Jump to content

Talk:Crop circle/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

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)
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[1]), 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.[2] 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

  1. ^ Note: they must not be largely or completely related only by the titular term
  2. ^ Dictionary of lexicography By R. R. K. Hartmann, Gregory James
  • 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fungi as a cause of crop circles

If fungi is a possible cause of crop circles, shouldn't it be moved out of the Folklore section and into Alternative Explanations? You can't really include "fungi can cause circular areas of crop to die" without expanding upon this in the explanation section. 195.171.221.68 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not relevant to crop circles as currently understood. It may have caused something similar in folklore, albeit much smaller and less regular than the human-created circles. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Then this should be made clear in the folklore section. 'Circular' suggests something closer to a perfect circle similar to modern crop circles 195.171.221.68 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to propose alternative wording. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Camberra Times

I removed The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995) Wednesday 26 January 1966 p 3

It's an article called "Man's flying saucer patent 'just idea'". It's probably related to the Tully's saucer nest. Used to claim that crop circles have been spotted in reeds. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Claims of early spotting

Patrick Moore

[2] Sir Patrick Moore described a crater in a potato field, probably caused by "a meteoritic body". Not a crop circle by any definition. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The third paragraph of your link - "in the adjoining wheatfields were other features, taking the form of circular or elliptical areas in which the wheat had been flattened... there was evidence of "spiral flattening" and in one case there was a circular area in the centre in which the wheat had been flattened." That's a crop circle by any definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.51.14 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I find the description very incomplete. There is no mention of the crater a few meters away, the "odd spurs" in the ground radiating from the crater, the elliptical shape of some of the formations, that the formations lead to the crater, and that he assigned the cause to air currents from the impact of a meteorit. Certainly I don't remember any crop circle with these characteristics.
An astronomer studied similar craters and said they were probably lightning strikes. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

E C Curwen

Archaeologist E C Curwen found 4 dark rings in a field. One of them was "a circle in which the barley was 'lodged' or beaten down, while the interior are was very slightly mounded up." [3] [4]

A ring, not a circle. Crop not bent completely. I only see unreliable websites. Any reliable source relating this to modern crop circles? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

again, Curwen describes the crop in the rings as being "lodged or beaten down". A ring is a circle. This is a description of a crop circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.51.14 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
An annulus (ring) is not a circle...... The rings in modern crop circles are cleanly delimited, and the crop inside the ring in untouched. Again, quite incomplete. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Another strong indication of what?

The message here is unclear:

"Another strong indication is that inhabitants of the zone with the most circles have a historical tendency for making big formations, including stone circles such as Stonehenge, burial mounds such as Silbury Hill, long barrows such as West Kennet Long Barrow, and White horses in chalk hills."

I am still trying to figure out what exactly is being "indicated". --Xavier (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Indication that crop circles have a human origin. For me, I think the reader can deduce it from the previous sentences. Maybe it needs a little rewording? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Enric Naval: You are correct. I retract my statement. It is very clear to me know what the statement is saying. Thank you for pointing that out.
--Xavier (talk) 23:13, 3 November 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)

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)


There is nothing to see here...please move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.211 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How they are made

The formation for crop circles may be created by electromagnetic induction along underground water sources, the background microwave energy from solar radiation can produce crystalline formation such as ice crystal shaping in snow which are also natural Madelbrot shapes. Some of the crop circles that form in snow and ice and the patterns can be naturally asymetric & identical to snow flakes. Most of those found in the snow are Hoaxed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.108.206 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"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)

Stanley Messenger

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 81.246.214.90 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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 49.177.182.43 (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)

How they are made

WP:NOTFORUM, bordering on WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Needs editing , they seem to be made by predatory Aliens, could it be so ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.182.43 (talk • contribs)

As the "Creation" section of the article explains, they are hoaxes created by human beings. Santa Claus for adults, as it were. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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 49.177.182.43 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We know hoaxers exist. We have yet to found any aliens. Per Occam's razor, we should go with the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 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 49.177.182.43 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm Whatever the subjective value of your faith in otherworldly beings, the simple fact remains that we know that people can, have, and do make hoax crop circles (and Youtube videos) and that no empirical evidence has been found for intelligent alien life, much less visitation -- just the same sort of hearsay you find with people who've "met" angels and devils. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 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 49.177.182.43 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming Extraterrestrial life exists (no, there isn't any empirical evidence, only Confirmation biases), that they've visited, and that they somehow don't have anything better to do than mess up crops. Until we find empirical evidence of aliens, of alien visitation, and that those visitations included making crop circles (three assumptions), it's only one assumption to assume that all crop circles are hoaxes.
If you know of empirical evidence that is accepted by the mainstream scientific community, please cite the professionally-published mainstream academic sources that explain that evidence so we can update the relevant articles. Because as is, there's currently as much empirical evidence for aliens as there is for angels or demons -- "visions" from either are from "crazy people," and crop circles are the equivalent of seeing the Virgin Mary in toast (heck, the toast was at least accidental). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"Angels and Devils would be for crazy people" - no, those people are not crazy. They follow exactly the same thinking as the ET believers:
  1. they see something they cannot explain,
  2. they believe that they are so smart that only supernatural beings (or aliens) can prevent them from finding an explanation und conclude that supernatural beings (or aliens) must have been involved.
Nothing crazy about that, just the usual overestimation of one's own capabilities one sees everywhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 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 49.177.182.43 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There's literally no difference between that account and folks who claim to see gods or angels -- he has no physical evidence, just claims. Whatever the spiritual validity of your religious beliefs in UFOs, you need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic sources instead of citing more unproven claims and hoaxes. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 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.

There are people who have admitted to making crop circles, such as Doug Bower and Dave Chorley There are even freaking crop circle making COMPETITIONS. Here's a report on one. http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/Cropcircles_Michellany.pdf Here's another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atObTh0mwFc Is this evidence enough for you. Do you have any evidence that these crop circles were made by aliens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.182.43 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/roccircl.html
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/347439.stm

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)

Margry & Roodenburg references - is this serious?

Serious contribution or vandalism, or self-promotion or a joke?

There are now multiple references in the article to Peter Jan Margry & Herman Roodenburg "Reframing Dutch Culture: Between Otherness and Authenticity" - some of which are just tagged onto already sourced statements. Others are just plain odd, like the assertion that crop circles don't appear in muslim coutries.

The book appears to have little or nothing to do with crop circles and it's hard to see how they would even turn up in the text. A precis I found reads: "Dutch society has undergone radical changes in recent years, due to complex political, social and ethnic developments. Reframing Dutch Culture examines issues of nationality, ethnicity, culture and identity in The Netherlands from an ethnological perspective, linking past traditions and notions of identity with more recent transformations... [etc]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.91.217 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Crop circle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ranking the arguments against natural causes by soundness

While the weight of evidence against natural causes of most if not all crop circles is overwhelming, the soundness of some of the arguments is underwhelming. For example the proximity of crop circles to places frequented by humans might merely mean that those are the ones most likely to be found. A suitable program to search for crop circles in all satellite images of Earth's surface, reduced to the same resolution for uniformity, could fix that. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanity please!

A guy saw a flying saucer land in Australia? He's been downgraded to "where a farmer found a flattened circle of swamp reeds after, he claimed, observing a UFO". Is there anyone doesn't like my change?Kurtdriver (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well since you ask, the intention behind the change was ok but the grammar was awful and the commas unecessary - I've corrected it. Richerman (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Your change made it seem as if the sequence of events were this:
  1. Farmer sees UFO (or not)
  2. Farmer tells others about it
  3. Farmer finds reed circle
I changed it further, exchanging 2 and 3. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a UFO is just a flying object one cannot identify. So, nothing special. I saw one myself once, then, after a few seconds, did identify it. Nothing insane about seeing a UFO.
Also, what the article says now seems to be what happened (I found a full quote of a newspaper article, but on an otherwise unreliable site) but the source quoted does not say that. Still room for improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What kind of weasel words are those? You are WELL aware when people claim to see a ufo they are talking "little green men" not "something I briefly can't identify" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.96.186 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know a lot of people do not think about what they say. A lot of people think "alien spaceship" and "little green men" are a logical consequence of "I do not know what that was". But that is their problem, not mine. When somebody says "I saw a UFO" we cannot conclude he is one of those simpletons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crop circle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crop circle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

fake vs real crop circles

Most crop circle researchers differentiate "fake" and "real" crop circles by how the crop was flattened. In clear cases of a human just using planks etc, the crop is bent and messy. In what some people consider to be actual crop circles, they claim there is evidence of the stalks being burnt, and that they're created somehow with microwave radiation. I really think the article needs a section detailing these things as this is widely believed by people who don't think all crop circles are man-made. Comparison photos would also be nice, showing the difference between a crop circle clearly flattened by planks, and one that has more neatly flattened crops.

I'll post some sources and get something going as I come across them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6A00:3800:3C4A:D16B:AA66:4424 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources and does not create artificial balance for fringe claims rejected by mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Why, then is Eltjo Haselhoff's unreviewed (except by the Society for Scientific Exploration which is not mainstream academic) research presented in the article, without a disclaimer that it is unreviewed? There is no reference or disclaimer given for Colin Andrews' research either. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
There shouldn't be artificial balance, but there should be an accurate description of the beliefs of those who view crop circles as "real", since that is definitely pertinent to the article. There should also be descriptions of counter-arguments. Describing the beliefs certain people have is not the same as saying those beliefs are accurate. Vontheri (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot believe the perfunctory cynicism and lack of science with which the subject is treated.Shame on Wikipedia. Ronald Charles Collins (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this Wikipedia article is dominated by skeptic "scientific" editors who are dedicated to materialism, and gross materialistic and mechanistic science. They are not ready to consider any other evidence/explanation however credible. Polytope4D (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If the article were dominated by crackpot editors believing in woo and rejecting any science, it would not help you much because the Wikipedia rules say we can only use reliable sources - and those agree with the skeptics and not with the crackpots.
Please do not use this Talk page as a forum. Talk pages are for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely none of the claims that crop circles are human caused are verifiable.

Collapsed per WP:TPG

Crop circle is a term used to describe the instant, precise, uniform flattening of crop into patterns that humans FIND. Yes it is possible for people to approximate some aspects of this. However it is not of human origin. That is what this page is about. They keep happening to this day. The plants are not broken at all, but rather, it would appear, superheated and moved somehow probably very fast. This is common knowledge to Everyone who has even dabbled in researching this phenomenon. Having people write on here that some old white dude somewhere wrote a book that says some people (Bower and Chorley) claimed to have made crop circles does not even begin to address the purpose, the process, or the people involved in the creation of crop circles. Far more than being disingeneous and misleading, such assertions are baldfaced lies. It is nothing more than an attempt to shield humanity from the truth. This is not a discussion about me proving how crop circles are made. This is a discussion about the wholesale disinformation campaign on the internet that has been devised and put in place with the intention of withholding AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE from humanity. I just deleted the following paragraph from the initial section of this page-

  • Crop circles have been described as all falling "within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" by Taner Edis, professor of physics at Truman State University.[3] Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles are suggested by fringe theorists,[4] there is no scientific evidence for such explanations, and all crop circles are consistent with human causation.[5][6][7]*

There is nothing scientific about the above claims. There is no physical evidence that has been presented to add any weight to the vast majority of crop circles being of non-human manufacture. There have been very rudimentary attempts, both public and private to create something similar to crop circles. In all known cases this involved breaking of the plants' stalks in order for them to lay down. This information is Widely available on the internet.

additionally, the following was embedded in the edit page as a reference to the "information" displayed on the main wikipedia page... i.e. what I deleted *

"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."

To clarify I believe the skeptics referred to above are skeptics of non-human creation of crop circles, and the "paranormal claims" referred to are claims such as what I am making right now, specifically that there is much more mystery involved in this process than a couple of dudes with some planks and ropes at night.

Why I bring this to the attention of the wiki community is there is no specific evidence presented. It even says- "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."

This person is recorded presenting his Agenda as if he has any, I repeat ANY knowledge or information to offer. Never in the information cited within this article, including the edit and talk pages, is there any EVIDENCE put forth that- people who say crop circles are hoaxes, fraud or human-made are doing ANYTHING more than SAYING crop circles are hoaxes, fraud or human made.

Beyond these trivialities lies a deeper question. The purpose of crop circles... why? Why are they being made at all? This discussion has not been taking place to its full potential.

I have some very strong views on the matter that may not be relevant to this page. I say this in the interest of clarity and transparency. My agenda is for people to actually understand what the science is here. Science is a process. Science is not a country club where some people get in and some don't. All "scientific" disparagement of extra-terrestrial origins of crop circles adds up to a heap of doubt, and usually not very sincere at that. That my friends is the very definition of pseudo-science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.247.203 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is it relevant the author is white? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Crop circle book removed from Further Reading

This was on my user talk page, but it belongs here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hob,

You’ve removed the book I put into Further Reading. It appears from your comments that you haven’t read it, but wish others not to read it. You have by implication asked about reviews.

Amongst people who have actually read the book, Amazon customers have given it a five star rating https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1857702565?pf_rd_r=6238V1BZ2PND3JBQPZ45&pf_rd_p=6f2bfee9-92a9-4ec5-94b5-ed7bbe78d734&pd_rd_r=d2a76672-5f93-423e-bec5-c90cc6121a06&pd_rd_w=rky2d&pd_rd_wg=dAXge&ref_=pd_gw_unk. Goodreads customers who have read the book have given it a 3.9 star rating https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1011819.Vital_Signs?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=0N8vGbwhAW&rank=1.

The Amazon customer whose comments appear at the top of the list from my search above states “Written by an enthusiast with a wealth of knowledge and mind boggling personal experience, with an open thinking mind. However humble, not pushy with his view and ends the book on a very neutral, thought provoking, mysterious note. Good for the skeptic, good for the avid enthusiast”. (My emphasis).

I would expect those contributing to Wikipedia also to have an open thinking mind. Indeed, I had previously understood that one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. Your grounds for removing the book are that “It seems to be just another trash publication”. Far from neutrality, this comment appears to display a quite appalling level of bias. In fact, it implies either that you feel that anyone with an opinion which is different from your own must be wrong; or that only one set of views on this subject is permissible in Wikipedia. Which is it? Please answer this question.

Personally, I happen to agree with the second paragraph of Valjean’s User Page: User:Valjean .

Please understand that there are two legitimate points of view on crop circles. One is that they are all man-made. The other is that most crop circles (not all) are an unexplained phenomenon, aka a mystery: that is, something to which we don’t yet know the answer. Maybe we will in time, but at the moment, we don’t. My analogy is always - what would the ancient Romans have made of a stereo system if it had been transported back in time to a Roman temple and one morning, it appeared working: they would have considered it black magic or perhaps a miracle from the Gods: but we now know better. And maybe we will one day with crop circles.

Please look at this crop circle and tell me if you believe it’s possible for men to do this in the dark without making any mistakes: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2016/Ansty/Ansty2016a.html. Personally, I don’t, and the page has had six million views, so I suspect that many others think the same.

Then please reinstate the book I have added to the Further Reading list: or alternatively, please explain why it is only permissible to have one viewpoint on this subject, when in the real world, there are clearly two. The book is 180 pages of research and photos on the subject, which you have dismissed and removed as “trash” without reading it, or – in my personal opinion which I hope would be widely shared – without providing any legitimate substantiation for so doing.

Thanks,

Geoff. Geoffhl (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There must be hundreds of books on this crap, and we cannot mention them all. We need a good reason to mention a book. Amazon reviews are not a good reason. People can easily send a horde of minions to Amazon to add praise. What you need is real feedback from real, serious sources.
Your thoughts on crop circles, on black magic, on mysteries, on Valjean's user page, or on anything else are beside the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, you should read WP:FRINGE, WP:CHARLATANS, and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Geoffhl, you are misinterpreting Valjean's statement. The statement means that we will include "pseudoscientific nonsense" in the encyclopedia - and that's exactly what we have here, given that we're on the talk page for Crop circles. The statement does not extend to including links to resources of dubious reliability. If you want to clear up the dubiousness, come back when the book has been seriously peer-reviewed and has mainstream recognition. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Geoff, my opinions, although informed by lots of experience with creating our policies (I started editing as an IP in 2003), don't carry the weight of policy. You need to keep reading, and then understanding in the light of policies, what I write: "If it has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential content here. We don't treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way, but we still document its existence." (I have bolded some words.)
Have several RS discussed that book? Even if it were potential content here, that doesn't mean it automatically makes the grade. Like in my home, Wikipedia content can be seen as content on the coffee table, and we don't place content, like books, which advocate false information and pseudoscience, there for anyone to read. Documenting a POV, good bad or indifferent, is different than advocating it. Books and sources that advocate pseudoscience are generally not used here, and the title of that book, as well as your comments, seem to indicate it does that. One of the policies we use for this situation is WP:ELNO. -- Valjean (talk)
Hi Hob - thanks for your views, which I think readers will find very revealing, as it can be paraphrased as “all crop circle books are crap”.

I find it surprising that a well-researched and well-respected book (it is) specifically on the topic can be dismissed out of hand as 'crap'. You are partly right - if not hundreds, there are certainly a lot of books on the subject, many of which contain the word mystery in the title. I wonder why? Perhaps it’s because people who have actually studied the subject in the depth required to write a book specifically on this subject, not just a section of a book on some wider subject, or an article – these authors might just know what they are talking about and just as importantly, provide evidence. Are they all to be dismissed?
However, the inference from your reply seems to be that we shouldn’t be troubled by evidence. And more significantly, that you can take it upon yourself to decide what readers with an interest in the subject should look at.
Hi Chaheel and Valjean, thanks for your replies and sorry for any misinterpretation. Nevertheless much the same comment: I’m astonished that an 180 page well-researched book that has been separately published on both sides of the Atlantic is considered unworthy for inclusion in a list of Further Reading, yet a link to a short article in a Skeptoid website is worthy of inclusion. As a relatively new Wikipedian, I’d be most grateful if someone could please give the specific rules-and-regulations explanation for this apparent glaring anomaly? I would genuinely like to know, please.
For your information, after I added Andy Thomas’s book to the Further Reading list, I had a message on my Talk page from Moriori. Very fairly, he asked why I had used capitals for the word ‘not’ in the subtitle of the book “A Complete Guide to the Crop Circle Mystery and Why It Is NOT a Hoax”. He asked if it was caps in the actual book title, and I replied, yes it is. As far as I know, Moriori seemed happy to let the matter rest, with inclusion of the book in the list.
So as requested above, I’m fascinated why a link to sceptical website “makes the grade” to quote you Valjean, but a book published on both sides of the Atlantic does not: please do respond on this. Secondly, I’m suspecting actually it’s the very title of the book which ‘needs to be supressed’ on the page because it doesn’t fit in with the (sorry to say it) one-sided sceptical viewpoint so evident in the article – can you please reassure me?
More generally, I share views expressed above in this Talk page that the main article needs substantial re-writing. I’m not alone. I’m intending to set out the case for this some time in the next month or two, here. As I see it, it will be a test as to how open-minded Wikipedia can be. I hope the answer is that it can, but the signs here aren't good. Because of the need to fully substantiate significant changes, this will be exceptionally long, to provide a full justification. If after fully reasoned and serious proposals my contention is not accepted, then I will have to accept that Wikipedia chooses not to represent a widely-held viewpoint that is set out in numerous books and held by countless people. To wit: most crop circles are an unexplained phenomenon. This is not pseudo-science because it is not offering an explanation: it is simply stating “at present, we don’t know” because the idea that large-scale complex crop formations - of which there are thousands - are all made by hoaxers in the dark without any mistakes or collateral damage to the adjoining crop is just totally and utterly unbelieveable.
In the meantime, do other Wikipedia editors and admins agree with the removal of the book from Further Reading?
I hope we can keep this cordial and constructive,
ATB,
Geoff. Geoffhl (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
PS I’m also fascinated to know – do you all really believe that the Ansty crop formation I sent in the earlier link was made in the dark on a short summer night by guys using scaffold planks and baler twine? Really? Honestly? Please do have a look at it if you haven’t already.
I read your first line as it can be paraphrased as “all crop circle books are crap” which was a malicious lie, and then decided that reading the rest of you long contribution it very probably a waste of time. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought it would be clear from my comments, but just to be official and because you explicitly ask - I am also against inclusion of this book, for all the reasons outlined in WP:FRINGE, WP:CHARLATANS, and WP:YWAB and as outlined by comments - including my own about misinterpreting another editors own personal opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Chaheel – thanks for the reference to 3 WP policies: wonderfully ironic here. Hob, I think readers can judge for themselves whether my paraphrase was a fair one after you’d said “It seems to be just another trash publication” and more particularly “There must be hundreds of books on this crap” when we were talking about a book on crop circles.
Fringe Theories. Not guilty. I have no theory at all. (For the record, there’s no so-called ‘alternative explanation’ that I would put my name to, I’m baffled). The working theory post Bower and Chorley's claims was that they’re all man-made. But given the increased scale and complexity since about 1994/5, that theory has been rendered untenable, as they’re clearly beyond the possibilities of those using so-called stalk-stompers, and there’s no known technology going back 25 – 30 years, or even today in 2021, that’s capable of delivering the evidence of the fields which often includes multiple compound curves and intricately woven floor-lay. The irony here is that for anyone who’s Googled ‘real crop circles’ and hit the Images tab and spent some time actually looking at the hundreds of crop circle images, there’s a legitimate argument to say that the theory that they are all man-made is itself in danger of becoming a fringe theory, given its lack of credibility.
Charlatans. With respect, irrelevant on ‘my side’…..(i.e. I’m attempting to give a voice to many people worldwide for whom crop circles are an unexplained phenomenon)…..because I’m not claiming any indefensible alternative explanation. Indeed, given the scale, complexity and precision shown from Googling ‘real crop circles’/Images it’s ironic that it could very fairly be argued that the charlatans are any remaining hoaxers (there are still a smallish number of hoaxes every year) and their cheerleading sceptics who try to argue that these extraordinary overnight creations are all man-made.
YWAB. Thank you for advising me that within Wikipedia there’s actually an official policy of bias against crop circles: that’s useful to know. Sorry to say it, but it sounds like a church which requires strict adherence to the laid down creed and anyone who thinks different from the orthodoxy is a heretic. I now understand why a 180 page book which gives evidence that crop circles are a mystery and not a hoax is branded heretical and cast out, whilst a link to a short skeptoid article receives the blessing. It’s very sad. The irony here is that Wikipedia’s wholly admirable aim of truth (which I support 100%) has in this case prevented it from being sufficiently open-minded to rationally evaluate evidence (literally the evidence on the ground) and thus has morphed into something that can’t accept a truth which is obvious to so many people. Apologies if this seems harsh, but it needs saying.
As others on this Talk page have said, and as indicated above, there’s an extremely strong case to be made for substantial re-writing of the article to achieve some kind of balance which is clearly missing at present, due in part to an over-reliance on newspaper and sceptical articles which are never questioned. I remain hopeful that Wikipedia can become as open-minded as some other sources, including one in particular which has been selectively quoted within the existing References.
Best wishes and thanks for your time and comments,
Geoff Geoffhl (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of the book itself is a redflag, but Frog Books is an imprint of North Atlantic Books, their business appears to be self-publishing (WP:SPS). Of course, a self-published source could be used to present an author's attributed opinion (WP:ATTRIBUTE) rather than facts in Wikipedia's voice, but this doesn't mean that it is necessarily WP:DUE. Wikipedia is also not about presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE of opinions so it is best to summarize the analysis of more reputable sources on the topic instead. Not necessarily related to the book itself and a bit WP:NOTFORUM, but something one must also remember is that the simplest explanations are often the best, these include pranks, art, hoaxes to promote tourism or ideologies, misinterpreted natural features, misinterpreted or altered previous human constructions, etc. Finally, the Fermi paradox explains why it would be extremely unlikely for any two intergalactic intelligent civilizations to ever meet, despite the fact that it is estimated that other life exists out there. —PaleoNeonate – 08:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Text not up to Wikipedia standard - does not read like an encyclopeadia

see WP:TPG - "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject"

The text here does not present an objective account of the crop circle phenomenon but reads like deliberate misdirection. I will not dignify it with a full review, but some of the many problems include:

1) "the scientific consensus is that crop circles are made by humans". If it is so obvious, why does science need to be mentioned at all? The article on graffiti does not mention the 'scientific consensus' that graffiti is made by humans at night. There should be discussion as to why this is a scientific problem at all. But that appears to be contrary to the author's intention to disseminate a cover story.

2) Discussion of ufos contains the statement that there is no evidence for it, 'besides eyewitness testimonies'. Sorry, the same form of evidence used to jail people and indeed execute them? We can use such evidence to execute a person but not to corroborate a scientific hypothesis? If there is eyewitness testimony there is evidence.

3) Discussion of ufos fails to mention the most obvious evidence for their involvement - it is implausible to suggest that these elaborate patterns could be made, without error, by pranksters working overnight. There are no poorly made crop circles. No one is ever caught. The plant stalks are bent not broken. Practiced human operators take 12 hours when making simpler designs in the daytime for corporate purposes, and they break the stalks.

4) The two British pranksters are overly prominent in the narrative, they only ever made simple circles and have no relevance to the puzzling aspects of crop circles. In this article they are used as misdirection.

5) Material is poorly arranged

6) Silly possibilities listed (presumably to condemn by association the one evidenced alternative, UFOs).

7) 'today this research is regarded as pseudoscience' By who? On what ground? Strange there is no reference ( a reference is listed [62] but it has nothing to do with the 80s research). Why hasn't any editor objected to this. This section reads like a smear of inconvenient research.

Doug McLeod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.100.53 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  1. Nobody said anthing about "obvious". There is a lot of people who do not know this. You, it seems, are one of them.
  2. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. When analysis of DNA traces became possible, many innocent people were freed who had been convicted on the basis of eyewitness accounts.
  3. That alleged implausibility is in the eye of the beholders who cannot do it. The hoaxers are simply smarter than them.
That should be enough. Everything you wrote in 1 to 3 is bullshit, so, reading the rest would be a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Everything you wrote in 1 to 3 is bullshit, so, reading the rest would be a waste of time. Confirmed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia not being for WP:PROMOTION and per WP:NOTFORUM, constructive use of this talk page would be providing reliable sources and making concise suggestions, instead of WP:SOAPBOXing... Also, as far as I know, other than speculation and a lot of noise to promote conspiracy theories or ideological narratives, no reliable evidence was ever presented for ET visitors, even less for crop circle making ones, this is why the article, and reliable sources, use a scientific skepticism approach. —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    1. Nonetheless, it needs to be explained why this is a scientific problem, unlike other forms of art. That is itself a significant property of the art, and related to its other properties. DM
    2. It is not extremely unreliable. It is not completely reliable. Big difference. It is evidence to be evaluated along with other evidence. DM
    3. Then the article is defective in not describing the principles of construction, as well as not including references to circle-making sites such as circlemakers.org. DM
  2. My points 4-7 go to the poor quality of the writing, failure to provide proper referencing... no wonder you don't wish to address it. I would rewrite it myself but the site is locked. DM
  3. one doesn't need to ′believe in′ UFOs to see this article is poorly written and needs a rewrite. DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.100.53 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. It is not a scientific problem.
  2. Your opinion is irrelevant, We use reliable sources instead of your opinion.
  3. If you have reliable sources saying how to construct one, we could link those. But the article should not be a how-to for hoaxers.
You have given any reasons to believe it is "poorly written". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Doug – agree with most of what you say, particularly your opening sentence and from para 3) “it is implausible”…onward, which is good summary analysis of the many deficiencies in the article. The article is clearly way below the standard expected of Wikipedia. Whilst your mention of the recent increased/acknowledged interest in UFOs is valid (eg from The Pentagon in June) a more generic reference to unexplained phenomenon would be less contentious and I contend would be appropriate instead of UFOs (although, and as the majority of crop formations appear to many people inexplicable – there is currently no plausible theory – science demands nothing should be ruled out).

But for the purposes of this Talk page, and in order to assist in a rational approach to this subject, let’s have serious focus on hoaxing, as this has been mentioned several times, and consider some relevant factors/ prima facie evidence on hoaxing. This is important: scientists, please suspend your confirmation bias (we all have them), read on and consider all points critically.

When Sci-Fi writer Arthur C Clarke hired a team of five artists in 1994 to de-bunk the phenomenon, it took them two days in broad daylight to make a small flower design which left the area with a crushed crop and peppered with dozens of post holes – both aspects not found in the majority of formations. (ISBN Reference available).

By large-scale crop-formation standards, the commission by Mitsubishi in 1998 for their car/van advert from Team Satan was comparatively simple. It took 3 men 12 hours (they acknowledged this) over two days in daytime. This was partly, they said, because of the inclusion of compound curves and the need for absolute accuracy. And they used sticks for marking out, thus making holes not found in most formations. ISBN Ref available. Only for illustrating this point here on the Talk page (and not intended for inclusion in the Article, certainly at this stage) and for later comparison purposes, see this link for a photo of the finished car/van (the internet article actually says it took over 14 hours, rather than 12 hours in Team Satan’s own statement):http://www.circularsite.com/feiten-en-theorieen/faqs/ and scroll to the bottom.

Some cited References in the article have been looked at uncritically. For instance Matt Ridley is quoted ostensibly as an expert hoaxer. In Ref [38], interestingly, he claims that a group of circle-makers avoids making tracks in the crop by using “two tall bar stools and jumping from one to another” (presumably in the dark: please think about that). Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, he fails to mention that his team was the only one of twelve in the crop-circle-making competition in 1992 that said the task was too difficult, so they made a question mark instead: please read Ref [43] in full for detail.

Re the competition, it’s important to note that the ‘pictogram phase’ of the phenomenon in the early 90s which was incorporated into the competition task, was still relatively simple compared to the much larger scale complexity that has superseded it from about 1994: but this context is unmentioned in Wikipedia, thus implying to the uninformed reader that formations are hoaxable. In fact the deceptions successfully played upon experts prior to about 1994 (when the scale and complexity increased) are now largely irrelevant in attempting to make the case for all formations being man-made.

The most famous of all hoaxers, Bower and Chorley, appear to be given almost god-like status in the article, but in the true story they’re given undue prominence for a couple of reasons. Firstly, although they confessed/claimed to have made variously 200 or 250 formations or “25 to 30 for 13 years” that left well over a thousand unaccounted for. (Ref [10] again + ISBN References available). Secondly and more importantly, since around 1994, the phenomenon has increased in scale and complexity far far beyond their humble beginnings 30 – 40 years ago during the earliest three phases of the phenomenon (i.e. first mainly simple circles; then quintuplets; and then pictograms; with some overlap). But this crucial context is missing in the article.

One further example to complete the point. In the Creation section of the article, there’s the statement “Many others have demonstrated how complex crop circles can be created”.[58] This reference recommends, and I quote verbatim, that “One of the more amusing things you can do to make your life exciting” is to fool someone concerning UFOs, by making a crop circle. How? Using “a ball of string, a broom handle one meter long and a garden roller (nice but not essential).” So what then does the casual reader of Wikipedia (who doesn’t check the references) conclude about the making of “complex crop circles”? It seems some of the Wikipedia entries here are hoaxes as well - not exactly in keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia. Is this an RS?

Now please look through all formations in the video in the existing External Links, titled ‘The Beautiful World of Crop Circles’. In light of the Arthur C Clarke and Team Satan examples (and see also the BBC article below), along with Doug I would contend that saying these formations are man-made in the dark is unrealistic, and illustrates why Professor Taylor in Physics World Ref 10 calls them “a major scientific mystery”. Outside Wikipedia, it appears that the ‘they’re all man-made’ belief (there’s no evidence as they usually arrive unannounced and unclaimed overnight, so it is a belief) is a belief that a large proportion of the world sees as lacking any credibility. Hence the countless references across the internet and Youtube to the word mystery in relation to crop circles/formations. It also accounts for the many books specifically on the subject which include the word mystery in the title.

The Youtube video includes the 'Milk Hill Spiral Galaxy 2001' (Google it), regarded by many as one of the most spectacular formations of all time. It comprised 409 circles which arrived on a wet night when a camper was in a tent in the next field who saw and heard nothing (Ref Glickman in Further Reading). To quote Sherlock Holmes “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. A gang of pranksters working in the dark and achieving the awesome stunning perfection of the Milk Hill spiral galaxy 2001, and those in the video in External Links, is considered by perhaps most people outside of Wikipedia who’ve actually looked at them - to be simply impossible. Thus logically the truth is – at present we don’t know how they are created. Why is it so hard to say “We don’t know”? How is it that Wikipedia seems completely unable to be as open-minded as Physics World? There are other things in science to which we don't yet know the answer.

Thus to repeat an earlier point: there are two legitimate viewpoints on crop formations, 1) they’re all man-made; and 2) most are an unexplained phenomenon. I contend that Wikipedia does itself a huge disserve and diminishes its credibility by denying a voice to the second viewpoint, which is out of step with the outside world. Both widely-held beliefs/viewpoints should be represented, to provide the objectivity and balance which is currently lacking. In addition, the article should explicitly acknowledge that the subject is controversial - because it is. In this respect see the recent BBC article, which in addition provides a useful example of balance on the subject:https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210822-englands-crop-circle-controversy

I respectfully request that no-one responds further to this thread unless/until you’ve looked at all seven minutes of the Youtube video in External Links, and this especially applies if you consider yourself science-based with a belief in evidence.

Note the extraordinary precision, and then ask this question - can these large, complex and precise formations be done at night without mistakes using a 30-metre tape, dowsing rods, a short plank and a plastic garden roller? (And a luminous watch can apparently be useful). Using the quoted “scientific skeptical approach”, what do you conclude? Because that’s the currently recommended kit from 'circlemakers', the I believe best-known human crop-circle-makers who's website is understandably off-limits via Wikipedia. Seriously, if you are defending hoaxing as behind the several thousands of crop formations over the years, you should check it out under Equipment: to me it’s an amusing and entertaining spoof, and I’m surprised people have ever taken it seriously in relation to 21st century crop formations. Or maybe no-one has actually checked it out when assuming how clever the alleged hoaxers are. You are of course welcome to think differently.

I am intending here to make a serious and helpful contribution to this Talk/discussion, and hope that further discussion can be polite, considered and constructive, please.

ATB, Geoff L. Geoffhl (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

PS You may want to turn the music off on the video, not to everyone's taste. Geoffhl (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of the situation Geoff. You make all the points I was trying to make with authority. I have only come onto this topic in the last week and came to Wikipedia looking for information. The Circlemakers seem awfully confident that they can do it and they write well. But of all the scientific mysteries this should be the easiest to solve. You get a group of spatially aware individuals together, put together a comprehensive plan of operation, and see if it can be done - first by daylight then at night. I belong to a skeptics group here in Australia and they have a motive to do it and do it well, since they are skeptical, some of them dogmatically so. I will get them onto it. Cheers Doug
PS I am not as hard on the Circlemakers, I see it as a genuine artistic pursuit. They are responsible for at least some of the formations evoking surprise, admiration and awe in people (affective art as they call it), which is more than most art. And the farmers of Wiltshire don't seem too concerned, they are making money. If it were a problem the police would be onto it - how many moonlit nights in July can there be? The article ignores the artistic interpretation of the work of course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.100.53 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

objectivity

I'm somewhat disappointed by the content of this page which appears to be 'controlled'(?) by an editor who seems to have very fixed opinions and rejects suggestions from those who hold different views. I have no opinions on this subject but I do believe that human knowledge is far from complete and we are nowhere near understanding everything there is to know about "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (from 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' by Douglas Adams); and that we should therefore avoid blinkering ourselves with our own judgements and be open to other people's beliefs, even if they appear to be contrary to what we think we know. Even accepting that Wikipedia is a vast and sometimes inaccurate source of information, I would prefer to see, in articles such as this one, a balanced summary of the different beliefs about how crop circles are formed which explains that, between those who think they can all be created by two people and a plank and those who believe they are UFO footprints, there are other opinions on the subject. For example, had Wikipedia existed in the 12th century, I would have expected to see an article explaining that while some people thought thunder was caused by clouds banging together, others thought it showed the gods were angry. Perhaps this article could be expanded to include all the various beliefs about how crop circles are formed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Occasional commenter (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Even though you claim to have no opinions on this subject, the content of this post indicates quite clearly that you actually do. That being the case, instead of casting aspersions against other editors (i.e., the content of this page which appears to be 'controlled'(?) by an editor) why don't you help build this encyclopedia and add the content you desire/prefer? You can do it! If that content is supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources - and why wouldn't it? - I am certain it will be supported by a majority of editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right - I do have an opinion on the lack of balance in this page. However, I don't know enough about the conflicting views to be able to contribute to the subject, which was why I came to this page in the first place, and I'd certainly not be the right person to add substantive content. Perhaps some of information quoted in the comments above could be included in the article with the details of independent secondary sources included? Would this satisfy various impartial editor(s)? Occasional commenter (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources of crop circle

Additional sources of crop circle 43.250.243.156 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

What about them? Do you have any? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle/Archive_11&oldid=1136643110"