Talk:Crop circle

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)

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)

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)

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)