Talk:Cattle mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cattle mutilation article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents

[edit] Discussion Archive

[edit] Mission Statement and Parameters

A draft Mission statement and page paramaters, editors are invited to submit their own, but are asked to ADD a new draft rather than MODIFY the preious statements.

Mission Statement

[edit] Development Sandbox

To avoid the inevitable edit war, it has been suggested that significant new sections or modifications be drafted, edited and discussed here, rather than on the live site.

Sandbox

This will hopefully avoid a wiki damaging faceoff. Please use it.

I've got a reference to an Argentine case (actually if you look for it you'd find a lot more since it was very talked about), http://www.clarin.com/diario/2002/06/24/s-406851.htm but I don't know how to insert it, and I think it's intersting. This case was very talked about for a few months, the FBI came in and no one ever talked about it again. It's a real mystery so I wanted to put it in some way in the article. 200.114.186.139 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to being regarded as an "inevitable edit war". I have been discussing these points thourally and being civil throughout, and leaving contentious points on the article until consensus is built. Please remember to assume good faith. Jefffire 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You are not an edit war, edit wars require more than one person. This is as much to do with me disagreeing with you as you disagreeing with me.
perfectblue 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was not about to, nor will I ever, edit war with you. Jefffire 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And a Sandbox makes it even less likely.
perfectblue 17:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't use sandboxes. They cause more trouble than they are worth. Jefffire 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm using one. It's better that you see it before it's published and comment then, than wait till I put it on the live site and decide that it's not up to speck. This is supposed to be a colabrative effort. Right now we seem to be running around after each other re-writting the bits that we don't like. There's very little colaboration here.
perfectblue 10:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work Done

  • Added new section on horse ripping (30th August 2006)
  • Added new subsection differentiating between cattle mutilations and horse ripping (30th August 2006)
  • Re-worked the section on common critisms of the natural causes principle for cattle mutillations in order to give it more weight (30th August 2006)
  • Added small passage on muti killings under the heading of human mutilations (31st August 2006)
  • split deviants and cult activity into two seperate sections and expended both (31st August 2006)
  • Removed the 10,000 (1990s?) mutilations figure from a paranormal website and replaced it with an perfectblue 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)8,000 (1979) mutilation figure from the FBI feild office in Albuquerque, to the director of the FBI (05th September 2006)
    The removed paragraph reads "What is known is that there have been over 10,000 reported [1] incidents since the Pueblo Chieftain first published the story of Lady in 1967."
  • Re written Cult section based on sandbox content (13th of September 2006).

[edit] Work to be Done

  • Find solid citations for the Government experimentation hypothesis
  • Remove Weasle Words
  • Balance out the For-Against levels on each hypothesis
  • Split-up or otherwise trim Black helicopters

perfectblue 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Removal of irrelevent or OR material
  • Neutral treatment of cults hypothesis
  • Attribute claims correctly
  • Find reliable source for claims, else
    • Remove claims not reliably souced

Jefffire 11:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One thing at a time.....

[edit] Invite

Go to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers for more information. Martial Law 00:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Cults

I have replaced the cult section on the live site with the version that has been in development in the sandbox since Sunday the 10th of September.

Users were earlier made aware of the existance of this draft in order to miaintain the community spirit of Wikipedia, but no coments, critisisms or requests for change were made. From this it can be presumed that the draft was satisfactory so it has been posted.

perfectblue 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateral action

As per my earlier comments, unilateral action to delete significantly sized sections of the page should be avoided and changes of magnitude should be discussed first.

If large sections are removed, users should take care to edit the remaining sections so that they make sence without the missing sections. This includes the deletion of superflious headings, and the alteration of passages that reference deleted sections.

perfectblue 13:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Word Usage

What would constitute an exceptable way to say:-

"This is what people believe about X, but it may be based on myth and perception rather than fact"

Without prejudicing or pre judging what it is that the people believe?

perfectblue 10:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Undue Weight

Please explain? What are you applying this too?

Be specific. Which paragraphs, which topics, which direction is the undue weight in?

You are being so obtuse that your comment is meaningless.

perfectblue 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, the section is much too large compared to it's importance. Since the bulk is composed of Original Research, simply removing that will shorten the section to acceptable lengths. Jefffire 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said before WHICH TOPIC?
Until told otherwise, I will presume that you are talking about the cults section (You have refused two or three times to say what you are refering to, so I have no choice but to presume). Well, let me explain this. WP:OR only applies to Wiki editors like you and I. If somebody else (for example Donovan) wrote it, then it is not OR, it is WP:V material. I have included the links and cites. If there isn't a cite in a specific paragraph or sentence, it might be best if you simply work on the basis that the information is from the cite on the last paragraph or from the sources section. Citing every five minutes is unneisary and messy particularly as most of the information comes from the same one or two sources. This page has more cites per paragraph than is required as it is. Sometimes the same page of the same document is being cited half a dozen times.
"shorten the section to acceptable lengths" EEEHEEEH WRONG ANSWER. I plan to expand several of the other sections to match (which I can't do if I have to keep going back to cults time and time again), this is a much better way of re-weighing the site. Better yet, why don't YOU expand the other sections to match.
"the section is much too large compared to it's importance" Cults is the second most important section after natural causes. While cults might not figure big in Britain, they still create panic in America. Aliens might make the hardbacks, but cults make the tabloids and the talk radio shows.

perfectblue 06:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to verify that cults are an important hypothesis. Since the section lacks reliable soucing this would suggest that it is not considered to be a serious suggestion at all. According to Wikipedia policy, it should be easy to find reliable souces if the topic is notable. An inability to find such sources suggests that it is not notable. Jefffire 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not in Britain, but in the US yes. Check Amazon, and local talk radio stations whenever there is a mutilaiton in the area.
You are also missing the point. This section is not unduely heavy, the other sections are unduely light. EXPAND THEM DON'T CONTRACT THIS.
I'm mostly removing unverified material and non-neutral material. Undue weight is actually a minor concern of mine at the moment, that's why there is only an OR and POV tag. Jefffire 11:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't Remove, TAG. That's why we have them.
Deleting means that it takes me twice as long to correct things. I not only have to reword or cite, but I also have go back through the history and find the material that I needs to be change.
perfectblue 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am following Wikipedia policy. If you cannot verify it, it must be removed. Jefffire 12:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. User:Jimbo Wales

1) Context. His ire was directed primarily towards biographic information and controversial topics. Citation is still the prefered method in this case because it is a difference of opinion over an insignificant topic. This why citation tags exist. For small issues like you being unhappy with the source of a paragraph. TAG, do not delete. Else you are overstepping your bounds.
2) I have sourced pretty much everything. Where there isn't a citation, it is usually to avoid over citation. In some cases I have cited the same page of the same document 10+ times. This is messy and unprofessional. Read the list of sources at the bottom of the page and the citations for the above paragraph. They contain pretty much everythign that you need to know.
Presume good faith. Question, then act. Unilateralism is not welcome or warrented.
perfectblue 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you take that last line to heart. It appears to me that you are making systematic misunderstanding and/or rejection of a number of key Wikipedia policies. Since you are not willing to listen to my corrections, I will be forced to pursue some form of dispute resolution. The first stage would probaby be an RfC. It is very regretable that you were not willing to listen to my advice. Jefffire 14:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I listened, and I changed the page about 100 times to try to accomedate you. I've cited everything that you've asked for and requested that you be more specific about what you don't like about 100 times. I don't think that anybody will find that I haven't listened or acted on what you've said. It's all down there in the logs. You've deleted and I've added the citations just as you have asked.
However, they might be interested to know that I put up a sandbox section where you could comment and request citations as much as you wanted before the section went live, and you said nothing until after I'd put the section up. You had a chance to make any changes or request any clarification that you wanted in that time, but you chose not to.
I notice that you said RfC not WP:RfC, leaving me to search to find out exactly what yo are talking about. And that you never specify which clauses of WP:V WP:RS and WP:OR you are refering to when you cite them, or which paragraphs you are refering to when you do.
Some would say that this was you attempting to brow beat the newbie with rules and regulations. Which won't go down well. Especially as the page logs clearly show that I've made every correction that you've requested and cited every source that you've asked for.
I've done my part in the dispute resolution proccess.
perfectblue 15:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No sir, the logs clearly show a consistant PoV pushing and disregard for policies on your your part, as well as incivility and rudeness. If you were unfamilure with the policies, it would have been wise to have respected the opinions of an editor who was long-in-the-tooth when it came to beurocracy and policy. Instead you chose to be confrontational and ignore policy and advice when it suited you. What I see is a possessiveness towards this article, which is not conductive to a collaborative project. Please think about this so we can avoid formal dispute resolution. Jefffire 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refraim form calling me sir.
I am capable of reading WP policy. I am obviously interpriting it differently. You are applying proof of science interpritation to article about beliefs which may not be scientific in nature (or even based on science at all). In this instance WP policy is clear in that you have to prove the existance of the belief, and not the factual correctness of the belief.
Things would look a lot better if you actually said what you thought was POV/OR/etc. Instead you apply tags to whole sections and delete five or six paragraphs at a time without dicussion.
perfectblue 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is not at all how I am applying the policies. I asked that opinions be worded as opinions and verified as opinions, and that anything presented as a fact be verified from a reliable source. I am in no way contesting the existance of the beliefs, and I never have. Areas which were clearly OR were the section on consistancy, whilst the general debunking approach to the hypothesis in general is completley PoV. Jefffire 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to PoV and OR concerns about the "consistancy" section: why would a cult have to be performing in a ritual? Many cults are just into thrill killings, which would explain exactly why there is no consistancy. Jefffire 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on cults and animal killings. 'Real' cults don't comit thrill kills, and they look down on people who do. They feel that it detracts from the purpose/purity of act. Copycat teens may do this, but they are just people playing at being cultist for rebelion etc.

There is a very short and simple explanation | here.

perfectblue 06:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, that's an opinion piece. It is not our place to judge what a cult would or would not do. Jefffire 07:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't putting it forward as a WP:RS source for the article, I was putting it forward as an example for you to read to exaplain things so that I didn't have to type it out again in my own words.
We don't need to judge what cults do and do not do. Simply pick up a book on cults or ritual sacrifice in your local library or ocult book store, and anthrapologists etc, will tell you what they do and do not do. And what they have and have not done for the last couple of thousand years.
Again, you're looking at this from a very British perspective. Not all countries have a couple of druids chanting at sunrise, and ignore them. Cults are a big topic in the US because of the religous right and the tendency towards social panics. The FBI also regularly profiles them and their activities in case they turn out to be of the murderous type. As do phychologists, phyciartists, and other groups. Their behaviour is well known and well documented. Thrill kills are down to teenagers and copycats, Ritual is one one of the things that seperates a group of kids who slash cats and wear black lipstick from a real cult.
No ritual in the killing, then it's not a cult that did it. It's kids playing at it.
If you are that concerned, find some excerts to add to the page to cover this angle. Tell the other side of the story.
perfectblue 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
One key point. If it's a thrill kill, it's already been covered by the section on deviants. Mentioning them again in cults is unnessisary. I think that we should limit cult actitivy to ritual activities to distinguish between real cults and kids and weirdo's playing around.
You can add more about thrill kills in the deviant sectionif you like, but I don't have the energy.
perfectblue 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Please verify your belief that any cult killing must be consistant from a reliable source, otherwise the section should be removed as incorrect. Jefffire 11:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "unable to provide natural explanations"

"Scientists preforming the necropsies were also unable to provide natural explanations"

Cattle4.pdf [2] is given as a source for that claim. But when I read that PDF, I can't find anything resembling that. The only scientists mentioned there who have expertise on the subject and who actually say anything (except empty phrases) are Richard Prine, who said

"...he had examined six carcasses and in his opinion predators were responsible for all six",

and Claire Hibbs, who said

"the mutilations fell into three categories: animals killed and mutilated by predators and scavengers, animals mutilated after death by "sharp instruments", and animals mutilated by pranksters".

What gives? --Hob Gadling 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Page 3, lines 5 to 6 (Page 3 of 3 of an official report on a mutilated cow in New Mexico). Here is the exact phrase used on the report. "No explanation for this condition is available at the present time."

perfectblue 14:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The sentence refers to "The bull's liver contained no copper, and 4 times the [unreadable] phosphorus, zinc, and potassium". But the bull's liver problems, which may come from the ingredients of its food, are rather unrelated to the mutilations, right? This sounds like "let's gather all the data we can find and blame all the unusual facts on the aliens!"
So, should not Prine's sentence be quoted rather than some unrelated sentence quoted out of context? I think you are trying to color the article in your POV. --Hob Gadling 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In reality, all this sentence means is that the liver should not be like that, and they couldn't prove why it was like it using anything that they would expect. It could be food, it could be desease, it could be deliberate poisoning by an angry neighbor, but whatever it was, they couldn't prove it using the results that they had.
This is really just a sumary of something explained earlier on in the page.
I will reword.

perfectblue 16:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"the bull's liver problems, which may come from the ingredients of its food, are rather unrelated to the mutilations, right?"
I wasn't proven that it was, it wasn't proven that it wasn't. All that was proven was that it was an anomolie with no obvious explanation. It wasn't even the weirdest thing in that particular case. The blood is probably more significant though. If it had been a modern lab, they might well have found conclusive evidence of anti coagulants, which would have proven beyond any dout that that particular mutilation was man made. Of course, it might equally have shown that the cow had contracted a rare illness and was chewed on by buzzards. Whatever caused them, it's still worth noting as they were probably a factor/result of what happened.

perfectblue 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As some who has actual lab experience, I can tell you that there is no indication from the report that this contributed to the animals death. Jefffire 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does anybody claim that this is related to the animal's death?
perfectblue 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You do, in the above paragraph. Jefffire 11:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote me. I said that nothing was proven either way.
perfectblue 11:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You said "...they were probably a factor/result..." Jefffire 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the full sentence was "it's still worth noting as they were probably a factor/result of what happened". This doesn't mean that they were the cause of death. Only that they were caused by whatever process the cow went through. They could be the result of a natural proccess that occoured after death, or a result of whatever killed the cow.
Presuming that they are accurate, can you explain what could have caused these lab results? (bare in mind the date, so no modern medicine or dietry supliments etc that weren't around then)
perfectblue 15:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Local vegatative variation would be a first guess. Jefffire 15:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I'm filing a request for comment to get more opinions on the subject, appropriate weighting, original research and general interpratation of Wikipedia policy. Jefffire 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hiya guys! (Is it alright if I say "guys"? It's just the word I use in plural address, but if someone objects to it, suggest a new word and I'll use that instead.) Seems you've got quite a pickle on your hands. Now, I'm not anybody in particular, and I don't know the first thing about cattle mutilation, nor do I have anything even approaching an opinion on it ... so I'd like to give what I think is an unbiased opinion on your situation here. Take it or leave it as you'd like.

perfectblue: It seems to me that Jefffire is trying to make two points: 1) That the extent of the information on "cults" as relate to cattle mutilation is disproportionate to its impact on the topic; and 2) Citations are being improperly used to support claims that they don't really support.

Your sources do, in fact, substantiate the fact that there is a segment of the population which believes in the 'cult hypothesis'. What is not so clear is just how much support the hypothesis actually has. The argument Jefffire seems to making is that the information you have posted is disproportionate not to the rest of the article, but to the actual significance of the topic. In most cases, for example, are generally not considered notable enough for inclusion unless there is something extraordinary or particularly important about them.

Furthermore, what the sources on the cult hypothesis substantiate is the fact that some people believe there is a cult description; what they do not seem to do is actually offer any evidence to substantiate the hypothesis itself. In other words: what's in question is people who believe the hypothesis; the hypothesis itself is irrelevant.

In addition, there is a general quality of sources that is desirable; generally sources should be reliable, ordinarily from someone who can be conidered an authority on the subject. Personal websites, like geocities, are pretty much out.

Original Research rules mean that each source has to be taken on its own. If Source A says that cow M had wounds type X, and Source B says wounds type X are typically used by cult Q, you can't put two and two together and say cult Q may have inflicted wounds of type X on cow M.

Jefffire: I don't think perfectblue is intentionally pushing a POV so much as misunderstanding the issues at hand.

So, the two of you: I'm glad an RfC has come up for this. I understand your frustration, perfectblue, at the vagaries and complexities of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I hope the explanations I've given help you to understand the points Jefffire is making. I hope someone with some knowledge on the subject can along and work on the disputed section; I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid I'd make an awful mess of it. I hope it's clear, though, that work needs to be done. I'd recommend, both of you, that you wait to see the input of other people to resume work on the article.

Any questions or comments on what I've said, don't be afraid to let me know.

Peace - CheNuevara 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another RfC reply

Several points here:

  • The Oregon UFO Review gives a file not found error.
  • [3] returns an empty Google search.
Dubious references include:

The citation format within the article is very inconsistent and includes numerous broken link 06:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)perfectbluecitations. The National Institute for Discovery Science website is another dubious source, although on a different level from the ones above (many of which are self-described personal sites run by one or two enthusiasts). The organization appears to have ceased paranormal investigations two years ago under questionable circumstances and now welcomes testimonial submissions. They also state that they publish in peer reviewed journals - so I'd certainly accept anything they publish that way - but statements taken directly off their site look questionable.

On the whole this appears to have been a sincere effort and a lot of hard work done mostly by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia's mission and policies. An official FBI report is certainly an encyclopedic source, as are news reports by mainstream journalism sources. The problem is that all or nearly all of the analysis about paranormal explanations depends on unencyclopedic sources, which means the rest fails WP:NOR. There's also the undue weight problem: this article weighs heavily toward paranormal explanations. Regardless of whether an editor personally believes that or not, the responsibility of Wikipedia is to present both sides fairly. As I understand the shape of this argument (from readings outside this article), this has a substantial following among paranormal enthusiasts but little to no support among mainstream scientists. A reader should come away with that impression.

Worth checking out:

  • The Straight Dope[14]
Cheers for your imput, it is much appreciated. One of the problems that I'm having is that I was 'told' that I had to prove that 'people believed things' which is what those links are for. They were added to satisfy WP:V of concept, rather than factuality.
On your last sentence, the problem is that there are a lot of different groups out there who support 'unconventional' hypothesis, and only one group that supports the conventional 'natural causes' hypothesis. The latter of which is very simple to explain and to write about in a short easy sentence. I'd like to add material to it, but their agruments are so clear and consise that it's hard to add material.

perfectblue 06:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Durova 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Durova, your comments come at a good time and are of the constructive nature I feel everyone was hoping to see. Many thanks. I have often turned to the article myself intending to fix some of these issues and been overwhelmed by the tasks at hand and simply left them for the day. Since one user, perfectVlue, is the most interested in editing the article, I feel we can best be of service by doing exactly as you have done, listing specific issues and suggesting etter sources. I will try to do the same.
PerfectBlue's enthusiasm for the subject shouldn't be beaten down. Rather, we should encourage this editor to check out other articles on similarly contentious subjects that have been written more appropriately. one of the goals of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal is to help create a better body of articles on such sujects. We often come across articles like this that need extensive re-wriiting/editing and paring down. yes, this article isn't up to standard and needs help, but so do the articles on Roswell and other hotly contested subjects. Instead of turning to tit for tat critcisms and responses, I'd like to see us do more of what Durvoa has done. thanks for listending. Lisapollison 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Lisapollison -- my comments on the article were actually not in response to the RfC, but in response to perfectblue's own request to explain what she wasn't understanding about Jefffire's argument here. Like I said, I don't know anything about the topic; I was simply trying to explain Jefffire's arguments in a clear way so that perfectblue, who professed that she might be misunderstanding them, could get a second view of them. But I do like Durova's excellent review of the material itself. - CheNuevara 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I agree that part of Wikipedia's mission would include representing the pro-paranormal side on this page. One solution this editor might try is to rewrite some sections, using books from mainstream publishers as the sources. On the whole the mundane explanations deserve more space than they have and the paranormal side should be trimmed a bit. I'd suggest starting the cuts with non-cattle species. If there's enough overall material that might qualify for a separate page, but the title here does indicate a narrow subject. Regards, Durova 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"I'd suggest starting the cuts with non-cattle species."
This page automatically forwards from 'animal mutilation', and the only other page on wikipedia covering non cattle mutilations is Horse ripping which is generally related, but does not cover the paranormal. I felt that we needed to make clear that this was a wider phenomena, but that the other mutilatinos weren't big enough to warrent their own pages.

perfectblue 06:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't a wider phenomenon, it's just your opinion and that of an extreme minority that it is. Jefffire 07:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're are in error here. There have been hundreds of attacks on horses in the US that have mirrored attacks on cattle (same M/O same signs, same diputes) and what about the point pleasent animal mutilaitons, or the cult mutilations of horse in your own country?
Besides, this page covers 'the phenomena' of cattle mutilation, not the facts of mutilation. If people believe that that is goes wider, then we should discuss 'wider'.
What you say may be true from the perspective of your country, but wikipedia is international. If you want ot mention this you are most welcome to write a section about Britain and how the British perspective differs from the US perspective. I found a coupel of sources for the UK and where UK groups have inveestigated things tht I haven't put in to the page, if you want them.
perfectblue 08:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You aren't verifying any of this. Jefffire 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You aren't helping me to either. Please be more specific. I covered three topics above, are you talking about one or two or all of them?
Am I not verifying the 'facts' (for want of a better word) of the case, or the numbers involved, or the sources for this information? I want to being this page up to code as much as you do, but you really need to play a more constructive role. Rather than just deleting things and disputing them, why don't you try to find some information of your own?
I would be more than happy to look at any sources that you provide and to use them for the basis of this page. Simply find me some resources that meet your interpritation of WP:V and WP:RS and I will try to use them. I don't have access to cattle related vetinary library here (I'm not living in cattle country right now(, so online resources would be preferable.
Since you have worked with animals and select areas of vetinary science, I suggest that you look at the section governing 'natural causes'. There are no WP:V/WP:RS citations for the bulk of the pro-natural causes arguments. You have access to a wider range of vetinary materials than I do. Find some books or web pages (Message boards are generally off limits under wiki rules) to verify how animal undergoing natural causes and predation can end up like this.
perfectblue 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The FBI's investigation is sufficient for the bulk of the natural causes section as they are authoratative and reliable. I'll lay my cards on the table now and state that I think a lot of the information you have added is simply wrong, and that this is the reason why there are no reliable sources to cite. Rather than write original research, and then try and find cite to prove it, the correct procedure to to review the mainstream literature and write an article based on that. Jefffire 11:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're doing, you're being so general that it's useless BE SPECIFIC. Don't tell me that you thing that 'it' is wrong. Find one thing, be specific, then work from there. Name me one thing (like a specific paragraph) that you think that I made up, and then work on from that point.
Why don't you stop telling me to find 'main stream' litreature, and find some yourself. If you can find it, I'll use it. It's as simple as that (It is much easier to find a crackpots on the web and writing about what they think than to do OR, why would I bother?).
perfectblue 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the criticisms sections of cults is wrong, being based on specious arguements. There is no reason why a cult would have to be preforming "rituals" with the cattle. There is no evidence about the scale of the phenomenon to justify the coverage arguement, and the means section is making the mistake as the criticisms of the natural causes. Anyway, for now I think it would be best to consider the contributions made by others on the talk page. Jefffire 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the basic point. If it's not ritual, then its deviant activity, if it is ritual it's cult activity. Cult's don't preform thrill kills because if they do then they aren't cults, their copycats. Read up on cults. This is basic stuff.
You're also missing the point that this article isn't attempting to prove that the arguments are valid, only to point out that they exist. They might be based on speculation and lacking in merit, but they still exist.
You're still avoiding providing me with any sources that you conisder to be WP:V and WP:RS. Find me a couple of journal entries for and against an argument, and I will use them. It's all well and good you telling me to do X and Y, how about helping me to do it?

perfectblue 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"the means section is making the mistake as the criticisms of the natural causes", which is? you're being vague again.

perfectblue 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the arguements do exist, then verify that they do (ie. create a link to someone claiming that they do, or making them, in line with WP:RS) and word them as claims if they are claims. I don't think any one can help you find the references because I strongly suspect they do not exist. I think you are incorrect in your assertations here. Either find sources for these claim, or accept that they don't exist by Wikipedia standards (WP:V) and allow them to be removed. Jefffire 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're avoiding the question again. Pick a single named issue and stick to it. Don't give vague and nebulous critisisms. If you can't say anything that helps to ADVANCE the page, don't bother commenting.
Better yet, find the information yourself. Google, there are 64,800 google hits for "cattle mutilation" and 585 for "bovine excision". There are also 341 books at Amazon. A couple of them 'must' be WP:V and WP:RS. Just pick a couple that you think are up to scratch and I will use them.

perfectblue 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I think that your assertation that any cult killing must possess an element of ritual is incorrect. You say this is basic stuff, but do not provide a verification to prove it. I don't think you can ever find a verification for this statement, because I think it is wrong. The onus is upon you to prove otherwise. The implication you write in the article is that if some of the corpses are different then it means there can't have been cults. Even if an element of ritual is neccasery, you overlook the possibility of there being multiple different rituals, regional variation in ritual, post-ritual scavenging on the corpses and so on which would all create differences. This all illustrates why original research is prohibited, because of the very high probability of specious arguements, and incorrect information like those you have introduced. Jefffire 17:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you actually read the section? I cited a WP:RS/WP:V source form an authority on animal sacrifice in religious rites. That clears me of WP:OR. In your case, you need to find a WP:V/WP:RS source to say that there might be more than one cult, or regional variations else it is you who is adding WP:OR.
I have found no WP:V/WP:RS sources suggesting that there might be more than one cult involved so I can't put it on the page. This is a task for you.
perfectblue 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misinterprated me. Firstly, you are also citeing the authority in a specious and incorrect manner because you have not verified that any cult involvement would involve rituals. That is an assumption that you make, but I think it would be highly unlikely that the cult authority would say that any cattle mutilation would be present. It is also not accpetable to say that the possible existance of multiple cults has not been ruled out, that is OR.
Ideally, the majority or even entirity of the criticisms should be drawn from the FBI's investigation, as that appears to be the only authoratative investigation. Jefffire 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not going to mention multiple cults. I can't find a WP:V and WP:RS source for it and I'm not going to WP:OR it either. If you want it included, then you're going to have to ADD it yourself, and I have cited an authority in animal sacrifice who I think knows more about it than you do. If an expert says ritual then I'm going with that answer, not yours.
Secondly, please read up on cults and animal killings. Cults simply don't thrill kill. To a cult the death of an animal is a religious act, thrill killing would not only be pointless, but it might actually be whatever the cult equivelant of blasphamy is depending on the actual cult. The closet thing that you will find to a cult thrill kill is a copycat atack by kids playing at being a cult. Again, you may ADD this if you like. However, cults in general are well known and well profiled. The FBI have been profiling them for years as have historians and other groups. I will take their word over yours.
Thirdly, the ATF investigation was directly aimed at cults and was to the same federal standards so it is just as relevent. You cannot pick and choose simply because one report doens't agree with your personal views. I am including both sides, the pro and the anti.
perfectblue 07:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, base the criticisms section on the FBI investigation, it's really that simple. That way you avoid the specious arguements, allegations of OR and satisfy WP:V and WP:RS completely. Jefffire 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, NIDS, Larson, and Donovan in this section should be reduced to reflect their importance compared to the FBI, namely zero. Jefffire 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
perfectblue, I am losing patience with you AND with Jefffire. Neither of you seem interested in genuinely repairing this article and only in arguing with eachother. No, this article should not be about Horse Ripping. We have an article ON Horse ripping already. if you want to link to that Nutter who claims Horse ripping is all about Mars worship and always happens on tuesdays, well then do it there. Personally, I feel that it would be out place there since Horse ripping as a sexually motivated crime has been well documented. I'd rather see you cut the Horse material out and create a new artcle called Horse mutilation to contain the allegations and similarities you claim exist. That way Horse ripping and Horse mutilation stay separate from one another. You can then make mention of the Horse material briefly and link to it. But for pity's sake - stop arguing with eachother. perfectblue, since you are the editor doing the majority of the work - just cease replying to Jefffire HERE but read what he/she has to say and fix what you feel neweds fixing. I feel you are letting yourself spin your wheels too much on this page. You have demonstarted that you can and will respond to constructive criticisms and that's what you should do. This article is in too much need of repair for us to spare time here snarling at eachother. just my opinion. Lisapollison 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Lisapollison, Horse ripping is gone, it really was only in there for two reasons 1) the suspected link between cattle mutilations and cults, 2) because the page is a an auto-forward from Animal mutilation. Jefffire If I remove the NIDS etc, then this article will be very one sided. I'm representing BOTH sides of the argument, whether you like it or not. Plus cults were investigated by the ATF, which gives them all the wight needed for inclusion.
perfectblue 10:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dollar Value

What is $1 Million 1979 dollars in today's dollars?

perfectblue 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that relevant for this article? --Hob Gadling 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what one government offical estimated that cattle mutilations had cost by 1979. That's a handful of stud bulls in today's money, was a lot more in those days. It'd be an idea to know exactly haw much more.
perfectblue 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS and Undue Weight

Okay, I've been looking through the sources in the cult section a little bit. Unfortunately, perfectblue, I don't really see how the prove what you're asserting.

Yes, there are sources that support the claim that a segment of the population blames cattle mutilations on Satanic cults (and aliens, and the government, and ...), but many of these sources actually reproach these claims. The source quoted for the claim that the organs were removed states that "the belief that aliens or Satanists have been killing and mutilating thousands of animals is supported by little more than an argument to ignorance".

Additionally, the sentence "there are numerous cases in which smaller animals have been elaborately or ritually mutilated by suspected cult members" is supported by these four sources, two of which are not particularly reliable and none of which actually give any evidence that these acts were not committed by a lone individual. Without a reasonable claim of multiple perpetrators, no reasonable claim of cult activity can be made.

I've managed to procure a text-only copy of Mystery Stalks the Prairie, which can downloaded rom the NIDS website. I have to admit I'm underwhelmed; Donavan and Wolverton don't actually, er, support a single thing they claim. No references to standing works, no transcripts of interviews, no copies of police reports, nothing. In particular, one segment called upon in the article says:

The word "YHWH" on the rock opposite the one labled "ISIS" is believed to be a forbidden pronunciation of the word God. The numbers "5-15-29" is numerology for evil and Satan. A five pointed star and a symbol similar to the Nazi swastika were found on some of the stones in the circle. The star, called a pentagram, is a symbol of the Devil, and the swastika is a symbol of a cult. Two stones bore the name "Jesus". Another one was labeled "Ariel", which is one of the five satellites of the planet Uranus, which some believe has an evil influence.

In addition to their misunderstanding of the script "YHWH" and their characterisation of Hinduism and Buddhism as "a cult", Donavan and Wolverton fail to back up the claim that "5-15-29" has any meaning at all (although to be fair, any number can mean evil or Satan in numerology) and fail to explain why any member of an actual cult would leave references to Judaism, Christianity, anti-Christian Satanism, the Egyptian Pantheon, and Hinduism or Buddhism all in the same place. They coast right over the obvious explanation: someone who wanted to freak people out scrawled a bunch of meaningless stuff on a bunch of rocks. They call upon the almighty "some people believe" as having actual weight; who actually believes these things, and if they have any real connection to any actual religious or quasi-religious practice of any actual group, is left entirely to the reader's imagination.

I have no reason to believe that exploration of further sources (I've listed every source I looked at here) would uncover anything more reliable. If I've missed something groundbreaking, please let me know. But from where I see it, what these sources prove is the following: the 'cult hypothesis' is held by a fringe element with no real support or basis for their beliefs that stands up to rudimentary scrutiny. If no sources to the contrary can be produced, it needs to be treated as such. If there are sources that provide credence or even relevance to the 'cult hypothesis', then please produce them.

That's it for now. - CheNuevara 19:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is more like it. Now we're geting somewhere.
"what these sources prove is the following: the 'cult hypothesis' is held by a fringe element with no real support or basis for their beliefs that stands up to rudimentary scrutiny."
I originally started out along this angle, but I ran into a WP:POV wall and was told to make it neutral, and to take down some of the material that pointed towards the cult idea being based on nothing. So I went back to basics and concluded that belief is cumalative rather than absolute. Meaning that people add 1 and 1 and make 100 (they see conections where their are none). However, they still believe, which is why I think that we need to include this hypothesis.
It was considered important enough for the ATF to investigate, and there were several potentially nasty panics about it during the 1970s-80s. Making it a real social phenomena. Even if it is not a real physical phenomena, which we really should show.
For example, Donovan's book was 50 percent supposition and 50 percent creative writting, but she still wrote it and people still brought it, and the tabloids are still making the links today. It's a fringe within a fringe, but if you take it away you're basicly stuck with aliens and secret government experiments V natural causes, which isn't really a fair fight and makes the page look extremely bias away from an 'unconventional' explanation (no idea other than natural causes holds and 'real' weight, but Wikipedia can't take sides like that).
If you can suggest a NPOV to say that people's beliefs outweigh the reality, then I'm all ears. I was accused of WP:OR when I tried that.
perfectblue 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded to a more chronological approach to make clearer that it is belief based without so much WP:POV. Please check for WP:OR in the wording.
perfectblue 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding OR

Is it permisable to say that two phenomena happened simultaniously or that they grew in prominance togther as part of a general social trend, without having a WP:V source that specifically links the two?

Is it WP:OR to say that public interest in alien cattle mutilations grew at the same time that interest in crop circles grew, or that it grew as public interest in science fiction grew, without having to have a WP:V source that specifically mentions both crop circles and alien cattle mutilation growing together, or alien cattle mutilaitons and the release of Star Wars (for example)?

Also, is it WP:OR to take two or more seperate sources and to write a list of contrasting points (things that they disagree on)?

perfectblue 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing to remember is that you can't draw any conclusions. So you can, in theory, say that interest in cattle mutilation and crop circles grew roughly cotemporally, but you can't imply that they were part of a general related trend unless someone else has already drawn that conclusion. So it doesn't do much good to talk about it as anything more than a mention. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough, you could find a source that does talk about the two together.
As far as comparing two sources, sort of. You can say "some believe xyz (source 1), while others believe qyz but not x (source 2)". But make sure you're talking about what the sources discuss, and not about the sources themselves. That is, the sources probably don't merit an explicit mention. - CheNuevara 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, I have to watch my wording.
perfectblue 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC follow-up

I've gone over the text again (in somewhat less detail than the original reading) and there remain some significant problems.

  • Needs proofreading/copyediting - I fixed one particularly bad example. It concluded that, with a few unexplainable exceptions, mutilations the mutilaitons that it had investigated were the result of animals dieing through conventional means and experiencing natural predation or other documented phenomena, .
  • Serious POV problems - the history section near the start of the article states: By the mid 1970s, the cattle mutilation phenomena had spread to 15 states, from Montana and South Dakota in the north, to New Mexico and Texas in the south. The matter became so serious that in 1975 Democratic senator Floyd K. Haskell contacted the FBI asking for help. This wording only makes sense if the reader presumes that something other than normal decomposition has taken place.
  • Needs consistent citations - I haven't checked thoroughly here, but I still see a mixture of footnotes and direct web links in the text. If editors are going to footnote then every citation should be a footnote and it ought to include an access date so that readers can check the Internet wayback machine in case the site changes.

Overall, in terms of the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV, this remains far from a neutral article. The tone suggests the very existence of an FBI investigation legitimizes the purported phenomenon. I see no reason to suppose this was necessarily the case: the report itself leans toward natural causes and Senator Haskell might have requested the FBI investigation for the purpose of quelling fears and appeasing voters. Occam's razor would favor natural decomposition, in which case these "mutilations" did not originate in the 1960s but have been occurring for millions of years. Durova 13:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Human mutilaitons are included 1) because they were here when I started (another user added the claim, I expanded on it) 2) same signs and controversy as cattle mutilation 3) There was a federal investigation that attempted to find out if one was a warm up for the other.
I could add a new page for them, and I will if other users agree that it won't be posted for deletion or merging back with cattle mutilation.
POV is being dealt with
perfectblue 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"Occam's razor would favor natural decomposition". I'm attempting to cover both sides of each argument, regardless of whether or not I personally believe them to have any merit. This means that I put up text for and against every hypothesis. Unfortunately, thing seem to have become hung up on the cults section which has taken an inordinate amount of my time, and prevented me from working on the other sections.
perfectblue 14:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now the text cites no reference that associates human mutilation with cattle mutilation. So regardless of who created the section, in the current version it amounts to unsourced OR. A branching article might be one solution. You might draft an article in the sandbox and ask the page's other editors to comment before adding it to Wikipedia's main space.

I realize it takes a lot of work to improve an article and everything won't fix instantly. Best wishes and keep improving. Regards, Durova 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, the links come from cult-cattle and cattle-UFO hypothesise, rather than cattle-human links, but the ATF based theri investigation on the claim that cattle mutilations were a warm up for human mutilaitons, and the FBI links included a bit about public and official fears that the two might be linked. Of course, every link is based on suposition or unproven claims (I can WP:V that they exist, but the sources probalby wouldn't get past Jefffire on WP:RS). I think that this information should be included, but I doubt that I could get a page past a wiki deletion tag. At best they would probably merge back. I'll look at options for shrinking or WP:V/WP:RS ing.
perfectblue 08:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on reliable sources

I am becoming quite concerned about the amount of text which is being given to sources which do not appear authoritative, specificaly to wit, NIDS, John Lear, Onet, and Donovan. Whilst it is perfectly acceptable for brief mentions of what such groups/persons believe, they are recieving weighting in some cases on a par with the FBI's official investigation. In particular I think NIDS are being give a completely inordinate level of weighting in this article. I can't find them mentioned in anything except extreme fringe sites and this article. I would expect an organisation being used heavily in an article to at least have some awards to prove it's merit, ala Talk.origin archive, but it does not have any. I make the recommendation that the weighting of this group be much reduced in the article. Jefffire 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lear is mentioned only twice. Donovan has 12 lines devoted to her, and Onet is HIGHLY QUALIFIED. They are there to counterbalance the FBI and to show that there are multiple views.
Remove them, and you've removed 90 percent of the opposition to natural causes. Which would make this article heavily bias and unfit for the purpose. Find an alternative to them, or accept them.
perfectblue 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No. If there are no reliable sources criticising natural causes then Wikipedia has to reflect that. It is not our mandate to "teach the controvery". See the evolution article for instance. Jefffire 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:V does specify that articles should reflect the actual shape of the debate. So if the reliable sources do stack up unevenly then articles ought to reflect a roughly proportionate space to the real world debate: things don't have to be 50-50. Especially, there's a clause that states how exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Durova 03:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
At present, there are no WP:V or WP:RS sources for most of the text that supports natural causes. The FBI document only says that natural causes are a likely answer, it does not expand sufficiently how, or include half of the informaion in the natural causes section. For example, where is the WP:V/WP:RS source to say that the skin splits on a decaying animal? or that predators scavange though areas where the skin is thinest? and there isn't a single citation from a qualified vet or a vetinary journal anywhere on this page except those against natural causes.
perfectblue 06:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"articles ought to reflect a roughly proportionate space to the real world debate" what I was clumsily trying to say was that I won't presume that anything is right or wrong, and that I will tell both sides of the story rather than just the pro or anti case. Natural causes is dispouted, and to exclude that dispute because it isn't always based on scientific reasoning would be wrong.
perfectblue 06:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Parhaps it would be wrong, but that is irrelevent. Wikipedia policy is quite explicate that we have to accept authority as it stands, and give weighted accordingly. Websites with flying triangles and UFO's on their front generally don't carry much weight, the FBI does. Right or wrong, that's the way it has to be. Jefffire 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're going about this slightly backwards, blue. The point isn't to find sources suporting the arguments. The point is to use the sources that exist, or, if no reliable sources exist, to leave it out. Notice that the term is reliable, not the best available. If the best sources available aren't reliable, then there are no reliable sources, and the information doesn't make the cut.

You can dispute what exactly constitutes a reliable source, but 'pedia policy is pretty clear on filing unreliable sources under "G". Wikipedia is not responsible for supporting claims that have no real weight. You're best off looking for secondary sources about the paranormal hypothesis -- that is, people who don't outright support the paranormal hypothesis but write about or report on it for some reason or another. That's honestly probably the only way you're going to find any appreciable amount of sources that hack WP:RS.

As for your question below, if it's never been made into a real argument, it shouldn't be made into an argument here. Wikipedia is never an original source. If it doesn't exist outside the 'pedia, it doesn't exist inside it either. - Che Nuevara 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the input
The problem is that I've already found the argument en-mass, but the above user 'doesn't like' the sources that I'm linking to in order to WP:V it. So far they have disputed every source that suggests that this might not be a natural phenomena, regardless of who it is or how qualified they are to cover the subject. Even award winning journalists and internationaly recognized animal doctors who have been innvestigating it for a decade aren't good enough.
I'm not so much trying to find sources to support an argument, but rather trying to find sources that the above user accepts as being WP:RS, so that I can get on with WP:Ving the argument that I already have. If I follow the above user's lead, this document would be based entierly on a rushed report that the FBI made over 20 years ago under political pressure.
It would also be nice if they actually contributed to the page, or even found some resources that I could use to contribute to it. So far they haven't added a single passage, not even in the areas that they believe in (I'm still waiting on that WP:RS source to demonstrate that predators attack the parts of the body that are apparently mutilated. A vetinary source would be nice. Preferable one with a DVM valid in the US or EU).
perfectblue 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that both sides oughtn't make concessions. I'm just saying that an FBI report carries an awful lot more weight than a hack book.
Part of the problem here is that, when a theory is largely not credible, skeptics tend not to write about it. People associated with NASA rarely comment on the claim that the moon landing was fake. Hacks do it quite regularly. Additionally, people who don't believe that the cattle were mutilated aren't likely to call it cattle mutilation, so searching for an anti-cattle mutilation article is sort of self-defeating.
I'll bet you could find a few books on the subject -- books even written in a neutral point of view -- if you did some library hunting. When I first got to this article, none of the sources I looked at really seemed to make the cut, including Donavan. If you tell me what you think your reliable sources are, I would be happy to take a look at them. - Che Nuevara 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have the opposite problem. There are too many books expressing too many points of view. Have you looked in you're local occult book store lately? There are pro-cult guys dissing UFOs, UFO guys dissing government conspiracies, natural causes guys dissing everybody else.

For example

All of which are written by award winning writers or journalists and so should be WP:RS and WP:V by most normal standards.

Then there is the problem of Dr. Onet. He's a vetinary microbiologist with over 10 years field experience in vetinary medicine and many years history of researching cattle mutilation. Using the Wiki standards, he's the picture of WP:RS, or W C Levengood who worked with the 'peir reviewed' BLT institue.

Every one of them is well known and experienced in their feild.

Donovan isn't there to prove the case, she is there to prove the belief in the phenomena. She's also an award winning journalist.

I've asked repeatedly for people to provide other sources that they are satisfied are WP:V and WP:RS so that I can stop this ridiculious situation and work from them. But the above user has not provided anything that they think is valid, not even a vetinary report in support of natural causes (I've asked three or four times for that one as there isn't any citation evidence from anybody qualified anywhere on this page). The FBI report contains only one partial lab report, is only valid for the 1970s, and only covers about 30 animals out of several hunder mutilated in the time that it was being written. It also contains no supporting evidence for many of the conclusions reached by the people cited in it. It also includes almost nothing about the prior ATF investigation (which found evidence of tranquilizers having been used on some mutilated animals). Frankly, if it were a wiki page, it would never pass WP:V or WP:RS itself.

perfectblue 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not understanding the point here. The point isn't whether the FBI report is convincing. The point isn't to prove or support one argument or the other. But the FBI report is the epitome of what the official explanation for the phenomenon is, and that's exactly what it's used for.
And yes, I have been in my recent occult section lately. And most of those books are written by, well, hacks. And none of them really agree with each other. It's not hundreds of people supporting one hypothesis; it's hundreds of people supporting hundreds of hypotheses, most of which are completely insignificant. I work in a college library, and I can promise you that the vast majority of those names never get anywhere near academic publishing.
Mute Evidence (not Mute Witness, which is a different book entirely) is a book in favor of the official explanation. Alien Harvest very clearly has nothing to do with cults. As far as I can tell, Unexplained has only very little to do with CM, and is in the business of disputing official claims, not supporting specific alternatives.
Your award-winners are all well and good, but this article doesn't need to document the fineries of the argument. The many and varied theories on this issue are not relevant to the 'pedia. Over the next couple of days I'm going to draw up a draft of what I think ought to be done.
On a side note, why are "cults" and "shell-shock" even in "conventional explanations"? I don't see why that is at all. They're alternative theories. - Che Nuevara 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A draft would be most welcome, I've been asking for similar things for a month or so, but nobody else seems willing to put the time in to do it. I seem to be doing everything myself, which was why I asked for help in the first place.
"it's hundreds of people supporting hundreds of hypotheses": I've chosen the four most promenant (government conspiracy, acts of man, aliens, and natural causes) and largely left it at that. I've left out all the fringe of a fringe stuff linking it to crop circles, pharmasutical companies, and insurance fraud.
"this article doesn't need to document the fineries of the argument.": I tried, but was accused of WP:OR and WP:POV, and got into an endless argument with jeffire over WP:RS, so I stopped and left it generic.
"why are cults and shell-shock even in conventional explanations": Ordinary people cutting up cows in the middle of the night. No ray guns, UFOs or rogue military units. Change it if you like. I didn't want to get into another argument over it so I left it as it was.
Could you please recomend some 'acceptable' sources. Otherwise we've reached the same impass as before.
perfectblue 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The FBI is an acceptable source, you should write the bulk of the article from their reports. Jefffire 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small issues - How Much evidence

How much citation evidence would be required for 'trivia' type arguments that were raised but not followed through in any way or claimed to be true, in order to avoid claims of WP:OR?

For example, mentioning that rancher's insurance policies don't usually cover cattle death by disease and other natural causes, or death as a reult of third part animal cruelty (perverts slicing up cows).

perfectblue 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If this point was mentioned in a newspaper report of an animal death it could be cited. Does that help? Itsmejudith 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been mentioned in sources that aren't 100 percent WP:RS, and I'm just sounding to see users are ok with it as it's an 'incidental detail'.
perfectblue 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly does "arent'y 100 percent WP:RS" mean? Are they, or aren't they? If not, then it should stay out. - Che Nuevara 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usable

Is the following link considered usable under WP:V and WP:RS for small unimportant items (quotes etc)?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo1/leardanw.htm

perfectblue 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Itsmejudith 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal standards?

I've just been to black helicopters, is it being held to a different standard because of its different subject matter, or has it simply been flying under the radar?

Will somebody please clarify or explain the situation to me. Either somebody is missleading me about Wiki standards, or is being very sloppy about enforcing them on other pages.

perfectblue 09:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to watchlist... Jefffire 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I asked for clarification. Not Wiki-jargon. You might be watching this as an example of good practice, don't presume that I know know otherwise.
perfectblue 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing it the black helicopters article is actually not bad. There are a few references missing, but there is no attempt to present opinion and speculation as fact. Kooks are mentioned, but they are given only passing mention and not large sections of text, and their "findings" are not presented as fact. Jefffire 10:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I trust that you will tag or delete anything that is improperly cited on that page, that you will be willing to look at the line between unsourced speculation and WP:OR.
perfectblue 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course. This article has far more serious problems with it at the moment, however. Jefffire 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly and bluntly, the state of black helicopters is completely irrelevant to the state of this article. Period. Yes, there are some articles that are better than others, but I can tell you without looking at the black helicopters article, this article is being worked on because it needs work. - Che Nuevara 15:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite me, I just need the ground rules. So far nobody's stepped forward and given me an example of good practice.
perfectblue 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't biting at you, blue. Being straightforward is not the same as biting. I wanted to very clearly state the answer to your question, rather than just redirecting you to pages like WP:POINT or somesuch. If you want examples of how to make a good articles, take a look around at some of the featured articles. That's why they're there :) - Che Nuevara 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good practice: DON'T cite nutter and kooks for factual information, their "research" and "findings" are all but worthless for wikipedia standards, being usable only to verify briefly than there are people who hold such beliefs. Do write articles based on the reliable sources, eg. the FBI. Don't write an article and then try to cite it. Do keep fringe section brief, if at all. Perhaps it's better to understand wikipedia guidelines before writing text that violates it. Jefffire 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good editing practices

Please please please please please, if you're making significant changes to the article, or if you're making changes to more than one section, make them all at once in one edit. Use an external text editor if you like -- something like NotePad or RoughDraft (which is what I use) is ideal for this use. The history page for this article is just frightening with so many consecutive edits; there's no reason for a single user to have consecutive edits in an article that multiple people are working on. Thanks. - Che Nuevara 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons Use

How can this be stated:"==Weapons Use== The ranchers, farmers who have been victimized by this phenomenon will buy and/or fix and oil their weapons, buy ammo, to drive off those responsible, and/or to shoot the "skeptic" who accused them of lying, etc." ? I was in S. New Mexico when I had heard that a farmer on the New Mexico/Colorado border had heard a high pitched, LOUD noise, seen his cattle acting weird, seen one DEAD, mutilated cow, saw another floating towards a UFO, so he took out his rifle, opened fire on the UFO, which then dropped the cow and flew off. I have met these people all over the U.S. They will shoot @ any intruders, be they human, or non-human. They'll even take their loaded weapons to the can, loo, john, crapper, etc. with them. The weapon may have been a Winchester or a 30-30. Out there, and in other places in the U.S., farmers and ranchers are heavily ARMED and will NOT hesitate to shoot. Imaging you are a rancher, who lost a $500,000 (U.S.) stud horse, or a farmer who lost a $400,000 (U.S.) prize bull to this phenomenon. I know of one personally who did, is armed, will kill the first "skeptic" who calls him a liar, implies he is some kind of idiot, drunk, etc. Do a Google Search:"Ranchers and Farmers shoot at UFOs that have mutilated livestock" should give more info about this matter.Martial Law 17:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

He certainly sounds like a drunken idiot, with his boomstick at the ready. I'm not really sure what your trying to contribute here. Jefffire 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
When a rancher and/or a farmer loses a valued animal to this, feels threatened, he/she will grab his/her weapon, and "lock and load" it, then wait for the intruders. In Texas, it is actually legal to kill intruders and tresspassers. Martial Law 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If "you" had seen a UFO, had your $500,000 stud racehorse killed and mutilated by ET, would you shoot at said UFO, alien ?
I believe the horse "Snippy" was a racehorse that was mutilated by aliens, I'm NOT sure @ this time. Martial Law 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking "how can we expand this page to say that farmers are buying guns to shoot at UFOs"?
I'm not going there, it's up to somebody else to say this.
perfectblue 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
One case, the Kelly Hopkinsville UFO Incident mentions farmers shooting at aliens, is mentioned here in Wikipedia. IF this is done by cultists, and a rancher, farmer catches them, he will shoot them, especially if this is going on in Texas, other states that permit people to shoot intruders, tresspassers. Martial Law 05:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One thing's missing (No sarcasm please)

One thing's missing here that I think should be addressed. The social/phychological reasons behind people believing that cattle mutilations are the fault of aliens, the government, made cult people etc. People started believing in them at a point of social upheavil in the US with the vietnam war and the fear of communism, and a lot of public uncertanty. I think that there should be a paragraph or two about this.

There are pleanty of people out there who are linking belief in UFOs and crop circles to social situations at the time is there anybody who has done the same with cattle mutilation?

Drop me a WP:V WP:RS citation or two and I will write it up.

Something akin to this http://www.arthuryoung.com/fear.html

perfectblue 08:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This question is interesting but as it relates to a wider range of paranormal phenomena, perhaps you should raise it first on the talk page of Wikipedia Project Paranormal. Itsmejudith 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Would there be any issues if I sumerised from another page or topic. EG, applying belief in UFOs, alien abductions or crop circles to this 'as a related topic'. As the belief has the same phychological sources?
perfectblue 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It's likely that this subject (in the wider sense) will be covered in another article, probably a psychology related one. To attempt to address it here in any kind of depth would be stretching the topic to breaking point. Jefffire 11:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jefffire - Che Nuevara 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a whole section on the subject, just three or four lines. For example

"Belief in cattle mutilatoin was strongest during period X when Americans were worried about Y, and and lessened when Z happened."

perfectblue 06:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] draft of 'cults' section

I've done a major snip job on the 'cults' section and reworded parts to conform to what I believe is justifiable given the sources provided. I'm posting it at /cultsdraft. Feel free to work on it, but please discuss changes here. I'm not putting your citations back in, blue, because they need to be fixed (tha is, ordered properly so as not to have duplicate numbers), but I will asterisk in a proper citation I've found for the Isis-mutilation bit in Donovan (who gets it a bit wrong, honestly). Notice what I've done to the Donovan handling -- I've taken her almost completely out. This is what I mean by she doesn't carry weight -- she doesn't carry weight.

Che Nuevara 21:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that Donovan was factually misleading, but I included her because she was both a source of belief and an expression of belief of links between cattle and cults.
Where I disagree with you is that you've cut out all of the bit about Isis being related to fertility, and the fact that her cult was conected to the cow. I feel that this is an important logical connection as it shows why people might believe that modern Issis followers would sacrefice cows. The text is also innacurate, the inscription wasn't found at a mutilation site, it was found at a seperate location in an area that had suffered from mutilations (removing the cop references, in my view, reduced legitimacy, I'd be happier if it was left in).
You've also cut out the reasons bewhind the ATF investigation starting and finishing, which I feel are important, particularly as there are referenced back to in several other places.
I'll do a second draft based on your draft, and leave the original intact.
I too have issues with the number and placement of the citations, but if I didn't cite everything individually before, it was deleted.
perfectblue 06:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a second draft after your draft (I've left the original intact as per your request), I've mostly added a few small details that I feel are relevant (like the Isis-fetrility-cow link, and the involvement of Wolverton) and reworded things slightly to fit them in. Nothing too drastic or controversial. If you're OK with this, then maybe we can add the citations back in. To be practical, I'd like to avoid the over citation that I was pushed into before.
Persoally, I don't think that the genital mutilation reference is really necessary, but I've left it in anyway.
If you have any issues with my new draft, please don't hesistate to discuss them. I'm open to any suggestions that you have.
perfectblue 07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV

I'd like to knock the POV thing on the head soon so that the tag at the top of the page can be downgraded. I've already changed the history section to use less direct langauge and removed most of the text about Larson as requested. If anybody else has any POV issues, could they please raise them here so that we can progress this page up a knotch.

In the interest of expediance, it would be helpful if people could individually identify offending sentences or paragraph rather than than just issuing a generic "Section X is POV", as that isn't particularly helpful.

perfectblue 07:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO UNILATERAL ACTION

Will users please refraim from en-mass unilateral deletions. This is a community effort. All significant changes should be discussed in advance unless an editor is deleting their own work or is working under a previously reached existing consensus.

This goes double for issues that are currently being resolved by other users. Given that Wiki guidlines clearly recomend that disputed sections be MOVED TO THE TALK SECTION or hidden, rather than deleted, enmass unilateral deletions can only be presumed malisious.

Users who delete content should also be particularly careful that the reminaing material makes sence and that they are not deleting content that is referenced elsewhere.

perfectblue 09:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already explained why the section needed to be cut down, you simply refused to listen. The section is stored safely in Wikipedia's server history, so bringing it to the talk page would be an exercise in redundancy. Jefffire 09:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Bringing it into the talk page makes other users aware that it has been deleted, and starts an discussion on how it should be changed. This is clearely stated as the preferable action in Wiki guidelines. Refusal to discuss smells bad. A consensus based multi lateral revision is already underway. Take part in it, or step back and let other users decide what should and shouldn't be included. NO UNILATERAL ACTION.
perfectblue 11:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask the other editors, rather than unilateraly reverting like that. For the consideration of the community I present my rationalised version of the cult section, here, contrasted with the current version. I think my version is free from the original research, pseudoscientific speculation, and PoV pushing present in the currect version. It also removes the undue weight concerns that dogged it before. Opinions? Jefffire 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I personally prefer Jefffire's revision. His is short, concise, and to the point. There's no need for the extra, unsourced material in the current revision. Perfectblue, if you want your material to stay, you need to find reliable sources for it so that it can be verified. Also, this article is about cattle mutilation, not about the hypothesis that it's caused by cults. There's no need for that section to be so lengthy. Srose (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Lacks any explanation of what what people believe that cults do, why they believe it, or why people dispute these beliefs. Too watered down. Does not demonstrate anything not already included in other sections.

perfectblue 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The point that I was trying to make was not that the section was good quality, but rather than there have been three sandbox drafts, and he has refused to contribute to any of them (see 11 September 2006). This is a comunity effort, and he needs to either participate in it or leave it to people who are willing to work together. Unilateral action is not welcome when other users are trying to co-develop.
"this article is about cattle mutilation, not about the hypothesis that it's caused by cults" Actually, it is about the phenomena of cattle mutilation (cattle mutilation itself is covered by three sections at the begining of the page). This means all of the significant hypothesis, including cults, aliens and predators.
"you need to find reliable sources for it so that it can be verified" If you want me to WP:V it, you need to say what you have an issue with. Most of it comes from one single source, an offical FBI dosier on cattle mutilation made in 1979. Much of the rest is related to the earlier ATF investigation. Should I put an individual citation at the end of every paragraph?
besides, what's up there now is irrelevant, it's the next draft that matters. Work with the draft, or leave it to the people who are.
perfectblue 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
blue, we have said, repeatedly, what the problems are. See above, where I listed the problems with the citations.
And drafts don't really work like that. You don't own the article any more than Jefffire, and overwriting his content with content from the draft is just as unilateral as his overwriting your content. The difference is, he's doing it according to 'pedia policy. - Che Nuevara 19:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Che here. Looking through the new cult section which you (blue) say is acceptable and apparently the official section until the next "draft" (articles aren't written in drafts, by the way), I found several glaring problems. First of all, you cite Meta-Religion in your first sentence in the cult section. Please go to the website and read the last two paragraphs of the website, specifically the last line. That website does not support the cult theory at all. Also, your Clyde Lewis source is not exactly ideal: I doubt that this man is at all official. In fact, I wonder whether he even graduated college. All over that website, there are mispellings and words capitilized in the middle of sentences. (And no, I don't mean the word "I" or a proper noun such as the "London Bridge", I mean the word "farmers".) Sources 7 and 11 are highly questionable as well. Please read the WP:RS guideline. Srose (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. When I said "I'm going to draw up a draft" I didn't mean "Let's work on the article in the draft subpage instead of on the mainpage", I meant "Here, let me illustrate to you what I've been saying all along." - Che Nuevara 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

May we change the section then? Jefffire 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, I cut out a lot of repeat and questionable info, and I reworded some things to actually say what they might say, and posted it at /cultsdraft. You might want to at least take a look at it to see how I interpreted what's going on. - Che Nuevara 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect blue

With this edit you removed a bunch of citations with a edit summery that had nothing to do with explaining the removal. Can you please explain why you thought it would be good to remove citations? ---J.S (t|c) 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Overuse. The citation was not required for each individual paragraph. Once was enough.

perfectblue 07:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Connection

I added two edits to the section on an ET/HIV connection to cattle mutilation. First, I can find no evidence that Philip S Duke is a USC trained pathologist other than the author's personal assertions. Secondly, Mr. Duke's claim that cattle are being used as HIV incubators flys against accepted medical practice. (Something his "USC Pathology" training should have detected.) I have cited an article from the American Society of Microbiology as reference. Djma12 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that was odd... especially since cows aren't our closest cousins in the animal kingdom. ---J.S (t|c) 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This just popped on tv, if it helps anyone. --InShaneee 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon UFO Watch

This group is cited for several claims. However, I've never heard of them before; they don't sound like a reliable source. Moreover, the link to their webpage doesn't work. So, are they a reliable source? If so, why? And why doesn't their site work? Titanium Dragon 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source, I'll remove them. Jefffire 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article does not address tearing due to bloating

Experiments have also been conducted to compare the different reactions of surgically cut hide/flesh and predated hide/flesh to natural exposure.[13] They demonstrated pronounced differences between surgical cut and non surgical cuts over time. This article does not address tearing due to bloating.

This paragraph is a mess and needs to be fixed. Is it saying this article (as in, this Wikipedia article) is not adressing this? If not, why not? It is what actually causes it, and RS's now generally concur on this - natural decomposition. If its referring to the related article, then it just needs to be excised. Titanium Dragon 09:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revmoved section

I've removed the section about the first modern mutilation. Seeing as it was sourced entirely from "UFO’s? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong" (I'm sure we can agree that's not a reliable source), it cannot be regarded as factually sound. Jefffire 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WEAPONS USE

Why is it that people using weapons cannot be stated ? See the Kelly-Hopkinsville UFO Incident as a example of people shooting at aliens. Also in several incidents of this nature, the farmers, ranchers will arm themselves to shoot at aliens, "black helicopters", and at any ass who calls them a liar. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One rancher I'm aware of said that he lost 6 head of pregnant cattle and that he will shoot any ass who says he is lying. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have citations for weapon use? The rancher in question is probably deluded though. Jefffire (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)