Talk:Crop circle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Archive
Archives
  1. – April 2006
  2. some archives appear to be missing
  3. ? – August 2006
  4. September 2006 – October 2006
  5. November 2006 – January 2007

Contents

[edit] NPOV and this article

I've just reverted a number of edits made with the stated intention of following NPOV. I accept that the editor had the best of intentions, but in the case of this article several of the modifications are unacceptable. NPOV can be taken too far: by removing criticisms of 'alternative explainations', we give them a false appearance of legitimacy. This is unacceptable under the Wikipedia policies for dealing with pseudoscience (I conferred with User:Philosophus on this matter). The current version of the article is not perfect, but the handling of NPOV is not the problem. Michaelbusch 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're on top of things. Actually, I don't believe there is any such thing as taking NPOV too far. If you look at the edits you'll see I actually didn't delete criticisms. I only deleted weasels, and criticisms which were not merely factual statements of what critics believe. For instance, "Often touted as evidence for the mystic origin of crop circles is the coincidence..." I believe that these kinds of statements, and ones like "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor" violate the spirit and letter of NPOV. You can refer to my essay User:Martinphi/Paranormal_practicum here for further.

"we give them a false appearance of legitimacy."

We are not in the business of giving apearance. We are in the business of reporting, in a totally NPOV manner. The way you state this seems to show that there is a misunderstanding.

"This is unacceptable under the Wikipedia policies for dealing with pseudoscience"

Please be specific about this.
The sentence "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor." Actually means "all crop circles are of human origin." Thus, it is factually, scientifically incorrect as a statement, since no one can know this. Also, Wikipedia is not in the business of discerning what is a violation of Occam's Razor. I'll put the POV tag on till such problems are corrected so that readers will be on the lookout for bias. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the meaning of the statement. The statement means exactly what it says: all evidence points to human origin for crop circles, but paranormal explainations circulate despite their being baseless. Please see my user page under 'Objection 0'. With regards to removal of criticism, this follows from the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience (here). With regards to appearance: this is not merely journalism, reporting what others have said. This is an encyclopedia. It must be reliable and free of pseudoscience. This was an explicit statement in the ArbCom judgement (decision no. 14). Michaelbusch 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin" must be sourced. It is a negative scientific statement, and so, of course, cannot have a reliable source. I have nothing against scientific truth, but this is not it. We, also, in ref to your user page, are not in the business of being "harsh." We are in the business of describing positions and reporting reliable opinions. Nothing else. Please read the essay mentioned above. If these things are not dealt with, we can go to mediation. But there shouldn't be any problem, because policy is clear.
"So additions that mis-represent general relativity or describe alleged anti-gravity machines should be evaluated as harshly as possible;"
This should read "So additions that mis-represent general relativity or describe alleged anti-gravity machines must be balanced with well-sourced scientific opinions from reliable sources."
I of course assume that you mean that these claims are in articles which are about the said mis-representations of general relativity. Otherwise, just delete them, unless they have a reliable source. That isn't relevant to this article, however.
It is not scientific to state negative proof. It is against wikipedia policy to weasel. It is against Wikipedia policy to present things in a biased manner. Therefore, we must change this article.

I've been in disputes before which I have "won," but I don't want to do that again. I'd much rather you would try and see my point. That's because I don't want to do anything illogical, promote pseudoscience, or censor science. I only want to obey the rules and give everyone a fair shake, without bias which comes from language and without making incorrect statements. So I ask you to look a the thing again with fresh eyes.

"It must be reliable and free of pseudoscience." I have not read this ArbCom statement, but if the ArbCom meant that NPOV should be violated, unscientific negative proof claimed, and weasel words inserted, they are wrong.

Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for long discussions of Wikipedia policy. What the ArbCom said was that Wikipedia should correspond to present scientific understanding. In this case, that is that crop circles are strictly a human phenomenon. Not saying otherwise explicitly is a serious omission. Removing weasel words is fine, but your edits went too far in removing criticism of pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As Marcello Truzzi would tell you, the criticism of pseudoscience in the sentence "Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor" is itself pseudoscience. I am not disputing the NPOV rules, on this sentence.
On the other things, they are obviously against the NPOV rules, and must be changed. For instance, this uncited sentence (which would be fine with citation):
"There have been cases in which believers declared crop circles to be "the real thing", only to be confronted soon after with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud."
I'll leave this sentence a while till it can be sourced.
This sentence "Often touted as evidence for the mystic origin of crop circles" is an obvious slur.

The sentence "A number of witnesses claim to have..." contains a completely unnecessary weasel word, one which is even mentioned as a WTA.

It isn't that you shouldn't give the scientific perspective. You shouldn't do it this way. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be treated the same way an urban myth is, rather than using as WP:Pseudoscience? It's like "tags from dead homeboys". The tags are real, the paint is real, even the walls that they are painted are real, but ...... the rest is urban legend.
perfectblue 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience?

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: [1]. Michaelbusch 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is prior to considerable recent copy-editing, which the article did need. Michaelbusch 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious citation tags

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)

[edit] Pseudoscience 2

Firstly: Do not remove citation tags. They are there for a reason.
Explanation: The sentence is pseudoscience or needs change as follows:

desDespite despite is a word to avoid

the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, this constitutes a heavy implication that all crop circles are positively known to be of human origin, in other words, that they have all been observed forming, or that there is other definitive positive evidence; this is the first example of pseudoscience

various paranormal theories they are not theories; they are at most hypothesies- this is the second example of pseudoscience.

continue to enjoy some currency, although these all violate Occam's Razor.[5] This is sourced to the opinion of one man, writing in a skepticl magazine. It is not authoritative, and does not speak for science. I tried to change it to be the opinion of Matt Ridley, but this also was reverted. This is not pseudoscience per se, but it is not properly attributed. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as your claim that saying "crop circles are of human origin" is pseudoscience, every crop circle with a known origin was made by humans. NO crop circle has been proven to be made by anything other than humans. No crop circle has been proven to be impossible for humans to make. There are some whose creation cannot be fully explained, but to say this means it wasn't humans would actually be pseudoscience. It would be along the same lines as any evolution denier using inability to explain the development of a particular organ as proof evolution didn't cause it. And so we are left with this: Every crop circle with a confirmed cause has had that cause be humans, no crop circles have been confirmed to be caused by anything else. Some crop circles have no confirmed cause. Of the crop circles studied scientifically (Note: Witness statements alone don't constitute scientific evidence, nor do video tapes with funny lights) those confirmed to be man-made are the vast majority. Someguy1221 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


You are quite right about all of these things, 100%. That doesn't mean that is is any less pseudoscience to state categorically -as the meaning of this sentence does- that there is evidence that all crop circles are of human origin. I say "state categorically," because such a heavy implication as "the evidence that crop circles are of human origin", is equal to stating "the evidence that all crop circles are of human origin." We don't have such evidence. Ergo, we can't state it as if we do. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I shall leave the tags there, as I don't wish to restart an edit war, and I'm sure someone with more time than I have might find a suitable citation. In any event, I will summon a common argument of inductive logic. I have seen many crows, and every one of them was black. If I observe this all over the world, I can state confidently that every crow is black. I have not, however, seen every crow there is (alternatively, many crows that I have seen were too far away for me to tell what color they were). This fact does not constitute reasonable doubt that all crows are black, it only means I tested a sample rather than the whole. Without any evidence, a hypothesis is still a hypothesis, and with no conflicting evidence, the fact that all of the many many crop circles with determined origin are man-made is sufficient to state that evidence indicates all crop circles are man-made. Someguy1221 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You might be able to state that the statistical evidence points to all crop circles being man made. That is fine, if such evidence exists. What is not fine, is stating that "All crows are black," period. You are making my argument for me, yet you still seem to think it is OK to make a pseudoscientific (and POV) statement. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well right here we get into pedantics. Can statistical evidence equal fact? In probability statistics there is a concept of "the meaning of never." It states that if the probability of an event occuring is sufficiently low, you may state as fact that it won't ever happen. There is obviously an inverse concept of "always." So if I've gathered enough evidence, YES, I can say that "All crows are black." Although as I'm typing this I am finding myself agreeing that the cites should be there, but I'm still sure one of our more diligent editors can find it easily enough. Someguy1221 05:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Although that's all irrelevent because what the article actually says is "evidence that crop circles are of human origin." Someguy1221 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this sentence also, and I thought it wasn't right. I though so for nearly the same reasons as Martin. Perhaps the problem here is that it isn't really as sure to say that all crop circles are created by humans as it would be to go all over the world and look at crows, and then to come back and say that There are no white crows. I think so because it is more like going all over the world and seeing no white crows, but also collecting a lot of stories which say that other people have seen white crows. It is like saying there is no Sasquatch: there might be, but no one has ever brought one home. So we can't just say it like we know it for an absolute fact to be true, don't you think? And has anyone gone over all the paranormal ideas and seen that all of them are really more complex than thinking that humans did some of those patterns? It seems like we have the same problem with this, because we can't know for sure. Myriam Tobias 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Although that's all irrelevent" It isn't the words. It's like I said, the way it says it actually means "The evidence that all crop circles are made by humans." But we only have an unknown amount of statistical evidence, plus the argument of Occam's Razor, to say that they all are.
All I tried to do was to modify the sentence to say exactly what we know. Also, I wanted it to sound NPOV. I don't think that this is really such a big deal. I just want to get it right, but people seem to want to make a really big statement- to make a point. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crop damage

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)

this depends on the growth stage of the plant and also the amount of visitors a formation gets.. if the crop i knocked over while it is still growing it will try and upright itself over time (this is called phototropism) and is actual the reason why you get the so called 'magic bends' at the nodes. the crop can most of the time be harvested with success if the blades of the combine are lowered even if the formation went down in ripe crop, however if a formation has a lot of visitors the crop will be lost due to heavy damage. early in the season barley is found to be very springy (even popping back up just after it has been stomped) and a can be seen to be well into recovery the morning after a formation has gone down giving the formation a soft pillow like lay. --Mark Barnes 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
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 (ISBN 0954805429) --Mark Barnes 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent studies have suggested that the only damage to the crops (namely rape), is that the actual crystalline structure of the rape has been changed through some medium or other. James Random 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


OK city boys and girls. Have you ever tried harvesting crops that have been matter together in a spiral pattern by a guy with a roller. The outer edges might rise if they haven't been too badly battered, but the centers are a different matter because they are overlaid with each other. Also, if your circle has expulsion cavities in the nodes, the stalks can be too badly damaged to be any good.

Of course, when you have 200 journalists and hippies walking over it too, you're going to loose some harvest.

perfectblue 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Energy

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)

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)

[edit] BLT helicopter incident

I've seen several documentaries etc that include an incident in which MIT students working with the BLT institute were doing a helicopter survey of a crop circle was part of a TV documentary, when their engine lost power and only just managed to avoid hitting the ground. I know that the incident is real, but I don't have a WP:RS for it that doesn't come from Discovery channel or a "most haunted" type show.

Anybody know where we might find a strong reference to this incident.

perfectblue 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If true, what link does this have to crop circles? — BillC talk 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/o/Talk%7ECrop_circle_2c7c.html"