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)

You're after WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. DanHobley (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2013 (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)

HFAARP?

As I see, "frequency" is missing from the abbreviation. Did something go wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.244.14 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose its easier and less comical to speak the acronym HAARP than it is HFAARP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.33.174 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Tone

Statement at issue---

HAARP has been blamed by conspiracy theorists for a range of events, including numerous natural disasters. Various scientists have commented that HAARP is an attractive target for conspiracy theorists because according to computer scientist David Naiditch, "its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed".[3]

David Naiditch simply repeats things from the official HAARP website. The statement also provides an "Ad Hominem" personal attack, implying if you believe HAARP is involved in any conspiratorial activity you must be scientifically uninformed.

Would not the following edit be more appropriate

HAARP has been blamed by conspiracy theorists for a range of events, including numerous natural disasters. Skeptics dispute these claimes. [3]

The term "conspiracy theorists" already has dubious connotations, If Naditch wants to make personal attacks let him, Wikipedia does not have to do it for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.41.249 (talk • contribs)

How does removal of specific, informed criticism make the discussion more neutral? Your proposed statement is confusing: conspiracy enthusiasts who wish to be taken more seriously often like to call themselves "skeptics." Acroterion (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling conspiracy theories "conspiracy theories" isn't a personal attack. Naiditch's comments are in line with the mainstream opinion on the subject (the US News & World Report article actually quotes his remark), echoed by Noah Shachtman and Sharon Weinberger writing in Wired, Austin Baird in the Alaska Dispatch, Liz Flock in US News & World Report, etc. the list goes on and on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" is very much infused with a negative connotation which has had the observable effect of causing some to instinctively recoil from the notion that the ruling elite could operate secretly in a manner that is not int he best interest of the greater good. There is a dangerously high number of people regularly engaged in discussions about issues that impact civilization, who demonstrate the rigid dogmatic viewpoint that ANY belief in the possibility that the masses are vulnerable to clandestine malevolence among the ruling class is "irrational" and associated with "tin foil hats". The term has taken on an Orwellian tone, intended to engage a reflex, a reflex that deploys a barrier between observations and conclusions. Given the nature of what's even stated by HAARP, everyone living should be hyper vigilant about this project, to the extent of having the right to know precisely every detail of why its underway. Given that the military is involved, weaponology is far from an irrational conclusion to draw. Given that the distinction "national security" is an automatic pass to operate in secrecy, it is, again, not irrational to draw the conclusion that there is more to it that what is being said. Mlynn1231 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Might I point out that the article is fairly clear that, while there is financial involvement from the Military, the project is driven through academia and that the results, objectives, etc., are regularly published and openly available. Criticisms of "conspiracy theorists" are valid when they present no actual evidence to support their claims, and the article has an appropriate tone here. HAARP has attracted its share of conspiracy theories, none of which have any actual support. It's like the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theories. Criticism is valid when the "theory" is really nothing beyond wild speculation. Cheers, Bagheera (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with above statements, the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative and doesn't belong in a purportedly neutral article. Given the phrase "conspiracy theorist," the individual theories have been lumped together as if all "conspiracy theorists" believe the same or are on equally shaky ground. Classic, textbook case of guilt by association and hasty generalization applies here and the implication is, "That young lady disagrees with the official story. Conspiracy theorists disagree with the official story. Conspiracy theorists are crazy. Therefore, she must be a KAH-RAAAAY-ZEE conspiracy theorist! And therefore she is wrong and I'm not going to question the official story." I'm not against calling some conspiracy theories on the carpet for what they are, but they should be addressed ad hoc and not lumped together. The relevant paragraph is poorly written, should be scrapped, and should be re-written in a more balanced and documented fashion. User:Mar Komus 15:11 PM GMT -08:00 26 FEB 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

HAARP Director

"John Heckscher" is shown as the HAARP Director. Mr Heckscher retired from government service in 2002 and has not been associated with this program since that time.108.49.46.123 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is like ten years old." - Alex Jones to Piers Morgan, January 7, 2013 RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Open to public or no?

In the last paragraph under Objectives, the article talks about how the HAARP project is open to the public, however, there are no footnotes. Then, the last quote under Conspiracy Theories, the quoted individual states that the facility is not open the public. Can someone address this? ArKonIte (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything to address. 1. According to HAARP, they do have open houses every year, although the last one was in 2010. Also according to Stanford, students regularly tour the facility and undertake experiments using HAARP. (Unless you don't consider students to be 'members of the public') 2. The quote you refer to, "The facility doesn't open its doors in the same way as other(s)..." does not imply it doesn't open its doors at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also note that many academic research facilities have limited public access for various perfectly benign reasons, from security, to safety, to preserving a specific research environment. Even if they facility wasn't open to the general public, it would be neither unusual or explicit evidence in support of a conspiracy theory. Bagheera (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Findings:

What are some of the expected, or unexpected findings from the Aray?Rickb59068 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Where can I read about the research that is conducted at the HAARP Facility? Research conducted at the HAARP Observatory is generally published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as the Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, and Radio Science. Since the first research campaign at HAARP in 1999, hundreds of scholarly papers have been published in these and other scientific journals or presented at scientific conferences. While the best place to search for results of HAARP research is at a university library, some of these journals provide an on-line search engine for their own publications. For example, to search for HAARP research published in one of the journals of the American Geophysical Union, go to their on-line search site: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/agu/search/easi/results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickb59068 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

HAARP shutdown?

This edit seems to be a cut and paste from here, usually a reliable source. Hmm. Since the story was posted today, it'll likely be confirmed or not by news media within the next few days, at which time we can note the facility's status in the article.- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I just added the closure date to the article but then removed it, came here and did some more checking. I definitely think we need to wait for some more confirmation. Yes, the HAARP web site is down but I can't find any information about Dr. Keeney (or his association with HAARP)- with the exception of this paper written by a Dr. James Keeney for the military. It has a bio at the end. And other than the ARRL source I can't find anyone else reporting on this except those sites basing their reports on ARRL .Coinmanj (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeney exists [2]. Probably will take a week or so for the story to hit the mainstream news outlets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would caution against using any sources from theweatherspace.com, it's part of a wider network of websites (operated by Kevin Martin) which deal in conspiracy theories and have a documented history of falsifying radar information as part of their "HAARP Status" program. Haarpstatus.com used to be a stand alone website, now it redirects to theweatherspace.com, here is some more info on what I've warned against. Coinmanj (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. It looks like he runs a chemtrail reporting service as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize I am anonymous (also first time ever doing this so forgive me if I screw up), but I have observed this person on a web forum or two, and all I can say is there is a VERY serious credibility issue. Being polite I won't get into details only to say I know for a fact one web forum he is banned on even bans mention of his name. And this being a website open to 'alternative ideas'. I recommend removal of this dubious claim. I suspect this edit was made by KM himself and the reference to his own website is an attempt for credibility. I understand this is only my word and opinion and may itself not be considered credible.--68.109.94.117 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Alexis and his "ELF Weapon"

There is a question of whether or not Aaron Alexis's claims belongs under ==Conspiracy theories== In the Research section it mentions "ELF (Extremely Low Frequencies)" communications are sent by HAARP.

In September 2013, Aaron Alexis, Washington Naval Yard shooter carved "My ELF Weapon" into his shotgun. Washington Post reported "ELF" stands for extremely low frequency and is a band range HAARP sends. Previous to the shooting he claimed, “an ultra low frequency attack is what I’ve been subject to for the last three months, and to be perfectly honest, that is what has driven me to this.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by User 1010101010110 (talk • contribs)

As I've noted on your talkpage, HAARP is nowhere mentioned in any of this. Please read WP:SYNTH, because you are making a synthesis by linking Alexis and HAARP. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@User 1010101010110/User 111111110101: a lot of people make the mistake of assuming they can "help out Wikipedia" by pointing out how two things are connected because it seems reasonable or logical. However as you may now be aware, the encyclopedia's editorial policies require we have a reliable source for pretty much anything that goes into it. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Put another way, if someone committed a crime and claimed they were being manipulated through regular radio or TV waves, it wouldn't be appropriate to place a mention of that event into an article for a local radio or TV station. HAARP is primarily associated with HF, which interacts with the ionosphere. It also uses UHF, VHF, VLF and ELF, but they are peripheral activities. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tessla Why is there no mention of Tessla in the article considering he was the first to invent and design the theory in the 1930s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.144.201 (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is a case of [citation needed]? What theory, specifically, did Tesla design that's part of the HAARP array? Bagheera (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations in lead

An IP insists on tagging the lead for "citations needed" [3] but has apparently neglected to read the Naiditch and Popular Science articles cited which clearly support statements in the lead. I don't understand the IPs request for "links for quick follow through". Maybe someone else can. I'll not be reverting any further. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Moby Dick.

Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.

Who's Sharon Weinberger? Scientist? Geophysicist? Any expert in the subject?

Or just a journalist?

If she's just a journalist, why does her opinion deserve any coverage? Dornicke (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you disputing the appropriateness of using that particular quote from the Wired article, or are you saying Sharon Weinberger is not a reliable source of opinion about the popularity of conspiracy theories regarding HAARP? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I have no idea why does the opinion of a journalist that is absolutely irrelevant outside US borders has more weight in the article than, for example, criticism made by the European Union. Dornicke (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You might have a point IF Weinberger was alone in the opinion that HAARP attracts conspiracy theories. But that is not the case. A number of reliable and mainstream sources cited say essentially the same thing, and so are relevant and given due weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A journalist who is absolutely unknown for most of the planet deserves more coverage than the European Union? This is due weight for you? Ok... Dornicke (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some specific proposal? e.g. change the section to "this wording", per this source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

HAARP shutdown, Air Force quote

A recent quote by a deputy assistant secretary for the Air Force has caused the fringe blogosphere to fill with misinformed news of an "admission that HAARP can control the weather" [4]. Sorry to say there is a huge difference between controlling small bits of the ionosphere and controlling the weather, as a recent Alaska Dispatch news story makes clear:

Responding to questions from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski during a Senate hearing Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, said this is “not an area that we have any need for in the future” and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do," he said. "To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.” Comments of that sort have given rise to endless conspiracy theories, portraying HAARP as a super weapon capable of mind control or weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Scientists say all of that is nonsense, and that the degree of ionosphere control possible through HAARP is akin to controlling the Pacific Ocean by tossing a rock into it.

All this is to say that edits like this one are not appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadfeild

LuckyLouie, is it the type of media that Peter Hadfield used that concerns you and revert my edit? If it were typed down on his blog you would accept it, but when it is in a video format uploaded to Youtube you do not? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, we include material in proportion to the amount of coverage something has gotten in reliable sources. In other words, anyone could put out a Youtube video or post something on their blog, but as a self published source, it's not considered notable enough for Wikipedia to report it, unless some reliable secondary source (like a news outlet, an academic study, etc) does also. Do you have secondary reliable sources, such as a news outlet, that have taken notice of Peter Hadfield's "revelation"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadfield published the video years after the video. Due to the fact it is not an actuality I don't think any large media outlet considered it interesting for its readers. But that does not have to mean it is al of a sudden not Encyclopedic, is it? Will see if I can add it in a different way with other sources. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If by adding it in a different way, you mean citing it to reliable secondary sources, that's great. Otherwise you run counter to WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Wikipedia policies can seem counter-intuitive to newcomers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Counter productive too at times.Ernstblumberg (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)