Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Missing Segment: Whistleblowers

This encyclopedic post does not cover the segment of whistleblowers who have come forward to expose wide-spread spraying activities performed under secret conditions. There are, at a bare minimum, several reputable sources, discoverable via various web searches, of real persons who have worked in governmental positions giving them access and sometimes even oversight of clandestine spraying programs. Considering the world-wide negation of spraying claims made by the public, it would bare much weight to expose these whistleblowers as either heroes or frauds. A true whistleblower is not some questionable hippie waving a sign, rather someone who says I was responsible for monitoring hazardous materials for my organization and informed my superiors of unlawful practices and was informed to stop my investigation or face severe reprimand. In the light of this additional whistleblower information the word “conspiracy” though needed in this article as it has become a ubiquitous term, needs to be clarified as to what a true conspiracy is. Certainly a whistleblower is not propagating a conspiracy, rather he/she is trying to expose one. Worldneedsplastic (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The word “chemtrails” when searched should not be used to redirect to this article as it presupposes a desired end result, i.e. there is no such thing as a chemtrail or is not worthy of a separate posting. It even inhibits another person to start a posting entitled “chemtrails”. If one can be led to believe there is only one true definition of a chemtrail, being that connected to conspiracy, it is truly a convenient solution for the author, but not an in-death discovery in the least.Worldneedsplastic (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok @Worldneedsplastic:. So what specific change to the article are your proposing? Please present it in the form of "please change X to Y" or "please insert X between Y and Z". What reliable source are you citing to back up that change? --McSly (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the conspiracy theory and any related whistleblowers would be described as conspiracy theorists. However, we do have other articles: pesticide, chemical weapon, cloud seeding... —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There aren't any "whistleblowers" in the sense of people presenting actual first-hand evidence. Several people have claimed to be whistleblowers, but they all, when cross-examined, are only repeating the same type of claims you can find on any chemtrail website, so their claims have to be treated with scepticism. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There certainly was a then-clandestine sparing operation conducted by the US goverment in the 1970s, spraying marijuan plantations in Mexico with Paraquat, leading to "paraquat pot" as descirbed further down the article. But this time-limited and scope-limited incident surely doesn't qualify as any kind of "conspiracy" or "proof"of chemtrails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.5.189 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Another mechanism that is not mentioned.

The diagram laballed "exhaust gases and emissions" could possibly do with further explanation. The "trail" behind the C130 taking off, in the left of the picture, is created not by any exhaust gases per se, but something more subtle - an optical effect, caused by heat. Hot exhaust gases have a lower density than air, and hence a lower refractive index. This creates an optical refracting "body". This effect is similar in principle to what is seen when holding up say a wineglass to the blue sky, and noting that some parts of the glass appear brighter, some appear blue, and some appear almost black.

This effect is also seen in the images of the B52s, to the right. However, in this case, it is exacerbated because the engines are fitted with and are using water injection. This is no longer used in the 21st century, because whilst it increases the power of the engines, it also "interferes" with the burning of jet fuel and thus creates very fine particulate smoke. Ironically, the amount of particulate thus produced is far far less than the black trails in the image suggest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.5.189 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a specific suggestion for how to make this clear in the caption, keeping in mind the specific topic of the article? This level of detail may simply be too much for this article, but perhaps a wikilink to Water injection (engine) would be useful. Grayfell (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Exhaust gases" and "smoke" are not the same thing. Regardless of whether the visible streaks behind the C-130's are visible due to refraction or visible due to particulate production and ejection, they are still visible exhaust gases. The caption is Ok as is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Article in the news

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/youtube-wikipedia-links-debunk-conspiracy.html

-- GreenC 03:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See Also: Could we add related historical events?

Since this is about the government spraying chemicals from planes on civilians, could we add related articles in the See Also section, like Project 112 and Operation LAC, in which the government sprayed chemical aerosols on the population, primarily in the 1950s? KRLA18 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But the article is not about the government spraying chemicals from planes on civilians. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In the first paragraph it says "consist of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and deliberately sprayed for purposes undisclosed to the general public". Those articles I've mentioned are about chemicals being sprayed deliberately for purposes undisclosed to the public. We're just talking about related articles, not articles that are exactly the same. Look at the articles linked now and you can see that the article isn't about those articles, either. What is the purpose of the See Also section if not to guide people to related articles? KRLA18 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:SEEALSO, that's not a horrible argument. There's huge room for editorial discretion in "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (like US gov has sprayed stuff on people in secret before)."

I've never heard of these subjects you link to and don't know if the articles are good or not, but they seem to involve spraying stuff on people who weren't told. Did Project 112 involve airplanes at all? Contrails seems to be missing too, and they may be unrelated to chemtrail arguments. Still, not unthinkable. See also currently contains Fuel dumping and Solar radiation management, those seem fairly distant too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar, again

There is a new disagreement if sidebar belongs here, [1][2][3] and [4][5][6]. Previous discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_8#alternative_medicine_sidebar. So the question is, has consensus changed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, CFCF, per "It is quackery and pseudomedicine, and per WP:BRD there was insufficient discussion", you did see that there were 7 editors in the previous discussion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That was during the very short period that the sidebar only read "alternative medicine". It no longer does that and did so only as a violation of consensus for a few weeks. I agree it is better placeed under pseudomedicine than alternative medicine, but there isn't really any difference if you look at the definitions. (In fact I did not see that 7 people had commented, because of the white space, but the rest of my current comment stands.) I think it's a better idea to change the sidebar to be more inclusive than to remove this. HIV-denialism isn't classically alternative medicine either, but it is most assuredly pseudomedicine. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I thought the whitespace might be a problem. AFAICT, the "traditional" heading in that template is "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine", and I don't see chemtrails being that or quackery. We'll see if there's more opinions. WP will survive either outcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Update. Eggishorn removed the sidebar again on may 11,[7] so today I removed chemtrails from the sidebar again, and was reverted.[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My 2p. Chemtrails are not ALT-MED. They are lunatic charlatanesque, but not medical. I support the removal of the sidebar. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No one has so far even said it was alt-med — but it is pseudomedicine, and there is one and the same sidebar for both. The two "fields" are virtually indestinguishable in reality, but even if we strongly feel that this isn't alt-med, that argument isn't applicalbe. HIV-denialism isn't more part of alt-med than this is — but there is no debate as to whether that belongs in the "alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar. The sidebar is not only about alt-med, but also pseudomedicine. Also the discussion for changes to the sidebar belongs there. To claim that chemtrails is not pseudomedicine is bizarre, because chemtrails are suggested to have an effect on the body — bringing it directly into the medical field. Are you certain you mean that Roxy the dog? Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thread also at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar, but as I see it, it's one issue. If a sidebar is not in the article, the article should not be in the sidebar.

Per pseudomedicine: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that by definition do not work, and are a form of quackery or health fraud.[1] They are claimed to have the healing effects of medicine..."

Chemtrails fit poorly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

How about if we add it to Template:Pseudoscience and add that to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That definition from pseudomedicine is a shortened version (which I in fact wrote, so it's fun to be quoted). A full definition also includes "theories that by definition are false or rejected", but this is too much for the first sentence of a lede. If you go a little further into that introductory paragraph, you can see that it also tackles false theoretical systems and not just singular practices. Pseudomedicine is in essence anything that is a pseudoscience while simultaneously purporting to be medical. Medical in its turn is anything that is related to the health or physiological or pathological functioning of the individual (human). So a conspiracy theory relating to the function of the body is de facto pseudomedicine.

Chemtrails most assuredly falls under both pseudoscience as well as a medical theory — hence it is pseudomedicine. It is in a sense a medical conspiracy theory, which I changed the header of Template:Alternative medicine sidebar to include upon your request.

I am more than willing to discuss how we can improve the sidebar, to make it include medical conspiracy theories and pseudomedicine in a better way (more clearly interconnected), maybe under a different name such as Template:Medical conspiracy theories sidebar. However, there are issues with chiropractors not wanting to include mention of conspiracy theories — even though that is what they peddle. So we have the problem that medical conspirators don't want to be called alternative, while "alternatives" not wanting to be called conspirators. The middle ground is pseudomedicine, which I find both dislike, but is the best and should label both.

As for your suggestion — navigation bars at the bottom of articles are not used (as in clicked on). A handful of Wikipedians find them useful, but in general no readers find them (add to that how 65% don't even see them because they're blocked in the mobile view). To me that invalidates the replacement with a navigation bar (but not having both), and I find the sidebar to be much more useful.

We should try to keep these quasimedical theories bunched together, because they all deal with the same common theme: a rejection of science, and a rejection of established medical fact. If that means we need a new header for the sidebar, that's fine — but we shouldn't be too pedantic about what is what, when everything is pseudomedicine. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between ALT-Med and Pseudomedicine? Carl, you and I agree on most things, but I cannot see how this topic fits within any topic area related to medicine. Your connection is too obtuse to be made and not be caught under our WP:OR rules. It was for these reasons that I removed this topic from the sidebar. I started this reply before Carl's reply above and was edit conflicted. I still find that this is not a medical or medical related topic at all. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I made no such request. Disagree with the "medical theory" reasoning, and this change to the template [9] doesn't seem like improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, how do we know that readers don't click in the navigation bars at the bottom of articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Including the lunatic fringe pseudoscientific theory of chemtrails within any medical topic is drawing a very long bow indeed. It is not and has never been a medical (or alt-medical) theory, it is really just a bunch of conspiracy nuts dreaming up an "explanation" for a perfectly natural phenomenon. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Men bättre lyss till den sträng som brast än aldrig spänna en båge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any part of this theory that could be called medicine. And I don't recall seeing this classfication anywhere. I only see original research to support it. I suggest removing this classificafion until you can find some reliable souce that makes this classification. -Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)