Talk:High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

In popular culture

Since virtually *everything* appears in popular culture, I wonder if this article needs a specific in popular culture section. There is probably a policy on it? --193.64.14.2 (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

European Parliament hearings and report

The European Parliament held hearings about Haaro and issued a report with various final conclusions (see sense 4 for word meaning and Haarp page history for details.)

A few months back, i created a separate section about this, which was then entirely deleted (instead of edited) by users saying they were convinced this belonged to the "conspiracy theory" section.

Realizing this today, i resinstated the text, and reference, and integrated it into the "conspiracy theory" section, which i renamed accordingly to have both notions (official report by a legislature *and* conspiracy theory) in the same section.

Then Acroterion deleted all i had reinserted (instead of editing it) and reverted to the orignal section title.

When i questioned this new deletion on his talk page, Acroterion invoked, among other things, a contrary argument (if i gathered well): legislatures reports do not belong in a section with "conspiracy theories" in its title.

Acroterion then suggested we took the discussion to the present talk page.

1. I agree with Acroterion that a separate section for legislatures reports and hearings about Haarp should be (re-)created. Acroterion, would you create it? Coming from an administrator, it might be better perceived. 2. Acroterion seems to imply the quoted passage should be shorter than what i quoted (two paragraphs). I do not agree on this point and suggest Acroterion to edit it himself. 3. And finally, i think admins, robots or watever, should monitor the final result of this discussion (which i am sure will be found in good faith) to prevent it from being deleted (instead of edited) again and again, with a loss of sourced info on the page as an end result. (BTW Also, Acroterion, do you agree that even if there is only one source on this, the source being the European Parliament's report on the E.P.'s own website (primary source), this is sufficient to consider the info "sourced"?) --Henri Hudson (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (not accustomed to talk pages but learning)

The subject is mentioned in the article with weight appropriate to the minor coverage given it by reliable sources. Agree that interpretations using a primary source (such as the actual committee docs) isn't a good solution. Do you have other sources we might have missed that meet WP:RS? Also it would be helpful if you could put the text you wish to add to the article here on the Talk page for evaluation and wider comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is "my" original insert from 2011. Note the report does not conclude for or against a theory or interpretation, but instead expresses concerns and demands explanations to the US government (hence my original section title). You were looking for info on physicsworld.com, which is probably very good for science (i am no specialist) but, considering its categories, which i assume has much less info on geopolitics/international military issues such as the reactions of 1999 Europe about a program funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (even though the one article is very interesting, thanks).

My personal opinion that there is no reason why the following primary, noncontroversial per se info should not be published (shortened or not) without two secondary sources comments. The next Wikipedian interested in this precise subject and with access to archives of 1999/2000 geopolitical newspapers or magazines might dig it further -- but repeatedly deleting the reference to the full report's url is counterproductive compared to WP's objective, in my opinion.

The text: "In 1999, a report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy of the European Parliament considered HAARP "by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern" and called "for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing".

It also regretted "the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska" and requested "the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally".

It also called "in particular for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems"."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

As I noted, I'm concerned about undue weight, and accuracy in section headings. One could argue that the MP is a conspiracy enthusiast, but that argument should be advanced, as Louie notes above, from secondary sources rather than a primary source. Secondary sources in reputable publications would place the material in better context with respect to fringe theories. My chief problem was that it was awkwardly inserted and gave more prominence to a fringe theory (MP or not) than was warranted. It's up to you to provide a proposed wording and appropriate secondary sources.

Please bear in mind that this article is a target for all sorts of vandalism and for people with interesting ideas. Your contributions are taken in good faith. I'm open to an expansion of the existing note on the EU and Alaska inquiries (I hadn't seen them at first, hence my positive comment on inclusion, as they are certainly worthy of mention), but it should be brief and well-sourced (they're not sourced at all at present). Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the above exerpt, or the whole report, you will see that the report's conclusions mainly express concerns at the lack of info from the US and at their unwillingness to clarify and testify there are no risks for the environment or the population.

Also note the report was signed by one European MP but was produced by a whole hearings committe comprised of other MPs.

About sourcing, as you can see, the report is from 1999, which explains why it is hard to find comments about it online in reputable newspapers dealing with military issues (most reputable European English-speaking newspapers' archives from that time are not accessible for free.)

I understand why you are wary of contributions on this page (and want accuracy in section headings), but instead of plainly deleting "mine" (not "mine", actually, as it was a pure embedding of quotations without personal comments or opinions), why haven't you just created a new section and shortened "my" text, or contacted me to ask me to do so if you didn't have time? Is there some WP rule unknown of me that prevented you from asking me this? (I am not versed in the administrative aspects of WP.)

And to go on with editing: I don't get it, are you for or against including more info about the European Parliament in the "conspiracy theory" section, and if you are for it, according to you, should it be with or without a section's title change (and if with, which)? (To me, this report from the political entity of a main world economic power is a reputable fact in itself, that should be quoted in WP but in separate section -- the fact it may have fueled conspiracy theories in the general public does not change the fact it is an important event in international relations).

(BTW, i tried to find info about the Alaska Haarp hearings on the Alaska legislature website but to no avail. Being only a sometimes user of WP, i would appreciate if you could tip me on how to find the WP history of the Alaska hearings info.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

My concern is that if "this report from the political entity of a main world economic power...is an important event in international relations", then substantial 3rd party opinion, discussion and analysis of it should not be difficult to find in major English-speaking news services, world reports, news magazines, and books and publications by academics and sociopolitical scholars. However that is not the case. Mention of it appears to be relegated to conspiracy websites like Prison Planet and David Icke. I can only guess that it was considered trivial or not worthy of comment by mainstream reliable sources of the time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An "important event in international relations"? This doesn't seem to indicate that "The secretary general of NATO said that the organisation had neither a policy on this topic, nor an expert they could send to the committee."[1] Anyhow, do you have a link to the soruce in question so that we can read it?AerobicFox (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Also of note, there's no trouble finding secondary sources in the form of international press coverage of the activities and opinions of this particular MP (Maj Britt Theorin) going back to 1987. But nothing mentioning her concerns about HAARP. I'm sure someone else can articulate our WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT policies better, but in a nutshell, Wikipedia can only mirror the degree of attention that a topic has been given by reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)