|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crop circle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Crop Circles, or anything not directly related to improving the crop circle article on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Crop Circles, or anything not directly related to improving the crop circle article on Wikipedia at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 120 days may be archived by.|
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.
But they're all manmade.
Use of 'Hoax'
This article refers to man-made circles as hoaxes, but there is nothing to support the notion that any crop circle has ever been anything but man-made. How then are hoax and hoaxers applicable terms? Crop circles are art akin to graffiti, and the article should reflect that reality.
- They certainly started out as hoaxes as Bowers and Chorley were inspired by reports of a "saucer nest" in Australia, and as many people still believe they are of extra-terrestial origin then the people who produce the circles are clearly feeding that idea. However, we go by what the sources say, and if they call them hoaxes so should we. If you can find some reliable sources that call them art, then please feel free to add something about that too, with suitable citations, but please don't change what is already there unless you can find something in the citations already used to say they are art. However, as you are clearly acting in good faith and haveve taken the time to post your opinions on this page, I think to call your edits "disruptive" and add protection to the article is insulting and unnecessary. Richerman (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- "John Lundberg (born 5 December 1968) is an English artist" John Lundberg from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but is wikipedia a reliable source?
- "I don't regard myself as a hoaxer" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2191565.stm
- No, wp:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, you can follow the citations used in that article and use those, but you must read them yourself and paraphrase the info you find there. The other source you quote is fine as they describe what they do as "art practice" so you could add something about that and use that as a citation. What you can't do is just decide yourself that they are art and change text that has citations that don't support that assertion. Richerman (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
They say Wiki talk pages go round in circles, and maybe that's correct. The IP who opened this section must have thought the content was worth repeating. Ten years ago, User:Wpjonathon asked exactly the same question and made exactly the same comment when he posted -- "This article refers to man-made circles as hoaxes, but there is nothing to support the notion that any crop circle has ever been anything but man-made. How then are hoax and hoaxers applicable terms? Crop circles are art akin to graffiti, and the article should reflect that reality.". Moriori (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Nobody can produce physical evidence for text based artircles, Not even the previous Authors or yourself that make claims of a conspiracy to Hoax a crop circle. Was there a conspriacy of individuals to hoax crop circles ? Yes . Are all Crop Circles Haoxes, No and you would be unable to prove that all are Hoaxed and you lakc any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- We know that hoax crop circles exist. There is no other empirically documented means by which crop circles are produced. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Held some lectures which are interesting to read for the ones who are versed in a deeper understanding of the etheric world and what is really our mundane consciousness, he intuits crop circles as living structures like plants, in se projected thought forms. A deep insight in what one can learn in anthroposophy may be required to see what he is really pointing at here. Do not disregard this out of non-understanding too quickly.
http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/messenger/sm-ccircles.html http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/messenger/sm-prep.html http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/messenger/sm-wdntstartfromhere.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
How they are made
|WP:NOTFORUM, bordering on WP:NOTHERE|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Yes , the Hoax story sounds like Santa Claus story for Adults. The Extraterrestrial explanation is far more plausible, even government technology making them is plausible , but Alien is more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Why ? Whos making any assumptions. Are the Thousands of UFO reports not enough evidence ? What do you want , and Alien on the Whitehouse lawn ? surely you have seen the Utube Videos of UFOS ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes , but this article is about Crop Circles , its not entitled Hoax Crop Cirlces , you seem to be mixing the Hoaxed man made Crop Cirlce information with the Extraterrestrial & UFO crop circles. No empirical evidence has been found , on the contrary, obviously you have not looked. Angels and Devils would be for crazy people, lets just stick to the UFOS and Crop circle topic. You might like to go and start the Hoax Crop Cirlce Page and stop editing this article if your only trying to destroy the reporting of information to other readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Tell that to Travis walton. Anyway your entitled to your Tin-Foil hat conspiracies, as for the rest of us that actually do research, we know that most of the crop circles are not Hoaxed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Physical evidence , we are both unable to produce physical evidence on a text based web article. All you seem to have is your argument that there was a conspiracy of some tin foil hat wearing guys that made them with sticks and rope. So if you are to consider that all editors to this post are unable to produce any physical evidence you would have to accept all calims from both sides of the written and submitted posts. You are making assumptions that all Crop Circles are Hoaxes. Most are not man made due to the levels of complexity and lack of crop stem damage. The Rockerfeller Banking family funded Scientific Research on formation of crop circles.
Not caused by weather
The article goes to great lenghts to say that crop circles are not caused by weather https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle#Weather , which is really missleading. It is common for wheat to fall in a circular form, or a complex geometric shape, whenever there is rain and wind at a certain time of year. Here is a photograph of the phenomenon: http://www.producer.com/2016/07/farmers-evaluating-rain-damage-to-crops-2/ Indeed, I am quite sure that rain+wind is the #1 cause of wheat falling in geometric paterns, though I have no statistical evidence to prove that. I'm not sure how to edit the article, however, because none of the articles that I found on rain damaged wheat refer to "crop circles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You need said statistical evidence (or rather, secondary or tertiary professionally published mainstream academic sources discussing such statistical evidence) to change the article to say that. Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)