Talk:Crop circle

reverting some of Thanos5150's edits

Thanos5150's edits removed refed content and added stuff about John Lundberg that is not supported by the ref given (specificaly the term "alien lightforms" does not appear in the ref given.©Geni 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed poorly written and sourced unbalanced material not relevant in the context and added more balanced material and wording. This article is little more than a hack-job psuedoskeptical promo piece and is in serious need of revision. Pathetic really, but with editors like you I now understand why. "Alienlightforms" is the title of the article by John Ludgwig himself on his own website dumbass. Stop being a kneejerk troll and stop undoing entire edits. You, specifically you-are what is wrong with Wiki.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First please read WP:NPA and WP:BRD (okey FisherQueen already told you about that one. ""alien lightforms" is mearly used as a headline and is at no point used to describe Lundberg's observations.©Geni 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, then just edit the word if you have such a problem with it, regardless of the the fact it is his own headline, and stop undoing my edits. Do you understand this? You have an issue with one word and keep trashing the whole thing. Stop it. DO NOT USE UNDO TO CHANGE THIS IS YOU FEEL IT IS NECESSARY. Just edit the word. And it is not lost on me you had your pal revert it for the 3rd time instead of doing it yourself.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, I've done it for you. Stop undoing my edits.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given Thanos5150 a 3RR warning - including his first edits he's at 4RR. And an NPA warning. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As I disagree with his original deletions of cited content (and four reversions) I have reverted them once again. What I would like is for him to explain why specifically sourced material is being removed. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No surprise to find you here Doug. Funny though how I didn't see any history of your edits or in discussion until I got here. Guess I just missed it.

Geni-it is obvious you know exactly what you are doing and why. And yet it is I who am destructive and make articles only worse?

SimpleBob-really Bob? I will assume good faith here. I like simple.

For such a popular topic the content of this article is severely limited, completely unbalanced, and as a whole poorly organized. For someone to Google crop circles and come upon this page as I did I'm sure they would find it thoroughly uninformative with inappropriate bias and move on. Regardless of you POV I assume the reason we are here is to write good articles.

1) the lead of this article does not offer any other possibility for crop formation other than being man-made and implies this is the only accepted method which it is not. The statement "While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what" is true and is not meant to imply anything other than what it says. This does not mean they were made by aliens or Jesus. If you think it should be reworded then by all means please do, but the fact is we do not know how all crop circles are made which should be noted in the lead. Also, isn't "the most widely known method for man-made crop formations" more economical and flow better than "most widely known method for a person or group to construct a crop formation"? Is better sentence structure offensive here too?

2)"Some crop formations are paid for by companies who use them as advertising" is an orphaned one line statement prominently displayed after the lead giving it far too much undue weight and regardless has a whole paragraph devoted to it below. This is a rather recent development and makes up only a fraction of 1% of crop formations in any given year. I think it is worthy to note this, but not in the lead.

3)The history section is pathetic and citing only the Devil's Mower when there are several other credible accounts of crop formations which can be cited prior to 1978. Like Rand Capron in 1880 for example. Regardless, the paragraph I removed is linked to Doug and Dave, which itself should be under the broader title of "Hoaxers" anyways. It says/implies even though they claimed in 1991 to have hoaxed all crop circles up to that point "it was still happening", as if it should have just stopped since they were no longer doing it, which leads to crop circles resembling "extraterrestrials as portrayed by certain science fiction movies" which is not supported by the citations. I'm not sure what formation this even refers to, but this comprises, what-one or two out of several thousand and yet it is given pole position? Come on. That's nonsense. It further says: "Among others, paranormal enthusiasts, ufologists, and anomalistic investigators have offered hypothetical explanations that have been criticized as pseudoscientific by skeptical groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry". Of course this statement is lead by the cranks and ends with "anomalistic investigators" and says nothing of scientists or the British government, but no, the article cited from the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry", which should be considered fringe in it's own right, does not criticize these theories as "pseudoscientific"-at least nowhere does this citation say this, which makes it OR. Regardless, none of that has to do with Doug and Dave. There are many others that have offered explanations and yet according to this article they have been summarily explained away as pseudoscientific by one group. This paragraph belongs in the associated section, not Doug and Dave, and also the wording needs to be more accurate and balanced without clear intent to demean as well as needed a large amount of missing material to be added.

Furthermore, there is nothing offered to challenge the validity of Doug and Dave's claims which are highly suspect.

3)"According to Lundberg, however, "I still believe there is a genuine phenomenon, but I now also believe that we're a part of it". While making crop circles, Lundberg reports on several occasions he and his crew encountered strange bursts of light, which he refers to as "alien lightforms", and describes the experience "analogous to having a flash gun let off in my face". Even the hoaxers, quoting them directly, believe there is a genuine phenomenon only that now they are a "part of it". If the hoaxers themselves think there is something more to it then how is that not relevant because who is better to speak on such matters than the people actually doing it? Lundberg's title of his article is "alien lightforms" so to say he doesn't call them that is incorrect, but if you have a problem with that word then edit that one word as I did for you. The point of using that term is not to say they are "alien", but these are the words of the person being cited, which I think is relevant and lends to their credibility or lack there of. The point of that part is not to bring up the idea of aliens, but the balls of light associated with crop circles which are a well documented integral part of the phenomenon and not even mentioned in this article.

4) The paranormal section is woefully lacking of any meaningful content and is clearly unbalanced. For one, this entire opening paragraph is POV with no citation. It further says that the only evidence comes from eye witness testimony and any other evidence is virtually absent, which is not true, as much other evidence comes from documented field research or statistical analysis or observations of the logistics of being man-made on a world wide scale as well as the fact crop circles have been reported long before 1978. Such evidence may be contested, but it is not even mentioned here what it is. Furthermore, by the same token, there is no evidence that all crop circles are man-made either and many can and have been adequately explained as not being such on equal grounds. "What else could have done it" is not proof either way. This section offers no context for any of these statements and quickly leads to "There have been cases in which researchers declared crop circles to be "the real thing", only to be confronted with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud" which is not even in the article cited saying this comes from "citation 6" a completely different article. The paragraph goes further along this vein but never gives any content or context for why people think all crop circles might not be man-made. Aren't we supposed to say what one view is and why they think that and then cite the reasons why others disagree? To add balance does not mean to give equal weight to the validity of the ideas, it means that both sides are equally presented.

It is obvious why this article is as poor as it is, but improving it by adding material and context should not be this painful. Other than a psuedoskeptic's journal, which Wikipedia is not, no one would treat this subject this way, but this is common with controversial topics in Wiki.

Personally, I agree with this explanation: "Crop circles are Chuck Norris' way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie the f$%k down".Thanos5150 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you looked hard for evidence of my edits - I was posting here two years ago [1] (and later) and my first edit of the article as on 2008-07-26 16:40. But it's only of casual interest to me. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanos5150 proposes changes to certain sections of the article. He explains the changes:«For such a popular topic the content of this article is severely limited, completely unbalanced, and as a whole poorly organized. For someone to Google crop circles and come upon this page as I did I'm sure they would find it thoroughly uninformative with inappropriate bias and move on. Regardless of you POV I assume the reason we are here is to write good articles. ». Herein he is right! Opponents of Thanos5150 are in a great deal wrong . For example, Geni rejects the version text «While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what, the most widely known method for man made crop formations is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. », which was proposed Thanos5150 against text in article « The most widely known method for a person or group to construct a crop formation is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. ». Text of Thanos5150, more cautious and more reliable than the version in the article. But the version of text in the article is too categorical, unreliable and cannot be proven. I suggest looking closely at the proposals of Thanos5150 , and not threaten him with all sorts of taboos. With this approach, the text of article can be improved. TVERD (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Doug. I did not go back 2yrs to find your edits. Like I said, "I guess I just missed it". By about 2yrs apparently. But now that I'm here you're back apparently, but if this subject has little interest please don't let me keep you.

Thank you for your support TVERD! I knew there had to be at least one other non-psuedoskeptic editor left on Wiki.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a crop circles as: "an area of standing crops that has been flattened in the form of a circle or more complex pattern. No general cause of crop circles has been identified although various natural and unorthodox explanations have been put forward; many of the circles are known to have been hoaxes". Essentially the same as my edit, but something to this effect needs to be part of the lead. I would think this could be used as a reference.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanos, all you had to do was look at the current edit history of the article and you'd see I've edited it this year, so it appears you didn't even bother, just insinuated I was here because of you with no evidence. It's also extremely easy to look at a list of contributors to an article. And it's on my watch list, so I notice when anyone edits it. Don't expect other editors to give you good faith when you make insinuations, call people names, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But your here now because of me right? Everywhere I go on Wiki, there you are to incessantly challenge my every edit down to the word and waste my time by your constant nitpicking and arguing. You've never taken my back once ever even when you know I'm right, and as it seems to me at least you make every effort to go out of your way to impede my edits and waste my time. If this is wrong then why don't you prove it for once by your actions. So what if you edited this page once in the last year, you are only actively here now as a response to my being here. Whether you monitor these pages or not is irrelevant as you make the choice to constantly negatively interact with me. I'm not "insinuating" anything, this is your documented history with me and at this point you'll get from me no better than you give. You've never assumed good faith on my part for the simple reason we do not share the same POV on anything and you assume everything I do must be sinister and disruptive. And as far as these other editors are concerned, they did not offer me good faith before I called Gemi a dumbass and if anything offered me nothing less than total irresponsible obstinance for no other reason than to protect their POV. Total nonsense, and if you were being an objective observer which I assume is a requirement of being an administrator, you would have stepped in before things got ugly. But of course you wouldn't because the offending editors share your POV, but if it was the other way around you'd be all over it. And where are they now? They hack these edits and make no follow up to defend their position? This kind of stuff happens all the time here -you know this, but in my experience you only intervene when it suits your POV. Regardless, I'll assume good faith when it is given and if you want a better working relationship with me then you need to be fair regardless of the fact you disagree. Once again-waste of time. Done.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear opponents Thanos5150, for the improvement of the article it is necessary to prove that your refusal to accept the texts that suggested Thanos5150, is justified and useful to the article. For example, whether it is possible to justify abolition of the text « While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what, the most widely known method for man made crop formations is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants.» using a phrase « rv POV edits that missrepresent sources specifically http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html ». Desirably, what for every text proposed Thanos5150, every user was in a position to see proofs on this page ( through one month). Otherwise, should be recognized that the text Thanos5150 is justified and useful for improving the article. TVERD (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've avoided this so far, but thought I'd just pop in right now. The above by TVERD is not how it works. The onus is on the contributing editor to show that the additions are valid, not on the removing editors. If Thanos5150 is unable to convince the opposing editors that the contributions are valid, then they are not valid. a_man_alone (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear a_man_alone, I am not the author changes Thanos5150, at the same time I am not the author (an opponent) of the abolition of the changes proposed Thanos5150. I is the third person in relation to Thanos5150 and to his opponents. As a third person I assess the changes proposed Thanos5150, and I assess validity of actions Thanos5150's opponents on the conservation of the existing text of the article. Responding to opponents, Thanos5150, pointed out that "... the content of this article is ... completely unbalanced, and as a whole poorly organized ...». Opponents have not denied this allegation. This assertion is key to assessing changes to the text of the article. The statements of the Thanos5150's opponents do not contain compelling arguments about the advantage of the existing text of articles against the text Thanos5150. In this connection, there are set questions . Some of them are given on this page. Response to them was not followed. About who and what should prove ... Everybody must prove, if he to aim to bring a benefit to the article. TVERD (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty in understanding yout text, but that's not what you specified above. Previously you were adamant that the removers should justify their removals, on the basis that Thanos didn't neeed to. Doesn't work like that. And no, Everybody does not need to prove - only the contributor needs to prove, as I said before. It is easier to work together, and smoother if everybody does agree, but as I said before - it is up to the contributor to justify. It's unhelpful, but all the remover needs to say is "I disagree. Prove it" and then the ball's in your (or Thanos') court. a_man_alone (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For a_man_alone. Fact, all participants prove (Everybody: the contributor and the opponents). An opponent proves for example « rv POV edits that missrepresent sources specifically http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html». Everybody prove, - this is normal. The problem: which proof is false, and which are correct. Proof « rv POV edits that missrepresent sources specifically http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html», applied to the text « While it remains uncertain how all crop circles are formed or by what, the most widely known method for man made crop formations is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. », is example of false proof. I thank you for interest to my position . As a result Discussion are found distinctions in the estimation of facts. TVERD (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm backing off from this topic, because I can't understand a word you're saying. a_man_alone (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think this article as it is now how been greatly improved and ironically much of the material and organization I merely restored from earlier revisions. Hopefully it will last a while. Now at least a coherent more balanced article has been formed which should provide a more objective presentation of the information to the reader. While I'm sure it could be further improved, this article in it's previous state was a prime example of the havoc competing POV's cause on controversial topics with no neutral administration intervention. Left in it's wake is often a mish-mash of gobbledygook, poor organization and sentence structure, and incessant negative qualifiers leaving an article nearly incomprehensible. I find this on almost every Wiki page of alternative subject material I find, which I think is sad and not really the reason we edit here. I will be moving on from this page and will check back from time to time.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

A couple of observations for the editors here to think about. The article as a whole seems pretty fair to me except the final comment in the lede, which begins "Formations usually are made overnight...". What follows from this sticks out as being out of place in the lede and trying too hard to establish the 'truth' of what the crop circles are before the article even begins. Since the subject is not without controversy, then either some element of the controversy ought to neutrally reported within the lede, or the lede should remain totally objective in its introduction and end at the point the final comment commences. The text prior to that makes a really good lede and needs no further qualification in my opinion.

Then the remark about how formations are made should be made within the article as a section headed "Explanations". This should be given prominent attention and placed before the section headed "Other explanations" (which I think would be better renamed "Alternative explanations").

One point to bear in mind here is that the subject of crop circles falls under the guidelines given for Fringe theories, of which this comment applies: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article". There is a shift of what becomes due weight within articles that are actually about fringe subjects, which does not require the controversial elements of the matter to be disproportionately subdued - because they are the point of notability: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space". WP gives the example that it would be undue weight to give recognition of the flat-earth theory in an article about the earth, but within the article about the flat-earth theory, then obviously it's not undue weight to explain what the theories are, why they exist, and who have reported on them. As ridiculous as such theories appear to most of us, WP aims to report neutrally with a detached, objective tone, whilst presenting the majority view in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it.

As a reader with no pre-conceptions, one point I felt was missing is why crop-circles continue to generate fascination, even from people (like myself) who don't doubt they must all be either man-made or naturally formed. I felt there should be some coverage on how intricate some of these 'circles' become in their design, because regardless of how they are made, crop circles are able to present extremely impressive works of art, and yet there isn't any sense of this within the article.

Not sure if there is enough collaboration on the page for this to happen, but one way in which an objective tone is created is when editors who favor the mainstream explanation try to make the case for the alternative explanation and vice versa. Just think about the reader who comes to the page in search of information on all aspects of this subject, and base the content around what the notable sources say, even including reference to 'less credible' sources, if those sources are responsible for creating public perceptions or misconceptions that have helped to define public interest in the subject. (Obviously this does not require giving those sources undue credence). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac, good points. "impressive works of art" needs to be emphasized here since I think the logos/symbology of these circles could be an article all to itself (The impressive Pi crop circle comes to mind here). I'm attempting to rejiggle this article to include a more concise step by step breakdown of the phenomena in my sandbox. Perhaps someday we can convince the UK government to invest a summer into some air drones (since they already video-tape everything else in the UK) and at least attempt to solve this mystery. I guess the lack of government interest leans me towards a pre-conceived notion that they are somehow involved. Jason (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

“… attempt to solve this mystery.” “…the lack of government interest … they are somehow involved.” At a commentary (Romans Nazarovs) to article Alejandro Rojas ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alejandro-rojas/crop-circle-microwave-ano_b_929152.html ) it is said: «... To date, succeeded to create a physical theory of origin ( http://nyos.lv/uploads/3420/P-Translate--PRINTPoprechnij--Text-Pru-press---28.03.2010.pdf ) of natural "crop circles" as result of the instantaneous drop pressure of external ambient air at the plant's stems, in which was proved:

how appear the natural mysterious patterns and images in the genuine "crop circles";
how appear the natural an abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat in the "crop circles". »
Why a government must spend money on a problem which is already solved?

TVERD (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is promising researching but only demonstrates the mechanics involved in how these plants are affected by microwaves, Taylor doesn't claim to know for a fact that this method is being used. Doesn't illustrate what kind of machinery would be needed on a large scale or what that would look like. Doesn't illustrator who or what designs the patterns and logos, whether they are random or created by a consciousness entity. This paper shows how plants can be manipulated with microwaves, which like I say is exciting research but far from solving the mystery.

Government should invest tax money because:

1) Farmers are losing money due to damaged crops

2) Research into this technology could have other worthwhile benefits

3) It could be potentially dangerous or threatening

4) It could be important if it turns out to be communication from other entities (either human or non-human)

5) Its worth investing money into deepening our understanding of the world

6) It hasn't been solved and continually effects peoples lives (mostly the farmers)

Granted there are more pressing issues like infrastructure and education. But personally I'd rather divert some military spending to this kinda thing instead of building bombs and war planes, which is getting tiresome. But anyway, why not write this info into the article? Why post this here and then delete your account? People are strange. Jason (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, noticed you didn't delete your account, but just get good sources and write it into the article. Jason (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jason. In my comments are not discussed pros and cons of the proposal Taylor. Taylor not mentioned in my comments . Your suggestion that the Government should invest tax money into the problem, which discussed in this article, will not improve this article. Government should invest tax money in problem, which unsolved. Main problems of genuine "crop circles": how appear the natural mysterious patterns and images in the genuine "crop circles"; how appear the natural an abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat in the "crop circles". The answers to these questions are received. The government has nothing to do with this problem. With regard to the losing money due to damaged crops of farmers: avoid the losing money, due to damaged crops in genuine "crop circles", is impossible; avoid the losing money, due to damaged crops in man-made "crop circles", is problem for the police. Before you make any changes, including those mentioned in your comments, it is appropriate to discuss usefulness to the article of this changes on this page. I agree with your opinion "...divert some military spending to this kinda thing instead of building bombs and war planes, which is getting tiresome." TVERD (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TVERD, I was answering your question - Why a government must spend money on a problem which is already solved? Im not suggesting that Government spending be written into the article as I don't think that's relevant to this article, it should just state facts about the phenomenon and be backed up with reputable citations, but I was suggesting that you add a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of microwaves and how they effect plants; Because that is relevant to the phenomenon. This article is too simplified and is missing a lot of vital information and research. It also emphasizes the Doug and Dave 'prankster' explanation, which is just one of many other possible explanations. I don't read this article as having a neutral viewpoint. I agree its appropriate to first discuss these issues and come to a consensus. Well anyway, Have a great day. Jason (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I agree - It's impossible to "read this article as having a neutral viewpoint". This is the main shortcoming of the article. Neutral points of view recognize equal rights both for genuine "crop circles" and man-made "crop circles". However, the main subject of articles is man-made "crop circles". In the article, genuine "crop circles" are examined as «Other explanations»??? The problem of "crop circles" is solved. It is known how the mysterious patterns and images appear in the genuine "crop circles" and in the man-made "crop circles". It is known how abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat in the genuine "crop circles" appear. Technologies, which create man-made "crop circles", with the abnormal expansion nodes on the stems of wheat and with other characteristic features, which have been found in genuine "crop circles", which are unknown. Your expectation that the «comprehensive and detailed explanation of microwaves and how they effect plants» will create a corresponding characteristic features in the man-made "crop circles" are not justified theoretically and practically. Therefore, for the article, it's not the worthy texts about the microwaves. I agree that the government should increase spending on science.'. TVERD (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TVERD, I hope you are not insulted by this, but I re-wrote your above paragraph with proper English grammar, if you wanted to compare and improve your English (Wikipedia has a nice feature to compare edits in the History tab). Re-writing your words helped me understand what you were saying as simple grammatical errors can profoundly abstract communication. Are you a native speaker of German by chance? Just a guess. I didn't realize this article was specially written for "man-made" crop circles. If so, it should be renamed and moved with the title "Man-Made Crop Circles" Otherwise its too ambiguous. Otherwise if the article is about Crop Circles (in general), it should detail all aspects of crop circles both man-made and genuine(unexplained) and with a neutral point of view. Jason (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jason, thanks for proper English grammar. You correctly estimated a situation in relation to the article of "Crop Circles". This article was more neutral some years ago. Violation of neutrality happened as a result of powerful support of man made "Crop Circles" in medias. It is interesting Your suggestions about reorganization of the article. It is useful, create the separate article about man made circles "Crop Circles". So acted relatively the irrigation method that produces circular fields of crops.( For the irrigation method that produces circular fields of crops, see center pivot irrigation.) Opinions of other users about it are we not heard, unfortunately. TVERD (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Animal Activity

How is that ludicrous statement a valuable piece of information benefiting the entry? No, it doesn't even belong as a balanced interpretation of crop circles. In any case, it should be in an entirely different section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.133.11 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin Andrews

Moving four edits from the top to bring attention to it. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. This page is a joke. Scientific research studies of this phenomena are not mentioned here. One research article is even given as source for claims by Committee for Sceptical Inquiry, even if it has nothing to do with it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.55.24 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This page is a joke. The discussions on here are hilarious. Fortunately, the article page is much better. a_man_alone (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree also. I've begun a re-write, or rather expansion in my Sandbox which you are welcome to help with, the only thing is with a topic this large, and with all the data available out there, both good and bad, its going to take some time to track down decent citations; Not too mention that I'm a bit concerned about investing the time into this article since this topic seems prone to vandalism; both with those who resist taking a non-bias Scientific, step by step, approach to this phenomena - as well as those Scientific minds who refuse to accept valid research from people such as Colin Andrews (who don't have scientific credentials, nevertheless are experts in the field). Jason (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I too am discouraged to see this. The structure of this page is obviously written with bias that is cleverly worded to make it seem like it's not. I recently attempted to edit it with scientific research provided by Colin Andrews, a highly respected 20+ year researcher in the field who is recognized as perhaps the leading expert on crop circles. It was revised, and I was asked to post here. I understand that skeptics want their share in the post, which is fine, but the honest data that reflects the actual science put forth by people who actually study the phenomenon should be the most important part, regardless of what their studies say. In this case, the studies show that this phenomenon, at least those crop circles believed to be authentic, currently have no way of being reproduced by humans. I am unfamiliar with some of the writing techniques used to edit wikipedia pages, but I was asked to precursor factual statements of decades of research with "Colin Andrews believes." This is unfair, and I would like my references allowed to return in the proper format. Everything I posted was true, referenced, documented scientifically, and in fact correcting misleading statements that were used by others on the page. Skeptics can argue what the results of the science means, but they cannot argue the facts of the science itself. The science itself is not a belief, it is documented research conducted by professionals. I can accept that there will be skeptics who assume everything unusual HAS to be a conspiracy and we're all out to them with science that *clearly* MUST have been fabricated, but when the the research is available, it is their duty to criticize what it could mean within the information provided, not try to deny and belittle the research that was put into it so they can feel safe in their beliefs. I do not see these quantifiers in other wikipedia pages for other statements of factual science, and it should not have to be applied here. I have provided wikipedia with the book reference so that anyone can see for themselves the research available on the topic, and I would like to see my revisions returned (in whatever altered form the heading / body requires), as they were both fair and scientific. Allthankstoyou (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might help the discussion to reproduce the comment that was removed:

Some crop circles are known to be created by humans, but crop circles that are believed to be authentic display definite biological changes, including internal changes of the plants at a cellular level, that cannot be replicated by humans.

I agree that this point needs to be covered in the main article, not introduced within the lede. The lede should steer clear of anything that could court controversy one way or another; being neither critical or supportative of any particular view in this controversial topic.

I also agree that it is appropriate, and not unfair, for the point to be made with a clear attribution to the researcher who has published these findings. This does not imly that the research is unreliable; it is simply a matter of responsible reporting. It shouldn't, for example, say that this is what Colin Andrews believes, it should talk about what he has found, or what he has concluded. But until such time that this becomes an accepted finding of mainstream science, it is necessary to refer to it as the finding of a specialist researcher, and only fair to identify him really.

Also, in the comment "crop circles that are believed to be authentic display...". What defines an 'authentic' crop circle? If it is admitted that some (not all) crop circles are made by animal activity, then are these not authentic crop circles too? The comment needs explanation. That said, I would like to see the comment given attention and then introduced as a relevant point to the main page coverage of the subject. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. My objection wasn't to using Colin Andrews, although I'm not sure we can say he 'found', but we could say Andrews 'writes', or 'says' or something that doesn't imply he's right - or wrong. As for 'authentic', if we can avoid it, let's just not use the word as it has implications, however used, that I don't think the article should make if it is to abide by WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I wrote the term "authentic" as the way the book referred to them, which was to distinguish between crop circles that they said were "clearly man made" and those which did not fit the bill of being created by humans. The term was not really my own. I'm fine with altering the terminology. In regards to mainstream science, while I understand the argument there, the reason these things aren't mainstream science is because people refuse to post them until they become mainstream science. The fact is that there's a lot of really bizarre science out there (quantum science is a perfect example) that the majority of people aren't being shown out of the fear of the people showing it to be ridiculed, despite the accuracy of the science. Right now, the page is bombed with criticism (a good portion of which is totally incorrect), and is not being challenged because it's what the mainstream arguably believes. That's just sad. Wikipedia should be a source of accuracy. Anyone can go to the top researchers and scientists of the crop circles and ask what they've learned; they will unanimously bring up the fact that even though they may have been extremely skeptical when starting their research, they have had to eventually let go of their preconceptions and accept that humans simply couldn't be responsible. There are many proofs of this, only one of which was the cellular changes that take place in the "authentic" crop circles, but also includes the precision of "authentic" crop circles to millimeters of accuracy in whatever fractal shapes they are (something that trampled crop circles cannot provide, or even usually in professional construction projects), the speed at which some have been identified to be created (which has attempted to be reproduced, even by many of the groups that claim to be crop creators without anything resembling a close success), the lack of human presence that shows up (unlike the ones made by humans), the perfect 90 degree bend of the stalks that cannot be replicated by the trampling (nor even comes close), and so forth. These findings are not just Colin Andrews, and in fact in his book he often writes about the other scientists reporting these things for his own referencing, and merely confirms that his findings are the same. So I appreciate you taking the time to overview this and to ensure that wikipedia is kept legitimate, but my real question here is why are the skeptics being given more credit than the professionals (I'm referring to the university professors, PH.D.s, and other scientific researchers) that are actually out investigating the crop circles? And why is this a consistent pattern for many of the other fringe sciences just because the mainstream is afraid to hear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthankstoyou (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a further point, which is that the "mainstream" consists of people who sit on their computers reading Wikipedia and have no interaction or involvement in the actual study of the subject. If we're waiting for the mainstream to accept the reality of fringe science, how can we expect that to happen if we don't show it to them with anything other than minimal efforts to satisfy the few who are willing to speak up about it? Mainstream isn't going to change until we give them the facts, and it's impossible to expect them to have the facts if you're not willing to provide them with the unbiased reviews of the science. So the only logical conclusion is the the editors of the page need to be educated in the science and be willing to post it as the science is found. But the admins such as yourself are ultimately responsible for the content, so unless you're informed about it, or those who have studied it have been allowed to edit it, there's no ground that we can make on it. And while I realize that I can't just make you go out and buy a few books on crop circles and do the investigative reporting with all of the scientists to confirm this, it's about the only way I can conceive of that would allow this page to reflect the accuracy it deserves. So what can we do regarding the paradox of the mainstream issue as it currently stands? (( Edit: FYI, I don't mean to imply that you're being unfair with how you're proceeding. I realize I'm challenging common perceptions, so thank you for looking into this. )) Allthankstoyou (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read a few of our policy pages such as WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically the sections on WP:NOTADVOCATE. We are not here to "challenge common conceptions" or bring "fringe" pseudoscientific theories to greater public attention. Heiro 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To Allthankstoyou,

It would help a lot if you don’t see this as an issue of new theories struggling to get recognition in mainstream science. That is not a WP problem. Wikipedia has to take a responsible approach, as any non-specialist encyclopaedia must, and place the onus on accepted, mainstream knowledge. Even though modern science has some unproven and highly hypothetical theories, they gain acceptance because those theories have developed out of the principles of accepted science. So they are seen as theoretically acceptable, even if some of them are dubious, rather bizarre, and likely to be rejected when another, more elegant theory, presents an alternative model to work to. On the other hand, science has no accepted precedent or theoretically supported theory related to paranormal or ET formations of crop-circles. Therefore, explanations that lean in that direction – or even those that merely raise issues which accepted science does not understand - are necessarily subject to suspicion and doubt. WP has a duty to reflect that, because it is the fact of the matter in today’s world.

On the other hand, WP policies strive towards objective reporting of verifiable information. You say “the page is bombed with criticism (a good portion of which is totally incorrect), and is not being challenged because it's what the mainstream arguably believes”. I am no expert in this but I just read through the page again and I doesn’t look to me like the page is bombed down with unfair criticism. I consider myself to be sceptical but certainly open-minded to all arguments, and I think I represent the reader who – in turning to the page to get informed on the issue - wants to see all the known information, as well as the pertinent theories and relevant speculative suggestions featured. I want to see that information offered intelligently - I don’t want to be hit with a page full of bias, and I’ve made a few light edits to the page myself when I’ve been struck by a comment or an unnecessary emphasis that is in danger of losing the tone of objectivity.

As it stands I don’t think there is a problem with the content on the page because the criticisms that have been reported are all substantiated. If there is another side to this that is not being reported then the content needs to be developed to demonstrate what the counter arguments are. The editors here will help you if you understand their concerns and take their criticisms on board. For example, Dougweller has pointed out that you need to be careful in how you express the information, so that it is factual, robust, and free from criticisms of inaccuracy or undue weight. To say that Colin Andrews “found” something would raise unnecessary controversy – because, unless it was fully substantiated and corroborated, it could be argued whether this was “found” by his study. However, it is not controversial to say that he reported his findings, or to explain what those findings are.

Heiro says “We are not here to "challenge common conceptions" or bring "fringe" pseudoscientific theories to greater public attention”. WP is cautious about not giving ‘fringe’ theories undue weight, nor being seen to promote them, or giving them more credibility they deserve. However, as I said in my post of 9 August, where fringe theories are intrinsically significant to the content of the page, as is the case here, then they are allowed more weight on the page; they “may receive more attention and space”. And when they are covered, they should be given with the same sense of objectivity and neutrality as any other content.

WP is actually very fair and its policies are sensible and subject to common sense. It allows anyone to contribute providing its fundamental policies are respected. So if you feel there is a problem of underrepresentation of relevant information on the on the page, and you care about this, then the responsibility lies with you to get informed on the policies and learn how to originate substantiated content that reports the facts cautiously and intelligently – then take on the work needed to fix the problem you have identified. Although you have as much right to contribute content as anyone else, I would suggest that, as a new editor, you will get greater support if you propose significant additions or alterations on this talk-page first, so that any potential problems can be fixed, which would make the content more secure and enduring when added to the main page. Take a look at what Jason is doing, by developing content in his sandbox. It helps WP a lot if editors from different perspectives work collaboratively together, and that means listening to each other’s arguments and respecting the criticism that are offered in good faith; not assuming that this place is built on a conspiracy to repress the information found by subject experts and investigators. Regards,-- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of what I've been discussing is that this isn't theory. I'm not contesting what Wikipedia is about, nor would I consider it to be a place to push agendas. As for challenging common conceptions, that argument isn't relevant - whether or not something challenges common conceptions doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the information is accurate. I am certainly challenging common conceptions by trying to bring it to the attention of the page, as I had mentioned, but to consider that relevant in any way to the goal of Wikipedia makes no sense, unless WP has a disclaimer about not trying to rough up the mainstream belief patterns (which I highly doubt). As mentioned earlier, I'm remarking on the fact that in reference to the idea that we need mainstream to catch up to the scientific research provided before we can adequately express it is inherently flawed - the results as the science shows needs to be published in order for that to happen, which ends in a paradox if the proper information isn't provided. We're arguing the same thing here, with differing understandings on what that research may or may not be.

To be honest, I really don't care enough to become an expert wikipedia editor. I made a change to reflect some of the lesser known facts about crop circles, and now I'm arguing on a talk page about how the published professionals in the field of crop circle study are currently less represented by the facts about "authentic" crop circles than some pranksters who get famous for taking credit for stomping around in a field, which didn't happen until after the scientific phenomenon of crop circles was exposed through publishing the unusual traits. So I guess I'm just a little disappointed and upset about what I perceive as an accusation that I'm being unfair about what I see as worthy of valid change on a "unbiased" page. I didn't have an issue bringing up Colin Andrews or any of the scientists he works with. I had a problem with "Colin Andrew believes" which at the time was the reason stated for the removal of my content.

If you want my humble suggestion about what should be included, then it is this: I recommend that there be something to distinguish the crop circles that are easily identifiable by humans and the crop circles that have yet to have any human be able to reproduce the unusual effects that take place, and then follow up by explaining the difference in each of them. Utilize the names of all the researchers that came to these conclusions and what their respective qualifications are. And you can consider this a total cop out, because I don't feel so inclined as to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthankstoyou (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So you have just identified the real problem, which is nothing to do with Wikipedia:

1. "we need mainstream to catch up to the scientific research provided before we can adequately express it is inherently flawed".
2. "To be honest, I really don't care enough to become an expert wikipedia editor." (No one said you had to become an expert editor to contribute; the point was made that if you did care, you would be helped).

What is the point of offering your "humble opinion", which is basically a whinge about what other editors should feel inclined to do, which you don't feel inclined to do yourself? This resource is based on volunteered contributions; so yes, it is a 'cop out' that you find the time and motivation to moan about a supposed problem, admitting that you can't be bothered to try to fix it yourself, in order to leave the responsibility of this supposed problem with other editors who don't even recognise it to the extent you do? For all those who take this attitude and leave discussion page comments here to suggest the page is "a joke", I can only suggest that the joke falls on you. Sorry, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For Zac Δ ."This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crop circle article." TVERD (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

With that logic, unless you become a politician, you have no right to comment on the state of affairs in politics. Brilliant. The fact is, not all of us want to argue endlessly about topics that are going to be bombarded with undue criticism after we've supplied all the facts and references necessary and receive accusations about validity and frustrated mods passive aggressively attacking my inexperience with editing a page. I recognize there are a lot of things in the world I would like to change, but this isn't something important enough to me to spend my time on. I applaud your willingness to contribute to a free, open database, since that is a noble pursuit, but chill out... I'm entitled to my opinion and my personal preference of time and energy. I'd love to collaborate with people who want to learn about what I've researched, but a good example of why I'm not inclined to stay here is the paragraph you just posted. Allthankstoyou (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: If you or anyone else really wants my suggested contribution written out, here: [Heading: Foreign Crop Circles] Foreign Crop Circles are crop circles that exhibit behavior that is inconsistent with crop circles that are known or verifiable as human-created. Unlike the form of crop circles verifiable as man-made, the crops in these circles do not die, and in fact often grow larger and produce more grain than their counterparts do. Consistencies amongst these types of crop circles include biological changes that occur at a cellular level, very accurate 90-degree bends in the stalks at positions above the level of a trampling (the techniques most prominently used in the creation of human-made crop circles), and are extremely precise in their measurements of the formations, down to millimeters of precision. Unlike human-made circles, they are frequently absent of any traces human activity when researchers arrive at the scene. These crop circles also tend to reflect the nature of complicated mathematics and musical scales.

Anyone who edits this page is free to use this, editing however is most suited to the page, assuming they reference the book(s) they use to confirm it. I recommend Crop Circles - Signs of Contact by Collin Andrews. Allthankstoyou (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For Tverd. Your selective vision appears to have left you unable to recognise that my posts concern issues relating to the improvement of this article. But it will help if you bear that comment in mind, limit yourself to it, and refrain from referring to some editors as the “opponents” of other editors. That sort of thing is never constructive and doesn't foster improvement of the article. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For Allthankstoyou: «authentic», «genuine» or «natural» preferred than «Foreign». Your text "Consistencies amongst these types of crop circles include biological changes that occur at a cellular level, very accurate 90-degree bends in the stalks at positions above the level of a trampling (the techniques most prominently used in the creation of human-made crop circles ), and are extremely precise in their measurements of the formations, down to millimeters of precision. Unlike human-made circles, they are frequently absent of any traces human activity when researchers arrive at the scene. These crop circles also tend to reflect the nature of complicated mathematics ... " will do the article better. All that is said in the text is theoretically proved in «Crop Circles: Theory of Anomalous Expansion of Nodes on Wheat Stalk. http://nyos.lv/uploads/3420/P-Translate--PRINTPoprechnij--Text-Pru-press---28.03.2010.pdf ». Good luck in the improvement of the article. TVERD (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

'Foreign' doesn't work; but neither does 'authentic', 'genuine' or 'natural' - all of these imply that 'true' crop circles are only the ones that have no explicable origin, (such as animals or freak weather conditions). That would create undue weight. Perhaps you could avoid this by saying something like "the circle formations which are of most interest to researchers are those that have been reported to exhibit ...." ?

“A crop circle is a sizable pattern created by the flattening of a crop…” At the article uses terms «real» crop circles and «man-made» crop circles. This is clearly and objectively. Interests of researchers, pranksters and the media are subjective. Problem at the article: discrimination of the real circles as compared to man-made circles. TVERD (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So the essential distinction is between 'natural' and 'man-made' circles, since only the latter attract cricisms of being 'hoaxes'. Then you have the problem of those that are not proven to be man-made, but are suspected of that because of their elaborate designs, etc. Here it is relevant to talk about the features that make some of these circles more of a mystery, and of greater interest to researchers, than others. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In the article is no difference between 'real' crop circles and 'natural' crop circles. That is correct. Usually, non technogenic object is regarded as real object or natural object, created by nature. How nature creates such an object it is a problem for solving which man creates models natural processes. Man-made crop circles it is one of the options of modeling natural processes. However, at the article man-made crop circle transformed into an independent object, which replaced the original object of nature. Improve in the article can only be from a position of what is primary and what is secondary. TVERD (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This article as a hoax

The way this article was written (at least before I started correcting it today) strongly suggests that crop circles are a "phenomenon of unknown origin", even though we all know that human beings did it on purpose.

In fact, we should move this to Crop circle hoax. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you reverted all my changes. Are you trying to push the other-than-hoax POV? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My reverts mostly aimed to avoid undue weight on Doug Bower and Dave Chorley who are just a small part of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I see that now. I think I had too much coffee before my last round of edits (both here and at DHMO. I'm gonna take it slow and look for consensus from here on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that "... we all know it was a hoax ...". It is not true that "... that these formations have a mysterious, non-human cause...". In article the processes creating of “Crop Circles” are explained with using ".... various theories ... ranging from natural phenomenon and man-made hoaxes, to the paranormal and even animals. ...". Natural phenomenons on earth (http://nyos.lv/en/krugi-na-poljah/anomaljnoe---rasshirenie--uzlov-rastenij-30644 (Fig.5.)) and man-made hoaxes ( http://www.circlemakers.org/new_documents.html ) creates of the images «Crop Circles». In creating the images «Crop Circles», man-made hoaxes imitates nature. The actions of natural phenomenons on earth and man-made hoaxes fully sufficiently for creation and explanation of the known properties of the images «Crop Circles». Therefore there is not a necessity to explain properties of the images «Circles on the fields» by using the actions of aliens. Decoding of image "crop circles" has the meaning applied to "Crop Circles", created by man-made hoaxes . With regard to "Crop Circles" created by natural phenomenons on earth , it makes sense to apply physical and mathematical modeling. 188.112.170.48 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What??? --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: "... This article as a hoax ... In fact, we should move this to Crop circle hoax ....". Uncle Ed is specified a problem of the Crop circle article , about which in previous discussion TVERD it is said : "... In the article is no difference between 'real' crop circles and 'natural' crop circles. ... At the article man-made crop circle transformed into an independent object, which replaced the original object of nature ... ". Physical and mathematical modeling allows to distinguish natural images «Crop Circles» from man-made hoaxes images «Crop Circles». Solution, which suggested Uncle Ed, means dividing article into two articles: Crop circle hoax (man-made hoaxes «Crop Circles»); Natural «Crop Circles» (Genuine «Crop Circles»). 188.112.170.48 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fix footnotes

While doing some casual reading on crop circles, I noticed that the footnotes are misaligned. For example, #21 should be where #22 is in the article. I was too lazy and disinterested in crop circles to fix this problem, but someone should get on it. I was very confused for at least 45 seconds.

173.8.229.2 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)