Talk:Cattle mutilation/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Cattle mutilation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Discussion Archive
parts of this archive were previously divided by topic
- Notices (Suggestions and comments)
- Notices (Edits and deletions)
- Myths and Speculation
- Unusual Behavior
- Misc
- Bob Larson
Natural criticisms
From the article, the common criticisms of the natural hypothesis are:
* A lack of teethmarks on carcases * A lack of tearing on the hide as predators enlarge holes in order to gain entry to the body * A lack of tearing on flesh around the mutilated areas caused by feeding predators/scavengers * A lack of predator's footprints around the site of the carcass (particularly in snow or soft ground) * A lack of secondary predation, even after several weeks
Now my problem with this is that none of this is actually unusual. Bloating, desication and insects (even a few crows) are more than sufficient to cause the majority of the symptoms given, but this criticism doesn't address them, instead focusing on the false idea that canine predators would have to be involved. How should we address this in the text? Jefffire 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe adding other physical signs like feathers from carion birds, droppings etc. Really, this is just an addition to the bit about the lab reports. It's of secondary importance to the 'fact' that there were sythetic coumpound and other anomolies in the animals. Do you have any ideas?
Anomalous chemicals would pose an actual problem to the "Natural predation" hypothesis. However, as far as I know there is no reliable source that there have been such observstions. Jefffire 13:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Does the the Kissinnee Diagnostic Laboratory at the Florida Department Of Agriculture & Consumer Services count as reliable? They found Furaltadone, Oxipronolol Acetate, Amfetaminil in a cows liver and autic system. None of those chemicals should be there.
- I have a feeling that you will just discount anybody that I pick.
Please do provide links to the original articles. Jefffire 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, Furaltodone is a common additive to animal feed. Did you mean to say Oxyprenolol Acetate? Jefffire 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm quoting somebody else, I meant to say what they said. If the chemical is wrong then the source is wrong.
I think the source is mistaken. Looks like he has insinuated that a bunch of common agricultural chamicals are unusual, and mispelled one. This illustrates the importance of Reliable Sources. Jefffire 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have a load of reports from the FBI, they are badly xeroxed so they are hard to read, but I presume that they are official enough for you.
Would you be so good as to prove links to said FBI files? Otherwise we are discussing Original Research. Jefffire 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not my work, it comes directly from the FBI. The link has been on the page ever since I put up the 'Official Explanation' section. http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/ufoanim.htm
- I've read them already. There does not appear to be anything of note there. Jefffire 09:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
I think that in the first section, especially, certain persons are shown in a negative/derogatory light. "For each reasonable hypothesis proposed by skeptics, Larson proposes an even wilder counter-theory." This language is highly biased, and seems to scoff at Bob Larson. Regardless if he is a quack or not, more neutral words should be chosen to represent both him and those who oppose him. NCartmell 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've edited this seciton and removed that comment. It's now a bit more level
sources
I have found some interesting stuff on http://www.paranetinfo.com/UFO_Files/ufo/english1.txt attempting to debunk Bill English and his mutilaiton stories, as well as a pro english long peace at http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/government_ufo_coverups/grudge13.html. Maybe somebody could work them in to the article.
Verification
Much still needs to be done on verification. Many paragraphs are entirely unverified. Of paricular note is "Government/Military Experimentation". For a start who, if any one, even claims this? Why would the government be able to afford laser scalpels, but not their own cattle and disposal facilities? Jefffire 12:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Why would the government be able to afford laser scalpels, but not their own cattle and disposal facilities?".
- Are you asking me to speculate? perfectblue 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is an important one now: WP:RS. Jefffire 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see also the guidance on "Undue weight". Jefffire 12:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you think that I've given undue weight to something, you are perfectly free to put in a counter section. I've already done this with the natural causes section that shows two views on comon mutilation sign. Could you also please be a little more specific. Which sections exactly? There is a lot here, could you please point me towards the key areas so that I can consentrate on them.
I have a problem with the "Common Criticisms of the Natural Causes Hypothesis" section (aside from the fact that it's the only criticism section). Basicaly the criticism is that it doesn't explain all mutilations. But the natural effects hypothesis doesn't claim to explain all mutilation, just most (since it seems fairly obvious to every one that were will be a few sociopaths with a cow fetish whatever else may or may not be happening). It seems to me that this point is not being neutral explained. Jefffire 12:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll work on it.
- The main reason that it is the only critisism section is that most of the other arguments are completely speculative, and so are their critisisms. It's like trying to clear the mist by pumping smoke into a room.
- I'm trying to fight a crank by citing a kook. I so much prefer working with Wiki's on pure fiction.
- Heh, well put. I'll give the page a once over later and see where that leaves us. Jefffire 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Bovine Excision?
First off, thanks to perfectblue for all the hard work on this article. This isn't an easy subject and feelings on both sides of this are strong. Finding a path down the middle hasn't been easy. I'll do my best to support your efforts in this endeavor. My one question is this: Can we get a scholarly definition of the term Bovine Excision? It seems to be analogous to the Blown Nodes of crop circle researchers. Do non-biased researchers use the term? Do only proponents of the mutilation theory use it? I've seen a few sources that use it but only as a way to lend a psuedo-scientific air to their commentary. Who orignated the term? I'll be looking for this info myself but any help is appreciated. Thanks Lisapollison 16:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Do non-biased researchers use the term", I have found more evidence for the existance of cattle mutilaitons than I have for the existance of non-bias researchers.
- great comeback! Still, do you know when this term first came into use and who coined it? Without that info, the claim that Cattle Mutilation is also known as bovine excision is weak and undocumented. When I googled, I found a few references to the term but it was like s snake biting its tail - they all led back to eachother.Lisapollison 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I 'suspect' that the term was first coined by the NIDS or a like minded individual who wanted to draw cattle mutilation away from the freaks and geeks camp and into the science/psudo science camp, but I don't know where it first originated from. At this point I think that it's best to recognize that the term exists neutrally, rather than say that its a psudo-science con term.
perfectblue 10:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've looked long and hard to find a use of the term that didn't originate with the one cited source and I cannot. I would respectfully suggest that you consider removing th term altogether since it is not in general use. It also sends up a red flag for me that reads : Watch out, psuedoscience gobbleydeegook to follow. You've worked so hard on this article. I feel that tossing this made-up fake-sceince term in at the beginning undermines your efforts to bring the article in line with verifiable sources. if the term were in general use by Cattle Mutliation researchers, then yes, it should stay. However, it is not. I feel you gain more credibilty by losing the reference to Bovine Excision. Just my opinion. Lisapollison 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Some this and Some that
This article needs a general sweep of phrases such as:
- Some people believe....
- Some people say...
- others say....
etc etc. These are known as weasel words because they cannot be verified, identified or quantified by the reader. Just say who believes what. Name the person or organization or loose group or if you don't name them, you must link to quote or a page that documents that belief. I'll try to help out with this. It's not as easy as making a simple edit here and there. I don't expect it will be easy to get this done quickly but it needs doing. Lisapollison 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I vote that we standardize to using the word 'proponents': Meaning anybody and everybody who believe that cattle mutilatins aren't the result of natural phonomena, unless we are talking about a specific group or individual. In which case that person should be named.
- I would also like to try to avoid using labels like Ufologist or Paranormal Investigator etc because these terms automatically sets up a bias in readers who are skeptics as it assosciates this phenomona with the supernatural and thus with kooks and cranks. Half of this article is about things like cults, sexual deviants and alleged animal experimentation, which are firmly down to earth and really don't need to be wrapped up in the paranormal.
- We also need to be careful, some of the weasel words were edited out a while ago in a way that made it sound like an individual was the original source of some of the information on this site, when he was just a third party citing somebody else's work in his own.
If the individual calls himself a Ufologist then that's their business, no ours. It's up to the reader to decide if a man who describes himself as such is reliable, not us. Jefffire 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If it is up to the reader to decide who is reliable and who isn't, I may re-insert all of those links to the NIDS, and begin quoting George Onet again, yes?
perfectblue 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Claims are claims, but fact need reliable sources. Geocities sites are still ad laden garbage, and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:RS still stand. Jefffire 09:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Were's talking verb usage here, not judgement of content. A claim and a report can both be inaccurate but it's important that we differentiate between the two.
perfectblue 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Back to my original comment - there are too many sentence that begin with some people say this and Some people say that. If you mean proponents of CM theory (CM = Cattle Mutiliation), then just say proponents. I'm cool with that. I just wish there was a single group to refer to. I don't think there is. Some fo the proponents throw their weight behind the balck helicopter/govt conspiracy theory, other proponents hold to the aliens did it theory. I just think that where you can identify the some people subject of the sentence, you should. For example, you could say:
- Some cattle herders believe (and link to the source)..blah blah..
- Some Law Enforcement officers who have investiagted... believe...
- Skeptical Researcher so and so says....(with link).. blah blah
- CSICOP or MUFON Dude (insert name) says... blah blah
- Do you see my point? The more you nail down these some people folks, the better the article will read. FYI,perfectblue, your hard work is not unappreciated. This isn't an easy subject to take on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisapollison (talk • contribs)
- Very true. However I am concerned about the volume of the article which appears to be individual opinion. Specificly, I'm thinking of trimming (not cutting) John Lear. Jefffire 08:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
2nd hand Oregon UFO review and NIDS cites are not acceptable for verifying outside labratory reports. Either cite the original, or make it clear that thise is what the organisation is claiming the originl report said. Neither of these two are even halfway considered reliable sources as per WP:RS. Jefffire 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Private labs don't print necropsy result on their public websites so primary sources are impossible in some of these cases. I have contacted more than one of these groups, including university labs that have conducted necropsies but have either been blanked or goven the 'buy my latest book' answer.
- In other cases these lab reports are 20 or 30 years old and never were computerized. It is likely that some of them have been shredded and no longer exist in an original form.
Relevance
In defense of the restored sections.
1) Cattle are not the exclusive victims of mutilation. The similarities and differences to other types of animal mutilations are relevant. This is especially important as the 'Animal Mutilation' page automatically redirects to 'cattle mutilation', and there exists no page to deal specifically with unexplained non-bovine mutilations.
2) It is a 'popular belief' that cults are responsible for cattle mutilations. Therefore it is appropriate that they be discussed in depth. This includes the reasons why cults may not be responsible, as well as who says that they are. The media attention given to this hypothesis alone makes it worthy of inclusion in a significant section.
4) Cults have also been shown to have committed large animal mutilations in Europe for decades, but not in the US, it is therefore important to discuss the similarities and differences of these cases. Particularly as it impacts significantly on public opinion (again, as 'animal mutilation' redirects to 'cattle mutilation' this seems an appropriate place to highlight the issue).
5) This page deals with both natural and unnatural mutilations (Predators, perverts and UFOs). It is therefore important that natural and unnatural be given equal weight, and that distinctions be drawn where they exist (eg horse ripping V horse/cattle mutilation and human mutilation V Muti killing).
6) Unmarked helicopters and aircraft were clearly associated with cattle mutilation by witness statements given to the FBI, and are therefore a viable part of mutilation folklore/fact. The section needs revision and downsizing.
perfectblue 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've missed the crux of my arguement. Could you verify that these phenomenon have been linked to cattle mutilation. I don't see why the vast majority of the cults section should comprise of the opinions of just one man and the debunking of his opinions. It's a clear Undue Weight issue. Jefffire 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please be more specific, which phenomena. You deleted rather a lot of text.
1) This page isn't about mutilated cows it is about 'the phenomena of cattle mutilatoin'. Showing that other animals are mutilated too is clearly relevant as it shows both links and discrepancies to facts and popular myths of the phenomena. You left the section about Lady the horse in. as well as the foreword about sheep and horese being mutilated, so it must be relevent that other animals suffer the same thing.
2) How, exactly, do you suggest that I verify something that is part of an unexplained phenomena? The best that I can do is to find proof that people believe that there are links and then show the reasons why they believe this. Can you verify that they are not linked to CM?
3) The PP were near identical to the cattle mutilations, except not with cattle. There's a trace link right there.
4) The best way to solve undue weight is not for you to delete the section, it is for you to ADD weight to the other side of the argument. Create, don't destroy. The anti-cult arguments are all valid. If you feel that it is out of balance, then YOU need to ADD some pro-cult.
I did this by adding information later on to say that cults had been shown to be involved in horse mutilations, and so could be involved in cow mutilations too.
perfectblue 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Firsly, undue weight isn't the only problem, there is also notability. The opinions of a single kook do not warrent an extended section. Secondly, I'm asking for the verification that these phenomenon are being reliably linked. If they are then mention that, but extended sections on it are clearing violating OR. It is up to the editor wanting inclusion to provide evidence that the two are linked, and not the other way around. Jefffire 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rather than just telling me to do something, why don't you suggest how I can do it in a way that satisfies you. If you don't tell me what you think is good enough, it's kind of hard for me to level. What would you consider to be sufficient?
- I can drag out 10 kooks, or link to 10 website, claiming that there is a links. I can even find you a couple of reports from officials asking the FBI to investigate possible links. In fact I specifically started off on the horse trail to show that there are real links between 'some' animal mutilations and cults but not others However nobody has ever been convicted of it.
- "It is up to the editor wanting inclusion to provide evidence that the two are linked, and not the other way around."
- That was an invitation to participate in expanding this page. I'd much rather that you filled in the missing bits yourself than having to keep searching this page every few days to find out what you don't like about my edits.
- I don't want this to be an edit war, but I can't tell what you're thinking so I can't do it.
You are engaging in textbook original research. You must provide verification that the subjects you write about are directly relevent to the article and none other. You've written a lot on horse ripping, but this is an article about cattle mutilation, why not put them into horse ripping instead and leave a brief mention that some have linked them? Wikipedia is not about quantity. loading it up with loads and loads of extranuos information will render it unusuable, which is why I am and will continue to delete any information which is not verified as correct and notable. It's nothing personaly, I've laid waste to vast swathes of Wikipedia. Jefffire 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please be specific. I cannot read your mind.
perfectblue 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Article needs a total overhaul
I have reread this article carefully and began citing each sentence that contain a POV statement, a weasel word, a passive voice hedge or other such inadvertant weasel devices and the list got so long as to be unproductive. I have come to the conclusion that this article needs a total re-write to come into compliance with Wikipedia standards and style. I know perfectblue has worked long and hard on this article and I mean no disrepect by making this suggestion. I simply feel that a citation here and an added specification there are inadequate to bring the quality of this article up to par. I would ask however, that we not delete this article or tamper with it too much until I've had time to come up with some sample opening paragraphs for perfectblue to look over. Give me a week. if I don't come up with anything suitable, then continue patching and fixing the article as is. I believe we can do this right and still use perfectblue's basic layout. In addition, beefing up other articles on related topics and then linking to that material could help us with length and tangents.Lisapollison 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Edits
I've heavily edited the section on natural causes to make it more scientific and even handed, and I've moved the section about Ruby Brouma to a new section about people critisising the idea of mutilation by natural causes.
If you want to revert any of this, could you please discuss it here first.
Could somebody also please check what I have done for POV, suitability of language, and general spel/gram.
perfectblue 13:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hoax
I've deleted the following as it is a hoax, and will replace it with a brief summary.
An account by Alexander Hamilton of Leroy, Kansas, supposedly occurred about April 19, 1897, and was published in the Yates Center Farmer’s Advocate of April 23. Hamilton, his son, and a tenant witnessed an airship hovering over his cattle pen. Upon closer examination, the witnesses realized that a red "cable" from the airship had lassoed a heifer, but had also become entangled in the pen’s fence. After trying unsuccessfully to free the heifer, Hamilton cut loose a portion of the fence, then "stood in amazement to see the ship, cow and all rise slowly and sail off." (Jacobs, 15) Some have suggested this was the earliest report of cattle mutilation. This was part of a larger wave of so-called mystery airship sightings. (In 1982, however, UFO researcher Jerome Clark debunked this story, and confirmed via interviews and Hamilton's own affidavit that the story was a successful attempt to win a Liar's Club competition to create the most outlandish tall tale). [1]
perfectblue 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Section Removed
I've removed the following section as it is no longer relevant. The link to earthfile has been removed and included elewhere.
Subsequent cases
Reports continue through recent years, though as noted above, precise numbers are very difficult to determine.
According to a 1997 NIDS report, ranchers in Utah were weighing and tagging calves one morning. They tagged an 87-pound individual, then, less than an hour later, reported that they made a shocking discovery: "In a 45 minute period in daylight, 100 yards from any cover, with the rancher about 200-300 yards away, the calf had most of its body weight removed, including entrails, and appeared to have been placed carefully on the ground with no blood present or near the animal." Report available at this external link; Warning: Contains graphic photos [2] and [3] which also contains extremely graphic material.
Titles
I've retitled 'mundane' and 'fringe' to conventional and unconventional (there is nothing mundane about killing cattle).
My intention is that all of the 'regular' things like freaks, pervert and wild animals can be labeled 'conventional', while anything to do with conspiracies, aliens and the supernatural can go under unconventional.
perfectblue 12:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
myths and speculation
There are a lot of myths and speculation about cattle mutilations and I want to include some of them as they are an important part of the folklore surrounding the phenomena because the effect what people think. However I can't prove that they are true (some of them blatantly aren't). How should I go about this?
I'm considering adding a section about 'popular beliefs' or 'mutilation folklore' that we could put these myths in that seperates them from the rest of the site. It would literally be a 'what nutjobs think is true'.
perfectblue 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Who are we to say what's true and what isn't? Most of this is article is equaly absurd to me, and what you consider a belief of folklore someone else could consider fact. Suggesting that some claims are more absurd that others is POV. Jefffire 08:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Who are we to say what's true and what isn't?" You have been doing that all month whenever I have quoted the NIDS. If we are not to judge or POV, then anything that the NIDS ever said can be cited here.
perfectblue 09:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is also the matter of of notability. Why repeat every damn thing NIDS say when they have their own website? Jefffire 09:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Let me give you an example of what I mean.
- It is a popular belief that mutilated cows have been found in indentations in the ground with their legs broken and strap marks showing that they were lasooed and pulled up by helicopters.
- I've found a couple of police reports that say this, but no necrospy reports to confirm it to be true. It's widely enough believed/recited to make it an important part of the folklore around cattle mutilations, where should it go?
- Include it with the other claims, it isn't any more ridiculous. Jefffire 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- 90 percent of what is said about cattle mutilations is either rediculious and speculative or unproven and speculative (or both). Only cases where predator's teethmarks and tracks are truely credible. But they are not real cattle mutilations in the sense of this page because they are explainable and an ever day occourance. They have their own section (Natural Causes)
Unusual behavior
Animals avoiding other dead animals is considered 'unusual'. I am restoring it and adding link to a report verifying this.
perfectblue 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- No it isn't. Virtualy all animals avoid dead members of their own species. It's an adaptation to avoid disease. Jefffire 12:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I take it that you grew up on a farm. Me, I can virtually throw a rock and hit a sheep. Horses have a natural aversion to death and excrement (For example, they won't feed where they poop), but cows don't. They might not come within a few feet or a carcass, but they won't be distressed. I'll find you a link.
- If this is about what we can cite, rather than what we know, I can cite this
- after an animal has been mutilated the rest of the herd behaves strangely and will keep their distance from the carcass for days. They look afraid and are in visible distress. A Utah rancher reported that the horse he was riding became very nervous when it saw a mutilated cow. The horse started to snort and would not go near the cow.........Animals that die of natural causes do not seem to trigger the same type of reaction from other animals. On a recent trip to a Nevada ranch (Dec. 1996), a dead cow was found on a pasture close to the highway. The cause of death appeared to be distocia. Part of an oversized calf was engaged in the pelvic tract, but the birth could not be finalized. The exhausting efforts of the cow resulted in her death. The carcass was not removed for over ten days. Animals grazing in the immediate area were not bothered by the carcass.
- ANIMAL MUTILATIONS: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW (http://www.nidsci.org/articles/animal2.php)
- George E. Onet
perfectblue 13:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ironicaly, animals grazing normaly around a dead individual is actual unusual behaviour. My guess is that Onet is exaggerating, or outright fabricating. Jefffire 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now, for the answer to my question. Are you the town mouse or the country mouse? Me, until las year, I lived in a small town surrounded by feilds as far as the eye could see. Cattle will not graze within a few feet of a carcass, but they won't be paniced by it.
- I grew up in the countryside, 15 years. We were surrounded by cows, it was the local specialty. We were surrounded by other aninimal too, but no wild large predators as I live in Britian. I've studied forensic entymology (the actions of insects on a dead body) as well as natural decomposition. I've personaly seen cases of animal decomposing exactly as described in most of these cases (except for allegations of superheated collagen). I'm also familur with horses, it doesn't take a lot to panic one. Jefffire 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a better answer. Did do general Forensic Entymology or branch off into Criminal Forensic Entymology.
- I take it that your studies include a fair bit on the agrigultural and vetinary chemicals that can inhibit or prevent lavi development in carcasses etc. A number of these reports report no or minamal magot infestation after a sustained period, and some even say that there significant numbers of dead flies on/around mutilated cattle and no magots whatsoever (reports aren't consistant so I haven't included it on the page right now).
- Not all comsumption is by maggots. Most oppertunists will take a pop at exposed eyes if able, even if just for the moisture. Cow skin in very tough, so after eyes and other soft tissue has been consumed, it would not be odd for the animal to have little other decomposers. These reports are all of very dubious quality, which is why I recommend that we keep quite close to WP:RS. Jefffire 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase, maggots and other insects. You don't deal with rodents etc and you didn't grow up with much more than crows and wealse chewing on your cows, so I can't really ask you to comment professionally on them.
- "These reports are all of very dubious quality......WP:RS"
- The FBI released quite a few reports back in the 70s. Are they reliable? Plus, WP:RS doesn't apply in some of these cases as we are talking about speculation and conspiracies, in essence what is believed and what is touted about, rather than hard science from reputable people. If we went only for WP:RS, this article would start and finish with natural causes and that FBI investigation.
- This subject involves a specialty of mine. I don't think it is a good idea to disregard my opinionsj ust because they diverge from those of George E. Onet, Ph.D (Ph.d in what?). From now on I'm going to have to insist that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV#faq:Pseudoscience are adhered to strictly. If there is nothing but kooks making wild claims about this subject, that's not my problem. Jefffire 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's not Onet's Ph.d that counts it's the fact that he's a qualified vet. He's been published/quoted in the journal Vetinary Medicine a couple of times on non mutilation related topics so regular vets take him seriously when he's talking about serious topics.
- As for WP:V, most big name journals will either ignore this topic or will tend to come down heavily on the skeptics side if only to preserve their reputations when it comes to the serious stuff, and the NIDS does have qualified and verified scientists working for it, so it count as WP:V in my book at least as far as this topic goes. I'm trying to maintain som NPOV by including pro and anti arguments, but it's not that easy without blanked denials or kook reports.
- No those aren't reliable sources. Wikipedia is built on a bedrock of authority. Right or wrong it is built into the founding guidelines that peer reviewed journals and government institutions are reliable sources, whilst organisations like NIDS aren't. If you feel that is unjust, then the talk page of WP:RS is there for you to make your case. Jefffire 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- When you are dealing with speculation, hypothesis or popular myths, you need to list the sources of these things and to cite examples of them, to prove that they exist and that you didn't make them up yourself.
- I don't think that the scientific credibility of the source is the most important thing in this case. What is important is that we have a sample of the most common facts/myths and the reasoning behind them (with examples). I'm not putting the NIDS in because I believe their reports to be accurate, I'm putting them in because proponents believe them to be accurate and base their hypothesiss on them, and because I'm talking about these hypothesis I have to say where they come from and why they exist. I'm showing why people believe, not that what they beloeve is correct.
- For example, if 1 million people believe X because it was written in newspaper Y, you should cite Y as a source for X, even if Y was discredited years ago as being a fake or a hoax. You can say that it was a hoax or a fake, or that is it shakey and unreliable, but you should sill cite Y as it is the source of the myth.
The trouble is that you are presenting myths and assertations as fact, not as opinion. Jefffire 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to present it as being the opinion of proponents and to show why they thought that way. But you didn't like it when I did. You can't have it both ways. Either I can present something as opinion and show evidence that this opinion exists, or I can present something as fact and show the reports to prove it. If I don't do this all that we will have is a sectio about two vets shouting at each other over whether 'that mark' is from a tooth or a knife.
- FYI, claim is the correct verb here for anything that is casual or acusational in nature, while report and state are correct for anything that is structured. Regardless of their accuracy.
- For example, when a farmer says that he saw a black heliopter interfering with his animals, he claims, he is claiming, or he is making a claim. When a policeman writes it down he reports, is or is reporting. The same when discussing these things. When talking about the farmer, you use claim, when talking about a police officer or scientist, you use report.
perfectblue 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting me again. The section in question was calling common behaviour "unusual" and presenting this as fact. It was a clear factual inaccuracy. You haven't yet tried to present this as opinion yet. Jefffire 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the bit that I was talking about. But in this case I've heard a number of acounts of farmers who say pretty much the same thing. I consider it to be factual.
- American ranchers aren't exactly world renown for their intelligence (we only need to read the article to see that). If you can find a mainstream scientific source which says that the avoidance of the dead by cattle is "unusual" then that will be sufficient. Jefffire 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the mainstream journals password protect their archieve and only let paying customers in. You're far more likely to subscribe than me, you check them.
perfectblue 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Original Reports
Jefffire, please stop demanding original reports. Some of these reports are 10-20 or even 30 years old and simply aren't available on the web from their original form for me to link to. So I have to use third party citations. They are the only linkable material for some of these reports.
If these third party citations were bogus, don't you think that the organizations being cited would set their lawyers on the people posting them.
Plus, whenever I put up an original link to people like George Onet, you take them down even though he's a certified DVM with years of work in normal respectable vetinary research. You also changed the wording to make him sound like he's throwing around wild claims rather than reporting on a subject that he has researched heavily, and removed the mention of him having a DVM and a Phd which made him sound like a journalist rather than a qualified vet.
- If you cannot find the original reports then stop citing them. I don't believe for a second that these ufologist are accurately reporting on the original articles. Either reword to make it clear that it is their claim of what the original said, or remove it altogether. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. These are not reliable sources. Jefffire 10:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As for Onet's credentials, I don't see you campaigning to mention Carroll's phd in the article. Listing your credentials at every possible mention is the international sign of the idiot, which George E. Onet (phd pi md php exe etc) has stumbled into, and I see no reason why we should entertain his vanity. Jefffire 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- "If you cannot find the original reports then stop citing them." So, what you're saying, in effect, is that no online journal article that cites an offline journal article or report can be considered reliable.
- "I don't see you campaigning to mention Carroll's phd in the article", I didn't write a single word about her. That was somebody else.
- "Listing your credentials at every possible mention is the international sign of the idiot" removing people's credintials at every turn is an international sign of trying to discredit them. He's a DVM, it's relevent to the article. It shows that he's not just a journalist dabbling in the field.
- WP:V allows for "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", which Onet is. He is a qualified VDM, has over a decade of experience in the field and the lab, and has extensively researched cattle mutilations. You don't agree with his conclusions, but that doesn't mean that the evidence that he bases them on is bogus.
perfectblue 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent me. My point is that Oregon Ufo Review and NIDS are not reliable sources, they cannot be trusted to accurately report original articles. If you can find the original articles listed on a reliable sources, such as PubMed, then do so. My comments about listing credentials at every oppertunity stand. It would be appropriate to mention Onet's credentials once, in the correct fashion, but listing them everytime gives the impression of infantile insecurity. He cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a reliable sources however. Jefffire 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Onet's credientials are mentioned once, at the very end of the page, but they are mentioned nowhere in relation to the article itself (anywehere that a casual reader will see them). It does not mention that he has years of conventional medical experience, or that he has been following the phenomena for years. It must be made clear that he is not some random journalist.
- As for his credibility, he's credible enough for the Journal Vetinary Medicine and the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and has published 320 papers.
- FYI, his PHD is in Veterinary Microbiology. How more credible do you want?
- Then mention that he has it. I think the reader can be relied upon to realise he's a fruitcake by themselves. Jefffire 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bob Larson
I've added a POV-section tag to a section of the cults section. Basically I have two objections. Firstly, the cult hypothesis is being treated negatively, rather than neutrally. Secondly that it is far too large with many non-notable sections. Jefffire 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved Larson's entry right to the end of the section. This way it is clear that most of the critisism isn't aimed at him personally. Only the bit that comes afterwards is related to him.
- You are free to add some pro-cult material to even up the score especially any reports that you can find proving cult connections. I found several sites, but I suspect that they would not meet up with your standards for WP:V and WP:RS so I have refraimed from including much.
- The three subheadings could be shorter. I will look at it, but Lisapollison asked both of us kindly not to do any large edits while the page was being looked at. I suggest that the Talk:Cattle mutilation/private sandboxsection for this page be used rather than the live site. Put in your draft revision, and I will put in mine. We can then take things from there without hacking the live site around and fighting over edits.
perfectblue 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have been refraining from large scale changes. My point is that the cult hypothesis is not notable enough to warrent the level of detail it is recieving. I'm not suggesting a total cut, simply a streamlining of what is there, with links for those interested in learning more. There is no need to stamp it into the ground with an extended criticism section (with original research present). Jefffire 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You said earlier that you were British, which I think is the key to our differing perspective on this. While the cult hypothesis might be quite mundane in Britain (Particularly as it's bee proven in some instances), but in the US it's much much bigger.
- It's probably the hypothesis that gets people the most worked up out of all of them, particularly in the American heartlands.
- I tihnk that it's tailed off a bit now, but TV evangelists like Larson used to regularly link cults and any kind of animal mutilations, and would use them to warn people of the 'bad things in their midst' etc.
- I could find some pro/supporting cites for cult activity, and fo the anti-cult arguments, but I don't believe that you would accept them. The tend to be a bit like this page http://www.geocities.com/area51/shadowlands/6583/cattle038.html and you have alreay said that we shouldn't use infomration from geocities etc.
- I now have enough information to expand the pro-cult section to even things up a bit. But it wuld have to be 'why people believe' rather than verifiable facts from labs. Which I know you don't like. I am sandboxing a VERY rough draft.
perfectblue 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice of you to tell me preferences I didn't realise I had. You are missing the point entirely, the section is badly referenced, OR and Undue Weight. Until it is verified otherwise add to it is pointless. Jefffire 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Listen, I'm attempting to re-weight it, put in satisfactory references, and to include more verifiable material. You're not helping in this in the slightest.
- What IS verifiable when it comes to cults? Very little, that's what. But this doesn't mean that we should discard the entire section.
- I'm sandboxing a modified piece based on the suppositions of an author about cult involvement. I am using your style of attiruting details for Onet, England, Etc as a guide.
- I am also going to include a list of reasons why people attribute things to cults that shows why people believe that they are responsible, rather than aimed at proving that they are.
- If very little is verifiable then only include a little. That's WP:V. We didn't create these for a lark, they prevent Wikipedia from degenerating. Jefffire 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean Verifiable as in they were published in a book and represent real claims, or Verifiable as in they have been proven true by labs?
- Verify, verb. Meaning to confirm as true, or substantiate. Unverified material should be removed. WP:V Jefffire 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're talking about two seperate things in one sentence. Have you actually read WP:V all the way through. And I quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
- This means that when I quote an author on a subject, I only have to prove that the author really said that, not that the statment itself is true.
- Therefore I can legitimately add an item of mutilation folklore so long as I can prove that it is a real item of folklore (for example, by citing a well known book on the subject), and I don't try to pass it off as a scientifically/historically proven fact.
- It also means that I can cite claims made about mutilations, so long as I can prove that the claim was made and who made it.
- Yes, that's true. In fact, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you for the last week or so. Did you think I was saying otherwise? Please also remember that things need to notable for inclusion, as Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Jefffire 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're entire contribution to the debate 'appears' to be saying that it is not enough to prove that somebody believes something, but that you must prove that what they believe is true.
- As for notability. Cults might not be a big issue in Britain, but they envoke a lot of emotion in the US which makes them worthy of inclusion. We must consider global notability, not just notability in Europe.
- I'm confused as to where you are getting your understanding of my opinions as they appear to be completly different to everying I have espoused. If something is presented as a claim, it must be verified that someone has claimed it, which is easy. If you present something as a fact, it must be verified from an extremely good source if it is contentious. Jefffire 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have inappropriately cited WP:V and WP:RS several times. For example with Onet and the NIDS. Under WP:V and WP:RS I can cite anything published by Onet that I find on the NIDS website because I can prove that that material that I am citing exists, and the NIDS is a reliable source for information by Onet because it is his employer (If they say that he wrote it, then he probably did write it). You cited WP:V in a way that made it appear that I couldn't cite Onet because the work he did couldn't be independently verified, and WP:RS in a way that made it appear that I couldn't use the NIDS as a source because their work was intrinsicly unreliable. Neither of which are the purpose of WP:V or WP:RS.
- Regardless of what you actually meant. The way that you wrote it was very difficult to be interprited any other way. Let this be the end of the matter.
I think the problem is that you aren't actualy understanding my comments. Any claim that someone makes can be verified with an article by them. However you have been presenting claims as fact, with only an article from a non-RS. You can cite NIDS to verify NIDS claims, however you cannot cite them to verify something as fact. Your recent rewrite of the cults section shows that you still do not fully grasp Wikipedias policies on these matters, particularily WP:OR, and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Jefffire 08:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think that it is you who are A) Not reading what I am writting in the correct context and B) and not understanding Wiki regulations.
- WP:V states that something does not have to be proven to be true. It only has to be proven to be verified that it exists. I am not claiming that anything is true, I am reporting on claims and beliefs made by others.
- WP:RS states that the source has to be a reliable source of information on that topic. Not that the methods used by that source have to be reliable. The NIDS is a reliable source for information on Onet etc. WP:RS is designed to prevent you from using sources that misquote other people.
- WP:OR states clearly that you can combine information already published so long as you don't generate any unique conclusions that are not contained in those materials.
- The cults section satisfies all of these requirements.
- You are out of line and are overstepping the bounds of civility. This is bordering on harrasment. Please step back.
perfectblue 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sir, you are taking an unhelpful combatative attitute to this. I will not be drawn into such things. If you are looking for a fight, you won't find it here. With regards to the article, I repeat my earier comments, NIDS on Onet are perfectly accpetable for verifying that they or the other holds certian opinions. However, they cannot be relied upon to accurately report upon scientific articles, especialy if the conclusions are controversial, such as claims of superheated collagen or the like. These must be verified from a source which is above reasonable reproach, for example an online edition of the original, or a review in a mainstream journal. Jefffire 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you mean Sir/Madam?
- "they cannot be relied upon to accurately report upon scientific articles" - WP:V and WP:RS do not require this, and you do not have the authority to state it either. Attempting to do so on this page would be WP:OR.
- "for example an online edition of the original" 1) Labs do not publish online necropsy reports, 2) some of these reports are over 30 years old 3) I can link to the original NIDS reports, but you don't like this.
- "a review in a mainstream journal" a mainstream journal that deals with a fringe topic? To my knowledge there are no mainstream journals like this. The best that you will get is a pier reviewed article from BTL.
- "These must be verified from a source which is above reasonable reproach" WP:RS requires that the source be above reproach for reporting the article accurately (no missquotes or made up qoutes etc), not the findings of the article. WP:V also makes this clear.
perfectblue 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RS. Jefffire 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are deliberately distorting and missapplying Wiki Rules in support of your own opionins about a body or group. This is wrong and I do not appreciate you attempting enfore your personal views on a comunity page.
- I am attempting to show the source of people's beliefs or that these beliefs exist. I am not in any way attempting confirm their beliefs as being true/false. I can therefore legitimately include sources that demonstrate that this belief exists so long as I WP:V that the source material actually exists.
- In the case of demonstrating an opinon, WP:RS only applies if I'm citing somebody who is quoting the somebody as having said something.
- If you don't like the wording, then change it. Don't delete the souce and then demand another.
- The claim was not backed up by the source. WP:V said that the wording did not match the source, WP:RS said that the source was not authoritative enough to justify that statement. It was an either/or choice, so I removed the source. I've reworded it now to make it clear it's a claim. If you believe that I am misinterpreting the rules feel free to bring it up on the talk pages of the policies or ask an admin. Jefffire 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the "Consistancy" criticism entirely. There was no indication in the section that it was a valid criticism, since there is no reason why a cult would be consistant, or that it would have to be a single cult. Jefffire 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ritual = an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite. See Ritual sacrifice. Consitancy is an integral component of an animal sacrifice. Otherwise it would just be a 'thrill kill'.
- Please do be providing verification that this is a criticism, since it is clearly specious. Jefffire 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am rewording the entry. This won't be a problem any more.
Mission Statement and Parameters
A draft Mission statement and page paramaters, editors are invited to submit their own, but are asked to ADD a new draft rather than MODIFY the preious statements.
Development Sandbox
To avoid the inevitable edit war, it has been suggested that significant new sections or modifications be drafted, edited and discussed here, rather than on the live site.
This will hopefully avoid a wiki damaging faceoff. Please use it.
I've got a reference to an Argentine case (actually if you look for it you'd find a lot more since it was very talked about), http://www.clarin.com/diario/2002/06/24/s-406851.htm but I don't know how to insert it, and I think it's intersting. This case was very talked about for a few months, the FBI came in and no one ever talked about it again. It's a real mystery so I wanted to put it in some way in the article. 200.114.186.139 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I object to being regarded as an "inevitable edit war". I have been discussing these points thourally and being civil throughout, and leaving contentious points on the article until consensus is built. Please remember to assume good faith. Jefffire 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are not an edit war, edit wars require more than one person. This is as much to do with me disagreeing with you as you disagreeing with me.
- I was not about to, nor will I ever, edit war with you. Jefffire 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest to look at this article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/20/croydon-cat-killer-unmasked-after-three-year-investigation
It is not the same situation but there are lot of simularitys. And evidence from CCTV. I came here because someone on youtube seems to be offering this as evidence for Ufo's and I think that it is time to offer solid explanations.212.239.222.210 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- And a Sandbox makes it even less likely.
- I don't use sandboxes. They cause more trouble than they are worth. Jefffire 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm using one. It's better that you see it before it's published and comment then, than wait till I put it on the live site and decide that it's not up to speck. This is supposed to be a colabrative effort. Right now we seem to be running around after each other re-writting the bits that we don't like. There's very little colaboration here.
Work Done
- Added new section on horse ripping (30th August 2006)
- Added new subsection differentiating between cattle mutilations and horse ripping (30th August 2006)
- Re-worked the section on common critisms of the natural causes principle for cattle mutillations in order to give it more weight (30th August 2006)
- Added small passage on muti killings under the heading of human mutilations (31st August 2006)
- split deviants and cult activity into two seperate sections and expended both (31st August 2006)
- Removed the 10,000 (1990s?) mutilations figure from a paranormal website and replaced it with an perfectblue 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)8,000 (1979) mutilation figure from the FBI feild office in Albuquerque, to the director of the FBI (05th September 2006)
- The removed paragraph reads "What is known is that there have been over 10,000 reported [4] incidents since the Pueblo Chieftain first published the story of Lady in 1967."
- Re written Cult section based on sandbox content (13th of September 2006).
- Removed large portions of the "Lady" story. It was clearly copied from a website (http://www.crystalinks.com/animal_mutilation.html) up to an including the intact parenthetical citations from that page. Did a quick summary pending further original writing (January 2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariamythe (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Work to be Done
Suggestion: Because of personal experience, I take offense to the repeated use of the word "allegedly" in this article. While there is no doubt the mutilations occurred, it is only the origin of mutilation that is or should be called into question; ie allegedly the gov't or allegedly flying saucers etc. I swear that I personally tended an animal in fine health one day in the summer of '77 and was awoken that night by the dog's barking, went outside and saw a helicopter lift off from the immediately vicinty of where the animal victim was later discovered, went outside, everything seemed calm, whatever had happened, had already happened, returned to bed and hustled out to the pasture at the first light of dawn. I saw sled tracks on the creek bank and blow space where the helicopter had obviously landed. I saw a scorched/burnt pattern down the bank in the flat area (that I have seen since on the back bottom circle of the airplane that the rocket carried to the space station) which at the time I could not identify. A pig, specifically, a 5-6 yr old sow lay in the center of her solitiary pen so deeply imbedded in the ground that much of the animal was unidentifiable and had obviously been dropped from a great height. I don't know who was responsible. I don't know why it was done. I only know that it DID happen. So I don't care for the word "allegedly" in terms of whether these mutilations occurred or not. They did occur. I know they did. In our case, the sheriff and vet came out. They told me mine was just one of several similar mutilations taking place in northern Colorado. I later learned it was taking place all over the western United States. Today I ask myself what significant changes occurred in livestock since the 70s? Several answers, I'm sure, but I can think of only one major thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.126.185 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Find solid citations for the Government experimentation hypothesis
- Remove Weasle Words
- Balance out the For-Against levels on each hypothesis
- Split-up or otherwise trim Black helicopters
perfectblue 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Removal of irrelevent or OR material
- Neutral treatment of cults hypothesis
- Attribute claims correctly
- Find reliable source for claims, else
- Remove claims not reliably souced
Jefffire 11:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Anonymous, while I would like to believe everyone has good intentions I cannot accept your testimony. I don't know you from a hermit crab therefore you could be a 10 year old who gets his kicks from a great imagination. It should be defined what is meant by mutilation as these types animals have been used for millennia as food so butchers and surgeons are capable of removing flesh very precisely and quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:293A:2CD9:9471:59E7 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also much of this page is cut and pasted from unreliable sources, and the whole thing is a mess. Recommend a complete rewrite. Ariamythe (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
One thing at a time.....
Invite
Go to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers for more information. Martial Law 00:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Cults
I have replaced the cult section on the live site with the version that has been in development in the sandbox since Sunday the 10th of September.
Users were earlier made aware of the existance of this draft in order to miaintain the community spirit of Wikipedia, but no coments, critisisms or requests for change were made. From this it can be presumed that the draft was satisfactory so it has been posted.
perfectblue 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Unilateral action
As per my earlier comments, unilateral action to delete significantly sized sections of the page should be avoided and changes of magnitude should be discussed first.
If large sections are removed, users should take care to edit the remaining sections so that they make sence without the missing sections. This includes the deletion of superflious headings, and the alteration of passages that reference deleted sections.
perfectblue 13:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Word Usage
What would constitute an exceptable way to say:-
"This is what people believe about X, but it may be based on myth and perception rather than fact"
Without prejudicing or pre judging what it is that the people believe?
perfectblue 10:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Undue Weight
Please explain? What are you applying this too?
Be specific. Which paragraphs, which topics, which direction is the undue weight in?
You are being so obtuse that your comment is meaningless.
perfectblue 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I have said before, the section is much too large compared to it's importance. Since the bulk is composed of Original Research, simply removing that will shorten the section to acceptable lengths. Jefffire 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I said before WHICH TOPIC?
- Until told otherwise, I will presume that you are talking about the cults section (You have refused two or three times to say what you are refering to, so I have no choice but to presume). Well, let me explain this. WP:OR only applies to Wiki editors like you and I. If somebody else (for example Donovan) wrote it, then it is not OR, it is WP:V material. I have included the links and cites. If there isn't a cite in a specific paragraph or sentence, it might be best if you simply work on the basis that the information is from the cite on the last paragraph or from the sources section. Citing every five minutes is unneisary and messy particularly as most of the information comes from the same one or two sources. This page has more cites per paragraph than is required as it is. Sometimes the same page of the same document is being cited half a dozen times.
- "shorten the section to acceptable lengths" EEEHEEEH WRONG ANSWER. I plan to expand several of the other sections to match (which I can't do if I have to keep going back to cults time and time again), this is a much better way of re-weighing the site. Better yet, why don't YOU expand the other sections to match.
- "the section is much too large compared to it's importance" Cults is the second most important section after natural causes. While cults might not figure big in Britain, they still create panic in America. Aliens might make the hardbacks, but cults make the tabloids and the talk radio shows.
perfectblue 06:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would like you to verify that cults are an important hypothesis. Since the section lacks reliable soucing this would suggest that it is not considered to be a serious suggestion at all. According to Wikipedia policy, it should be easy to find reliable souces if the topic is notable. An inability to find such sources suggests that it is not notable. Jefffire 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe not in Britain, but in the US yes. Check Amazon, and local talk radio stations whenever there is a mutilaiton in the area.
- You are also missing the point. This section is not unduely heavy, the other sections are unduely light. EXPAND THEM DON'T CONTRACT THIS.
- I'm mostly removing unverified material and non-neutral material. Undue weight is actually a minor concern of mine at the moment, that's why there is only an OR and POV tag. Jefffire 11:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Remove, TAG. That's why we have them.
- Deleting means that it takes me twice as long to correct things. I not only have to reword or cite, but I also have go back through the history and find the material that I needs to be change.
- I am following Wikipedia policy. If you cannot verify it, it must be removed. Jefffire 12:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. User:Jimbo Wales
- 1) Context. His ire was directed primarily towards biographic information and controversial topics. Citation is still the prefered method in this case because it is a difference of opinion over an insignificant topic. This why citation tags exist. For small issues like you being unhappy with the source of a paragraph. TAG, do not delete. Else you are overstepping your bounds.
- 2) I have sourced pretty much everything. Where there isn't a citation, it is usually to avoid over citation. In some cases I have cited the same page of the same document 10+ times. This is messy and unprofessional. Read the list of sources at the bottom of the page and the citations for the above paragraph. They contain pretty much everythign that you need to know.
- Presume good faith. Question, then act. Unilateralism is not welcome or warrented.
I ask that you take that last line to heart. It appears to me that you are making systematic misunderstanding and/or rejection of a number of key Wikipedia policies. Since you are not willing to listen to my corrections, I will be forced to pursue some form of dispute resolution. The first stage would probaby be an RfC. It is very regretable that you were not willing to listen to my advice. Jefffire 14:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I listened, and I changed the page about 100 times to try to accomedate you. I've cited everything that you've asked for and requested that you be more specific about what you don't like about 100 times. I don't think that anybody will find that I haven't listened or acted on what you've said. It's all down there in the logs. You've deleted and I've added the citations just as you have asked.
- However, they might be interested to know that I put up a sandbox section where you could comment and request citations as much as you wanted before the section went live, and you said nothing until after I'd put the section up. You had a chance to make any changes or request any clarification that you wanted in that time, but you chose not to.
- I notice that you said RfC not WP:RfC, leaving me to search to find out exactly what yo are talking about. And that you never specify which clauses of WP:V WP:RS and WP:OR you are refering to when you cite them, or which paragraphs you are refering to when you do.
- Some would say that this was you attempting to brow beat the newbie with rules and regulations. Which won't go down well. Especially as the page logs clearly show that I've made every correction that you've requested and cited every source that you've asked for.
- I've done my part in the dispute resolution proccess.
No sir, the logs clearly show a consistant PoV pushing and disregard for policies on your your part, as well as incivility and rudeness. If you were unfamilure with the policies, it would have been wise to have respected the opinions of an editor who was long-in-the-tooth when it came to beurocracy and policy. Instead you chose to be confrontational and ignore policy and advice when it suited you. What I see is a possessiveness towards this article, which is not conductive to a collaborative project. Please think about this so we can avoid formal dispute resolution. Jefffire 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please refraim form calling me sir.
- I am capable of reading WP policy. I am obviously interpriting it differently. You are applying proof of science interpritation to article about beliefs which may not be scientific in nature (or even based on science at all). In this instance WP policy is clear in that you have to prove the existance of the belief, and not the factual correctness of the belief.
- Things would look a lot better if you actually said what you thought was POV/OR/etc. Instead you apply tags to whole sections and delete five or six paragraphs at a time without dicussion.
- I'm sorry, but that is not at all how I am applying the policies. I asked that opinions be worded as opinions and verified as opinions, and that anything presented as a fact be verified from a reliable source. I am in no way contesting the existance of the beliefs, and I never have. Areas which were clearly OR were the section on consistancy, whilst the general debunking approach to the hypothesis in general is completley PoV. Jefffire 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Further to PoV and OR concerns about the "consistancy" section: why would a cult have to be performing in a ritual? Many cults are just into thrill killings, which would explain exactly why there is no consistancy. Jefffire 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please read up on cults and animal killings. 'Real' cults don't comit thrill kills, and they look down on people who do. They feel that it detracts from the purpose/purity of act. Copycat teens may do this, but they are just people playing at being cultist for rebelion etc.
There is a very short and simple explanation | here.
perfectblue 06:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is not a reliable source, that's an opinion piece. It is not our place to judge what a cult would or would not do. Jefffire 07:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't putting it forward as a WP:RS source for the article, I was putting it forward as an example for you to read to exaplain things so that I didn't have to type it out again in my own words.
- We don't need to judge what cults do and do not do. Simply pick up a book on cults or ritual sacrifice in your local library or ocult book store, and anthrapologists etc, will tell you what they do and do not do. And what they have and have not done for the last couple of thousand years.
- Again, you're looking at this from a very British perspective. Not all countries have a couple of druids chanting at sunrise, and ignore them. Cults are a big topic in the US because of the religous right and the tendency towards social panics. The FBI also regularly profiles them and their activities in case they turn out to be of the murderous type. As do phychologists, phyciartists, and other groups. Their behaviour is well known and well documented. Thrill kills are down to teenagers and copycats, Ritual is one one of the things that seperates a group of kids who slash cats and wear black lipstick from a real cult.
- No ritual in the killing, then it's not a cult that did it. It's kids playing at it.
- If you are that concerned, find some excerts to add to the page to cover this angle. Tell the other side of the story.
- One key point. If it's a thrill kill, it's already been covered by the section on deviants. Mentioning them again in cults is unnessisary. I think that we should limit cult actitivy to ritual activities to distinguish between real cults and kids and weirdo's playing around.
- You can add more about thrill kills in the deviant sectionif you like, but I don't have the energy.
- Please verify your belief that any cult killing must be consistant from a reliable source, otherwise the section should be removed as incorrect. Jefffire 11:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"unable to provide natural explanations"
"Scientists preforming the necropsies were also unable to provide natural explanations"
Cattle4.pdf [5] is given as a source for that claim. But when I read that PDF, I can't find anything resembling that. The only scientists mentioned there who have expertise on the subject and who actually say anything (except empty phrases) are Richard Prine, who said
- "...he had examined six carcasses and in his opinion predators were responsible for all six",
and Claire Hibbs, who said
- "the mutilations fell into three categories: animals killed and mutilated by predators and scavengers, animals mutilated after death by "sharp instruments", and animals mutilated by pranksters".
What gives? --Hob Gadling 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Page 3, lines 5 to 6 (Page 3 of 3 of an official report on a mutilated cow in New Mexico). Here is the exact phrase used on the report. "No explanation for this condition is available at the present time."
perfectblue 14:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- The sentence refers to "The bull's liver contained no copper, and 4 times the [unreadable] phosphorus, zinc, and potassium". But the bull's liver problems, which may come from the ingredients of its food, are rather unrelated to the mutilations, right? This sounds like "let's gather all the data we can find and blame all the unusual facts on the aliens!"
- So, should not Prine's sentence be quoted rather than some unrelated sentence quoted out of context? I think you are trying to color the article in your POV. --Hob Gadling 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- In reality, all this sentence means is that the liver should not be like that, and they couldn't prove why it was like it using anything that they would expect. It could be food, it could be desease, it could be deliberate poisoning by an angry neighbor, but whatever it was, they couldn't prove it using the results that they had.
- This is really just a sumary of something explained earlier on in the page.
- I will reword.
perfectblue 16:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- "the bull's liver problems, which may come from the ingredients of its food, are rather unrelated to the mutilations, right?"
- I wasn't proven that it was, it wasn't proven that it wasn't. All that was proven was that it was an anomolie with no obvious explanation. It wasn't even the weirdest thing in that particular case. The blood is probably more significant though. If it had been a modern lab, they might well have found conclusive evidence of anti coagulants, which would have proven beyond any dout that that particular mutilation was man made. Of course, it might equally have shown that the cow had contracted a rare illness and was chewed on by buzzards. Whatever caused them, it's still worth noting as they were probably a factor/result of what happened.
perfectblue 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- As some who has actual lab experience, I can tell you that there is no indication from the report that this contributed to the animals death. Jefffire 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where does anybody claim that this is related to the animal's death?
You do, in the above paragraph. Jefffire 11:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Quote me. I said that nothing was proven either way.
- You said "...they were probably a factor/result..." Jefffire 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the full sentence was "it's still worth noting as they were probably a factor/result of what happened". This doesn't mean that they were the cause of death. Only that they were caused by whatever process the cow went through. They could be the result of a natural proccess that occoured after death, or a result of whatever killed the cow.
- Presuming that they are accurate, can you explain what could have caused these lab results? (bare in mind the date, so no modern medicine or dietry supliments etc that weren't around then)
Local vegatative variation would be a first guess. Jefffire 15:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Request for comment
I'm filing a request for comment to get more opinions on the subject, appropriate weighting, original research and general interpratation of Wikipedia policy. Jefffire 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Hiya guys! (Is it alright if I say "guys"? It's just the word I use in plural address, but if someone objects to it, suggest a new word and I'll use that instead.) Seems you've got quite a pickle on your hands. Now, I'm not anybody in particular, and I don't know the first thing about cattle mutilation, nor do I have anything even approaching an opinion on it ... so I'd like to give what I think is an unbiased opinion on your situation here. Take it or leave it as you'd like.
perfectblue: It seems to me that Jefffire is trying to make two points: 1) That the extent of the information on "cults" as relate to cattle mutilation is disproportionate to its impact on the topic; and 2) Citations are being improperly used to support claims that they don't really support.
Your sources do, in fact, substantiate the fact that there is a segment of the population which believes in the 'cult hypothesis'. What is not so clear is just how much support the hypothesis actually has. The argument Jefffire seems to making is that the information you have posted is disproportionate not to the rest of the article, but to the actual significance of the topic. In most cases, for example, are generally not considered notable enough for inclusion unless there is something extraordinary or particularly important about them.
Furthermore, what the sources on the cult hypothesis substantiate is the fact that some people believe there is a cult description; what they do not seem to do is actually offer any evidence to substantiate the hypothesis itself. In other words: what's in question is people who believe the hypothesis; the hypothesis itself is irrelevant.
In addition, there is a general quality of sources that is desirable; generally sources should be reliable, ordinarily from someone who can be conidered an authority on the subject. Personal websites, like geocities, are pretty much out.
Original Research rules mean that each source has to be taken on its own. If Source A says that cow M had wounds type X, and Source B says wounds type X are typically used by cult Q, you can't put two and two together and say cult Q may have inflicted wounds of type X on cow M.
Jefffire: I don't think perfectblue is intentionally pushing a POV so much as misunderstanding the issues at hand.
So, the two of you: I'm glad an RfC has come up for this. I understand your frustration, perfectblue, at the vagaries and complexities of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I hope the explanations I've given help you to understand the points Jefffire is making. I hope someone with some knowledge on the subject can along and work on the disputed section; I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid I'd make an awful mess of it. I hope it's clear, though, that work needs to be done. I'd recommend, both of you, that you wait to see the input of other people to resume work on the article.
Any questions or comments on what I've said, don't be afraid to let me know.
Peace - CheNuevara 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Another RfC reply
Several points here:
- The Oregon UFO Review gives a file not found error.
- [6] returns an empty Google search.
- Dubious references include:
The citation format within the article is very inconsistent and includes numerous broken link 06:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)perfectbluecitations. The National Institute for Discovery Science website is another dubious source, although on a different level from the ones above (many of which are self-described personal sites run by one or two enthusiasts). The organization appears to have ceased paranormal investigations two years ago under questionable circumstances and now welcomes testimonial submissions. They also state that they publish in peer reviewed journals - so I'd certainly accept anything they publish that way - but statements taken directly off their site look questionable.
On the whole this appears to have been a sincere effort and a lot of hard work done mostly by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia's mission and policies. An official FBI report is certainly an encyclopedic source, as are news reports by mainstream journalism sources. The problem is that all or nearly all of the analysis about paranormal explanations depends on unencyclopedic sources, which means the rest fails WP:NOR. There's also the undue weight problem: this article weighs heavily toward paranormal explanations. Regardless of whether an editor personally believes that or not, the responsibility of Wikipedia is to present both sides fairly. As I understand the shape of this argument (from readings outside this article), this has a substantial following among paranormal enthusiasts but little to no support among mainstream scientists. A reader should come away with that impression.
Worth checking out:
- The Straight Dope[17]
- Cheers for your imput, it is much appreciated. One of the problems that I'm having is that I was 'told' that I had to prove that 'people believed things' which is what those links are for. They were added to satisfy WP:V of concept, rather than factuality.
- On your last sentence, the problem is that there are a lot of different groups out there who support 'unconventional' hypothesis, and only one group that supports the conventional 'natural causes' hypothesis. The latter of which is very simple to explain and to write about in a short easy sentence. I'd like to add material to it, but their agruments are so clear and consise that it's hard to add material.
perfectblue 06:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Durova 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Durova, your comments come at a good time and are of the constructive nature I feel everyone was hoping to see. Many thanks. I have often turned to the article myself intending to fix some of these issues and been overwhelmed by the tasks at hand and simply left them for the day. Since one user, perfectVlue, is the most interested in editing the article, I feel we can best be of service by doing exactly as you have done, listing specific issues and suggesting etter sources. I will try to do the same.
- PerfectBlue's enthusiasm for the subject shouldn't be beaten down. Rather, we should encourage this editor to check out other articles on similarly contentious subjects that have been written more appropriately. one of the goals of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal is to help create a better body of articles on such sujects. We often come across articles like this that need extensive re-wriiting/editing and paring down. yes, this article isn't up to standard and needs help, but so do the articles on Roswell and other hotly contested subjects. Instead of turning to tit for tat critcisms and responses, I'd like to see us do more of what Durvoa has done. thanks for listending. Lisapollison 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, Lisapollison -- my comments on the article were actually not in response to the RfC, but in response to perfectblue's own request to explain what she wasn't understanding about Jefffire's argument here. Like I said, I don't know anything about the topic; I was simply trying to explain Jefffire's arguments in a clear way so that perfectblue, who professed that she might be misunderstanding them, could get a second view of them. But I do like Durova's excellent review of the material itself. - CheNuevara 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. I agree that part of Wikipedia's mission would include representing the pro-paranormal side on this page. One solution this editor might try is to rewrite some sections, using books from mainstream publishers as the sources. On the whole the mundane explanations deserve more space than they have and the paranormal side should be trimmed a bit. I'd suggest starting the cuts with non-cattle species. If there's enough overall material that might qualify for a separate page, but the title here does indicate a narrow subject. Regards, Durova 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, Lisapollison -- my comments on the article were actually not in response to the RfC, but in response to perfectblue's own request to explain what she wasn't understanding about Jefffire's argument here. Like I said, I don't know anything about the topic; I was simply trying to explain Jefffire's arguments in a clear way so that perfectblue, who professed that she might be misunderstanding them, could get a second view of them. But I do like Durova's excellent review of the material itself. - CheNuevara 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- "I'd suggest starting the cuts with non-cattle species."
- This page automatically forwards from 'animal mutilation', and the only other page on wikipedia covering non cattle mutilations is Horse ripping which is generally related, but does not cover the paranormal. I felt that we needed to make clear that this was a wider phenomena, but that the other mutilatinos weren't big enough to warrent their own pages.
perfectblue 06:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- But it isn't a wider phenomenon, it's just your opinion and that of an extreme minority that it is. Jefffire 07:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're are in error here. There have been hundreds of attacks on horses in the US that have mirrored attacks on cattle (same M/O same signs, same diputes) and what about the point pleasent animal mutilaitons, or the cult mutilations of horse in your own country?
- Besides, this page covers 'the phenomena' of cattle mutilation, not the facts of mutilation. If people believe that that is goes wider, then we should discuss 'wider'.
- What you say may be true from the perspective of your country, but wikipedia is international. If you want ot mention this you are most welcome to write a section about Britain and how the British perspective differs from the US perspective. I found a coupel of sources for the UK and where UK groups have inveestigated things tht I haven't put in to the page, if you want them.
- You aren't verifying any of this. Jefffire 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- You aren't helping me to either. Please be more specific. I covered three topics above, are you talking about one or two or all of them?
- Am I not verifying the 'facts' (for want of a better word) of the case, or the numbers involved, or the sources for this information? I want to being this page up to code as much as you do, but you really need to play a more constructive role. Rather than just deleting things and disputing them, why don't you try to find some information of your own?
- I would be more than happy to look at any sources that you provide and to use them for the basis of this page. Simply find me some resources that meet your interpritation of WP:V and WP:RS and I will try to use them. I don't have access to cattle related vetinary library here (I'm not living in cattle country right now(, so online resources would be preferable.
- Since you have worked with animals and select areas of vetinary science, I suggest that you look at the section governing 'natural causes'. There are no WP:V/WP:RS citations for the bulk of the pro-natural causes arguments. You have access to a wider range of vetinary materials than I do. Find some books or web pages (Message boards are generally off limits under wiki rules) to verify how animal undergoing natural causes and predation can end up like this.
- The FBI's investigation is sufficient for the bulk of the natural causes section as they are authoratative and reliable. I'll lay my cards on the table now and state that I think a lot of the information you have added is simply wrong, and that this is the reason why there are no reliable sources to cite. Rather than write original research, and then try and find cite to prove it, the correct procedure to to review the mainstream literature and write an article based on that. Jefffire 11:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're doing, you're being so general that it's useless BE SPECIFIC. Don't tell me that you thing that 'it' is wrong. Find one thing, be specific, then work from there. Name me one thing (like a specific paragraph) that you think that I made up, and then work on from that point.
- Why don't you stop telling me to find 'main stream' litreature, and find some yourself. If you can find it, I'll use it. It's as simple as that (It is much easier to find a crackpots on the web and writing about what they think than to do OR, why would I bother?).
- I think the criticisms sections of cults is wrong, being based on specious arguements. There is no reason why a cult would have to be preforming "rituals" with the cattle. There is no evidence about the scale of the phenomenon to justify the coverage arguement, and the means section is making the mistake as the criticisms of the natural causes. Anyway, for now I think it would be best to consider the contributions made by others on the talk page. Jefffire 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the basic point. If it's not ritual, then its deviant activity, if it is ritual it's cult activity. Cult's don't preform thrill kills because if they do then they aren't cults, their copycats. Read up on cults. This is basic stuff.
- You're also missing the point that this article isn't attempting to prove that the arguments are valid, only to point out that they exist. They might be based on speculation and lacking in merit, but they still exist.
- You're still avoiding providing me with any sources that you conisder to be WP:V and WP:RS. Find me a couple of journal entries for and against an argument, and I will use them. It's all well and good you telling me to do X and Y, how about helping me to do it?
perfectblue 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- "the means section is making the mistake as the criticisms of the natural causes", which is? you're being vague again.
perfectblue 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- If the arguements do exist, then verify that they do (ie. create a link to someone claiming that they do, or making them, in line with WP:RS) and word them as claims if they are claims. I don't think any one can help you find the references because I strongly suspect they do not exist. I think you are incorrect in your assertations here. Either find sources for these claim, or accept that they don't exist by Wikipedia standards (WP:V) and allow them to be removed. Jefffire 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're avoiding the question again. Pick a single named issue and stick to it. Don't give vague and nebulous critisisms. If you can't say anything that helps to ADVANCE the page, don't bother commenting.
- Better yet, find the information yourself. Google, there are 64,800 google hits for "cattle mutilation" and 585 for "bovine excision". There are also 341 books at Amazon. A couple of them 'must' be WP:V and WP:RS. Just pick a couple that you think are up to scratch and I will use them.
perfectblue 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I think that your assertation that any cult killing must possess an element of ritual is incorrect. You say this is basic stuff, but do not provide a verification to prove it. I don't think you can ever find a verification for this statement, because I think it is wrong. The onus is upon you to prove otherwise. The implication you write in the article is that if some of the corpses are different then it means there can't have been cults. Even if an element of ritual is neccasery, you overlook the possibility of there being multiple different rituals, regional variation in ritual, post-ritual scavenging on the corpses and so on which would all create differences. This all illustrates why original research is prohibited, because of the very high probability of specious arguements, and incorrect information like those you have introduced. Jefffire 17:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the section? I cited a WP:RS/WP:V source form an authority on animal sacrifice in religious rites. That clears me of WP:OR. In your case, you need to find a WP:V/WP:RS source to say that there might be more than one cult, or regional variations else it is you who is adding WP:OR.
- I have found no WP:V/WP:RS sources suggesting that there might be more than one cult involved so I can't put it on the page. This is a task for you.
- I'm afraid you misinterprated me. Firstly, you are also citeing the authority in a specious and incorrect manner because you have not verified that any cult involvement would involve rituals. That is an assumption that you make, but I think it would be highly unlikely that the cult authority would say that any cattle mutilation would be present. It is also not accpetable to say that the possible existance of multiple cults has not been ruled out, that is OR.
- Ideally, the majority or even entirity of the criticisms should be drawn from the FBI's investigation, as that appears to be the only authoratative investigation. Jefffire 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'm not going to mention multiple cults. I can't find a WP:V and WP:RS source for it and I'm not going to WP:OR it either. If you want it included, then you're going to have to ADD it yourself, and I have cited an authority in animal sacrifice who I think knows more about it than you do. If an expert says ritual then I'm going with that answer, not yours.
- Secondly, please read up on cults and animal killings. Cults simply don't thrill kill. To a cult the death of an animal is a religious act, thrill killing would not only be pointless, but it might actually be whatever the cult equivelant of blasphamy is depending on the actual cult. The closet thing that you will find to a cult thrill kill is a copycat atack by kids playing at being a cult. Again, you may ADD this if you like. However, cults in general are well known and well profiled. The FBI have been profiling them for years as have historians and other groups. I will take their word over yours.
- Thirdly, the ATF investigation was directly aimed at cults and was to the same federal standards so it is just as relevent. You cannot pick and choose simply because one report doens't agree with your personal views. I am including both sides, the pro and the anti.
Look, base the criticisms section on the FBI investigation, it's really that simple. That way you avoid the specious arguements, allegations of OR and satisfy WP:V and WP:RS completely. Jefffire 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, NIDS, Larson, and Donovan in this section should be reduced to reflect their importance compared to the FBI, namely zero. Jefffire 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- perfectblue, I am losing patience with you AND with Jefffire. Neither of you seem interested in genuinely repairing this article and only in arguing with eachother. No, this article should not be about Horse Ripping. We have an article ON Horse ripping already. if you want to link to that Nutter who claims Horse ripping is all about Mars worship and always happens on tuesdays, well then do it there. Personally, I feel that it would be out place there since Horse ripping as a sexually motivated crime has been well documented. I'd rather see you cut the Horse material out and create a new artcle called Horse mutilation to contain the allegations and similarities you claim exist. That way Horse ripping and Horse mutilation stay separate from one another. You can then make mention of the Horse material briefly and link to it. But for pity's sake - stop arguing with eachother. perfectblue, since you are the editor doing the majority of the work - just cease replying to Jefffire HERE but read what he/she has to say and fix what you feel neweds fixing. I feel you are letting yourself spin your wheels too much on this page. You have demonstarted that you can and will respond to constructive criticisms and that's what you should do. This article is in too much need of repair for us to spare time here snarling at eachother. just my opinion. Lisapollison 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Lisapollison, Horse ripping is gone, it really was only in there for two reasons 1) the suspected link between cattle mutilations and cults, 2) because the page is a an auto-forward from Animal mutilation. Jefffire If I remove the NIDS etc, then this article will be very one sided. I'm representing BOTH sides of the argument, whether you like it or not. Plus cults were investigated by the ATF, which gives them all the wight needed for inclusion.