Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

redo paragraph

I have put back the paragraph that gives some explanation to show that water can increase cirrus cloud cover. This references a PUBLISHED work and is therefore acceptable as a citation. The research magazine Nature in which the work was published is one of highly respected scientific journals in the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.126.42 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2008

Yes, Nature's a good source. But the article you cited does not discuss chemtrails. We can't use that article as a source for the chemtrails conspiracy article because it violates WP:SYNTH. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Prof marginalia, that is the way Wikiedia,m as an encyclopedia, works. Also note that this should have gone at the bottom of the page, ie chronological order. dougweller (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"the article you cited does not discuss chemtrails" - true, but it does show that just plain water vapour can look just like a so-called chemtrail. Your logic is poor actually because, for example, the article doesn't discuss UFOs either so by your logic, it can't be used in a page titled "Do UFOs fill our sky with clouds" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.126.42 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I promise you would not be allowed to use this article at wikipedia in an article titled "Do UFOs fill our sky with clouds" either. It's not our logic that's the problem. The practice would not be allowed per firm and long-standing core policies adopted at wikipedia.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

propose deleting most external links

I think we really need just one external link here: contrailscience.com, which to my knowledge is by far the best site on the internet about contrails and the chemtrail conspiracy theory. I think all of the pro-conspiracy sites should be removed, because we should not link to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." And most of the "debunking" sites are either not that great or are largely redundant with contrailscience.com. Contrailscience.com also has plenty of great photos. --Allen (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The contrail science link may be good for the contrail page. This is for educating people about chemtrails, which you may or may not believe. People can look at these links, and make up their mind. The fact is, the link you provide, has "inaccurate material or unverifiable research," in the first image on the page. It says it was taken sometime before '67, but we don't know that, and there's no way to verify that.

I see trails like the one this page talks about, most every day. I see them in most every modern move, and I see them in National Geographic magazine. But, I've never seen them in National Geographic, or any RS, before 1977, though the height of flight was in the '60's.

So, the site you want to add looks like an activist debunking site. On second thought, I don't think it's good for the contrail page, and it's not appropriate here.

Please do not remove the current links without going through each one, and giving a reason for removing each one. —Slipgrid (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, right below the photo it says, "The photo is plate 113 of the book Cloud Studies in Colour, by Richard Scorer and Harry Wexler, published in 1967 by Pergamon Press." I haven't verified it myself, but it's eminently verifiable. --Allen (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a 44 page book. It also says, "this does not usually happen except when the temperature is close to or below -40C," which I would agree with. That's a contrail. -40°C is equal to -40°F. Today it was 85°F or 30°C in Cincinnati, and we had the same thing. And, they were not going over normal flight paths. From my office, I watch the planes fly around in circles wasting fuel, and putting out these trails. It's global dimming. PBS has a documentary on it. You should check out the first twenty minutes of it on Google Video. I think it's called Dimming out the Sun. They tell you it's happening, but they don't tell you how. But, all you have to do is look up at the sky to see how.

Anyway, you are wanting to post a debunking blog here, and remove all the links that are relevant to the topic. I say no.

Also, I might use the quote, "this does not usually happen except when the temperature is close to or below -40C," here. I don't even think it gets that cold in Alaska anymore. That's why they have to dim the sun. The trails are everywhere. Anyway, got to love the science. —Slipgrid (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's plate 113, not page 113.
• The relevant temperature is the temperature where the plane is, not where we are.
• You say I want to remove all links relevant to the topic. Are you implying that only pro-chemtrail sites are relevant to the topic?
• Here's one to start with... chemtrailcentral has this page on silver orbs, which to me looks like unverifiable research. --Allen (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand it's plate 113. The planes I see that are six miles high, I can hardly see, and they put out no noticeable trail. The planes I see putting out trails are low flying. Low enough to take a picture with a poor quality camera. I think all of the links seem relevant. There should be a variety. And, the list should maybe be shortened. But, it should be done one at a time. Or, remove a debunking link, and add yours.

Also, external links don't have to be verifiable research. They are not used as references. If you want to debunk, then maybe you should leave the crazier ones. The articles about a conspiracy theory. I didn't choose that name. And, you can look at the history and see how the article was moved. But, since it's about CT, CT links should be used in EL. Maybe not as references, beyond to show that CT exist. But, they are fine in the external links. —Slipgrid (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I thought when you noted the book was 44 pages you were trying to question whether the photo really came from it. And I agree that the crazier CT links do help the no-chemtrails case, but my goal, like yours, is an NPOV article. You say external links don't have to be verifiable research, but then what about the guideline I cited above, that we should not link to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" unless it's the official page of the article's subject? --Allen (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Contrailscience.com is already in the ELs; it's been there since before I first saw this article. I'm not proposing adding links, just removing them. --Allen (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be confusing about the pages. At first, I thought it said page whatever, and I was going to write about it, then I double checked, and I realized I was not correct, and just left the first sentence, because my mind was already going in a different direction.

But, right on. That site is showing images or orbs. I don't think it's factually inaccurate, or shopped images. I don't know what it is. I wouldn't say it's unverifiable research, or even research. It's just pictures of odd things that we can't explain. I don't think they are trying to be misleading. I don't think the images are Photoshopped. They suggest that it could be taking "measurements of the Chemtrail activity." Maybe they are weather balloons. Maybe they are taking measurements of the contrails, and not the chemtrails. Anyway, I don't think it violates the EL. I believe it adds to the article.

Their site, and their POV, might be, and likely is relevant to the article. I like to see more information on Wikipedia, when many editors (not talking about you) like to remove stuff. Lots of stuff I think should stay. The thing that worries me is the statement that, "we really need just one external link." And, that one link, is an activist debunking site. So, we could go through them one by one, and try to clean it up, but we have to remove from each list, or it would turn into POV. But, in general, I'm for more information, more links, more of everything. We won't run short of database space. People really crave more information. I can't go through them tonight, but I'll look at them in the morning. Make some suggestions. I'm not against it. It's just the statement that we only need one link that worries me.

Anyway, it's late here. I'll deep read the article, and go through those links, and maybe we can find agreement, and improve the article. Be bold! —Slipgrid (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1) I personally don't believe in the chemtrail theories.

2) I think we have an obligation to be neutral, and point readers to the best external sources on both sides of the question. We don't need to protect readers against this material, any more than we need to remove the many external links from the Hollow Earth article. The chemtrail article itself lays out the skeptical argument quite clearly. If, after reading it, readers wish to read websites presenting the chemtrail theories, they are welcome to. As long as the external links aren't spammy and lead to obviously commercial promotion, they should stay. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

William Thomas

There have been some back-and-forth edits as to whether to identify William Thomas an "investigative journalist" vs "conspiracy theorist." I suggest we just call him by his name. His website is linked and readers are free to judge his credentials for themselves. At the moment, Wikipedia has no article on William Thomas, and, at the moment, those who wish to call him an "investigative journalist" haven't provided any references to sources that identify him that way.

Who, exactly, calls him an "investigative journalist?"

His own website shows that he refers to himself as an investigative journalist, so I'd have no objection to identifying him as a "self-described investigative journalist." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few quick points:

• Wikipedia is not RS, so the existence or lack of an article is irrelevant.
• Investigative journalist defines a trade, and it appears that he's worked that way for forty years. That is, he doesn't have another day job. He used investigate subjects, write articles, and publish them in papers. Now he investigates, and reports his findings in books. If the article was calling him a plumber, there might be a problem. But, calling him an investigative reporter, simply describes what he does. It doesn't imply that he works for the Times, or he's a good report, it just describes his job.
• The term conspiracy theorist is a projective term, with a negative connotation, and people are trying to use it on this living person, without any source.
• He has a very common name, so finding information on him is hard. Though, anyone can research him if they want.

The point seems, that his job, his sole form of income, the only thing he does, is investigate, and report on his investigations. If you have information that suggest otherwise, please post. Until then, I must revert your change to a long standing words in this article. Cheers! — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipgrid (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, whether he has an article on Wikipedia is quite relevant, because it provides the simplest way out: Link to his article, which ideally contains a reliably sourced information on him, and anyone who cares can click on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm changing it to "who describes himself as an investigative journalist." There's no doubt that he does describe himself that way, whereas I think there's some doubt as to whether or not he would fit the average person's notion of what the term means.

It strikes me as very odd that his own bio calls himself an "award-winning" journalist without mentioning which award he's won, and says that his "have appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries" without actually mentioning which publications. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's weasel words. It's saying, he calls himself an investigative journalist, snark-snark, then implying he's really a plumber. Again, he investigates things. He writes books on his investigations. The term doesn't imply anything more. —Slipgrid (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some awards:

• 1989 Western Canada Magazine Feature Awards
• 1990 Canadian Weekly Periodicals "Best Feature" award
• 1997 BC and Yukon Community Newspaper Award
• 1998 BC Outdoors Award.
• "Eco War" won the 1991 US Environmental Film Festival Award for "Best Documentary Short". Segments have aired extensively on Canada's CBC, as well as appearing on CNN and NBC television.

He was published worldwide for the Environmental News Service when reporting on the first Gulf War. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, then, describing him as "William Thomas, whose article on X won award Y," or "William Thomas, whose stories on the first Gulf War were published by the Environmental News Service." Were any of the awards for chemtrail-related articles as, if they were, those would obviously be the ones to cite. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

P. S. There's no need to discuss what various Wikipedia editors think the phrase "investigative journalist" means. If you provide a reasonable source other than Thomas himself that describes him as an "investigative journalist," I'd be happy to accept it. For example, does the Environmental News Service describe him that way? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the Environmental News Service is, how it's regarded, or what sort of editorial supervision it exercises. There seem to be a lot of similarly-named news services. I assume this is not the Environment News Service at www.ens-newswire.com nor the Environmental News Network at www.enn.com. Does the Environmental News Service have a website, and are Thomas' articles for it available online? The Boston Public Library has online access to articles from the Environmental News Network, but only from 1999 on, and, apparently, not the Environmental News Service... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see some links to http://www.ens.lycos.com/, the "Lycos Environmental News Service." Is that it? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Nope, that link just takes me directly the main Lycos pages... from which searches on "environmental news" lead me back to Environment News Service and Environmental News Network... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He worked for Environment News Service. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lycos used to carry the ENS, the way Google carries AP stories. Here's a link to Thomas' story on sky samples. —Slipgrid (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full article, if you are interested. —Slipgrid (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC: how should William Thomas be identified?

Self-styled Investigative Journalist might be a reasonable term that might be agreed on. However I would suggest just his name if there is no agreement on a description. This is clearly NPOV.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For the time period the article references, he is working as an investigative journalist. That means he is an investigative journalist. —Slipgrid (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If he is an investigative journalist, it should not be difficult to find a source, independent of William Thomas, who refers to him as an investigative journalist, using that phrase. If someone would do that it would completely answer all my objections. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Why is William Thomas' opinion on this matter of interest to this article in the first place? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of [this article, where he became the first investigative journalist for a reliable news organization to address the subject. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got a source that indicates that he was the first? Because that article doesn't directly address the issue of whether he's the first of not. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unless a better source is found demonstrating his notability with respect to the topic, he shouldn't be mentioned at all. I know the article has gone thru lots of changes recently but the only independent source I see is CSICOP's kind of blog style "debriefing" following the author's visit to what was described as a convention of woo and hearing Thomas speak there. The reference with Thomas's authorship looks very dubious to be a RS. Claims aren't well sourced in the article yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You must've overlooked the primary source of him writing as an investigative journalist for a rs on the topic. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the RS in this picture? Verbal chat 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the source that looks dubious to me. Why would a highly regarded investigative journalist take a scoop like this to Art Bell? And in reading the article...investigative journalists seldom write this way; almost no source is named, not the witnesses, not the home owners, even the labs and lab scientists are almost totally unindentified. There are even grammatical errors in the text and an overly verbose narrative quite uncharacteristic of news journalists. How hard is to be published at ENS? William Thomas has self-published his chemtrails book it appears.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Discovery Channel's program on chemtrails interviewed William Thomas as a spokesman supporting the chemtrail thesis, and he is cited in the book "Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies for Dummies" by Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon. However there he's described as a "conspiracy theorist". Professor marginalia (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I think we have the following situation. William Thomas describes himself as an investigative journalist. I've tried to locate other "investigations" that this guy did and have come up empty. It looks like his one and only piece of investigatory journalism is his piece on chemtrails. That's hardly a credential. What's more every other secondary, independent source describes him as a spokesperson/advocate for the Chemtrail conspiracy theory or, blatantly, a conspiracy theorist. I think we can come to a consensus that since he hasn't been successful in convincing indpendent, secondary sources that he is an investigative journalist, he should be called something else. What exactly he should be called is something I leave to others to decide. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

William Thomas has written other work, but all of it in the "conspiracy genre". I found no cites outside DIY venues like blogs, personal webpages and youtube, and his book publisher is equally obscure, not listed with "Writers Market" for example, using an unlisted business phone.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like he is not an investigative journalist in the sense that most people mean (a full time journalist paid to investigate and published in multiple notable sources.) So he should not be called such without a qualifying adjective. If "conspiracy theorist" is citable, call him that, or use no job description.Yobmod (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article is bad (sourcing, etc)

The sources in this article are atrocious. They are all to websites maintained by people who are so far from reliable sources that the entire article's content is called into question. I have tagged the article with my major concerns, but suffice to say, this someone needs to go through and see what ideas have actually been discussed by secondary sources. Reading through WP:FRINGE might not be a bad idea. I'm posting a notice on WP:FTN and WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I have removed some of the links which were not RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder. "Facts about opinions" are valid, please remember. Links to the website(s) of the Flat Earth Society are not reliable sources for geodesy, but they are very good, reliable sources for the existence, opinions, and arguments put forth by believers in a flat earth. The job of this article is neither to support or debug the chemtrail theory. It is to serve as an accurate source of information about the chemtrail theory, including both the viewpoints of debunkers and supporters. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. The entire article cannot rely only on primary sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article's riddled with gaps and rs problems including that of sources offered which don't substantiate the claims associated to them. The "responses" sections are non sequiturs since they don't "respond" to any claims made in the article, and fall into the same trap seen often in articles at wikipedia in topics targeted by skeptics--to put a point on it, the article belabors over a debunky laundry list of minutiae with exhausting point by point rebuttals at the expense of providing a cogent encyclopedic description of topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Headings in article

Someone added the following to the article:

• "The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since August 2008."
• "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (August 2008)" However, I don't see these claims on the talk page. Where's the claim for "improper references to self-published sources?" Make a claim, or not. Adding the tags apparently without reason does not improve anything. I'm going to remove the ones that were added without a claim on the talk page. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See the section immediately prior to this one. I've added "(sources)" to the heading to help. Verbal chat 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the sources part, and those were removed, so the tag can be removed. The other two tags I mentioned can also be removed. Perhaps some of the self-published sources should be added back, to help notability, per the linked policy. If a US Rep. brings legislation on the issue, and the military responds to the issue, it's notable. It also says, "neutrality and factual accuracy is disputed," which goes without saying on most any topic, but here it's because the topic is about CT, or there's something a RS doesn't agree with. If it's a RS problem, it should be stated and fixed. If it's a CT problem, the tag should be removed, because this is an article about the CT, not promoting the CT. —Slipgrid (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are still problems with sourcing, so the tag shouldn't be removed. Verbal chat 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't put the tags on the article, but glancing at it for a moment, I'd say the article has definite problems with notability. It's clearly a fringe theory.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked hard for references: there are some, unfortunately not many and the length devoted and detail given in the article needs to stick with what's described in rs. This is a good example of a situation where a well written Fringe guideline would clarify. The chief "spokespersons" for this theory that I've found are pushing the theory in self published venues and pop infotainment styled entertainment venues rather than journalistic ones (ie Art Bell, Rense, youtube, self-publishing or very fringy publishers, and Unsolved Mysteries). The article here needs a firmer hand, and should not be lengthy or dwell over the detailed tits and tats traded only on "amateur hour" websites. So far the best sources I've found are the USA today, the "For Dummies" book and the government fact sheets. Help finding other solid sources on this are essential to justify including any one of the many odd fringe sources, whether as references for claims or external links. I'm open to more feedback on this, but somebody needs to be bold, do what needs to be done and jettison as much as half the content that's been dumped in there.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

At least one person has a problem with my reverts to the article. My rationale is that there are two sides to this theory: those who are rational and those who aren't (kidding!!!). In all seriousness, though, it's a theory. It is a prominent one which deserves an article on Wikipedia. In order to do this, the article must have a neutral point of view. IMHO, that means the theory itself and protractors of such a theory should hold some prominence in the article, but that means the detractors must also be given a significant voice (since this theory is based on little more than speculation). The paragraphs I restored provide context for the detractors' objections and they are highlighted in the lead and must be expanded upon within the body of the article. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One more note: The source of chemtrails (according to this article and many others) is the US Air Force. There is no reason not to include a specific response from them and a couple of paragraphs isn't unreasonable. As for other skeptics' opinions on the matter, their opinions are relevant because they poke serious holes in the theory for which no reasonable answer has been provided. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Can you identify any suitably referenced skeptical claim that hasn't been addressed? Case in point, the ONE USAF document is addressed 4 times in an article that's only 7 paragraphs long. It was a little ridiculous to dwell in another two sections on a "point-by-point" rebuttal to claims that in this article the chemtrail proponents' side isn't given any representation at all, and using self-published and dead linked sources to do so. The one area that needs to be included now is something about the health claims, from both the believers and the responses to the believers. I don't think you've read the article because it's a difficult case to make that article is imbalanced toward the believers, or that the air force and other expert opinions aren't given "air time" (pardon the pun).Professor marginalia (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New look at external linking

The EL section is tagged and littered with sites that wouldn't pass muster without strong justification. So let's justify what to keep, what to toss and what to add. Here's my take:

• Danger In The Sky - The Chemtrail Phenomenon on YouTube : Why is this here? It's a link to a self-published, anonymously authored youtube video. I think it should go
• William Thomas - Investigative journalist who first reported on Chemtrails : Self-published but at least his notability in relation to the topic has been established in reliable sources. He's probably one of the best representatives from the chemtrail believers. I give it a reluctant "keep"
• Holmestead chemtrails index — Large archive of articles relating to local chemical spraying in Canada : Why is this here? It's a link to a self-published potpouri, all of dozen pages that I looked at were either self-published commentary or gave the appearance of being full text articles lifted from other copyrighted webpages, largely rense.com. I say it should go
• Researcher: Contrails may cause problems : I say keep it
• Unsolved Mysteries (the TV show), 1994 Unless this video was released by its owners, I'd say get rid of it as pirated. If it's been uploaded by its owners/producers, that isn't evident to me
• hans-egebo.dk — anti-chemtrail opinion : Who is this? Self-published webpages aren't okay at wikipedia, even those by skeptics should be held to the same criteria. I say it goes.
• New Mexicans for Science and Reason — a chemtrail debunking page: A real organization, I say keep
• Iangoddard.net — contrail analysis: Self published, I say it goes
• lacarte.org — collection of chemtrail debunking sources : Here's the author's identification. At wikipedia we have numerous policies and guidelines against this kind of sourcing and linking. It should go.
• Chemtrails — article on Skeptics' Dictionary. : keep
• Contrails- or 'Trails-con?' — A comprehensive look at what the author considers "A hoax;" Includes a timeline :Another personal webpage. I say Get rid of it.

--Professor marginalia (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep for "Researcher: Contrails may cause problems" and sceptics dic. Delete for others per wp:el. Verbal chat 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting skeptics dictionary. The skeptics dictionary is as bad as the conspiracy theorist sites. These so called skeptics are actually activist debunkers. Then, the title here deals with a conspiracy theory, but you link to someone who rejects conspiracy theories. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding the unsolved mysteries back. It was uploaded by its owner and producer. It is clear an evident. —Slipgrid (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the link to Skeptic's Dictionary which is a significant enough website/book for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive article about it. The link also helps to balance the link to the tv docutainment. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

This article needs a FAQ section.

These seem to be the most common questions people ask:

1) Why have the contrails suddenly changed in my region -from regularly seeing rapidly disappearing contrails to suddenly seeing daily contrails that do not? 2) Why can I sometimes see, at the same time, a plane leaving a persistant pluming contrail and another that leaves a regular dissipating contrail? 3) Why don't these contrails behave like the ones I am used to? Why do they persist for hours slowly pluming out sideways? 4) Why are these peristant, pluming contrails appearing in areas where there is normally no aircraft traffic? 88.14.55.108 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia (and all other encyclopaedia's) aren't suitable locations for FAQs. To answer your questions though: 1, This is to do with weather, height of the aeroplanes, wind direction, etc. Basically the answer is nothing has changed. 2, Different heights, different directions, different aircraft design (flaps, wings, engines). 3, See 1. 4, Because there is occasional aircraft traffic, by your question, and you're probably getting confused with clouds. Basically, "chem"trails don't exist in the pervasive way you obviously think. Verbal chat 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Conspiracy in Chemtrail conspiracy theory

The article is called "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" and the term "conspiracy theory" is used for several reasons. In no particular order: Firstly, it is a conspiracy theory by definition. Secondly, it is the common name given to this topic and hence the one that should be used here. Thirdly, there are many good reliable sources that call it such... So please restore the term. Thanks. Verbal chat 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The term conspiracy theory is non-neutral, projective, and adds nothing but undue skepticism. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. Doug Weller (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, "the page you have reached is unavailable for viewing." Again, the term conspiracy theory is non-neutral, projective, and adds nothing but undue skepticism. BTW, why would you use an activist to dispel activism? Is there a non neutral source available? Slipgrid (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The link works. Doug Weller (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The link works but the content isn't there. AirRape (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with first paragraph

Spending the first sentence to define another topic is weasel and does not do justice for people wanting to know information on this topic. Slipgrid (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Problem

Is there a source for the skepticism in this article that is not the US government or an activist? If not, this article will be moved back to its original location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail

Slipgrid (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you won't accept any. There are two encyclopedias of conspiracy theory that include chemtrails. There's this [2] from Scientific American, that should do. Doug Weller (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a head shrink writing on why people think the way they do. The articles cited here have eye witness accounts. Thomas Grüter may or may not be an activist, but he's using psychology to come to a conclusion without evidence. I don't have the full text of that article available, so I'm not able to make a fair judgment on if it really provides anything of substance, but it seems to be a fluff piece promoting skepticism. And skepticism is fine, so long as the skepticism wanes in face of evidence. There's a scientific process that can be used to test the evidence. This article you link doesn't seem to be a test of theories, but judging theories based on other theories, with no evidence. But, I haven't read the full article, because it's not available, so it could really go both ways. As of now, it provides and changes nothing. —Slipgrid (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Slipgrid is 3RR

I have reverted to the encyclopedic lead version of this article for the following reason.

• Point one. The intro says "The Chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails, which consist of ice crystals or water vapor condensed behind aircraft, actually result from chemicals or biological agents being deliberately sprayed at high altitude for a purpose undisclosed to the general public". <ref name="usatoday"/>
• Point two. The "usatoday" reference linked to that lead says "A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge. The theory: 'The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails', are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace"".

Now, that is pretty clear. The intro faithfully reports what the reference says the chemtrail conspiracy theory actually is. It is obvious User:Slipgrid does not like this fact, but that's how it is. If he reverts again, can someone please take this to RfC or somewhere else. I am not breaking 3RR. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert three times. You revered me without discussion while I was making changes. I reported you. I pointed out the factual inaccuracies in this article, and you made no attempt to work with me to fix them. Now I'm going to continue with my work. Please help in a productive way.

The subject of this article should define this article, not some other topic.

Factual inaccuracies that you keep placing into this article must be removed. Slipgrid (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Realize contrails can be either ice crystals or water droplets (condensed water vapor). Therefore the reference is fine and backs up the intro. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

A few points:

1

The following sentence is factually incorrect:

In 2000, this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet refuting the rumors and explaining the science of contrail formation.

Read the source. Three agencies released "fact" sheets on contrails, but they did not do it jointly. I use scare quotes, because the government is not a neutral party. The government has a POV and agenda, as they should. Only one agency 'tried to dispute the rumors. The source uses the word tried, and it specifically says only one agency tried. The agencies did not act jointly as this sentence suggest.

There are many ways to fix this, but it should be fixed.

2

The use of scare quotes should be removed.

3

The first paragraph should define the theory, not what skeptics, activist debunkers, or the government believe it is.

The first paragraph should not be used to define contrails. That's a different article.

4

The following should be cited:

Federal agencies and scientists have consistently denied these claims, insisting the sky tracks are simple contrails.

5 Non-neutral and projective terms, which add nothing but undue skepticism should be removed from the article. One example is the term believers used in every other paragraph. -slipgrid (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

6

The skeptical tone of this article comes from only government and activist sources. That should be noted.

• • Source one, the USA today story, gets its skepticism from US government agencies releases.
  • Source two, the "Weather Queries are answered by NOAA meteorologist THOMAS SCHLATTER," provides no research. Just academic discussion on how contrails are formed. Provides nothing to support skepticism.
  • Source three is the US Airforce, which is a non-neutral party, with a rightful POV.
  • Source four is a military report, dated 1996, on the possibility of weather modification.
  • Source five, from the Beacon Journal provides skepticism from one professor who did no research on the subject, and the US government, which is a non-neutral party, with a rightful POV.
  • Source six is a For Dummies book, which seems to be written by an activist debunker and professional skeptic.
  • Sources seven and eight are government documents which seem to support the existence of chemtrails.
  • Source nine seems to be a fluff piece by someone who believes and researches the chemtrail theory, but it doesn't give any evidence from his research.
  • Ten is another government fact sheet.
  • And the last source uses researches, government documents, and conspiracy websites, but it does not have the POV tone this article has.

So, the tone of this article should change from it's POV, because their is no non-neutral and reliable source for this skepticism.

slipgrid (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any undue scepticism. Verbal chat

I don't see any non-neutral sources for the skepticism in this article. I listed all the sources, and they are all government fact sheets or speculation. But, if that's all you have to say, I'm putting up a POV tag and a request for comment. slipgrid (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you defining neutral as "believes chemtrails exist and are a conspiracy"? Where are the neutral pro-Chemtrail sources? Verbal chat 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but your are proposing a false dilemma. You need to find a way to let visitors know that the skepticism in this article is from government sources, activist debunkers, or unresearched speculation. Without doing that, you are giving undue weight, and that undermines whatever the authors of this article are trying to do. slipgrid (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So the government and scientists are not neutral in this? While the conspiracy theorists and activists are neutral and their opinion, though fringe should be given prominence? I think you need to reread WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Verbal chat 15:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The government is only a RS for what the government says. The government is RS for saying that they said, "our fact sheet shows you are wacko." But, the government is not RS for the wacko language being added to the article.

Again, you are promoting that false dilemma. If you want POV language in the article, then you need RS for it. You can't say, because we have a preponderance government press releases, or because the government is the only source, their POV is correct, and we should use their tone. It's the government and activist language that's already in the article. Find a RS for it, or remove it. slipgrid (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But I contend that you are the one promoting a fringe point of view, and trying to move the article away from being neutral into a pro-chemtrail conspiracy article. That is against wikipedia policy. The government, USA today, etc are RS. Verbal chat 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm only promoting neutrality. Undue POV is already in the article. I'm not trying to add undue POV. I'm trying to remove it, and make it neutral. I outlined six things that can be done to remove undue POV from the article. If you contend those things are fringe because they don't promote the language of a government or activist sources, then I'm overwhelmed by the irony.

Please, lets work together to remove fringe POV picked-up from governments, activist debunkers, and armchair speculator sources. slipgrid (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean you want to remove the mainstream POV of governments, scientists and sceptics? You're getting fringe and mainstream confused. I will stick to wikipedia policies instead. Verbal chat 16:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Slipgrid seems to be saying that the only reliable sources are those that he agrees with. It clearly would not be NPOV without the sources he wants removed. dougweller (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying, I am unable to logically judge a source because my beliefs get in the way, but your superior intellect clearly allows you to judge them? There's a fundamental error.

If you want to talk reasonably about the weight of a source, I am open to that. But emotional attacks go nowhere with me.

Fact is, I've said over and over, the sources are fine. They are just being given undue weight. Right now, we have a government published fact sheet, which is being used as fact, as if the government isn't an interested party. That is undue weight. It's a fine source to say the government did something, but it is not fine to say the government is correct.

Please read this discussion. People agree that the government is no a reliable source for anything more than what the government does, and should not be given undue weight. slipgrid (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You've shown quite well that the article is currently neutral. I'll be removing the NPOV tag unless you give specific violations of WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re the 6 points above, they are either too general for me to see the problems, or not supported by policy. Please give specific examples of policy violations. Thanks. Verbal chat 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1 The following sentence is factually incorrect:

"In 2000, this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet refuting the rumors and explaining the science of contrail formation."

Make it factual to remove POV. It's that simple. I stated why it is factually incorrect. Every example there is very specific. slipgrid (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is barely a violation of NPOV. In fact I'd say it isn't. Anyway, a simple edit to the page fixed it (you can edit the page too!) Any others? Verbal chat 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was reverted every time I tried to make changes. I'll write out the others in a bit. Starting to get busy with other stuff. slipgrid (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If Slipgrid disputes the neutrality then the neutrality is disputed, end of story. The disputed tag therefore goes back on.

The introduction does need a source exactly where I and Slipgrid placed it. If you have a source please cite it, if you don't then the text has to come out. That's the way Wiki works.209.20.66.205 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how tags work, nor how wikipedia works. I'm attempting to address any concerns, but I feel Slipgrid is incorrect in some of his interpretations of policy and you are incorrect in your statement above. Verbal chat 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, of course Wiki doesn't require us to provide sources. Of course not [3] 209.20.66.205 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, your change still hasn't changed the factual inaccuracies. Once we get done with that, we can get to the use of scare quotes. Until then, the dispute is not resolved, or really even addressed. slipgrid (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the article: "this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet discussing the rumours." Forget that rumors is misspelled, and read the fact sheet (PDF) or the USA Today article. The fact sheet doesn't discuss the rumors! It does not mention chemtrails! It disputes nothing. Only one agency did dispute the rumors. That's the Air Force. slipgrid (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see a source added where previously there was none, but a more accurate way of describing what the source says would be to say "point to a variety of factors as evidence" or say nothing about evidence at all. You certainly can't get "but no evidence of this has been presented" from that source. Indeed the bulk of that source is devoted to a list of the various things proponents cite as evidence. Here it is:

Chemtrail watchers point to alarming (to them) evidence: white plumes that linger in the sky longer than normal contrails and spread farther; healthy bystanders suddenly experiencing inexplicable headaches, asthma, dizziness, and fatigue; sightings of numerous Air Force jets and tankers where air traffic controllers report only a few; water tests revealing high levels of aluminum; oily rainbows near contrails; and that all-purpose anti-evidence evidence, denials by the government and many scientists. Perhaps the most alarming and damning find is a 1996 Air Force research paper called, "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025." In the future, apparently, technological, political, and military circumstances will have reached the point where the U.S. could use weather as a weapon.

209.20.66.205 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Response to listed points:

Point 1 - Objection is wrong. The cite says the four agencies "joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation". "Rumors" is not an ill chosen word to characterize what the source itself wrote, ie "conspiracy nonsense", "nothing", "speculating" etc. Point 2 is also a miss-no scare quotes appear. Point 3 misses the mark-the intro does describe what the theory claims and the theory does hold that they're concerned about streams being more than ordinary contrails. Point 4 - fine. I'll add the inline cite when I'm finished here. Point 5 - believer is suitable. It's a term used more often by sources than it is in this article, and was settled on after comment on the talk page. Point 6 - this article must reflect the sources. Editors are not muckrakers - we just compile information from reliable published sources.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

break

Any other perceived problems? Verbal chat 22:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues three to six above are real problems. I don't have to copy and paste them to get them addressed. slipgrid (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please bring them, prefereably one at a time, with specificity and justifications here or in a new section. Point 3-6 are not problems at all, see the policies in the discussion above, and problems 1 and 2 have been dealt with. Verbal chat 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed the correct spelling 'rumours' to the correct spelling 'rumors'. And to be in every other paragraph, 'believers' would have to be repeated at least 5 times, it's only in the article twice. dougweller (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn my superiour English spelling. It's automatic when writing prose, I try not to if it's an American article - apologies. (note intentional mistake) Verbal chat

Points three through six were not discussed once. No need to copy them down here. If someone wants to resolve the disputes, they can read them right below the POV Discussion section. slipgrid (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to an RfC. I'm removing the tag. This is disruptive stonewalling. Verbal chat 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Slipgrid was asked above to discuss his problems 'with specificity and justifications'. He didn't. dougweller (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"but no evidence of this has been presented.<ref>[http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2002/04/23/umbra-chemtrails/index.html A page that lists some of the claims made]</ref> " The source here is dubious. Doesn't support the claim, as far as I saw, and makes one false claim, that the jet engine exhaust is cooling the air. So anyway, something needs to be done there. I do not see evidence that it is, as Verbal said on the FTN, "written from the POV that it's a conspiracy theory," as that's not really a POV- a conspiracy theory could be true, it's just what it says it is. But claims of "no evidence" need much better sourcing. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Chemtrails only exist in theory, explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Preservation_Act#Text_of_2005_Bill

The text officially uses the term CHEMTRAILS. So what are chemtrails? Looks like this article has to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.39.219 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This document is discussed in the article already.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Orgone

Why is the internal link to Orgone on Wikipedia being removed? What justification is there for this? I had a message stating I had vandalised the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutellatoast (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell us why you think it is relevant, per WP:SEEALSO? Thanks, Verbal chat 23:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"internal links to related Wikipedia articles...relevant links...Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons...useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutellatoast (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we know what see also means, the question was how is Orgone relevant? dougweller (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe orgone can be used to neutralise the 'chemtrails'. This may be of interest to others, whether they believe in chemtrails or not. AirRape (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ORGONITE

Orgonite chembusters can be used to remove chemtrails. ORGONITE.INFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutellatoast (talk • contribs) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

please read WP:RS and WP:OR for an explanation as to why your addition has been removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientists say / Most scientists believe

Such rhetoric is against wikipedia regulations, even if your source may use similar wording and weasel words. See: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples

Furthermore, it is very easy to counter this argument, as one could easily do a search and find many scientists who are aware of this phenomena and don't "repeatedly reject" it, as this article claims.--WWDU (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You've not read the guideline closely. As it says, "If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." The first condition is satisfied. What we can't do here is second guess what sources should have said, or rely completely on our own analysis to dispute the source. I think we need here to allow other reliable sources dispute the claim. Editors can't justifiably redact claims substituting their own judgment over the sources.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse Professor marginalia's view, and agree that the wording he reverted to is correct. Verbal chat 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We have one newspaper in a city called Ankon (spell?) stating that scientists reject Chemtrails, then we have other reliable sources such as RTL Television who state that scientist believe otherwise.English transcript

Sources contradict each other. So there goes the words scientists repeatedly deny--WWDU (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A supposedly ripped clip supposedly broadcast on RTL TV (no longer available) supposedly translated in a re...dacted transcript filled with spelling errors, posted by some nobody named CowboyBebop2012 on a website emphasizing topics such as "Planet Nibiru and its influence on our world" is a RS? Tell us you're just joking. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside ridiculous cites like the one above, the claim is "scientist repeatedly deny" which is sourced and faithful to the source. The statement doesn't say and doesn't imply that there won't be a single quote/unquote "scientist", someplace, somewhere, that doesn't deny chemtrails. You may be able to find a quote/unquote "federal agency" that hasn't denied them either.(Dept of Labor, US Treasury, et al) If we were to hesitate making factual statements in on the basis that a reader or editor might form a false conclusion in their own mind when reading it, nothing would ever get written down here. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought for a second that you are actually looking for the original article on RTL, so I was going to post the archived article from archive.org, however this new comment does not make any sense at all and shows you are not interested in that, but rather want to advance your own feelings regarding this issue. Sorry, will be reverted.--WWDU (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, my comment was confusing, in several ways. My point was that even though your cite was not a RS, the claim in it does not disagree with the statement given in the WP article. It identifies 1 meteorologist who believes in chemtrails, but even if it were a RS (which it's not) it would not invalidate the claim that "chemtrails have been repeatedly denied by scientists". "Absolutely all" scientists is not implied: it's an unrealistic standard in any case. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Width of jet airways as a factor

The article might point out that high altitude IFR jet routes are 10 nm (nautical miles) wide, so two successive aircraft flying in the same direction are still within the bounds of this "highway in the sky" if they stay within 5 nm of the centerline. Near intersections of such routes, the contrails left by aircraft could, indeed, have a gridlike appearance when viewed from the ground, even though their vertical separation may be many thousands of feet. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but this information is readily available in any aviation training syllabus, available from your local pilot supply shop at the airport. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Aviation training manuals from my local pilot supply shop at the airport? I do not believe such a place exists, please cite an online aviation training manual which has the data you provided. Nutellatoast (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly in error - where do you think pilots buy supplies from? Verbal chat 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Aliens, of course. Pilot supply shops are part of the conspiracy! Oh sure, you can see them when you're in an airport, but if you walk in, you'll find that the man behind the counter is really a cardboard cutout! All the books on the shelf have blank pages! It was the MEN IN BLACK!!!

What I'm saying is that when somebody makes a comment like Nutellatoast's of 9 January, there's really no need to even bother replying :) <eleland/talkedits> 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing Chemtrails from Contrails

Many people have been editing the article to say that chemtrails are a 'form' of contrail, and that there is no proof to say otherwise. I understand that the two terms are similar, but by definition, they are very different. Even if there is absolutely no such thing as a 'chemtrail' (a trail consisting of chemicals delivered for a undisclosed purpose), chemtrails should not be labeled a type of contrail. They refer to fundamentally different things. One refers to a natural occurrence of water vapor, and the other refers to the deliberate release of chemicals by another method (probably by something similar to what crop dusters use). Again, regardless of if chemtrails actually exist or not, this is a fundamental point that should NOT be mistaken.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.52.22 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific example of an editor defending the point of chemtrails being contrails is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&oldid=253261328 20:48, 21 November 2008 BQZip01 (Talk | contribs) (11,495 bytes) (there is no evidence that there is anything but contrails; what the sentence says is that "some ppl think contrails, which are <defn>, are actually a sinister plot....") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.52.22 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it for you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Title

As the term chemtrails is officially listed in the Space Preservation Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Preservation_Act#Text_of_2005_Bill , the title should reflect this by removing the term "conspiracy theory". It is no longer a conspiracy theory, it is an official term which demands an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirRape (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There never was such an act, there was a bill that never made it out of committee. It isn't an 'official term', whatever that might mean. And can't you have 'official terms' for conspiracy theories? dougweller (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think one congressman introducing a term into a Bill at an early stage makes it "official"? LeContexte (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Just because a Congressman shares a delusion (but without being insane...;-) with many others doesn't make it so. If his Space Preservation Act had passed and included the original wording, we'd have a different situation -- many Congressmen showing their ignorance -- something that happens surprisingly often when it comes to science and health matters. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We've seen moronic congressmen submit bills that portray intelligent design creationism as science, that doesn't make it science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Awful contradiction fixed

I have fixed a glaring contradiction. The first sentence starts with "The Chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails are.....". The second par began with "The term chemtrail does not refer to contrails.....". (forgot sig) Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Title is Incorrect

I would fix it myself, but from what I gather that kind of change by a regular editor would be considered overstepping my bounds? Therefore I am informing whoever may be responsible for this article that the title is incorrect. They are actually referred to as chemtrails, never as chemtrail conspiracy theories. Neurolanis (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the conspiracy theory. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Neurolanis, when I search for the singular and plural forms of the word "chemtrail", I find both usages. What makes you so certain this spelling is incorrect? Please provide your reasoning. If you can convince us, it should be easy to change the title. I have no preference either way. (I am assuming your "theories" was a typo. If so, please correct it.) -- Fyslee (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he means spelling, but means the article heading should be Chemtrail (or Chemtrails) and not Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Professor marginalia's comment is on the money, but Neurolanis does raise a point - we don't have an article about Chemtrail/s and we don't adequately define it/them in this article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this is sort of a neutrality issue. The title of the article was originally Chemtrail. I wasn't paying much attention when it was moved to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. A quick glance at the Talk page history doesn't turn up any obvious place where the move was discussed. As always, I should point out that I'm personally a chemtrail skeptic.

The obvious choices for a title are Chemtrail, Chemtrail theory, or Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I don't have any strong opinion on which of these titles is best, and I think any of them are acceptable.

• On the whole, though, I personally think Chemtrail is the most neutral choice. It is also the shortest and simplest. Presumably the people who object to it feel that using it as the title of an article implies the reality of the phenomenon. But I don't see it that way. We have articles on Unicorns, perpetual motion, and Atlantis, with no need for qualifications in the title.

• The title Chemtrail theory is open to the objection that it is not a scientific theory, but I don't see a problem there. Phlogiston theory is not a scientific theory either, and the dictionary definition of "theory" is clearly broad enough to include unscientific theories:

“ A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ”

The title Chemtrail theory also, I think, has the virtue of compromise: it's somewhere in between what chemtrail skeptics and chemtrail believers would like. It clearly signals that the existence of chemtrails is not proven, while avoiding the unpleasant word "conspiracy."

• The title Chemtrail conspiracy theory is open to the objection that although it is accurate, it is not truly neutral. The reason is that this I don't believe this is a term that chemtrail advocates use, or would ever use, themselves. Another problem is that it sounds pejorative to me. However, it is literally true. Since no entity acknowledges producing chemtrails, anyone who asserts they exist is asserting that there is a conspiracy. Still, it is literally true that a steak is a detached segment of muscle tissue from the corpse of a castrated bull, yet I would oppose moving Steak to Detached segment of muscle tissue from the corpse of a castrated bull. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And it would be reverted, because it would be inaccurate (says he who had venison steaks for dinner). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the conspiracy theory, but 'theory' is a problem for me, as it is a hypothesis, not a theory. dougweller (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. -Atmoz (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the definition of "theory" in the American Heritage dictionary or your favorite dictionary. "Theory" is a broad word with a wide range of meanings. You have chosen to limit it to mean "scientific theory." But we have articles on Phlogiston theory, Domino theory, Music theory, etc. none of which are scientific theories. I don't think the appearance of the word "theory" in an article title would lead readers to assume that Wikipedia is certifying it as a scientific theory. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the references in reliable sources to Chemtrails is in the context of a conspiracy theory - that is certainly the case in the USA Today piece cited in the article. Chemtrails of themselves have little/no coverage in reliable sources at all - it is the conspiracy theory not the chemtrails which are notable. Articles should generally be named in accordance with the approach taken in the majority of reliable sources. So we can continue calling steak "steak", we don't need to consider whether phlogiston theory is strictly a theory, and we don't have to rename the article on fish "sea kittens". LeContexte (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is what is commonly called a "conspiracy theory". The intro could say it is a hypothesis, but I think this title is fine. Claiming that the title isn't neutral doesn't wash. Verbal chat 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The title is fine. If any change, then use "hypothesis". -- Fyslee (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No change. Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, not conspiracy hypotheses. Has the term "chemtrail conspiracy hypothesis" ever been used by a source? Stop coddling our readers -- this is an encyclopedia, not the Wikiministration for the Advancement of Scientific Correctness. And people who believe there are chemtrails allege there is a conspiracy to keep the information away from the public. It's their own theory(ies) of conspiracy, and there's no getting around it that what they're putting forth is a "theory about a conspiracy", or "conspiracy theory". Professor marginalia (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct. Let's move on and consider this matter settled, at least for now. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absorption Spectrum

It should be quite easy to prove or falsify the chemtrail theory by performing absorption spectroscopy on an alleged chemtrail. Has no chemtrail proponent even tried this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

please don't let science get in the way of conspiracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.138.222 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemtrials featured in the news and caught live by camera

Here are some good looking videos I found on Youtube (I know, Youtube as a source[in some movie articles for the trailers Youtube is considered as a reliable source]? Are you kidding me Amerana). If anyone could please take the time to review these videos, they show some important developments, I was thinking of having a criticism and support section for this article, because currently its mixed up. So here is some video evidence, I myself am sckeptical about this subject. But when I heard about it, I found this article on Wikipedia, so now here are the links. Some of them mix up chem with con, and are corny and long at times. But they are the best I could find. WARNING; there are a lot of videos in the category that are fictional, therefore I advice the viewer to only check these out these videos for the moment, and later watch others ones as they wish. Thank you.--Amerana (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links, 1.*[4], 2.*[5], 3.*[6], 4.*[7], 5.*[8], 6.*[9], 7.*[10], 8.*[11], 9.*[12], 10.*[13], 11.*[14], 12.*[15].

people mix them up because chemtrials are contrails. All the original sources of chemtrails go back to people who didnt even know what contrials are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.138.222 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry unsigned user, but I'm afraid this is not the case. Now here is a overview what some of the information that is contained in the videos. In some of the videos featured here, it shows a recording of a contrial compared with a chemtrial, and the main difference is that contrials dissapear relatively quickly (even when accidently mixed with other substances, the lines go away in 1 to 2 minutes). But the chemtrial stays there, it expands, and even some have vortex and whirly formations for hours that can be seen from space, it is usually performed over homes in the morning, this is based on my own experiment in observing them for half a month, and that is what the planes do. In the other videos the weather man details that this is a military operation that they drop in fumes from commercial looking planes, plastic like type strips to prevent storms and global warming, while others say that it speeds up global warming and has been known to become gew and cause various illnesses and toxic death (with one video showing a list of declassified government tests on American citisizens since the 40's, which was still legal until 15 years ago, and might still be). It has been talked about on the news 3 times, and evidence from the fallen powder have been tested positive with three times the toxic level for Barium (plus other substances have been found in the samples). However, proving the source of the substances is a different matter (it will take real time recording of gew falling from a plane into a jar, and then taking the jar for lab analysis). So I suggest to review the somewhat corny videos carefully, and then you could wisely respond to my message here. You do not need to worry, I am mostly neutral on the subject, but have investigated this phenomena heavily. Anyway, thank you for your first response, and I look forward to your next one. Goodbye for now.--Amerana (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion, see WP:FORUM. None of these meet WP:RS, and there are no such things as "chemtrails". Further off topic (improving the page, with reliable sources) will be removed. Thanks Verbal chat 11:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1) Why do people who believe in this nonsense not wear masks? I mean if I believed the guvment was poisoning me with gas I'd be wearing a freaking gas mask. 2) What keeps the evil doers from getting sick or their own families from getting poisoned? 3) the number of people involved in this conspiracy must be in the tens of millions. How do they keep them quiet?

And yes the title is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

So are the books listed in the "Further Reading" category written by delusional lunatics promoting nonsense? The title of the books does not make it clear. I think we should indicate if they are written by wingnuts or rational people. Naturally using neutral terms of course.