This article as a hoax ... In fact, we should move this to Crop circle hoax ....". Uncle Ed is specified a problem of the Crop circle article , about which in previous discussion TVERD it is said : "... In the article is no difference between 'real' crop circles and 'natural' crop circles. ... At the article man-made crop circle transformed into an independent object, which replaced the original object of nature ... ". Physical and mathematical modeling allows to distinguish natural images «Crop Circles» from man-made hoaxes images «Crop Circles». Solution, which suggested Uncle Ed, means dividing article into two articles: Crop circle hoax (man-made hoaxes «Crop Circles»); Natural «Crop Circles» (Genuine «Crop Circles»). 188.112.170.48 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest perhaps the IP poster has an idea. Most crop circles are likely hoaxes, as in the intricate ones. Irregular or circular plain ones could easily be caused by small microbursts, small cyclonic storms, even larger dust devils or even some other natural phenomenon. I've personally found crop circles that were circular and a few irregular circular paths, as well as mowed in a circular pattern after a tornado. Of course, THOSE weren't reported as crop circles, as everyone SAW the tornado. Let's remember, neutral is the POV for a Wikipedia article, even IF it's considered absurd by one author or another. It wasn't so long ago that the notion that bacteria caused ulcers was "absurd".Wzrd1 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wzrd1: The media has very successfully are creating the opinion, that all of “Crop circles” are the result of hoaxes (human jokes ‐ pranks with planks, with laser, with GPS equipments), or are the result of action of extraterrestrials, or electromagnetic irradiation plants, which are creating UFO and other, unidentified (fantastical) objects. This opinion media is grounded by that academic science does not wish or incapable explain complexity images of “Crop circles”. On this account, investigation of images of "Crop circles" executes the groups of enthusiasts, without participation of academic organizations. Was proved that the natural "Crop circles" arises up during of formation of cracks at porous rock, located in earth under the fields with plants. The natural "Crop circles" may take the form of complex geometrical and other images (see http://nyos.lv/uploads/3420/1-Microsoft-Office-Word-Document.pdf ) , or have the form of simple images (crop circles that were circular and a few irregular circular paths), which you observed. 188.112.170.48 (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Avebury or Amesbury?

I think maybe they meant Amesbury instead of Avebury in the first paragraphy as it is closer to Stonehenge. And the link to the corresponding citation, footnote #2, is broken?

Bobdavis62 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)bobdavis62

the reference seems to be working. It talks all the time about Avebury, and doesn't mention Amesbury at all. No idea why, sorry. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Review section of man-made explanation?

While i think that some of the more basic patterns seen as crop circles could have been made by (very bored???) humans I am not so sure about some of the much more complex patterns as seen in the pictures on bottom of the article. Actually i find that whole section a bit poor. Sure i could imagine that a bunch of scientists with laser measuring and GPS equipment would be able to pull something off like this, but what the hell is a "portable microwave generator"? And i don't even wanna go into detail why this would not just be a pretty expensive and complicated hoax with limited practical use. And i really wanna see that "portable microwave generator that pushes down crops in a special pattern". Actually while we can sure argue about crop circles i think the "portable microwave generator" is the worst hoax in this whole article. Imho that should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.156.40 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and to say that all crop circles are man made is ignoring and forfeiting basic logic. Some are so mind bogglingly complex that it is surreal, even more so when many are reported ashappening during nights of summer in England which last from 11pm to 4 am, all this when no noise was heard and no activity spotted - that would have been there if it were humans. Basically the truth is that the skeptics are ignoring certain facts which just plainly cannot be ignored whether one likes it or not - these skeptics forfeit logic and observed facts in favour of a more simple, understandable and comfortable world - their world, perhaps they are afraid of the truth or are against it as they might feel weak if they cant explain the matter - perhaps that weakness is related to a sense of honour that the individual might hold. The truth is the truth even if it may be unexplainable or ugly and ignoring it or explaining it away with illogical explanation is unscientific and non academic. Ultimately the phenomena continues to occur and does not care if you believe in it or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 01:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Smart Nomad, deleting of Your text from the article unreasonably.

Approval of «that all crop circles are man made» can not be proved in principle.

Existence of Natural «Сrop circles» it can be proven.

The peculiarity of the lodging of plants in Natural «Сrop circles», anomalous Expansion of Nodes of stalks plants in the "Crop circles", many other signs can not be created with the help of technologies and tools (rollers, boards, lasers, GPS) of "hoaxers".

According to the theory: Natural “Crop circles” arise up during rapid formation of cavities of cracks at porous rock, over which there is a field with plants http://nyos.lv/en/krugi-na-poljah/fizika-steblevogo--poleganija-rastenij-v-krugah-na-poljah-30643 . Rapid formation of cavities of cracks at porous rock creates gust wind, electromagnetic and acoustic (including infrasonic) radiation in soil and in a atmosphere. Gust wind create the lodging of plants and anomalous Expansion of Nodes of stalks plants in the "Crop circles". The electromagnetic and acoustic radiations have an impact on all biological and UFO objects that are in the area of “Crop circles”. Very complex images of natural “Crop circles” are possible. http://nyos.lv/en/krugi-na-poljah/anomaljnoe---rasshirenie--uzlov-rastenij-30644 . Results of the laboratory and field researches http://www.bltresearch.com/print/pplantab1.html ,http://www.bltresearch.com/otherfacts.php , http://www.iccra.org/reports.htm correspond to the theory.

TVERD (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

History section a joke again

Yet again someone who clearly doesn't know the history of the subject has re-arranged the history section so that it is no longer remotely correct. Please will people NOT keep insisting something special happened in the 1970s!! Read the history - "Secret History of Crop Circles" for instance, or OldCropCircles.Weebly.com

So now we have, "modern crop circles are a recent invention from around the 1970s" which is an outright falsehood. There are literally hundreds on record before the 1970s from several countries.

There is also a section called "Older reports" which not only contradicts the previous claim, but is equally arbitrary - older than what? As for the list - it includes Robert Plot, who probably wasn't describing crop circles at all, an 1880 letter which is excellent evidence and by no means unique, and then Tully, 1966. This merely scratches the surface and two of the three cases are not even representative.

To compound matters, we then have, "The first reports of crop circles appeared around the 1970s,[2] and spread in the late 1970s as many circles began appearing throughout the English countryside". (Ref 2, by the way, is apparently from a volume which is not written by a circles researcher - it's something about Dutch culture, so I don't know why that's considered authoritative.) The first reports of crop circles are NOT from "around" the 1970s. For example, there was a detailed report of some in "New Scientist" in the early 1960s. And neither did they particularly proliferate in the English countryside in the late 1970s! There are reports from all over the world before that date.

I don't know how to revert all this without undoing constructive edits since. Just please will people discuss the history before (unintentionally) vandalising the article. 86.150.52.55 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Article misinforms . A correction of existent text of the article is hopeless employment. Of the existing text in the article it is advisable to leave the following:

“ Crop circle

A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop.

A 1880 Nature amateur scientist John Rand Capron reported circles in crops, and blamed them to a recent storm, saying their shape was "suggestive of some cyclonic wind action". [4]

Scientists have found differences between the crops inside the circles and outside of them, and they are still studying them. [37]

References

4. Capron, J. Rand (1880). "Storm Effects". Nature 22 (561): 290. Bibcode 1880Natur..22..290C. doi:10.1038/022290d0. http://www.iccra.org/Historical%20Research/Storm%20Effects_Nature_1880_J_Rand_Capron.pdf. Google books. Retrieved from "Nature archive for the decade 1880 – 1889". nature.com. Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/currentdecade.html?decade=1880&year=1880. Retrieved 23 August 2011., republished in "A case of genuine crop circles dating from July 1880 – as published in Nature in the year 1880." Journal of Meteorology (ISSN 0307-5966: Volume 25, pp. 20–21, Jan. 2000)

The storms about this part of Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of standing wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety, but in patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular spots (...) they all presented much the same character, viz, a few standing stalks as a centre, some postrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the centre, and outside there a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered. (...) I could not trace locally any circumstances accounting for the peculiar forms of the patches in the field, nor indicating whether it was wind or rain, or both combined, which had caused them, beyond the general evidence everywhere of heavy rainfall. They were suggestive to me of some cyclonic wind action, and may perhaps have been noticed elsewhere by some of your readers.

37. Levengood, W.C. (1994). "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants". Physiologia Plantaruni 92 (2): 356–363. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1994.tb05348.x. ISSN 0031-9317. http://icircle.home.xs4all.nl/dcircles/Levengood_Physiologia.htm “.

Another information can be included at article after a discussion and approval by participants.

188.112.170.48 (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the conclusions of WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. That source is just a letter to the editor. Please cite the New Scientist source, as well as other secondary sources that mention those reports. This way, other editors can find them and read them.

Please note that scholar books will usually be considered more reliable than articles in science magazines like New Scientist (an article in Nature News or Science News will also be usually be considered more reliable than New Scientist, but usually less than scholar books).

Usually: newspapers < science magazines < science journals < scholar books.

Usually: individual articles < reviews of the field.

Among other things, Tully 1966 was a "saucer nest", the original police report said "The grass was flattened in clockwise curves to water level within the circle and the reeds had been uprooted from the mud."[2]. These circles occurred in swamps, not in crop fields. Saying that there are the same phenomena is original research unless you can cite it to good sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary and secondary are relative terms. Is it possible to classify the source, proposed by one of the participants, as a «SECONDARY reliable sources» will determine the discussion.

About "Tully 1966 ....circles occurred in swamps, not in crop fields": Key determination ("A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop") does not contain a terms "fields" or " swamps ". No the prohibition on application of "Key determination" to a sizable pattern created by the flattening of plants at "fields" or " swamps ". No original research.

A text from the article "..., the most likely theory is that all of them were made by hoaxers..." is an example of violation of three principles ("Neutral point of view", "Verifiability","No original research" ) Wikipedia:

"...the most likely theory..." - an example of violation of "Neutral point of view";

"...theory is that all of them were made by hoaxers..." - an example of violation of "Verifiability", because such theory is not present ( is known a method (theory ) how to create a man made crop circles, that differs from text of the article);

"...theory is that all of them were made by hoaxers..." - an example of original research, which violates principle "No original research".

The violations of principles of Wikipedia in the article is great number.

188.112.170.48 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

there s a book with tibets call mandolas beleive to be maps to the universe if you look at them they look exactly like the crop circles teresa ramirez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.101.172 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wether this is "obviously a hoax" or an "unexplained phenomenon," can we at least not have the article contradict itself? It makes us look like dorks. Andrewaskew (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Bravo! Proper assessment of the article. Article misinforms the reader.

TVERD (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My own impression of crop circles is that they are probably a hoax. But Wiki has nothing to do with personal impressions or beliefs. Unless any sources claiming that crop circles did exist before 1970 or so can be clearly and obviously refuted, we cannot proclaim a lack. All sorts of wacky reports appear throughout history, more than likely some of them include crop circles or something similar. The key is not to dismiss such reports, but rather to construct reasonable arguments as to their dubiousness, or in Wiki's case to cite such arguments from elsewhere. The single source given for much of this refutation is somewhat indirect. I am now editing out these references to "nothing before the 1970s" not because it is necessarily false, but because it is unsupported. If you wish to reassert this claim within the article, please provide a clearer source, preferably more than one. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@Andrewaskew. You mean that you have used your own personal research to classify certain reports as "crop circles" equivalent to the one found in England in the 1970s, then proceed to discard a reliable source because it doesn't fit your own research. But wikipedia is not based on original research, it's based on reliable sources. Your whole argument seems to be based in primary sources, which you interpret in a certain way. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrewaskew, Natural and man-made "Crop circle" - the two phenomena, the nature ("mechanism of origin") , which are quite different.

Visual traces of these phenomena ("...a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop...") may be similar, and deliver the audience aesthetic pleasure. Man-made "Crop circle" does not refer to the "unexplained phenomenon".

Man-made "Crop circle" - a simple, well-studied object in the arts. The media published numerous articles, a subject of which (explicitly or implicitly) were the man-made "Crop circle".

Natural "Crop circle" it is the "unexplained phenomenon", information of which is negligible.

In the article "Crop circle" information about the natural and man-made "Crop circle" were chaotically mixed up,

were violated the principle of neutrality.

As a result arose the question - "Crop circle" «... this is" obviously a hoax "or an" unexplained phenomenon, "...».

Description "Crop circle" is like the description in one article ((in theory to possible) by the rules of Wikipedia)

of airplanes and "unidentified flying objects."

The contradictions in this article are inevitable.

Offered editing of the article not able to remove contradiction in it .

TVERD (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrewaskew,Changes of the formula in Article "Crop circle":

1.Revision as of 03:47, 6 March 2003

Crop circles are areas of a grain or similar crop that have been trampled to form various geometric patterns that began appearing in England in the late 1970s.

2.Revision as of 00:54, 17 April 2003

Crop circles are areas of a grain or similar crop that have been systematically flattened to form various geometric patterns that began appearing in England in the late 1970s.

3. Latest revision as of 20:01, 15 June 2012

A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop such as wheat, barley, rye, maize, or rapeseed.

"Trampled" - description of man-made "Crop circle".

"Flattened" or "flattening" - description of natural and man-made "Crop circle".

To improve the neutrality of the article it is advisable, after the words "A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop..." write in two sections:

in one section of the article only text about the man-made "Crop circle";

in second section of the article only text about the natural "Crop circle".

The volume of each section must be comparable with volume of another section.

At the text of the section about man-made "Crop circle" should not be a mention of the natural "Crop circle".

At the text of the section about natural "Crop circle" should not be a mention of the man-made "Crop circle".

Third section of the article should not be.

TVERD (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors can't decide which if any are natural and which are manmade. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller,"Wikipedia editors can't decide which if any are natural and which are manmade".

It is therefore advisable not to use terms :

"natural", "manmade" or equivalent them;

"mechanism of origin" or equivalent them.

Without these terms, at the article describes the geometry of image the "Crop circle", characteristics of plants, soil, results measurements, the testimony of witnesses and dates.

At such approach, Wikipedia editors not needed decide which if any are natural and which are manmade.

Other variants of decision of this problem are possible .

TVERD (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Tverd, I address these comments in reply to you, but I don't wish for this to simply become a dialogue, I think the objective of everyone here is to improve Wikipedia, not to engage in factual debate. That said, you raise some points that I should address.

The problem I addressed was a simple contradiction, of the form A and ~A. The article both said that there were no crop circles before the 1970s and give examples from before the 1970s. Those cannot both be true, so I removed the one that was not well supported by sources.

The problem you seem to want to address is a perceived conflation, of the form all As are Bs. I think what you are saying is that we are conflating two phenomena; hoax crop circles and unexplained crop circles. This is not inherently contradictory, it is not inconcievable that all crop circles are hoaxes. The key is to go with the weight of the evidence. My opinion is that the best evidence is that most or all are explainable as hoaxes. But this does not mean that we can dismiss the other explanations outright, we consider them, and go with the simplest that explains our evidence.

If your opinion is that a significant number of crop circle cases are caused by a mysterious phenomenon, that's great. I hope you're right, it would certainly be a fascinating discovery. However, it is not a discovery that can be made on Wikipedia. You yourself say that "information [on this] is negligible." Till that evidence/information is discovered, Wikipedia cannot discuss it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you feel that evidence is out there to find, there are lots of ways. Do internet research, examine crop circles, organise courses in Cereology to structure the field. But till that research has widespread notability outside Wikipedia, it cannot be part of an article.

My best of luck to you, but I think you want Wikipedia to be something it is not. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrewaskew,I value Your modesty in formulation of main question. Your contribution in that, You, coming from the «... that there were no crop circles before the 1970s and give examples from before the 1970s. Those cannot both be true, so I removed the one that was not well supported by sources. », raised the fundamental question about the subject of this article:« ... this is "obviously a hoax" or an "unexplained phenomenon ..." ». Failure to respond to this question gives rise to a contradiction and violation of the neutrality of the article. The subject of the article may be formulated differently. Depending on the answer to the question content of the article could be improved or remained unchanged. My comments - search for an answer to your question.

TVERD (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval, I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. You seem to be asserting that my edit is a violation of the original research policy, I think because you are arguing that I favoured primary sources over secondary. If I have misinterpreted your point, please advise.

That edit was not to settle the endless debate over "hoax" V. "unexplained," settling such a debate is not the role of Wikipedia. Rather I was looking to remove contradictory assertions.

As to my specific methodology. I did not consult any new primary sources. I did consult a secondary source for my claim that "the scientific consensus explanation for crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human hands as a prank." But mostly I evaluated prexisting sources. Both sides used secondary sources, but one side made a broader claim (no examples vs. listed examples), listed less sources (one source vs. multiple sources), and relied on an indirect source (a book on Dutch Culture vs. articles on crop circles).

Once again, I am not arguing for the truth or falsity of either side. I am claiming that one side was not well supported. If you wish to again proclaim "modern crop circles are a recent invention from around the 1970s, and they are not depicted in any folklore [sic] tale written before that date" or similar, please provide clearer sourcing. And please do not leave the article expressing a contradiction. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That dutch culture has a 20-page chapter in crop circles, called "Crop circle tales: narrative testimonies from the Dutch Frontier Science Movement." It's written by Theo Meder, an ethnologist who studies folklore[3]. That should be an authoritative source for how crop circles are depicted in folklore. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the chapter, it is good and well-written. So I have left it within the article as an authoritatve reference. But it is insufficiently authoritatve such that we can ignore all other sources. To make such a broad claim you need a piece, or preferably a succession of pieces, that deal with each of the reports within the Early reports section and why they are not crop circle reports. Even then the most you can probably claim is that these reports have been discredited, not that they don't exist. Till then, I think you have to assume that readers of the article are intelligent, and can decide for themselves whether crop circles started in the 1970s as a hoax. --Andrewaskew (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Insufficiently authoritative compared to what other secondary source? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Insufficently authoritative so as to ignore the several sources within the Early reports section which led to the article expressing a contradiction. Which meant that I made the edit to weaken the claim of "no reports before the 1970s." We both need to be careful here, this discussion is veering towards circularity. We should remember that that our common goal is the improvement of Wikipedia. Perhaps we should take a break from this discussion, and from edits to the article. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You talk of several sources, but the "early reports" section has no secondary sources linking those reports with modern crop circles, except to say that the Tully case inspired hoaxers Bower and Chorley. So, I'll ask again: Insufficiently authoritative compared to what other secondary source? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Yes, there is a problem of circularity here. The article's text is being used as a source, but wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. The sources used in the article are the real sources. And, yes, I am going to relax because I am waiting for Amazon to send me Round in circles by Schnabel, and I can't add much more without that book) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

1686 report

I removed this text:

"In 1686, British scientist Robert Plot reported crop circles in his The Natural History of Stafford-Shire, and said they could be caused by airflows from the sky."

He is talking about fairy rings.

A contemporary review of Plot's book:

"He begins with the Heavens and the Air, giving account of those unusual Meteors, which have sometimes appeared in this Countrey; (...) Here he takes occasion to deduce the cause of the circles in Grasse called commonly Fairy Walkes, which he doth not think do owe their cause to the Field Convecticles of Demons and Witches nor to the subterraneous Courses of Moles and Ants, but rather to percussions made by Lightnings, which breaking out of the Clouds in Concave Cones have made Circles on the ground conterminous to the Rims of those Comes, and according as the Cones breaking forth from the clouds have had a greater of lesser inclination to the Horizon and so have either touched with all the Base, or only dipt with the Lower part, have made Circles, or Quadrants, or Sextants, &c."[4]

A contemporary book "The Natural History of Wiltshire", was written by a scientist who had met Plot, and also talks of fairy rings:

"As to the green circles on the downes, vulgarly called faiery circles (dances), I presume they are generated from the breathing out of a fertile subterraneous vapour. (The ring-worme on a man's flesh is circular. Excogitate a paralolisme between the cordial heat and ye subterranean heat, to elucidate this phenomenon.) Every tobacco-taker knowes that 'tis no strange thing for a circle of smoke to be whiff'd out of the bowle of the pipe; but 'tis donne by chance. If you digge under the turfe of this circle, you will find at the rootes of the grasse a hoare or mouldinesse. But as there are fertile steames, so contrary wise there are noxious ones, which proceed from some mineralls, iron, &c.; which also as the others, cæteris paribus, appear in a circular forme."The Natural History of Stafford-Shire

A Dutch circle website comments that it's all based on a 1590 account of witches dancing in a circle with animals[5]. According to this website, Plot's book mentions animal footprints being found in the circle. Unfortunately, I can't find Plot's book online.

Apart from Taylor's article, I can only find this report in unreliable books.

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Slow down. Stay calm. Wait for consensus before making more changes to the article. I feel we are still discussing the matter. If you feel we cannot sort this out between ourselves, then perhaps we need outside assistance. But is it so important it cannot wait a little?

Most importantly "remember that that our common goal is the improvement of Wikipedia." --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to introduce a compromise edit that I hope we can work from. I still believe we can reach a verifiable consensus that is best for Wikipedia. (Once again, beautiful picture, thank you.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Engraving from Plot's book, shows a typical cropmark.

Plot's circles are considered cropmarks and fairy rings by archaeologists and historians.

The Aerial Archaeology Research Group (AARG) says that they are fairy rings and crop marks, and quotes much of the text in Plot's book. It also links with Meaden's theory:

"The detailed exposition (with diagrams) of the effects of lightning, which I have omitted from the quotation, had to suppose a cone of force projected from the thunder cloud to intersect the ground surface in a (usually imperfect) circle. This has little to do with the operation of lightning as actually observed, but it anticipates in its broad approach the plasma vortex theory developed by Dr Terence Meaden to account for modern crop-circles. Meaden's starting point was a disc of flattened crop, though he later elaborated his model to encompass concentric rings, whereas Plot was dealing with (possibly scorched) rings in grass; but both needed to find an atmospheric force that would produce an otherwise unexplained circular phenomenon at the surface. The whole tone of Plot's discourse, trying at first to be open-minded but looking for a decent scientific explanation, brings to mind that of the more responsible students of cropcircles in the years before it became clear that the most striking examples of these were actually the work of modern landscape artists." David R. Wilson, "Ring Ditches and Fungus Rings in the 17th Century", AARG News issue 13, September 1996, pp. 43-48.

An article in journal Antiquity says that Plot described cropmarks Dr Plot, ring ditches and the fairies Antiquity; Nov 85, Vol. 59 Issue 227, p206.

In the 2006 congress of CICAP (the Italian CSICOP), they discussed Plot's book and they say they are caused by fungus or by archaeological ruins [6]

An archaeology book says that the link was made by Terence Meadenin 2001, and compares this view to von Däniken's pseudohistoric views.

"The difficulties that exist in communicating the results of archaeology have undoubtedly contributed to the flourishing of writers, such as Erich von Däniken, who take a particular delight in deriding the inability of ‘experts’ to find explanations that seize the imagination of the public. Although Stukeley’s obsession with Druids demonstrates that finding supernatural or mystical connotations with antiquities is not new, views of this kind have never been so widely disseminated (Williams 1991). Few archaeologists have sold as many paperbacks as von Däniken; more recently, a meteorologist who linked crop circles to prehistoric ring-ditches or round barrows generated a reaction that no orthodox student of these monuments has ever achieved (Meaden 1991)."Archaeology. An Introduction. The History, Principles and Methods of Modern Archaeology Third Edition Fully Revised Kevin Greene

--Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From the sources above, it's obvious that:

• Meaden made a theory in 1991 about Plot's circles being antecedents of modern crop circles
• archaeologists have not given any weight to Meaden's theory, and think that they were all fairy rings or crop marks.

I have rewritten accordingly. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval,Sorry, but what image from the standing plants the aerial photography will discover from sky on the field after a year or more after the appearances of a natural "Crop circle"? In what a difference of such picture is from a picture of "cropmarks" or "Crop circle"? An answer is the key to continuation or stopping of discussion of so original research. TVERD (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Those marks are left by the foundations of a house (the square) surrounded by a fence (the circle surrounding the square).

But you don't have to take my word for it. In my message above I quoted several sources that say that they are cropmarks and/or fairy rings. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)