Talk:Crop circle/Archive 6

message: User:Martinphi claims that the present version of the article contains pseudoscience, despite its merely reporting the current consensus of the scientific community.  I request the opinions of other editors.  You may view the two versions here: . Michaelbusch 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is prior to considerable recent copy-editing, which the article did need. Michaelbusch 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? 

message: I have removed the citation tags added by Martinphi, as misleading and un-necessary.  I appreciate the sentiment, but the current linked source is good enough for both statements.  This is the concept of reasonable doubt: we can never observe all crop circles, but every crop circle whose formation is reliably documented is a hoax.  The Scientific American source is reasonable for reflecting scientific consensus. Michaelbusch 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious citation tags 

message: What is the damage for the crops?
Will it not be able to rise back, say, after rain?
Is the plant OK but uneconomical to harvest?
--84.20.17.84 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: End this thread here please.  This the talk page for the article, and also the above runs afoul of WP:OR. Michaelbusch 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the crop being harvested after a formation has been made here is an example http://www.circlemakers.org/natgeo.html regarding the effect of barley as its still green see 'The Field Guide..' by Rob Irving and John Lundberg p161-162 () --Mark Barnes 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crop damage 

message: It has become more widely known as studies have increased on this Phenomenon that some form of energyis usually present at crop formations. My suggestion thus far is that maybe the formation we see on the ground is only half the formation in its entirety. Perhaps these energies make up the other half of the formatin, thus completing the picture in the same way as colour is only half on an image (light being the other).  I believe that we can begin to understand how this energy makes up the other half of the formation by the directions in which the crop is bent. I believe that the crop is bent as a result of being attratect to, or repelled, by the energy used to lay the formation in the first instance.
James Random 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source, put it in the article.  If you don't, the talk page isn't the place for you to share your theories with the world.  --Minderbinder 13:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describe "the energy"?  Is this IR, UV, radio, some other EM, gravitational?  Or did someone just get a "feeling" for it?  How was this "Some form" of energy measured?Mzmadmike 16:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Energy 

message: WP:ENGVAR states several criteria which provide guidance as to whether British or American English spelling should be used in an article. Of the five major criteria that are listed, three or four indicate that British English should be retained and used consistently through the article, and none indicate that it should switch to US English. Please respect these guidelines. SheffieldSteel 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English spelling 

message: (Copied from my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk)
Hi there, I saw you added this image back to crop circle. I certainly don't have any strong feelings about the issue, and my reasons for removing it were twofold: first just for aesthetics -- I thought the article was getting a little crowded with images at that point; and secondly, it seemed somewhat of a diversion for the article. The meaning was already expressed in the text, and any reader seeking more information was just a click away from an article dedicated to it. But, as I said, no real strong feelings about it. Regards, — BillC talk 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel part of the problem may be the inclusion of a very tangentially (disambig.) related topic (pixie rings) without its own heading. There are three paragraphs and two images dealing with pixie rings that are just dumped into it, all of which belong elsewhere, but since there is a slight relationship, it deserves mention, merely to avoid confusion. Maybe that could be done with a shorter mention and link. Then move most of the content and all images to that article, since it isn't already there, and certainly deserves to be there. Maybe a "See also" link would suffice. Pixie rings (nearly always pretty round) and crop circles (which can vary enormously) are not the same thing. I have seen large pixie rings here, one of which has been visited every year for decades by my now-deceased FIL, who plucked huge quantities of mushrooms. Delicious! -- Fyslee/talk 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to pursue this further here, as something should be done. The pixie rings info is rather misplaced. Any suggestions about what to do with it, besides just moving it to the Fairy ring article (which should be done). -- Fyslee/talk 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have gone ahead and made some changes. Please revert or change if necessary. -- Fyslee/talk 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cropmarks image 

message: I just reverted a rather large edit, because it completely reversed what was presumed to be true and false in the article - thus "debunking" the mundane origin of the circles (presumably in favour of unstated alien or supernatural origin theories) - yet was completely unsourced. Rather than simply revert the text, and in case the author wishes to restore this material (and this POV), here it is - it just needs to be made more  neutral, and for some  reliable sources to be found...
In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomenon began, two men from Southampton, England announced that they had conceived the idea as prank at a pub near Winchester, Hampshire during an evening in 1978. Doug Bower and Dave Chorley alleged to have made their crop circles using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools: using a four-foot-long plank attached to a rope, they easily created circles eight feet in diameter. The two men were able to make a 40-foot circle in a quarter of an hour. Unfortunately for the duo, they were never able to make a truly impressive circle formation on command. They would simply wait for one to appear and then claim to have created it themselves.
The pair became frustrated when their story did not receive significant attention, so in 1981 they claimed to be the creators of a circle in Matterley Bowl, a natural amphitheatre just outside Winchester, Hampshire - an area surrounded by roads from which a clear view of the field is available to drivers passing by. When newspapers claimed that the circles could easily be explained by natural phenomena, Bower and Chorley claimed to be making more complex patterns, while they still could not explain the actual information being encoded in the circles. Later designs of crop circles became increasingly complicated. When asked specific details about their designs and the dates of particular circle formations, Bower and Chorley were both inaccurate and evasive. Often times they claimed to have done a formation up to a week, before or after the actual appearance.
Greater suspicion arose regarding Doug and Dave's "claim to fame" when it was discovered that Bower's wife had become suspicious of him...
Have fun! SheffieldSteel 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather large revert 

message: Interesting discussion, but nothing has been said about the scientific investigations that were in fact conducted, either in the article or in this discussion. Homework please...However, when I see scientific evidence removed and followed by a claim that there is no scientific evidence clearly homework is not the proper word.
:the problem is pseudoscience is not science --Mark Barnes 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you regard as pseudoscience is actually a blind study done by a notable mineralologist, reviewed by a world renown expert. So who is being pseudoscientific here? And are ALL the scientists involved pseudoscientists and not worthy of inclusion in this article? Remember pseudoscience is the claim of being scientific without actually do it. So, of course you can provide us with valid sources backing up your claims? Or not...209.244.42.3 08:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the tiny metal spheres, he has already provided a link explaining that they were only there as the result of a calculated prank.  Look, I know you want to believe there is more to it, but we are dealing with scientific methodology here.  For the purpose of crop circles, that means you cannot continue supporting an unprovable (or at least extremely difficult to prove) theory in the face of people who have confessed to artificially creating these phenomena and explaining how they did it.  In a purely hypothetical future, scientists may discover that they were wrong all along about crop circles (it happens all the time, and when there is sufficient evidence scientists aren't afraid to re-evaluate previously reached conclusions) but this is a serious reference work, so it must describe everything in the most neutral possible way.  And, whether you like it or not, science has already provided the conclusions that anyone possessing true neutrality must agree with.  This is not a format for supporting pet theories.  If you know of a specific, verifiable source that directly contradicts the link Mark Barnes already provided, please post it.  If not, we have to go with what we have. Calgarr 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, I am referring to clay crystallization which occurs naturally when exposed to high temperatures great pressures and long periods of time. The samples were tested and verified. And then there is the changes in plant cells, seeds in particular. The lead researcher of this one Levengood, now owns a company which produces rapid growing seeds. Or the astronomer who decoded Stonehege commenting that Doug and Dave were creating crop circles with unknown theorems in the designs. It goes on and on but you won't find any of it here, why? I notice you have a pet theory too...209.247.5.17 06:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not post some links here, so that other editors can discuss them? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know what he/she is referring to and will give references to them however please keep it in mind that i personally don't agree with the reasoning in these references (as you can probably tell from my other comments on this page). first is the "Clay-Mineral Crystallization Case Study" aka "XRD Study" by BLT (http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.html) and the five unknown theorems is by Gerald Hawkins (http://www.lovely.clara.net/hawkins.html). I will comment on these at a later date but right now i have never the time or the energy but i do hope others will read the links and make comments here before considering adding them to the main article --Mark Barnes 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: X-ray diffraction huh? Takes me back to my days at university. It's all very interesting, if thoroughly inconclusive, since it wasn't even a single-blind study, let alone double-blind. Anyway, being self-published on the web by a non-notable group means, as I understand  wikipedia's guidelines, that it is not a reliable source. Same for the second piece - unless a reliable secondary source can be found commenting on these items of research, they really aren't up to our standards. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I whole heartedly agree. however the Dr.Hawkins theorems do have other sources and also critiques on some cropcircle books (unfortunately i am not at home so i cant reference any for a while, i am pretty sure it spoken about in the 'Field Guide' and a few popular croppie books) i am also sure they are more sites out there but as you know with paranormal topics it rather had to find (or define) a 'reliable' source. on a side note you will be pleased to know that i am currently studying Physics with Photonics at university so this xrd stuff is foreign to me either.--Mark Barnes 07:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the science? 

message: Just have to share this with someone. I was skeptical about this phenomenon, but then last week my 89-year-old mother who grew up on a farm was talking about my great grandfather. And in passing, she said that he had a theory regarding crop circles. And I thought, "What? Crop circles in the Midwest in the late 19th and early 20th century?" She didn't even feel a need to explain it, but just used the term as if she expected me to be familiar with it, as if it was common knowledge in her era. This is not a woman who has ever been interested in the paranormal and would not be familiar with any paranormal claims. She said my great grandfather's theory was that buffalo would circle around a calf in the presence of a wolf.
Whether or not this is a credible explanation, I do believe that there's some naturalistic explanation, but I no longer believe that all crop circles can be explained by pranksters or artists. It's too bad that there's such a heavy emphasis on this explanation in the article. The Bower/Chorley material is repeated three times. Seems like once would be enough, and not in the lead.
I suppose there could have been pranksters back in my great grandfather's time, but the region was so sparsely populated, and transportation so rudimentary that it hardly seems credible that some kids were out in a field creating a circle. Plus, you have to assume that given the paucity of media back then, they couldn't have been influenced by reports of other pranksters. TimidGuy 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there have been incidents in the distant past involving humans deceiving others. Just check out the Mowing-Devil matter from the 17th century! Pranksters have always been around, and particularly deceptive ones as well. Bower and Chorley are just modern guys who took advantage of New Age Alt medder type's gullibility, and when confronted with the real explanation their reaction is a classic example of the true believer syndrome. -- Fyslee/talk 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-emphasis on Bower/Chorley and hoaxes 

message: There is a section called "History of modern crop circles" - which you will note, is careful to use the word 'modern'. It cites evidence from 1678 and then is more definite about a report dating to 1880. It then cites a case from 1966.
This is fine, but when we get to the section called "Creators of crop circles", it says:
In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomenon began...
If crop circles are known from 1966, 1880 and possibly the 17th century, what is the rationale for saying 1991 is "more than a decade" after the phenomenon "began"? This is illogical and misleading. Either it should say something along the lines of "decades and perhaps centuries after records began", or all the historical cases are identifiable as bogus.  81.96.161.52 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is the pre Doug and Dave circles do not necessarily describe what we would call a crop circle today thus the modern phenomena of what we would class and recognise as crop circles really did begin with them which is what the wiki entry is about --Mark Barnes 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, the problem may be summarised as: some editors want to include anything which (a) is found in crops (b) is vaguely round in shape. Personally I think the mowing devil is stretching things a bit too far. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in historical details 

message: Removed from the section "criticism of alternate theories":-
yet these critics cannot seem to explain the electro-magnetic phenomena around crop circles.http://www.uwm.edu/~kmh7/research/theories/electromagnetic.html
This seems like it does not meet wikipedia's criteria for  reliable sources, i.e. it's a self-published website. If the material can be rephrased (and the author demonstrated to be  notable) then there is still the question of where to put it. Rather than tacking it onto the end of a paragraph which it contradicts, it might be better placed in the section on alternate origin theories, as supporting evidence. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electromagnetic evidence 

message: This is the paragraph as it was before removal of the bold text:
Carl Sagan discusses the phenomenon of alien-based theories of crop circle formation in his book, The Demon Haunted World. Sagan writes that no saucer has actually been seen, and no geometric figure has been filmed in the course of being generated (although certain witnesses claim otherwise). He also cites, as an example of a known cause of crop circles, the human agents Doug Bower and Dave Chorley. Sagan states that no supernatural, paranormal, or alien cause should be attributed to crop circles, in the light of the available evidence. "The Demon Haunted World", Carl Sagan (Random House, January 1996)
I removed this for two reasons. Firstly, it is just an unattributed claim that persons unknown dispute something, and as such it does not add value to the encyclopaedia. Secondly, it interrupts the account of Sagan's treatment of the subject in his book. If a source could be found for the challenge to Sagan's arguments, then I think it would be best added at the end of this paragraph, ideally with a comparison of dates (i.e. was Sagan wrong or ignorant when he wrote the above, or has evidence come to light more recently?) Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited text removed 

message: Does anyone still think the article has problems adhering to the WP:NPOV guidelines? If not, it might be time to remove the tag from the article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute? 

message: Should be Colin Andrews with an "s".
The citation for him being the first to use the term "crop circles" is:
Circular Evidence by Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London. 1989
also Phanes Press, Grand Rapid, Michigan. 1989
ISBN-0-933999-96-8
his websites are:
www.colinandrews.net
www.colinandrewsarchives.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprandrews (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections Needed 

message: PerfectBlue, would you like to discuss your reasons for reverting my edits? I notice you didn't provide any edit summary beyond "summary of methodology used" which scarcely explains even one of the changes made. Was this some sort of reflex action on your part? A simple mistake? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained reversion 

message: In keeping with the  Bold, revert, discuss philosophy, I have reverted the bold addition of this infobox in the hope that discussion can now provide a solution which is informative yet in keeping with WP:NPOV.
In my opinion, the following issues arise:
*"Paranormal terminology". The title of the box strongly implies either that the term falls within the domain of the paranormal, or that crop circles are paranormal phenomena. Regardless of how they may have captured the imaginations of sections of the public, crop circles are tangible physical things, the available evidence points to the majority of them being manmade, and the term is not generally associated with the paranormal - it is simply part of modern culture. In terms of NPOV guidelines, this description presents an opinion - that crop circles are within the field of the paranormal - as fact.
*"Signature". These characteristics are, again, opinions presented as fact. Attribution to sources, and discussion of crop circle characteristics, may be too subtle an issue to be summarised in such a small space.
*Selection of "signature" characteristics. Which details to include in this list is ultimately an arbitrary selection, and great care must be taken that this selection is neutral and gives due weight to the available evidence. For example, it could be argued that the cominant characteristic is traces of human intervention, since 80% of all circles studied were found to show that property.
Personally I would have no problem with cutting out the arbitrary, non-factual and non-neutral portions of the box. However, looking at the source above, it seems that the "Paranormal terminology" title is hard-wired and so cannot be removed.
Does anyone else have issues, comments, suggestions...?  Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I have to disagree.
# This is a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It is defining the term "crop circle" within a particular field, not classifying it within a particular structure. Argument mute. 
# This is a standardized project infobox written for project paranormal as a jack of all trades to be applied to any terminology with a paranormal association, and there is clear evidence that paranormal origins have been assigned to crop circles, everything from aliens to magnetic force lines. Feel free to put additional infox boxes on relating to art or popular culture. Please be aware that this infobox is also used to deal with hoaxes, frauds and pseudoscience, it can be used anywhere in the paranormal domain regardless even when something has been scientifically proven to not be paranormal at all. So long as a definition exists within the scope of paranormal lore then this box can fairly be used.
# "Signature", I'm not certain how you can possibly dispute the fact that crop circles are caused by crops being bent over to form patterns. Besides, it is clearly cited by skeptical sources that known fake circles involve the bending of crops (see Doug and Dave). I thus hold that it is an indisputable fact that the majority of crop circles involve the bending over of crops in a patern.
# Signs of human interaction aren't a signature of crop circles, something can be a crop circle with or without signs of human interaction, plus saying that it is a signature could imply that the 20% that don't are different in some way, for example, that they are are made by actual paranormal sources. Saying that they are actually paranormal without a third party citation violates WP:OR.
perfectblue 13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fails to frame crop circles which violates the arb com. Are you trying to imply that they are a natural phenomona? That would be POV pushing. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I Agree get this crap out of the article. Once you let a little bit of paranormal in you have to start letting all the paranormal POV's in.--Dacium 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, people clearly believe that this is paranormal, and people have been hoaxing in order to make people believe that it is paranormal. The pop culture aspect and association is undeniable. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, some of the paranormal POVs are significant, ergo, Wikipedia covers them. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Steel's solution looks good. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As a compromise, I've left your infobox in place and moved the paranormal infobox down to a section that specifically deals with the existence of paranormal beliefs. It is now part of a clearly named and framed section specifically dealing with this topic thus eliminating any and all potential POV issues while preserving the arb com requirement that all things associated with the paranormal be clearly framed as such. - perfectblue 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perfectblue is right. IF people didn't beleive in the paranormal, then the crop circle craze would have died out as well as movies about ETs and crop circles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiCKDuDE102692 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture needs to change to the Triple Julia set. Regardless if it's man made or done buy aliens this is the best crop circle picture ever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzenman (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with you that it should be changed.. personally i like that its a lesser known Kent formation than a more popular one.--Mark Barnes (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox and [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: A "Terminology" infobox containing the image plus the following...
*Crop circle: A geometric or abstract pattern formed by the flattening, bending or breaking of crops.
*Cerealogy: The study of crop circles.
It's simple, clear, neutral, and sourced.  Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fails to frame crop circles which violates the arb com. Are you trying to imply that they are a natural phenomona? That would be POV pushing. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I Agree get this crap out of the article. Once you let a little bit of paranormal in you have to start letting all the paranormal POV's in.--Dacium 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, people clearly believe that this is paranormal, and people have been hoaxing in order to make people believe that it is paranormal. The pop culture aspect and association is undeniable. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, some of the paranormal POVs are significant, ergo, Wikipedia covers them. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Steel's solution looks good. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As a compromise, I've left your infobox in place and moved the paranormal infobox down to a section that specifically deals with the existence of paranormal beliefs. It is now part of a clearly named and framed section specifically dealing with this topic thus eliminating any and all potential POV issues while preserving the arb com requirement that all things associated with the paranormal be clearly framed as such. - perfectblue 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perfectblue is right. IF people didn't beleive in the paranormal, then the crop circle craze would have died out as well as movies about ETs and crop circles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiCKDuDE102692 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture needs to change to the Triple Julia set. Regardless if it's man made or done buy aliens this is the best crop circle picture ever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzenman (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with you that it should be changed.. personally i like that its a lesser known Kent formation than a more popular one.--Mark Barnes (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution

message: This section seems to be a weak link in the article.  Why would we care if Discovery channels went to extreme pains to recreate the three ciriteria described by Talbott?  What does this prove or disprove? Surely of more interest is how many man made circles show these attributes without these extra steps thrown in? 76.210.77.1 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it does seem rather weak especially as 1 and 2 of the criteria are the result of the crop naturally responding to being knocked over and the 3rd seems to be based on single events. I think this would be fine as an external link but not part of the main article.--Mark Barnes 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your right it should be 10-50 \mu m, I will fix it now --Mark Barnes (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific recreation 

message: The article makes no mention of it whatsoever, even though it's notable enough for inclusion IMHO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.25.61 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no reason for it not to have a mention.. i will add it now --Mark Barnes (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: []  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.149.28 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox Crop Circle 

message: The final Reference in the final group, "Pro paranormal explanation websites" offers nothing in the sorts of explanation, but instead just photo sets you can purchase. I see no point having this link even posted, as it adds nothing to the article. --Rich1051414 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference is more of an ad. 

message: i saw on some discovery channel/history channel type show about how some crop circles are considered the "real crop circles" where its just one or maybe two simple circles that have been radiated some how, like they had been burst with energy for a split second, and nothing can grow there anymore and stuff, does anyone know what im talking about? where the crops haven't been just stepped on, they had been like melted at the stalk so that they bent over, theres no human evidence at all (even though some of the fake ones don't have human evidence because some hoaxers are good)
i'd like to see both sides perceptions on these "real crop circle" accurances, you know, the believers and the skeptics
plus if anyone could gather data, maybe put some criteria on what makes a "a real crop circle"
thanks (im new to wikipedia sorry)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.230.182 (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 20% thing (or at least the origin of the myth) is in the article in the Analysis section where it speaks of Colin Andrews study.   As for the rest of your post i think you need to do a little more research than just watching one documentary, good luck but be careful not to neglect the trickster --Mark Barnes (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why isn't there any information on the "20%" real crop circles 

message: I am surprised that so much of the article presents the human/hoax standpoint of crop circle origin, which would not be a bad thing if only the article went on to address every aspect of other theories, such as 
* the expulsion cavities that only get a mension but no explanation
* the complex difference in soil chemistry between the soils inside and outside the circles
* the differerences in geiger counter / electromagnetic radiation readings that exist inside and outside circles
and these are only SOME of the SCIENTIFIC arguments for non-human creation; there are also the practical aspects such as :
* the fact that crop circles made by humans are nearly always made in the daytime and always take a long time to make
* circles sometimes get made in rainy conditions but no mud is ever seen within the likely-non-human circles, such as the mud brought in by observers who later go and research the phenomenon.
* the fact that the stems are never injured in any way in the non-provably-human-made circles (such as flattenings from the board that they get stepped on with)
i could list a whole bunch of other things but i'd just get boring and anyway i'm sure the people writing the article know what else i would write. What i am saying is WHY are none of these things mentioned? 'ball lightning' is, however no more is said about the light spheres so commonly mentioned as part of this topic.
Also, the fact that eyewitness are scant is used as an argument that humans have made them...whereas this should actually be evidence that humans did NOT make the circles: how could circles of THIS complexity:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Crop_circles_Swirl.jpg
for example be made with NO witnesses? it would take someone hours to DRAW this accurately on a piece of paper, let alone make it in a field...and circles of such complexity are not unique. I am not arguing for nor against, but rather that all these arguments should be mentioned and discussed.
Finally, if so many scientists and even mathematicians are interested in the phenomenon then surely this should all be mentioned, as should their research. And not in such a way as to dismissively say "this scientist says this, but some other scientist disproved one single aspect of the theory therefore the theory is wrong", which is the general tone of the article as a whole - which does the subject of crop circles no favours whatsoever.
I am disappointed in the lack of depth in this english wikipedia article due to the fact that it is mostly in England and the US that the phenomenon is most widespread! 
The only explanation i have is that that an edit war must have gone on sometime in the past (no, i dont have time to research the LONG history of the article) and that someone with an interest in disproving anything but the hoax theory has removed all attributions to scientific research into the subject.
Hence why i will not myself edit the article, as i am likely to waddle inadvertantly into someone's space. But i have to say that it is immoral from an intellectual and encyclopedic p.o.v. ("encyclopaedia" = "well-rounded education") to not even mention serious research simply because there is no proof of it. Well, let's get rid of the "Black magic" article in wikipedia in that case...hell, let's get rid of the "Religion" article too - after all, there's no proof that there's a God! The "UFO" article...
catch my meaning? it would be ridiculous to do so. i just hope someone will understand me and do something to improve this article (as it NEEDS improvement) to capture the whole breadth of this amazing subject.
Thanx!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of the article 

message: It came to my attention, and that of quite a few people according to what ive read here, that people really want something on the view point of the less-so-sceptics. I recently added 2 sentences stating a few cases that haven't been solved. Well, you guys take a look:
This line was added for more detailed information, not biased at all:
Although there were only 25 reported cases of crop circles by 1940, there were 298 by 1980." 
This paragraph does not seem biased to me, but instead, a reasonable solution to what people had been begging for. Everything stated here is true AND backed with a reference:
Aside from these proven faked crop circles, there are two styles experts still say has no known scientific explanation. Some crops have brittle stalks, like canola, that are bent in a right angle fashion that some experts claim to be impossible to do by hand. The other style, called node explosions, have holes in the nodes of the stalk, often found inside the stalk itself that some experts say functions like a microwave. No explanation for these have been given to date."
I just dont understand why those edits made you want to block me. An undo and a message to me I could understand. All I want is to make wikipedia an information resource, but to not allow anothers viewpoint, even when the viewpoint is stated in a factual manner, is very narrow-minded.  
So Mark, from all these comments so far, it seems you are the only one who does not want some information on both viewpoints. Don't get me wrong, i am also a skeptic, i believe all of them are man-made, BUT i would love to see information on the ones not proven. This is very interesting information, for both the skeptic and the believer. Rich1051414 08:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the problem with this edit is the same as in the thread above. The source being used does not not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, so adding it would be at odds with our policy on verifiability: material that is (or is likely to be) contested be cited to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fairness I should note that I cannot personally review the reliability of "theconversation.org" due to its being blocked by security software; however, anyone who does feel that it should be considered a reliable source may raise the matter at Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard and get feedback from other editors there. I hope this helps explain a bit about how we work here. There's more info about Wikipedia fundamentals at The Five Pillars.  SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Rich, as SheffieldSteel has pointed out the reason for the edit i made is that the reference does not meet Wikipedia's standards. I would however love to know what these 25 cases before 1940 are --Mark Barnes (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That editors are human and sometimes overlook things?? That maybe you should have asked me on my talk page? Fixed it now anyway. I'm not at all sure about the Latvian article, when I have time I'll look into it more. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt to 'correct' this article 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "howarth1" :
** Howarth, Leslie G (2000) "If in Doubt, Blame the Aliens!: A new scientific analysis of UFO sightings, alleged alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles", iUniverse, ISBN 0595156932
** Howarth, Leslie (2000) "If in Doubt, Blame the Aliens!: A new scientific analysis of UFO sightings, alleged alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles", iUniverse, ISBN 0595156932
DumZiBoT (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: needs to be incoporated into this article, as the book is well referenced.
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=PG53jNVPMFQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA135&dq=+crop+circle&ots=0n9lowc4ht&sig=JgjeHnN9UVJ9SM_rdqFiO00La1Y#PPA136,M1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The info of Chapter 7 of this book.... 

message: What do people think of the section In the mainstream media?  It's been removed and put back in several times.  Personally, I'm not as immediately concerned about the fact that it's unsourced as I am about its apparently being, well, not wholly true.  – The Parting Glass 13:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it is needed for the article. but more importantly I do not agree with it, every year there is at least one circle that will do its rounds in newspapers as a big story in the tabloids and sidelined in some broadsheets (last year it was the pi formation, the year before East Field formation and so on). its also not true that there have not been documentaries form mainstream media, even in this article it speaks of a few (eg Discovery Channel). This is just a current stance during the late 80s and early 90s there was a lot of media hype around the cropcircles. I cant help but feel that the person who keeps putting this section back feels that circles are more important and deserve more attention by the media than what they deserve, in the words of Doug Bower 'It's only flattened corn'. --Mark Barnes (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually the first time I removed it (10:19, 26 January 2009) I did give the the reason that it was because it is original research and also because it is not true. As I have already pointed out crop circles appear annually at least once as articles (often as large spread or even front page) in tabloids such as the sun, daily mail or mirror, yes they are not often found in proper newspapers but are they really news worthy beyond the tabloids? i would defiantly argue that they are not. by the way Last year there was an interview with Doug Bower on BBC Newsnight about cropcircles (14th May 2008).--Mark Barnes (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And an article from The Times last June, which was also in other papers. dougweller (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the mainstream media" section 

message: What?! No mention of this at all? Wow... 79.66.61.246 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arecibo 

message: It's been brought up before yet still the article is all over the place with its historical account.
Example: "Crop circles rose in prominence in 1975" - Can anyone give an explanation for this statement?
Another example: "Since appearing in the media in the 1970s..." can anyone cite any evidence of circles in the media in the 1970s - even one example??
This seems like a surreal way of trying to legitimize the Doug & Dave version of events which is, to say the least, shaky. I could be wrong, but in any respect these statements are fantasy. 217.43.165.196 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The claim that crop circles could be made by MASERs aboard orbiting satellites needs citation. To me it seems dubious - surely a MASER would burn crops, not knock them down. 94.194.66.92 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MASER claim 

message: Do we really need an infobox? It has very little information that doesn't appear in the first few sentences of the article. Gary (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The last sentence of the patterns section is obviously vandalism.  Dont know enough about editing, so can someone please revise it. thanks.   58.164.227.232 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it has been taken care of. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  very funny, but kinda weird .. 

message: Koman90 has placed some information in the first paragraphs of this article describing warped growth nodes and other evidence supposedly indicative of paranormal influence in the production of crop circles. Are there any websites or articles specifically debunking the phenomena described by WC Levengood, such as exploded growth nodes, or the iron-based coating which Levengood claims was found on these stems? The opposite viewpoint would surely be useful in writing this article. Gary (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It referenced a primary source, and I felt it constituted undue weight, so I removed it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites debunking "unexplained" details of crop circles 

message: Of all the crop circles, not one exist such that it cannot be argued that a group of humans could have done it.  An extraterrestrial will have one of two things to communicate, either that they is extraterrestrial or a message we can cipher. None of which has been done.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.135.171 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument against a celestial origin for crop circles