Talk:Crop circle/Archive 6

Crop Circle
Terminology
	A crop circle consisting of multiple circles. See also: A crop circle on Google maps
Definition	A Geometric or abstract pattern formed by the flattening of crops
Signature	1)Crops broken at the base and matted in a distinct pattern; 2)Crops bent at node points and matted in a distinct pattern.
Related Term	Cerealogy: The Study of Crop circles

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

→

Where is the science?

Interesting discussion, but nothing has been said about the scientific investigations that were in fact conducted, either in the article or in this discussion. Homework please...However, when I see scientific evidence removed and followed by a claim that there is no scientific evidence clearly homework is not the proper word.

the problem is pseudoscience is not science --Mark Barnes 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been sound scientific studies conducted (eg by Dr Levengood) but many people object to the implications of their findings, which tend to support something complex behind the phenomenon. No-one has, however, conducted research which has yielded anything substantial to show how crop circles are made.

i am very familiar with the studies by BLT and it is that which i was referring to as pseudoscience. btw WC.Levengood doest have a PhD thus he is not a Dr. --Mark Barnes 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very interesting. What is it about the research conducted by BLT that strikes you as pseudoscience? Is it their methodology? Because I'd hate to think you are excluding extremely relevant material from this article simply because you don't agree with their findings. I'm sure you're a very intelligent person, but I think a deeper explanation of what you consider pseudoscience to be and what the criteria are is definitely in order here, especially considering the content you are leaving out based on this judgment. Later! Calgarr 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Calgarr

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but beyond that what strikes me as pseudoscience the most with the work is the groups bias, the null hypothesis is not plasma vortexes but man. ironically in "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants" (http://www.bltresearch.com/anatomical.html) Levengood actually uses samples from a known man made formation by Jim Schnabel as an example of the anomalies found in 'genuine' formations (ref: The Crop Circle Watcher 23, 1994 http://www.beyondweird.com/ufos/The_Crop_Watcher_Number_23_1994.html). rather than going into this too much here i will direct you to a rather good article from CSICOP http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html. In response to another post by you here regarding BLT finding small iron balls in a cropcircle, this is yet another case of the group being fooled by pranksters/artists (Rob Irving and again Jim Schnabel) who left an iron filling powder in the center of a formation they made (ref http://www.xstreamscience.org/H_Glaze/H_Glaze_0.htm)--Mark Barnes 10:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I would have to say that you're absolutely dead-on about this. Clearly, that's a bizarre thing to do, but this isn't the place for that kind of discussion. I'll never doubt you again! Thanks for going through the trouble of posting these links, I find it very interesting. BLT was really the only serious-seeming group studying alternate theories for crop circle formation, and since they're obviously way off, I guess this subject can be well and truly put to bed. Later! Calgarr 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Calgarr

I wouldn't say i was 'absolutely dead-on about this' but i dont think this is the place to discusse Epistemology. --Mark Barnes 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, those metal spheres were found to be a hoax by the group who found them. CSICOP talks about pits but mentions nothing about nodes or germination. Incidently Levengood now owns a company selling rapid growth seeds, wonder where he got that idea. Interesting how NO science is worthy of placement here. 209.247.5.17 06:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually no BLT first thought the h-glaze was meteorite dust that had been pulled down by their 'vortexes' (ref http://www.bltresearch.com/semi-molten.html). and as above i site an example of the germination anomalies seen in a known man made formation which Levengood sites as an example of it. --Mark Barnes 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Article is not neutral, but written from a sceptical CSICOP position. Pseudoscientific spin is used to "debunk" paranormal explanations.

The article is being policed by individuals making the a-priori assumption that man-made origin is the only possible explanation, necessitating the omission, active removal or discrediting of evidence to the contrary, Science being invoked as a higher authority when questioned. The implication that all available evidence indicates man-made origin is deceptive and pseudoscientific.

The evidence in some cases calls into question the possibility of human authorship - well known team "The circlemakers" have withdrawn their claims to authorship of certain large circles once it was pointed out that the sheer size and complexity of the patterns would have required time and manpower way beyond the stated capabilities of the team - circles produced during a single night, without the help of man-made lighting, and without detection by members of the public. This information is not considered pertinent to the article.

Claims of circle authorship by human circlemakers are not subject to the same level of scepticism as are paranormal hypotheses: it appears that anecdotes may be accepted by the sceptics as scientific evidence in certain cases.

Asserting that paranormal explanations "violate Occam's razor" makes the a-priori and unfounded assumption that man-made origin is the simplest explanation. As an aside, the principle of Occam's razor cannot be "violated", as it is not a law of nature but merely a guide in the formulation of theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.196.2 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What formations are you claiming 'The Circlemakers' withdrew claim from? as far as i am aware apart from the commercial work they have done they have only ever laid claim to the Olivers Castle formation which had the 'hoaxed' video by John Wabe of it being formed by BOL (http://cropcircleconnector.com/Sorensen/articles/sorensen.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/realmedia/nb/crop_circles_16x9_nb.ram). The reason why human circlemakers are not treated with the same skepticism is because its only man that has been able to demonstrate his ability to make complex crop circles.--Mark Barnes 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and this article

I've just reverted a number of edits made with the stated intention of following NPOV. I accept that the editor had the best of intentions, but in the case of this article several of the modifications are unacceptable. NPOV can be taken too far: by removing criticisms of 'alternative explainations', we give them a false appearance of legitimacy. This is unacceptable under the Wikipedia policies for dealing with pseudoscience (I conferred with User:Philosophus on this matter). The current version of the article is not perfect, but the handling of NPOV is not the problem. Michaelbusch 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're on top of things. Actually, I don't believe there is any such thing as taking NPOV too far. If you look at the edits you'll see I actually didn't delete criticisms. I only deleted weasels, and criticisms which were not merely factual statements of what critics believe. For instance, "Often touted as evidence for the mystic origin of crop circles is the coincidence..." I believe that these kinds of statements, and ones like "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor" violate the spirit and letter of NPOV. You can refer to my essay User:Martinphi/Paranormal_practicum here for further.

"we give them a false appearance of legitimacy."

We are not in the business of giving apearance. We are in the business of reporting, in a totally NPOV manner. The way you state this seems to show that there is a misunderstanding.

"This is unacceptable under the Wikipedia policies for dealing with pseudoscience"

Please be specific about this.

The sentence "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor." Actually means "all crop circles are of human origin." Thus, it is factually, scientifically incorrect as a statement, since no one can know this. Also, Wikipedia is not in the business of discerning what is a violation of Occam's Razor. I'll put the POV tag on till such problems are corrected so that readers will be on the lookout for bias. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the meaning of the statement. The statement means exactly what it says: all evidence points to human origin for crop circles, but paranormal explainations circulate despite their being baseless. Please see my user page under 'Objection 0'. With regards to removal of criticism, this follows from the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience (here). With regards to appearance: this is not merely journalism, reporting what others have said. This is an encyclopedia. It must be reliable and free of pseudoscience. This was an explicit statement in the ArbCom judgement (decision no. 14). Michaelbusch 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin" must be sourced. It is a negative scientific statement, and so, of course, cannot have a reliable source. I have nothing against scientific truth, but this is not it. We, also, in ref to your user page, are not in the business of being "harsh." We are in the business of describing positions and reporting reliable opinions. Nothing else. Please read the essay mentioned above. If these things are not dealt with, we can go to mediation. But there shouldn't be any problem, because policy is clear.

"So additions that mis-represent general relativity or describe alleged anti-gravity machines should be evaluated as harshly as possible;"

This should read "So additions that mis-represent general relativity or describe alleged anti-gravity machines must be balanced with well-sourced scientific opinions from reliable sources."

I of course assume that you mean that these claims are in articles which are about the said mis-representations of general relativity. Otherwise, just delete them, unless they have a reliable source. That isn't relevant to this article, however.

It is not scientific to state negative proof. It is against wikipedia policy to weasel. It is against Wikipedia policy to present things in a biased manner. Therefore, we must change this article.

I've been in disputes before which I have "won," but I don't want to do that again. I'd much rather you would try and see my point. That's because I don't want to do anything illogical, promote pseudoscience, or censor science. I only want to obey the rules and give everyone a fair shake, without bias which comes from language and without making incorrect statements. So I ask you to look a the thing again with fresh eyes.

"It must be reliable and free of pseudoscience." I have not read this ArbCom statement, but if the ArbCom meant that NPOV should be violated, unscientific negative proof claimed, and weasel words inserted, they are wrong.

Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for long discussions of Wikipedia policy. What the ArbCom said was that Wikipedia should correspond to present scientific understanding. In this case, that is that crop circles are strictly a human phenomenon. Not saying otherwise explicitly is a serious omission. Removing weasel words is fine, but your edits went too far in removing criticism of pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As Marcello Truzzi would tell you, the criticism of pseudoscience in the sentence "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor" is itself pseudoscience. I am not disputing the NPOV rules, on this sentence.

On the other things, they are obviously against the NPOV rules, and must be changed. For instance, this uncited sentence (which would be fine with citation):

"There have been cases in which believers declared crop circles to be "the real thing", only to be confronted soon after with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud."

I'll leave this sentence a while till it can be sourced.

This sentence "Often touted as evidence for the mystic origin of crop circles" is an obvious slur.

The sentence "A number of witnesses claim to have..." contains a completely unnecessary weasel word, one which is even mentioned as a WTA.

It isn't that you shouldn't give the scientific perspective. You shouldn't do it this way. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be treated the same way an urban myth is, rather than using as WP:Pseudoscience? It's like "tags from dead homeboys". The tags are real, the paint is real, even the walls that they are painted are real, but ...... the rest is urban legend.

perfectblue 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the "alternative theory" section to make statements as neutrally as possible and removed the weasel word tag. Feel free to add it again if you don't feel I did a very good job. Illuminatedwax 04:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

User:Martinphi claims that the present version of the article contains pseudoscience, despite its merely reporting the current consensus of the scientific community. I request the opinions of other editors. You may view the two versions here: [1]. Michaelbusch 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is prior to considerable recent copy-editing, which the article did need. Michaelbusch 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One good example of pseudo-science in this article is the assertion that paranormal explanations "violate Occam's razor". Occam's principle is not an inviolable law of nature or logical necessity as implied here, but an heuristic rule of thumb used when choosing between various competing theories describing a single physical state of affairs. It has little relevance outside the hard sciences and is merely being invoked here to give a scientific gloss to the marked sceptical bias of the article. It may well be the case that the scientific consensus holds that all crop circles _must_ be of man-made origin, however it is a serious overstatement to imply that this has somehow been finally proven, or is logically necessary to be the case. Sometimes one wishes that the acolytes of science at work here had a little deeper understanding of their chosen subject. 212.49.196.2 09:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Spurious citation tags

I have removed the citation tags added by Martinphi, as misleading and un-necessary. I appreciate the sentiment, but the current linked source is good enough for both statements. This is the concept of reasonable doubt: we can never observe all crop circles, but every crop circle whose formation is reliably documented is a hoax. The Scientific American source is reasonable for reflecting scientific consensus. Michaelbusch 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, what percentage of all crop circles reported are "reliably documented", and what factors are necessary for one to be considered so? - perfectblue 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience 2

Firstly: Do not remove citation tags. They are there for a reason.

Explanation: The sentence is pseudoscience or needs change as follows:

desDespite despite is a word to avoid

the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, this constitutes a heavy implication that all crop circles are positively known to be of human origin, in other words, that they have all been observed forming, or that there is other definitive positive evidence; this is the first example of pseudoscience

various paranormal theories they are not theories; they are at most hypothesies- this is the second example of pseudoscience.

continue to enjoy some currency, although these all violate Occam's Razor.[5] This is sourced to the opinion of one man, writing in a skepticl magazine. It is not authoritative, and does not speak for science. I tried to change it to be the opinion of Matt Ridley, but this also was reverted. This is not pseudoscience per se, but it is not properly attributed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as your claim that saying "crop circles are of human origin" is pseudoscience, every crop circle with a known origin was made by humans. NO crop circle has been proven to be made by anything other than humans. No crop circle has been proven to be impossible for humans to make. There are some whose creation cannot be fully explained, but to say this means it wasn't humans would actually be pseudoscience. It would be along the same lines as any evolution denier using inability to explain the development of a particular organ as proof evolution didn't cause it. And so we are left with this: Every crop circle with a confirmed cause has had that cause be humans, no crop circles have been confirmed to be caused by anything else. Some crop circles have no confirmed cause. Of the crop circles studied scientifically (Note: Witness statements alone don't constitute scientific evidence, nor do video tapes with funny lights) those confirmed to be man-made are the vast majority. Someguy1221 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right about all of these things, 100%. That doesn't mean that is is any less pseudoscience to state categorically -as the meaning of this sentence does- that there is evidence that all crop circles are of human origin. I say "state categorically," because such a heavy implication as "the evidence that crop circles are of human origin", is equal to stating "the evidence that all crop circles are of human origin." We don't have such evidence. Ergo, we can't state it as if we do. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall leave the tags there, as I don't wish to restart an edit war, and I'm sure someone with more time than I have might find a suitable citation. In any event, I will summon a common argument of inductive logic. I have seen many crows, and every one of them was black. If I observe this all over the world, I can state confidently that every crow is black. I have not, however, seen every crow there is (alternatively, many crows that I have seen were too far away for me to tell what color they were). This fact does not constitute reasonable doubt that all crows are black, it only means I tested a sample rather than the whole. Without any evidence, a hypothesis is still a hypothesis, and with no conflicting evidence, the fact that all of the many many crop circles with determined origin are man-made is sufficient to state that evidence indicates all crop circles are man-made. Someguy1221 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to state that the statistical evidence points to all crop circles being man made. That is fine, if such evidence exists. What is not fine, is stating that "All crows are black," period. You are making my argument for me, yet you still seem to think it is OK to make a pseudoscientific (and POV) statement. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well right here we get into pedantics. Can statistical evidence equal fact? In probability statistics there is a concept of "the meaning of never." It states that if the probability of an event occuring is sufficiently low, you may state as fact that it won't ever happen. There is obviously an inverse concept of "always." So if I've gathered enough evidence, YES, I can say that "All crows are black." Although as I'm typing this I am finding myself agreeing that the cites should be there, but I'm still sure one of our more diligent editors can find it easily enough. Someguy1221 05:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Although that's all irrelevent because what the article actually says is "evidence that crop circles are of human origin." Someguy1221 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this sentence also, and I thought it wasn't right. I though so for nearly the same reasons as Martin. Perhaps the problem here is that it isn't really as sure to say that all crop circles are created by humans as it would be to go all over the world and look at crows, and then to come back and say that There are no white crows. I think so because it is more like going all over the world and seeing no white crows, but also collecting a lot of stories which say that other people have seen white crows. It is like saying there is no Sasquatch: there might be, but no one has ever brought one home. So we can't just say it like we know it for an absolute fact to be true, don't you think? And has anyone gone over all the paranormal ideas and seen that all of them are really more complex than thinking that humans did some of those patterns? It seems like we have the same problem with this, because we can't know for sure. Myriam Tobias 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Although that's all irrelevent" It isn't the words. It's like I said, the way it says it actually means "The evidence that all crop circles are made by humans." But we only have an unknown amount of statistical evidence, plus the argument of Occam's Razor, to say that they all are.

All I tried to do was to modify the sentence to say exactly what we know. Also, I wanted it to sound NPOV. I don't think that this is really such a big deal. I just want to get it right, but people seem to want to make a really big statement- to make a point. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Crop damage

What is the damage for the crops? Will it not be able to rise back, say, after rain? Is the plant OK but uneconomical to harvest? --84.20.17.84 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

this depends on the growth stage of the plant and also the amount of visitors a formation gets.. if the crop i knocked over while it is still growing it will try and upright itself over time (this is called phototropism) and is actual the reason why you get the so called 'magic bends' at the nodes. the crop can most of the time be harvested with success if the blades of the combine are lowered even if the formation went down in ripe crop, however if a formation has a lot of visitors the crop will be lost due to heavy damage. early in the season barley is found to be very springy (even popping back up just after it has been stomped) and a can be seen to be well into recovery the morning after a formation has gone down giving the formation a soft pillow like lay. --Mark Barnes 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

End this thread here please. This the talk page for the article, and also the above runs afoul of WP:OR. Michaelbusch 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the crop being harvested after a formation has been made here is an example http://www.circlemakers.org/natgeo.html regarding the effect of barley as its still green see 'The Field Guide..' by Rob Irving and John Lundberg p161-162 (ISBN 0954805429) --Mark Barnes 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent studies have suggested that the only damage to the crops (namely rape), is that the actual crystalline structure of the rape has been changed through some medium or other. James Random 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK city boys and girls. Have you ever tried harvesting crops that have been matter together in a spiral pattern by a guy with a roller. The outer edges might rise if they haven't been too badly battered, but the centers are a different matter because they are overlaid with each other. Also, if your circle has expulsion cavities in the nodes, the stalks can be too badly damaged to be any good.

Of course, when you have 200 journalists and hippies walking over it too, you're going to loose some harvest.

perfectblue 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Energy

It has become more widely known as studies have increased on this Phenomenon that some form of energyis usually present at crop formations. My suggestion thus far is that maybe the formation we see on the ground is only half the formation in its entirety. Perhaps these energies make up the other half of the formatin, thus completing the picture in the same way as colour is only half on an image (light being the other). I believe that we can begin to understand how this energy makes up the other half of the formation by the directions in which the crop is bent. I believe that the crop is bent as a result of being attratect to, or repelled, by the energy used to lay the formation in the first instance. James Random 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, put it in the article. If you don't, the talk page isn't the place for you to share your theories with the world. --Minderbinder 13:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Describe "the energy"? Is this IR, UV, radio, some other EM, gravitational? Or did someone just get a "feeling" for it? How was this "Some form" of energy measured?Mzmadmike 16:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BLT helicopter incident

I've seen several documentaries etc that include an incident in which MIT students working with the BLT institute were doing a helicopter survey of a crop circle was part of a TV documentary, when their engine lost power and only just managed to avoid hitting the ground. I know that the incident is real, but I don't have a WP:RS for it that doesn't come from Discovery channel or a "most haunted" type show.

Anybody know where we might find a strong reference to this incident.

perfectblue 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If true, what link does this have to crop circles? — BillC^talk 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... one of the weird properties claimed of crop circles is that they put out some kind of energy. I've seen plenty of claims of cameras zoning out etc in circles and unusual em readings.

perfectblue 08:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you need a reliable source for the claim that this incident has a causal relationship with a crop circle. Otherwise, that association is your OR. Regards, — BillC^talk 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There was another aspect of this study (as shown on Discovery channel) that seemed to have enough scientific merit to warrant a mention in this article. In the cases described as "genuine" by the BLT institute, tiny (30-50 microns in diameter) magnetic metal spheres were found in the soil. Sadly, I don't know the first thing about serious research, so I couldn't begin looking for a source to cite. If someone wanted to look into this, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Really, a mention of the BLT institute alone might help, since it is (as far as I know) the first serious attempt to study crop circles whose efforts are peer-reviewed before publication. Later! Calgarr 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Calgarr

British English spelling

WP:ENGVAR states several criteria which provide guidance as to whether British or American English spelling should be used in an article. Of the five major criteria that are listed, three or four indicate that British English should be retained and used consistently through the article, and none indicate that it should switch to US English. Please respect these guidelines. SheffieldSteel 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cropmarks image

(Copied from my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk)

Hi there, I saw you added this image back to crop circle. I certainly don't have any strong feelings about the issue, and my reasons for removing it were twofold: first just for aesthetics -- I thought the article was getting a little crowded with images at that point; and secondly, it seemed somewhat of a diversion for the article. The meaning was already expressed in the text, and any reader seeking more information was just a click away from an article dedicated to it. But, as I said, no real strong feelings about it. Regards, — BillC^talk 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel part of the problem may be the inclusion of a very tangentially (disambig.) related topic (pixie rings) without its own heading. There are three paragraphs and two images dealing with pixie rings that are just dumped into it, all of which belong elsewhere, but since there is a slight relationship, it deserves mention, merely to avoid confusion. Maybe that could be done with a shorter mention and link. Then move most of the content and all images to that article, since it isn't already there, and certainly deserves to be there. Maybe a "See also" link would suffice. Pixie rings (nearly always pretty round) and crop circles (which can vary enormously) are not the same thing. I have seen large pixie rings here, one of which has been visited every year for decades by my now-deceased FIL, who plucked huge quantities of mushrooms. Delicious! -- Fyslee/talk 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to pursue this further here, as something should be done. The pixie rings info is rather misplaced. Any suggestions about what to do with it, besides just moving it to the Fairy ring article (which should be done). -- Fyslee/talk 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made some changes. Please revert or change if necessary. -- Fyslee/talk 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather large revert

I just reverted a rather large edit, because it completely reversed what was presumed to be true and false in the article - thus "debunking" the mundane origin of the circles (presumably in favour of unstated alien or supernatural origin theories) - yet was completely unsourced. Rather than simply revert the text, and in case the author wishes to restore this material (and this POV), here it is - it just needs to be made more neutral, and for some reliable sources to be found...

In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomenon began, two men from Southampton, England announced that they had conceived the idea as prank at a pub near Winchester, Hampshire during an evening in 1978. Doug Bower and Dave Chorley alleged to have made their crop circles using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools: using a four-foot-long plank attached to a rope, they easily created circles eight feet in diameter. The two men were able to make a 40-foot circle in a quarter of an hour. Unfortunately for the duo, they were never able to make a truly impressive circle formation on command. They would simply wait for one to appear and then claim to have created it themselves.
The pair became frustrated when their story did not receive significant attention, so in 1981 they claimed to be the creators of a circle in Matterley Bowl, a natural amphitheatre just outside Winchester, Hampshire - an area surrounded by roads from which a clear view of the field is available to drivers passing by. When newspapers claimed that the circles could easily be explained by natural phenomena, Bower and Chorley claimed to be making more complex patterns, while they still could not explain the actual information being encoded in the circles. Later designs of crop circles became increasingly complicated. When asked specific details about their designs and the dates of particular circle formations, Bower and Chorley were both inaccurate and evasive. Often times they claimed to have done a formation up to a week, before or after the actual appearance.
Greater suspicion arose regarding Doug and Dave's "claim to fame" when it was discovered that Bower's wife had become suspicious of him...

Have fun! SheffieldSteel 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute? What Dispute?

I saw the little banner up top that said that there was some kinda dispute about this article going on. What is it about? Could anyone (in plain normal typed English) explain what is going on?

Chef Clover 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC) MyTalk

Not exactly, no. It's related to [this] dispute though. SheffieldSteel 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, it has been some time since the dispute was active here. Michaelbusch 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay, I have no clue what you're talking about. I said, and I quote, "in plain normal typed English." >o<

(Oh. My. Français. I'm tired and not in a good mood. Be careful!!!!!) Chef Clover 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) MyTalk

The Duhamel incident

I think the anecdote about the Duhamel incident is an appropriate addition to the Crop Circle article. It's one of the earliest examples of crop circles in the 20th century and predates the late-70s rash of occurrences by a decade. There are no other "anecdotes" in the article at present, but I think a comprehensive article about crop circles should include details of actual, historical occurrences, and the Duhamel information in the "History of modern crop circles" section sets that example. What do you think? My vote is to restore the deleted content. --Skillymagee 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

my objection is that the case is purely anecdotal and may not even describe a cropcircle, if you read the link it doesnt sound much like one at all.

there are also many other anecdotal pre dough and dave examples and if we include one why not include all? many can be read here http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shuttle/5604/traces.html

However saying this both the mowing devil and nature article may not be describing what we now refer to as a cropcircle but these two accounts are strongly embedded into cropcircle mythology so i think it would be wrong for them to be left out. --Mark Barnes 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, in the interests of producing a comprehensive encyclopedia article, it's worth including all this information. Let's continue with adding the content you mentioned. --Skillymagee 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't think this account should be included in the wiki article mainly as it does not describe a crop circle and for this reason i am going to remove it again. at most i think there could be a reference to the existence of pre doug and dave anecdotal accounts of cropcircles in ufology. however the tully circles are not mentioned in the wiki either which really should be as thats where dough bower got the idea in the first place. --Mark Barnes 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pixie Circles in History of modern cropcircles

is there really any need for this to be in the history section given it is talking about something totally different than crop circles? is there anyone who would object if it was taken out given it is already listed under Similar phenomena as fairy rings?? --Mark Barnes 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now taken the pixie rings comment out of the history section. here is the text if you feel in needs to be added back in or moved elsewhere --Mark Barnes 12:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Two fairy rings (or pixie circles) marked by uneven grass growth (small one in foreground, much bigger one in background).

Although the pixie circles said to be created by Elves in Scandinavian folklore were most likely caused by fungus colonies, there was also a rarer kind, consisting of circular patches where the grass had been flattened:

On lake shores, where the forest met the lake, you could find elf circles. They were round places where the grass had been flattened like a floor. Elves had danced there. By Lake Tisaren, I have seen one of those. It could be dangerous and one could become ill if one had trodden over such a place or if one destroyed anything there (an account given in 1926, Hellström 1990:36).

Where is the science?

Interesting discussion, but nothing has been said about the scientific investigations that were in fact conducted, either in the article or in this discussion. Homework please...However, when I see scientific evidence removed and followed by a claim that there is no scientific evidence clearly homework is not the proper word.

the problem is pseudoscience is not science --Mark Barnes 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What you regard as pseudoscience is actually a blind study done by a notable mineralologist, reviewed by a world renown expert. So who is being pseudoscientific here? And are ALL the scientists involved pseudoscientists and not worthy of inclusion in this article? Remember pseudoscience is the claim of being scientific without actually do it. So, of course you can provide us with valid sources backing up your claims? Or not...209.244.42.3 08:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the tiny metal spheres, he has already provided a link explaining that they were only there as the result of a calculated prank. Look, I know you want to believe there is more to it, but we are dealing with scientific methodology here. For the purpose of crop circles, that means you cannot continue supporting an unprovable (or at least extremely difficult to prove) theory in the face of people who have confessed to artificially creating these phenomena and explaining how they did it. In a purely hypothetical future, scientists may discover that they were wrong all along about crop circles (it happens all the time, and when there is sufficient evidence scientists aren't afraid to re-evaluate previously reached conclusions) but this is a serious reference work, so it must describe everything in the most neutral possible way. And, whether you like it or not, science has already provided the conclusions that anyone possessing true neutrality must agree with. This is not a format for supporting pet theories. If you know of a specific, verifiable source that directly contradicts the link Mark Barnes already provided, please post it. If not, we have to go with what we have. Calgarr 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Calgarr

No, I am referring to clay crystallization which occurs naturally when exposed to high temperatures great pressures and long periods of time. The samples were tested and verified. And then there is the changes in plant cells, seeds in particular. The lead researcher of this one Levengood, now owns a company which produces rapid growing seeds. Or the astronomer who decoded Stonehege commenting that Doug and Dave were creating crop circles with unknown theorems in the designs. It goes on and on but you won't find any of it here, why? I notice you have a pet theory too...209.247.5.17 06:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not post some links here, so that other editors can discuss them? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what he/she is referring to and will give references to them however please keep it in mind that i personally don't agree with the reasoning in these references (as you can probably tell from my other comments on this page). first is the "Clay-Mineral Crystallization Case Study" aka "XRD Study" by BLT (http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.html) and the five unknown theorems is by Gerald Hawkins (http://www.lovely.clara.net/hawkins.html). I will comment on these at a later date but right now i have never the time or the energy but i do hope others will read the links and make comments here before considering adding them to the main article --Mark Barnes 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

X-ray diffraction huh? Takes me back to my days at university. It's all very interesting, if thoroughly inconclusive, since it wasn't even a single-blind study, let alone double-blind. Anyway, being self-published on the web by a non-notable group means, as I understand wikipedia's guidelines, that it is not a reliable source. Same for the second piece - unless a reliable secondary source can be found commenting on these items of research, they really aren't up to our standards. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree. however the Dr.Hawkins theorems do have other sources and also critiques on some cropcircle books (unfortunately i am not at home so i cant reference any for a while, i am pretty sure it spoken about in the 'Field Guide' and a few popular croppie books) i am also sure they are more sites out there but as you know with paranormal topics it rather had to find (or define) a 'reliable' source. on a side note you will be pleased to know that i am currently studying Physics with Photonics at university so this xrd stuff is foreign to me either.--Mark Barnes 07:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

intro paragraph(s) need to be changed

Article should only speak in generalities in the lead, not go on at length about crop cricles at just one period in time.

Over-emphasis on Bower/Chorley and hoaxes

Just have to share this with someone. I was skeptical about this phenomenon, but then last week my 89-year-old mother who grew up on a farm was talking about my great grandfather. And in passing, she said that he had a theory regarding crop circles. And I thought, "What? Crop circles in the Midwest in the late 19th and early 20th century?" She didn't even feel a need to explain it, but just used the term as if she expected me to be familiar with it, as if it was common knowledge in her era. This is not a woman who has ever been interested in the paranormal and would not be familiar with any paranormal claims. She said my great grandfather's theory was that buffalo would circle around a calf in the presence of a wolf.

Whether or not this is a credible explanation, I do believe that there's some naturalistic explanation, but I no longer believe that all crop circles can be explained by pranksters or artists. It's too bad that there's such a heavy emphasis on this explanation in the article. The Bower/Chorley material is repeated three times. Seems like once would be enough, and not in the lead.

I suppose there could have been pranksters back in my great grandfather's time, but the region was so sparsely populated, and transportation so rudimentary that it hardly seems credible that some kids were out in a field creating a circle. Plus, you have to assume that given the paucity of media back then, they couldn't have been influenced by reports of other pranksters. TimidGuy 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But there have been incidents in the distant past involving humans deceiving others. Just check out the Mowing-Devil matter from the 17th century! Pranksters have always been around, and particularly deceptive ones as well. Bower and Chorley are just modern guys who took advantage of New Age Alt medder type's gullibility, and when confronted with the real explanation their reaction is a classic example of the true believer syndrome. -- Fyslee/talk 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in historical details

There is a section called "History of modern crop circles" - which you will note, is careful to use the word 'modern'. It cites evidence from 1678 and then is more definite about a report dating to 1880. It then cites a case from 1966.

This is fine, but when we get to the section called "Creators of crop circles", it says:

In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomenon began...

If crop circles are known from 1966, 1880 and possibly the 17th century, what is the rationale for saying 1991 is "more than a decade" after the phenomenon "began"? This is illogical and misleading. Either it should say something along the lines of "decades and perhaps centuries after records began", or all the historical cases are identifiable as bogus. 81.96.161.52 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

the problem is the pre Doug and Dave circles do not necessarily describe what we would call a crop circle today thus the modern phenomena of what we would class and recognise as crop circles really did begin with them which is what the wiki entry is about --Mark Barnes 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, the problem may be summarised as: some editors want to include anything which (a) is found in crops (b) is vaguely round in shape. Personally I think the mowing devil is stretching things a bit too far. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this applies to every single case pre-1978. The literature is full of accounts which pre-date this (eg in the last section of "Circular Evidence"), and photos exist of crop circles in 1966, and some in 1975 (in connection with Billy Meier), and you can see flattened, swirled circles.

But in any case, my point is about inconsistency within the article. There is, for example, a section called "Crop circle designs" which mentions "the early formations (1970 - 2000)". Accoring to the discussion here, there were none at all until 1978. 81.96.161.52 13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic evidence

Removed from the section "criticism of alternate theories":- yet these critics cannot seem to explain the electro-magnetic phenomena around crop circles.^[1] This seems like it does not meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, i.e. it's a self-published website. If the material can be rephrased (and the author demonstrated to be notable) then there is still the question of where to put it. Rather than tacking it onto the end of a paragraph which it contradicts, it might be better placed in the section on alternate origin theories, as supporting evidence. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncited text removed

This is the paragraph as it was before removal of the bold text:

Carl Sagan discusses the phenomenon of alien-based theories of crop circle formation in his book, The Demon Haunted World. Sagan writes that no saucer has actually been seen, and no geometric figure has been filmed in the course of being generated (although certain witnesses claim otherwise{{Fact|date=August 2007}}). He also cites, as an example of a known cause of crop circles, the human agents Doug Bower and Dave Chorley. Sagan states that no supernatural, paranormal, or alien cause should be attributed to crop circles, in the light of the available evidence.^[2]

I removed this for two reasons. Firstly, it is just an unattributed claim that persons unknown dispute something, and as such it does not add value to the encyclopaedia. Secondly, it interrupts the account of Sagan's treatment of the subject in his book. If a source could be found for the challenge to Sagan's arguments, then I think it would be best added at the end of this paragraph, ideally with a comparison of dates (i.e. was Sagan wrong or ignorant when he wrote the above, or has evidence come to light more recently?) Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

Does anyone still think the article has problems adhering to the WP:NPOV guidelines? If not, it might be time to remove the tag from the article. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrections Needed

Should be Colin Andrews with an "s". The citation for him being the first to use the term "crop circles" is:

Circular Evidence by Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado, Bloomsbury Publishing, London. 1989 ISBN 0-7475-0357-5 also Phanes Press, Grand Rapid, Michigan. 1989 ISBN-0-933999-96-8

his websites are: www.colinandrews.net www.colinandrewsarchives.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprandrews (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

PerfectBlue, would you like to discuss your reasons for reverting my edits? I notice you didn't provide any edit summary beyond "summary of methodology used" which scarcely explains even one of the changes made. Was this some sort of reflex action on your part? A simple mistake? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-corrected the various problems (WP:NPOV, WP:WTA, WP:WEASEL and so on) making sure that each was a separate edit and providing a separate comment for each one. This means that any other editor can easily revert any "bad" edit of mine, providing specific reasons in the edit comment.

I have left alone the 'Colin Andrews' paragraph recently added by PerfectBlue since there may yet be improvements to follow the original contribution. Some things that I think should be improved upon or addressed are...

The same material is now covered in two sections. Redundant text should be kept to a minimum.
Was funding provided by Rockefeller or by "various media outlets"? Who got money from whom? What does "team which studied crop circles" mean? Were they a team that had worked together in the past, or did the individuals have separate experience, or did they only study crop circles under Andrews? This whole sentence is quite confusing and ambiguous - it needs to be broken up with punctuation at least.
Is it really necessary to say that the groups were making man made circles? What other type of circles could these men have made?
If 80% of circles studied showed signs of being man made because of holes or tracks, how much text do we need to devote to saying that 20% of circles studied could not be accounted for because he was unable to find signs of human interaction? I would like to suggest that one of the ways to minimise the amount of redundant text in the two sections is to simply state that 80% of the circles studied showed "unassailable" signs of human construction in this, the "Creators of crop circles" section, and focus on Andrews' interest in the other 20% in the "Investigators endorsing a non-human origin for some crop circles" section.

Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say.

) Alrady removed on POV grounds. Singling the topic out for a section when no counter section existed is not on. Content has been merged.
) Personally, I thought that section was quite clear. Rockefeller provided the money and "various media outlets" completely separately commissioned their own crop circles for various documentaries and publicity stunts etc which Andrews studied after the fact. The media didn't pay Andrews. The media outlets included the BBC and Rupert Murdoc's Sky network (British satellite television network) as well as a Japanese television company. It's all covered the source but was excluded here as it is irrelevant who commissioned the circle. All that is important is that the circles were known to be fake because they were made by TV companies.
) Er, man made, as in by hand. They weren't using machines, psychic powers, holograms, and so on. A couple of guys with a roller, that kind of man made.
) A Pseudo skeptic would say that it was man made and leave it at that, a scientific skeptic would give their reasoning. On the whole, you're making a lot of noise over what amounts to a handful of words. It is in the interest of this sections' credibility that it include methodology.

perfectblue 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the fact that the Colin Andrews claim about 80% man made circles is highly controversial among the scientists working on the crop circle phenomenon. In fact there is a highly regarded alternate view that the Andrews numbers are actually reversed of the findings of the majority of serious researchers. This should be mentioned.

Another fault i see in the article is that the unproven claims and storytelling by Bower and Chorley are reported as matters of fact, and numerous paragraphs are donated to describing their story at length. This even though their stories have been shown to be dubious at best, with no evidence of a basis in truth. Serious researchers consider their claims to be their hoaxes. I think that, while the Bower and Chorley story got a strong play in the world tabloids and should certainly be mentioned as part of the Crop Circle chronicles, their dubious claims should be presented as such.

Also there have been numerous scientific, peer-reviewed published papers about the facts of the physical crop circles that are not made with stomping boards, as the BLT research section briefly mentions. Why are not these papers linked to this article? Why are not the findings of these research projects reported as such in the SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS section? I assume it is an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvjns (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and WP:NPOV

In keeping with the Bold, revert, discuss philosophy, I have reverted the bold addition of this infobox in the hope that discussion can now provide a solution which is informative yet in keeping with WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, the following issues arise:

"Paranormal terminology". The title of the box strongly implies either that the term falls within the domain of the paranormal, or that crop circles are paranormal phenomena. Regardless of how they may have captured the imaginations of sections of the public, crop circles are tangible physical things, the available evidence points to the majority of them being manmade, and the term is not generally associated with the paranormal - it is simply part of modern culture. In terms of NPOV guidelines, this description presents an opinion - that crop circles are within the field of the paranormal - as fact.
"Signature". These characteristics are, again, opinions presented as fact. Attribution to sources, and discussion of crop circle characteristics, may be too subtle an issue to be summarised in such a small space.
Selection of "signature" characteristics. Which details to include in this list is ultimately an arbitrary selection, and great care must be taken that this selection is neutral and gives due weight to the available evidence. For example, it could be argued that the cominant characteristic is traces of human intervention, since 80% of all circles studied were found to show that property.

Personally I would have no problem with cutting out the arbitrary, non-factual and non-neutral portions of the box. However, looking at the source above, it seems that the "Paranormal terminology" title is hard-wired and so cannot be removed.

Does anyone else have issues, comments, suggestions...? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

This is a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It is defining the term "crop circle" within a particular field, not classifying it within a particular structure. Argument mute.
This is a standardized project infobox written for project paranormal as a jack of all trades to be applied to any terminology with a paranormal association, and there is clear evidence that paranormal origins have been assigned to crop circles, everything from aliens to magnetic force lines. Feel free to put additional infox boxes on relating to art or popular culture. Please be aware that this infobox is also used to deal with hoaxes, frauds and pseudoscience, it can be used anywhere in the paranormal domain regardless even when something has been scientifically proven to not be paranormal at all. So long as a definition exists within the scope of paranormal lore then this box can fairly be used.
"Signature", I'm not certain how you can possibly dispute the fact that crop circles are caused by crops being bent over to form patterns. Besides, it is clearly cited by skeptical sources that known fake circles involve the bending of crops (see Doug and Dave). I thus hold that it is an indisputable fact that the majority of crop circles involve the bending over of crops in a patern.
Signs of human interaction aren't a signature of crop circles, something can be a crop circle with or without signs of human interaction, plus saying that it is a signature could imply that the 20% that don't are different in some way, for example, that they are are made by actual paranormal sources. Saying that they are actually paranormal without a third party citation violates WP:OR.

perfectblue 13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why, from the perspective of a "project" member, adding this infobox would seem like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, from the perspective of an editor - or reader - who simply comes to this article without prior knowledge of "the paranormal domain", this infobox is very problematic. The problem with an infobox such as this is that, just as it simplifies, so too can it misrepresent.

As you say, it defines the term "crop circle" within a particular field, without providing justification (much less reliable sources) for inclusion within that field. The reader is left with the impression that crop circles are part of the paranormal field, simply because this article carries wikiproject paranormal's stamp of ownership. How is a new reader supposed to know, from looking at that box, that "paranormal terminology" also applies to things which are proven to be not paranormal?

I did not dispute the statement that crop circles are circles of some crop that has been bent or broken. I would not argue with the suggestion that such information were contained in the opening sentence of the article. I'm just concerned that selection of such aspects for inclusion in a highlighted infobox is arbitrary in nature and open to dispute as not presenting a balanced view.

I'm not sure what to make of the reasoning that says the infobox should not mention signs of human interaction, since that might give the impression that some crop circles are paranormal. But then, as we've established, my perspective is very different to yours. Looking on the bright side, at least we are in agreement that the article should not suggest that crop circles are paranormal in origin.

In summary:

There are no sources saying that crop circles are paranormal in nature, only that popular interest may associate them with paranormal causes. Therefore calling crop circles paranormal is a violation of the undue weight principle.
There is no verification for the claim that "crop circle" is paranormal terminology, rather than a common everyday term for a physical feature.
The infobox does not add anything to the article other than bringing attention to the related term "cerealogy". All it does is highlight certain pieces of information, thus inviting arbitrary and potentially non-neutral presentation.

"only that popular interest may associate them with paranormal causes", sorry but you've just described 99% of all paranormal phenomona. The fact of the matter is that without belief in the paranormal crop circles would just be seen as rather juvenile crop vandalism. If it wasn't for crazies believing that they were created by aliens or spooks, and if it wasn't for people making a small fortune selling books and t-shirts to crazies, then the crop circle phenomona would have died out during the 1980s. I'd even go so far as to say that the belief that crop circles are paranormal/alien is pretty much the only reason that they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page in the first place.
"There are no sources saying that crop circles are paranormal in nature". I think that you're becoming confused. WP:RS for the paranormal is WP:RS that people BELIEVE that something is paranormal, not WP:RS that science has proven them to be paranormal (which it hasn't, by the way). There's plenty of this about. Check out the works of Jerome Clark for proof that all kinds of paranormal beliefs exist. Skeptics dictionary has a section mentioning several too [[2]].
Now you're reaching. The title frames the information in a particular context. According to the recent arb com, any description in the context of the paranormal must be clearly framed as such in order to distinguish it from mainstream science. Removing this description could imply that the description of a crop circle is a mainstream description universally supported by mainstream science. This would be POV pushing. I will resist any effort to POV push this page into implying that crop circles are accepted as being scientifically accepted as being created by aliens or spooks.
"All it does is highlight certain pieces of information" - Er, that's the entire purpose of an inforbox.
"thus inviting arbitrary and potentially non-neutral presentation", 1) It's clearly framed as being paranormal. This tells the user all that they need to know about the information contained. 2) You are free to add as many other infoboxes as you like. There must be an art infobox somewhere. 3) That infobox is used for HOAXES, FRAUDS, FAKES, and DEBUNKED terms too. It's a universal project box.

12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)perfectblue

Proposed solution

A "Terminology" infobox containing the image plus the following...

Crop circle: A geometric or abstract pattern formed by the flattening, bending or breaking of crops.
Cerealogy: The study of crop circles.

It's simple, clear, neutral, and sourced. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It also fails to frame crop circles which violates the arb com. Are you trying to imply that they are a natural phenomona? That would be POV pushing. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I Agree get this crap out of the article. Once you let a little bit of paranormal in you have to start letting all the paranormal POV's in.--Dacium 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, people clearly believe that this is paranormal, and people have been hoaxing in order to make people believe that it is paranormal. The pop culture aspect and association is undeniable. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, some of the paranormal POVs are significant, ergo, Wikipedia covers them. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Steel's solution looks good. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've left your infobox in place and moved the paranormal infobox down to a section that specifically deals with the existence of paranormal beliefs. It is now part of a clearly named and framed section specifically dealing with this topic thus eliminating any and all potential POV issues while preserving the arb com requirement that all things associated with the paranormal be clearly framed as such. - perfectblue 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue is right. IF people didn't beleive in the paranormal, then the crop circle craze would have died out as well as movies about ETs and crop circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiCKDuDE102692 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture needs to change to the Triple Julia set. Regardless if it's man made or done buy aliens this is the best crop circle picture ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzenman (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you that it should be changed.. personally i like that its a lesser known Kent formation than a more popular one.--Mark Barnes (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific recreation

This section seems to be a weak link in the article. Why would we care if Discovery channels went to extreme pains to recreate the three ciriteria described by Talbott? What does this prove or disprove? Surely of more interest is how many man made circles show these attributes without these extra steps thrown in? 76.210.77.1 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it does seem rather weak especially as 1 and 2 of the criteria are the result of the crop naturally responding to being knocked over and the 3rd seems to be based on single events. I think this would be fine as an external link but not part of the main article.--Mark Barnes 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

76.210.77.1 have exactly formulated the contents and importance of this article, for which science burdensome. (talk) , 19 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed pretty weak. It also does not state the radiation that has, on rare occasions, been found within the crops in a crop circle nor does it explain how crops are interwoven. It only explains flattened plants á la hoax. Which leaves the undeniable question of why it is in here in the first place. BRiCKDuDE102692 07:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reported size of the iron spheres appears unlikely. Probably a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.213.39.51 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your right it should be

10-50\mu m

, I will fix it now --Mark Barnes (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Firefox Crop Circle

The article makes no mention of it whatsoever, even though it's notable enough for inclusion IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.25.61 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for it not to have a mention.. i will add it now --Mark Barnes (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.149.28 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of this by Michaelbusch who reason is that 'this isn't an advertisement' in which case some of the the commissioned work by circlemakers.org should also be taken out of this heading as they are not all for adverts such as the greenpeace formations which were for demonstration purposes rather than advertisements. point being the Firefox formation was of the Firefox logo clearly drawing attention to a product where as the greenpeace ones were demonstration drawing attention to environmental issues, now which one sound more like an advertisement? ... i am not saying that we should remove some of these references its more that i feel you have missed the point about the essence of this cropcircle which at the end of the day did/does draw attention to a product thus a valid addition to the advertisement section of this article. --Mark Barnes (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the two-page advertisement for Firefox in the New York Times was also 'not an advertisement'? http://www-archive.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-12-15.html IMHO The Firefox crop circle significant achievement in terms of 'fake crop circles' and certainly ought to be mentioned. It's on google maps FFS, how many of the others achieved that? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=16&ll=45.123785,-123.113962&spn=0.012112,0.024097&t=h -- zcat@zcat.geek.nz

Reference is more of an ad.

The final Reference in the final group, "Pro paranormal explanation websites" offers nothing in the sorts of explanation, but instead just photo sets you can purchase. I see no point having this link even posted, as it adds nothing to the article. --Rich1051414 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

why isn't there any information on the "20%" real crop circles

i saw on some discovery channel/history channel type show about how some crop circles are considered the "real crop circles" where its just one or maybe two simple circles that have been radiated some how, like they had been burst with energy for a split second, and nothing can grow there anymore and stuff, does anyone know what im talking about? where the crops haven't been just stepped on, they had been like melted at the stalk so that they bent over, theres no human evidence at all (even though some of the fake ones don't have human evidence because some hoaxers are good)

i'd like to see both sides perceptions on these "real crop circle" accurances, you know, the believers and the skeptics

plus if anyone could gather data, maybe put some criteria on what makes a "a real crop circle"

thanks (im new to wikipedia sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.230.182 (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The 20% thing (or at least the origin of the myth) is in the article in the Analysis section where it speaks of Colin Andrews study. As for the rest of your post i think you need to do a little more research than just watching one documentary, good luck but be careful not to neglect the trickster --Mark Barnes (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the article

I am surprised that so much of the article presents the human/hoax standpoint of crop circle origin, which would not be a bad thing if only the article went on to address every aspect of other theories, such as

the expulsion cavities that only get a mension but no explanation
the complex difference in soil chemistry between the soils inside and outside the circles
the differerences in geiger counter / electromagnetic radiation readings that exist inside and outside circles

and these are only SOME of the SCIENTIFIC arguments for non-human creation; there are also the practical aspects such as :

the fact that crop circles made by humans are nearly always made in the daytime and always take a long time to make
circles sometimes get made in rainy conditions but no mud is ever seen within the likely-non-human circles, such as the mud brought in by observers who later go and research the phenomenon.
the fact that the stems are never injured in any way in the non-provably-human-made circles (such as flattenings from the board that they get stepped on with)

i could list a whole bunch of other things but i'd just get boring and anyway i'm sure the people writing the article know what else i would write. What i am saying is WHY are none of these things mentioned? 'ball lightning' is, however no more is said about the light spheres so commonly mentioned as part of this topic.

Also, the fact that eyewitness are scant is used as an argument that humans have made them...whereas this should actually be evidence that humans did NOT make the circles: how could circles of THIS complexity:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Crop_circles_Swirl.jpg

for example be made with NO witnesses? it would take someone hours to DRAW this accurately on a piece of paper, let alone make it in a field...and circles of such complexity are not unique. I am not arguing for nor against, but rather that all these arguments should be mentioned and discussed.

Finally, if so many scientists and even mathematicians are interested in the phenomenon then surely this should all be mentioned, as should their research. And not in such a way as to dismissively say "this scientist says this, but some other scientist disproved one single aspect of the theory therefore the theory is wrong", which is the general tone of the article as a whole - which does the subject of crop circles no favours whatsoever.

I am disappointed in the lack of depth in this english wikipedia article due to the fact that it is mostly in England and the US that the phenomenon is most widespread!

The only explanation i have is that that an edit war must have gone on sometime in the past (no, i dont have time to research the LONG history of the article) and that someone with an interest in disproving anything but the hoax theory has removed all attributions to scientific research into the subject.

Hence why i will not myself edit the article, as i am likely to waddle inadvertantly into someone's space. But i have to say that it is immoral from an intellectual and encyclopedic p.o.v. ("encyclopaedia" = "well-rounded education") to not even mention serious research simply because there is no proof of it. Well, let's get rid of the "Black magic" article in wikipedia in that case...hell, let's get rid of the "Religion" article too - after all, there's no proof that there's a God! The "UFO" article...

catch my meaning? it would be ridiculous to do so. i just hope someone will understand me and do something to improve this article (as it NEEDS improvement) to capture the whole breadth of this amazing subject.

Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the latter contributor, and woild like to point specifically to extremely un-encyclopedic and undiplomatic wording such as "Not everybody accepts that circles are man-made, believing instead that many designs are too perfect and that they lack signs of human interaction." Excuse me, but who was it that deemed that these were matters to be *accepted*?? And why are Doug and Dave, and other self-professed pranksters, given so much more credit and column-space in this article than they deserve? Most of the greatest crop-circles have never been documented to be man made. When Doug and Dave were made to demonstrate their crop-circle creating skills, they made only an extremely sloppy and undelicate one, and even that took hours. Doug and Dave had to renege on many of their claims, after being pressed on the issues. Why is this not detailed here? The entire article smacks of intervention from either overly zealous sceptics or from others who have an interest in suppressing the issue, and in any event the entire article/entry is far below encyclopedic standards. A disgrace to Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following is misrepresentative:

"In the TV mini-series Taken by Steven Spielberg crop circles are featured briefly, but although the series is about alien abduction, the crop circles are discovered to be a hoax."

In fact, in the series, the theme was that a high-ranking military officer took the phenomenon very seriously, but one phenomenon he took time to personally visit, after having been alerted to one, turned out to be a blatant hoax. Again, this entry is very indicative of how misrepresentative the entire tone of the article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I just add that most of what has been quoted above, including soil chemistry, etc, is complete bollocks? Go forth and try to verify any of it, meet you back here after the goose chase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.28.230 (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro of the article states, "There is scant evidence that crop circles are anything but man-made hoaxes or works of art." The word "scant" implies there is evidence to show the alternatives to man-made hoaxes or works of art. But there is NO EVIDENCE to support ANY paranormal claims. So "scant" should be changed to "no." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.11.169 (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I changed it to "no evidence". Gary (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, as a casual observer, I too find the interpolation of good ole Doug and Dave's allegation that they created these things misleading. Particularly as the second or third? sentence in the entire article. Their claim should be given as much--not more--weight than others (paranormal theories for example) and that means taking out that sentence in the first paragraph, whose implication is "Crop circles are these interesting things that occur in fields that no one could explain. Then two guys admitted they did it. We believe them and so should you." Hahahahaha. Finally, the above posting about NO EVIDENCE of paranormal causes is INCORRECT. There is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence (NO witnesses to IMMENSE undertakings involving THOUSANDS of square feet appearing OVERNIGHT) which should allow the article's use of the word "scant"...

An attempt to 'correct' this article

It came to my attention, and that of quite a few people according to what ive read here, that people really want something on the view point of the less-so-sceptics. I recently added 2 sentences stating a few cases that haven't been solved. Well, you guys take a look:

This line was added for more detailed information, not biased at all: Although there were only 25 reported cases of crop circles by 1940, there were 298 by 1980.^[8]

This paragraph does not seem biased to me, but instead, a reasonable solution to what people had been begging for. Everything stated here is true AND backed with a reference: Aside from these proven faked crop circles, there are two styles experts still say has no known scientific explanation. Some crops have brittle stalks, like canola, that are bent in a right angle fashion that some experts claim to be impossible to do by hand. The other style, called node explosions, have holes in the nodes of the stalk, often found inside the stalk itself that some experts say functions like a microwave. No explanation for these have been given to date.^[8]

I just dont understand why those edits made you want to block me. An undo and a message to me I could understand. All I want is to make wikipedia an information resource, but to not allow anothers viewpoint, even when the viewpoint is stated in a factual manner, is very narrow-minded.

So Mark, from all these comments so far, it seems you are the only one who does not want some information on both viewpoints. Don't get me wrong, i am also a skeptic, i believe all of them are man-made, BUT i would love to see information on the ones not proven. This is very interesting information, for both the skeptic and the believer. Rich1051414 08:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem with this edit is the same as in the thread above. The source being used does not not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, so adding it would be at odds with our policy on verifiability: material that is (or is likely to be) contested be cited to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fairness I should note that I cannot personally review the reliability of "theconversation.org" due to its being blocked by security software; however, anyone who does feel that it should be considered a reliable source may raise the matter at Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard and get feedback from other editors there. I hope this helps explain a bit about how we work here. There's more info about Wikipedia fundamentals at The Five Pillars. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rich, as SheffieldSteel has pointed out the reason for the edit i made is that the reference does not meet Wikipedia's standards. I would however love to know what these 25 cases before 1940 are --Mark Barnes (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the section of history are placed texts: 1) 26 July 2008 Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (36,759 bytes) (rv, see WP:EL this needs cleaning up anyway, rm editorial comment on another link (we shouldn't say something is excellent); 2) 27 July 2008 Dougweller (Talk | contribs) m (36,759 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 89.201.104.114; Editors should not add their personal judgements on links. Texts touch the delete of a terminology - «excellent». In case 1) respected Dougweller deletes a phrase, containing a terminology - «excellent». A delete can be welcomed. In case 2) respected Dougweller returns a terminology - «excellent» in an analogical phrase. Case 2) does not comport with claim of respected Dougweller « we shouldn't say something is excellent». What is possible to think of reasons of similar inconsistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.105.56 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That editors are human and sometimes overlook things?? That maybe you should have asked me on my talk page? Fixed it now anyway. I'm not at all sure about the Latvian article, when I have time I'll look into it more. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Respected Doug Weller, I Thank YOU for a rapid and correct answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.105.56 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"howarth1" :
- Howarth, Leslie G (2000) "If in Doubt, Blame the Aliens!: A new scientific analysis of UFO sightings, alleged alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles", iUniverse, ISBN 0595156932
- Howarth, Leslie (2000) "If in Doubt, Blame the Aliens!: A new scientific analysis of UFO sightings, alleged alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles", iUniverse, ISBN 0595156932

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The info of Chapter 7 of this book....

needs to be incoporated into this article, as the book is well referenced.

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=PG53jNVPMFQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA135&dq=+crop+circle&ots=0n9lowc4ht&sig=JgjeHnN9UVJ9SM_rdqFiO00La1Y#PPA136,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Has DCCCS got a physical address?

http://www.dcccs.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"In the mainstream media" section

What do people think of the section In the mainstream media? It's been removed and put back in several times. Personally, I'm not as immediately concerned about the fact that it's unsourced as I am about its apparently being, well, not wholly true. – The Parting Glass 13:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is needed for the article. but more importantly I do not agree with it, every year there is at least one circle that will do its rounds in newspapers as a big story in the tabloids and sidelined in some broadsheets (last year it was the pi formation, the year before East Field formation and so on). its also not true that there have not been documentaries form mainstream media, even in this article it speaks of a few (eg Discovery Channel). This is just a current stance during the late 80s and early 90s there was a lot of media hype around the cropcircles. I cant help but feel that the person who keeps putting this section back feels that circles are more important and deserve more attention by the media than what they deserve, in the words of Doug Bower 'It's only flattened corn'. --Mark Barnes (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research and reliable sources?

My “mainstream media” section keeps on getting deleted! At last (thanks to Dougweller) I’ve had a more substantial reason for this than “I don’t agree with it”, namely the Wiki rules concerning original research and reliable sources, but I’m still struggling to see how to proceed.

The section I added is true to the best of my knowledge and experience. For example, I watch the BBC TV News fairly regularly, and to the best of my recollection there has been no mention of crop circles for at least the last 10 years – a period in which the circles have continued to become more complex and intricate, and therefore, one would suppose, newsworthy. I read The Times (one of the Wiki’s “reliable sources” News Organizations) almost every day; here again, coverage of crop circles has been almost non-existent (although letters regarding, and a small photograph of, last year’s “PI” circle did appear).

It’s interesting to note (and I think this makes my point for me) that none of the Wiki’s “reliable sources” News Organizations [“Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press”] is cited in the References section of the “crop circles” article. We have an article that refers to events that are real (as shown in the article’s photographs) and contemporary (“Crop circles shot into prominence in the late 1970s …”), but that does NOT reference the “reliable sources” that the Wiki guidance most recommends for real and contemporary events. Dougweller, could I draw your attention to this, if you haven’t already noted it yourself, and ask you to apply an “original research and reliable sources” ruling to the whole “crop circles” article?

Actually the first time I removed it (10:19, 26 January 2009) I did give the the reason that it was because it is original research and also because it is not true. As I have already pointed out crop circles appear annually at least once as articles (often as large spread or even front page) in tabloids such as the sun, daily mail or mirror, yes they are not often found in proper newspapers but are they really news worthy beyond the tabloids? i would defiantly argue that they are not. by the way Last year there was an interview with Doug Bower on BBC Newsnight about cropcircles (14th May 2008).--Mark Barnes (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And an article from The Times last June, which was also in other papers. dougweller (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Arecibo

What?! No mention of this at all? Wow... 79.66.61.246 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

History

It's been brought up before yet still the article is all over the place with its historical account.

Example: "Crop circles rose in prominence in 1975" - Can anyone give an explanation for this statement?

Another example: "Since appearing in the media in the 1970s..." can anyone cite any evidence of circles in the media in the 1970s - even one example??

This seems like a surreal way of trying to legitimize the Doug & Dave version of events which is, to say the least, shaky. I could be wrong, but in any respect these statements are fantasy. 217.43.165.196 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MASER claim

The claim that crop circles could be made by MASERs aboard orbiting satellites needs citation. To me it seems dubious - surely a MASER would burn crops, not knock them down. 94.194.66.92 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Do we really need an infobox? It has very little information that doesn't appear in the first few sentences of the article. Gary (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

very funny, but kinda weird ..

The last sentence of the patterns section is obviously vandalism. Dont know enough about editing, so can someone please revise it. thanks. 58.164.227.232 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it has been taken care of. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Websites debunking "unexplained" details of crop circles

Koman90 has placed some information in the first paragraphs of this article describing warped growth nodes and other evidence supposedly indicative of paranormal influence in the production of crop circles. Are there any websites or articles specifically debunking the phenomena described by WC Levengood, such as exploded growth nodes, or the iron-based coating which Levengood claims was found on these stems? The opposite viewpoint would surely be useful in writing this article. Gary (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It referenced a primary source, and I felt it constituted undue weight, so I removed it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"warped growth nodes and other evidence" really exist. These phenomena are caused by natural physical processes.

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newse/croppic/huh.html ;
http://admin.nyos.era.lv/doc/engl_main_crop_circles.pdf . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Argument against a celestial origin for crop circles

Of all the crop circles, not one exist such that it cannot be argued that a group of humans could have done it. An extraterrestrial will have one of two things to communicate, either that they is extraterrestrial or a message we can cipher. None of which has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.135.171 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Faults with the Doug and Dave story

The Doug and Dave story is clearly untrue in several details, but is presented factually in the article. I would re-write it myself but I anticipate it would just get reverted - so here are some issues:

1. The article states, "[Doug and Dave] announced that they had conceived the idea... in 1976". The 'confession' was printed in "Today" newspaper, and they claimed they made their first circle in 1978. The circle they claimed as their first, was also the first case study featured in the famous book "Circular Evidence". However researchers pointed out that in the text, the farmer stated he'd had other circles two years previously - and only after this objection was raised, did D&D start to claim 1976 instead.

2. They claim to have been inspired by the [almost unheard of] 1966 Tully Saucer Nests - but have never offered any kind of insight into any alleged hoaxing or claims of hoaxing for those circles, whose causation is unknown.

3. The article states "The pair became frustrated when their work did not receive significant publicity, so in 1981 they created a circle in Matterley Bowl" - again this is a circle featured in "Circular Evidence". This frutsration over lack of publicity is not only at odds with their claim that they were having a personal prank at the expense of UFO followers (no motive to get wider publicity) but also inclngruous with the fact that they selected non-visible sites for at least 5 years, and further never phoned the papers themselves. It simply does not ring true.

4. "Their designs were at first simple circles. When newspapers claimed that the circles could easily be explained by natural phenomena, Bower and Chorley made more complex patterns". This is inconsistent with the facts, as the "five-on-a-dice" pattern for example was recorded before the "publicity-getting" circle of 1981 which brought newspaper attention.

5. The article states "A simple wire with a loop, hanging down from a cap - the loop positioned over one eye - could be used to focus on a landmark to aid in the creation of straight lines." There is no need for such a device, which is entirely useless. It was obviously invented as a detail for the papers. Anyone can walk in a straight line without such a device, and it is absurd to assert that D&D needed one, especially in the dark.

6. "Bower's wife had become suspicious of him, noticing high levels of mileage in their car." - Had she not noticed his repeated absence in the middle of the night? Just the mileage in the car bothered her? Again, palpable nonsense. But even if believed, it should be qualified and not merely stated as a fact.

7. "Bower has said that, had it not been for his wife's suspicions, he would have taken the secret to his deathbed, never revealing that it was a hoax." - the pair also said on camera, that they elected to "confess" directly as a result of the UK government announcing plans to investigate the phenomenon in 1991 (thereby spending public money), and D&D felt things had gone far enough. So which version is it?

Elsewhere they have undermined their own story on several counts, eg claiming to have made the circle on the cover of "Circular Evidence" untill the book's author quizzed them on the crop lay, which they could not explain and elected instead to retract their claim to it; or the absurd story of one of them being injured in a field one night by ice falling from an aircraft toilet [he would have been killed, and anyway the odds of being hit would have been a zillion to one, and how did they know where the ice came from...]; or the diagrams they produced to substantiate their claims, which were not even scaled properly and clearly copied from photos subsequently, including field tracks made by visitors in the design; or their on-camera pretence to not know the phrase "ball lightning", despite having read Terence Meaden's reports for a decade; Their claim to have devised the phenomenon despite the existence of umpteen pre-1976 circles including Tully, some of which are mentioned in the article...

- So, in view of these matters, I say a re-write is needed which is neutral as to whether their story is true or false. Comments, anyone? 81.153.49.109 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I see a word like "clearly" in front of an opinion or argument, a small red flag is raised. Reading the rest of the post, I don't see any reference to reliable sources. This means that your opinions and arguments are very unlikely to be accepted as part of the article (see Wikipedia:Original research for more on why not). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am already well aware of the Original Research policy, thanks. I have no desire to insert any opinions into any article, and do not want any of the above comments "accepted as part of the article". To be clear, what I want is neutrality.

I have raised objections to several unqualified statements in an article, because they are unqualified and unreliable. Statements such as "in 1981 they created a circle in Matterley Bowl" are not sourced. There is no evidence offered that shows they did so. There is no reference given, and so the statement is a matter of pure conjecture (if not, actual invention). If the statement is based on their first-hand claims, then that should be said openly - "They claim to have created a formation..." and a reference to the claim given. Get it? This isn't me inserting my views, it's a clean-up job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is normally not considered necessary to add a citation at the end of every sentence. Indeed, it is quite common for a lengthy source to provide enough information for several sentences or paragraphs of material. The section regarding Doug and Dave does have several sources; unfortunately I have not been able to review them all. Given this incomplete knowledge, in good faith we should not assume that, for example, references to the a circle in Matterley Bowl are "conjecture" or "invention". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement about Matterley Bowl (aka the 'Punch Bowl') is referenced in the article (ref 18) http://ufologie.net/htm/cropbower01.htm its also probably in about every book or documentary that covers the Doug and Dave story --Mark Barnes (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel: Much of the initial "confession" from Doug and Dave IS untrue. Yes, CLEARLY untrue. This is not a matter of speculation. They were made to modify their "confessions" several times in the years following their initial "confession". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Source? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You are (inadvertently?) pointing to a very real problem with this article, SheffieldSteel: There were many articles in serious British media about this in the early nineties. Why are they not already included in an article as elaborate as this one? Were these news-media articles never posted online? I'll get back to it if I find this, but given that Doug and Dave had to renege a whole lot on their initial "confessions", and that this was made very public, I find it highly strange that Doug and Dave are given such prominent attention in what seems to pride itself on being a meritable and serious Wikipedia-entry (article). (Author here: Same as 158.37.40.111 from yesterday.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article regarding my point: http://www.lovely.clara.net/bower.html If anyone has problems opening this page, here's the text from it: "The fallow days between Christmas and the New Year are typically a time when individuals in the public eye, government policy-makers or large corporations quietly approach the media with retractions, U-Turns in policy or controversial legislations, the general public being otherwise too distracted by hangovers, celebrations or end-of-year sales.

It was in this spirit that small articles appeared in the British press on Sunday, December 27, 1998, bearing statements by Doug Bower- surviving half of infamous Doug and Dave hoaxer duo- claiming that "an unknown force" told him to do the crop circles.

The pair claimed in 1991 that they had made all the crop circles in southern England since 1978 (about two thousand at that point, including those reported from around the world). Unfortunately they could not provide a shred of evidence at the time. During a confrontation with researchers in front of the media, the pair made one small circle with planks and string that bore an artistic ability more in keeping with the damage caused by a rough wind than the surgical precision associated with the phenomenon. When later challenged on specific facts by researchers, they retracted or re-worded they original claims, mostly away from the media eye.

They have since became media celebrities despite not being able to produce any of the anomalies associated with genuine crop circles. Researcher George Wingfield eventually traced their original story to a company in Somerset that carries out research on top secret military projects.

Whatever Doug and Dave's motives or backers, it now seems that even the phenomenon's most public hoaxer believes there is more at work in the fields than the hand of man.

By Freddy Silva. This article can be disseminated free, for non-profit use only." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.113 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

".. traced their original story to a company in Somerset that carries out research on top secret military projects." says it all really, i still can't believe people fall for this 'MBF Services' crap. Whats next, the Oliver Castle video?--Mark Barnes (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think "by Freddy Silva" says it all, but I'm sure we can politely agree to disagree :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone here (SheffieldSteel or Mark Barnes, for instance) who actually believe that Doug and Dave have made hundreds of very complex crop circles? Why? Why believe that, when they have never ever been able to demonstrate anything even remotely resembling an advanced crop circle? Anyhow, I have no idea who Freddy Silva is, but his writing is patent enough. Do any of you guys know anything about Doug and Dave? If so, please share. It's truly ridiculous to me that they are given any prominent mention in this article at all. Also that John Lundberg-guy - who is he? Point of this all is: The article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, but rather in a POV-manner. That is not right, and should be corrected. Also, the fact that a lot of media material, recording and documenting that Doug and Dave have admitted that their initial "confessions" were vastly exaggerated, are strangely missing from this site. If ardent sceptics want to have their own online encyclopedia, let them. But do not let them ruin wikipedia by nurturing overtly POV-toned articles all over the place. Please modify the prominence of "Doug and Dave"-explanations in this article, when clearly few or no people know anything about them, and they have never been able to reproduce any elaborate crop circle under controlled and recordable circumstances. Best, Erik, Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.224.202 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe their story, what is a myth is that they have never demonstrated their abilities. I take it you must be unaware of the documented work they did with John McNish, where they did fool the 'experts' of the time. You also say they claimed all formation prior 1991, this is not true, D&D were well aware they were not alone since 1986 when the 'copycats' started to appear which D&D responded to with a formation that simply said "WE ARE NOT ALONE" (p273 'Round in Circles' By Jim Schnabel). Who is John Lundberg? John is a British circle maker and founder of Circlemakers an arts collective who apart from making anonymous crop circles also do commissioned work. It seems to me this topic is rather new to you given your posts and that you have no idea who Freddy Silva or who John Lundberg is, maybe you should do some more research on this topic before making so many complaints about the article. Personally I don't think the article is that bad.--Mark Barnes (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Mark. I fully intend to do more research into Doug and Dave on the one hand, and John Lundberg on the other, in due time. In any event, is the following article referred to in the article? Upon browsing the article and the provided links/references, I could not see it. It's well written and could well be used as source material and for reference:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/crops.html

Ps. When you say you believe the story from Doug and Dave, exactly what is the story that you believe? How many hoaxes do they still claim to have performed, and during which time spell? Also, can you provide links to footage of them actually creating a complex formation?

Best, Erik, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot more to look into than just D&D and Lundberg.. however some good stating points would be 'The Field Guide: The Art, History and Philosophy of Crop Circle Making' by Rob Irving and John Lundberg, 'Round in Circles' by Jim Schnabel and 'Cropcircle Apocalypse' by John Macnish, all of which give a good insight into the early days and D&D. as for your refrenced article I have yet to read it fully but from just skimming it there is alot of myth and misconceptions in it and on a rather dubious website. One thing I would like to point out that in the early days many researchers including Andrews and Delgado counted each circle in a formation as a single crop circle which if you look through the databases you will find rather than 2000 odd formations prior to '91 it was only around 370 formation with over 330 being after '86 when other people had started making circles. As for the exact amount of circles D&D have claimed i am unsure, but i am sure you could find out from somewhere. for footage of D&D in action there is this ITN footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt1hckdb7Sg but also in John Macnish's video 'Crop Circle Communique II: Revelations' it has time lapse footage of D&D making circles that did fool the 'experts'. --Mark Barnes (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is one unreliable source. Sorry to be blunt but that website has no reputation whatsoever for fact-checking and accuracy, which is what we look for. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SheffielSteel, are you referring to [[4]]? I don't see any reason to evaluate the website - the article was very well-written and covers a lot of the bases that the wikipedia-article here does. I see no reason to disqualify any websites whatsoever, as I've seen plenty of examples of less than reputable web-sites used as sources all over Wikipedia - and not least since many people say the same about Wikipedia itself that you (bluntly - I don't see any reason to apologize for that?) ascribe here. It seems a bit silly to discredit great source-material and articles on the basis of the site somebody found it on. It's a bit like discreding any and all output from Zimbabwe, on the grounds that the country is poorly run - how does that affect what individual contributors, journalists and scientists etc from that country have to offer in writing? Do you see my point? This wikipedia-article (crop circle) is of poor quality. The article I referred to above, from the site you seem to question etc., is of a vastly higher quality. Have you even read it? Regards, Erik, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: the last paragraph of the first entry in this section. If someone told me they were injured by falling airplane toilet ice, I wouldn't need to be told they weren't talking about frozen Perrier! This must be his way of saying "the sh** hit the fan (with particular force)". Clearly Doug and Dave are verbal pranksters at least. Whalesmith (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (Erik) for listing an alternate (and much more informative) website regarding the activities of Doug & Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.75.218 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all valuable reference material is internet-based of course. A prominent video cassette came out in 1991 called "Crop Circle Communique" in which Colin Andrews very carefully explains his meeting with D&D. Andrews challenged them to explain how they created the floor lay in the formation on the cover of "Circular Evidence" (which they previously claimed they made) and the couldn't - so they switched tack and said "we didn't make that one".

There's no evidence they made any circles, except as part of post-1991 media exercises. All we have is two old blokes making outlandish claims. They started in 1978 - or was it 1976? They made all the circles in Circular Evidence, except the ones they didn't, and all the circles in Wessex up to 1990, except others started copying them from 1986, and so on. Since their claims were made, hundreds, if not thousands of circles have come to light from all over the planet throughout the 1980s. It's clearly not a claim which can be substantiated in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.230.100 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.uwm.edu/~kmh7/research/theories/electromagnetic.html
^ "The Demon Haunted World", Carl Sagan (Random House, January 1996)
^ Kean, Leslie (2002-09-16) "Origin of Crop Circles Baffles Scientists," Leslie Kean, The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)
^ Levengood, W C (1994) "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants", Physiologia Plantarum, Scandinavian Plant Physiology Society 92:356-363
^ Anderhub Werner, Roth Hans-Peter (2002) "Crop Circles: Exploring the Designs & Mysteries", Lark Books, ISBN 1579902979
^ Howarth, Leslie G (2000) "If in Doubt, Blame the Aliens!: A new scientific analysis of UFO sightings, alleged alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles", iUniverse, ISBN 0595156932
^ Kelly, Lynne (2004) "The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal", Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1741140595
^ ^a ^b [5]"

[1] ttp://www.uwm.edu/~kmh7/research/theories/electromagnetic.html

[2] "The Demon Haunted World", Carl Sagan (Random House, January 1996)

[kean1-3] Kean, Leslie (2002-09-16) "Origin of Crop Circles Baffles Scientists," Leslie Kean, The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)

[levebgood1-4] Levengood, W C (1994) "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants", Physiologia Plantarum, Scandinavian Plant Physiology Society 92:356-363

[anderhub1-5] Anderhub Werner, Roth Hans-Peter (2002) "Crop Circles: Exploring the Designs & Mysteries", Lark Books, ISBN 1579902979

[howarth1-6] Howarth, Leslie G (2000) "If in Doubt, Blame the Aliens!: A new scientific analysis of UFO sightings, alleged alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles", iUniverse, ISBN 0595156932

[kelly1-7] Kelly, Lynne (2004) "The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal", Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1741140595

[theconversation-8] [5]"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]