Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

alternative medicine sidebar

Should it be in the article? I didn´t think so, so I removed it. Actually, the "Conspiracy theories" section in it seems a little odd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not really altmed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, either. There is some overlap, but all the other conspiracy theories listed are obviously medical, while this one is much less clear.

If it's not included, should it be removed from the template per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, or does that not apply to series? Grayfell (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove. It's nothing to do with alt medicine. --Dmol (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an article about a conspiracy theory, it has no association with medicine or alternative medicine than any other CT. Remove. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it does not belong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We really need a "pseudopoison" or maybe better "pseudotoxicology" or "alternative toxiciology" sidebar. Like with fluoride. That is what CFF is what getting at with this edit note. but yes, this is not altmed. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Hoax" category implies intentional deceit

I don't agree with this article being in Category:Hoaxes. Hoax implies intentional deceit, and I see no evidence of that presented here. "The USAF says these accusations were a hoax" is fine, since that's what they've called it, but that doesn't mean it is one. Hanlon's razor applies here; it seems that most or all of the believers in chemtrails spread this belief ignorantly, not maliciously. Just because the "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" paper has a disclaimer that "This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios" doesn't mean that the original spreaders of the rumors read (or believed) that part. --Dan Harkless (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on Talk. I think your reasoning is good and we should remove the category. And I appreciate the link to Hanlon's razor; wasn't aware of that. Am interested in what others think about removing the category too. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. By that reasoning Moonlanding hoax shouldn´t be in that category... and it´s not. Piltdown man was a hoax. Sure, remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Done. --Dan Harkless (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that at least the chemtrail "leaders" (mentioning no names) are acting maliciously to fool people. They have been shown repeatedly that they are mistaken, and their response is to delete any evidence, seek to control the narrative and continue to gain followers (and donations). If that's not a hoax (or indeed a scam!) then I don't know what is. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

once people believe something, confirmation bias etc kicks in. hanlon's razor is pretty apt, in my view. very smart people can come to believe and hold onto stupid ideas (like James Watson or Linus Pauling, two nobel-winning scientists with some completely FRINGE beliefs. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

so FRINGE equals stupid ideas! Awesome! Maybe you want to read section 9.1. here. Cheers! 212.200.65.107 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion on subject Origin statement in entry: hoax, conspiracy theory, myth, etc. . Johnvr4 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Still a good source?

Looking at the website for this article (http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/124/fbi.html). I don't have an archive for it, but I'd like to discuss whether it's an appropriate source. I haven't edited many articles, so I'm not sure where to start. — Mwatts15 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That particular source is currently archive-linked in the article entry and here: A Forteantimes review was used to remove other sources from this very article Talk archive: so I assume it will probably need to stay in use as there are few reliable sources on the subject. That said, I believe could you might start here Talk:Fortean Times#RS.3F. Johnvr4 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no books devoted to the subject to date from reliable publishers and the conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media, and when it is, it is cast as an example of anti-government paranoia.

 James, Nigel (2003). Knight, Peter, ed. Contrails. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 197–199. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9. "There are no books on the subject to date. Reports on contrails are carried by dedicated websites...Mainstream news agencies rarely report on concerns over contrails, and when they do it is in terms of anti-government 'paranoia.' "  

Johnvr4 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

At the beginning of the page, it states that chemtrails are just an unproven suspicion. However, the director of the CIA actually admitted to the use of chemicals within the vapor spread by certain planes. I would like to kindly request that that be changed to say that it has been admitted to by the director of the CIA, but many still have suspicion on the subject. Thank you for your time. 2601:280:5303:442A:A564:EB12:ECFC:7695 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And your reliable source for this admission is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This cannot be added without a reliable source; I've declined for now, but we can still keep talking here of course. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I googled this out of curiosity. It would seem the requester is referring to a youtube video that takes a clip out of context from this speech by the CIA director. He is talking about something entirely different: the future possibility of sending reflective particles into the stratosphere in order to combat global warming, mimicking the way that volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect. Manul ~ talk 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not an unproven suspicion. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain can see this happening on a daily basis. All you have to do is look up in the sky. Normal contrails dissipate in around 30 seconds. For proof, I suggest you watch the following youtube video documenting a Shasta county California hearing on the issue, where several qualified people give testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR4jawnS8Ss Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8801:3BB0:1B3:37DB:F61C:CA44 (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you want people to sit through a 3 hour video? Here's a related video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8dNzRhMgk • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Who told you that contrails can only last for 30 seconds, and why did you believe them? Because there is nearly a full century of documentation which contradicts that claim. Jersey emt (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

new WP:RS noticeboard topic (The Guardian supporting Thomas' claim of breaking story in 1998) Suggestion

The Guardian labeled as a "blog" with author credit Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for posting notice here. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

structure

i looked the whole section over and it was all jumbled, timewise. i added dates and organized it chronologically in these diffs. Johnvr4, please do have a look at the USAF Contrails page and the links from there, in particular this. although WIlliams claims he "broke" the story, the story predated him. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it. The predating of Thomas is on my sandbox3 timeline. USAF calls it a Hoax 1996 which is another controversy. As described, Finke 1997 was the hoaxer, Thomas 1998 "broke" it with 1999 reports on Art Bell's Show. Not sure anyone could ever disprove "breaking" but I personally don't believe those are even journalists yet who else could break a story? Johnvr4 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Faulty reasoning for reversion of edits

My verifiable edits have been reverted without any logical reason by User:Alexbrn-(resolved?) and User:Jytdog. If an editor takes issue with a particular edit, please open a section and state your issue. Don't continue to remove it with a dubious reason and type some total nonsense in the edit comment like : it fails verification or "Johnvr please describe on the Talk page why the "no books" thing is so important to you. Please." Importance to me is not a reason to made an edit. Jytdog, the question you have asked in your edit summary was addressed in a previous talk section in which you disengaged from the discussion despite my apology for somehow offending you and asking you to come back. The material is important because it is a near direct quote for the source that says book sources are limited. It is an indisputable fact that the verifiable source states this. WP:RELIABLE applies as does and every subsection under it (there are too many to list). I also added quotations to the citation as a convenience for any editors who might not actually follow the source and read it before they revert verified material from reliable sources. Is the content of the material in dispute? Why? The purpose of the edit is a neutral point of view issue and a reader first issue. Jytdog You asked me about the purpose of the book statement as your sole reason for removing the material but you have removed a lot more than the book statement. Why have you done that? What is your specific concern with the material you removed? Why don't you believe it belongs in the entry? Johnvr4 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

this is the edit i reverted. Please answer the question. The source talks about a lot of things. Again - why is the claim that there were no books at that time so important to you to mention? Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Because we aren't using any books devoted to the subject to support the entry.

A natural question of any reader of the article would be why there are no books on the subject cited to support this article entry or the opinions in it. WP:RF WP:RS WP:NPOV

This Knight (book) source states there aren't any. A brief internet search shows that there are some books out there devoted to it but not a single one of them is reliable for use here. [1]

My intent was to say this before everyone started reverting edits:

As of Knight's 2003 writing there were no reliable books devoted to the subject and the conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media, and when it is, it is cast as an example of anti-government paranoia.

But not even a nearly direct quote from this source was sufficiently verifiable for some editors. Now the multiple reversions has that is is "seldom covered" in the news and "usually" in the same sentence (as does this source). It just does not sound right. If you are in disagreement with the verifiable statement of no reliable books devoted to the subject, what sources do you have to support that opinion?

Since you have removed the info from the entry, another question a reader would ask is: Why doesn't the article (or many reliable sources) state Art Bell and William Thomas began this subject in 1999? or that Thomas claims he invented it (in Jan. 1999) I believe it to be factual and our reliable sources confirm it. Are these true Investigative Journalists in your opinion? Your reversion removed so-called Investigative journalists.

The reversions of my edits give undue credit to the nutjubs and confuse origin sequence entirely and I do not believe that your removal of THREE separate verifiable clarifying content additions about this subject is any type of improvement to this article.

How would you address these questions that any reader might have? Are you simply just not going to allow anyone to address them?

For the last time, what is your specific concern with this content and why did you remove it? Johnvr4 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The stuff about "no books" is original research and obviously has no place in our article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's OR, no place here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean this "stuff" Directly quoted from the SOURCE? "There are no books on the subject to date."

IF you disagree with the reliably verified statement: What is the source for your opinion and where exactly are all of the reliable books devoted to this subject? Why aren't we using any of them? <sarcasm> Johnvr4 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I somehow skipped that when reading the source. However I don't think it's worth mentioning especially with an awkward segue into the present tense following. WP:DUE weight is the consideration. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for explaining why you included "no books". Still is UNDUE to me. It doesn't matter if there were no books or no documentaries or no laws banning it or no UN resolutions or no ... whatever.. what matters is what there was, that we can describe. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies, though as pointed out it seems undue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What precisely is undue? That reliable sources are limited?-the article says that already! That most sources on the subject are crack pots?-the article says that already! That there are few reliable articles on the subject?-the article says that already! That there are few reliable books on the subject?--Why in your opinion can't we say that without being WP:undue? I'm still waiting to hear answers to my questions to user:jytdog however should describe what is in the source. You must agree that statement is a major or minor opinion of that reliable source? Responding to User:Alexbrn, how could you have not read the source? After all of this? [2] [3] and [4]? Are you apologizing for reverting the edit or did you just read it? Johnvr4 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explained and it would do no good to repeat myself. bottom line here is that three other editors don't support the "no books" thing and each has given their reasons. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

undue to mention that according to one source, 13 years ago there were no books on chemtrails. Hardly weighty, and in fact its inclusion raises all sorts of questions (so did the situation change in the last 13 years, e.g.?) Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

None of the so-called "reasons" expressed for the reversion are valid because they are simply unfounded editor opinions that are not supported by any reliable source. This is a verified reliable source that says precisely what I submitted into the entry and until a more current reliable article or book supersedes it and disproves it, the statement is factual and that is the bottom line.

Any position that we need to toss out statements because they are 13 years old is absurd. This statement is from the same Knight book source and is a 13 year old statement (and there are more from that source): "Mainstream news agencies rarely "report on concerns over contrails, and when they do it is in terms of anti-government 'paranoia.' " It is the only book available! The limited reliable sources we've already cited are always "distinctly fishy," "not a great source," "hardly weighty," "too old," "raises all sorts of questions," and the new sources are "garbagey," "nothing new", "Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Newer_Sources:useless" or other nonsense every single time that I try to cite them! Alternatively, there are ridiculous unfounded and complaints that are raised in opposition to my edits without any shed of reason or further explanation such as WP:OR, WP:Undue, or WP:V that is typically from an editor that had never even bothered to read that source!

Not even a single question about the motivation for the action was answered so the prospect of concern about repeating yourself is hardly reasonable. To repeat myself, this is Absurd!

Johnvr4 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We have yet another unfounded complaint declaration without any explanation of the connection? I have asked editors to explain how they believe WP:UNDUE applies to this edit. My assumption is that no answer at all simply means that it doesn't.

Now I am asking how you believe this edit violates WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Again, no answer is assumed to mean that it doesn't.

Nevertheless, an edit made for the purpose of WP:RF, WP:RS and WP:NPOV is not going to be disallowed due to a compliant of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not everything that is in a source need be listed in an article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

To quote user:jytdog above, "the source says a lot of things..."

Do you feel that this edit "Puts EVERYTHING from the source into the article"? yes or no? Johnvr4 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you weren't asking me, but the answer is "of course not." I agree with everybody else here though, which means that somebody has been adding stuff without getting consensus. You should stop. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This section is about the unfounded reasoning of editors. I'm not sure what you are agreeing with from any of the unfounded concerns above but I am waiting for the the person(s) that expressed a concern to offer support it so that I can respond. What are your specific concerns about WP:NOTEVERYTHING (or any other unfounded concern above)? Do you feel that too much from that source is being used or that use of the only published book we've cited is going to be a violation of a WP policy. Specifically why do fear that material from the Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia is somehow going to turn our online encyclopedia into a dictionary?? WP:FRIND Johnvr4 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Certain editors appear to be acting recklessly rash because they either refuse to read or misread the sources and are unable to articulate any of their concerns. The end result is a misrepresentation of facts and reverting to nonsense, and it has been going on for years (for example: the reversions and non-sense reasoning by multiple editors such as WP:V or WP:OR that we are "discussing" in this very thread and also these examples: [5] [6]).

Most importantly, they refuse to answer any of my questions posed on this talk page. All of this makes reaching consensus with certain editors appear to be impossible. But I'm still trying. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 23:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the following in mind when responding : WP:CON, WP:PNSD WP:TALKDONTREVERT

"...discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) , polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. "

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

Johnvr4 (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been answered. Repeatedly. You just won't drop the WP:STICK and have now taken to insinuating bad faith. Not surprisingly this gets ignored. The consensus here is settled. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that consensus has been settled as long as there are no further legitimate concerns. However, consensus has been settled by the quality of the argument(s). Could you please confirm that you have read and understand the arguments above and clarify which one that you believe has consensus? I hate to assume (again).

I have a strong feeling we will be back to this discussion again. My initial edit did sound too much as if I was insinuating bad faith however that was corrected prior to any response. I apologize if my clumsiness caused offense. We dont need to rehash past history but surely you can agree that the above description of an ongoing issue is represented accurately. Per my understanding of your comment I've also replaced reckless with rash. WP:NOSPADE. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you're edit-warring the "no books" stuff in, despite the consensus against you. This is getting disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes its called a test edit. I made it because none of the concerns expressed about the edit were substantiated. Bizarrely there was so-called expressed consensus abut WP:V an WP:OR which you had raised that were utterly and completely bogus but never withdrawn. I think it would be of benefit for editors to review the concepts of Philosophic burden of proof, argument, and most importantly WP:Claims require specific evidence but especially the Incorrect reasoning section! That essay is the reason this section has the title that it does. The burden is on you to explain the concern which was not even attempted. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Other editors have given their reasons you're just not hearing it and continuing to re-make your unwanted edit. Your section title - which you have reverted to, opposing my attempt to neutralise it - is part of the problem too. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn utterly falsely stated his concern that my near direct quote edit from a reliable source that I cited was unverifiable and original research and then other editors concurred with his ridiculous notions. Why? At that specific point, many editors lost credibility. However, your refusal to answer my questions or or to actually participate by supporting your concerns on the talk page is what is disruptive. All concerns expressed without any support are without merit. The "unwanted edit" comment sounds as if you simply don't like it and just like more faulty reasoning.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this, Johnvr4. You said it is important to you to say there were "no books" in 2003 because readers will wonder why we don't cite any. Every other editor has responded to that; none of us see why the article should catalog all the kinds of sources that were not available, nor when they became available. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not the editor personalizing this. My concerns are based on policies. I never once said that saying "no books" "was important to ME" . That language about the importance of an edit TO ME were strictly your words, not mine! Please go back and verify what really I said which was: "Importance to me is not a reason to made an edit." After User:Alexbrn issued a warning to protect his dubious reversions, I sent him an olive branch which was promptly set on fire. I have repeatedly asked editors to explain their concerns and each request is continually ignored. I opened this section to outline the absurdity of reverting my verifiable and reliable edits and to finally resolve this issue we seem to be having in reading the cited sources– not to make a point. I have stated my concerns quite clearly and don't feel they have been adequately addressed or articulated. WP:DE#Distinguished_from_productive_editing and WP:DDE "If editor restores, or unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing " Most disruptive behavior seems to revolve around bad or poor sources. My sources were impeccable and there are no reliable sources that any editors can point to that would contradict them. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems everyone else disagrees with you. Have you considered that you might be wrong? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This issue is not about being right as we have discussed. However, the fact is that you were wrong [7] and you haven't answered any questions on this talk page. Could you do that please? Johnvr4 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I immediately noted my error when it was pointed out. I guess you missed that. It is still a case of undue weight, as I, and others, have said previously. If you think there has been some sort of editor misconduct might I suggest taking the lot of us to ANI? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still wondering exactly how you could have reached the error. You did admit to it after the absurdity of the argument was pointed out. Try to explain how you got there- I feel it's important.

Undue can mean many things. I'm done speculating as to why editors might think it's undue. It is opposing editors burden to explain how they believe an edit is undue. What do you think WP:undue,WP:due, WP:RSUW (and Reliability can help judge due weight) means in relation to your concern about my edits and the legitimacy and alleged reasoning for the reversions? Be crystal clear! WP:DONTREVERT, WP:PARTR, WP:REVEXP.

We didn't go to ANI over it because most editors didn't intend to continuously reinsert garbage from chemtrailupdate a conspiracy site into this entry but that's exactly what they did and for many years [8] and then framed my attempted resolution of the problem as edit warring or a disruption by me- as is being done again right now. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is for discussing article improvement. Continually harping on an editors mistakes (when they have acknowledge, apologised and moved on) as if it's some kind of trump card is (yet again) disruptive. Continuing in this vein will likely attract sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that I am attempting to improve this article. I don't think you've moved on at all and your new stated concern is problematic based upon your own harping of past mistakes related to these edits only yesterday. The collapse of the discussion is also of concern as is your inability to answer ANY questions I have asked about your alleged concerns. You made several absurd reversions with absurd logic and I opened a section to discuss them with questions AND hopefully answers...Johnvr4 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There are approximately 30 questions that I've asked in this section that remain unanswered (in case anyone is keeping count). If you are not answering questions, you are not participating in the talk and if you are still reverting while not participating in the talk then you are probably being disruptive.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Those of us who have answered have answered the concerns we thought need answering. Every point you bring up is not necessarily one which every or even any, of us seem to feel is worth responding to. You are an army of one. If you really think there is editor misconduct you know where that ought to be handled. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Listen TPolling is irrelevant to consensus. You must cease refusing to acknowledge the question which needs to be answered:

What do you think WP:undue,WP:due, WP:RSUW (and #Reliability can help judge due weight) means in relation to your concern about my edits and the legitimacy and alleged reasoning for the reversions? Be crystal clear! WP:DONTREVERT, WP:PARTR, WP:REVEXP. In other words why do you think that content is undue? And who are those that have answered the question as you've stated? It certainly was not you.

Please don't make another comment or reversion to my edits until each involved editor is willing and able to address and answer the question clearly and is able to show the diffs where they have answered the question and explained or supported a contested answer. Enough already! Johnvr4 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If I'm trolling take me to ANI. If not, please remove that as it is a personal attack. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

POLL?! It's "polling" not "tolling" and was never "trolling". WP:TALKDONTREVERT WP:POLL Quality arguments rather than numbers are necessary to succeed. Please just Wp:listen to what is being said and answer the question! Johnvr4 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I misread what you had typed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Alexbrn May I have a logical policy explanation for this revert that is based upon everything policy-related previously discussed? Your summary: "Rv. poor sourcing, unjustified WP:ASSERTion, edit-warring." is not enough explanation. Your unacceptable revert was unnecessary given that not one of the verifiable facts are in dispute and the edit supplemented them with additional supporting references. WP:DONTREVERT . Last, each of the four issues that you brought up were were addressed and Quoting you: "The problem isn't so much reliability" Finally, you just don't seem to be carefully considering a single reversion which is a requirement of doing it. Does this Diff address your concern? Johnvr4 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't using to be using the music blog/Guardian source when we have better. We don't assert things to be true when they're not certainly so (your changes introduced new assertions). Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw the above diff. Would you take a fresh look at my last edit? I didn't remove any (better) sources. The "in fact..." sentence, I believe is a fact about an opinion. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to force the Guardian blog in now, giving a music journalist's opinion undue weight. And introducing this Pilkington guy into body text out of nowhere will just make the reader go "huh?". You are making a lot of edits that worsen the article in a various ways. This is continuing the disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You are simply crying undue again you need to explain why this time! Pilkington is a reliable source so please just stop right now with this Undue crap and read the question that was written for you multiple times already above and consider how undue relates to reliable sources when you answer! And WP:Listen! Pilkington is mentioned because you insisted that WP:ASSERT be followed so I did. WP:ASSERT: "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion." William Thomas starting it in 1998 is not even in dispute. So what is?

You've already agreed that The Guardian Blog is reliable to say that Thomas started the theory in 1998 and I've quoted you and also provided the diff where you said it. There's no further requirement to force it anywhere. It's reliable according to you in your own words. In event that you have any problems with it such as your (just plain wrong) "music journalist" opinion of the author "Alex Rayner who works for Phaidon Press, writes about art, TV, books and film for the Guardian, and co-edits the art and fashion magazine Supplement., then your complaints can be filed HERE: [9]

Are you going to keep ignoring every single question? Such as the one I asked about the diff that required my last edit? The constant reversions are the disruption and I have quoted several WP policies multiple times that state that. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that you have posted to RSN there is no need to keep arguing the guardian source here. let's see how the RSN discussion goes. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The RSN has been posted and the involved editor commented yesterday. I forgot to link it on the talk page until today. He was in agreement there despite his arguement here which I feel is sort of ridiculous. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My feeling is that the expressed undue weight concerns of certain editors have no merit and now appear to simply be echoes of several 6 separate bogus concerns including V, OR, Undue, not everything, Assert, and undue again. (2 admitted) that were submitted into conversation by user:alexbrn and which have been steering this discussion since the beginning. Please for the last time support your concern(s) if they have merit. Make some sense, quit the poorly executed reverting, and repeatedly typing garbage into this discussion, answer the questions posed to you and if you won't, then understand that you are the disruption here given all of the reasons above. 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC) (re-signing John VR4)

Second paragraph of Spread and response section

• Firstly, the paragraph starts with the words "A multi-agency response to dispel the rumors .....". I think that should read "A multi-agency response dispelled the conspiracy theories.....". The previous paragraph twice mentions theories , and theory once, but does not mention rumors.

• Secondly, the last sentence in the paragraph, "....a step many chemtrail believers have interpreted as further evidence of the existence of a government cover-up" is not reliably supported by either ref. One doesn't mention that at all, and the other is behind a paywall so can't be substantiated.

• Thirdly, the opening sentence of the next paragraph wholly depends of the efficacy of the statement I have just highlighted in green. It needs adequate referencing otherwise some material needs to go. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• On your first point, "dispelled the conspiracy theories". No they didn´t. Hardly anything ever does.

• So what would you put instead of "dispelled"? "A multi-agency response to dispel the rumors ....." is ungrammatical.

Moriori, How about [10]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Second, WP:PAYWALL. Perhaps someone here or elsewhere on WP can check the source for us. It can be substantiated, it just costs money. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• We should accept you saying it can be substantiated, and leave it at that? No way. We need to see it actually substantiated, a quote from the paywalled ref that justifies "....a step many chemtrail believers have interpreted as further evidence of the existence of a government cover-up". Moriori (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

On the 2nd point, i broke up the sentence and added a ref behind the fact sheet. The website is weird if you try to buy the article. I will see if my library has access to it. It is a good question. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Better - the USAtoday ref covered that content. I ditched the Beacon article. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate citing paywall stuff but given that WP:RSes on the subject are limited, can we keep Beacon in there but use it very, very sparingly? There may be a day in the future when the article is accessible by all and there might be good stuff in there given how heavily it was being used to support this entry previously.

Jtydog Thank you for the improvements that you've made and for the time you had to invest in it.

I noticed there is a NASA employee quote in USA today about being part of "the problem" if you try to refute things. Given these 3 sources mentioning NASA and chemtrails or conspiracy theories, is it refuting the beliefs with facts or is it some suspicion of involvement of NASA itself in something believers think is nefarious that creates the feeling of "being part of the [perceived] problem":

• Poladian, Charles (July 22, 2013). "CIA Exploring Geoengineering, Ways To Control Weather, To Reverse Globing Warming: Report". International Business Times.
• Liebelson, Dana; Mooney, Chris (July 17 2013). " Climate Intelligence Agency: The CIA is now funding research into manipulating the climate." Slate.
• Liebelson, Dana; Mooney, Chris. (July 17, 2013) "CIA Backs $630,000 Scientific Study on Controlling Global Climate:Conspiracy theorists, rejoice!". Mother Jones

Johnvr4 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Only one of those three refs mentions "chemtrails" (the IBT one) and it makes it clear that chemtrails are "another" conspiracy theory, distinct from those more generally about weather modification. Not sure where conspiracy theories about weather modification are discussed in WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to separate those things with a newer source but many, (if not most) of the reliable sources we are currently citing specifically mention weather modification or geoengineering as part of the Chemtrail theory belief. (NYT 2016) for example: "Adding fuel to the chemtrails theory is the fact that there are a few legitimate reasons for atmospheric spraying — “seeding” clouds to make rain, for example — and in recent years there has been some research on the idea of spraying chemicals as a potential way to fight global warming." It may be good to mention that NASA funding will for the research will be cut (negating all fears) based on the global warming "hoax" belief of the new administration in the US. If we were to use an older quote from NASA or CIA it may be problematic. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes the NYT thing was good to bring in. Thinking about how to do that just drove another bit of restructuring, here. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New paper

A new editor, RobP, added content about a new study in this dif. That content was sourced to inquisitr.com and I reverted as that source seems dicey and in general we don't cite popular media stories about science papers.

However RobP very nicely posted on my Talk page asking what's up. So here is the actual paper that was being reported on: Shearer, Christine; et al. (10 August 2016). "Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (8): 084011. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help). The journal in which the paper published, Environmental Research Letters is pretty good, but this is a primary source.

What do folks think? RobP just added the ref behind our existing-and-already-sourced statement that "Scientists and federal agencies have consistently denied that chemtrails exist, insisting the sky tracks are simply persistent contrails". Should we do that, or add new content... something like: "In 2016 investigators surveyed 77 scientists (atmospheric chemists with expertise in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution) to ask whether there are secret large-scale atmospheric programs (SLAP); the investigators summarized the results, stating that 76 of them said "they had not encountered evidence of a SLAP, and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols." from this the paper? Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog - and I love your suggestion! BTW, the single scientist who could not totally agree with the other 76 did so only because they had come across evidence of 'high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium." This paper was discussed on this week's SGU podcast, and it was mentioned that this could have been explained by mundane things not investigated. RobP (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick visual scan of the article and read various parts of it. It sounds reasonable so far, but I need to come back later and spend more time going over it. Others people need to read it very closely to ensure nothing glaringly obvious jumps out. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

my own position, btw, is to not use this as it is a primary source. but maybe we bend here. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this study deserves to be mentioned (something like your "something like"), I saw it mentioned in WaPo: [11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How about "A 2016 study surveying 77 atmospheric scientists concluded that "76 out of 77 (98.7%) of scientists that took part in this study said there was no evidence of a [secret large-scale atmospheric programs (SLAP)], and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, such as typical contrail formation and poor data sampling instructions presented on SLAP websites." Sourced to WaPo and the study. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW, should "Secret large-scale atmospheric program" be a redirect to this page? I added it to Slap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me just pop in and say thank you to Jytdog and RobP for discussing this revert. RobP is new and genuinely interested in helping and that is a wonderful thing to see. And Jytdog you handled this very kindly and did not bite the new editor, clearly explaining what was wrong. This is how these interactions should happen. Now back to the discussion of the paper.Sgerbic (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome Sgerbic - and thanks! BTW, It is also referenced in the 8/15 NYT online. RobP (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Just Say No", clever! Also in a usually RS swedish newspaper. [[12]]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Did a translate from your Swedish paper and it concluded with a quote from the authors: "Our goal is not to convert those who are convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying programs - which often dismisses rebuttal as further evidence of his theories - but rather to create an objective scientific source that can contribute information in public discourse "write the authors." Sounds perfect for WP! RobP (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rp2006, I added my version to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the update! RobP (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC and (Age Matters) seems to be the guiding principle and I think the primary source can be used to say it. But be we have also the secondary NYT source. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

References

"The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words chemical and trail, as contrail is a contraction of condensation trail."

Uhh, since both words are formed the same way (first word is contracted, second word is simply concatenated), shouldn't both be described the same? Either both as "portmanteaus"; or both are "contractions", not one of each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.43.237 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good question. As I read the lead of portmanteau, the term fits both words, so we could change it to "The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words chemical and trail, as contrail is of condensation trail." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Origin of conspiracy theory and relationship to historical covert CBW testing

The lead sentence explains that the Chem-trail theory is somehow connected to the fear of Chemical and biological agents but does not explain why or how this occurred or the historical events that spurred that specific fear. WP:LEAD

"Chem-trail conspiracy theory is an unproven suspicion that long-lasting trails, so-called "chemtrails", are left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and that they consist of chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public."[1]

A basic question that should be answered in this article is, How did covert historical cold war military research morph into the modern conspiracy theory? Numerous reliable sources explain that relationship. I've put together some notes with a sequence of events, timeline, references and a rough draft: here in the event that anyone would like to take a stab at explaining this relationship or incorporating the information. Some of the citation links or descriptions in my sandbox3 are incomplete but they should not be too difficult to relocate.

Jytdog can attest (hopefully) that I am not a believer in the chem-trail theory nor am I attempting to provide support for such a belief. Under WP:RF the reader should have enough understanding to be able to differentiate these two concepts and how they relate to each other after reading this article which I do not think is possible in the current state. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a rational explanation for this irrational fear. Given that, I'm also not sure what you are suggesting. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely suggesting a more complete article under the concept of WP:RF where the reader's understanding is the primary motivation for inclusion of material rather than an editor's preference. Surely you can agree that it is factual and there is enough support to say that the covert CBW testing history and the reporting thereof in the article is what the chem trail theorist's point to as the origin of their concerns?

Rationality for their belief is a separate concern which probably can and should be included at some future point. The degree of rationality it is subjective and since it's on a scale, it's more difficult to support in the entry- but not impossible with the right source. Current mentions of "unproven suspicion" and "speculation" as support for the belief hint at irrationality of theorists fears but currently article skips the subject of "rationality" (the word is not mentioned even once). The historical CBW testing part and more importantly the subsequent reporting of these revelations would be necessary to determine rationality in the event it was mentioned.

Given that the subject of "rationality" of the fear is not yet covered in the article and should be in the future, the historical covert CBW testing and the news media about it needs to be explained first. Then dismissed. A basic question about rationality might be whether the fear is related to the news reports from reliable sources that were then sensationalized by less reliable ones. I'm not ready to get into all of that but there is support for it in the event that another editor does. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is all seems rather opaque. If "covert CBW testing history and the reporting thereof in the article is what the chem trail theorist's [sic] point to as the origin of their concerns?" then what source supports directly that? It seems highly dubious since it seems these conspiracists have a wide-ranging set of delusions about chemtrails. Some think our lizard overlords are altering climate to their liking, some that it's population control, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm already feeling a little silly responding to this comment as I know that many of us (including Alexbrn) have discussed much of this issue previously- including here but several of the source(S) that support this fact are referenced in my sandbox3 and in many of the other 42 references already in use to support the article entry. Skeptics reliably reference the CBW testing aspect too and have expressed opinions about that plausibility. I am sure there are many more if someone were to spend their valuable time to look. However, the insurmountable argument is that just one reliable source is sufficient to support the statement and few (if any) sources could reliably contradict it. (see WP:RS (making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see WP:NPOV)). The next test is in the unlikely event that you still don't believe that there is enough reliable support for the statement, the question falls to whether you believe it it likely to have the support of a reliable source in the future.

Even sources that have been refuted by editors for not stating the CBW origin-and then removed from this article after it was abused and used to define the subject in this entry for several years- actually says exactly that! Many of us were involved in that poorly researched and executed discussion. I honestly don't understand what in my suggestion that you might consider to be highly dubious. If there exists a counter explanation that reliably supports a lizard people origin or some other origin of the theory over the CBW origin then please present it. Outrageous examples and hyperbole are very highly unpersuasive. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You have sources in your sandbox, but there is a whiff of WP:SYNTHESIS about how you get from them to the statement "covert CBW testing history and the reporting thereof in the article is what the chem trail theorist's [sic] point to as the origin of their concerns?" isn't there? What source supports this statement? (please just state the source). We currently do have reliable sources verifiably saying this stuff is paranoia, and we duly follow them - it's not complicated. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What is in my sandboxes are simply notes and a rough, rough, draft of "stuff" that can be used to create a reliable draft addition. Because all of the blanks are not filled in and is sort of cryptic, "it" isn't there so all that "stuff" does look a lot like synthesis and/or original research. For that I apologize. Knight (2003) P. 309; Bethel (2008); 2007 KSLA articles (the Barium report articles); Radford (2009); Thomas (2008); are several references that support a historical covert CBW testing relationship to the theory/belief or to the origin of the theory/belief. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Does any source say straight what you want Wikipedia to say? Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. In particular, I believe these reports say it specifically along with the above mentioned references and any others as additional support. KSLA print report (archive) CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again or KSLA television report (youtube...) Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails (barium results debunked). These articles and the historical covert CBW connection content were discussed here and the "report"(s) (there are two) from this source is already described in the article with this text: "Jim Marrs has cited a 2007 Louisiana television station report as evidence for chemtrails."-Radford, Benjamin (March–April 2009). "Curious contrails: death from the sky?". Skeptical Inquirer. 33 (2): 25. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• i've been trying to work out what Johnvr4 wants here. My ~sense~ is that it is a description of the formerly secret government programs where they did expose people to weird stuff; the real substrate that conspiracy theorists build on to arrive at their belief that the government is still doing this stuff (the "evidence" that they are still doing this stuff are "chemtrails" themselves and stuff like this youtube video) Johnvr4 is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

About the youtube you linked video which appears to document an unusually outfitted airplane (it didn't mention any explanation of why)...There are legitimate reasons to perform X (whatever X is) which involves releasing some chemical into the air (like seeding, geoengineering that are NOT of concern to theorists) was a decent quote in one the long used sources that was removed from the entry. Editors should find another source that says similar because other sources currently used in the entry link those topics together.

To answer the question more precisely, about what I'd like the article to say, is that the historical weird stuff that happened in the past (which is that described in the congressional investigations that are shown and mentioned in the KSLA reports in relation to chemtrail beliefs), ended, and won't happen again. (I have edited on those subjects and if possible would like to differentiate them from and avoid the conspiracy topic entirely).

Just as important is to say that there was this historical stuff; that there are normal contrails; and that chemtrails is mistaking one for the other-or something along those lines.

One problem I ran into and did not yet resolve was that the associated CBW testing governments did not immediately say the historical stuff would forever stop. The Govs. publicly said (or it was reported they said this anyway) they they reserved the right to conduct more and that it was legal for them to do it etc. The reforms had caveats and exceptions to rules and some of aspects of it are still being fought in court, and congress, and in the media. I was hoping to find more recent statements or laws or treaties that forbids that research activity when I moved onto another subject. I think I remember (and I will correct the statement and post a quote or link if I can find it) that at least one skeptic scientist said that he can't discount the remote possibility of some occasional covert test. So, after I can find that statement again...

found: NMSR statements-[13][14]Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Reversions

What remains is that I think that in order to reiterate that all of any such concerns are utterly and completely irrational, I believe we need a bit of recent (Post-2003) reliable evidence of that the historical tests or similar can't ever happen again be it a law, treaty, agreement, order etc.-or whatever. So far, I have not yet completed that critical step. Thank you for your time and discussion in understanding and rectifying my concerns. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

johnvr4 I thought I understood but I have no idea what you want. Try to say it concisely. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, If had you had really wanted a concise answer, then you wouldn't have thrown in an irrelevant youtube conspiracy video along with your question. To backtrack two steps, I was the one confused by your inclusion of that video in your question and now you're confused because I tried to answer it. I don't think this will get us anywhere. Did you read the question that you asked me?

My concise answer would have been yes until I got to the video phrase of the question and then my answer would have been no after it.

What exactly is not understood about what I said in response?

"There was this historical stuff; that there are normal contrails; and that chemtrails is mistaking one for the other-or something along those lines. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep these in mind ...

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

With those concepts in mind, what are the specific concerns with the historical covert CBW testing in relation to the conspiracy theory? Please keep this direct quotation in mind...

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.

Johnvr4 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Not a great source and a quick search seems to show the only other mention of the "confirmation" brought by these Senate hearings is in Brad Steiger's work (much discussed here already) - which smells distinctly fishy. If this is all there is it doesn't suggest any need for a change to the Article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I am assuming by "confirmation" that you are referring to confirmation of the subject of this thread and confirmation that the current article skips it. Which is this: That the origin of the concern of theorists stems from some connection to historical covert CBW testing, and specifically that testing described by the declassified reports mentioned in both text and broadcast news videos. The fact that the information is reliable enough, is not in the article, and there is no other reliable source of information that could contradict it suggests a need for improvement ("change") WP:RF. There will be nothing I suggest that attempts to "confirm" any irrational theories.

I disagree with any contention that these are the only supporting sources out there that say this (as previously discussed) or that these sources aren't good enough. They are sufficient to support it on WP. Regardless, if the other reliable published sources on the subject (that are already used as support for article) discuss these sources (and they do), there are likely to be other even more reliable sources in the future that state the same thing. The Brad Stieger book for example was not declared fishy until the exact time I pointed out that the CBW passage was in there and that the source might be being abused in the article since from before anyone could remember. Confirmation that the book does have that CBW origin information despite the discussion and removal as a reliable source for not having it is appreciated. I have no doubt there will be more sources found that say it too. Many or most of the sources we already use allude to that history as a concern without naming any of the released reports. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, for "confirmation" I meant the "Senate hearings which confirmed ..." (as I wrote). Anyway, I too now don't understand what change you want: we can't make edits based on what sources in the future might say and this is WP:NOTAFORUM so I think we're probably done here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

To clear up any confusion (and since it was apparently missed above), perhaps WP:RS should be reviewed again. What needs to be understood (since there is still apparent confusion) is that it says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

I really don't understand what is confusing. Please read above if you are still confused. At this point in the thread we are discussing a topic that is significant to the subject of the entry and which has adequate reliable support. What I want is to ensure the topic historical covert CBW testing is approached and presented to the reader responsibly in relation to the conspiracy theory.

It was not just U.S. Senate hearings were discussed in the two KSLA news reports as there was a stack of reliable news reports that were shown with titles and sources. The TV video KSLA news report had in it a statement that the testing activity was was made illegal in 2003-ish [1998 for most circumstances ("9 years ago" as reported in 2007 @00:02:33)] so I am very keen to use it or similar as a source in this entry.

Despite me listing several additional supporting sources above (which were also apparently missed), you've stated that (based solely upon your own quick search) that there were no other sources that mention this concern or this origin as the sole basis for your conclusion that it is not needed in the entry. That conclusion is ridiculous so I've disagreed and said that you cannot reliably source ANY support for your conclusion/opinion. In addition, I also said that there will likely be more usable sources in the future than there are now which also cannot be disputed.

But for the present, this quotation is from another relaible source that is currently in use to support the entry:

But the United States has a long history of chemical and biological testing on its own personnel." McBreen mentioned a 1994 "Rockefeller Report," often quoted on conspiracy and chemtrail Web sites, detailing alleged experiments performed on U.S. soldiers. The report, "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century," indicates it was prepared for the U.S. Senate's Committee on Veterans' Affairs in December 1994. Among the report's conclusions are that "for at least 50 years, (the Department of Defense) has intentionally exposed military personnel to potentially dangerous substances, often in secret." *Bethel, Brian (1 July 2008). "Abilene man wants to warn you about the dangers of 'chemtrails'". Abilene Reporter-News. Archived from the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved 20 October 2008.

Johnvr4 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion without participation Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#KSLA_Chemtrail_coverage_reliably_links_Sprayed_Agents_and_historical_CBW_tests_to_subject_as_do_others.

Johnvr4 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Newer Sources

Jytdog, more articles:

• Scientists disprove airplane 'chemtrail' theory Mary Bowerman; USA TODAY Network; August 16, 2016; Unfortunately the article talks about the feared destruction of a food or crops supply by spraying which is mixing up the two things that I ultimately want to distinguish and separate very far apart: this pages topic and this draft: [15], [16] Hope you can find a way to skip mention of the imagined because it was previously a real thing during WWII, Vietnam, and Cold War. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• 'Chemtrails' and other aviation conspiracy theories Oliver Smith; 24 September 2013; The Telegraph; Telegraph.co.uk. (added) Johnvr4 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Annoyed Scientists Publish Study on Chemtrail Conspiracy Theories; Sarah Emerson; (August 13, 2016); Vice Motherboard motherboard.vice.com
• Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory The Keith Group (Harvard University), Keith Seas (undated?) (uncredited?) Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Progam

• EPA confronts ‘chemtrails’ conspiracy talk March 13, 2015 - Timothy Cama; The Hill. (added)

• Information on Contrails from Aircraft EPA.gov (linked in previous article) 2 PDF reports:

1. Aircraft contrails fact sheet EPA-430-F-00-005, (September 2000) and
2. Contrail Facts, U.S. Air Force (14 pp, July 2014)

• From the 2013 IBT times article is *Project Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts (2 pdf Reports:)

1. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth
2. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration 14:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 05:02, Johnvr4 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• New Mexicans for Science and Reason Kim Johnson's Chemtrail Analysis - UPDATED January 2010

(also New Mexicans for Science and Reason presents "A Pilot's View (on Chemtrails)" by Ian Wickson) Johnvr4 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding garbagey sources here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Which specific source(s) do you feel are "garbagey" AND why exactly? I feel that each one of these is a WP:RS and feel strongly that complaints such as your request are BS. If you have any valid concerns, let us hear them now. If you don't (yet again), then we will deal with that on the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

as much as possible we want to stay away from bloggy things like nmsr and stick with stuff like that the very good NYT or the USAtoday piece that actually discuss chemtrails. We should not be getting into the weeds of stuff like actual climate engineering (unless the national academies actually address the conspiracy theory in those refs). We want high quality sources that discuss chemtrails directly. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining and I understand the concern but I don't think your concerns are valid as we have already discussed in previous sections.

Which one is "garbagey"? I ask again because I am sensitive to unfounded poor-source complaints, still willing, and much better at challenging such assertions this time round.

• NSMR is cited repeatedly by Skeptical Inquirer and their opinions and analyses are already used to support the majority of the entry.
• The scientific/educator Harvard U bloggy is a superb source. IMHO. Other skeptic blogs like Metabunk (for example) are cited by NYT.
• Almost all of the sources link each of those subjects together and sorting out that connection as well as the other ones we have discussed is precisely what I've been warning editors including yourself about for years. The new articles state it too-clearly and now there are two CIA-funded National Academy reports that are now some part of the theory that needs to be explained.

I think you are more than competent enough to look at these sources and come up with something consistent and sensible as each of the sources I put forth have done. The bottom line is that if you don't want to make the edits then another editor will. They'll have a lot of material to take it to a NPOV or other noticeboard and you or others wont have very many sources for the position you've put forth. It appears that certain editors want to retain control of the entry so whether that is accurate perception or not, I am suggesting policy required changes to the entry for you to make in the event you want initial control over how they are done. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

We are going to need one or two skeptic refs to flesh out the picture but we should only reach for them when we have to. they are kind of garbagey and open us to criticisms of "why don't you let in these other blogs??" and if we don't need them, let's not use them. it was the posting of those that prompted my comment. High quality refs are always best. and i understand the "linking" thing but this is the road to WP:SYN and damnation as it were. i will look at the other refs... Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• USA today ref is just reporting on the scientist survey. used for mason jars/bad science thing
• telegraph ref appears to be a video. sorry but i am not interested in watching a video.
• motherboard is about the scientific survey. nothing new here really
• keith lab ref, used it as another ref for scientists denying
• The Hill - just about EPA refreshing its statement. noted that and used the ref
• we are already using EPA and AF refs? not sure why they are here
• IBT, tricky beause it is CRYSTALBALL wrt to chemtrials but worked it in as an example of MSM depicting chemtraillers as paranoid. Don't need the related documents
• not using the NM skeptical sites. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm. Those sources are on the list in a section of Newer Sources because obviously they are newer sources! WP:RS/AC and (WP:)Age Matters

Come on man. I am just about to strike out statement I made above about your competence to review and edit from these sources!

• USA today from Aug 2016 Scientists disprove airplane 'chemtrail' theory has all kinds of info linking the study to the theory and other stuff such as a pilot's opinion much like the 2nd NMSR source
• "Telegraph appears to be just a video" that you're "not interested in"? IN WHAT WAY? Pls note that I am very tired of these utter misrepresentations! sources not read Expand {{quote| TEXT of 'Chemtrails' and other aviation conspiracy theories
• Vice Mother board "nothing new"? Except the date of August 13, 2016! It is new and is a source debunking Photos just like NSMR (that you refuse to acknowledge) that states it is the alleged photos that are being debunked. The study and SLAP and climate change and...
• The Hill you've added as well as others with new edits so I'll hold off a bit and review it.
• The AF and EPA have been updated. That is why they in a list of Newer Sources
• you've added IBT which has CIA reports concern. I advised not to skip
• NSMR on which Skeptical Inquirer was also updated and is now a newer source too. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

John. I clicked on the telegraph link, and all that was there was a video. That's it. I am done here again. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It worked for me and I did not watch the video either. But I do see what you meant in another browser. Please check to see if your browser might have a reader view default or similar. It is an entire article of which I had added the relevant text. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Chemtrails vs. Contrails: an explanation that just makes sense Chambers, Justin (November 11, 2016) KXRM-TV FOX21 Colorado Springs
• FOX31 Chemtrails Report ("liar!/BS!" banner -find archive) (2008) KDVR-TV Colorado "Geoengineering" expert & agency quotes, Congress & "crazy," Vietnam Johnvr4 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Fox News and Youtube!? This page should not be used as a dumping ground for useless sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FNC is more than good enough for this topic. This talk page should not include the useless discussion. Your position should be expressed here: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Request_for_Comment_on_Fox_News_Channel Johnvr4 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Flemming's/ Reich (& Tilerson) Toffler/ T.L. Thomas links to geoengineering & origin of conspiracy theory

From the current entry:

"Some chemtrail believers adopt the notions of William Reich (1897 – 1957) who devised a "cloudbuster" device from pipework filled with crystals and metal filings: such devices are pointed at the sky in an attempt to clear it of chemtrails[edited since] ...rather than just clouds as Reich had proposed. Fleming JR (2010). Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. Columbia Studies in International and Global History. Columbia University Press. p. 103.

I'm wondering who put it there because it seems highly absurd and ridiculous that William Reich-a person who died in 1957 before jet travel really even took off purposely devised some method to stop the "chemtrails" from the 1990s!

I could not find the page 103 reference to "chemtrails" in that source (pls post quote if found) but it seems as what is described is some type of Geo-engineering technique which is a position supported by other reliable sources such as this one:

And maybe we’ll have no other choice but to blast the skies full of aerosol particles using fighter jets or cannons, and mimic a volcano’s effects of reflecting away the sun’s radiation, cooling the planet. (Of course, there would be other, er, consequences if we did that.) Rex Tillerson’s view of climate change: It’s just an ‘engineering problem’ December 14, 2016 Washington Post

According to Metabunk's interview with Flemming, Flemming said a prior interview he conducted about the book was about "the history (mostly military) of geoengineering", Quoting from that book (via Metabunk (as refereced by NYT article)) Dr. James Fleming:

On the other side of the coin are conspiracy theorists who see a toxic cloud on every horizon. Their fears are fueled by statements such as those made in 1997 by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who warned of "an eco-typ of terrorism whereby [adversaries] can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, [and] volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves . . . . It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important." Cohen, known to levitate on occasion, at least rhetorically, was responding, off the cuff, to questions about the possibility of all sorts of futuristic weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, and his remarks should not be misconstrued. Nevertheless, conspiracy theorists have focused on his words in support of their suspicions that the military is supporting secret geoengineering projects involving directed energy beams, chem trails or other technologies.

Cohen was debunked here: (Metabunk) Debunked: "Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism"

Metabunk leads us to another reliable source from 1954 for the history of weather modification where they reason that the Owning the weather military in 2025 report that kicked off the chemtrail conspiracy theory in the 90s as discussed in the current entry was predated by similar several decades earlier in 1954:

• Weather made to Order (PDF) (May 28, 1954) Colliers H.T. Orville (Capt.USN)

There are actually three military weather mod articles from Howard T. Orville Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control:

• Invasion Weather Navy aerologists tell our war chiefs how to make the weather fight for us (PDF) Collier's Weekly , May 13, 1944, p. 13 -
• Stand by for Climate control Saturday Evening Post, November 29, 1958, pp 19-21
• Weather made to Order (PDF) (May 28, 1954) Colliers Weekly H.T. Orville (Capt. USN) Johnvr4 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I added this quite recently, and I'm sure this is a good summary of the source. The point is Reich thought his device busted just clouds, the chemtrails loons think it can bust chemtrails! I'll clarify Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Let us please see the quote from that source before you remove the dispute notification. This dispute is not resolved at all and I feel that a topic-ban could be warranted here based upon the insertion of that text, removal of the notice, and your additional assertions unless that source states it directly. Prove it! You will agree that this is not the first time that I have found instances where you have abused a source on this page. Given your previous reactions to my valid concerns, this one too will need a lot of explaining right here or on a noticeboard.

My apology. The information sounded like it came from an unreliable source and it originally did. However, what has been cited is absolutely fringe despite it being referenced in an otherwise seemingly reliable source (but it's still a red flag). However it is a source that entirely supports the geoengineering link to "chemtrail" theories .22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Johnvr4 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source right now, but I am 100% sure my summary is a really good one. Maybe try a library if you want to check-up. I don't recognize your concerns and besides they are off-topic here: WP:AIN is that-a-way. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be making this personal. If I was assuming bad faith, I would have already looked and found out you were the one put it there, called you out by name, posted the diffs, already gone to the library, and placed the issue on a noticeboard before I ever asked about it here. I did none of those things so I asked. For the record, going to a library to verify a source that does not appear online is called good sourcing. It's not bad faith. However, it might be a good idea to do a check. Please post the quote if you are making additional assertions about your position in this dispute. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Flemming is talking about Reich's attempts at "geoengineering" and Reich's fringe theories surrounding weather modification— which you ignore.Wp:context

Instead, you've make WP:notable the fringiest of the WP:fringe interpretations of the chemtrail conspiacy theory. All of this tends to make each of your previously expressed WP:Undue concerns fall flat. It seems that you are quoting the obviously weather related "Rain Fakers" section from Flemming who says:

"Maintaining Reich's legacy, a dedicated band of enthusiasts is currently clearing the air of chemtrails with homemade cloudbusters constructed from copper pipes, quartz crystals, and metal filings. They are repairing the Sky.#53

Flemming #53 cites the unreliable and ridiculous "Goodbye Chemtrails" or Goodbye Chemtrails, Hello Blue Skies! The Do-It-Yourself Kit for Sky Repair which also has this:

"It's probably more appropo to call it a "Chembuster" to distinguish it from Reich's Cloudbuster and avoid misunderstandings among Reich aficionados and pedagogues."

All of which sounds very, "we don't want to tie those nuts with these nuts." Johnvr4 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a good secondary source, from a University Press, we should extract the juice from it we can. A simple search on the web will confirm the chemtrail wingnuts *do* build these Reichian devices. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to quote your position in the future if you insist on using it because neither the Flemming book nor his dubious source mention any chemtrail conspiracy or the need to "bust" them except to improve the weather. The "conspiracy" he mentions in on p.138 (preview limit reached so I don't have this quote yet) (maybe "other side of the coin" quote?)

Alas, I won't be searching the web for the application of Rechian devices. If you want to do that, then you just go right ahead but your time would be much better spent by actually reading the newer reliable sources to support these edits.

I do insist (Again) that the relationship between the Chemtrail theories, and the Geoengineering conspiracies, the Military Weather modification history, and CBW history be explained. It needs to be done. Somehow. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no "chemtrail" in the article but a night of sleep still has me baffled as to what kind of geoengineering "cannons" Tillerson is referring to... is it Gerald Bull's Project HARP Space gun (Martlett 2A), Reich's buster or something else entirely? Johnvr4 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Eureka!? I noticed something that I feel is very important to distinguish geoengineering from the conspiracy theory and the origin of the fear. Re:Cohen's 1997 Chem Trail statement above. But did he say that?[17] Flemming says that theorists focused on Cohen's "Chem trail" etc. and his "It's real" statements. Skeptics (Metabunk) point out that Cohen was echoing Alvin Toffler's (1970) Future Shock see pp.191-193 (American Meteorological Association: "Weather Modification today is a reality"). Where Toffler is discussing Theodore L. Thomas' (1962) The Weather Man and "The Weather Council" (population control, crops, psychological influence etc.) Johnvr4 (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for consensusdot

Obviously its requested any edits to this page wait for consensus first on the talk page. Obviously I'm being a lot bolder here than is appreciated. I'm not sure what else to say here, if it's convenient you can just post here instead of my talk page. It'll take me a while to work through the above. Having absolutely zero memory retention doesn't do much for reading manuals, etc having much of a point. I do see at least some of the things I've added have been discussed here so I can't say I look forward to it but I will say I hope I live long enough for it to be interesting. At least you can tell me what the consensus is and either how I've transgressed it or how you feel I have. Good to see you again, Jytdog - 55378008a (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thing is, consensus here doesn't override things like WP:notability and WP:verifiability. Every single person here could agree that chemtrails are a grand conspiracy, and one uninvolved editor could rightly revert it all because random nonscientific blathering from random bloggers does not override scientific consensus. As stated above, we're obligated for better or worse to report on what the majority view is, even in the vanishingly small chance it's wrong. Karunamon ^✉ 16:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass Hysteria?

I'm concerned that linking to this article (Mass Hysteria) undermines the dispassionate and authoritative nature of the site, because it looks passive-aggressive, perhaps even a little childish. Could you (Alex Brown) explain why it's so important for clarity of the subject to link from this page to that? I'll happily admit that I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so not 100% familiar with its conventions. DuncanCragg (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a useful tangential link for obvious reasons. MH is mentioned in relation to chemtrails in some sources. See also links are for such tangential toopics. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved from top of the page

Another good article for exposing the invalidity of wikipedia articles. Use with caution of deceptive intentional bias. Waiting now for flat earth supporting articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.93.96 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fact: Wikipedia disagrees with you.

Conclusion: Either you are wrong or Wikipedia is wrong.

Definition: You are right.

Conclusion: Wikipedia is wrong.

QED. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Swiss documentary Overcast

• Overcast [18] [19] --87.155.250.231 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Better with citations templates:

• Hancke, Matthias (2017-04-17). "SWISS FILMS: Overcast". SWISS FILMS (in German). Retrieved 2017-04-17.
• "Mick West Interview for "Overcast" documentary by Dedal Films". Metabunk. 2015-05-30. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

Peaceray (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

I am suggesting a substantive change to this article. "Chemtrails" are not a theory; they indeed do exist, and they are defined as an "Exotic Weapons System" in the House of Representatives Bill H.R.2977 that was introduced 1st Session, 107th United States Congress on Oct. 2, 2001. The source for the information I present below, is the United States Congress at this URL: Source:

Following are excerpts from the text of H.R.2977 that state the definition and purpose of Chemtrails. You will find the word "Chemtrails" at section (B)(ii) - but to learn their purpose, the rest of the information I provided below must be read.

H.R. 2977 SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term "Space" means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the

   earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms "Weapon" and "Weapons System" mean a device capable of any of the following:

      (i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by:
            (I)   Firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;
            (II)  Detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;
            (III) Directing a source of energy (including Molecular or Atomic Energy, Subatomic Particle Beams,
                  Electromagnetic Radiation, Plasma, or Extremely Low Frequency("ELF") or Ultra Low Frequency ("ULF") 
                  energy radiation) against that object; or
            (IV)  Any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.
                   
     (ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying: a Person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental
          health, or physical and economic well-being of a Person) - 

(I) Through the use of any of the means described in clause(i) or subparagraph(B) below;

(II) Through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using Radiation, Electromagnetic, Psychotronic, Sonic,

    Laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of Information War, 
    Mood Management, or Mind Control of such Persons or Populations; or
                           

(III) By expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a Person.

(B) Such terms include "Exotic Weapons Systems," such as:

     (i) Electronic, Psychotronic, or Information Weapons;
    (ii) Chemtrails;
   (iii) High Altitude Ultra Low Frequency Weapons Systems;
    (iv) Plasma, Electromagnetic, Sonic, or Ultrasonic Weapons;
     (v) Laser Weapons Systems;
    (vi) Strategic, Theater, Tactical, or Extraterrestrial Weapons; and
   (vii) Chemical, Biological, Environmental, Climate, or Tectonic Weapons.
           

(C) The term "Exotic Weapons Systems" includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the Ionosphere

   and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and Tectonic systems; with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a
   target population or region on Earth or in Space.

SOURCE:

References

Sandpinn (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Sandpinn 16 August 2017 Sandpinn (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That is, of course, a very silly argument. Suggesting that chemtrails must be real because they're mentioned in a draft bill that was presumably prepared by junior staffers...not read closely (if at all) by the Representative who introduced it...and then were subsequently amended out...before the whole thing died in committee...is some pretty thin gruel. Moreover, the proposed bill also includes references to "psychotronic" (remote mind control) and "extraterrestrial" (alien!) weapons; by your reasoning, these passing mentions thereby prove that these other weapon systems also exist. Are you sure that's the ground where you want to plant your flag? The most charitable interpretation – more charitable than they deserve, really – is that the original drafters were merely attempting to capture every conceivable possible weapon system, no matter how hypothetical or far-fetched, within the bill's scope.

A search of the archives of this talk page would also reveal previous discussions of HR 2977. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Airplane trackers such as Flightradar24 can be used to identify airplanes

It's easier to believe in chemtrails if airplanes seen in the sky are mysterious and unidentified. Perhaps this article should mention flight trackers such as Flightradar24, which can be used to identify airplanes in flight. I have used this, occasionally, for most of a year. 184.21.126.12 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the circulating variants of this conspiracy theory suggest that commercial airliners (passenger and freight) are complicit in the schemes. It's fairly straightforward to find websites which scream "smoking gun!" while showing pictures of pitot tubes and other obscure but innocuous hardware. Apparently, the gubmint is in league with the airlines to sprinkle their mind control dust on major population centers. Knowing that a particular contrail is associated with a particular Delta or Emirates or British Airways flight number doesn't dissuade the chemtrail proponents; they firmly believe that it's all part of a "hiding in plain sight" strategy.

While Flightradar is fun, it doesn't actually debunk the claims. More important, there aren't any reliable sources which advance the argument that Flightrader (or similar sites) does so, which precludes our using it in such a way in our article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Flightradar24 is of course part of the conspiracy itself^[Humor]... —PaleoNeonate – 00:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

dismissed by the scientific community...

Certainly there are some scientists that have not dismissed wholesale the possibility that contrails could be and may be used as a medium to purposefully distribute chemicals around the globe, for whatever purpose, nefarious or otherwise. The 77 scientists in the Caldeira paper may indeed comprise the cream-of-the-crop in atmospheric science, but they are not by definition, "the scientific community." This generalization should be removed.

Also, to state that "any chemicals released at [an altitude of 5-10 miles] would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles away, or degrade before touching the ground" is a gross non sequitur. There is no body of evidence that could ever fully support such a broad and vague assumption, Mr Pilkington. Many chemicals are extremely stable and would easily persist en route to the surface from that height, not to mention that fact the altitude would have minimal if any effect on the process of nuclear decay if any of these compounds happened to be radioactive. Again, this is an unsupported generalization which should be removed.

And in that same vein, to say that any chemicals would disperse harmlessly takes into account only those beings that inhabit the earth's surface. Many birds fly in this altitude range, breathing in chemicals that have not yet dispersed harmlessly, fallen hundreds of miles away, or degraded. Callously ignoring the health of the birds themselves for a moment, shouldn't we consider this as a direct path into our biosystem?

It seems obvious that the goal of this article is to dispel the chemtrail myth, which may very well be a respectable objective; however, with its assumption that all scientists are in consensus on the matter and that all of them somehow know without a shadow of a doubt that even if chemicals were being released in the atmosphere, they would all safely disperse or degrade, I think it's clear that the objective has not been reached. Mbb70 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The scientific community is in consensus on this matter. There's no such thing as any matter that 100% of scientists agree on, nor is that the standard used for making decisions. That being said, WP:RGW. Even if the scientists are wrong, and that statement about chemicals dispersing is bogus (and given what we know of nuclear fallout, it smacks of being bogus straight off), we're still obligated to report it as fact here until a reliable source comes along to dispute it. K_arunamon ^Talk 06:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Certainly there are some scientists" - We do not know of any, so we cannot just assume they exist. We can only work with the data we have.

Also, "disperse harmlessly" is supposed to be a reason against the viability of such a nefarious release of chemicals to harm humans. Are you really trying to replace the supposed conspiracy against humans by a new supposed conspiracy against birds? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very droll Hob, but I think you very well know what I am saying there. The argument for harmless dispersal is made in a vacuum, ignoring the possibility that toxins may enter the ecosystem rather quickly...birds are only one example. And another thought regarding chemicals that may fall undegraded hundreds of miles away (wherever that may be)...isn't it within the realm of possibility that these compounds could be concentrated into a nearby stream by rains and end up accumulating in our biosystem in that fashion?

I am keenly aware that that these are all hypotheticals, but this is also true of the referenced Pilkington statement, to which Karunamon says there is an obligation to report as fact. Until these "harmless dispersal" hypotheses are tested (and tested again...and again...and yet again) and a theory is developed and accepted, the Pilkington statement should at the very least in some way be clearly stamped as what it is...a mere guess, unproven by any experimentation. I trust that the scientific community would agree that unsupported hypotheses should not take the place of fact. Mbb70 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is an actual edit being proposed? Remember WP:NOTFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"I think you very well know what I am saying there" - Yes, you are losing the reference frame and going on a pointless tangent that has nothing to do with improving the article. Even with all your caveats ("hypothetical", "Certainly there are some scientists that have not dismissed wholesale", "ignoring the possibility") the dispersal argument does what it is supposed to do: it refutes the idea that anybody could plan on the chemicals hitting their supposed target. It is not supposed to be a Theory of Everything or even a new revolutionary idea that needs thorough testing before it is accepted, it is just a good reason that is obvious to anybody who knows how gasses work. "Could it be that it is not true" fails as an escape from the truth of truisms. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that the article would be improved if the Pilkington assumption were removed, or at the very least edited so as not to be mistaken as evidence-based fact, which is how it is currently presented in the article. Proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory will come here, read your first paragraph, and wonder why you have included an assumption (by a non-scientist) to support the argument that it would be an absolute waste of time to introduce chemicals into the biosphere in this way as all of them would simply flit away harmlessly with no effect whatsoever on humans or any other surface-dwelling life-form. Again, this is simply a non-evidentiary guess that has no place in a "well-sourced" article, especially given the controversial nature of the subject matter. Using unsupported hypotheses as refutation devices is not very effective. Mbb70 (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I trashed that one sentence. Problem is, I think even if it does belong, it doesn't belong there. The Intro section is to describe the theory, not its refutations. I agree that the one guy is a non-scientist, and isn't a reliable source for the purposes of this article. If he's right, someone with more clout has no doubt said something similar. Karunamon ^✉ 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make the observation that some editors just like to argue and frequently change over to the side of the argument that suits them at that moment just to defend the status quo- no matter what.

quote: "And introducing this Pilkington guy into body text out of nowhere will just make the reader go "huh?". You are making a lot of edits that worsen the article in a various ways. This is continuing the disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I recognize that several admins have no desire for this page to consult the spectrum of scientific opinion, but instead prefer to turn it into an echo chamber for their own bias. Chemtrails are a theory (note the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a theory has evidence) explicitly regarding a global cloud-seeding and geoengineering, and to dismiss official sources who address geoengineering, with OR WITHOUT naming the colloqual "chemtrails" term are still referring explicitly to what chemtrail theories allude. Unfortunately, Harvard says you are wrong, as clearly laid out in their discussion of the Solar Shield geoengineering project:

https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu daedalus.su (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.201.148 (talk)

That is an old thread; but note that this article is about the conspiracy theory (as it clearly says). Conspiracy theories are also not scientific theories. We have other articles about geoengineering, contrails or agronomic pesticide application. —PaleoNeonate - 12:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How daft must one be to imagine that chemtrail is anything but the colloquial equivalent of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection? A theory is a theory, otherwise you must label it a conspiracy hypothesis.

daedalus.su (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

By that reasoning, sea lions are lions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The only thing more ridiculous than being unable to recognize the parity of a colloquial term with its official moniker (like saying sex is not coitus) is to provide such a vastly false paradigm to prove that you clearly have no idea what "colloquial" means.

daedalus.su (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.203.103.179 (talk)

Agree with Hob Gadling a "conspiracy theory" is a nutty idea (like chemtrails, reptoids, all this David Icke stuff whatever). It different from something in the field of science like the theory of evolution. That they use the same term is a kind of false friend phenomenon. Grape nuts ain't grapes or nuts. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

They Live! —PaleoNeonate - 10:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion is laughable. The word "theory" has different meanings when used in different contexts. When one refers to a "conspiracy theory" the word "theory" does not have the same meaning that it has when used to denote scientific theories like the theory of quantum mechanics. Just because it isn't called a "conspiracy hypothesis" doesn't mean it's a scientific theory. The way people use language simply does not follow your argument that there is an equivalence between the colloquial and 'offical' uses of a term. 142.112.179.6 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)AlkaloidMan

Naled

Naled is a neurotoxin being spread by the USAF over Texas to control mosquitoes after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Newsweek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.194 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

... and so has nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Quotes in references Suggestion

This article has a lot of quoted material in the references section. Are the quotes really necessary? If so they should probably be in a notes section and the references separate. If consensus is found I will work on this. MrBill3 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

They're excessive IMO. Though not too harmful. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Add a new paragraph in the "Beliefs" section referencing the latest peer-reviewed, published work on this topic:

A 2017 paper published by Pelgrave Communications, a Nature journal, presents results of a U.S. public opinion survey suggesting that in October 2016, 30 to 40% of the U.S. public believed in a version of the conspiracy. The paper also describes what the authors call a "community of conspiracy" in online discourse, in particular on Twitter and other anonymous social media. Wikinewby2017 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Cloudbuster is not Chembuster

Tried to edit the article, however my edit got deleted. The chemtrail believers falsely refer to Wilhelm Reich as the inventor of the tool they use for their experiments to dissolve the chemtrails. However, it is not the same invention that Dr Reich has invented. Reich has never made a tool out of pipes filled with crystals. It is way different and here we have misinformation. The invention is called a chembuster and has been inspired by Reich's cloudbuster. The chembuster is a scientifically tested hoax. The cloudbuster is not. Needs to be edited properly. --Prostodobavqminfo (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The source you added was not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Reich's orgone theories and his cloudbusters are WP:FRINGE theories, much like this conspiracy theory, so sources need to be handled carefully for this point.

I have adjusted the wording to more closely match the current source. The specific construction of the cloudbuster is not explained by that source, but it does seem like it's suggesting that the "homemade" cloudbusters with crystals in them are a modern alteration. Regardless, Reich did believe that his cloudbusters would remove orgone energy. Explaining "orgone" in this article seems to me like it would be unnecessary and distracting, but the source dos mention that he wasn't using them exclusively for weather manipulation, as the previous wording implied. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing Segment: Whistleblowers

This encyclopedic post does not cover the segment of whistleblowers who have come forward to expose wide-spread spraying activities performed under secret conditions. There are, at a bare minimum, several reputable sources, discoverable via various web searches, of real persons who have worked in governmental positions giving them access and sometimes even oversight of clandestine spraying programs. Considering the world-wide negation of spraying claims made by the public, it would bare much weight to expose these whistleblowers as either heroes or frauds. A true whistleblower is not some questionable hippie waving a sign, rather someone who says I was responsible for monitoring hazardous materials for my organization and informed my superiors of unlawful practices and was informed to stop my investigation or face severe reprimand. In the light of this additional whistleblower information the word “conspiracy” though needed in this article as it has become a ubiquitous term, needs to be clarified as to what a true conspiracy is. Certainly a whistleblower is not propagating a conspiracy, rather he/she is trying to expose one. Worldneedsplastic (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The word “chemtrails” when searched should not be used to redirect to this article as it presupposes a desired end result, i.e. there is no such thing as a chemtrail or is not worthy of a separate posting. It even inhibits another person to start a posting entitled “chemtrails”. If one can be led to believe there is only one true definition of a chemtrail, being that connected to conspiracy, it is truly a convenient solution for the author, but not an in-death discovery in the least.Worldneedsplastic (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok @Worldneedsplastic:. So what specific change to the article are your proposing? Please present it in the form of "please change X to Y" or "please insert X between Y and Z". What reliable source are you citing to back up that change? --McSly (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the conspiracy theory and any related whistleblowers would be described as conspiracy theorists. However, we do have other articles: pesticide, chemical weapon, cloud seeding... —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There aren't any "whistleblowers" in the sense of people presenting actual first-hand evidence. Several people have claimed to be whistleblowers, but they all, when cross-examined, are only repeating the same type of claims you can find on any chemtrail website, so their claims have to be treated with scepticism. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There certainly was a then-clandestine sparing operation conducted by the US goverment in the 1970s, spraying marijuan plantations in Mexico with Paraquat, leading to "paraquat pot" as descirbed further down the article. But this time-limited and scope-limited incident surely doesn't qualify as any kind of "conspiracy" or "proof"of chemtrails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.5.189 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Another mechanism that is not mentioned.

The diagram laballed "exhaust gases and emissions" could possibly do with further explanation. The "trail" behind the C130 taking off, in the left of the picture, is created not by any exhaust gases per se, but something more subtle - an optical effect, caused by heat. Hot exhaust gases have a lower density than air, and hence a lower refractive index. This creates an optical refracting "body". This effect is similar in principle to what is seen when holding up say a wineglass to the blue sky, and noting that some parts of the glass appear brighter, some appear blue, and some appear almost black.

This effect is also seen in the images of the B52s, to the right. However, in this case, it is exacerbated because the engines are fitted with and are using water injection. This is no longer used in the 21st century, because whilst it increases the power of the engines, it also "interferes" with the burning of jet fuel and thus creates very fine particulate smoke. Ironically, the amount of particulate thus produced is far far less than the black trails in the image suggest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.5.189 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a specific suggestion for how to make this clear in the caption, keeping in mind the specific topic of the article? This level of detail may simply be too much for this article, but perhaps a wikilink to Water injection (engine) would be useful. Grayfell (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Exhaust gases" and "smoke" are not the same thing. Regardless of whether the visible streaks behind the C-130's are visible due to refraction or visible due to particulate production and ejection, they are still visible exhaust gases. The caption is Ok as is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't want to get into the edit war that is going on, but Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Having your lead claim that what you are writing your article on is false seems to me to be biased. From Wikipedia's NPOV article:

"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

Leading with calling your subject seems like disparaging. This is just my opinion on the subject. It's very possible that I could be wrong, it's happened before. I hope we can work together to find a solution. Wyrm127 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no edit war. The article is about a fringe conspiracy theory that has no documented basis in fact: NPOV requires that we clearly state that it has no basis in fact, per credible mainstream sources. We do not lend false balance or credibility by omission. It would be an NPOV violation to imply that there is any truth to the conspiracy theory. Please read WP:FRINGE, which is a subtopic of WP:NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your article says,

"Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." and

"The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." and "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." I'm not suggesting that you should just leave it at "claim". That could possibly violate Wikipedia's rules on false balance. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says,

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

So just putting "claim" might violate these rules. But right after that it also says,

"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

<blockquoote>What I'm suggesting you do, is say "questionable claim", "claim that is not accepted by scientists", "not widely accepted claim", or something along those lines so you do not violate NPOV rules. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. Thanks for helping me try to fix this conflict! Wyrm127 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)<blockquoote>

And there is an edit war going on. Anonywiki made 6 reverts in one day. Wikipedia:Edit warring says,

"There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Wyrm127 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PSCI. We call out bollocks as such, and it's not "taking a stand" it's stating a fact. Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wyrm127, some fine points made there. I think the classical example of whether or not Wikipedia should call Hitler "evil" on first mentioning him is highly relevant here. Certainly Hitler was evil, but it's so incredibly unprofessional, biased and just plain childish to say that we would "call out" him for being that way or "call out" things for being wrong. Wikipedia isn't about "calling out" anything. Calling the chemtrail conspiracy theory "false" in the first adjective is patronizing, improper and as I pointed out, it's not even supported by any source. No source states the theory is false. That was my main point - there isn't even a source clearly saying it's false. The one source listed is a scientific journal, which I doubt you will ever find anything in one of those journals describing a theory as "false", a theory can never be proven or disproven 100%, that is why it's called a theory and not a law or a fact.

This is really very basic stuff on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Unfortunately there seem to be a bunch of "gatekeepers" here who feel like it is their duty to protect the masses against things, it is not their duty. Or in their own words "call out" things they believe are incorrect and patronizingly tell people what is correct or isn't, rather than let them look at the evidence and ideas for themselves which is the correct and proper course of action. Anonywiki (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the classical example of whether or not Wikipedia should call Hitler "evil" on first mentioning him is highly relevant here. Certainly Hitler was evil, but it's so incredibly unprofessional, biased and just plain childish to say that we would "call out" him for being that way or "call out" things for being wrong. Evil, being very subjective, is not the same as false (not true), which is a boolean. I don't personally see a problem with using false here for a few reasons: 1) reliable sources debunk the claims, 2) the lead summarizes the body, which should contain enough information to display that the claims are unsubstantiated, 3) on mobile, or in short summaries shown by Google, the first sentence is often the only text initially visible, which should for this reason ideally summarize the whole article... —PaleoNeonate – 03:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn That article has no mention of calling pseudoscience false and actually disproves your point. See my response to Acroterion. Thanks for helping us figure this out! Wyrm127 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be changed as soon as possible. Do we have an agreement by everybody that changes need to be made now that we've established that Wikipedia prohibits the use of biased terms like "false" when introducing a topic? I don't want to start another edit war. Wyrm127 (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and verbosity isn't consensus. Wikipedia doesn't validate WP:FRINGE pseudoscience like this. We use direct, simple language when appropriate. This is one of many examples of when it's appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Greyfell above, I don't think you'll ever get a consensus for such a change. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 00:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell Your own link says,

"When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.", "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue.", "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasonsbased in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.",

and

"If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."

which shows that the talk pages are supposed to be used to reach consensus. You could bring up the point that the article says,

"Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting."

I agree that using the word "consensus" was probably the wrong word to use. What I probably should have said is "does everybody agree", which would imply the entire group agreeing instead of just a majority. I'm sorry. For your claim that you have to use "direct, simple language when appropriate" which is supported by your link to WP:FRINGE, see my reply to Acroterion. That article has no mention of calling pseudoscience false and actually disproves your point. Thanks for contributing to the discussion and helping us figure this out! Added: Why is everything underlined? Wyrm127 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@User:Roxy the dog I assume you meant that to be for me, since Grayfell does not want to change the lead. Why do you think removing the word "false" and replacing it with a more NPOV word as an introduction to the subject will never get consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrm127 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing the formatting issue. I don't know why that happened, but it was probably something to do with the Wikipedia:VisualEditor. I've also added a signature, which you should do at the end of every added comment. This helps the automatic archiving of talk pages. As you can see at the top, this talk page has 8 pages of archives where people have discussed this same issue in mind-numbing detail. This section will also be added to the pile in due time.

There are a many reliable sources which directly refute this conspiracy theory, and none which directly support it. That is more than enough to say it's false. Even with another 8 pages of very civil discourse, that isn't going to change. Reliable sources don't accept the validity of this conspiracy theory, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What you have termed an "edit war" was one-sided affair with one editor reverting several others six times, which resulted in a clear-cut block. You do not have consensus, you have a wall of text that obfuscates a fringe theory as something that is not provably untrue, so that somehow calling obvious nonsense nonsense is a violation of NPOV. Your statement that "Wikipedia prohibits the use of biased terms like "false" when introducing a topic" is, well, false. We call it what the cited reliable sources call it: "nonsense," "unfounded," "misguided," "hoax," "no such thing," "self-deluded," "just isn't true," "myth," "misinformation," "not real," "bunk," "ridiculous, and "the experts we surveyed resoundingly rejected contrail photographs and test results as evidence of a large-scale atmospheric conspiracy."

In biographies it has been longstanding consensus that conspiratorial nonsense about living individuals must be called out explicitly as falsehood. This isn't a biography and I don't see the "false," which has only been there since January, as essential in that sense, but given the history of this article as a target for conspiracy enthusiasts who see Wikipedia as a means of validation, lengthy arguments that it might conceivably be true aren't likely to get anywhere. The cited sources amply document the stated falsity of the conspiracy theory.

Please resist the urge to copy/paste lengthy policy extracts - we can read it in the original. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@User:Acroterion I want to start this by thanking you for fixing the underline, signing what I wrote, and keeping a civil tone. But I would like to say no one has addressed the specific quotations that I gave from Wikipedia articles. It doesn't matter if it has been discussed many times. It doesn't mean that it should not be changed. I posted the specific quotations because it is easier to read something without having to go looking through an article, people can read the articles themselves since I linked them in my comments, people were sending me articles that didn't prove their claims, and some quotations were addressing particular points or showing how an article that they gave me actually goes against their position. Thanks again!

Edit: Sorry if this is poorly written. I'm tired. Wyrm127 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, get some rest. Grayfell was the one who fixed the formatting. Please remember that articles are generally not discussed with respect to other unrelated articles - see WP:OTHERSTUFF: discussion should be focused on the topic without complicating the conversation with references to other content, except in unusual circumstances. It does matter if it's been discussed many times, as that is what consensus is based upon, and editors who've participated in those discussions can get a little tired of rehashing the same discussion. I believe your initial concern that the "false" wasn't supported or appropriate has been answered. I don't see it as essential, as it would be if this was a biography of a living person, but it's not inappropriate. I'm not going to discuss peripheral topics here. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:Acroterion I understand that it can get tiring repeating the same things over and over again (I've argued with flat earthers and creationists), but this is a very serious topic and the several articles I have shown have clear rules against it. Consensus is determined by the argument, not by the majority. I corrected myself above on me saying consensus. My original post still has not been addressed because all that has done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrm127 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not the case that "several articles I have shown have clear rules against it." Identifying it as a false claim is an accurate and neutral description. --tronvillain (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources state, and article content isn't determined by the content of other tangentially related articles. Editors new to a talkpage discussion are expected to review past discussions. An assertion that your argument is supported by policy isn't a substitute for actual consensus and policy-required sources in reliable mainstream media. Half a dozen editors agree that sources support the present wording, and you have produced nothing that contradicts that assessment. I'm not the only participant in this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)'

• WP:DENYRECOGNITION Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully what I said is easier to read now. Wyrm127 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:Tronvillain I have shown several quotes from articles that give specific rules against this type of wording and not one person has addressed them. It does say that you shouldn't be judgmental, shouldn't disparage with your subject, you should first describe your subject objectively and then give more accepted ideas, you should not take a stand on a topic, all significant positions should be included in the article, and you should fairly represent all significant views. Wyrm127 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you haven't. That this is a false claim is simply an accurate and objective description. It's not "judgmental", and if a proponent finds accuracy disparaging, that's the price of clarity. --tronvillain (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:CFCF I'm not suggesting that we just remove "false" and leave it at that. See my reply to User:Acroterion. Wyrm127 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You are talking to some very experienced Wikipedians. You're free to voice your opinion that policy and guidance suggests a change, but asserting it as fact in discussion with people who have been here many years is condescending and downright rude. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:JzG I did not assert it as a fact. I said I could be wrong several times. Wyrm127 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@tronvillain It is judging a side when you immediately describe it as false before giving your reasons and disparaging is disparaging no matter what someone thinks. Using false in the description of something clearly is disparaging with its subject. Just so no one gets mad at me again, I'll put another I could be wrong here. Thanks! Wyrm127 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There are no "sides" to this matter. There is reality. Wikipedia does not indulge the deluded ravings of the crankosphere as though they are a "side" of a debate – that would be a classic WP:GEVAL. Neutrality is a core policy and is non-negotiable which is why the word "false" will be staying here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping Tronvillain, JzG, Alexbrn — WP:DENYRECOGNITION. Say what you need to say — and don't repeat yourself. If you get repeated arguments against yourself, there is no need to repeat the refutations. I know it's tempting and aggravating, but not good for anyone. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@tronvillain Yes they are a side of the debate. It does not matter how wrong they are, they are a side of the debate. Your article does not say that you should disparage your subject in its description. It says quite the opposite actually. Here's one example:

This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

That's just one example. There are many more. Thanks again for helping out! Wyrm127 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:CFCF I'm confused. User:JzG and Alexbrn didn't refute things several times, nor did they refute things I kept on repeating. They repeated things I had already refuted. Wyrm127 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you need us to say it again for you? Guy (Help!) 09:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the sources use words like: "nonsense," "unfounded," "misguided," "hoax," "no such thing," "self-deluded," "just isn't true," "myth," "misinformation," "not real," "bunk," "ridiculous," and "the experts we surveyed resoundingly rejected contrail photographs and test results as evidence of a large-scale atmospheric conspiracy." Those are from your "opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." We go where the sources lead us. You're arguing that we must ignore reliable sources to present a paranoid fantasy as credible in an encyclopedia. You don't appear to be listening even to yourself. Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What do some of the sources say? I haven’t bothered debunking chemtrails because they’re too goofy even for me[20], "chemtrails" are not real"[21], "airplane contrails are simply what happens when jet engines burn fuel[22], the first peer-reviewed journal article focused on so-called "chemtrails" concludes that this long-held conspiracy theory is nothing but fog and air[23]. In other words it is simply false. It is not POV to call something false that is plainly arrant nonsense, and called that in various ways in reliable sources. Chemtrails are the very epitome of pseudoscientific claptrap, there is not a skerrick of truth in them. They are a false claim. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:Acroterion and User:Nick Thorne You would be right. If Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE didn't say,

"Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas:"

It gives a clear example of the qualifiers that should be used, and says that this is especially true of articles dedicated to the fringe ideas. Not being able to disparage against the subject was my strongest point. Address that one please, my points being brushed aside like they don't matter is getting quite irritating. I would think the new replies on this section would be towards the OP, but not a single person has addressed the points I made in there. Thank you for helping me out. Wyrm127 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

When multiple people are telling you the same thing, you might wish to consider that the error may not be with them. "The whole world is wrong except me" is not a convincing argument. The reliable sources are unaninmous in their assesment of "chemtrails", which is: they are not a thing. Therefore using the word false to describe the claims that they do exist is nothing but reflecting what the sources say. BTW, WP:RS trumps secondary guidelines like WP:FRINGE. Quoting from the NPOV pillar In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view" (my emphasis). This is one of the cases where there is just one well recognised view. There are no reliable sources saying that chemtrails are a real thing. End of argument. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop responding and follow WP:DENYRECOGNITION Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wyrm127: given you're unable to even do something as simple as ping the correct user, and in light of all the above nonsense you've posted, is there anything you would like to say that might dissuade me from indefinitely blocking you for incompetence/not being here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia ? Nick (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nick I would, but I would get blocked for disruptive editing. For some reason I was notified that having this discussion was disruptive editing, even though I didn't even edit an article (or at least I didn't make any major changes to an article). Do you think I would still get punished if we continued the discussion on one of our talk pages? Thanks again! Wyrm127 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wyrm127: My talk page is always open. Nick (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)