Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 28 September 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crop circle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 4 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Crop Circles, or anything not directly related to improving the crop circle article on Misplaced Pages. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Crop Circles, or anything not directly related to improving the crop circle article on Misplaced Pages at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

On 15 September 2009, Crop circle was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

– April 2006 some archives appear to be missing ? – August 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made'

The statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How they are made’ states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail as the source:

With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these articles state:

“Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at the University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011

“An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011

For the source of both these articles the journalists reference a report by Professor Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 (see reference 67 in the Misplaced Pages crop circle article) and both newspaper items have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also Richard Taylor doesn’t say that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens.’

Richard Taylor actually says:

“Independent studies published in 1999 and in 2001 reported evidence consistent with what you would expect to see if the crops had been exposed to radiation during the formation of patterns...... ................Intriguingly, a group of crop-circle enthusiasts called the BLT Research Team claims to be able to replicate the observed changes to pulvini using 30 s exposures to microwaves generated by magnetrons from readily available microwave ovens. Today’s magnetrons are small and light, and some require only 12 V battery power supplies. Haselhoff and Levengood used the Beer–Lambert principle, which relates the absorption of radiation to the properties of the material, to model the radial dependence of the pulvini swelling. For a typical 9 m circle, Haselhoff’s model indicated a radiation point source placed 4 m above the circle’s centre. Once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation. Although this appealing hypothesis fits the published facts, biophysicists will clearly need to expand on these preliminary experiments if such speculations are to become accepted.”

So Professor Taylor says the basis of his microwave theory is the work of the BLT Research Team and their theoretical models. I contacted the BLT Research Team to ask for clarification. Amendment: I had reproduced the email here from BLT Research however they have asked that I don't reproduce the full email here (so I've removed it) which is fair enough but basically they've calculated that you'd need a huge number of microwaves (500+) to make an average size crop circle that this isjust not practical. Also the BLT research team have requested that people are made aware that members of the BLT Research Team have published 3 papers in the peer-reviewed literature presenting their findings regarding changes to the crop circle plants and soils.

Therefore unless there’s objections I’ll correct the misleading statement to:

“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens. However this theory is controversial because of the large amount of energy needed.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll need sources saying his hypothesis is controversial. The sources must mention him and crop circles. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics interviewed the guy. He says "In my article, I propose that people could be using portable microwave transmitters, called magnetrons, like ones that can be easily obtained from microwave ovens, to make crop circles." And where it says "my article" he links to Physics World which is behind a paywall. I don't see anything about it not being possible because it'd need too much electricity. Anything in the article must be what reliable sources have said. Dream Focus 08:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Doug and Dream Focus. Just to clarify my update, the statement that researchers at the University of Oregon had recreated crop circles using magnatrons is wrong. Richard Taylor did a piece in the magazine 'Physics World' in which he cited the work of the BLT Research Team to suggest it was possible to use magnatrons to make crop circles. The two British newspapers cited by the Misplaced Pages crop circle article then incorrectly reported the 'Physics World' article to suggest that Richard Taylor/University of Oregon researchers had developed/used a magnetron to mimic the microwave radiation effects found in some crop circles.

Next paragraph amended following request by BLT Research to remove r BLT Research suggest hand held magnetrons have not been used to make crop circles for the reasons described in their email. As Richard Taylor uses the work of the BLT Research organisation to support a theory they disagree with then surely Richard Taylor's theory is controversial? This is apart from the fact no one's ever been recorded of having made a crop circle with a magnetron (nor should be encouraged to do so as there's big health and safety concerns if using microwaves in an unprotected way).

Dream Focus - you said you couldn't access Richard Taylor's article because its behind a paywall. This is incorrect (at least in the UK). You can read Richard Taylor's article from Physics World by clicking on reference '67' at the bottom of the Misplaced Pages crop circle article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you search through Google or Google News for "University of Oregon" "crop circles" you will find a lot of reliable sources do cover this information. That's what we go by on Misplaced Pages under the rules. And the website of BLT shows various pages where they do state microwaves cause crop circles. Whether any of them ever said you could do it with a handheld device or not, is up for debate. But he claims others at his university did this on their own, so it doesn't really matter. Richard Taylor is director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, so I doubt he'd lie about that, and the magazine he said this in surely does fact checking. Dream Focus 21:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Dream Focus. I did a search in Google for "University of Oregon" "crop circles" but they all seem to refer either directly or indirectly to the article in 'Physics World' by Richard Taylor and as mentioned above, his article doesn't mention that "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron." only that hand-held magnetrons are available. The proposal that microwaves could cause the odd 'elongated pulvini' feature in wheat stalks in some crop circles is accepted (see the work of W C levengood and E H Hasselhoff). But to do this Richard Taylor quotes the theoretical work of others (not Oregon University researchers): Richard Taylor says "For a typical 9m circle, Haselhoff’s model indicated a radiation point source placed 4m above the circle’s centre. Once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation. Although this appealing hypothesis fits the published facts, biophysicists will clearly need to expand on these preliminary experiments if such speculations are to become accepted." So the hand held devices would need to be raised 4m above the crop circle (the guys who make them must be very tall!).

Also Dream Focus, you mention that "But he claims others at his university did this on their own". I've looked through the article again but can't see where he says this. I would be grateful if you could tell me where he said this in the 'Physics World' article or if not there, where? 2.29.163.52 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't find where I read that. Searching about, all I see now is Time magazine saying "Richard Taylor and his team from the University of Oregon" . At LiveScience.com I see "In fact, another research team claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using a handheld magnetron, readily available from microwave ovens, and a 120-Volt battery." The Physics World article itself mentions experiments done by others. Maybe I misread it. Doesn't matter though, WP:reliable sources, not personal WP:synthesis are the rules we must follow here. Dream Focus 12:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and links Dream Focus. With regards both the 'Time' magazine item and the 'Livescience' item they both are from July/August 2011 and reference for their information the Physics World article which came out at this time. So again, 'Livescience' the reference "In fact, another research team claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using a handheld magnetron, readily available from microwave ovens, and a 120-Volt battery." is incorrect, Richard Taylor in his article in 'Physics World' doesn't say this. Perhaps Live Science got their information from the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph who also mis-reported the article? Similarly with the Time magazine statement "Richard Taylor and his team from the University of Oregon" is incorrect (don't believe everything you read in the papers!), the article in 'Physics World' is Richard Taylor's observations on the crop circle phenomenon and not his team's. With regards your comment that the article itself mentions 'experiments by others' the only reference I can find in the article that you may possibly mean is the 'experiments carried out by biophysicts' which relates to measuring the effects of microwave radiation but doesn't include creating crop circles with hand held magnetrons.

However to move forward, would the following be amendment be acceptable:

“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens."

Hope this allays your concerns.2.29.163.41 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Update 3/6/2015:

Today I updated the page with the above comment, correcting the previous false information. However the person who looks after the page for Misplaced Pages didn't appear to like it and changed it to:

Cereologists discount on-site evidence of human involvement as attempts of discrediting the phenomena. Some even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles. When scientific writer Matt Ridley wrote negative articles in newspapers, he was accused of spreading "government disinformation" and of working for the UK military intelligence service MI5. According to Matt Ridley, many cereologists make a good living from selling books and making personal tours through crop fields (they can charge more than £2,000/person), and they have a vested interest in rejecting what is by far the most likely explanation for the circles

Obviously disappointed my correction wasn't put in but at least the mistake has been removed even if the replacement text seems a bit of a rant at cereologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• That bit was already there. What you changed removed the referenced reliable sources, and thus JzG removed it. I have put it back in with proper sourcing. Dream Focus 11:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is now totally unclear. The article states "researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron". The phrase, "patterns of crop damage" suggests we are talking about plants actually being flattened (damaged) into patterns - but no-one is saying that.

The Physics World article claims that certain biophysical changes recorded in flattened crop stems could be replicated with magnetrons (specifically, the expansion of the plant pulvini - ie nodes). The article implies - without any substantiation or references, incidentally - that if this were done to vertical stems, it would somehow make them more pliable. It states: "once superheated with this source, the stalk orientation could be readily sculpted, speeding up circle creation".

If you want to be clear about the research, it needs to be explained that this is just a theory about node expansion, not an indication of the means by which the crops actually get pushed down into patterns. 149.241.226.139 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: The problem here is that there is no indication at all in the sources that this is actually relevant to crop circles as they are created. It's a theoretical exercise, nobody even pretends to present any evidence that this has ever been done. We're not quite in WP:RANDY territory, but not far off - the sources that are about crop circles do not include this speculative mechanism. Just because a thing verifiably exists, that does not make it notable or significant. There are also some paranormalist kooks who are saying that this proves the aliens used magnetrons to make the circles - and the other sources that claim lasers, GPS and magnetrons "may" have been used to make some of the more elaborate ones are either unreliable or admit that it's pure speculation. There is, bluntly, no evidence at all to suggest this is what happened. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is what all the sources are about. How the crop circles are made. Its even in their titles. We have a section called "How they are made" which list various theories. Dream Focus 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. The ones that stick to the actual facts note that this is hypothetical and speculative. As does the primary source, to be fair. Not one source shows any credible evidence that a single circle has ever been produced by this method. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:

========================================
Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM
From: "Richard Taylor" 
To:
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons
Hi,
You are correct. Although the  "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of  the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. 
There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles.
1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique.
2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of  course, if i deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy!
Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it
best wishes Richard
========================================
Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM
From:  "Cardiff2015"
To: "Richard Taylor"
Cc: 
On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, 
Dear Professor Taylor,
I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.

One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Misplaced Pages 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How  they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a  hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph  and  the Daily Mail as the source:
With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state:
“Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at  the  University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011
“An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate  intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011
For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem 
to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to  replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’
For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Misplaced Pages crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in  'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and  I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Misplaced Pages have used your report incorrectly 
to  back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens."
Kind Regards

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.

Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselvesCardiff2015 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No they didn't claim to have found microwave damage - at least, Levengood (who did the lab work) didn't, I'm not sure about Hasselhoff's claims or what they are based on. Levengood found expanded nodes and cell wall pits, and noted the distribution of these corresponds with the Beer-Lambert principle (ie, they get fewer, the further away from the centre you go). There was then some conjecture about radiation, which behaves in a similar way. It's too much of a stretch to say "mirowave damage" or "microwave gadget".

Anyway, that wasn't my point - I was saying that the wording of the article wrongly implies that the circles can be made by magnetrons. It ought to be re-worded with a more accurate explanation of the type of damage being found. 149.241.80.50 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Taylor

This para:

Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens.

References

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8671207/Crop-circles-created-using-GPS-lasers-and-microwaves.html
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2020910/Crop-circles-Now-ET-little-help-mircowaves-GPS.html
3. http://pages.uoregon.edu/msiuo/taylor/human_response/CropCircles%28physicsworld%29.pdf

I do not think this belong sin the article. It describes a theoretical mechanism to create something similar to crop circles, but which there is precisely zero evidence has ever been used to create any. This is an article about crop circles, not about hypothetical mechanisms for creating them. As noted above, the originators make no pretence to have even tried to show that this has actually happened, there is no credible reason for including this non-sequitur.

Three "sources" are cited. One is a press release and not independent, one is the Daily Mail, a perennially unreliable source, and the third, which is an RS, merely regurgitates the press release. There is no independent evidence of the significance of this claim. This basically applies to all the sources discussed above: they are merely repetitions of the claim, they do not challenge it and none of them credibly establish relevance for this article. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are many other sources. http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/crop-circles-explained-with-gps-110805.htm and others mention his article in Physics World magazine. Popular Mechanics interviewed him http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a6808/the-math-and-science-behind-crop-circles/ and talked about his theories. Dream Focus 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And which ones show that this has ever been done? Until we have that, the claim has no place in a section on how they are made. It would be like including homeopathy in an article on arsenic. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Crop_circle#How_they_are_made list various theories, including space aliens, and government conspiracies some believe in. This is something that got ample coverage in reliable sources, including legitimate scientific publications. It should be in the article somewhere. Other articles for things list different theories to how they were made. Sometimes there are so many, they split off into their own article such as Egyptian pyramid construction techniques Dream Focus 22:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a reality-based encyclopaedia. We dont state speculation as fact. Feel free to propose text that complies with policy. Specifically identifying that this is entirely speculative (which it clearly is). Guy (Help!) 22:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So we can mention in the article that some believe aliens are involved, but not that some believe a magnetron from a microwave oven could've been used. Dream Focus 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's all about weight and how you say it. We say that some people believe aliens did it, because that is the principal reason the topic is notable. These poor credulous folks were trolled at an epic level, and that's essentially the story. The number of people who believe that any specific crop circle was made using magnetrons seems not to exceed two in any instance. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus, As noted in the previous section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' your statement Your statement Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens is wrong, Professor Taylor does not claim researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron.

I'm surprised you still believe the Daily Mail and Telegraph sources are reliable. As I've noted above, if you read the articles they clearly say they are getting their information from the Physics World article, all were published in August 2011. I urge you to read all three articles and it will be clear. I also emailed Richard Taylor to ask for his view as to whether researchers had actually made crop circles using magnetrons/microwaves. He says absolutely not and confirmed he is ok with me reproducing the email in full here below (I've also put my email I sent to him below for clarity:

========================================
Message Received: May 28 2015, 06:57 PM
From: "Richard Taylor" 
To: "Cardiff2015"
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Made by Researchers at the University of Oregon Using Magnetrons
Hi,
You are correct. Although the  "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made. The aim of  the article was to provoke people into thinking about how crop circles are made. 
There appear to be two sources to the story that magnetrons have been shown to replicate crop circles.
1) When the article was published, FOX news declared that a team of physicists were traveling from the USA to England to demonstrate the technique.
2) A number of people suspect that I created the Triple Julia set in 1996 based the fact that I was close to that location on the evening they were created. Of  course, if |I deny creating the crop circles people will say that denials are all part of the crop circle artist's strategy!
Thanks for your kind words about the Physics World article. I enjoyed writing it
best wishes Richard
========================================
Message Sent: May 28 2015, 02:07 AM
From:  
To: "Richard Taylor"
Cc: 
On May 28, 2015, at 2:07 AM, 
Dear Professor Taylor,
I enjoyed your article on crop circles which I recently found on the web from 'Physics World' magazine and dated August 2011. I thought it was a fair article.

One thing of concern, I noticed that the article is used on the Misplaced Pages 'Crop Circle' web page to justify the statement at the end of the paragraph on ‘How  they are made’ which states “Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a  hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens. “ and references articles in the British newspapers the Daily Telegraph  and  the Daily Mail as the source:
With regards microwaves being used to make crop circles these newsapaper articles state:
“Professor Richard Taylor, a physicist, claims to be able to reproduce the intricate damage inflicted on crops using such a gadget developed by his team at  the  University of Oregon. – Daily Telegraph 1st August 2011
“An analysis of evidence in the Physics World journal reported that researchers had used magnetrons – tubes which use electricity and magnetism to generate  intense heat – to mimic the physical changes in flattened stalks in some circles, which are linked to radiation.” – Daily Mail 2nd August 2011
For the source of both these articles the journalists reference your report in ‘Physics World’ magazine August 2011 and, in my view, both newspaper items seem 
to have incorrectly reported the ‘Physics World’ article. Also you don't seem to mention anywhere that ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to  replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’
For information I'm currently trying to get the statement amended on the Misplaced Pages crop circle page (see the item 'Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in  'How They Are Made' in the 'talk' section) and  I would be grateful if you could confirm that this statement on Misplaced Pages have used your report incorrectly 
to  back up the statement "Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand- held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens."
Kind Regards

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So couldn't really be clearer. Fox News, that bastion of accurate news reporting, got the story wrong and the web is now drenched in this bit of poor reporting.

Guy - you are correct, there is no record of anyone having made a crop circle with a magnetron, but the work of Hasselhoff and Levengood claims to have found microwave damage to crops. Therefore if their work is right then there is a case that crop circles have been made by some type of microwave gadget which the 'crop circle artists' at this moment are keeping to themselvesCardiff2015 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SYN. There is no credible objective evidence that this has ever happened, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I doubt that email or the last one this editor posted is real. As I stated previously, various scientific publications mentioned this information as well, including Popular Mechanics which interviewed the guy. He says "In my article, I propose that people could be using portable microwave transmitters, called magnetrons, like ones that can be easily obtained from microwave ovens, to make crop circles." And where it says "my article" he links to Physics World . Anyway, I have emailed him to verify if anyone has done this before, and what exactly he said. Dream Focus 15:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Emailing the source is the dictionary definition of original research. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Its done to verify information. The article itself can reference what he said in Popular Mechanics, it a reliable source, or what many other reliable sources said, that microwaves from magnetrons found in microwave ovens, could be used to make crop circles. Dream Focus 17:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus, obviously its disappointing that you're saying I'm lying, I assure you absolutely I'm not and I'd suggest you email Professor Richard Taylor yourself. His email address is shown in the Physics World article: rpt@uoregon.edu. I've never tried to change anything before on Misplaced Pages so I'm surprised at your abuse when all I'm trying to do is replace/remove incorrect information.Cardiff2015 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are lying, both emails you posted from different people are clearly fake. I have just received an email from the professor. Dream Focus 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:

"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."

best wishes Richard

GUY - You are underlining a problem which I tried to raise in the section immediately above this one. The article does say, "Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens."

But "patterns of crop damage" means, in this context, swollen nodes - that's all. It does NOT mean making crop circles or flattening stems. That was the point I was making - the wording is so obviously confusing that I almost think it was deliberately made to imply this. Anyway, there is no such claim - no-one claimed to have made crop circles with a magnetron, and that's not what the article says. It should be re-worded for clarity. 149.241.80.50 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there is no independent evidence of the significance or relevance of this claim. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages judges significance by coverage in reliable sources, which this has gotten plenty of. Dream Focus 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus, again you're wrong I'm not lying, I'm informing you of the truth which you're having surprising difficulies understanding so I'll again try to explain. Your proposed phrasing at the start of this section is absolutely wrong. You say "Professor Richard Taylor, the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, claims researchers there were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron, which are commonly available in microwave ovens." Nowhere has Professor Richard Taylor said that 'Researchers were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron'. Nor is there anyone else who claims to have direct knowledge of researchers actually going out and making crop circles with magnetrons. References on the internet all point to Professor Richard Taylor's work and he only says that 'magnetrons could be used to make crop circles' which is totally different to 'magentrons have been used to make crop circles'. Also in your partial quote from Professor Richard Taylor's email to you RT says "The wording used below in your email is incorrect." What was the incorrect wording you left out?Cardiff2015 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• The entire email is as follows. I sent him

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Crop_circle

Someone has claimed you emailed them, and posted your response on the talk page for the Misplaced Pages article on Crop Circles.

He claims that you stated you never said that a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles.

Can you verify this please? Has anyone ever done experiments to prove its possible to do?

• And he responded

There appears to be confusion over wording. The wording used below in your email is incorrect. I'd summarize the views expressed in my Physics World article as follows:

"Magnetrons could be used to make crop circles. In particular, for crop circles accompanied by evidence of microwave exposure, the use of magnetrons remains the most likely scenario for how the patterns were defined."

best wishes Richard

• Anyway, we just need to change the wording then. This should be listed as one theory on how they are made. It does get plenty of coverage, including Popular Mechanics and Discovery News. Dream Focus 12:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8671207/Crop-circles-created-using-GPS-lasers-and-microwaves.html
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2020910/Crop-circles-Now-ET-little-help-mircowaves-GPS.html
3. http://pages.uoregon.edu/msiuo/taylor/human_response/CropCircles%28physicsworld%29.pdf
4. http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a6808/the-math-and-science-behind-crop-circles/
5. http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/crop-circles-explained-with-gps-110805.htm

No, it's not a theory of how they are made, it's a conjecture as to how they could be made, even the original author acknowledges this. Lazy journalism does not compel us to repeat the laziness. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dream Focus - With regards your comment, firstly, I agree with Guy's statement above.

Secondly, you were wrong in your email to Professor Richard Taylor to say I claimed he 'never' said a microwave oven's magnetron could be used to make crop circles. I said the entry on Misplaced Pages didn't tie-up with what he said in his Physics World' article. Misplaced Pages had said (now removed) ‘Researchers at the University of Oregon were able to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron....’ and I queried whether researchers at the University of Oregon had actually replicated a crop circle with a magnetron and he confirmed to me they had not and, to quote from his email to me "Although the "magnetron hypothesis" fits some of the facts, I didn't declare that this was the way that crop circles were made."

Thirdly, you are wrong to suggest to use links to (1) the Telegraph and (2) the Daily Mail as they both were doing a story on Professor Richard Taylor's article in Physics World and both wrongly reported it (as explained above in this section and in the section Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made' ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff2015 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Crop Circles and Corn Maze

It appears to me that crop circles and corn mazes are related. Because they are both artistic designs in crops to be see from above.

QuentinUK (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A crop circle is vandalism and hoaxes. A corn maze is something someone cuts out the corn in a different manner, legally, for the purpose of tourism. Dream Focus 12:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you at least believe the "vandals and hoaxers" are human beings? QuentinUK (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How they are made

"The scientific consensus on crop circles is that most or all are constructed by human beings as a prank." This is in no way scientific approach "most or all" is simply amateurish pseudo science. The Link Given (42) leads to the site of a religious skeptic with a Phd in philosophy. this is the scientific census? Does anybody check those links by the way?

Note 20 leads to an interesting Skeptical site http://www.skepticssa.org.au/html/cropcircles.html which states that "It appears that circular patterns in grain fields were not entirely unknown in rural areas before Doug and Dave. Elderly citizens of Sussex reported to Anderhub and Roth (2002) that such circles had been a regular feature of their childhood, and authors such as Fuller and Randles (1986) found numerous reports of circular patterns dating back to the 19th century.

"Natsis and Potter (1996) cited one example from August 23 1678 where a farmer found a large circular area of his crop apparently mowed down. This circle was attributed to demonic forces, the so-called Hertfordshire Mowing Devil, which, it was claimed, had descended on the oat-field with a demonic scythe, felling the stalks. The possibility that it was simply a natural phenomenon, or even a prank, appears to have been overlooked by the superstitious locals of that era, who, as Carroll (2003) pointed out, tended to attribute any unusual events, formations or structures, such as Stonehenge and Hadrian’s Wall, to Satan.

"Given the fact that before Doug and Dave these formations were always simple circles, perhaps, as Randles (2002) suggests, they could have been natural formations created by whirlwinds. These probably caused circular formations such as the one at Tully in Queensland. Doug Bower, who was living in Queensland at the time, apparently read a report of this event and this inspired him to create his own mimetic circles after he returned to England. It appears that the numerous circles he created with Dave Chorley encouraged numerous imitators, and the subsequent media coverage resulted in the emergence of many ‘experts’, people with theories ranging from the crackpot through to the serious, who were all keen to to use the media promote their fantastic theories to explain the origins of these circles.

"So, while natural forces created earlier crop circles, because they were relatively uncommon with little newsworthiness, they were rarely reported until the 1970s and 1980s when the media were more willing to report any ‘strange’ phenomena, especially where there was a possible UFO connection. "

Obviously, my emphasis throughout, but in the light of recent edit warring I do find the willingness to accept a natural origin for pre-1970s crop circles does rather undermine the case that was attempted to be made by those who would have it that all crop circles are man made. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You missed the bit where it's acknowledged to be speculation that they were natural. The instinct to hoax is a very old one. It also requires that all of a sudden in the 1970s the natural ones stopped happening, or at least no natural ones were investigated, since as far as I can tell all the circles where origin has been definitively established, have been man-made. Regardless, a natural origin of simple circles is not implausible and does not invoke WP:FRINGE, it is the paranormal and extraterrestrial claims that are the subject of long-term POV-pushing here. Feel free to propose an actual edit in line with published sources. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere on this talk page, the current edit is absolutely fine. The issue, at least for me, was the repeated insertion of, and refusal to accept any alternative view over, the two lines in the lede, "created by people" and "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists". It was you who really led the refusal to consider any change in those two statements, as can be seen in your own reverts to the article and comments in Talk:Crop_circle#Recent_edits, but I'm pleased to see you now accept them.Ghughesarch (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Paranormal

Since when is the possibility of extraterrestrial life something paranormal? Who writes such nonsense? SETI, NASA etc. all search for extraterrestrial life. These do not have to be necessarily green etc. just extra terrestrial. This is embarrassing to read in Misplaced Pages.

Recent edits

It appears that someone thinks that this

A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern created by people flattening a crop such as cereal, rapeseed, reeds, grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds. Although obscure natural causes or alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence for such explanations. Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists.

Is a better version than this:

A crop circle or crop formation is a sizable pattern formed by the flattening of a crop such as cereal, rapeseed, reeds, grass or vegetation such as fields of thistle, blackberries and reeds. Natural causes or even alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists.

Since neither source quoted actually states that crop circles are "created by people", or that "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists", the second version must surely be the more acceptable version for the lede of the article? Ghughesarch (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Every crop circle for which provenance has been reliably established, has been made by people. You can change it as soon as you provide reliable evidence that there is another cause. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• • That's precisely the point - the fact that there are examples for which provenance has not been reliably established makes it quite incorrect to make a blanket statement to the effect that all examples are man-made. Indeed, John Rand Capron's 1880 description would seem to show very specifically that not all examples are made by people Ghughesarch (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • Not clear that Capron's description is precisely about crop circles as currently described in the media which describe them. There is some original research which may need to be removed form the article. The typical things that people refer to as "crop circles" are all made by humans -- either hoaxers or artists. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • • It's very clear that Capron's description is of the simple circles which were characteristic of the early part of the "boom" in crop circles from the early 1980s. The statement that all examples are made by people is simply too sweeping. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry. That's original research. I have looked at the reliable sources on the subject and see none as of the last ten years that dispute the fact that crop circles are made by humans. Feel free to provide one if you have one. jps (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
          • You could try the Oxford Dictionaries definition given as the source in the first line at note 2: "An area of standing crops which has been flattened in the form of a circle or more complex pattern. No general cause of crop circles has been identified although various natural and unorthodox explanations have been put forward; many are known to have been hoaxes." Many are known to have been hoaxes is not the same thing as all are made by people. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
            • No, the dictionary does not authoritatively identify the case-by-case facts associated with crop circles being human made. Try again. I'm kinda amazed that you think this is a reasonable argument. It's like using the dictionary definition of psychic to argue that psychic powers are real. jps (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
              • You talk of having consulted the "reliable sources" on the subject. Which were these? did they include, for example, The Skeptic's Dictionary" (note 43)? which states "Most, if not all, crop circles are probably due to pranksters." Once again, "most, if not all", is not the sweeping statement of fact that "all" circles are made by humans. In fact, at a quick read through, I can't see any source cited by the article as making that precise claim. http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html Ghughesarch (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how a simple and plain WP:ASSERTion of the facts that crop circles are made by humans can be plausibly argued against here. Claiming that the current wording is a "sweeping statement of fact" is classic special pleading. Go ahead and identify a plausible argument from a reliable source from the last fifteen years that does not identify crop circles as being human caused. The article as is is fully consistent with the skeptic's dictionary. jps (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence to show how certain crop circles were made. It is possible microwave radiation from thunder storms and other natural things could cause some of them. The more elaborate ones are of course all hoaxes. You need references to prove this of course. Dream Focus 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposals that microwave radiation or thunderstorms cause them have not been seriously contended for decades. This is because the circles were revealed to be hoaxes. If you can find a current source to the contrary, please provide it. jps (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

References

1. The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995) Wednesday 26 January 1966 p 3
2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/crop-circle?q=crop+circle
3. The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995) Wednesday 26 January 1966 p 3
4. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/crop-circle?q=crop+circle

jps - Are you going to provide a link on this page to the discussion you have stated on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, so that the discussion can involve those interested in a sensible resolution that does not merely push your POV? Ghughesarch (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that all "Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists." A single purpose account keeps edit warring that bit back in. Dream Focus 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • People who believe that crop circles are not human caused and want to see that POV reflected at Misplaced Pages are not fit to be editors. jps (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That is your opinion, I look forward to seeing your edits on the pages of the world's religions, for example. In the meantime, you might also like to pay some regard to WP:3RR Ghughesarch (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • This has nothing to do with the world's religions, that I know. Except for maybe some obscure UFO religions. jps (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Your block log is rather long. You have a history of arguing nonstop with people, edit warring, and even defying Arbitration rulings. You get your mind set on something, and just argue nonstop, ignoring whatever anyone else has to say, so badly they had to ban you from participating on certain pages. Dream Focus 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. The arguments here seem good. There's no evidence that the circles have been created by anything other than hoaxers and artists. The current wording may be a bit strong, but not outside what's required of WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That might be relevant if jps were the sole supporter of this content. Since he is not, and since the balance of us do not have long block logs (unless you count the list of people I have blocked) it is not relevant. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have "Every crop circle for which provenance has been reliably established, has been made by people." from "sceptical" side with partial agreement "That's precisely the point - the fact that there are examples for which provenance has not been reliably established makes it quite incorrect to make a blanket statement to the effect that all examples are man-made." from "non-sceptical" side, wouldn't it be possible to write something like that agreed part into the article?

Let's say, "Although other natural causes or alien origins of crop circles have been proposed, in all cases where the exact cause was established they were man-made, created by hoaxers and artists."? Is there anything disagreeable for any side in such formulation?

I guess that would also make repetition of "created by people" in the definition unnecessary, unless someone claims that something similar created by some other cause will have to have a different name... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the proposed wording seems a little bit awkward, but I'd go along with it, with a comma after "causes" and one after "origins" to slightly separate the natural and alien? and perhaps "hoaxers or artists" as the two aren't the same thing? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that the proposed "natural causes and alien origins" are not considered reasonable hypotheses by any current reliable sources. jps (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, I don't see where my version claims otherwise. It does not state so explicitly, but wouldn't you agree that it at least implies that? And I do not see a way to make it any more explicit without adding still more text... For example, your current version (Special:Diff/674072249) - "Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles continue to be proposed by present-day conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence for such explanations." - still doesn't avoid those problems, as it states that there are present day conspiracy theorists who argue that crop circles are caused by natural circles. That doesn't look right... I am afraid that if we want to keep things short, the only thing we can say about "natural causes theory" and "alien origin theory" is that "they have been proposed". Just about everything else is different for them: one has been proposed by scientists, another has been proposed by ufologists, one "went out of fashion" after the confessions, another - probably not so much... Thus I would still think that my version would be more suitable... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

it certainly would be preferable. Unfortunately the "any alternative to my version of what happens is wrong and I will stretch the sources beyond breaking point" brigade has rather taken over this whole issue. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you call your opponents "the "any alternative to my version of what happens is wrong and I will stretch the sources beyond breaking point" brigade" they are only more likely to treat any version that is acceptable to you with suspicion.

Not to mention that such description ignores the fact that User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc was persuaded to reword his version in the very next section (Special:Diff/673840664/673872891, Special:Diff/673833438/673843504).

After all, just as you have a legitimate concern that the article would not overemphasise the "hoax theory" (let's say, by stating that it was always the only one taken seriously), they also have a legitimate concern that the article would not underemphasise it (let's say, by stating that at present it only slightly dominates "natural cause theory" and "alien theory"). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The two diffs you draw attention to are not the ones that got me involved in this and frankly I don't care which of those two versions stays in. The issue is the repeated re-insertion of created by people in the very first line of the article, and the line Crop circles are man-made, created by hoaxers and artists. at the end of the first paragraph. Neither is actually supported by the rest of the article or by the sources. The implication of both those statements in that all circles ever recorded were thus created, despite plausible suggestions of natural causes (wind damage) for some simple examples. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, at present the article is fine. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"?

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ("jps" above) has edited the lede of this article at least twice to describe unverified and/or paranormal explanations of crop circles as "conspiracy theories". This is not what "conspiracy theory" means. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that these explanations of crop circles are not in-and-of-themselves conspiracy theories, the current reliable sources indicate that the supporters of these particular beliefs these days are conspiracy theorists. jps (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The only mention of conspiracy theorists I can see in the article is the single sentence that "Some even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles".

Ufologists and paranormal thinkers aside, the article details historical (and partly retracted) theories from a meteorologist, a 19th century amateur scientist, the Tasmanian attorney general, a couple of biophysicists and Stephen Hawking, none of whom appear to be conspiracy theorists. If we're trying to summarise the alternate explanations for the lede, "obscure natural causes or alien origins from crop circles have been proposed by conspiracy theorists" is simply a bad summary. --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Crop circles are the sole provenance in the last 15 years of conspiracy theorists. The article is pretty clear about that. Check out the dates on the sources you are attempting to cite. jps (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to cite sources, I'm attempting to summarise the article. If the majority of the large "alternate explanations" section is about unproven theories made by people who aren't conspiracy theorists, then saying that such theories have been "proposed by conspiracy theorists" is a poor summary of it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We're looking at different points. You're saying that the lede is summarizing the explanations that were provided before it was confidently confirmed that crop circles were all hoaxes. I'm talking about today. jps (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about today, then you should say that in the sentence. A new reader would interpret your sentence as saying that only conspiracy theorists have ever suggested non-hoax explanations for crop circles, and this is neither correct, nor what the body of the article says. --McGeddon (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Fixed. jps (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that "obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles continue to be proposed by present-day conspiracy theorists" still implies that conspiracy theorists are the only people to have ever suggested non-hoax explanations for the circles. --McGeddon (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists and other cranks, then? Would that work for you? Guy (Help!) 23:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Try being WP:CIVIL and it may be possible to arrive at a consensus. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Try not being a single-purpose account devoted to promoting fringe views against Misplaced Pages policy. There's nothing uncivil about noting that "cerealogists" are cranks and conspiracists. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a "single-purpose account devoted to promoting fringe views". For what it's worth, your latest edit is absolutely fine and addresses the more extreme "I don't believe this happens, therefore it doesn't" version that was being pushed by another editor. Can it be left like that? I doubt it, since it will be assailed from both sides until the end of time. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW I think the current version looks pretty reasonable to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It now reads: Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles continue to be proposed by present-day conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence for such explanations and crop circles are generally accepted as man-made, created initially by hoaxers and subsequently also artists

• How does believing in the possibility of "obscure natural causes" make someone a conspiracy theorist? Also do all the people who believe its from aliens also believe there is a conspiracy going on? A conspiracy means someone is conspiring , working in secret with the aliens, or the aliens are conspiring to do something harmful. What about those who believe it is a peaceful message? Dream Focus 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What if instead of conspiracy theorists we used the umbrella term fringe theorists? Category:Fringe theory includes conspiracy theories, pseudosciences like cryptozoology, Forteana, and so forth. This neatly sidesteps the demarcation problem, and identifies cereology as outside the mainstream without being insulting. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Great idea. I have made the change. Dream Focus 02:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Much better. We can possibly lose the awkward "continue to be proposed by present-day" framing as a result. --McGeddon (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What about "are proposed by"? -- Andrewaskew (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Many circles"

User:Ghughesarch edited the article to say "Many crop circles have been shown to be created by hoaxers and artists", actually it is all those for which a cause has been established. I found a quote in the Grauniad which I hope will be acceptable to all: "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand." That sums it up very nicely, in that it includes the possibility of freak natural causes, however unlikely, but establishes the well-documented fact that most are of human origin. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

not vandalism

I have been reverted but was not vandalism - Edis, T. Science and Nonbelief. Prometheus Books. 2008, p. 138. ISBN 1-59102-561-3 "Skeptics begin by pointing out that many paranormal claims are the result of fraud or hoaxes. Crop circles — elaborate patterns that appear on fields overnight — appear to be of this sort. Many crop circle makers have come forth or have been exposed. We know a great deal about their various techniques. So we do not need to find the perpetrator of every crop circle to figure out that probably they all are human made. Many true believers remain who continue to think there is something paranormal — perhaps alien — about crop circles. But the circles we know all fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes. Nothing stands out as extraordinary."</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by A little angry (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You can find a book to say anything you want, and just as many books to say the opposite. Not every scientists and reliable source out there says every single crop circle was the work of humans. Some state microwave radiation naturally occurring in thunder storms could be the cause, or various other things, for some of the ordinary circular ones. I don't think anyone doubts that the more complicated ones were all hoaxes. Dream Focus 23:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a general observation, not restricted to the topic of crop circles. Laymen need to realize that scientists often do not behave very scientifically. They often have private flaws which make them support silly ideas, and they then try to use their qualifications to browbeat the layman into submission. For instance, many of the greatest scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries backed various fraudulent psychics (not that there are any genuine ones). Brian Josephson, who won a Nobel Prize for undergraduate (sic) research believes in the paranormal. Many creationists have impressive scientific credentials. There are employees at Boeing who think that gyroscopes truly defy gravity (they do not). The bottom line is that the views of individual scientists should be ignored when discussing 'mystical' subjects. As the scientific consensus is that all crop circles are man-made, that is the only view which matters: non-scientists are not qualified to weigh evidence and the occasional maverick scientist is certainly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.90.206 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Willy-willy?

In the Modern times section it says "Director of Public Relations, Department of Defence (Air Office), wrote to a journalist that the "saucer" was probably debris lifted by the causing willy-willy". I presume this is a bit of schoolboy vandalism - what should it say? Richerman (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism. The contributor was probably Australian, hence willy willy. Moriori (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My revert

I removed "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand," from the lead because it is a verbatim lift from the reference, IOW a blatant copyvio. I left a message on User:Ghughesarch's talk page saying why, but he/she restored it, so I have reverted again. Moriori (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A direct, short, quote from the source does not infringe copyvio. Grow up Ghughesarch (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be rewritten. How about Whether some are caused by natural phenomena or not, is still open to dispute. or add to that sentence and say ...dispute, some believing all are created are by human hand,? Dream Focus 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure it can, and that's the only way it can be used AFAIK. I have asked User:Moonriddengirl to take a look. She's a copyvio expert, so her opinion will be fine with me. Moriori (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need it, it's fine as it is, and it's not a copyvio to quote some small part of what's been said in a longer article. Blimey, the lengths people will go to Ghughesarch (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's open to dispute, but many are proven hoaxes, although fringe theorists have suggested explanations, but there is no evidence" is a convoluted piece of WP:HOWEVER. If there's no evidence and fringe theorists are still suggesting explanations (in the present tense), that seems like a sufficiently clear implication that the subject is "still open to dispute". --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is scope for legitimate debate over whether some have natural causes. There is no real scope for debate over any cause other than humans or (just possibly) weather, because proponents of other origins have yet to produce a shred of evidence, preferring to rely on arguments from personal incredulity. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted the word-for-word copyright violation. Even if rephrased, the suggestion that there is some kind of controversy about the cause seems undue, especially when added to the lead. The source is a Guardian article that simply lists crop circles; it doesn't treat the subject in any depth. This may be a good time to cite WP:BESTSOURCES -- we should be looking to deliberate treatment of the subject, not a listing found in a newspaper. Such treatment seems relatively rare; there are many crop circle books that are promotional in nature, for instance. There is a livescience article which mentions the natural phenomenon angle but doesn't give it such weight. A livescience thread at RSN indicates that it's a reliable source. Manul ~ talk 11:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, it is not a copyvio. It is a short sentence and quoting it directly is perfectly acceptable both legally and according to Misplaced Pages policy. You can check my history to see how well I am likely to understand this: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The objections being raised, in my view, display motivated reasoning. The statement may not be from the best available source, but it summarises the best available sources in a way that is pretty close to perfect, in terms of concision, accuracy and balance of the claims advanced. I am emphatically not a believer. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Under the copyright policy, short excerpts may be repeated verbatim in line with the non-free content policy. That policy states that Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes (emphasis mine). Since this piece of text is not attributed in such a way, it is a copyvio - please either remove, rephrase or add appropriate punctuation to resolve this. Yunshui _水 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was asked to offer a viewpoint here. Quoting it directly is, indeed, perfectly acceptable, but per policy a quotation requires quotation marks or other indication of direct copying. Taking creative content from sources without this - unless they are public domain or compatibly licensed, and even then direct copying must be acknowledged in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism - is not permitted. WP:C says, "quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Misplaced Pages's manual of style"; WP:NFC says, "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes." If you don't want it to be a quote, it should be properly paraphrased. --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Got an e/c with you putting in the quotation marks a moment ago - thank you for doing that, Moonriddengirl. I have to say, from a purely editorial perspective I think that it now looks rather ridiculous, and I'd encourage this article's editors to come up with an appropriate paraphrase instead. Yunshui _水 12:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that, and I would have done it but got called away briefly. Quoted, it is fair use. Stupid of me not to put quotyes in in the first instance - I just plain forgot. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look silly with the quote marks. Might I suggest, replacing "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand," according to The Guardian with Whether all crop circles are created by humans, or whether some can be attributed to natural causes, is still open to dispute, with the cite to the Guardian? Ghughesarch (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording is painful. It's one thing for a media space-filler to include such a statement, but quite another for it to be in the lead of an encyclopedic article. It's sky-is-blue obvious that no scientific or other study of all crop circles has occurred, so some of them may have natural causes, while others may have been made by Martians. It's also obvious that a small number of natural-causes crop circles have occurred—circles which aren't circular and which would not get any attention because they're not impressive. One point about the sentence is that it appears next to an illustration for which there is no dispute—all such pretty pictures obviously show pranks and there can be no dispute about that. Why is the statement required? Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, for this specific reason: the statement acknowledges that most are man-made (which has broad consensus here) and closes off the weaselly possibility that some might be of some paranormal origin, whihc is the main source of the dispute between the "most are" and "all are" formulations. You and I both know that the number of circles that are not man-made is tiny, and that every one for which a cause has been definitively established, has been man-made, but it's like the "unidentified" in UFO - by definition, we cannot know, but we do know that there is bugger all evidence of non-terrestrial cause. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits give the impression (entirely wrong on both counts) that only one person (a journalist on a RS national newspaper) believes that a non-human natural cause for some crop circles is open to dispute, and that only one obscure professor at an American university believes that they "fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" (which is not the same as stating that they are all hoaxes). So I'm suggesting reverting back to the last edit which was the subject of sensible discussion here.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree and have removed the name for exactly that reaosn but I think the best solution is to agree a pararaph here between all participants, which we can all agree to defend against the drive-by paranormalists. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunately a drive-by skeptic who has left the article rather battered, and resisted the near-consensus view which was emerging a week ago. But I'd suggest "Whether all crop circles are made by people, or some caused by natural phenomena, remains open to dispute, but many crop circles have been shown to be created by hoaxers and artists.", and losing "and human causes are consistent for all crop circles" after "there is no scientific evidence for such explanations" Ghughesarch (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

However, I can tell you now that jps will not agree to that since it does not state that "all crop circles are created by people", so we are stuck. The possibility of a consensus is vanishingly small. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true, and jps is not a drive-by anything, he's been around for a long time. So: how about it? I think you and I agree on the fundamentals:

* Most of not all are created by people;

* Some sources still say that some may be created by some natural phenomenon;

* There is no credible evidence of any extraterrestrial origin.

Of these I think jps would dispute only point 2, and that on the basis of its significance, i.e. whether the belief in a hypothetical natural cause of a few circles is sufficiently well established to deserve mention in the lede. I don't think jps would accuse me of being one of the credulous, since I've written guest blogs on the JREF website. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical natural cause (let's be clear - wind) is the cause suggested by early reports - Capron's, Moore's (in conjunction with a putative meteorite) and others. That there is still a dispute as to whether a natural explanation other than people is tenable, is amply evidenced by the arguments that are going on here, and is also referenced in several of the sources cited in the article, including skeptical ones. That the dispute exists is notable enough to be included in the lede, particularly if the alternative is going to be an unbalanced statement (whatever the exact wording may be) to the effect that all are man-made. It goes beyond the rather weak "some sources still say".

re your point three, "extraterrestrial" in this case might be better phrased as something like "paranormal or caused by alien life".

the lede, as I understand it, is supposed to summarise the salient points of the article, and I personally don't think it helps readability, or concision, to have direct quotes and references to a handful of sources "fighting it out" at that point in the article, for statements which are expanded on and amply referenced lower down the page. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I also don't think there will be an answer, or at least an indication of which way things are likely to go, until the most recent edits have been reverted back to what was there before, and seemed to be close to consensus -1. so I hope you won't mind me doing that.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well. we have our answer, jps has seen fit to revert that change, claiming that the version that has not come close to consensus was "more neutral", and without engaging at the talk page first, as was requested.Ghughesarch (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy's version is better and a better point to start from than Ghughsearch's version. jps (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

and do you have a view that is useful on the proposed change of wording? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no proposal for changing any wording of Guy's version. Go ahead and make a suggestion. I have not any source identify a single crop circle identified as caused by the wind. jps (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed change of wording is given above. You are being deliberately obtuse. Capron and Moore both suggested the weather as causes.Ghughesarch (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Every crop circle in England in 2009 - with co-ordinates". The Guardian. September 15, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2015.
2. Hines. T. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books, 2003. pp. 295-296. ISBN 1-57392-979-4
3. Soto, J. Crop Cirles. In Michael Shermer (Ed). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. pp. 67-70. ISBN 1-57607-653-9

That's just the wording that was in before. Guy's preferred wording is better. jps (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, my wording is better and was accepted, even by User:JzG, before you resumed your disruptive editing of the article. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a Help! page can accept wording. You have to ask people. I think JzG's version is better than yours. Much better. jps (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the 03:11, 15 August 2015 version by jps because the "remains open to dispute" text was just a throw-away line in a space-filler which could be read as suggesting there may well be a dispute. However, per WP:REDFLAG, there is no dispute about such a fringe topic unless solid-gold reliable sources say so. The current text is phrased much more appropriately to show the obvious, namely that no one has determined the cause of every crop circle, so some may have natural causes. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A side-thought on reliable sources

Edit summaries such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crop_circle&type=revision&diff=676012615&oldid=676012489 "who you gonna believe? A journalist or a professor of physics?" are not helpful. For example, William Penhallow is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rhode Island. It hasn't stopped him writing some astonishing nonsense about the "astronomical significance" of the Newport Tower (Rhode Island). Just an example to bear in mind when pretending that a paper qualification is the same as common sense. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't even find a single page that attributes any particular crop circle to a natural cause after the hoaxers were identified. Can you? jps (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue is whether natural causes for some circles is still a matter for dispute. It clearly is. Unless you think Doug and Dave made the 1880, 1932 and 1963 ones, for example? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I dispute that they are even talking about "crop circles" as commonly described. Give me any example after the hoaxes. Just one will do. jps (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

From the first line of the article - "A crop circle or crop formation is a pattern created by flattening a crop" - there's nothing about "only after the hoaxes", and given the lack of interest from anyone other than the UFO-spotters since about 1990 and the advent of "complex messages from the great beyond" it would be hard to find anyone publishing the examples of rare, simple, possibly weather-caused, circles recently. However, if you want to try retitling the article "crop circles since the 1970s", go ahead.Ghughesarch (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The claims that crop circles existed as a term before the 1970s is no backed up in any source. This is all ex post facto hypothesizing by UFOlogists and researchers who have been subsequently debunked or who are simply not very good at researching. WP:NEO means that we should not be reaching back and guessing about what was in this way. jps (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The existence of flattened circles in crops before the 1970s is backed up by multiple sources which are cited in the article, which is not about "crop circles as a term"; by your logic, the article about volcanoes could not go back before the first recorded use of the word "volcano". Give it a rest. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A "crop circle" is more than just a "flattened circle of crops". All the sources agree with that. For example, herds of deer flatten crops in circular shapes all the time, but that's not what is considered a "crop circle". A "crop circle" is supposed to be a circle of crops that is flattened by claimed peculiar means (and before the hoax was revealed, there were all sorts of nonsense investigations into how special those circles were made). This is in contrast to volcanoes which are defined solely on the basis of their phenomenology. If you go see a herd of deers leave a field, their bedding does not leave behind a crop circle. If you see a circular crop mark, that is not a crop circle. That's what the sources say and to claim otherwise is either willful denial of the sources or an attempt to create a coatrack for argument's sake. jps (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

So give me the source that says the well-defined spirally-flattened circles and other regular shapes recorded in 1880, 1932 and 1963 were proved to be hoaxes. And edit the first line of the article to fit your definition, if you dare.Ghughesarch (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, see, that's not how it works. The 1880 claim is clearly forteana in the sense that there is zero independent notice of this claim outside of the crazies who believe crop circle nonsense. The 1932 Bow Hill report clearly identifies the phenomena as crop marks which is a different thing, and the 1963 claims are similar to the 1880 claims with a lack of independent notice outside of the WP:FRINGE crop circle community. These are post facto claims, and the fact that they were described after the fact without reliable evidence that they ever existed is simply not good enough for an article at Wikipdia which requires much better sources for such extraordinary points. You have not met your WP:BURDEN. There simply aren't any good sources which claim that crop circles are anything but manmade. jps (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the 1880 claim certainly was published in a reliable source, the journal "Nature", and the description is clearly of a crop circle. "Examined more closely, these all presented much the same character, viz., a few standing stalks as a center, some prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the centre, and outside these a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered." This effect is attributed to the weather: "The storms about this part of Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of standing wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety, but in patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular spots. ". This is not a post facto claim by "crazies", but what was written at the time. Similarly with the other pre-UFO era examples. But there's no point trying to discuss it with you, as with Lavoisier and the meteorites, for you "there are no stones in the sky, therefore stones cannot fall from the sky". And that is where your unassailable faith falls down. Ghughesarch (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The 1932 Bow Hill report (published in 1937) most emphatically does not report a crop mark http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/uk-1932-bow-hill.html "a circle in which the barley was "lodged" or beaten down" is not an archaeological crop mark. Ghughesarch (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And Sir Patrick Moore's report of 1963 http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/uk-1963-charlton.html again was published in a reputable journal, the New Scientist, and is not a post-facto piece by Ufological "crazies". Ghughesarch (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

So one has to ask, if these were hoaxes - that being, apparently, the only explanation you will accept - what were they hoaxes of? as much as a century before the so-called "saucer nests" at Tully which supposedly were the inspiration for the (not always very convincing) claims of Bower and Chorley Ghughesarch (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The 1963 case was post facto remembering, so it is unreliable. The 1937 case is clearly crop marks. The 1880 case could easily be crop marks as well, but it's shrouded in obscurity and was only picked up by UFOlogists who do post facto justification that "they've always been visiting us". There are hundreds of examples of weird letters to Nature from that time which went nowhere. This one just has superficial similarities to "crop circles" that excited UFOlogists in the 90s. That's the full import. This is not evidence for anything more than sensationalism. jps (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to explain this. In science, you are allowed to be wrong. Patrick Moore's 1963 article was a statement of his views at the time, but a great deal of subsequent data has shown that there is no remotely plausible non-human explanation for crop circles, and that article is of purely historical curiosity value now: we can say that opinion was at one time X, but that does nto change the fact that it is now Y. Even the claims of localised meteorological effects are speculative and largely unsupported by hard data, claims of extraterrestrial origin are simply bonkers. The only crop circles for which a cause has been definitively established, are of human creation. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that this kind of analysis would be a good thing to include in the article text. It's the basic summary of all the most reliable sources on crop circles. However, it seems when I try to summarize our sources to illustrate that this is what's going on, I get reverted for being too skeptical. jps (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear - "crop marks" are discolouration caused by underground structures of some sort, which affect drainage, thereby affecting the appearance of the ground and/or plants growing on it. The 1880 "prostrate stalks", the 1932 "barley lodged or beaten down" and the 1963 circles "in which the wheat had been flattened" are definitely NOT crop marks. If crop marks created this type of flattening effect it would mean crop circles are of natural origin - but they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.110.88 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Saucer nests

Should read: "crop mark" not "crop formation"

Should read: "crop mark" not "crop formation" for-fecks-fecking-sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.67.131 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to provide sources for that change. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus rubbish still here

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Articles linked from high traffic sites