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)

Template:Ping←, 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)

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

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)

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)

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) 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)