Talk:Crop circle

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.

But they're all manmade.

Yep. This is all bullshit. Intrincate forms in EVERY plant, radiation, extreme complexity, formed in minutes or seconds... WikiP is managed by obscure entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.105.14 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I few years back the whole narrative on the same thing was a whole lot different. I was just surprised by this apparent misunderstanding, and distorted information provided here. And so many people who learn about this phenomenon nowadays are effectively mislead by this single article on wikipedia. I don't understand the motives behind writing about that crop circles are hoaxes. Are they trying to debunk some pseudoscience? It's by science that we understand it's impossible to make so many crop circles that appear across the Europe every year, in such a frequent manner, without being noticed by the farmers... I learned about the crop circles as a kid many many years ago in the eastern world, and yet the concept was accurately depicted back then. This article here is outrages. Theanonymity.de (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In the UK, just after WW2, graffiti known as 'chads' appeared frequently and repeatedly on walls all over the country. Nobody suggested that they were drawn by aliens or were some sort of paranormal phenomenon. Of course, back in those days, people were not as STUPID as they are now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.39.18 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And not to mention that some historic crop circles are extremely big. It's impossible for any organization to make up something like that overnight. Also why would they? There is no reward to accomplishing that with considerable amount of resources put in place. People, not only the pranks, have tried to make their own crop circles in practice in the name of science. And the result turned out to be very messy in quality. They also learned that it takes a very long time for a group of people, without using any machinery, to create the modest crop circles in size. Only a few years ago, what I added was basically the commonsense around the people I knew.

Of course there is no scientific evidence to the creation of these crop circles by aliens and such. Even the concept of aliens itself is still not verifiable. But saying that most, if not all, of the crop circles are made by pranks is just outrages. Theanonymity.de (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not only the sources provided and the points made in the articles are stupid. The sentencing logic at the most level is problematic. By looking at the introductory paragraph, there are two contradictory sentences found. On one hand, it's said "all crop circles are to be found of human causation.", and on the other hand (at the end of the second paragraph, it's also said "(crop circles) are found by an investigator to be impossible for humans to make". What the f is that all about??? What is the motivation behind writing such and such nonsense. Theanonymity.de (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's simple. The "investigator" (Pat Delgado) was wrong. He probably thought that if he could not do it, nobody else could, which is a mistake several pseudosciences are based on. The conclusion from "an investigator said X is true" to "X is true" is also a common mistake fans of pseudosciences make. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible for any organization to make up something like that overnight. How can you know that? The same way Pat Delgado knew that Bower's and Chorley's demonstration circle was impossible for humans to make? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

the whole narrative on the same thing was a whole lot different The narrative depends on the subculture you get it from. Wikipedia is part of the reality-based subculture, and you got your previous narrative from the fantasy-based one. It has nothing to do with the years that have gone by, the fantasy guys still tell the same story.

If you have no source-based suggestion for improving the article, you are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I still don't get it. How would you get this topic messed up with the term "pseudoscience"? It's simply a phenomenon that people can't well explain yet. We are just guessing perhaps it's of extra-terrestrial origin or something else. And nobody has ever forced their way in by insisting it's created, for example, by aliens, without any scientific evidence. Perhaps it's inappropriate to mask this phenomenon as "hoaxes" before even looking into it carefully. For example, you can call anti-vax activists pseudo-scientific, because they are telling lies in a hostile manner despite obvious truth being laid out. Theanonymity.de (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a phenomenon that some people can't well explain yet. Skeptics have no problem with it. Cereologists have proven that the reason they can't explain is is that the people who make the circles are smarter than them. When you see We are just guessing, by "we" you mean that part of the population the people who make the circles are smarter than.

What gives you the idea that this judgement was done before even looking into it carefully? There are people who investigated it thoroughly, Jim Schnabel for instance. Your problem is that you believe the wrong sources, the pseudoscientific ones who think it is science when you fail to explain something and claim that because of your failure, nobody else can explain it either.

anti-vax activists are not pseudo-scientific, because they are telling lies. They honestly believe the wrong sources, the incompetent ones, just like you. The truth is not "obvious" as soon as you decide to distrust the people who tell it to you and trust the buffoons, loons and grifters instead. In the case of crop circles, it's probably mostly buffoons. In the case of anti-vaxxers, the grifter percentage is probably bigger than with the circles, but it's difficult to say. We can only look at what they say, not at what they actually think.

My main point: This page is for discussing improvements the article. What you want to discuss is something else. Please do it elsewhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:, telling other editors to effectively STFU like you do just above to @Theanonymity.de: for no other reason than you just don't like it is unacceptable. Everyone here is free to disagree over how best the encyclopaedia; simply because someone has an idea that is different than yours does NOT entitle you to accuse them of misusing talk pages! That is precisely what talk pages are for!

Now. Regarding the subject, there is a fundamental flaw with your reasoning (and with your claim that you are acting as a 'sceptic' - it is, rather, pseudoscepticism). A true sceptic's position on this matter would be thus: "There is no evidence of p paranormal or extraterrestrial activity; there are also no known means that this could be accomplished by humans. Experiments attempting to recreate these phenomena should be carried out; if they can be accurately and repeatedly reproduced within comparable lengths of time, we conclude they're manmade. If they cannot, we draw no conclusions, and further investigation should continue."

The pseudosceptical position you push for is "they're manmade, we have no explanation as to how humans could accomplish such feats, but we just know they are anyway, and it must be the case that these clandestine hoaxters are of supreme intelligence and are using secret methods to carry this out that are unknown to science." To me that sounds like a conspiracy theory. Surely one that claims scepticism shouldn't resort to conspiracy theories in order to explain their desired conclusion? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D43F:9051:2D0:8EC1 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: This page is for discussing improvements the article. See the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more detail. You are trying to use this page for something it is not for, namely for preaching your opinion about skeptics and "true skeptics" (those incompetent morons who think they can find the truth not by using scientific methods known to filter out biases, but just by trying really hard, against human nature, not to have any in the first place), and other stuff too long for me to read. Also, whining. So, yes, STFU here about that and do it somewhere else. Here, talk about article improvement instead. If you cannot do that, just go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How did what I posted not fit into the purpose of improving the article? There is an obvious mistake in the article, that says crop circles something it ain't. The way it works is indeed just by talking about the subject and then make the corresponding changes, which was exactly what we did above. Some arguments have to have long supporting paragraphs, and you can't just deny those when they are "too long". A lot of the responses you made didn't make sense, yet you are still insisting on them. And please, DO NOT FLAG ME as whatever you think I am. Keep the discussion civil and healthy by avoiding words like "your problem", "like you". There is no need to get personal here. Theanonymity.de (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are truly attempting to improve this article by correcting what you believe to be obvious mistake(s), as opposed to using this Talk page as a platform for expressing your personal opinions about the topic (see WP:TPG), I suggest that now is the time to do so. That is, follow WP:BRD: add/modify/remove content based upon a reliable, independent, secondary source(s), see if it gets reverted, and if it is reverted attempt to establish consensus in favor of your desired edit(s) here via discussion. Fish or cut bait. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole article is messed up too bad already. We need a rewrite. Now it's like some people using academic sources as instruments to revert commonsense. I am done here. Theanonymity.de (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

So much for fishing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a note that 2600:1702:4960:1DE0's pseudoskepticism argument was also flawed. The easiest explanations are often the best ones and scientific skepticism is a proper default position until evidence shows otherwise, especially for extraordinary claims. Of course, in relation to this topic it doesn't mean that everything must either be of ET or human origin, it can include human interpretations of natural features, or of other features where humans, other animals, plants or fungi contributed. But all that is diversion, since what is needed here are reliable sources that contradict the material that is contested. That is why Hob pointed at WP:NOTFORUM. Ufology is also part of paranormal topics since a long time, especially that proponents often associate it with other dimensions, spirituality, telepathy, etc. But yes, it does not mean that searching for evidence of life in the universe is pseudoscience when done properly. So far no evidence was discovered and the Fermi paradox explains why this is unsurprising, even if it is estimated that life probably exists elsewhere in the universe, considering its age, size and our own existence. There also are programs aimed at airspace and national security and it is normal for those to care about potential threats, primarily terrestrial... You will find no NASA official statement claiming that crop circles are created by ETs. —PaleoNeonate – 19:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article is permeated with ridicule for alternative explanations. What is missing is any explanation as to how elaborate crop circles (patterns) could be made successfully without the perpetrators being noticed, which is case for the vast majority of circles. Some of the crop patterns need a university level of mathematics before the concepts in play can even be grasped, much less executed successfully on the ground. In view of increased plausibility of ufos at time of writing (29May21), this article requires an objective rewrite sticking to what can be proven. Doug McLeod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2a06:ae00:e9af:f895:604:74e5 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have sources for such details, we can add them. But I don't see a problem with not being noticed at night in the country. Do you think farmers have hordes of watchmen patrolling the fields at night?

Math is also not a problem. It is taught in schools, and some people pay attention. You are underestimating those people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Much trigonometry was in 3rd grade high-school in my location and time, with basic circle geometry earlier than that, —PaleoNeonate – 08:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment for now on the edit/revert that's currently going. I'd like to flag up that the statement that The concept of "crop circles" began with the original hoaxes by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, starting in 1976 is simply untrue. Research has shown that worldwide there were dozens pre-1960 (although mostly simple circles, and unphotographed back in those days) and over 80 in the 1960s, ISBN reference available. I hope to come back to this when I've got time. The article's second sentence mentioning Colin Andrews, at the top of the article is I believe widely accepted. And as Professor Richard Taylor states in his Physics World article in 2011, Ref 10 - even after Bower and Chorley confessed (many would say claimed) to have made 250 (although their claimed numbers varied, but 250 will do)..."that still left more than 1000 other formations unaccounted for". And from memory, in one published count, actually over 2000 by the time of their claims in September 1991. I don't think that that first sentence in the History section mentioning Bower and Chorley should be included, but I'm not going to fight over it. Ditto the second sentence about the 'Tully Nests' which properly belongs in the Section of the article actually on Bower and Chorley. Those two sentences mislead the uninformed reader and don't belong at the top of the History section, imo. Geoff L Geoffhl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: unless and until there are independent, reliable secondary sources that directly support these claims, no readers are being "misled" by including the Bower & Chorley information. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr Terence Meaden: The Circles Effect And Its Mysteries (Artetech, 1989); Jenny Randles and Paul Fuller: Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved (Robert Hale, 1991); Multiple issues of The Journal of Meteorology (Tornado and Storm Research Organisation throughout the 1980s); Terry Wilson: The Secret History of Crop Circles (Centre for Crop Circle studies, 1997); Irving, Lundberg and Pilkington: The Field Guide: The Art, History and Philosophy of Crop Circle Making (Strange Attractor, 2011). All of these reliable, objective volumes, contain copious evidence of pre-1970s crop circles. I would go through it all and add to the article and include the references etc, but someone will just think of a reason why they don't count and remove them again. But if you are serious in your remark about people not being misled, perhaps you might look at some of this evidence some time. 94.5.225.249 (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

reliable, objective volumes You made a funny. Those people have lost the discussion decades ago, and their reasoning is anything but reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2022 (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) Nobody said anthing about "obvious". There is a lot of people who do not know this. You, it seems, are one of them. 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. 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) 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 It is not extremely unreliable. It is not completely reliable. Big difference. It is evidence to be evaluated along with other evidence. DM 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 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 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) It is not a scientific problem. Your opinion is irrelevant, We use reliable sources instead of your opinion. 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)