Talk:Crop circle

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 article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
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
  6. January 2007 – September 2007

Contents

[edit] Unexplained reversion

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

I went ahead and re-corrected the various problems (WP:NPOV, WP:WTA, WP:WEASEL and so on) making sure that each was a separate edit and providing a separate comment for each one. This means that any other editor can easily revert any "bad" edit of mine, providing specific reasons in the edit comment.

I have left alone the 'Colin Andrews' paragraph recently added by PerfectBlue since there may yet be improvements to follow the original contribution. Some things that I think should be improved upon or addressed are...

  1. The same material is now covered in two sections. Redundant text should be kept to a minimum.
  2. Was funding provided by Rockefeller or by "various media outlets"? Who got money from whom? What does "team which studied crop circles" mean? Were they a team that had worked together in the past, or did the individuals have separate experience, or did they only study crop circles under Andrews? This whole sentence is quite confusing and ambiguous - it needs to be broken up with punctuation at least.
  3. Is it really necessary to say that the groups were making man made circles? What other type of circles could these men have made?
  4. If 80% of circles studied showed signs of being man made because of holes or tracks, how much text do we need to devote to saying that 20% of circles studied could not be accounted for because he was unable to find signs of human interaction? I would like to suggest that one of the ways to minimise the amount of redundant text in the two sections is to simply state that 80% of the circles studied showed "unassailable" signs of human construction in this, the "Creators of crop circles" section, and focus on Andrews' interest in the other 20% in the "Investigators endorsing a non-human origin for some crop circles" section.

Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say.

  1. ) Alrady removed on POV grounds. Singling the topic out for a section when no counter section existed is not on. Content has been merged.
  2. ) Personally, I thought that section was quite clear. Rockefeller provided the money and "various media outlets" completely separately commissioned their own crop circles for various documentaries and publicity stunts etc which Andrews studied after the fact. The media didn't pay Andrews. The media outlets included the BBC and Rupert Murdoc's Sky network (British satellite television network) as well as a Japanese television company. It's all covered the source but was excluded here as it is irrelevant who commissioned the circle. All that is important is that the circles were known to be fake because they were made by TV companies.
  3. ) Er, man made, as in by hand. They weren't using machines, psychic powers, holograms, and so on. A couple of guys with a roller, that kind of man made.
  4. ) A Pseudo skeptic would say that it was man made and leave it at that, a scientific skeptic would give their reasoning. On the whole, you're making a lot of noise over what amounts to a handful of words. It is in the interest of this sections' credibility that it include methodology.

perfectblue 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and WP:NPOV

Paranormal / Parapsychology
Terminology
A crop circle consisting of multiple circles. See also: A crop circle on Google maps
Details
Terminology: Crop Circle
Definition: A Geometric or abstract pattern formed by the flattening of crops
Signature: 1)Crops broken at the base and matted in a distinct pattern
2)Crops bent at node points and matted in a distinct pattern. [1][2][3][4][5]
Misc
Related Term Cerealogy: The Study of Crop circles
See Also:


In keeping with the Bold, revert, discuss philosophy, I have reverted the bold addition of this infobox in the hope that discussion can now provide a solution which is informative yet in keeping with WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, the following issues arise:

  • "Paranormal terminology". The title of the box strongly implies either that the term falls within the domain of the paranormal, or that crop circles are paranormal phenomena. Regardless of how they may have captured the imaginations of sections of the public, crop circles are tangible physical things, the available evidence points to the majority of them being manmade, and the term is not generally associated with the paranormal - it is simply part of modern culture. In terms of NPOV guidelines, this description presents an opinion - that crop circles are within the field of the paranormal - as fact.
  • "Signature". These characteristics are, again, opinions presented as fact. Attribution to sources, and discussion of crop circle characteristics, may be too subtle an issue to be summarised in such a small space.
  • Selection of "signature" characteristics. Which details to include in this list is ultimately an arbitrary selection, and great care must be taken that this selection is neutral and gives due weight to the available evidence. For example, it could be argued that the cominant characteristic is traces of human intervention, since 80% of all circles studied were found to show that property.

Personally I would have no problem with cutting out the arbitrary, non-factual and non-neutral portions of the box. However, looking at the source above, it seems that the "Paranormal terminology" title is hard-wired and so cannot be removed.

Does anyone else have issues, comments, suggestions...? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree.
  1. This is a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It is defining the term "crop circle" within a particular field, not classifying it within a particular structure. Argument mute.
  2. This is a standardized project infobox written for project paranormal as a jack of all trades to be applied to any terminology with a paranormal association, and there is clear evidence that paranormal origins have been assigned to crop circles, everything from aliens to magnetic force lines. Feel free to put additional infox boxes on relating to art or popular culture. Please be aware that this infobox is also used to deal with hoaxes, frauds and pseudoscience, it can be used anywhere in the paranormal domain regardless even when something has been scientifically proven to not be paranormal at all. So long as a definition exists within the scope of paranormal lore then this box can fairly be used.
  3. "Signature", I'm not certain how you can possibly dispute the fact that crop circles are caused by crops being bent over to form patterns. Besides, it is clearly cited by skeptical sources that known fake circles involve the bending of crops (see Doug and Dave). I thus hold that it is an indisputable fact that the majority of crop circles involve the bending over of crops in a patern.
  4. Signs of human interaction aren't a signature of crop circles, something can be a crop circle with or without signs of human interaction, plus saying that it is a signature could imply that the 20% that don't are different in some way, for example, that they are are made by actual paranormal sources. Saying that they are actually paranormal without a third party citation violates WP:OR.

perfectblue 13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why, from the perspective of a "project" member, adding this infobox would seem like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, from the perspective of an editor - or reader - who simply comes to this article without prior knowledge of "the paranormal domain", this infobox is very problematic. The problem with an infobox such as this is that, just as it simplifies, so too can it misrepresent.

As you say, it defines the term "crop circle" within a particular field, without providing justification (much less reliable sources) for inclusion within that field. The reader is left with the impression that crop circles are part of the paranormal field, simply because this article carries wikiproject paranormal's stamp of ownership. How is a new reader supposed to know, from looking at that box, that "paranormal terminology" also applies to things which are proven to be not paranormal?

I did not dispute the statement that crop circles are circles of some crop that has been bent or broken. I would not argue with the suggestion that such information were contained in the opening sentence of the article. I'm just concerned that selection of such aspects for inclusion in a highlighted infobox is arbitrary in nature and open to dispute as not presenting a balanced view.

I'm not sure what to make of the reasoning that says the infobox should not mention signs of human interaction, since that might give the impression that some crop circles are paranormal. But then, as we've established, my perspective is very different to yours. Looking on the bright side, at least we are in agreement that the article should not suggest that crop circles are paranormal in origin.

In summary:

  • There are no sources saying that crop circles are paranormal in nature, only that popular interest may associate them with paranormal causes. Therefore calling crop circles paranormal is a violation of the undue weight principle.
  • There is no verification for the claim that "crop circle" is paranormal terminology, rather than a common everyday term for a physical feature.
  • The infobox does not add anything to the article other than bringing attention to the related term "cerealogy". All it does is highlight certain pieces of information, thus inviting arbitrary and potentially non-neutral presentation.
  1. "only that popular interest may associate them with paranormal causes", sorry but you've just described 99% of all paranormal phenomona. The fact of the matter is that without belief in the paranormal crop circles would just be seen as rather juvenile crop vandalism. If it wasn't for crazies believing that they were created by aliens or spooks, and if it wasn't for people making a small fortune selling books and t-shirts to crazies, then the crop circle phenomona would have died out during the 1980s. I'd even go so far as to say that the belief that crop circles are paranormal/alien is pretty much the only reason that they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page in the first place.
  2. "There are no sources saying that crop circles are paranormal in nature". I think that you're becoming confused. WP:RS for the paranormal is WP:RS that people BELIEVE that something is paranormal, not WP:RS that science has proven them to be paranormal (which it hasn't, by the way). There's plenty of this about. Check out the works of Jerome Clark for proof that all kinds of paranormal beliefs exist. Skeptics dictionary has a section mentioning several too [[1]].
  3. Now you're reaching. The title frames the information in a particular context. According to the recent arb com, any description in the context of the paranormal must be clearly framed as such in order to distinguish it from mainstream science. Removing this description could imply that the description of a crop circle is a mainstream description universally supported by mainstream science. This would be POV pushing. I will resist any effort to POV push this page into implying that crop circles are accepted as being scientifically accepted as being created by aliens or spooks.
  4. "All it does is highlight certain pieces of information" - Er, that's the entire purpose of an inforbox.
  5. "thus inviting arbitrary and potentially non-neutral presentation", 1) It's clearly framed as being paranormal. This tells the user all that they need to know about the information contained. 2) You are free to add as many other infoboxes as you like. There must be an art infobox somewhere. 3) That infobox is used for HOAXES, FRAUDS, FAKES, and DEBUNKED terms too. It's a universal project box.

12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)perfectblue

[edit] Proposed solution

A "Terminology" infobox containing the image plus the following...

  • Crop circle: A geometric or abstract pattern formed by the flattening, bending or breaking of crops.
  • Cerealogy: The study of crop circles.

It's simple, clear, neutral, and sourced. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It also fails to frame crop circles which violates the arb com. Are you trying to imply that they are a natural phenomona? That would be POV pushing. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I Agree get this crap out of the article. Once you let a little bit of paranormal in you have to start letting all the paranormal POV's in.--Dacium 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, people clearly believe that this is paranormal, and people have been hoaxing in order to make people believe that it is paranormal. The pop culture aspect and association is undeniable. - perfectblue 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In other words, some of the paranormal POVs are significant, ergo, Wikipedia covers them. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Steel's solution looks good. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've left your infobox in place and moved the paranormal infobox down to a section that specifically deals with the existence of paranormal beliefs. It is now part of a clearly named and framed section specifically dealing with this topic thus eliminating any and all potential POV issues while preserving the arb com requirement that all things associated with the paranormal be clearly framed as such. - perfectblue 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
perfectblue is right. IF people didn't beleive in the paranormal, then the crop circle craze would have died out as well as movies about ETs and crop circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiCKDuDE102692 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture needs to change to the Triple Julia set. Regardless if it's man made or done buy aliens this is the best crop circle picture ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzenman (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Due to the recent edit warring which took out the opinions of the "crazies," while saying we can "obviously" keep the science, while including the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry site, I have removed the external links to the talk page till consensus can be arrived at. I do believe that one or two of the paranormal links might need to be removed, but we cannot delete them entirely without invoking an issue of WP:WEIGHT, as the article covers paranormal explanations. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Sceptical and scientific analysis:

Circle creators, and information on making your own crop circles:

Pro paranormal explanation websites:

And why did you remove the interwiki links and the categories?--Oxymoron83 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Got an edit conflict on correcting that mistake- thanks (-: ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem.--Oxymoron83 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the last 3 in the Pro paranormal explanations need not be there, nor www.cropcircles.org given that is doesn't work. i also think we can get rid of the 'Picture Essay' and http://www.nyos.lv/ given its not in English and seems a little crazy.--Mark Barnes 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has thrown the science! 6 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.224.140 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to correct the latvian link (nyos.lv) to point to the English version of the abstract. Having said that, if other editors feel it doesn't merit inclusion I will concur with that. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really an article I know much about. I'm fine with any solution which preserves NPOV and WEIGHT. The two potential problems I foresee are cutting too few or too many links, or only retaining the crazier paranormal sites in an attempt to make them look stupider than they are. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I just read the abstract in English, to tell you the truth it seems just as crazy as most of the paranormal explications. however saying this i do feel the Terence Meaden article should stay in the list but only because he is such an important character in cerealology.--Mark Barnes 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Crazy - well or bad? The basic notions in abstract (and in article) - generally accepted in physicist. Intercoupling between the main notion - well-known in science. As a whole, in abstract (and in article) is given alternative explanation "Crop Circle". This explanation do not describes in the literature. The Right of the reader (Wikipedia), to see of the name of the source of alternative information, not be to limit!--217.198.224.140 , 7 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.224.140 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

i have put the links back as others were adding their sites back any way --Mark Barnes (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific recreation

This section seems to be a weak link in the article. Why would we care if Discovery channels went to extreme pains to recreate the three ciriteria described by Talbott? What does this prove or disprove? Surely of more interest is how many man made circles show these attributes without these extra steps thrown in? 76.210.77.1 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it does seem rather weak especially as 1 and 2 of the criteria are the result of the crop naturally responding to being knocked over and the 3rd seems to be based on single events. I think this would be fine as an external link but not part of the main article.--Mark Barnes 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

76.210.77.1 have exactly formulated the contents and importance of this article, for which science burdensome. (talk) , 19 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed pretty weak. It also does not state the radiation that has, on rare occasions, been found within the crops in a crop circle nor does it explain how crops are interwoven. It only explains flattened plants á la hoax. Which leaves the undeniable question of why it is in here in the first place. BRiCKDuDE102692 07:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox Crop Circle

The article makes no mention of it whatsoever, even though it's notable enough for inclusion IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.25.61 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for it not to have a mention.. i will add it now --Mark Barnes (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of this by Michaelbusch who reason is that 'this isn't an advertisement' in which case some of the the commissioned work by circlemakers.org should also be taken out of this heading as they are not all for adverts such as the greenpeace formations which were for demonstration purposes rather than advertisements. point being the Firefox formation was of the Firefox logo clearly drawing attention to a product where as the greenpeace ones were demonstration drawing attention to environmental issues, now which one sound more like an advertisement? ... i am not saying that we should remove some of these references its more that i feel you have missed the point about the essence of this cropcircle which at the end of the day did/does draw attention to a product thus a valid addition to the advertisement section of this article. --Mark Barnes (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference is more of an ad.

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


[edit] why isn't there any information on the "20%" real crop circles

i saw on some discovery channel/history channel type show about how some crop circles are considered the "real crop circles" where its just one or maybe two simple circles that have been radiated some how, like they had been burst with energy for a split second, and nothing can grow there anymore and stuff, does anyone know what im talking about? where the crops haven't been just stepped on, they had been like melted at the stalk so that they bent over, theres no human evidence at all (even though some of the fake ones don't have human evidence because some hoaxers are good)

i'd like to see both sides perceptions on these "real crop circle" accurances, you know, the believers and the skeptics

plus if anyone could gather data, maybe put some criteria on what makes a "a real crop circle"

thanks (im new to wikipedia sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.230.182 (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The 20% thing (or at least the origin of the myth) is in the article in the Analysis section where it speaks of Colin Andrews study. As for the rest of your post i think you need to do a little more research than just watching one documentary, good luck but be careful not to neglect the trickster --Mark Barnes (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of the article

I am surprised that so much of the article presents the human/hoax standpoint of crop circle origin, which would not be a bad thing if only the article went on to address every aspect of other theories, such as

  • the expulsion cavities that only get a mension but no explanation
  • the complex difference in soil chemistry between the soils inside and outside the circles
  • the differerences in geiger counter / electromagnetic radiation readings that exist inside and outside circles

and these are only SOME of the SCIENTIFIC arguments for non-human creation; there are also the practical aspects such as :

  • the fact that crop circles made by humans are nearly always made in the daytime and always take a long time to make
  • circles sometimes get made in rainy conditions but no mud is ever seen within the likely-non-human circles, such as the mud brought in by observers who later go and research the phenomenon.
  • the fact that the stems are never injured in any way in the non-provably-human-made circles (such as flattenings from the board that they get stepped on with)

i could list a whole bunch of other things but i'd just get boring and anyway i'm sure the people writing the article know what else i would write. What i am saying is WHY are none of these things mentioned? 'ball lightning' is, however no more is said about the light spheres so commonly mentioned as part of this topic.

Also, the fact that eyewitness are scant is used as an argument that humans have made them...whereas this should actually be evidence that humans did NOT make the circles: how could circles of THIS complexity:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Crop_circles_Swirl.jpg

for example be made with NO witnesses? it would take someone hours to DRAW this accurately on a piece of paper, let alone make it in a field...and circles of such complexity are not unique. I am not arguing for nor against, but rather that all these arguments should be mentioned and discussed.

Finally, if so many scientists and even mathematicians are interested in the phenomenon then surely this should all be mentioned, as should their research. And not in such a way as to dismissively say "this scientist says this, but some other scientist disproved one single aspect of the theory therefore the theory is wrong", which is the general tone of the article as a whole - which does the subject of crop circles no favours whatsoever.

I am disappointed in the lack of depth in this english wikipedia article due to the fact that it is mostly in England and the US that the phenomenon is most widespread!

The only explanation i have is that that an edit war must have gone on sometime in the past (no, i dont have time to research the LONG history of the article) and that someone with an interest in disproving anything but the hoax theory has removed all attributions to scientific research into the subject.

Hence why i will not myself edit the article, as i am likely to waddle inadvertantly into someone's space. But i have to say that it is immoral from an intellectual and encyclopedic p.o.v. ("encyclopaedia" = "well-rounded education") to not even mention serious research simply because there is no proof of it. Well, let's get rid of the "Black magic" article in wikipedia in that case...hell, let's get rid of the "Religion" article too - after all, there's no proof that there's a God! The "UFO" article...

catch my meaning? it would be ridiculous to do so. i just hope someone will understand me and do something to improve this article (as it NEEDS improvement) to capture the whole breadth of this amazing subject.

Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the latter contributor, and woild like to point specifically to extremely un-encyclopedic and undiplomatic wording such as "Not everybody accepts that circles are man-made, believing instead that many designs are too perfect and that they lack signs of human interaction." Excuse me, but who was it that deemed that these were matters to be *accepted*?? And why are Doug and Dave, and other self-professed pranksters, given so much more credit and column-space in this article than they deserve? Most of the greatest crop-circles have never been documented to be man made. When Doug and Dave were made to demonstrate their crop-circle creating skills, they made only an extremely sloppy and undelicate one, and even that took hours. Doug and Dave had to renege on many of their claims, after being pressed on the issues. Why is this not detailed here? The entire article smacks of intervention from either overly zealous sceptics or from others who have an interest in suppressing the issue, and in any event the entire article/entry is far below encyclopedic standards. A disgrace to Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following is misrepresentative:

"In the TV mini-series Taken by Steven Spielberg crop circles are featured briefly, but although the series is about alien abduction, the crop circles are discovered to be a hoax."

In fact, in the series, the theme was that a high-ranking military officer took the phenomenon very seriously, but one phenomenon he took time to personally visit, after having been alerted to one, turned out to be a blatant hoax. Again, this entry is very indicative of how misrepresentative the entire tone of the article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faults with the Doug and Dave story

The Doug and Dave story is clearly untrue in several details, but is presented factually in the article. I would re-write it myself but I anticipate it would just get reverted - so here are some issues:

1. The article states, "[Doug and Dave] announced that they had conceived the idea... in 1976". The 'confession' was printed in "Today" newspaper, and they claimed they made their first circle in 1978. The circle they claimed as their first, was also the first case study featured in the famous book "Circular Evidence". However researchers pointed out that in the text, the farmer stated he'd had other circles two years previously - and only after this objection was raised, did D&D start to claim 1976 instead.

2. They claim to have been inspired by the [almost unheard of] 1966 Tully Saucer Nests - but have never offered any kind of insight into any alleged hoaxing or claims of hoaxing for those circles, whose causation is unknown.

3. The article states "The pair became frustrated when their work did not receive significant publicity, so in 1981 they created a circle in Matterley Bowl" - again this is a circle featured in "Circular Evidence". This frutsration over lack of publicity is not only at odds with their claim that they were having a personal prank at the expense of UFO followers (no motive to get wider publicity) but also inclngruous with the fact that they selected non-visible sites for at least 5 years, and further never phoned the papers themselves. It simply does not ring true.

4. "Their designs were at first simple circles. When newspapers claimed that the circles could easily be explained by natural phenomena, Bower and Chorley made more complex patterns". This is inconsistent with the facts, as the "five-on-a-dice" pattern for example was recorded before the "publicity-getting" circle of 1981 which brought newspaper attention.

5. The article states "A simple wire with a loop, hanging down from a cap - the loop positioned over one eye - could be used to focus on a landmark to aid in the creation of straight lines." There is no need for such a device, which is entirely useless. It was obviously invented as a detail for the papers. Anyone can walk in a straight line without such a device, and it is absurd to assert that D&D needed one, especially in the dark.

6. "Bower's wife had become suspicious of him, noticing high levels of mileage in their car." - Had she not noticed his repeated absence in the middle of the night? Just the mileage in the car bothered her? Again, palpable nonsense. But even if believed, it should be qualified and not merely stated as a fact.

7. "Bower has said that, had it not been for his wife's suspicions, he would have taken the secret to his deathbed, never revealing that it was a hoax." - the pair also said on camera, that they elected to "confess" directly as a result of the UK government announcing plans to investigate the phenomenon in 1991 (thereby spending public money), and D&D felt things had gone far enough. So which version is it?

Elsewhere they have undermined their own story on several counts, eg claiming to have made the circle on the cover of "Circular Evidence" untill the book's author quizzed them on the crop lay, which they could not explain and elected instead to retract their claim to it; or the absurd story of one of them being injured in a field one night by ice falling from an aircraft toilet [he would have been killed, and anyway the odds of being hit would have been a zillion to one, and how did they know where the ice came from...]; or the diagrams they produced to substantiate their claims, which were not even scaled properly and clearly copied from photos subsequently, including field tracks made by visitors in the design; or their on-camera pretence to not know the phrase "ball lightning", despite having read Terence Meaden's reports for a decade; Their claim to have devised the phenomenon despite the existence of umpteen pre-1976 circles including Tully, some of which are mentioned in the article...

- So, in view of these matters, I say a re-write is needed which is neutral as to whether their story is true or false. Comments, anyone? 81.153.49.109 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I see a word like "clearly" in front of an opinion or argument, a small red flag is raised. Reading the rest of the post, I don't see any reference to reliable sources. This means that your opinions and arguments are very unlikely to be accepted as part of the article (see Wikipedia:Original research for more on why not). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am already well aware of the Original Research policy, thanks. I have no desire to insert any opinions into any article, and do not want any of the above comments "accepted as part of the article". To be clear, what I want is neutrality.

I have raised objections to several unqualified statements in an article, because they are unqualified and unreliable. Statements such as "in 1981 they created a circle in Matterley Bowl" are not sourced. There is no evidence offered that shows they did so. There is no reference given, and so the statement is a matter of pure conjecture (if not, actual invention). If the statement is based on their first-hand claims, then that should be said openly - "They claim to have created a formation..." and a reference to the claim given. Get it? This isn't me inserting my views, it's a clean-up job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is normally not considered necessary to add a citation at the end of every sentence. Indeed, it is quite common for a lengthy source to provide enough information for several sentences or paragraphs of material. The section regarding Doug and Dave does have several sources; unfortunately I have not been able to review them all. Given this incomplete knowledge, in good faith we should not assume that, for example, references to the a circle in Matterley Bowl are "conjecture" or "invention". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement about Matterley Bowl (aka the 'Punch Bowl') is referenced in the article (ref 18) http://ufologie.net/htm/cropbower01.htm its also probably in about every book or documentary that covers the Doug and Dave story --Mark Barnes (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel: Much of the initial "confession" from Doug and Dave IS untrue. Yes, CLEARLY untrue. This is not a matter of speculation. They were made to modify their "confessions" several times in the years following their initial "confession". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Source? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You are (inadvertently?) pointing to a very real problem with this article, SheffieldSteel: There were many articles in serious British media about this in the early nineties. Why are they not already included in an article as elaborate as this one? Were these news-media articles never posted online? I'll get back to it if I find this, but given that Doug and Dave had to renege a whole lot on their initial "confessions", and that this was made very public, I find it highly strange that Doug and Dave are given such prominent attention in what seems to pride itself on being a meritable and serious Wikipedia-entry (article). (Author here: Same as 158.37.40.111 from yesterday.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article regarding my point: http://www.lovely.clara.net/bower.html If anyone has problems opening this page, here's the text from it: "The fallow days between Christmas and the New Year are typically a time when individuals in the public eye, government policy-makers or large corporations quietly approach the media with retractions, U-Turns in policy or controversial legislations, the general public being otherwise too distracted by hangovers, celebrations or end-of-year sales.

It was in this spirit that small articles appeared in the British press on Sunday, December 27, 1998, bearing statements by Doug Bower- surviving half of infamous Doug and Dave hoaxer duo- claiming that "an unknown force" told him to do the crop circles.

The pair claimed in 1991 that they had made all the crop circles in southern England since 1978 (about two thousand at that point, including those reported from around the world). Unfortunately they could not provide a shred of evidence at the time. During a confrontation with researchers in front of the media, the pair made one small circle with planks and string that bore an artistic ability more in keeping with the damage caused by a rough wind than the surgical precision associated with the phenomenon. When later challenged on specific facts by researchers, they retracted or re-worded they original claims, mostly away from the media eye.

They have since became media celebrities despite not being able to produce any of the anomalies associated with genuine crop circles. Researcher George Wingfield eventually traced their original story to a company in Somerset that carries out research on top secret military projects.

Whatever Doug and Dave's motives or backers, it now seems that even the phenomenon's most public hoaxer believes there is more at work in the fields than the hand of man.

By Freddy Silva. This article can be disseminated free, for non-profit use only." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.113 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

".. traced their original story to a company in Somerset that carries out research on top secret military projects." says it all really, i still can't believe people fall for this 'MBF Services' crap. Whats next, the Oliver Castle video?--Mark Barnes (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think "by Freddy Silva" says it all, but I'm sure we can politely agree to disagree :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone here (SheffieldSteel or Mark Barnes, for instance) who actually believe that Doug and Dave have made hundreds of very complex crop circles? Why? Why believe that, when they have never ever been able to demonstrate anything even remotely resembling an advanced crop circle? Anyhow, I have no idea who Freddy Silva is, but his writing is patent enough. Do any of you guys know anything about Doug and Dave? If so, please share. It's truly ridiculous to me that they are given any prominent mention in this article at all. Also that John Lundberg-guy - who is he? Point of this all is: The article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, but rather in a POV-manner. That is not right, and should be corrected. Also, the fact that a lot of media material, recording and documenting that Doug and Dave have admitted that their initial "confessions" were vastly exaggerated, are strangely missing from this site. If ardent sceptics want to have their own online encyclopedia, let them. But do not let them ruin wikipedia by nurturing overtly POV-toned articles all over the place. Please modify the prominence of "Doug and Dave"-explanations in this article, when clearly few or no people know anything about them, and they have never been able to reproduce any elaborate crop circle under controlled and recordable circumstances. Best, Erik, Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.224.202 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe their story, what is a myth is that they have never demonstrated their abilities. I take it you must be unaware of the documented work they did with John McNish, where they did fool the 'experts' of the time. You also say they claimed all formation prior 1991, this is not true, D&D were well aware they were not alone since 1986 when the 'copycats' started to appear which D&D responded to with a formation that simply said "WE ARE NOT ALONE" (p273 'Round in Circles' By Jim Schnabel). Who is John Lundberg? John is a British circle maker and founder of Circlemakers an arts collective who apart from making anonymous crop circles also do commissioned work. It seems to me this topic is rather new to you given your posts and that you have no idea who Freddy Silva or who John Lundberg is, maybe you should do some more research on this topic before making so many complaints about the article. Personally I don't think the article is that bad.--Mark Barnes (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Mark. I fully intend to do more research into Doug and Dave on the one hand, and John Lundberg on the other, in due time. In any event, is the following article referred to in the article? Upon browsing the article and the provided links/references, I could not see it. It's well written and could well be used as source material and for reference:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/crops.html

Ps. When you say you believe the story from Doug and Dave, exactly what is the story that you believe? How many hoaxes do they still claim to have performed, and during which time spell? Also, can you provide links to footage of them actually creating a complex formation?

Best, Erik, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot more to look into than just D&D and Lundberg.. however some good stating points would be 'The Field Guide: The Art, History and Philosophy of Crop Circle Making' by Rob Irving and John Lundberg, 'Round in Circles' by Jim Schnabel and 'Cropcircle Apocalypse' by John Macnish, all of which give a good insight into the early days and D&D. as for your refrenced article I have yet to read it fully but from just skimming it there is alot of myth and misconceptions in it and on a rather dubious website. One thing I would like to point out that in the early days many researchers including Andrews and Delgado counted each circle in a formation as a single crop circle which if you look through the databases you will find rather than 2000 odd formations prior to '91 it was only around 370 formation with over 330 being after '86 when other people had started making circles. As for the exact amount of circles D&D have claimed i am unsure, but i am sure you could find out from somewhere. for footage of D&D in action there is this ITN footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt1hckdb7Sg but also in John Macnish's video 'Crop Circle Communique II: Revelations' it has time lapse footage of D&D making circles that did fool the 'experts'. --Mark Barnes (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That is one unreliable source. Sorry to be blunt but that website has no reputation whatsoever for fact-checking and accuracy, which is what we look for. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SheffielSteel, are you referring to suppressedscience.com? I don't see any reason to evaluate the website - the article was very well-written and covers a lot of the bases that the wikipedia-article here does. I see no reason to disqualify any websites whatsoever, as I've seen plenty of examples of less than reputable web-sites used as sources all over Wikipedia - and not least since many people say the same about Wikipedia itself that you (bluntly - I don't see any reason to apologize for that?) ascribe here. It seems a bit silly to discredit great source-material and articles on the basis of the site somebody found it on. It's a bit like discreding any and all output from Zimbabwe, on the grounds that the country is poorly run - how does that affect what individual contributors, journalists and scientists etc from that country have to offer in writing? Do you see my point? This wikipedia-article (crop circle) is of poor quality. The article I referred to above, from the site you seem to question etc., is of a vastly higher quality. Have you even read it? Regards, Erik, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.40.111 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)