Jump to content

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 119: Line 119:
== Should there be a section of historical examples? ==
== Should there be a section of historical examples? ==


Although there is no evidence for ongoing chemtrail programs, there is conclusive evidence that the US government sprayed bioweapons on its own citizens in the past, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC
Although there is no evidence for ongoing chemtrail programs, there is conclusive evidence that the US government tested aerosol spraying mechanisms on its own citizens in the past, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112


Would it be fair to add a section discussing this fact, with appropriate clarification that this does not imply the validity of current chemtrail conspiracy theories?
Would it be fair to add a section discussing this fact, with appropriate clarification that this does not imply the validity of current chemtrail conspiracy theories?

Revision as of 20:26, 12 June 2021

Evidence to the contrary

None other than John Brennan, previous DCI, speaking to the Council on Foreign relations:


"A method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help to reflect the sun's heat in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do."

ProudPrimate (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link is rejected by the page, but in in-linked form, it is "youtu" (dot) be (slash) "ZShau-I7SmC" 

ProudPrimate (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like chemtrails, do you have a WP:RS that says it is? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what a WP:RS is and I'll answer you, exclusionist. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - Wikipedia reliable source? You don't consider the former head of the CIA a reliable source when he's telling on what the deep state is doing? Are you joking? Because current Secretary of State brags about his time as DCI "we lied, we cheated, we stole". If you're joking, I agree with you. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS for the information you desire. Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the video. It's clearly that. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how do I post the link so without error? ProudPrimate (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again – It won't lest me post the link "unknown error". I suspect it's truth suppression. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It won't provide me an edit pencil to correct my stupid auto-correct ProudPrimate (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are talking about [1], the topic seems to be Climate engineering. Again, if you want this WP-article to say that John Brennan talked about chemtrails, you need a WP:RS that says that John Brennan talked about chemtrails. But the internet is vast, there are other places you can write that without suppression of your truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that I did in fact make a considerable error, in the early hours. I owe you an apology. It should have been obvious to me that the video was an overlay of other material over his speech. Not a part of his presentation. I should have watched the whole thing first, then I would have realized that.

Please accept my apologies, all involved. I thought I was more awake than that when I wrote it.

Again, so sorry. ProudPrimate (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate making a fool of myself, but I have done so today. ProudPrimate (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your courtesy is much appreciated. For the record, I still believe those metal particulates are used. But I belatedly acknowledge that his testimony does not provide evidence of that. ProudPrimate (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft FAQ

I've started working on a FAQ.

Please feel free to contribute. Guy (help!) 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks decent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But! Suggest an amendment by adding two words (which I have shown in bold). Q: Why is Wikipedia suppressing the truth? A: It isn't. Wikipedia reflects empirical fact as documented ... Moriori (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about a section for those who come with photos or videos of the sky claiming that that it's chemtrails - OR and all that. Getting vandalism on the Contrail for that sort of thing. 2001:8003:38C0:900:711A:9710:5E23:EF2D (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cabal approved, —PaleoNeonate – 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link(s)

Reference 8 from Skeptical Inquirer leads to a 404 page. Could someone replace it with this working link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateMD (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Peaceray (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I can put this one to bed

I have been reading the archives. On page 9, some mod or something said WP:GEVAL is the reason why the "erroneous beliefs" part is okay. That's not true at all. GEVAL states that two ideas cannot be presented as equal. However, calling this theory "erroneous" does not do that. Refutations to the conspiracy theory can be made in the appropriate sections of the wikipedia article. Otherwise, I am of the opinion that it's a NPOV violation. And just to add, I personally don't believe this theory, all I am stating is that it was a rather odd page to stumble across. Reading wiki is a hobby of mine and, relatively speaking, the lack of neutral POV on this page is a very noticeable abnormality. I propose deleting that word, and then as a community deciding on if there are any other similar errors in the article. Present the information objectively. Say "according to soandso, it's an erroneous belief". Everyone is happy. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we cannot present that opinion at all: WP:GEVAL states "validity" and not "presence" with regard to that equality principle. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for response. GEVAL does not permit the community to slap "erroneous" as the first sentence. Who says it's erroneous? When, and why? Let the user read the article and form his own opinion - it is frankly easy to make chemtrails sound erroneous without straight up calling it erroneous, so why do you have a problem with it? 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the "rule" is that if reliable sources say it then it has a place on Wikipedia articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Just strange reading this article after reading so many on articles. It's apparently way different. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why this article is different is because the majority of Wikipedia articles on scientific subjects are exactly that and are based on RS and mainstream scientific opinion as expressed in those RS. This article on the other hand is about a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory subscribed to by the tin foil hat brigade. Perhaps we should change "erroneous beliefs" to "crazy, fruit loop, la la land insanities". - Nick Thorne talk 23:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you guys are trying to make the argument for GEVAL etc. but I'm invoking WP:IAR. Seriously, this article sticks out like a sore thumb. As I said, I do not believe in the chemtrail conspiracy theory so I have no personal agenda here, but I cannot stress enough how... unique... this article is in its bias. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:696C:C5B5:5F6C:A5B8 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. IAR is where ignoring rules would improve the encyclopaedia, not degrade it by pandering to batshit insanity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I am trying to do. Everyone knows about chemtrails before coming to this article. We don't have to treat it as "batshit insanity" as you so kindly say, that stuff is already innate. The reader can understand from the lack of evidence that it is "batshit", we don't have to spell it out for them. It sticks out very much, and I have never come across a Wikipedia article with an attitude such as this one. I'd even go as far to say that Wikipedia articles shouldn't have any attitude at all. Basically, my point is, that it is unnecessary and childish to treat it as batshit insanity because you are assuming the reader both A) can't make that conclusion themselves after reading the article B) we assume the reader is better off not believing this stuff. And, while that may be true, it's not how any other article operates. Even the more controversial articles such as Race and Intelligence aren't treated this way (not trying to say anything about race and intelligence, was just comparing that article to this one) 2601:18E:101:5FC0:64FE:9A64:4472:92E9 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of people believe in chemtrails. We've had a few here. The deluded nature of these people's beliefs is one of the major strands of the topic which interests rational observers. Anyway, it's not going to change unless Wikipedia's policies are fundamentally re-written so this is just a waste of time to push for. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other online forums for fringe theories but Wikipedia "culture" is against these things. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's a common misconception, the fundamentals of Wikipedia only need to be rewritten for you bub. Bottom line we keep a neutral perspective and trust the reader to make an educated assessment based off the information there. That's an encyclopedia. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:E0DB:9591:53F4:EAA4 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope we put up what reliable sources states, and all reliable sources say Chemtrails are nonsense. We do not need to make a balanced article out of an unbalanced topic. This is an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly believe you are all incorrect, but I am clearly outnumbered here. So, I will concede my argument. EDIT: I am the OP of this thread btw. 72.169.80.214 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section of historical examples?

Although there is no evidence for ongoing chemtrail programs, there is conclusive evidence that the US government tested aerosol spraying mechanisms on its own citizens in the past, i.e.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112

Would it be fair to add a section discussing this fact, with appropriate clarification that this does not imply the validity of current chemtrail conspiracy theories?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1028252687"