Jump to content

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.76.136.131 (talk) at 09:00, 29 November 2010 (→POV in this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:Pbneutral


ISDAC

Hi, I am not sure what this is 1, but after reading this document it could be summarized as program by the NSA's (a research institute) ARM department to see the effects of aerosol spraying and monitor a three weeks testing program for April 2008. This is not about possible future geo-engineering, so this is about the present moment. This is just one of many patents, an incomplete list of patents can be seen here (some links at the bottom go to conspiracy websites, but it has nothing to do with the patents) 2. Also, ISDAC is not a cloud seeding program, it contains aerosol/electromagnetically charged particulates, which would make it automatic geo-engineering and not just weather modification by cloud seeding to create rain. The purpose is to see what effect their aerosol spraying has on the cloud/weather/climate, so it is a test (stimulate) and result (retrieval) experiment. There is also Operation Cloverleaf and Raindance to know about. Also, if patents and programs already exist for future geo-engineering experiments, would then that would mean we should see similar chemtrial like phenomenon in the future? Then I guess a conspiracy theorist is one who thinks they not going to conduct tests in the near future, but are doing it now? By the way, I am not implying this is malicious conspiracy, however I am implying that this was a temporary geo-engineering program that was conducted for a short time with a few to no effects. However, if this is true, that would these little experiments, if put together with thousands of other possible experiments (with reports of Corexit found in peoples pools on the mainland 3), as whole would be large in scale, and may account for some of the chemtrail sightings. Plus (going a little off-topic now), in the CFR's papers on geo-engineering they said a C-130 Hercules plane is best suited for the job, well that is same plane they used to spray the dispersing chemicals in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which I find interesting. So basically this is something I found (thanks to a tip from a friend) just by looking for patents, but I could be wrong, any thoughts with what we can do with the document? Thanks for reading.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ISDAC is what you think it is. There is recent climate research that aerosols are major factors in Arctic warming. They aren't actually spraying any aerosols, but they plan to fly about and take readings throughout the Alaska. You might want to read [1]. Just to clear up any misconception, a conspiracy theorist is someone that refuses rational arguments, and possibly has weak reading comprehension too. 216.113.193.88 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I understand that ISDAC is a program to get results from how much aerosols are affecting the Arctic area, but according to Wikipedia itself, it states that from the early 1990's to now there has been a 87% increase in greenhouse gases from contrails, whether there is something in the contrails doing this or that climate change is causing contrails to spread a heating to cooling effect remains unanswered (note, in the first place there was no rational arguments to be refused, so now is this rational enough?). So when a reputable I.P. user like me comments from a neutral point of view on the controversial matter, one would think a presumed Wikipedia n would offer new information, and not regurgitate a cheap joke. There is only one part that I may have misread (that led me to the probable conclusion), but its exact wording I will include some here so you can see it for yourself and how easily one would think it means something else...

Several different aircraft flight patterns are needed to achieve the objectives of the experiment. Vertical spirals over the Barrow site will be performed at the beginning and end of each flight to provide aerosol input data for the cloud models and to provide aerosol and cloud evaluation data for the retrievals (this sentence threw me off as I thought why would they need to input data first and then retrieve it, they should just retrieve it, and retrieve usually means getting something you released back to yourself, I also read how they would do it, and they did not really show in the pictures about throwing something out first). If sky is clear, one vertical spiral will be performed to sample aerosol up as high as the aircraft will fly. Horizontal legs of 15 minutes, each below and above each cloud layer, will be performed to better characterize the aerosol going into the clouds (they should have reworded it as 'to better characterize how [the natural] aerosols go into the clouds [notice they call it the aerosol as if its a independent variable in a experiment],' IF they were not dispersing the aerosols to begin with, SO does this mean pushing the aerosols already there into the clouds or pushing the aerosols they put into the clouds?). At an aircraft speed of 100 ms-1, these legs would span 90 km. 15-minute horizontal legs through liquid clouds (whenever something is sprayed it is at first usually in liquid form, or could it mean rain clouds?) will be performed to characterize the size distribution in liquid and mixed-phase clouds. 15-minute horizontal legs through ice clouds will be performed to characterize the crystal size distribution in ice and mixed-phase clouds. It should be possible to fly all of these flight patterns in a 3-hour flight, depending on the number of cloud layers. Thus, 45 hours (that is a lot of flight time) of flights will permit 15 flights, and 30 hours of flights will permit 10 flights. Although icing is always a concern in the Arctic, our experience during M-PACE (referring to similar previous experiments as mentioned in the first parts of the report) suggests probes could sustain operation for at least 40-50 minutes at an average liquid water of 0.1 g m-3; analysis of SHEBA data for April suggests lower LWCs and smaller droplets than those encountered during M-PACE, so that de-icing will probably not be necessary for horizontal legs through liquid clouds for less than 15 minutes. Actual flight profiles will be subject to aircraft and air traffic control (that means the FAA and other departments would know about this program). 1.5 Expected Results. This refers to the next paragraph in section 1.5 on pages 14-15 (so you know where to look).

So basically, as you can see there is a lot of uncertainty and I have studied the meanings so it could either mean one thing or another respectively. Also, since they word the operation in vague terms, you would have assume they are just going to take readings and nothing more. So that is why I am not here to prove anything in this sample, since I am here to see if anyone can explain this program so that the average people will not get confused over it, as you can see some parts are open to interpretation, or not (please be courteous). So I really commend you for reading this. Any informed comment on this subject matter is appreciated. Thank you.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this going? Without RS none of this can be used in the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I firstly like to thank you for not removing my comment for no reason and having the resolve to read it through. If you read the report, it says in April 2008 the program was conducted from the Arctic to Alaska and back and forth, also you might find other terms like radiative heating and aerosol size distribution. Now we can discuss those later, but this is reliable source since it is sponsored by many agencies, departments, universities, and research firms. Also, in some of the footnotes of the paper it mentions also measuring the biological and chemical properties of the aerosol, now it would have been better to measure for or call it CFC's (which stands for chlorofluorocarbon that causes ozone depletion and it exists because of natural and non-natural aerosols), so I am not sure why they just call aerosols. However if you go on the first page of the paper 1, it say's the title, and its sponsors or authors, creators of the patent for it, and those who were involved with the experiment (it is a lot so I am not going to list them all here, though the title is Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC)). Also, I want to get approval from other users, since this document may turn out to be nothing, something harmless, and not worth inclusion in this article, so it is just to be sure (I just found 30 links that when I have time after your response, I will put here). Some are directly tied to Chemtrails too, but need more scrutiny. Regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well for inclusion into the article, a Reliable sources will have to have commented on it - can you provide a link to any that do so? We couldn't add it based on our analysis of the document. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the first few pages of the document. They are measuring the particle concentration in Artic's air, and they want to study how this aerosol affects cloud formation and other meteorological stuff. They are not spreading aerosol, they are only measuring the pre-existing aerosols.
For example: "Aerosols have a strong seasonal cycle at the NSA (North Slope of Alaska)." Seasons determine how much aerosol there is in the air.
Or also: "Previous studies of arctic aerosol have shown that (a) submicron mass concentrations exceeding 2 μg m-3 are often found in stratified layers at altitudes up to 9 km (Barrie 1986) throughout the Arctic during winter and early spring; (b) this aerosol is predominately anthropogenic and transported from Europe and Asia (Shaw 1982, 1988; Norman et al. 1999);". They are measuring the aerosol that is caused by man in Europe and Asia and transported by nature to Alaska. Hint: smoke stacks of factory cause aerosol, so do car exhausts, big movements of land during road work, pollen of plants, etc.
This document is not about "chemtrails", and the researchers don't claim anywhere to cause any "chemtrail", and they don't cause anything that could fit its description. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrail Conspiracy "Theory"

Is this really a "theory", or is it a hypothesis? I'd say "theory" might be a misnomer.

Wfunction (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, the term "conspiracy theory" is HARDLY a neutral point of view. Some quotations:
"The purpose of the term 'Conspiracy Theory' is to discourage institutional analysis." -Noam Chomsky
Author Floyd Rudmin writes: “Conspiracy theory” is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory,” evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory” means, in effect, “We don’t like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.”
In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as “heresy,” “witchery,” and “communism” also worked like this. The charge of “conspiracy theory” is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. “Conspiracy theory” implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.
All such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Members of the community who are sympathetic to new thoughts might shy away from the new thoughts and join in the shunning due to fear of being tainted by the pejorative label. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A 'conspiracy theory' is a theory which attempts to explain an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. It doesn't have to be a, technically speaking, Scientific theory. In fact they are almost never scientific at all. And in this case the belief in chemtrails (as opposed to contrails) fits the definition of 'conspiracy theory' to a tee.Mystylplx (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is of the lowest quality with regard to bias. "there is no scientific evidence to support their existence" but of course no actual scientific assessment of the alleged phenomena at all, only assertions by the us air force "fact sheet" that it's normal for contrails to last all day. None of the other citations link directly to arguments against, or even for the existence of chemtrails. No reference to the guy whose evidence is soil samples with unexplained elevated aluminum and barium levels, which is surely the best evidence. The worst part of the article is this: >Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents: "If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, 'Well, you're just part of the conspiracy'," he said.[2]

This simply has to go! This is just saying "we found an expert in the field who thinks these conspiracy theorists are idiots" but without saying exactly why he thinks they are idiots, and what fault is found with their logic. If Patrick Minnis has not refuted any claims specifically then his comment has no place in this article nor does the introduction with the "logic is not exactly a real selling point" slur. Asserting over and over that chemtrails are simply contrails doesn't qualify as an argument any more than alleging that long contrails are chemtrails without physical evidence. Obtaining physical would involve flying behind one of these aircraft and taking samples of the suspect white streak. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of scientific assessment of the phenomena of contrails included in the article. But you're right--there's no scientific assessment of chemtrails since there's no scientific evidence they even exist. Soil samples are perhaps an example of the worst possible sort of "evidence" since soil can be contaminated in many ways and the vast majority of those ways are near the ground. The very idea that soil samples can provide evidence that perfectly normal contrails must be infused with sooper secret chemicals is a perfect example of the thinking that leads this to be called a conspiracy theory. It's yet another example of how Patrick Minnis was right on the money.
Though I agree that obtaining an air sample from one of these trails is the only way to scientifically determine whether there's anything in them other than what would be expected. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, no one has done that. But until and unless that happens, and then assuming they find something untoward, the article is written correctly. Mystylplx (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there an episod of X-Files with govt types spraying from planes? I don't recall if it was specifically about chemtrails though. Maybe not. Weavehole (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)weavehole[reply]

Name change needed?

Please take a look at this article, and especially to the picture. It seems we are talking about the same thing - the UN is addressing geoengineering, which includes cloud-seeding using a spray that comes from airplanes, yet Wikipedia calls the idea of "chemtrails" a conspiracy theory (aka: BS?). - "U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects"[2]. There are 'conspiracy theories' about why airplanes are spraying something that turns into clouds, but the fact that it is happening is no theory. What am I missing here? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Patent 5,003,186 issued to Hughes Aircraft: [3] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RS saying that the UN is talking about chemtrails? This may be interesting for the geoengineering article, though. 92.76.137.170 (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is more about the conspiracy theory which thinks that any and all persisting and spreading contrails must have chemicals in them placed by the government for nefarious purposes. This is distinct from cloud seeding or other geo-engineering experiments that do not result in anything that looks like contrails. Contrails are merely a result of the water vapor which is a major byproduct of jet exhaust. They have noting to do with cloud seeding or other geo-engineering experiments which are real but don't produce contrails. Mystylplx (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article already clearly states "The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is an abbreviation for condensation trail. It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting." Oberono (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought the term for cloud seeding using a spray from airplanes was called Chemtrails. So what are those trails/clouds called - is there a specific name for them? I meant to go to that page to add an article but ended up here. Thanks in advance 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the closest thing to what you're looking for. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it looks like we do have a problem. Cloud-seeding and crop dusting are vastly different. At the bottom of the page, it has a link to "Chemtrails" - but there is no page for chemtrails, instead it goes here, to the "no such thing as chemtrails" page. I guess what we are syaing is, there is no word for the white lines in the sky that form into clouds, other than geoengineering. But I would argue that there must be a name for this specific form of geoengineering, and further, that many people use the term "Chemtrails" to refer to these.
So, we either need to find out what the name is for those white lines that become clouds, and have a Wiki article for those, OR we need to have a separate page for Chemtrails other than this one referring to the theories about what they are/why they exist. As has been pointed out, the term here on Wiki is being used to refer to the lines that are NOT part of geoengineering. So - how does one tell the difference? What are the other ones called? Is there a Wiki page for them? What do we do to solve this? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "white lines in the sky that form into clouds" are contrails; they are formed by the condensation of water vapor that is produced when jet fuel is combusted. "Chemtrail" will get its own page when any evidence of such a phenomenon existing is presented. Until such time as that occurs, there are two phenomena worth discussing: the scientific phenomenon of condensation trails, and the conspiracy theory regarding chemical trails. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Throwaway85 said. There's no evidence that any such thing as "chemtrails" exist. Apparently, back in the 90's, someone looked up in the sky for the first time in their life, saw perfectly normal contrails, and decided they must have sooper secret chemicals in them. They then managed to convince a bunch of other people, who also had apparently never looked up, to believe their conspiracy theory. Thus we have the Chemtrail conspiracy theory page on Wikipedia which is about said conspiracy theory.Mystylplx (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm a bit older than the both of you. Condensation trails never used to form into clouds, ever. This is a new phenomenon, and it is not caused by simple condensation. Please refer to this article [4] and look at the picture, read the caption below it. It is this that I am referring to - intentionally making clouds by spraying something out of planes (geoengineering). These are the white lines that I am questioning - what are they called, and is there a Wiki page for them already? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they have removed the caption that was originally underneath the picture, but I copied it luckily, for hwat it's worth, this is what it used to say underneath the picture of the airplane: "An agricultural aircraft flies over Prachuab Khirikhan in a bid to seed clouds, about 300 km (186 miles) south of Bangkok, April 4, 2007." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you never looked up. I remember them from the 70's as a kid forming into clouds. I've seen pictures from WWII of them forming into clouds. This is not a new phenomena. BTW, the picture you showed is cloud seeding and there's already an article for that. It does not "make clouds" it causes rain in clouds that already exist. It's been being done since at least the 1950's and looks nothing like contrails. Mystylplx (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your edification, here's a picture of contrails turning into clouds taken in 1944 [5] so the idea this is somehow a new phenomena is obviously incorrect. Mystylplx (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kucinich use of word

Why would Dennis Kucinich mention "chemtrails" in this bill if they do not exist? `Space Preservation Act of 2001'[6] What is he referring to? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely for the same reason that others use the term....they think they exist. We really can't know for sure, unless he also mentions them other places, which might give a clue as to what he believes and why. As for Wikipedia, we follow the RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because Kucinich is not necessarily better informed, just like anyone has his ideological stances, and because of the following: "When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said “I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”" I suggest you read [[7]]. 92.77.137.29 (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. It provides a good explanation (but certainly doesn't increase my confidence in Kucinich as a presidential candidate). Scary! Now can you figure a way to get that information in the article using RS? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, this article is only for conspiracy theories about chemtrails. It doesn't make sense to include this bill under "conspiracy theories" and the fact that we are given no other choice, other than a "cloud-seeding" article, makes me wonder if we're running into a POV issue. We are forced to either play along with "it's all BS, if you see lines forming into clouds, they are just contrails and you've obviously never looked up before" or say nothing at all.174.74.68.103 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what RS say. The moment the real existence of chemtrails is confirmed in RS, this will become an artifact to be mentioned in a section of an article on the real phenomenon, and that will necessarily involve a change of title. Until then this gets treated as a fringe idea like AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Note that our verifiability policy does not concern itself with whether an idea is true or false, only if it's verifiable in RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does RS stand for real science? Or...? (By the way, thanks to you all for your patience with my questions.)174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I imagine it stands for reliable source.174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.....;-) Take care. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrails don't refer to geoengineering? Citation needed

This statement is not sourced yet appears in the intro ~ "It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting". There are 4 references following the larger paragraph, yet none state that "Chemtrails" does not refer to cloud-seeding. In fact, most times people are using this term to refer to geoengineering. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, what's up with those references. Ref #10 has 9 sub-references. How can anyone find anything in there. Aren't there guidelines for this? Seems like they should be split up, and attached to specific sentences, rather than lumping them at the end of a paragraph. Oberono (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sort of looks like someone had an idea of what they wanted to present, and just said whatever fit that idea. If you look at the refs, they seem more to support the phenomenon people refer to as chemtrails and not that it's all a conspiracy. I wonder if someone just swept through the article, leaving refs intact, but changing the context to fit the "no such thing as chemtrails" theme, while no one was looking. I suppose it's a common occurrence on Wiki.174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no WP:RS refs that support chemtrails. Mystylplx (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Which explains the lack of a Chemtrails article on Wikipedia. My point was that the articles used as refs in the intro support (however mildly and and perhaps lacking reliability) the theory of chemtrails rather than the conspiracy - contrary to the context of the intro.174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, imho, this Reuters article is a RS that supports chemtrails.[8] The problem is that the editors most active on this page insist "chemtrails" does not refer to geoengineering. I would urge the editors to provide proof, proper references for this position. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Reuters article does not even mention chemtrails. It seems like some variations of the theory say that the purpose of "chemtrails" is geoengineering. It doe not then follow that articles on geoengineering are evidence of chemtrails. That's just backward. Oberono (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters article mentions chemtrails by the image of the airplane spraying - if that is not called a chemtrail (or that act of spraying one) I implore you to tell me what the IS called so that I can work on the correct article. From what I can tell, the spraying from planes to make clouds, or geoengineering, is referred to as chemtrails in popularized language. Numerous articles used as references on the chemtrail conspiracy page support that. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not mention chemtrails at all, it's you reading it into a picture. The picture unfortunately does not have a description, but we cannot just assume. The chemtrail conspiracy theory is actually several conflicting theories as to the contents and purposes, not just one. (The only part in the text referring to "spraying" is "spraying seawater", which is not what the proponents of the chemtrails CT seem to be talking about.) The article obviously refers to geoengineering and possibly to cloud seeding. And as Oberono said, geoengineering is not evidence of chemtrails as proposed by this CT. 92.77.148.211 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems 174.74.68.103 has given up on this particular approach, but it needs saying: it's up to the editor claiming that chemtrails mean geoengineering to provide sources and it's impossible to prove a negative. What the article does show is people use the term chemtrails for non-geoengineering concepts. Ignoring this would be POV and pushing some editor's pet conspiracy theory. 92.76.136.131 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV in this article

After just a bit of browsing through this article, I have come across some profoundly disturbing trends. 3 of the lead images had their captions changed from "chemtrails" to "contrails" without any references. Is it legal to change the title/subject of an image so completely? In a nutshell, it is obvious there is a point of view than has a hold on this article, but at least play fair. Are there rules in Wikipedia supporting this behavior? Could someone point me to the rules on using/citing images and their subtitles/captions? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were originally labeled "contrails" as that's what they were, and the change to "chemtrails" was considered POV. Oberono (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is probably relevant here. It is important to note that this article is about chemtrails, it isn't supposed to be written from a point of view that supports their existence. Therefore, because the existence of chemtrails is not a scientifically accepted phenomenon, we shouldn't label images of what the majority would consider contrails as chemtrails just because that is what the article is about. We can't label them as chemtrails when there is no real evidence that that is what they show and, as I've said, the vast majority would consider them to be contrails. Adambro (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed them to "trails left by jets", except for verified contrail pics. Oberono (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Chemtrails being conspiracy theory, is it NOT about Chemtrails' existence. There is no article on Wikipedia about Chemtrails. I agree wholeheartedly about using the term "trails" for images, unless the content of the trails can be proven and RS provided. My concern is that we stay as NPOV as possible within the confines of this article which is essentially from the point of view that chemtrails don't exist, and that they are not geoengineering either (which as I have said previously, does not have proper RS).174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several theories about the purpose of "chemtrails". Since they are all put forth by conspiracy theorists and not by RS, wikipedia takes an agnostic stance, not privileging one over others. Wikipedia can thus not conclude that chemtrails are part of a geoengeneering exercise as there are no RS clearly stating that they are. So long as that's not the case, chemtrails remain a seperate concept, put forth by fringe theorists, assuming different purposes. Doing otherwise would be synthesis.92.77.148.211 (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the discussion page does not require the same RS as the articles, I wish for some references for your staement that all theories about chemtrails are put forth by conspiracy theorists. The term is used by most people to refer to geoengineering, so to call those people conspiracy theorists means that you have trouble believing geoengineering exists. This article used to be called "chemtrails" and included the conspiracy theories, but was put forth in a much more NPOV way. The name of the article was changed to CCT without any discussion[9] by a quick look at the discussion archives from this same time period. I am going to suggest it be reverted to fix the POV issue on this page. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Oberono's comment at the bottom of this page, it basically answers this question. I will not comment on the abortion of logic you tossed at me. 92.76.136.131 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources removed

A number of sources have been remove by Oberono. Should they be put back in, or is the current revision superior to that of the older one?Smallman12q (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make sure the sources are directly relevant to the text, and do not constitute WP:OR - there was previously a huge mess of references. I've noted with each removal why I removed it. Oberono (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to make it so that you have one or two sources for each thing that needs a claim. For instance, currently there is " Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for global dimming, population control, weather control, or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[1][2][7][8]", where [7] points to NINE different citations. So there's a sentence with five claims, and then thirteen differente citations at the end of it. I'm going to try to identify which claim comes from which source, and separate them out, preferring WP:RS Oberono (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which I've now done. I really don't think there's any need for such a multitude of references, because nobody is disputing that these claims are being made. Hence, simplifying the references makes for a more accessible article. Oberono (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the references so that the editors can look at them and decide on their relevance collectively. Wikipedia articles' content cannot be decided by a single individual.174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references are in the older version of the article (Particularly 1,4,5, and 10). References are there to verify what the article claims. Multiple references might be needed if there was dispute, but nobody doubts the things referenced, so they only need one reasonably RS link each. Remember this is about describing what the theory claims, and not actually making the claims in the theory. We can say things like "versions of the theory ascribe the trails to covert geoengineering", but not "the trails are a form of geoengineering". The first needs only one reference, and nobody would dispute it. The second might need rather more justification, as it's highly disputed. Oberono (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

This article was changed from "Chemtrails" to "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" without discussion. [10] I believe the title change is a clear POV issue.

From what I can see, the term is used overwhelmingly to refer to the act of cloud-seeding/geoengineering - which is clearly no 'theory'. Indeed, theories exist about everything, especially issues with so little official information available. With the new release of the film "What in the world are they spraying" as well as a few news investigations which all support "chemtrails" = geoengineering, I would argue there is enough evidence that the term is being used to refer to geoengineering, though there are certainly fringe/conspiracy theories that should be included in this article as well.

There is a statement in the intro that says "chemtrails don't refer to cloud-seeding" etc., but that statement has no references to back it up - and to my knowledge is not true. Yet, the whole slant of the article is based on that one unfounded statement.174.74.68.103 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created on March 14th, 2004, and its title was the same when it was created as it is now. Your link just shows the creation of a redirect, not an article. There was no title change. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An old diff or revision does not reveal what the page name was at the time. It was me who provided the page move link [11] from Chemtrail theory to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I responded to a post at Wikipedia:Help desk#How to search name changes. The move can also be seen at [12]. There are no other page moves in the history so the page was created as Chemtrail theory in 2004. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, of course you're right. What it wasn't was created as 'Chemtrails' as the OP claimed. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't listen to the hour and a half video provided by the IP, but it seems made by conspiracy theorists. It's not a reliable source for "cloud seeding people are giving to their spraying the name of chemtrails". To sustain this you would need stuff like technical books of science papers that talk about cloud seeding. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PD: A cursory search of google books "cloud seeding" chemtrails chemtrail suggests that "chemtrail" is not a term used in cloud seeding, and that only conspiracy theorists use it in association with could seeding. Note that google books has about 400 books that mention "cloud seeding" without ever mentioning chemtrails[13] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no WP:RS that say what chemtrails ARE, but there are lots that say what people THINK THEY ARE. They think they are a variety of things, from weather modification, to spreading poison, to something to do with HAARP. In all these there is also the element of conspiracy. You can't change it to the "Geoengineering Conspiracy Theory", as there are multiple things that people think the trails are, and so the article has to list them. "Chemtrails" is a general term for a variety of conspiracy theories about the trails that scientists claim are persistent contrails. Oberono (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&oldid=399488544"