Talk:Crop circle

Taylor

This para:

Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens.

References

I do not think this belong sin the article. It describes a theoretical mechanism to create something similar to crop circles, but which there is precisely zero evidence has ever been used to create any. This is an article about crop circles, not about hypothetical mechanisms for creating them. As noted above, the originators make no pretence to have even tried to show that this has actually happened, there is no credible reason for including this non-sequitur.

Three "sources" are cited. One is a press release and not independent, one is the Daily Mail, a perennially unreliable source, and the third, which is an RS, merely regurgitates the press release. There is no independent evidence of the significance of this claim. This basically applies to all the sources discussed above: they are merely repetitions of the claim, they do not challenge it and none of them credibly establish relevance for this article. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are many other sources. http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/crop-circles-explained-with-gps-110805.htm and others mention his article in Physics World magazine. Popular Mechanics interviewed him http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a6808/the-math-and-science-behind-crop-circles/ and talked about his theories. Dream Focus 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And which ones show that this has ever been done? Until we have that, the claim has no place in a section on how they are made. It would be like including homeopathy in an article on arsenic. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Crop_circle#How_they_are_made list various theories, including space aliens, and government conspiracies some believe in. This is something that got ample coverage in reliable sources, including legitimate scientific publications. It should be in the article somewhere. Other articles for things list different theories to how they were made. Sometimes there are so many, they split off into their own article such as Egyptian pyramid construction techniques Dream Focus 22:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia. We dont state speculation as fact. Feel free to propose text that complies with policy. Specifically identifying that this is entirely speculative (which it clearly is). Guy (Help!) 22:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So we can mention in the article that some believe aliens are involved, but not that some believe a magnetron from a microwave oven could've been used. Dream Focus 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's all about weight and how you say it. We say that some people believe aliens did it, because that is the principal reason the topic is notable. These poor credulous folks were trolled at an epic level, and that's essentially the story. The number of people who believe that any specific crop circle was made using magnetrons seems not to exceed two in any instance. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus, As noted in the previous section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' your statement Your statement Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens is wrong, Professor Taylor does not claim researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron.

I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:

========================================
Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM
From: "Richard Taylor" 
To: "Cardiff2015"
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons

Hi,

You are correct. Although the  "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of  the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. 

There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles.

1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique.

2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of  course, if |I deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy!

Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it

best wishes Richard

========================================
Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM
From:  
To: "Richard Taylor"
Cc: 
On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, 

Dear Professor Taylor,

I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.

One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Wikipedia 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How  they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a  hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph  and  the Daily Mail as the source:
With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state:

“Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at  the  University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011

“An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate  intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011

For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem 
to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to  replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’

For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Wikipedia crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in  'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and  I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Wikipedia have used your report incorrectly 
to  back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens."
 
Kind Regards

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.

Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselvesCardiff2015 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SYN. There is no credible objective evidence that this has ever happened, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I doubt that email or the last one this editor posted is real. As I stated previously, various scientific publications mentioned this information as well, including Popular Mechanics which interviewed the guy. [1] He says "In my article, I propose that people could be using portable microwave transmitters, called magnetrons, like ones that can be easily obtained from microwave ovens, to make crop circles." And where it says "my article" he links to Physics World [2]. Anyway, I have emailed him to verify if anyone has done this before, and what exactly he said. Dream Focus 15:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Emailing the source is the dictionary definition of original research. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Its done to verify information. The article itself can reference what he said in Popular Mechanics, it a reliable source, or what many other reliable sources said, that microwaves from magnetrons found in microwave ovens, could be used to make crop circles. Dream Focus 17:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus, obviously its disappointing that you're saying I'm lying, I assure you absolutely I'm not and I'd suggest you email Professor Richard Taylor yourself. His email address is shown in the Physics World article: rpt@uoregon.edu. I've never tried to change anything before on Wikipedia so I'm surprised at your abuse when all I'm trying to do is replace/remove incorrect information.Cardiff2015 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are lying, both emails you posted from different people are clearly fake. I have just received an email from the professor. Dream Focus 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:

"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."

best wishes Richard

GUY - You are underlining a problem which I tried to raise in the section immediately above this one. The article does say, "Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens."

But "patterns of crop damage" means, in this context, swollen nodes - that's all. It does NOT mean making crop circles or flattening stems. That was the point I was making - the wording is so obviously confusing that I almost think it was deliberately made to imply this. Anyway, there is no such claim - no-one claimed to have made crop circles with a magnetron, and that's not what the article says. It should be re-worded for clarity. 149.241.80.50 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there is no independent evidence of the significance or relevance of this claim. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia judges significance by coverage in reliable sources, which this has gotten plenty of. Dream Focus 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus, again you're wrong I'm not lying, I'm informing you of the truth which you're having surprising difficulies understanding so I'll again try to explain. Your proposed phrasing at the start of this section is absolutely wrong. You say "Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Nowhere has Professor Richard Taylor said that 'Researchers were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron'. Nor is there anyone else who claims to have direct knowledge of researchers actually going out and making crop circles with magnetrons. References on the internet all point to Professor Richard Taylor's work and he only says that 'magnetrons could be used to make crop circles' which is totally different to 'magentrons have been used to make crop circles'. Also in your partial quote from Professor Richard Taylor's email to you RT says "The wording used below in your email is incorrect." What was the incorrect wording you left out?Cardiff2015 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• The entire email is as follows. I sent him

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crop_circle

Someone has claimed you emailed them, and posted your response on the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Crop Circles.

He claims that you stated you never said that a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles.

Can you verify this please? Has anyone ever done experiments to prove its possible to do?

• And he responded

There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:

"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."

best wishes Richard

• Anyway, we just need to change the wording then. This should be listed as one theory on how they are made. It does get plenty of coverage, including Popular Mechanics and Discovery News. Dream Focus 12:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a theory of how they are made, it's a conjecture as to how they could be made, even the original author acknowledges this. Lazy journalism does not compel us to repeat the laziness. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus - With regards your comment, firstly, I agree with Guy's statement above.

Secondly, you were wrong in your email to Professor Richard Taylor to say I claimed he 'never' said a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles. I said the entry on Wikipedia didn't tie-up with what he said in his Physics World' article. Wikipedia had said (now removed) ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ and I queried whether researchers at the University of Oregon had actually replicated a crop circle with a magnetron and he confirmed to me they had not and, to quote from his email to me "Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made."

Thirdly, you are wrong to suggest to use links to (1) the Telegraph and (2) the Daily Mail as they both were doing a story on Professor Richard Taylor's article in Physics World and both wrongly reported it (as explained above in this section and in the section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Crop Circles and Corn Maze

It appears to me that crop circles and corn mazes are related. Because they are both artistic designs in crops to be see from above.

A corn maze in Delingsdorf, Germany, showing how mazes can be designed to conform to a specific theme

Aerial View of a crop circle in Diessenhofen

QuentinUK (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A crop circle is vandalism and hoaxes. A corn maze is something someone cuts out the corn in a different manner, legally, for the purpose of tourism. Dream Focus 12:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you at least believe the "vandals and hoaxers" are human beings? QuentinUK (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How they are made

"The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank." This is in no way scientific approach "most or all" is simply amateurish pseudo science. The Link Given (42) leads to the site of a religious skeptic with a Phd in philosophy. this is the scientific census? Does anybody check those links by the way?

Note 20 leads to an interesting Skeptical site http://www.skepticssa.org.au/html/cropcircles.html which states that "It appears that circular patterns in grain fields were not entirely unknown in rural areas before Doug and Dave. Elderly citizens of Sussex reported to Anderhub and Roth (2002) that such circles had been a regular feature of their childhood, and authors such as Fuller and Randles (1986) found numerous reports of circular patterns dating back to the 19th century.

"Natsis and Potter (1996) cited one example from August 23 1678 where a farmer found a large circular area of his crop apparently mowed down. This circle was attributed to demonic forces, the so-called Hertfordshire Mowing Devil, which, it was claimed, had descended on the oat-field with a demonic scythe, felling the stalks. The possibility that it was simply a natural phenomenon, or even a prank, appears to have been overlooked by the superstitious locals of that era, who, as Carroll (2003) pointed out, tended to attribute any unusual events, formations or structures, such as Stonehenge and Hadrian’s Wall, to Satan.

"Given the fact that before Doug and Dave these formations were always simple circles, perhaps, as Randles (2002) suggests, they could have been natural formations created by whirlwinds. These probably caused circular formations such as the one at Tully in Queensland. Doug Bower, who was living in Queensland at the time, apparently read a report of this event and this inspired him to create his own mimetic circles after he returned to England. It appears that the numerous circles he created with Dave Chorley encouraged numerous imitators, and the subsequent media coverage resulted in the emergence of many ‘experts’, people with theories ranging from the crackpot through to the serious, who were all keen to to use the media promote their fantastic theories to explain the origins of these circles.

"So, while natural forces created earlier crop circles, because they were relatively uncommon with little newsworthiness, they were rarely reported until the 1970s and 1980s when the media were more willing to report any ‘strange’ phenomena, especially where there was a possible UFO connection. "

Obviously, my emphasis throughout, but in the light of recent edit warring I do find the willingness to accept a natural origin for pre-1970s crop circles does rather undermine the case that was attempted to be made by those who would have it that all crop circles are man made. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You missed the bit where it's acknowledged to be speculation that they were natural. The instinct to hoax is a very old one. It also requires that all of a sudden in the 1970s the natural ones stopped happening, or at least no natural ones were investigated, since as far as I can tell all the circles where origin has been definitively established, have been man-made. Regardless, a natural origin of simple circles is not implausible and does not invoke WP:FRINGE, it is the paranormal and extraterrestrial claims that are the subject of long-term POV-pushing here. Feel free to propose an actual edit in line with published sources. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere on this talk page, the current edit is absolutely fine. The issue, at least for me, was the repeated insertion of, and refusal to accept any alternative view over, the two lines in the lede, "created by people" and "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists". It was you who really led the refusal to consider any change in those two statements, as can be seen in your own reverts to the article and comments in Talk:Crop_circle#Recent_edits, but I'm pleased to see you now accept them.Ghughesarch (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Paranormal

Since when is the possibility of extraterrestrial life something paranormal? Who writes such nonsense? SETI, NASA etc. all search for extraterrestrial life. These do not have to be necessarily green etc. just extra terrestrial. This is embarrassing to read in Wikipedia.

Recent edits

It appears that someone thinks that this

A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern created by people flattening a crop such as cereal, rapeseed, reeds, grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds. Although obscure natural causes or alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence for such explanations. Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists.

Is a better version than this:

A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern formed by the flattening of a crop such as cereal, rapeseed, reeds, grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds. Natural causes or even alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists.

Since neither source quoted actually states that crop circles are "created by people", or that "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists", the second version must surely be the more acceptable version for the lede of the article? Ghughesarch (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Every crop circle for which provenance has been reliably established, has been made by people. You can change it as soon as you provide reliable evidence that there is another cause. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• • That's precisely the point - the fact that there are examples for which provenance has not been reliably established makes it quite incorrect to make a blanket statement to the effect that all examples are man-made. Indeed, John Rand Capron's 1880 description would seem to show very specifically that not all examples are made by people Ghughesarch (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • Not clear that Capron's description is precisely about crop circles as currently described in the media which describe them. There is some original research which may need to be removed form the article. The typical things that people refer to as "crop circles" are all made by humans -- either hoaxers or artists. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • • It's very clear that Capron's description is of the simple circles which were characteristic of the early part of the "boom" in crop circles from the early 1980s. The statement that all examples are made by people is simply too sweeping. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry. That's original research. I have looked at the reliable sources on the subject and see none as of the last ten years that dispute the fact that crop circles are made by humans. Feel free to provide one if you have one. jps (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
          • You could try the Oxford Dictionaries definition given as the source in the first line at note 2: "An area of standing crops which has been flattened in the form of a circle or more complex pattern. No general cause of crop circles has been identified although various natural and unorthodox explanations have been put forward; many are known to have been hoaxes." Many are known to have been hoaxes is not the same thing as all are made by people. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
            • No, the dictionary does not authoritatively identify the case-by-case facts associated with crop circles being human made. Try again. I'm kinda amazed that you think this is a reasonable argument. It's like using the dictionary definition of psychic to argue that psychic powers are real. jps (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
              • You talk of having consulted the "reliable sources" on the subject. Which were these? did they include, for example, The Skeptic's Dictionary" (note 43)? which states "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters." Once again, "most, if not all", is not the sweeping statement of fact that "all" circles are made by humans. In fact, at a quick read through, I can't see any source cited by the article as making that precise claim. http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html Ghughesarch (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how a simple and plain WP:ASSERTion of the facts that crop circles are made by humans can be plausibly argued against here. Claiming that the current wording is a "sweeping statement of fact" is classic special pleading. Go ahead and identify a plausible argument from a reliable source from the last fifteen years that does not identify crop circles as being human caused. The article as is is fully consistent with the skeptic's dictionary. jps (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence to show how certain crop circles were made. It is possible microwave radiation from thunder storms and other natural things could cause some of them. The more elaborate ones are of course all hoaxes. You need references to prove this of course. Dream Focus 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposals that microwave radiation or thunderstorms cause them have not been seriously contended for decades. This is because the circles were revealed to be hoaxes. If you can find a current source to the contrary, please provide it. jps (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

References

jps - Are you going to provide a link on this page to the discussion you have stated on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, so that the discussion can involve those interested in a sensible resolution that does not merely push your POV? Ghughesarch (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• [3] There is no evidence that all "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists." A single purpose account keeps edit warring that bit back in. Dream Focus 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • People who believe that crop circles are not human caused and want to see that POV reflected at Wikipedia are not fit to be editors. jps (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That is your opinion, I look forward to seeing your edits on the pages of the world's religions, for example. In the meantime, you might also like to pay some regard to WP:3RR Ghughesarch (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • This has nothing to do with the world's religions, that I know. Except for maybe some obscure UFO religions. jps (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Your block log is rather long. [4] You have a history of arguing nonstop with people, edit warring, and even defying Arbitration rulings. You get your mind set on something, and just argue nonstop, ignoring whatever anyone else has to say, so badly they had to ban you from participating on certain pages. Dream Focus 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. The arguments here seem good. There's no evidence that the circles have been created by anything other than hoaxers and artists. The current wording may be a bit strong, but not outside what's required of WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That might be relevant if jps were the sole supporter of this content. Since he is not, and since the balance of us do not have long block logs (unless you count the list of people I have blocked) it is not relevant. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have "Every crop circle for which provenance has been reliably established, has been made by people." from "sceptical" side with partial agreement "That's precisely the point - the fact that there are examples for which provenance has not been reliably established makes it quite incorrect to make a blanket statement to the effect that all examples are man-made." from "non-sceptical" side, wouldn't it be possible to write something like that agreed part into the article?

Let's say, "Although other natural causes or alien origins of crop circles have been proposed, in all cases where the exact cause was established they were man-made, created by hoaxers and artists."? Is there anything disagreeable for any side in such formulation?

I guess that would also make repetition of "created by people" in the definition unnecessary, unless someone claims that something similar created by some other cause will have to have a different name... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the proposed wording seems a little bit awkward, but I'd go along with it, with a comma after "causes" and one after "origins" to slightly separate the natural and alien? and perhaps "hoaxers or artists" as the two aren't the same thing? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that the proposed "natural causes and alien origins" are not considered reasonable hypotheses by any current reliable sources. jps (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, I don't see where my version claims otherwise. It does not state so explicitly, but wouldn't you agree that it at least implies that? And I do not see a way to make it any more explicit without adding still more text... For example, your current version (Special:Diff/674072249) - "Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles continue to be proposed by present-day conspiracy theorists,[3] there is no evidence for such explanations." - still doesn't avoid those problems, as it states that there are present day conspiracy theorists who argue that crop circles are caused by natural circles. That doesn't look right... I am afraid that if we want to keep things short, the only thing we can say about "natural causes theory" and "alien origin theory" is that "they have been proposed". Just about everything else is different for them: one has been proposed by scientists, another has been proposed by ufologists, one "went out of fashion" after the confessions, another - probably not so much... Thus I would still think that my version would be more suitable... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

it certainly would be preferable. Unfortunately the "any alternative to my version of what happens is wrong and I will stretch the sources beyond breaking point" brigade has rather taken over this whole issue. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you call your opponents "the "any alternative to my version of what happens is wrong and I will stretch the sources beyond breaking point" brigade" they are only more likely to treat any version that is acceptable to you with suspicion.

Not to mention that such description ignores the fact that User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc was persuaded to reword his version in the very next section (Special:Diff/673840664/673872891, Special:Diff/673833438/673843504).

After all, just as you have a legitimate concern that the article would not overemphasise the "hoax theory" (let's say, by stating that it was always the only one taken seriously), they also have a legitimate concern that the article would not underemphasise it (let's say, by stating that at present it only slightly dominates "natural cause theory" and "alien theory"). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The two diffs you draw attention to are not the ones that got me involved in this and frankly I don't care which of those two versions stays in. The issue is the repeated re-insertion of created by people in the very first line of the article, and the line Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists. at the end of the first paragraph. Neither is actually supported by the rest of the article or by the sources. The implication of both those statements in that all circles ever recorded were thus created, despite plausible suggestions of natural causes (wind damage) for some simple examples. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, at present the article is fine. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"?

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ("jps" above) has edited the lede of this article at least twice to describe unverified and/or paranormal explanations of crop circles as "conspiracy theories". This is not what "conspiracy theory" means. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that these explanations of crop circles are not in-and-of-themselves conspiracy theories, the current reliable sources indicate that the supporters of these particular beliefs these days are conspiracy theorists. jps (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The only mention of conspiracy theorists I can see in the article is the single sentence that "Some even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles".

Ufologists and paranormal thinkers aside, the article details historical (and partly retracted) theories from a meteorologist, a 19th century amateur scientist, the Tasmanian attorney general, a couple of biophysicists and Stephen Hawking, none of whom appear to be conspiracy theorists. If we're trying to summarise the alternate explanations for the lede, "obscure natural causes or alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists" is simply a bad summary. --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Crop circles are the sole provenance in the last 15 years of conspiracy theorists. The article is pretty clear about that. Check out the dates on the sources you are attempting to cite. jps (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to cite sources, I'm attempting to summarise the article. If the majority of the large "alternate explanations" section is about unproven theories made by people who aren't conspiracy theorists, then saying that such theories have been "proposed by conspiracy theorists" is a poor summary of it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We're looking at different points. You're saying that the lede is summarizing the explanations that were provided before it was confidently confirmed that crop circles were all hoaxes. I'm talking about today. jps (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about today, then you should say that in the sentence. A new reader would interpret your sentence as saying that only conspiracy theorists have ever suggested non-hoax explanations for crop circles, and this is neither correct, nor what the body of the article says. --McGeddon (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Fixed. jps (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that "obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles continue to be proposed by present-day conspiracy theorists" still implies that conspiracy theorists are the only people to have ever suggested non-hoax explanations for the circles. --McGeddon (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists and other cranks, then? Would that work for you? Guy (Help!) 23:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Try being WP:CIVIL and it may be possible to arrive at a consensus. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Try not being a single-purpose account devoted to promoting fringe views against Wikipedia policy. There's nothing uncivil about noting that "cerealogists" are cranks and conspiracists. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a "single-purpose account devoted to promoting fringe views". For what it's worth, your latest edit is absolutely fine and addresses the more extreme "I don't believe this happens, therefore it doesn't" version that was being pushed by another editor. Can it be left like that? I doubt it, since it will be assailed from both sides until the end of time. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW I think the current version looks pretty reasonable to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It now reads: Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles continue to be proposed by present-day conspiracy theorists,[3] there is no evidence for such explanations and crop circles are generally accepted as man-made, created initially by hoaxers and subsequently also artists

• How does believing in the possibility of "obscure natural causes" make someone a conspiracy theorist? Also do all the people who believe its from aliens also believe there is a conspiracy going on? A conspiracy means someone is conspiring [5], working in secret with the aliens, or the aliens are conspiring to do something harmful. What about those who believe it is a peaceful message? Dream Focus 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What if instead of conspiracy theorists we used the umbrella term fringe theorists? Category:Fringe theory includes conspiracy theories, pseudosciences like cryptozoology, Forteana, and so forth. This neatly sidesteps the demarcation problem, and identifies cereology as outside the mainstream without being insulting. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Great idea. I have made the change. [6] Dream Focus 02:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Much better. We can possibly lose the awkward "continue to be proposed by present-day" framing as a result. --McGeddon (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What about "are proposed by"? -- Andrewaskew (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Many circles"

User:Ghughesarch edited the article to say "Many crop circles have been shown to be created by hoaxers and artists", actually it is all those for which a cause has been established. I found a quote in the Grauniad which I hope will be acceptable to all: "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand." That sums it up very nicely, in that it includes the possibility of freak natural causes, however unlikely, but establishes the well-documented fact that most are of human origin. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

not vandalism

I have been reverted but was not vandalism - Edis, T. Science and Nonbelief. Prometheus Books. 2008, p. 138. ISBN 1-59102-561-3 "Skeptics begin by pointing out that many paranormal claims are the result of fraud or hoaxes. Crop circles — elaborate patterns that appear on fields overnight — appear to be of this sort. Many crop circle makers have come forth or have been exposed. We know a great deal about their various techniques. So we do not need to find the perpetrator of every crop circle to figure out that probably they all are human made. Many true believers remain who continue to think there is something paranormal — perhaps alien — about crop circles. But the circles we know all fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes. Nothing stands out as extraordinary."</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by A little angry (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You can find a book to say anything you want, and just as many books to say the opposite. Not every scientists and reliable source out there says every single crop circle was the work of humans. Some state microwave radiation naturally occurring in thunder storms could be the cause, or various other things, for some of the ordinary circular ones. I don't think anyone doubts that the more complicated ones were all hoaxes. Dream Focus 23:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a general observation, not restricted to the topic of crop circles. Laymen need to realize that scientists often do not behave very scientifically. They often have private flaws which make them support silly ideas, and they then try to use their qualifications to browbeat the layman into submission. For instance, many of the greatest scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries backed various fraudulent psychics (not that there are any genuine ones). Brian Josephson, who won a Nobel Prize for undergraduate (sic) research believes in the paranormal. Many creationists have impressive scientific credentials. There are employees at Boeing who think that gyroscopes truly defy gravity (they do not). The bottom line is that the views of individual scientists should be ignored when discussing 'mystical' subjects. As the scientific consensus is that all crop circles are man-made, that is the only view which matters: non-scientists are not qualified to weigh evidence and the occasional maverick scientist is certainly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.90.206 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Willy-willy?

In the Modern times section it says "Director of Public Relations, Department of Defence (Air Office), wrote to a journalist that the "saucer" was probably debris lifted by the causing willy-willy". I presume this is a bit of schoolboy vandalism - what should it say? Richerman (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism. The contributor was probably Australian, hence willy willy. Moriori (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My revert

I removed "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand," from the lead because it is a verbatim lift from the reference, IOW a blatant copyvio. I left a message on User:Ghughesarch's talk page saying why, but he/she restored it, so I have reverted again. Moriori (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A direct, short, quote from the source does not infringe copyvio. Grow up Ghughesarch (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be rewritten. How about Whether some are caused by natural phenomena or not, is still open to dispute. or add to that sentence and say ...dispute, some believing all are created are by human hand,? Dream Focus 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure it can, and that's the only way it can be used AFAIK. I have asked User:Moonriddengirl to take a look. She's a copyvio expert, so her opinion will be fine with me. Moriori (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need it, it's fine as it is, and it's not a copyvio to quote some small part of what's been said in a longer article. Blimey, the lengths people will go to Ghughesarch (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's open to dispute, but many are proven hoaxes, although fringe theorists have suggested explanations, but there is no evidence" is a convoluted piece of WP:HOWEVER. If there's no evidence and fringe theorists are still suggesting explanations (in the present tense), that seems like a sufficiently clear implication that the subject is "still open to dispute". --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is scope for legitimate debate over whether some have natural causes. There is no real scope for debate over any cause other than humans or (just possibly) weather, because proponents of other origins have yet to produce a shred of evidence, preferring to rely on arguments from personal incredulity. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted the word-for-word copyright violation. Even if rephrased, the suggestion that there is some kind of controversy about the cause seems undue, especially when added to the lead. The source is a Guardian article that simply lists crop circles; it doesn't treat the subject in any depth. This may be a good time to cite WP:BESTSOURCES -- we should be looking to deliberate treatment of the subject, not a listing found in a newspaper. Such treatment seems relatively rare; there are many crop circle books that are promotional in nature, for instance. There is a livescience article which mentions the natural phenomenon angle but doesn't give it such weight. A livescience thread at RSN indicates that it's a reliable source. Manul ~ talk 11:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, it is not a copyvio. It is a short sentence and quoting it directly is perfectly acceptable both legally and according to Wikipedia policy. You can check my history to see how well I am likely to understand this: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The objections being raised, in my view, display motivated reasoning. The statement may not be from the best available source, but it summarises the best available sources in a way that is pretty close to perfect, in terms of concision, accuracy and balance of the claims advanced. I am emphatically not a believer. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Under the copyright policy, short excerpts may be repeated verbatim in line with the non-free content policy. That policy states that Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes (emphasis mine). Since this piece of text is not attributed in such a way, it is a copyvio - please either remove, rephrase or add appropriate punctuation to resolve this. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was asked to offer a viewpoint here. Quoting it directly is, indeed, perfectly acceptable, but per policy a quotation requires quotation marks or other indication of direct copying. Taking creative content from sources without this - unless they are public domain or compatibly licensed, and even then direct copying must be acknowledged in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism - is not permitted. WP:C says, "quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style"; WP:NFC says, "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes." If you don't want it to be a quote, it should be properly paraphrased. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Got an e/c with you putting in the quotation marks a moment ago - thank you for doing that, Moonriddengirl. I have to say, from a purely editorial perspective I think that it now looks rather ridiculous, and I'd encourage this article's editors to come up with an appropriate paraphrase instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that, and I would have done it but got called away briefly. Quoted, it is fair use. Stupid of me not to put quotyes in in the first instance - I just plain forgot. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look silly with the quote marks. Might I suggest, replacing "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand," according to The Guardian with Whether all crop circles are created by humans, or whether some can be attributed to natural causes, is still open to dispute, with the cite to the Guardian? Ghughesarch (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording is painful. It's one thing for a media space-filler to include such a statement, but quite another for it to be in the lead of an encyclopedic article. It's sky-is-blue obvious that no scientific or other study of all crop circles has occurred, so some of them may have natural causes, while others may have been made by Martians. It's also obvious that a small number of natural-causes crop circles have occurred—circles which aren't circular and which would not get any attention because they're not impressive. One point about the sentence is that it appears next to an illustration for which there is no dispute—all such pretty pictures obviously show pranks and there can be no dispute about that. Why is the statement required? Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, for this specific reason: the statement acknowledges that most are man-made (which has broad consensus here) and closes off the weaselly possibility that some might be of some paranormal origin, whihc is the main source of the dispute between the "most are" and "all are" formulations. You and I both know that the number of circles that are not man-made is tiny, and that every one for which a cause has been definitively established, has been man-made, but it's like the "unidentified" in UFO - by definition, we cannot know, but we do know that there is bugger all evidence of non-terrestrial cause. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits give the impression (entirely wrong on both counts) that only one person (a journalist on a RS national newspaper) believes that a non-human natural cause for some crop circles is open to dispute, and that only one obscure professor at an American university believes that they "fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" (which is not the same as stating that they are all hoaxes). So I'm suggesting reverting back to the last edit which was the subject of sensible discussion here.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree and have removed the name for exactly that reaosn but I think the best solution is to agree a pararaph here between all participants, which we can all agree to defend against the drive-by paranormalists. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunately a drive-by skeptic who has left the article rather battered, and resisted the near-consensus view which was emerging a week ago. But I'd suggest "Whether all crop circles are made by people, or some caused by natural phenomena, remains open to dispute, but many crop circles have been shown to be created by hoaxers and artists.", and losing "and human causes are consistent for all crop circles" after "there is no scientific evidence for such explanations" Ghughesarch (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

However, I can tell you now that jps will not agree to that since it does not state that "all crop circles are created by people", so we are stuck. The possibility of a consensus is vanishingly small. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true, and jps is not a drive-by anything, he's been around for a long time. So: how about it? I think you and I agree on the fundamentals:

* Most of not all are created by people;

* Some sources still say that some may be created by some natural phenomenon;

* There is no credible evidence of any extraterrestrial origin.

Of these I think jps would dispute only point 2, and that on the basis of its significance, i.e. whether the belief in a hypothetical natural cause of a few circles is sufficiently well established to deserve mention in the lede. I don't think jps would accuse me of being one of the credulous, since I've written guest blogs on the JREF website. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical natural cause (let's be clear - wind) is the cause suggested by early reports - Capron's, Moore's (in conjunction with a putative meteorite) and others. That there is still a dispute as to whether a natural explanation other than people is tenable, is amply evidenced by the arguments that are going on here, and is also referenced in several of the sources cited in the article, including skeptical ones. That the dispute exists is notable enough to be included in the lede, particularly if the alternative is going to be an unbalanced statement (whatever the exact wording may be) to the effect that all are man-made. It goes beyond the rather weak "some sources still say".

re your point three, "extraterrestrial" in this case might be better phrased as something like "paranormal or caused by alien life".

the lede, as I understand it, is supposed to summarise the salient points of the article, and I personally don't think it helps readability, or concision, to have direct quotes and references to a handful of sources "fighting it out" at that point in the article, for statements which are expanded on and amply referenced lower down the page. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I also don't think there will be an answer, or at least an indication of which way things are likely to go, until the most recent edits have been reverted back to what was there before, and seemed to be close to consensus -1. so I hope you won't mind me doing that.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well. we have our answer, jps has seen fit to revert that change, claiming that the version that has not come close to consensus was "more neutral", and without engaging at the talk page first, as was requested.Ghughesarch (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy's version is better and a better point to start from than Ghughsearch's version. jps (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

and do you have a view that is useful on the proposed change of wording? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no proposal for changing any wording of Guy's version. Go ahead and make a suggestion. I have not any source identify a single crop circle identified as caused by the wind. jps (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed change of wording is given above. You are being deliberately obtuse. Capron and Moore both suggested the weather as causes.Ghughesarch (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

References

That's just the wording that was in before. Guy's preferred wording is better. jps (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, my wording is better and was accepted, even by User:JzG, before you resumed your disruptive editing of the article. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a Help! page can accept wording. You have to ask people. I think JzG's version is better than yours. Much better. jps (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the 03:11, 15 August 2015 version by jps because the "remains open to dispute" text was just a throw-away line in a space-filler which could be read as suggesting there may well be a dispute. However, per WP:REDFLAG, there is no dispute about such a fringe topic unless solid-gold reliable sources say so. The current text is phrased much more appropriately to show the obvious, namely that no one has determined the cause of every crop circle, so some may have natural causes. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's inappropriate to state "there is a dispute" without very strong sources, but fine to say "it remains open to dispute" sourced only to some throwaway three-paragraph introduction to crop circles in a Guardian blog entry? Because "it remains open to dispute" is a much weaker statement (since people are always free to dispute things) - in which case, why say it at all?

The current lede of "an anonymous Guardian writer once said there was still controversy, but a redlink professor, he once said that all circles fell in the range of hoaxes" seems faintly ridiculous for what's meant to be a broad, concise summary of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You are entering a six-week old discussion. Please just state whether you think there should be a change to the article, with what/why. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know, it didn't seem worth banging a gavel and starting a whole new thread. I was just puzzled by you rightly dismissing a "throw-away line in a space-filler", only to then support its quotation in the lede. Just wondered if I'd missed something.

I'd suggest cutting the Guardian-vs-Edis line entirely and changing the following sentence to mention hoaxes as "human causes", so that hoaxes aren't lost from the lede. "Still open to dispute" seems an empty statement; the sun rising each morning is not "closed to dispute". --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Should read: "crop mark" not "crop formation"

Should read: "crop mark" not "crop formation" for-fecks-fecking-sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.67.131 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to provide sources for that change. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. "Crop Mark" has an history - google ngram and google books would prob prove this. Never heard of: "crop formation" until this wiki article. Also, not all crop circles are circular, right? - this is another feather in the bow of crop mark. By the way, whatever happened to "crop ring" ? Sigh.

Defining "cereologists"

Should the page define and use the term cereologists?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewaskew (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 September 2015‎

• Yes (changed my "vote" below): an important part of our WP:PURPOSE is to expound and explain notable material, to provide an encyclopædic outline and point interested readers in the direction of further information. In this case, to outline the phenomenon of crop circles and describe how the field of (paranormal) believers operates. An important part of that material is understanding the terms in use. So we should outline those terms where they are pertinent and notatble, such as this case.

Someone who studies crop circles, especially one who believes that they are not man-made or formed by other terrestrial processes

— Wiktionary

So in helping readers to understand the material, we need to help them understand the terminology. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I say no. You don't need to waste time looking up a word that no one uses. Also look at the context. [7] "Advocates of non-human causes" makes more sense here. Dream Focus 23:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My question was less addressed towards the specific edit, and more towards the general case. This page used to provide a definition of "cereologist" for interested readers. Should we provide that definition? -- Andrewaskew (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT. Alexbrn (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should only provide definition to terms if that serves our aim at creating an encyclopædia. Or, to quote directly from WP:NOTDICT:

"Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions:

First, those who collaborate on this opus must oblige themselves to define everything, without exception

— Diderot "Encyclopedia"

"Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns. See also WP:REFERS.

"A good definition is not circular, a synonym or a near synonym, overly broad or narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. When a descriptive title is self-explanatory, such as history of Malta, a definition may not be needed. See also fallacies of definition.

A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term.

— Definition

-- Andrewaskew (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

References

• No. If the definition is "someone who studies crop circles and maybe thinks aliens did it" then it's too ambiguous to be used in the article. It's clearer to talk specifically about "advocates of non-human causes" or "researchers of crop circles", as the current text does. --McGeddon (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• No, not until reliable sources use the term as if it were a word and not a piece of in-universe jargon used by a fringe group. In an article on a scientific topic, it would make sense to define and use standard terms that general readers might not be familiar with because that would be providing encyclopedic knowledge applicable to related topics. This article thinks a cereologist is something else, although it's obviously a joke I don't understand. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• False dichotomy. We should define (as in: they call themselves this), but not use it to describe them, per WP:SPADE. They are cranks, "cerealogy" is bogus and we must not pretend otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I'd support that. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Define but not use as per Guy. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)