Jump to content

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Archiving

Does anyone mind if I increase the regularity of archiving to, say, 1 month old threads? It's hard to find currently active threads in the list, Second Quantization (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is MiszaBot working at the moment? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I request that you please wait until the issues with the entry are resolved to modify archiving on this page. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting - Oxford publishes a number of dictionaries. The gold standard, flagship, comprehensive product is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which we cite in this article (in what is currently footnote #4). Access to the online edition of the OED is by subscription; most people who use it have access through some sort of institutional or corporate subscription. Subscribers can see the online OED entry on chemtrail at http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/318007 (note 'oed' in the URL); this URL is not provided in our footnote.

Oxford also maintains the Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO), which includes a somewhat stripped-down version of many OED entries. Our article's footnote cites the OED, but provides a convenience link to the less-complete, less-authoritative ODO entry: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/chemtrail

For reference, the OED definition reads "In the context of various conspiracy theories: an aircraft's visible condensation trail, believed to contain chemical or biological agents released for sinister or covert purposes."

The various ODO definitions (which are slightly different for UK and US English) are slightly different and should be taken as less authoritative. I'm not sure what the best way to handle or flag the discrepancy between the free ODO link and the comprehensive OED. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the link which an editor has erroneously changed to point to the ODO. We should probably use the OED for etymology as its an obvious flagship publication, but the ODO definition is similar (key words: "believed by some ..."). Neither dictionary supports the text the OED was cited for in this edit, which makes out chemtrails are a real "covert" thing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I also noticed that the link to the OED source was modified during and after my own edit(s).
The perception may be that the paid versions are more reliable (is there a source?) but it is also less verifiable. I propose using an Oxford version that is the most easily verifiable (no subscription).
Each Oxford definition can't really be all that dissimilar. Don't all the Oxford-based definitions contain the word contrail?
The disagreement is not over which OED version to use. We disagree because of the removal of properly sourced salvageable text by more than one experienced editors so that the entry includes a faulty definition that does not even contain the word contrail! which is being continuously and repeatedly (along with many other issues) re-added by illegitimate reversion.
I removed an unverifiable source used in the definition. (solar radiation management, and psychological manipulation) that has been re-added by the reversions referenced above.
Worth noting is that OED mentions only chemical and biological agents while "the theory" and multiple other sources include various other substances that are not CBW agents per se (barium, aluminum etc.).
What differentiates a chemtrail from actual covert spraying activity (such as in cold war experiments, crop destruction, weather experiments)- when there is a belief of harm AND a release of Agent? What is it called when historical activity or a test that fits all the criteria of a Chemtrail but can't be called a chemtrail?
Chemtrail by the OED definition requires components of: government, sinister or covert, visible trail, sprayed/dispensed by aircraft, the presence of harmful agent or substance is not necessary, however it seems it it is only the belief by the beholder that the criteria are met that is required.
May I ask what separates the legitimate vs. Illegitimate use of aerial spraying? Is it the substance, the purpose, the harm? To qualify as a chemtrail, there must be some degree (to what degree is un-defined) of suspicion of "harm" that also varies by the source used and is not defined by OED. I propose that it is level of secrecy rather than the degrees of "harm" or other immeasurable factors that determine the legitimacy of covert spraying and defines chemtrail. The conspiracy theorists suspicion only defines the various conspiracy theory to which they believe and provides the context for the 'suspicious-ness' of the trail. This context and the degree to which harm is perceived is based solely upon (the wildness) of some conspiracy theorists suspicion. The specific requirement is that OED can't be used by itself to define the topic which is why additional reliable sources need to be used. This was one purpose of and is clearly demonstrated in my reverted previous edit(s).
Johnvr4 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The OED is probably the world's most prestigious historical English language dictionary. It's great for the etymology of the word "chemtrail", which is a nice detail we include. We shouldn't judge a source on how accessible it is, at all (see WP:PAYWALL). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing the prestige of the OED source. I'm simply asking how the most authoritative or reliable Oxford version is determined and pointing out 1. that the Oxford source needs to be relatively consistent across all three of its versions and that 2. A non-paid site is more accessible than a paid one to most people. Is there a Oxford print version which we can reference? If given the choice, I would prefer the most accessible source if each of the definitions are similar. If the chemtrails theory is to be defined to include theories outside of CW and BW agents that OED does not mention, then we need to use additional sources to define the conspiracy theory as OED is inadequate for this purpose.
The etymology of the words origin is important for the entry but the origin in 1990 is skipped by OED which simply says 1990's origin and a context (that came about in 1995/96) though some of the skeptic sources acknowledge and even address the 1990 origin of the word. I think Metabunk.org was one skeptic source that mentioned the etymology as Chemistry + Contrails which is slightly different than that in the the OED version. I have not selected an adequate source for the 1990 origin and don't even know if there is a reliable one or if the difference in etymology between other sources is even worth noting in the entry. I am not saying OED should be discarded. I'm only pointing out a possible discrepancy in the etymology of the word. OED should be used along with other sources in defining.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

POV, Beliefs of editors on this page

You will note declassification around 1977 and then publicity about 1979. Note the covert use of dissemination at airports and coming for the exhaust of modified vehicles upon unsuspecting civilians. Approach it with care but address it.Alleged CIA whooping cough Sebring, FL (Avon park range) with a report released by a church group. Take a Lot of care here! I'm not going there.
What they said was mostly accurate too!
This is should all be public info. Some of Project 112 and LAC used contracted planes rather than military ones. Now we find that the agents may be harmful, and even stimulants, and dyes too. The use of the term first came 1990 and was a chemistry course for new air pilots at the AF academy. It's already linked on This page. On metabunk.org you will find another 2 articles that offer possible explanation that there was what was referred to as propaganda campaign at this time very by the Church of Scientology. In theory, it could be how the conspiracy was started. They had a magazine and their American Citizens for Truth in Government reports ( yes I still want to find it) was published somewhere. I know of no source that says chemtrails came from that church and wouldn't write it did even if there was dozen sources on it. Perhaps this is one possibility but is way too far out there. The articles states the article were actually were based upon interpreting declassified receipts of a CIA MKULTRA Mind control deal rather than anything they purely made up. Even the craziest of conspiracy theories has a kernel of truth. That is why people fall into them. They must be put into perspective.Johnvr4 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow! You really do need to edit other articles for a few days, weeks, or months. You come across as a full blown believer and pusher of this conspiracy theory, and your use of unreliable sources to do it doesn't exactly help your credibility. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
What BullRangifer said... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow! this is disruptive, you are 100% mistaken and hella-wrong and I'm certain it is not the first time. If I'm not mistaken, It sounds like you are telling me to piss off and go edit somewhere else. I certainly do not want to sound uncivil but don't be a Bully or a dick. Specifically which so-called unreliable source were you accusing me of using? I have not used or added or any sources to the main entry that were not already there or that you did not restore yourself! If you say a source that I used on this entry affects my credibility then you show it to me. Which source specifically are you referring to? Make sure you are accurate because if you are wrong WP:SPADE I will accurately call you a liar. This is hardly constructive conversation about the entry or the subject matter it should discuss which is the actual purpose of this talk page.
To accuse me of being a believer in this crap is offensive to me and is taken as personal attack. Now both of you doing it. I'm glad I don't have to type this twice so I applies to both of you plus anyone else who wants to jump on.
It would take a real simpleton to believe the current conspiracy but you'd be much worse off mentally if you still believed that our government plus Canada, UK, and Australia hasn't ever worked together on a series of covert projects designed to spread biological agents over a large scale (across continents) from airplanes. I hope that's not the case with you here. Go ahead and call that what I just described a conspiracy. I dare you- in fact I double-dog-dare you! It is declassified and admitted and on a participating governments website. I'll assume good faith, perhaps it is ignorance of the subject on your parts. I'm ignorant of a lot of wikipedia editing stuff. Belief in documented past history is the not the same as a belief in some conspiracy theory crap. Based on your comments about me, this is a concept that you appear to be having trouble with. Any competent person would understand they are not the same thing. I've explained to you repeatedly on this page and on my talk page I don't dig the conspiracy. You are pretty dense of you don't have that yet. You will find that my primary sources are 100 times more accurate than anything you'll ever find on about this fringe topic. I am a subject matter expert on certain aspects of CBW and exposures but not on chem trails but not about to out myself to convince you of that. Government declassified primary sources on WP are to be used sparingly. People like you make it difficult to talk about serious subjects. Reasonable people should not be constrained in their edits by pure ignorance unless ignorance is the consensus (TBD). You seem unable to consider ever it which speaks to your credibility. I've never seen anything like it except with the Japanese. They never learned any thing negative about their national history in school and rarely consider that conflicting with their established beliefs. Department of National Defence (Canada), Biological Warfare Talk to me once you Understand its significance. It is 245 whole pages of both of you and your poor attitude being epically wrong. Tell me or tell all of us about how its not true. Next, as a recently uncovered case Associated Press. Planes covertly dropping chemicals on kids? Want the whole report? That should get you and people like you somewhere near the truth someday but my guess is for people like you it never will... Bad sources that don't back my viewpoint? Hardly. Check your own lack of sources. Where is the source you just referred to? Both of need to answer this one. You've made an accusation about my sources so back it upJohnvr4 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You have just mentioned four URLs above:

Do you consider them to be reliable, secondary, sources? Do you understand what WP:NOR is about?

I can tell that you are obviously upset, but your language is too convoluted and filled with spelling and grammatical errors for me to understand all of it. Please proofread your comments before posting them. You are writing walls of text and mentioning many topics, all at once. It's too overwhelming for any editor to truly deal with. Try taking one item and deal only with it until a consensus is reached. Explain briefly the problem with it. Then you might get some help. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to ensure you were accurate because if you were wrong WP:SPADE I would accurately call you a liar. User:BullRangifer made a comment that my alleged "use of unreliable sources ... doesn't exactly help your credibility." However this statement was not true at all and has no basis in reality. It was fabricated simply to damage my credibility. He says this despite the fact that I had not used any unreliable sources on the page. His poorly thought out and executed statement affects his own credibility rather than mine. When asked for clarification of his accusation, he produces four links. Of the four, two were posted after his offensive comment was made. Therefore, I assume he was taking about the first two links that I had already provided when he said it. The first two links (both of them) were of newspaper articles from the Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle. Both of them have the same info. This person has says that particular sources are not reliable and that he can produce MORE reliable sources! That damages HIS credibility -not mine. I'm calling bullshit on everything he said. For the reasons above I am calling User:BullRangifer a liar.
Dbrodbeck chimes in with his two cents supporting the same contention and statement as the the last discredited guy. He got his lame comment in before I posted the second two links. Those links were for the Associated Press and Government of Canada's National Archives. (but lots of other reliable places have similar stuff). He seconded user:bullrangifer's lie but didn't back up comment by responding with the source that he was referring to and has lost credibility too. For this reason, Dbrodbeck is also a Liar. That's not all. This person must be the brains of this operation. Right here on this page Dbrodbeck puts forth the argument that "And none of this shows that there is no chemtrails conspiracy theory." I think his credibility was lacking prior to his comment about me. It's pretty obvious that logical thinking is lacking here too. Previously I've called his position the "dumbest possible argument for anything (ever)."Johnvr4 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
With these personal attacks as the most recent in a long string of disruptive behavior, Johnvr4 (talk · contribs) seems to be establishing a pattern that is tendentious. Having read through the above as an uninvolved editor, I don't see much evidence that this user is constructively engaged in improving this page or basing content on reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my comment above, it was over the top As for me being a liar, that is a tad much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Johnvr4, a difference of opinion is a totally different matter than a lie. Even an untruth is not the same as a lie. It's a matter of motive. For you to violate NPA to such a degree doesn't help your case at all. I have lots of things on my plate in real life, so don't interpret a lack of response in ANY manner at all. Sometimes, when editors get as unreasonable as you are, I just walk away. It's not worth it.
You falsely state above that I said I could "produce MORE reliable sources". Where did I say that? Your aggression is getting out of hand.
I rarely ban anyone from my talk page, but I'm going to do that to you. Don't post there again. People who are as aggressive and unreasonable as you are not welcome there. Use this talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology Dbrodbeck, obviously I was offended and I lost my cool. I apologize for calling you liar, slamming your beliefs, and to all who've read this. It won't happen again.
I have legitimate policy related concerns about that entry as a whole. While my concerns are legitimate. I've failed repeatedly at communicating my intent. In the future I will use appropriate procedures to rectify them if they can't be worked out. Thank you again for being the bigger person. Hopefully we can work together to keep our exchanges constructive and find common ground.
To be clear about my beliefs, please realize that there is third side to this conspiracy 'coin'. I am on the third side of the coin. It is the side of this argument who can look at the facts, sources, evidence, and context and see that both the claims of chemtrail theorists and those of the counter-theorist are dubious. None of this can be done if the terminology is not precisely defined. My personal opinion is (and I have a degree in this field) is that we have the paranoid-delusional theorists arguing with the regular-delusional counter-theorists.
Let us step back and neutrally state the facts. If you are on one of the other sides of 'the coin', we need to talk about POV. The topic of my research- CBW (with focuses on Okinawa and Florida), is difficult to approach without those one the other sides of this 'coin' accusing me of being on the opposing side. I am afraid to state the known historical facts because but each side believes my idea is the POV of the other. To keep the entry neutral, the nuts point of view needs to be defined, dissected, and dismissed however, I am concerned that both sides are nuts. Please consider this when reading my posts, reviewing my edits, or reverting. I am no chemtrail theorist and am (highly) offended by such accusations. I support neither claim as described. These are normal contrails but there were cold war tests of this nature and according to records, they ended and were declassified as this just as this theory began.
Let us differentiate that which has happened from what is happening. This topic cannot be approached without it. Thank you for letting me set the record straight.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Okie dokie.--MONGO 19:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to say in the entry the exact opposite of the conclusion in this article.Millions were in germ war tests Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials. Antony Barnett, The Guardian/Observer, 21 April 2002.

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public. A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979. Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told...

...Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, (Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down,) said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'
Couldn't they have just said no or that this stuff ended in 1979?Johnvr4 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversions

People stop the reversions. The page was in use and marked as such with an {{in Use}} tag and large label displayed at the top of the entry that could not be missed. The changes and problems with the entry were discussed. Rather than responding to the proposed changes the proposals were then deleted from this page. Rather than proposing changes and getting consensus, I was asked to be bold and just make them. Neither the reversions nor consensus about reversions was discussed. Last, I do not need consensus to remove unsourced information or that which abuses the cited source. This was the situation requiring immediate action.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're edit-warring (which is liable to attract a block). Your changes are introducing off-topic content into the article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
All pages are "in use".--MONGO 14:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not an edit war, Reverting to unsourced information and misused sources is not an improvement. The reversions are unjustified. If you have a good reason for the reversion, discuss it. So far, there is not a single reasonable justification for even one reversion. There is nothing controversial or disputed by the cited sources listed in my changes. The source was already in use and had consensus though no one seemed to have read it. If there was an issue with my sourcing, it would have been discussed by now since so many editors have touched it without looking at it or verifying anything. This is not a democracy, there are rules to follow with sources. To date, that was not being done and not one person out of the numerous editors that appear to have a stake in it was or is keen to address this or any other of the entrys obvious and ongoing issues. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect - it was an edit war, thus the reason for your current block.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If an editor has a specific concern please discuss it prior to reverting. I'd like to repeat that if your reversion re-introduces materiel that is unsupported by the source, -you own the edit. I've reverted an illegitimate edit as the reverter had an invalid concern about properly source information fact.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Per BRD please propose the change, and we can come to a consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, more edit-warring seeking to insert the same kind of off topic content. The lede should reflect the body and make plain what the article topic is. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the change, what is the specific issue with it and what has not been previously discussed prior to my edit? I tred to undo my 3rd edit but someone beat me to it. I would ask each of the reverting editors to defend the material that they reintroduced.

Chemtrails is the name given to sky tracks left by the covert release of chemical or biological agents,[1] either by spraying or mixing with jet fuel, of man-made substances not found in "ordinary" contrails (condensation trails).[2][3] The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that the contrails and contrail patterns left by jet aircraft transiting the skies are toxic agents deliberately released for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[4] The theory that pollutants or condensation emitted by everyday air transportation are intended by governments to to cause harm in their citizens has been refuted by the U.S. scientific community.[5] After the conspiracy theory became more popular, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[4] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly been compelled to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails.[6]

The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[1] Chemtrail conspiracy theorists are not generally concerned with legitimate forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting[3] Chemtrail specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of characteristic sky tracks.[2][3]

Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical dissemination may be for biological or chemical warfare or defense testing, weather modification, human population control,[7] solar radiation management,[citation needed] or psychological manipulation[citation needed] and that these trails are the cause of respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[4]

Johnvr4 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's wrong (by our sources). A chemtrail is a fantastic concept in the mind of conspiracy theorists. Your opening makes it sound like a real thing! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn May I ask what specifically is wrong or not present in the impeccable sources that I provided in this edit diff? Specifically, which sources support your opinion and do not support what is typed above? If you have a concern, please discuss it and provide a source for the "fantastic concept of the mind" POV. The other unsupported opinion expressed by you: "A chemtrail is, by definition, a thing imagined by a conspiracy theorist. Anything else is not a chemtrail." This statement has no source. When you say OED is the source that was used for this opinion- well I used the OED definition in my edit which was reverted and it did not include the POV interpretation that you are pushing. I did not make my edit it out to sound anything other than what the source states. My edit was taken from the OED source which we all agreed to use on this page. Please directly quote each source if it will be an improvement to the entry. You and others should have verified the sourcing before making any reversions to the edit I submitted for this entry. I made a change based upon the issued discussed In the section below called "Minor moves." I wrote: "The concern I have is that we are trying to define the chemtrail conspiracy theory without first narrowly defining chemtrial (which is redirected to the conspiracy). This is super confusing to read. The best definition of contrail is stuck way done in the Chemical vs contrails section. That's no good for defining what this entry is." The response was another POV gem, "Chemtrails only exist in a conspiracy theory; we musn't imply otherwise." Please don't imply anything. Follow the source(s).Johnvr4 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The OED definition starts with the words "In the context of various conspiracy theories: ...". That's a good example to follow. The fringe invented nature of chemtrails governs the topic. Our very article title is "Chemtrail conspiracy theory". You can tell your edit is bad because it pushes these head words out of the opening sentence even! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK you didn't like the definitions. What of the other improvements to the entry that were submitted and that you reverted? Using the above interpretation as the criteria of a "bad" edit. The definition Alexbrn and others have reintroduced here has completely removed the word Contrail or normal contrail from the opening sentence definition! The edit also reintroduced other issues such as unverifiable sources, and info that's not in the given citation, plus other issues such as policy concerning the lead.
I simply attempted to fix each of the issues previously discussed and define chemtrail from the agreed sources in the first sentence before chemtrail conspiracy theory was defined in the second sentence as logic dictates. Definitions go in the lead first, then you talk about the subject after the definition as required by WP policy and ensure that whatever is mentioned is also in the body of the entry. OED contains the definition of chemtrail and indicates the chemtrail conspiracy theory is the simply the chemtrail criteria when in the context of a one of the various conspiracy theories. OED does not define the various conspiracy theories and can't be used by itself. If it was, we'd be limited by this source by definition to the discussion of only CW and BW agents.
Is the chemtrail conspiracy context as listed in OED definition the only allowed context of chemtrail when the word used in the English language? What was the context of the word from 1990-95 before the 1996 theory came about or before OED recently included it? The OED definition mentions "various conspiracy theories." Which theories are we talking about as only two (CW-BW agents)are mentioned in the OED source? Is it the theories concerning chemical and biological only (as OED defines it) or in the context of the various theories concerning several substances and agendas, cloud persistence, etc. of multiple different conspiracy theories involving alleged aerial spraying as described in the other reliable sources.
Last, I submit the following text from the Skeptical Inquirer article (currently source 11), that touches on the conspiracy vs. occasional testing with a passage (about barium no less) that sort of "makes it sound like a real thing." The source indicates some small part of it may actually happen- which is hardly something "completely imaginary in the fantastic mind of a conspiracy theorist".

In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation."

Source mentions other theories but the focus of the Skeptical Inquirer article is cloud persistence. To be clear, the source does not say photographs do not exist, the source says that no photos presented to them as evidence were particularly unusual. I have previously provided a quotation from one source that states photographs of such aerial agent trail tests exist and have to ask what such occasional tests as described in the Skeptical Inquirer article would be called if not a chemtrail.
Johnvr4 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea; it's fruitless to engage in WP:SPECULATION. The subject of this article is a conspiracy theory, and that is nicely summarized in the lede. I have seen no evidence of a problem in the lede that needs addressing; OTOH your edits are problematic because they are pushing the fringe POV that chemtrails are real. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no amount of arguing about dictionary definitions changes that. The text is being inserted in such a way as to imply the existence of chem trails. Obviously this is problematic since it disagrees with the sources. John, it's quite obvious from any reasonable reading of the Skeptical inquirer when they say there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are ... they dispute the existence of such a thing and ascribe it to confusing contrails with something nefarious. Leads are not meant to be dictionary definitions, it is irrelevant if the lead doesn't act as a definition; it isn't meant to. Second Quantization (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
My edits follow the reliable sources which are the same as "your sources>" I'm unsure if the above statement is my edit, about your sources, or your use of sources. If you take issue with that, then report me for pushing a fringe POV (as 2nd Q did). If you would like to frame this discussion as an argument or content dispute I have no issue with that. If you'd like continue to frame this problem as a conduct dispute over inserting POV information than is not in a reliable source, please continue. I may have mentioned this before and certainly will again. We have mostly the same beliefs about the validity of the subject. However the fashion in which it is currently being presented (or debunked) presents a POV largely disputed by this impeccable reliable source. What is being mis-represented by certain editors (who apparently have this topic entirely locked down) is that, in almost every case, it is supposed evidence of alleged chemtrails rather than each of the various theories that is being de-bunked. The specific example 2nd Q offers proves this.
Skeptical Inquirer is quoting New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR) members.[1] The New Mexico Attorney General’s office contacted NMSR to answer questions and comment on the subject. NMSR's position is that there is no valid evidence for or against chemtrails that has been presented to date. The current version of the entry misses this position entirely (see my comment below about being on "the third side of a coin") and the expressed POVs of various editors (that I'm edit warring, that I'm pushing a fringe subject, that this is all in the mind of conspiracy theorists) makes that all but impossible for me or anyone to correct. The affects Wikipedia's integrity and prevents me from enjoying Wikipedia. This source is being abused.
NMSR Member physicist Kim Johnston is de-bunking the photos NMSR received in a letter as evidence offering proof of chemtrails. NMSR does not say there is no such thing as a chemtrail, rather they say no solid evidence has been presented either way.
"This letter was originally addressing a letter sent to the New Mexico Attorney General's office from a chemtrail conspiracy believer that referenced a specific web page containing various contrail pictures and rhetorical questions designed to get "explain that!" points across."[2]

She reviewed photos... discussed letters with scientists...In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation.

NMSR member pilot, Ian Wickson covers many of the topics we have discussed on this page including dissemination of agents under Contrails vs. sprayed agents, rainmaking, even chaff.[3]

Are “chemtrails” real?: It’s entirely possible. In concluding this lengthy dissertation, I have to admit I can’t disprove their existence. My point is simply this: proponents of the “chemtrail” theory have failed to produce a “smoking gun.” There are logical and believable explanations for all the “evidence” I have seen. No truly damning evidence seems to exist – or if it does, it’s lost in a sea of inconclusive theory, conjecture and photos of normal contrails and meteorological events.

The NPOV quotation that New Mexicans for Science and Reason offers is entirely inconsistent with the POV of the above editors who believe that Skepical Inquirer (quoting the original NMSR source) supports the expressed POV that they are pushing in this entry. Material that was legitimately added to make the entry's POV more neutral is continuously and repeatedly illegitimately reverted by these editors to re-insert their own POV. It is the evidence of chemtrails presented by conspiracy theorists to date that has been debunked -mostly photos (and misinterpreted lab results), not the military technology or the future possibility or even the possibility of existing evidence.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
While my comment above is digested. Please consider the cited source of this statement and what it says."Contrail Facts"

The "Chemtrail" hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications.

If we can’t cite each of the specific universities etc. in the lead, scientists, and major media outlets reliably refuting chemtrails the hoax against the U.S. Air Force, then this statement needs to be attributed to the Air Force rather than unknown, non-specific or not-well-cited sources in the entry. But what exactly are they refuting? This source actually makes some seemingly "outrageous" claims (several) such as:

Photographs which show military aircraft with sprays coming from unusual locations on the aircraft are usually re-touched photos (a process that is easy to create using common computer programs)."

The statement that only commercial companies performed cloud seeding is another big one. This source claims chemtrails was a hoax in which the USAF were the victims. These "mostly" altered photos as part of a hoax are what is being refuted. Past activity by the USAF that is somewhat similar to the chemtrail theory is neither presented nor refuted by this source. Without the citations specifics of who is refuting or what else is being refuted (besides a list of references and agency links), current activity in which USAF is participating is only refuted by the USAF in their own publication and apparent analysis of only/mostly Photoshopped photos. However, this source calls chemtrails a hoax, gives evidence of the hoax, and says the hoax is refuted by "many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications." These all sound very reliable but they need to be further cited as the original source(s) and this should not be too difficult to cite if there are many of them.
However, in the entry, this source is used to define a “totally imagined” conspiracy theory which it claims has been refuted rather than the hoax and doctored photos this source describes. This source should be used to support the existence of a hoax involving Photoshopped photos, should be used to say the hoax has been refuted and can state that the Air force is not involved in certain activities attributed to it. I really wish it could but This source can't be used to say covert CBW tests, covert large scale cloud-seeding in war time or covert food crop destruction (anti-crop) or as a requirement to destroying forests (defoliants/desiccants in Vietnam) and/or starting large forest fires are not dis-similar to the conspiracy theory. This source says nothing about these past uses, the normalcy of these contrails, or their legitimacy, harm, secrecy, declassification, legality, relation to the hoax, etc. or even what is being debunked.
Johnvr4 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

RF Chaff

This is not correct:

  • "This theory has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal contrails (condensation trails).[2]"

Source nr [2] is this: http://web.archive.org/web/20130306001902/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf

In this document the Air force indeed denies to be spraying people, but on page 10 we read: 

Cloud Seeding and Fire Suppression
For a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures. Cloud seeding

requires the release of chemicals in the atmosphere in an effort to have water crystals attach themselves and become heavy enough to produce rain.

Refutation as "normal contrails" is not to be had from this source. The hoax this document refers to strictly applies to spraying by the Air force. They do offer further insights but their interpretation cant be considered "the scientific community". The sources used must be reproduced here on Wikipedia then attributed to their source. At first sight the refs appear to be:

  • Appleman, H., 1953. The formation of exhaust condensation trails by jet aircraft. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 34: 14-20. Brewer, A.W., 1946. Condensation trails. Weather 1: 34-40.
  • Chipley, Michael Ph.D. A Review Of Military Aviation And Space Issues, The Forum For Environmental Law, Science, Engineering And Finance, December 1999.
  • Chipley, Michael Ph.D. A Review Of Military Aviation And Space Issues: Aerospace And Airspace" (Part II), The Forum For Environmental Law, Science, Engineering And Finance, January 2000.
  • Spargo, B.J., Environmental Effects of RF Chaff, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., August 31, 1999.
  • Pike, John, Aircraft Weapon Loads, Federation of American Scientists, 2000.
  • Aircraft and Contrails. EPA publication number EPA430-F-00-005. 6 pp EPA, 2000.(www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm)

I didn't bother reading any further. The 4th one mentions "RF Chaff". A search for that produces lots of good sources. 

Radio frequency chaff: the effects of its use in training on the environment.
Abstract:  Chaff is a radiofrequency countermeasure released by military aircraft, ships,
and vehicles to confuse enemy radar. Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers ranging
in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm and is released in packets of 0.5 to 100 million fibers.
The Department of Defense has determined that use of chaff in training is required for
maintaining proficiency in the use of this countermeasure. At least 500 tons of chaff is
released annually during training within selected military operating areas in the United
States. Concerns have been raised about impact on the environment and its potential toxicity
to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Many of these concerns have been addressed or are 
being researched by the Department of Defense and other agencies, but much of the data are
unpublished. Herein, the authors summarize the issues and review scientific data for the 
impact of chaff use on humans, animals, and the environment.[4]

Anything wrong with this source? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Cloud seeding is a local weather modification activity that has been openly done for a long time, with mixed results. It's not the same thing as chemtrails, which are supposedly a clandestine geoengineering activity. Chaff is intended to obscure radar and is not a climate or atmospheric modification program, regardless of whether it's inert or not. Please be careful of making a synthesis of available sources that says in Wikipedia's voice something that none of the sources explicitly state: see WP:SYNTH for more. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What the ... ? Chaff?! You mean the little puffs of radar-scattering countermeasures that jet fighters drop to spoof missles?! Been in use since a bit after WWII I believe.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
During WW2 too: "window". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with it. Non-constructive comments that are not about the entry (like the three above) are not the purpose of this talk page. The chaff topic is discussed in the main source (#2) for the entry. The source has an entire section on Chaff and Flares as well as Background, Condensation Trails ("contrails") from Aircraft Engine Exhaust (How about propeller contrails?), Wingtip Condensation Trails, Exhaust Gases and Emissions, Aerial Spraying, In-flight Emergency Fuel Release, and other activities that make unusual patterns in the sky or are legitimate reasons for releases of chemicals into the air as well as "The Chemtrail Hoax". Any of these topics are fair game. There is no synthesis nor hint of synthesis in including the topic of chaff or flares in the chemtrail conspiracy entry nor with any of the others topics included in that source.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
RF chaff is a 'chemical released into the air' in only the broadest sense, in that everything is chemicals. The material has no place here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be trying to make a case that anything discharged, released, dumped or dispersed from an airplane should be included in this article. This article is only about the popular conspiracy theory that posits a secret program that disperses chemicals into the air from high-flying aircraft with the intention of either harm or geoengineering. Introducing other activities is a synthesis. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The one complaint about the material I saw was about synthesis-- "voice something that none of the sources explicitly state" and there is not any as the source(s) state exactly what was copy-pasted. The Air force source about the hoax clearly talks about flares and chaff. Any source that says there is absolutely no relation between the topics of pyrotechnics, CW agents, and cloud generation or that these techniques were not tested is simply wrong. There is a likely good reason that the Air force included it even if you don't understand why they did.
How does what you think I appear to be matter in any way? That topic has been covered in another section. I've asked that the comments be kept be about the entry. I've also asked that Chem trail be defined which is a WP policy requirement for an entry about the chemtrail conspiracy theory.
Covert geo-engineering (to make mud and to extend the monsoon season) with rainmaking during the war in S.E. Asia was done with a type of pyrotechnic flare referred to as a "candle". Pyrotechnics (including flares or explosives) is one method of disseminating chemical agents as are (rocket) exhaust plumes and many other methods most people are likely unaware of. There is a historical significance during cold war testing to the theory or hoax or whatever you choose to call it. This source covers chemical aerosols dissemination through pyrotechnics, combustion chambers, injection of CW agents in rocket plumes, forced cloud generation, role of condensation, natural dissemination methods, Strategic role of forced cloud geometry; etc. Research studies on the dissemination of solid and liquid agents pp. 69-80, 129-134.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again, please cite a source that relates all of this specifically to the subject with out making a synthesis. The use of "candles" is a standard way of dispersing silver iodide for cloud seeding. This not news. The use of such tactics in Vietnam, along with Agent Orange, etc. is not news, but it's not what this article is about. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again: You talk an awful lot, but I (as do the above) fail to see any constructive edits being done to improve the main article, not even a good solid source. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of the chem-bio agent subject is a WP policy issue. The CBW agents or programs aspect of the theory is in the intro but not mentioned the body. A repeated synthesis complaint over the inclusion of the CBW subject is idiocy.

One can't mix covert strategic military activity that was denied to congress and overt things like saving crops in a small town that has asked for it during drought into one all encompassing legitimate cloud seeding concept. They are not the same. Silver iodide is not the same as Lead iodide which was used too. The source does not mention the past covert use of military cloud seeding to harm or hinder an enemy AT ALL. It mentions only commercial cloud seeding.

"Operation Pink Rose" in January 1967.

Agent Orange for declassified defoliation missions and other chemicals for covert crop-destruction are not the same either. "Operation Ranch Hand" defoliation is only the declassified part of the covert "Operation Hades". I can't think of a better way to demonstrate that use in wartime is not the same thing as the legitimate use of the technology:

  • Fred A. Wilcox, ('Dead Forests, Dying People: Agent Orange & Chemical Warfare in Vietnam,' The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 50 No 3, December 12, 2011) writes:

"Vietnamese caught in the path of U.S aerial spraying missions complained that they felt faint, bled from the nose and mouth, vomited, suffered from numbness in their hands and feet, and experienced migraine-like headaches. They said that farm animals grew weak, got sick, and even died after being exposed to the chemicals. In late 1967, following a period of massive use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Saigon newspapers began publishing reports on a new birth abnormality, calling it the "egg bundle-like fetus." One paper, Dong Nai, published an article about women giving birth to stillborn fetuses, with photographs of grotesquely deformed dead babies. There were accounts of babies being born with two heads, three arms and 20 fingers or babies with three legs. Peasants whose families had lived on the same land for generations said they had never encountered such strange phenomena. The Saigon government argued that these birth defects were caused by something they called "Okinawa bacteria." The U.S. dismissed these complaints as communist propaganda."[42][106] The Army's position was that Fort Detrick's workers had handled these agents for several years apparently without ill-effects.[96]

  • 42. Mitchell, Jon (June 4, 2013). "‘Okinawa bacteria’ toxic legacy crosses continents, spans generations." The Japan Times. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
  • 96. "Rocky Mountain Arsenal Summary of Major Events and Problems" (1958), (p.104-110)- citation still in progress.
  • 106. Barry Weisberg (1970). Ecocide in Indochina: The Ecology of War. Canfield Press. Retrieved April 25, 2013.

Here's another that speaks to the secrecy of the activity: U.S. Planes destroy rice in VietCong territory by Charles Mohr, Special to the New York Times, (Page 1) Dec. 21 1965.

Many of the sources link the chemtrail and CBW subjects. There are many but this was only the first one I looked at:

So far, suggested explanations for the recent rash of lines in the sky have included mass culling of the US population...; weather modification experiments; biological warfare tests; detection and decontamination of chemical and biological agents, especially anthrax; illegal fuel dumping by military jets, and illicit spraying of the carcinogenic pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB).

  • Pilkington, Mark. "Plane Truth on the Conspiracy Tale". Fortean Bureau of Investigation. Archived from the original on 2000-03-03. Retrieved 2010-05-07.

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish with all of this extensive posting and editing on the Talk page. This isn't a message board... TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this passage from the self-published photo gallery webpage of the Air Weather Reconnaissance Association on operation "Motorpool" (Operation Popeye) will shed light upon the inclusion of chaff in the topic of weather modification / chem trails. Another source should probably be found if the info is to be used.

The RF-4 could carry 52 photoflash carts or chaff carts on each side. We carried chaff to defeat Fire-Can or SAM Radars (more on chaff later). The "rain making stuff" was carried in these racks.

The logo for Operation Motorpool, consisting on a winged question mark with lightening bolt can be seen here: [5]
Johnvr4 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Still can't see what your argument is, here. Because cartridges of cloud-seeding chemicals – silver iodide and/or lead iodide – could be loaded into the racks normally used to dispense cartridges of chaff, we should consider chaff a cloud-seeding chemical? (Incidentally, Wikipedia already has an article on Motorpool; it's discussed as part of Operation Popeye.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Chaff and pyrotechnics should be considered as (former) covert agent dissemination systems. The Air Force includes it in its chemtrail hoax source and any failure to understand why is irrelevant. If an editor wanted to tackle the chaff topic, there is adequate reason too include it and reason to question what has been refuted by the scientific community.
I fail to understand how the above covert example and others (such as Operation LAC etc.) do not fit the definition of a chemtrail as currently used in this entry.

"The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed in the sky for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[1] This theory has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal contrails (condensation trails).[2]"

There has been no attempt to differentiate between the historical use of large scale agent dissemination, and user Alexbrn's POV that "A chemtrail is, by definition, a thing imagined by a conspiracy theorist. Anything else is not a chemtrail."
I didn't intend to stray too far from the subject from chaff and whether "some trails" have been refuted or all of them have or have not been refuted by the scientific community. I mentioned Operation Pop Eye but there was US sponsored action against opium in Burma during the Vietnam War or more recently US sponsored activities associated with what is referred to as "Plan Columbia." Columbia was the site of prior U.S. CBW testing under the Deseret Test Center page 7. These examples are sort of in the same vein. I also fail to understand why these increasingly ridiculous questions are being repeatedly asked. A point was made and I commented on it. Questions were asked and I answered them. What "argument" is not understood? It has very likely already been discussed somewhere on this page.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Not my definition, the OED's. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, I'm going to ask— what is the proposed edit to the article, and what is the specific source (or specific sources) that will be cited to support that edit? To avoid confusion or (additional) circular arguments, I'm going to stipulate that any sources used to try to define what is or is not a chemtrail need, at a minimum, to actually use the word 'chemtrail'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
May we have a source for this POV please? TenOfAllTrades: "Secret releases of inert agents don't meet the usual definition associated with chemtrail conspiracies; an essential element is the deliberate release of agents that are intended to have some effect."
The POV does not fit the definition in OED or in use in the entry {{quote|"The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed in the sky for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[1] ...Been refuted... Please explain.
Johnvr4 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This section was created because another editor rightly noted the inconsistency in the entry between the POV attributed to the scientific community was written to infer that there is no such thing as an abnormal contrail- A POV not supported by any sources. It does not matter if one understands my points or not, one needs to understand his point. As the other editor pointed out, the examples of abnormal contrail patterns from releases of various substances were discussed in the in the source he provided. His point was well supported by examples I provided such as Operation Hades fear of the "Okinawa Bacteria" etc. Although I would not have selected Chaff as the best example, it turned out to be adequate in the specific example of the covert Operation Motorpool and the RF-4 although the source was not useable for the entry it was the type information with high potential to be verified in a yet unidentified reliable source. In discussion, I responded to the points of other editors with counter points and examples and sources. I felt that after looking at the reliable sources currently being used in the entry and additional input which consisted of comprehension failures, non-constructive or unsourced agenda-biased comments that avoid verifying reliable sources in fear of what it might sound like on one side and specific reliably sourced examples on the other that a more neutral statement was required as to the type of contrails (the Normal contrails) that the scientific was refuting caused serious 'harm'. Questions were asked referencing a lack of understanding and not seeing what my argument was. I answered and was asked about my intended edit on chaff. The question was answered prior to being asked and was ignored. I don't have a proposed edit on the subject of chaff and never did. I said that "If an editor wanted to tackle the chaff topic, there is adequate reason too include it and reason to question what has been refuted by the scientific community."Johnvr4 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
In plain English, I believe the other editors main points were something like "Refutation as "normal contrails" is not to be had from this source." and "This is not correct:
  • "This theory has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal contrails (condensation trails).[2]"
Source # [2] is this: http://web.archive.org/web/20130306001902/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf"
I don't know that there is source support for this POV but if there was a source that actually says this, I need it and would really like to have it and put it in the article. "Secret releases of inert agents don't meet the usual definition associated with chemtrail conspiracies; an essential element is the deliberate release of agents that are intended to have some effect." A source that says this would have resolved much of this conflict ad that is why I asked for it. Rather than providing a source, there were complaints that I had asked for a source that I really need or that even I participated in this discussion. Hopefully those type of complaints are past history but I was offended by them. In any case, it documented that in past testing of agents, simulant agents were sometimes dropped with actual live agents. Simulant agents are currently being studied for human harm and are still being used in vulnerability testing.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we could take a look at all of them, but this recent one has been added on a few occasions, and I would ask that the IP who has been edit warring over this material please discuss the addition [6]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you deleting this important link? It is an unclassified military document located in the public domain and is presented as evidence that contrails can be persistent with certain additives to jet fuel. Deleting it does not help the clarity on the subject. When you continuously delete something like that, provide explanation and fair reason why you are doing it.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA483801 Use of nanoparticle Aluminum Oxide as a range-extender does not produce “typical contrails”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:ELNO and WP:BRD. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I've just re-removed the link, pending discussion. As far as I can tell, the linked document doesn't contain the phrase "typical contrails"; indeed, it doesn't seem to mention contrails – typical, atypical, persistent, or otherwise – at all. Nor does it address, test, or even mention the use of aluminum oxide as a range extender for aircraft. It appears to be a technical paper describing a laboratory method for studying high-speed combustion and decomposition reactions. (While such methods certainly could have applications to the study of novel jet fuel mixtures and catalysts, there is no indication that anything reported in the paper has anything to do with any past or present experimental, prototype, or in-service aircraft or aircraft engine.) Are you sure that you're linking to the correct paper? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Aerosol Shock Tube, nano-aluminum, ignition delay times

2. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Aerosol Shock Tube, nano-aluminum, ignition delay times

3. Abstract We investigated the potential of a new experimental method for combustion studies of solid nano‐particle energetic materials. This new method is based on the recent development in our laboratory of an aerosol shock tube and its combined use with laser extinction (for characterization of particle size and loading) and absorption diagnostics (for characterization of vapor species). We accomplished three main objectives in this study: 1) we demonstrated the ability to load significant amounts of solid materials into our aerosol carrier and deliver this aerosol into our shock tube; 2) we demonstrated laser‐based diagnostic measurements of several key aspects of the ignition process of solid/liquid fuel systems; and 3) we characterized the effect of the addition of aluminum nano‐particles on n‐dodecane ignition under conditions previously not studied.

4. Page 12: The larger aerosol droplets (larger number mean diameter) produced using the spray jet (than with the disk nebulizers) experience faster drop‐out rates due to gravity.

5. Aluminum Oxide Nanopowder (the word oxide is not mentioned in this mil doc but that's what it is: http://www.us-nano.com/inc/sdetail/209'

There's plenty of mention of Aluminum nanoparticles and nanopowder, which is aluminum oxide in the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And no mention at all of contrails, chemtrails, or any hint that such materials or systems have any present application. Please review WP:SYNTH for why the discussion is inadmissible in this article. Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course the military would not mention that Aluminium Oxide Nanopowder is used as jet fuel additive, which, after burning, as the document mentions, lands affected by gravity (did you really read the entire doc?). It burns to Aluminium Oxide and creates persistent contrails which spread to create the silvery grey haze we see in the sky almost on a daily basis. I'm not saying this is intentional or bad, but that's exactly what is going on. Perhaps it is a good idea to control the global warming in a way. I'm a scientist from Europe and I know about these things. My friend is a pilot of one of those airplanes and he told me that they are adding Aluminium Oxide Nanopowder to the jet fuel as range extender. It is important for the population to know what pollutants they are breathing in. Now that you know it, wouldn't you like to share this knowledge with your extended family, friends, coworkers and everyone else? Or would you rather hide the fact for some unknown reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The source does not mention chemtrails or contrails. Your friend is not a WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay; I think I see where the confusion is. The 'spray jet' the paper describes on page 12 isn't referring to a jet aircraft or engine; it is a pressurized nozzle used to create an aerosol inside a small-scale test chamber—in a regular laboratory experiment, firmly located on the ground. Both the device and its use are described in the paper in a fair bit of detail. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not you're a "scientist from Europe," you're editing from South Carolina. Your friend is a pilot for what "one of those airplanes"? In any event, he's not a reliable source, and you're distorting a lab experiment to fit your views, which is unscientific, and definitely not admissible on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Now its Nanopowder...the 9/11 truthers had the term Nanothermite I think.--MONGO 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Two trails from one airplane engine on one side. How does that happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO8tqWpO9k

Also, watch this video, it's a reasonable video, especially interested to know 1:07 through 1:22 what's being sprayed in this passenger airplane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqATQtwOY34

Let's talk and see if we can link to these videos from your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links are for links to valid, reputable content that expands and extends encyclopedic content. They're not for speculation, promotion or amateur investigations. See WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem # 1. The following link (2nd from the top) under "External Links" is a dead ship or "broken" non-existing page. (OAP), Office of Atmospheric Programs = Dead Link.

Problem # 2. The following link (5th and the last from the top) under "External Links" is a dead ship or "not found" non-existing page. NASA Langley's Contrail Page = Dead Link.

Do you think these two dead links enhances and expands the encyclopedic content in any way or form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed them - why didn't you fix them rather than complain? Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question! Because I seem to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia, because I was trying to clear your lungs from all that stuff that's coming down on us (don't tell me you are unaware of that). I guess NASA did not want us to see their outdated page, but you posted archived link anyway. So I guess it is so important to propagate that (now archived) stuff that even archived pages are important to post as encyclopedia-enhancing information. Yet the video that clearly shows that the airplane is spraying stuff out of its wings and not out of its engines, is ignored. Talking about bias and editing out the inconvenient truth and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The youtube clips linked did not enhance understanding. Tankerenemy is absolutely unreliable (the hoax video featuringmistranslated German newscasters comes to mind). Since contrails are phenomena researched by actual science, we rather rely on this than youtube videos. If that's biased, I guess this bias is defensible. If you don't like these reasonable guidelines, you can always take your issues to the RS noticeboard or try to change the guidelines. --SK (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Contrails can easily be produced from the wingtip vortices of any aircraft. Many modern airliners use special wingtips (as well as a different wing design) as an attempt to prevent this, but they can still occur. What you are attempting to have added to the page is rather unremarkable footage (and from YouTube, which is *never* a reliable source). Regarding the first one, contrails are heavily affected by the masses of air that they are created within, as well as the operation of the jet engine itself. Without further specific data on the footage, the answer is basically 'nobody knows', which is a valid answer. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Need a source to say

Moved conversation from Reversions since I changed subjects.

I really please need a source that says Chemtrial is a word only used by conspiracy theorists. I think that will solve many issues with this piece. Is their a reliable one. I'll even take a questionable one at this point.-JohnVR4-3-26-2014


"a source that says Chemtrial is a word only used by conspiracy theorists.":
  • "And conspiracy theorists have nicknamed contrails "chemtrails" under the suspicion that the government is taking advantage of this scientific phenomenon to secretly release other substances into the atmosphere." HowStuffWorks
  • "Question: The trails seen behind airplanes are not actually contrails, but are in fact "chemtrails," a part of a conspiracy by the government to poison its own population. Is this really happening? (...) conspiracy theories, even the ones that are patently ridiculous, have a stranglehold on popular culture. Add the chemtrail conspiracy to this list." Myth Busters' mail bag
  • "Then there’re the conspiracy folks. According to myriad conspiracy theories, some of those “harmless” vapors are instead sinister “chemtrails.”" Skeptical Inquirer
  • "It's called "Chemtrails," a purported government program to deliver poisonous or mind-controlling substances to the general population by spraying from airplanes." New Mexicans for Science and Reason
  • "There have been those stories, held by conspiracy theorists, that chemicals are being spread from planes for a certain purpose. They call them “chemtrails” rather than “contrails.” Some of the chemtrail conspiracy stories that float around the Internet (...) They remain, for now, conspiracy theories." Ask a Science Teacher: 250 Answers to Questions You’ve Always Had About How Everyday Stuff Really Works
  • "The white tic-tac-toe lines known as contrails (...) The Internet is rife with "spotter's guides" that depict the ways to determine whether that puffy streak in the sky is a harmless contrail or a deadly chemtrail. These seem to be almost comical in their hysteria as they pick out one cloud or contrail as being more suspicious that others." Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies
  • "In the "chemtrail" stories, air and water vapor contrails that form in the wake of high-altitude aircraft are in fact "clouds of toxic soup being deliberately sprayed by secret government planes executing the designs of the New World Order"" A Complexity Theory for Public Policy (Routledge)
  • "The 'chemtrails' phenomenon is one of the fastest-growing seams of conspiracy alarm (...) Aeroplane contrails have long been a feature in our skies, forming as water vapour and gases condense into icy clouds in sub-zero temperatures. (...) These new embellishments reputedly last longer and spread wider that standard contrails (...) Despite intense fascination with what thruthseekers have christened chemtrails (...)" Conspiracies: The Facts. The Theories. The Evidence
  • "Climate and weather engineering has long had a military dimension (...). During World War II, the Germans experimented with creating fog to confuse Allied bombers. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military used weather modification techniques, such as seeding clouds with silver ioide, in a secret attempt to increase rainfall over portions of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. None of these efforts worked very well, but that hasn't stopped the military from dreaming about such techniques. Nor it has stopped the spinning of conspiracy theories. In fact, if you type the word "chemtrails" into a search engine, you'll find thousands of links to the websites of people who believe that the U.S. government has been spraying metallic particles out of airplanes in a massive campaign to - well, nobody is exactly sure what the objective is. Biowarfare? Population control? Planet cooling? Whatever the purpose, chemmies believe that evidence of this stealth campaign can be seen in the numerous contrails of jets, which often linger in the air in suspicious and threatening patterns. According to chemmies, millions of people are now being poisoned by the barium and aluminium in these aerosols as they invisibly rain down on our heads." How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth's Climate, by journalist Jeff Goodell
--Enric Naval (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
All of those sources look very reliable but none of them straightforwardly say without implication what I think really needs to be said to clear up the issues we are (I am) having.
proposed: Say Use of the term ‘chemtrails’ is only associated with amateur conspiracy theorists or theories. That way, the 1990 origin of the word and many other secrecy 'grey areas' and legitimacy 'fine lines' plus the real vs imagined can be easily differentiated. Not sure if any of the above sources will let me say this or the reliability of the one that does say it prevent its use on Wikipedia?
Problem with my proposal. Source. Global research citing Case Orange:
"Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. ... Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes." The main difference I see in this source is that Case Orange not signed and is worded as that some geoengineering testing or actual dissemination programs with aircraft have begun. reliable?:[7]
Johnvr4 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It's an article by think-tank Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization. It's dedicated to "Case Orange", and anonymous report that was supposedly written "a team of scientists". the report is not very scientific, and it cites dubious sources. The article just repeats the claims of the report. I'm going to say this counts as much a source written by proponents.
I added one more source. It links WWII military experiments with Vietnam War military experiments with the current conspiracy theory of "chemtrails". He interviews Edward Teller and Lowell Wood about using geoingeneering as a weapon. He calls the conspiracy theorists "chemmies", and says that you can find their theories by googling "chemtrail".....


I think that several of those sources say very clearly that "chemtrail" is a word invented and used by proponents of the theory. Some of the sources are very specific about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I missed the source that you added and would like to check it out. The more specific the source, the better. Glad you agree sources say this can be said. I don't mind attributing it to proponents either. If proponents and skeptics both agree, then there is only one side of the argument and no controversy to explain.
What you said above was good but it went off the rails for me when then you said "chemtrail is a word invented by"...
The invention of the word in 1990 is an entirely different topic from how it is currently used. I thought there was agreement on that-even before my first Talk page comment.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You are right, it's a different topic. My bad. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think all sides will agree that the invention of the word by the Air Force in 1990 is both part of the myth and a different topic but similar combination (chemistry + contrails).Johnvr4 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Brad Steiger's book

This doesn't look like a reliable source, I opened a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brad_Steiger_book. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Enric Naval. I've commented on it there.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
1. Do we use him? It seems he remains in the entry.
2. Are we using him correctly? The abuse of this source remains and current entry contradicts this source on the origin of the phenomenon.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why the Steiger's book is needed

Last paragraph of the Lead: The Steiger source . 5:Brad Steiger; Sherry Steiger (2012). Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Complete Dossier. Visible Ink Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-57859-383-5. was cited in the entry (but recently removed) and now that text has no source. That source says Civil crop dusting and cloud seeding, sky writing etc. are legitimate use of aerial dispensed chemicals and not of concern to chemtrail conspiacists.

As opposed to contrails, Chemtrails consist of manmade chemicals deliberately sprayed from aircraft. There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical[s] in this manner, crop dusting over farms fields, to destroy weeds or insects harmful to crops; cloud seeding to areas of drought; firefighting by dumping fire extinguishing chemicals on forest fires or other blazes; and the release of smoke trails in air shows or to create advertising messages. The chemicals that have caused great concern are none of these, but rather the artificial clouds that conspiracists are convinced are raining down influenza and other diseases

The Steiger source states that the chemical clouds dispensed for legitimate reasons are not the type of are not the type concerning theorists. ‘Illegitimate’ is only alluded to in a prior section of this book that mentions the origin of chemtrails in 1998 and it is consistent with every reliable source and contrary to that stated about the source in the reliable sources noticeboard. Earlier in the book, this author concludes military interest in this subject or its military, covert, tactical use without prior knowledge or consent is not a legitimate use of aerial spray chemicals. Specifically, it was the partiality declassified CIA-linked human experiments that led to the chemtrail conspiracy theory by 1998. The author is saying covert actions and experiments lacking prior consent are illegitimate and that these CIA sponsored illegitimate tests are a part of the military-intelligence interests and are “the springboard” of the various conspiracy theories.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This source is consistent with other reliable sources on the 1990's origin of the theory

The solution to this problem is not to remove the source. There was a discussion on whether this source was reliable however that discussion contained gross mis-representations about the book and seemed to turn into a joint personal attack on my credibility rather than an accurate discussion of this source or what it says about the subject. The source needs to be used to directly say all these other things are not chemtrails. This source has been abused for so long and so many accusations have flown around about misusing it, that in this extreme circumstance, it might even need to be directly quoted.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The sentence now has no cited source.

Found in the entry:

The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[4] "The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting[5]—the term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of characteristic sky tracks."

[citation needed]{copypaste|url=http://www.chemtrailupdate.com/the-origins-of-chemtrails-legend}

I can't determine where the current entry text came from. I can’t tell if this unsourced Wikipedia text, a backswardscopy, a copyright violation of one particular site, or If there was never a source for it, or something else. I am not certain, as this site is newish and I can’t determine what came first or where the text came from. Only these sentences are being questioned for close paraphrasing that is either not cited or is improperly cited. Perhaps a more experienced editor can make sense of it. The text in the entry did not come from the source it (formerly) cited. The cited source was determined to be reliable only for defining this subject however the original source for this material is either unsourced or a copy-paste/ close paraphrase of a copyright-protected non-RS source website chemtrailupdate.com and then attributed to a different source (now even Stieger is removed):

The material looks like the same wording as [8]

The term chemtrail stands for the words ‘chemical’ and ‘trail’, similar to that of contrail which means ‘condensation trail’. This specific term does not mean other aerial spraying forms like cloud seeding, agricultural spraying, aerial fire fighting or skywriting. This term actually refers to the aerial trails that are caused allegedly by the high altitude systematic release of chemical substances that are not ordinarily found in the contrails and results in the presence of characteristic aerial tracks.

Johnvr4 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did this text really come from?

Steiger’s book - the alleged source of this information, first came out in 2006. This diff (for examples of previous text only) shows the material that was in the entry in 2005 with different wording and no source.

In 2005 we see this:

The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding, aerial firefighting, or with the use of smoke trails at airshows); it specifically refers to covert, systematic, high-altitude dumping of chemicals, generally for some illicit purpose as part of a vast conspiracy.

By 2007, we see this version, also unsourced

The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting). It specifically refers to systematic, high-altitude dumping of unknown substances for some undisclosed purpose resulting in the appearance of these supposed chemtrails.

Is the current text a close paraphrase of url=http://www.chemtrailupdate.com/the-origins-of-chemtrails-legend? Also that source is describing the chemtrail HOAX which is another issue being discussed that is not entirely worked out. This same source source for this material just happens to have a sensible definition which explains a subtle difference between chemtrails and other spraying which this entry’s definitions leave vague and that each of the editors who failed to adequately source it leave out. (Bold text added)[9]

‘Chemtrails’ are contrails that last for a long time and that which are said to be deliberately created for some type of sinister purpose, by the government.

Reliable sources have the same assertion but this important distinction is not in the lead as part of the chemtrail definition.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple solution - I've taken the problem sentence out and clarified this is for high-flying aircraft (for which we have numerous RS). There is no need to say what chemtrails are not if RS doesn't; it would be a limitless list in any case: they're not anything! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Chemtrailupdate.com is a conspiracy website and so far as I can see a personal website, we shouldn't be using it at all. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No kidding. This is not a reliable source and the text in the entry looks stolen from it (uncertain). So why did you and others keep repeatedly reinserting it and continue to insist it had a source or that my near quote edit of the cited source that actual says it was being misused by me to push some fringe idea? That is what I pointed this text out previously on numerous occasions. Each of you other editors insisted on using that text, inserting that text, and reinserting it dozens (maybe hundreds) of times- all while preventing improvements to the entry and accusing me of pushing something. The repeated reinsertion of this the text was interpreted by me to be a type of vandalism because I felt the reverted edits did not conform to the WP:Reversion policy or BRD. Perhaps I mis-understood vandalism but this was an WP:integrity issue. Not only was there insistence on re-inserting it, we had and edit war and I was sanctioned for attempting to fix it and finally couldn't join the dispute resolution case I opened about it. I even called a couple of folks out on the use of this very material and that turned into a whole uncivil argument about who is properly using reliable sources (or who can't back untrue assertions) argument. I was accused of being uncivil and sanctioned. Now that question (of who is citing sources properly and who is not) has been resolved, who are the first proponents to make the text in the entry disappear despite the fact that removal is no improvement at all and where it came from has not been answered? Who is really pushing conspiracies? This is not about being right. Lets improve the article and if you want to determine who's edits tend to push conspiracy theory (accusations without any evidence) do it elsewhere or report it.
May I ask the meaning of this edit summary? "(first, don't replace during a discussion, second, this is a conspiracy site in any case, not a (RS) " conducted by the government to control the birth rate for more advancement of the country with balanced life and growth.")" Could you please clarify what on earth you are talking about (so I can discuss it) or why there is insistence on removing this material now?- on the very day that I have nearly sorted out and explained what the heck is appears to be being cooked up here! As I've explained, removing it is not a solution. When editors feet were held to fire on this material, I think there was some burning. Each of us is expected to review the material being reverted so please write it down and cite it properly with the source it comes from, keep some, or don't touch it as required by the reversion policy. I do not think this is asking for too much.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That was meant to be RS, not RR, and the rest was a quote from the website. I certainly don't recall inserting the text with this source, I don't edit this article that much anyway. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to try to sort out who put it there, I only need to know when it was put there. I do not think it was any editor in particular, and it doesn't matter any way. Many well-intending editors reinserted it in making their reversions and its origin has not been satisfactorily determined. It could have been on Wikipedia before it was on that new website or it could have come from somewhere else. I cannot tell and request any assistance in making a determination or properly tagging it until we can.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved comments about Steiger book

Maybe there are reports from the late 1970s. But Steiger is not a reliable source. Try to find a reliable source for these reports. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this book/author may have been mis-represented when it was brought up in the reliable source notice board. The reason that discussion was opened was because of the editors opinion that the author leaves out the 1990s origin of the conspiracy theory when in fact he does mention it in the easily missed first reference to chemtrails in the book (under CIA). He associates the conspiracy theory in the late 90's with declassified CIA experiments as do other sources. This was discussed under the crop-dusting topic. I think that the reliable source discussion needs to be reopened. We need a source in the entry that says crop dusting etc. is not a chemtrail. This source says that and we need to have it. As I said, that source was being abused and the text in the article needs to have come from somewhere. However, it now looks to be closely paraphrasing a somewhat copyrighted, (or is it a back-copyright?) source. I'll open another section for that as I'm not certain how to research it.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious / Disputed/ Failed verification /Not in Source

I think there are more than five dubious statements in this article and much of it is already in dispute. I don't not see myself moving away from the position that this entry needs to be changed to conform to the sources and have some consensus among all of us.


Pressure

A source is being mis-used where there is a statement that says the fringe media pressured these various agencies to respond.

Entry says:Because of the popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many enquiries from people demanding an explanation.[1][3]

I think it is dubious and the source does not mention popularity as the cause for this pressure nor do these vague inquires seem to be specific incident complaints of the type these agencies investigate. This would require times, dates, locations, to proof of an incident much less any "suspect" worthy of investigation by the responding agencies. One caveat is that these are alleged to be CBW issues and an environmental agency, space agency, or weather agency, or FAA would not even be the primary agency to respond, In my opinion, they might be notified or have something forwarded to them if only to answer questions that they might receive. After enough questions they made fact sheets. Were the fact sheets released solely because the theory is popular or because of the exasperating questions? It should worded better. example below:[10]. Not sure what the dead link said. It's not verifiable.

Source states:

A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.

The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace. Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening. ...

Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents' arguments point by point.

This is example consistent with the remaining source: Government agencies have received persistent questions from people who have asked for an explanation.[1][2][dead link‍]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 January 2014

... after the conspiracy theory swept the internet and radio talk shows. Which is to say, this stuff became "popular". Seems like a fair representation to me as we have it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
What is meant from the source is that it was popular with the conspiracy theorists or specially more popular than some of the other conspiracy theories among theorists, internet, radio. The radio coverage likely made the subject even more popular among them and in media... Was it popular with any of us? probably not. If it is 'popular' then it is not a 'fringe' subject.
Now was it the internet or the radio that made it "popular"? Who cares? I'm fuzzy on these popularity dates but Internet/ radio (Art Bell) including this topic began in 1999 or 2000 or 2001 while the Air Force response publication Contrail Facts to the hoax says this hoax started in 1996. (see below)
The entry implies that agencies received no inquires prior to the conspiracy theory and the popularity on radio and internet. The source (Steiger) that is abused to create the current chem trail definition for the entry (again) says complaints started in the 70s in increased in the late 1990s (worldwide sightings etc.) and says US GOV accused of Chemtrails since 1998. This is mostly consistent with other sources and has been discussed albeit without any specifics and completely mis-represented (IMHO). here:[11], here: [12] and here:[13]. That author ties the origin of chemtrail phenomena to the declassified human experiments and CIA "Mind control." Historical documents and news articles discuss how these citizen reports to official agencies were handled in the 50s, 60's and 70's with various cover stories. The docs were declassified just before he claims citizens started reporting suspicious spraying. Description of the type of tests that citizens might have observed: (from Australian National Archives, choose advanced search, Barcode 1728417 )

Pressure increases when new information on CBW testing is released. I do not yet have a source selected that expressly says declassification of release directly caused the chemtrail paranoia but I feel there will be some.

Johnvr4 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
An edit to correct this problem and be consistent with the concern expressed above said: After the conspiracy theory became more popular, official agencies received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[4] However the edit was included with a larger edit and was probably missed. Do we have consensus on this change? We are removing Because of the popularity the conspiracy theory, and inserting After the conspiracy theory became more popular...received inquires.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that there was a weak conspiracy theory dragging around the Internet. Then Thomas took it and gave it popularity and shape. Unfortunately, this is only my original research.
It's obvious that all the things mentioned by you are connected in some way. But the sources don't go into enough details.
Wait, why is Steiger's book still on the article?? I thought we had agreed it was an unreliable source, by Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Brad_Steiger.27s_book and Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#.22chemtrails.22_definition_as_a_name_for_Crop_dusting.2C_etc and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_164#Brad_Steiger_book. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this Steiger question. I mentioned the problem with reliable source noticeboard in another section. Feel free to move it. I think we need him. I'll make another section to show why we might.
The KSLA article and the broadcast video (notabale for a Barium rain water level measurement that was mis-interpreted) gets specific on which declassified tests they are relating chemtrail as part of concern over continued CBW testing. However they might have made some (more) factual errors. I'll make another section to explain what the KSLA print story and broadcast says and hopefully we can determine and agree on what they are referring to or might be. Not sure where easily verifiable meets WP:OR when it comes to looking at a video.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I will try to discuss and resolve this again. The entry says the theory (USAF source says the hoax) was circulating since 1996. Where was it circulating?
The USA Today source says (in 2001) A new conspiracy theory is now sweeping internet and talk radio. But Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years.
From this source we can't say or imply they were pressured because of the popularity. "On edge" is not "pressure to respond." From this source, we can say Bureaucracies were pressured (exasperated) by calls, letters, and emails in recent years and the theory swept the internet and radio around 2001.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Your quoted phrase "pressure to respond" does not appear in the article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this the section of the article you are talking about?
An article in the Skeptical Inquirer said that the conspiracy theory was first started in the 1990s by "investigative journalists" like William Thomas, and then promoted in the late-night radio shows of Art Bell.[disputed – discuss] The proponents claim that after 1995 contrails had a different chemical composition and lasted a lot longer on the sky; they never acknowledge the photographs of long-lasting contrails dating as far back as World War II.[11]
TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I just accessed and re-read the source (#11) and it fully backs up the entire statement. I see no dispute here. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, source #1 clearly states this:
Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.
None of these are 'in dispute', and I fail to see why you added the tag to the article. By any reasonable definition an authority receiving thousands of phone calls in regards to an issue would mean that the issue is popular. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no dispute. No tag is necessary. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I am removing the tag.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You just now re-read the source? Isn't re-reading and checking the source a requirement prior to reverting other editors changes? "There is no dispute"? The dispute is that editors are insisting on inserting material that the conspiracy theory was first started by "investigative journalists" like William Thomas. Yes, that text is in the Skeptical inquirer and entry are attributed as coming from that source but most every other reliable source clearly state that the conspiracy theory was around many years before the involvement of the persons mentioned or taking the topic onto talk radio. The insistence that Federal bureaucracies weren't on edge" or did not get any letters or complaints (or threats) prior to those talk radio shows "popularity" in 1999 or 2001 is not found in that source either.
That source also skips the 1990 origin of the word within the Air Force academy. That source offers nothing on the origin of the theory prior to 1999 and I question whether this source is enough to present the origin of the theory reliably. It is reliable for the source to describe the increased popularity among investigative journalists, talk radio, after 1999 and among internet, and conspiracy theorists. The use of that source to imprecisely describe the origin tends to make the origin of the theory in the entry too vague. "It" came about "in the 90's" rather than a precise description of the origin according to verifiable sources. A more precise description would not be in conflict with that source and I am seeing way too much resistance in even changing a few words to be more accurate or reach consensus among all of us. I do not understand why and it seems there is too much synthesis in the arguments presented to date. I feel that we should not need to put so much effort to simply change few words to reach consensus or to understand the concerns or other editors or at least we should not have to.
"By any reasonable definition an authority receiving thousands of phone calls in regards to an issue would mean that the issue is popular." The USA today source says those agencies were "Exasperated" so this was hardly popular among them. And we have now a new POV that is being inserted that says that the topic was popular because all the agencies got complaints and we have this to back the statement in the entry "Because of the popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation" Johnvr4 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
By popular is meant: "intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Too long, didn't read
Nothing on Wiki is *this* complex. If what you are making an essay about belongs in the article, then make the edits. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin statement in entry: hoax, conspiracy theory, myth, etc.

A source (Skeptical Inquirer)[14] is being mis-used where there is a statement in the entry that says:

An article in the Skeptical Inquirer said that the conspiracy theory was first started by "investigative journalists" like William Thomas, and then promoted in the late-night radio shows of Art Bell...

The source does not say what the entry says it does and elsewhere, the 'position' of the entry is that the "hoax that has been around since 1996"[15] and is the exact same as the conspiracy theory allegedly "started" by William Thomas who first wrote about the subject as an assignment by Environment News Service around January 8, 1999 and was promoted on talk radio after.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

'

I wrote that sentence. Humm, the source says that Thomas started "in the 1990s". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Enric, Does the above response indicate that you think it is adequate, accurate, and follows the source it cites and that of other sources in the entry, or that it can't be improved?
While I agree that 1990, 1996 and 1999 were indeed part of the 90's, I feel that the current text needlessly and hopelessly mis-characterizes the entire origin of the topic in this entry.
The Air force claims that a Chemtrail Hoax began in 1996 as a result of their Owning the weather in 2025 paper. The current entry text makes it sound as if one or two people (or people like them) started the conspiracy theory 3 years later.
According to the source,

It all began in the 1990s when “investigative journalists” like William Thomas began describing purported plots by the government to inject poisons into the atmosphere via the exhaust trails of jet planes.

I assumed 'It' in the source to mean the origin of the conspiracy theory in 1999 rather than the origin of media popularity of the theory (also in early 1999), or the 1996 USAF origin of the chemtrail hoax, or the 1990 origin of the word at the USAF Academy.
The entry clearly says it was the conspiracy theory was started by investigative journalists in the 1990s. That the named persons or similar started the theory in 1999 is dubious and does not match other sources if the 1996 chemtrail hoax as cited by the USAF is truly the same thing as the 1999 chemtrail conspiracy theory. These named people did not start the chemtrail hoax in 1996.
William Thomas (who claims he broke the story) started on the topic in early Jan 1999. Somehow, incidents in 1994 Oakville, WA or (Idaho?) were a focus of the talk shows in late Jan 1999.
According to other reliable sources, The chemtrail conspiracy theory incorporates many theories (such as CIA or military CBW testing, Mind control, weather/climate modification), all of which have different (reliably sourced) origins and different (reliably sourced) degrees of current actual research.
Despite all of this, no reliable evidence depicting an ongoing clandestine dissemination operation of such programs has been produced by theorists. I submit that the closer the theory is to actual verifiable research the harder it is to debunk the concept. What is being debunked however is another dispute topic (see reversions)Johnvr4 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It can be argued (easily) whether 'chemtrails' is a Conspiracy Theory or a Hoax, or both especially if the Hoax was not associated with the people who "started" the conspiracy theory years later. These are two very different things and there are sources go each way.
definitions:
hoax: a humorous or malicious deception: to deceive (someone)"
conspiracy: (1a) secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:(1.1) the action of plotting or conspiring.
conspiracy theory: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.
Johnvr4 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII photographs statement

This Source cites NMSR observation of the lack of evidence but an abundance of purported chemtrail photographs all of which were determined to be normal contrails. The source says that proponents are oblivious of photos of normal contrails some of which date back to WWII but NMSR who the source is quoting said that the proponents are the ones who originally submitted the photos for NMSR analysis in the first place. Please see the reversion section on this page for photographs vs. evidence.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hum, there is a bit of confusion here? The proponents submitted certain photos to the NMSR[16]. They don't say anywhere that the submitted photos were from WWII? As far as I know, proponents of chemtrails submit photos that are a few years old. The WWII photos are presented only by sceptics. In which page does it say that the WWII photos were submitted by proponents of chemtrails?? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I was confused because the proponents 'submitted photos'. What they actually did is that they submitted letters with (unnamed) web pages or URLs and those web pages had the photos.

"I have read the letters and reviewed the referenced web pages. In so doing, I have viewed a number of photos purporting to be of aircraft spraying the chemical or biological material into the atmosphere."

NMSR deemed them photos of normal contrails. Then Skeptical says proponents are oblivious to photos of normal contrails including some dating to WWII.
I don't think they are oblivious to the photos on the web, (but maybe they are)- they are oblivious to the comparison analysis' final conclusion that deemed their photos normal. They know about the interpretation but discard the expert opinion.
We can at least agree that what is mis-indentified here are the photographs being presented to this scientific group rather than some other form of supposed evidence (noting also that there is no mention of altered photos as stated in the Air Force source). NMSR is dealing with interpretation of photos rather than actual physical evidence of anything. NMSR as a source is clear that no evidence exists proving or disproving the theory and that position does not come across in the entry at all.
Skeptical Inquirer and the entry instead focus on the old WWII pic and whether someone who sent in a letter by mail to the NM Governor(?) with a question or photo is either oblivious to the existence of some old photo or oblivious to the comparison/interpretation of some other photo that was never even part of the analysis or the purpose for bringing it to NMSR. I don't think it can be read that the proponents are oblivious to their own photos which are in fact normal photos. Maybe some proponents are oblivious to what other proponents are doing-I don't doubt that at all. And none of this is evidence of anything except that conspiracy theory proponents do not accept reasonable explanations-which belongs in the conspiracy theory entry as it applies to all of them rather than only the chemtrail theory(ies).Johnvr4 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Population control

I had tagged Population control as I did not see it in the source. I was mistaken and am satisfied that topic is contained in the source.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD

I've challenged the unsourced or seemingly unsourced material in the lead repeatedly. Citations of material has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Please follow WP:Proveit and WP:CITELEAD since this is a controversial subject it leaves little leeway and I personally want every statement in the entry to be properly sourced and cited.

WP:Proveit Unverified statements are not acceptable on a main page, may be challenged and should be removed if they fail verification. If you want it to remain in the entry, then "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

If you put it there, or removed a [citation needed] tag and it is not perfect or has words, ideas or meanings that do not appear in the cited source, you own it. Please properly cite it. Consider it challenged. It is impossible to determine the source without the citation. If you believe there are multiple sources that say something, add one of them.

WP:CITELEAD The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ...The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article... Thank youJohnvr4 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In this case, they shouldn't really be needed because the body is so clear and it's not as if this is a controversial topic (or at least, it shouldn't be!) However since they're harmless, I've sprinkled some in ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Explanation for the above please? Please check the banner at the top of the page you that just posted this comment on. Not a controversial subject? Are you really serious in putting forth or defending such a position?

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

Johnvr4 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not controversial really, this is a WP:FRINGE topic really. I think that is what was meant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Johnvr4, look carefully the "Overview" section. There are sources from the US Air Force, the UK "Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affair", the Canadian Government House Leader, the Skeptical Inquirer, a book on conspiracies, and a fact sheet signed together by EOA, FAA, NASA and NOAA. And you still require citation for the scientific consensus? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The cited source for the statement in the entry is the U.S. Air Force rather than any scientist (or university) and the Air Force clearly says most photos were altered. It seems we are too thin on scientists/universities and too heavy on government officials for the statement in the lead to be verifiable as it is currently used. Those responding with the assertion are are government agencies who might employ a scientist rather than the scientific community. One can't say as fact "This theory has been refuted by the scientific community" from the 5 sources that were mentioned.
The easy fix is to begin the statement about scientific consensus with "According to departments of the USAF, U.K., and Candaian governments..." or say "Scientific consensus is that there is no evidence of chemtrails..."
  • UK "Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affair" "The Department is not researching into chemtrails from aircraft as they are not scientifically recognized phenomena. Government response (by Mr. Morley) pertaining only to one department of government.
  • Mr. Geoff Regan, MP - Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons "There is no substantiated evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the allegation that there is high altitude spraying conducted in Canadian airspace. The term "chemtrails" is a popularized expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence." a government response.
  • fact sheet signed together by agencies: EOA, FAA, NASA and NOAA says nothing of chemtrail, a hoax, a conspiracy or a controversy. The controversy over it seems to have come from publishing the fact sheet itself.
  • The conspiracy book (Stieger) has been removed despite my protest and the books mis-represetation in the reliable sources notice board.
  • (The Scientists) Skeptical Inquirer's source, NMSR states that they cant disprove the theory and they only disproved photos from websites. There is no evidence of.
Johnvr4 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

CBW history link: Historical Chemical trails

I'm going to try to kill a few issues in the entry with a single stone. If I miss my target, I'd like the opportunity to take a second shot. I am going to neutralize the POV and introduce the CBW aspect.

The POV concern is because both the Canadian and US Air force counter-claims state current activities /capabilities. Neither refutes or try to explain the theorists belief that there were Cold War activities as theorized and that chem-trails are an extension of it. Canada had the Suffolk Experimental Station and were the specialists in the field of Large Area Coverage. The CBW aspect is mentioned in the Lead but not the body-a policy issue. Another policy issue is that a reference is listed but not used in the entry. When the CBW info is introduced, you might see a obvious correlation in Declassification/public disclosure and theorists claims and Official responses in the late 1970s, mid-90s, early 2003. This is not OR. I'm going use properly-used sources to state the public domain facts without any analysis.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One should be careful not to imply or 'wink at' synthesis. Deliberately isolating and arranging selected facts drawn from disparate sources with the intent of leading our readers to draw conclusions that we aren't allowed to state for ourselves is still a violation of WP:SYN.
Worth noting as well is that the (documented) historical experiments in high-altitude dispersal of chemical or biological agents (e.g. Operation Dew or Operation LAC) involved agents that were deliberately selected to be – as well as could be determined – harmless to human health and inert in their effects. The point of the tests was to determine the potential effects of dispersing chemical or biological agents at high altitude, not to actually determine the effect of genuine releases of these agents. Secret releases of inert agents don't meet the usual definition associated with chemtrail conspiracies; an essential element is the deliberate release of agents that are intended to have some effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What is a chemtrail and and what is not a chemtrail? The definition is not locked down yet. The LAC tests are mentioned by relevant sources that are mentioned in this article. Canadian archives Documents (5 January 1965) on LAC (Field Experiment No.560) show that during a test, emissions from American aircraft were distinctly observed from 5-6 miles away, on a road between Suffield and Medicine Hat. Incidents like these should be explained as meteorological investigations (9 November 1964). Agents FP and BG (esp var. niger) are now known to cause negative health problems. This was a Secret government BW program that was planned to use contracted civil aircraft and instead used military aircraft under the Deseret test center. The program and similar programs meets every definition of a "chemtrail". Some of the documented science (and these were scientists) makes other statements in the article dubious.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A chemtrail is, by definition, a thing imagined by a conspiracy theorist. Anything else is not a chemtrail. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The definition, as used in this article, is very firmly locked-down. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I dispute the "very firmly locked-down" definition(s) currently in the entry -it abuses a source which is discussed throughout this talk page. The definition above from Alexbrn does not define "chemtrail' (what it isn't) and refers to the 'chemtrail conspiracy theory' definition in a manner inconsistent with sources currently in use in the entry to define the subject.
How does one define Historical chem trails. Historical is the proper use of the term to describe past activities resembling a chemtrail in almost every way-by definition.manual sign John VR4

KSLA Text/Print article and declassified CBW tests

According to the KSLA report on chemtrails CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'? (notable because it also alleged that high levels of Barium were collected in rainwater after a lab report was misinterpreted) there is a concern that the chemtrail phenomena could be a continuation of secret biological and chemical testing on the public similar to experimentation by the U.S. during the Cold War. Experiments such as those described in the U.S. Senate hearings of 1977 and 1994 report by a committee chaired by John D. Rockefeller that concluded “that hundreds of thousands of military personnel were unknowingly subjected to secret biological warfare related experiments over the last 60-years.”{The source for this article was a broadcast video where photos of prior news articles of military experiments were shown. The experiments described in those articles covered tests declassified in 75-77, 1994, and 2002 and news articles from 1985-2002}

"Those who fear chemtrails could be secret biological and chemical testing on the public point to the 1977 U.S. Senate hearings which confirmed 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Later, the 1994 Rockefeller Report concluded hundreds of thousands of military personnel were also subjected to secret biological experiments over the last 60-years."

"But could secret testing be underway yet again? …."

The KSLA text article cited the Rockefeller Commission (he was involved in more than one hearing) and Church Committee investigations (it says in 1977) and 1994 Rockefeller involved hearings. This is a Collection of docs on the subject only for clarification of titles and dates that KSLA text article may refer to: THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO END, U.S. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMS, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 58

PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION in 1977, Agent testing info released in 1994, GAO: "Project 112/Shad," released in 2002 and (GAO: Project 112 Test subjects not being identified, released in 2004).Johnvr4 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The KSLA Video and declassified CBW tests

The (notable) KSLA coverage broadcast video has CBW material between 1:40-2:05 of the bradcast. (This link may be a copyright violation. It's only for quick reference to verify my statement below) as the station no longer has that broadcast available online).

KSLA reported that these reports of historical tests are of specific concern to those worried about the chemtrail subject.

The line that will stop any intelligents reading the rest of the article: is this lie what Wikipedia really wants?

"Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails"

Anybody who "needed to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails" is not being honest, or is woefully short of research time, or completely selective of what information they feel such a need to respond with.

The terminological inexactitude has been effectively contradicted by so many reliable sources that I am frankly nothing short of appalled to read this statement at the beginning of a Wikipedia article I hoped is authoritative, and which I was researching in the vain hope the available content would be accurate.

The commonly-understood 'chemtrail' applies to a horrifically-common totally artificially-induced phenomenon which bears an absolute-zero relationship with the much more rarely-witnessed event described by the commonly-understood term 'contrail'.

This article does not give the reader confidence that the contained information will in any way disconnect the popular confusion between the two: Wikipedia fans can fully expect the smart reader will choose not to finish reading this article after such an initial blunder... and said reader will seek and find much up-to-date and accurate information elsewhere.

I would attempt to provide the much needed correctional information if it were not for one factor: Wikipedia editors have displayed such intemperate bias that I would fully expect anything I write under this topic (not excluding this present comment) to be unceremoniously deleted.

Why this should be so, I cannot of course begin to imagine. hommedespoir Hommedespoir (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to bring forward? If not, remember, this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Your line of reasoning isn't clear to me... You speak on behalf of "intelligents" (which strikes me as a rather judgmental term) and then state that you have lots of sources that meet Wiki guidelines to improve this article... And then fail to supply anything further due to perceived editor bias. If you honestly have all these sources, then simply be bold and improve the article. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree. In addition, this exerpt, "This argument has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) which are routinely left by high flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions," sounds completely biased. It is important on Wikipedia that we do not get lured into conforming and taking the opinion of the majority. Even writing with a bias, we should write about data rather than beliefs. Referring to the people as "believers in the conspiracy theory" is grouping them, while using language such as "they argue" is separating that group from us. This is disappointing to read in the summary of the article, in which little evidence had yet been stated. Do not forget who holds the burden of proof here. It is not the theorists. jamieday (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:FLAT: Wikipedia very much does reflect the mainstream while treating fringe views within that context. For "refute" - personally, I could live with "discounted" or "brushed aside" as well as "refuted" - in fact it seems scientists just ignore this nonsense rather than grapple with it in a "refutation". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference usatoday was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference citizen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6&oldid=1079508687"