Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 3

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. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 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 :) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 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, are actually a sinister plot....") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.52.22 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 January 2009


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

Vandalism by user "Verbal"
Attempted cleanup of grammar, clarity, NPOV issues was vandalized and deleted by user "Verbal." Can user "Verbal" or someone else justify his vandalism to version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&oldid=276320968 ? Please explain and justify which text violated which policy which would justify Verbal's vandalism. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.173.10 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 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)
 * Haha...very funny...but yes it has been done...and things have been found...

a google search will return quite a few cases...http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=absorption+spectroscopy+chemtrail&aq=f&oq= other sites hopefully this answered your question.Smallman12q (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.carnicom.com/spectra1.htm
 * http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81958
 * http://educate-yourself.org/ct/sprayingdiseasesviachemtrails27jul03.shtml (this one has an excellent pic)
 * http://dontchemtrailmebro.com/ch_patents.html
 * http://www.eyepod.org/Video-Chemtrail-Video.html
 * http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-20055.html
 * http://www.csicop.org/sb/2008-09/thomas.html
 * http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm debunking
 * http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
 * http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/
 * http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies
 * social.infowarscom/group.php?group_id=1164


 * Thanks for the link to the contrailscience blog. Some beautiful photos on there, and it seems to draw plenty of entertaining commenters. Nevard (talk) 01:11, 9 March 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.*, 2.*, 3.*, 4.*, 5.*, 6.*, 7.*, 8.*, 9.*, 10.*, 11.*, 12.*.


 * 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)
 * I'll probably get a clip around the ears from Verbal, but need to respond to this. Amerana, for years on most fine mornings I have seen jets going over my place heading for the northern hemisphere, way, way up there at operational altitude, barely visible and you wouldn't notice them if you didn't hear the sound after they crossed overhead. Sometimes they have contrails, and sometimes they do not. Sometimes the contrails dissipate in a couple of minutes. Sometimes the contrails are still visible more than an hour later, widely dispersed. Why do the airlines spray me only on certain days of the week? Why haven't the chemicals worked yet? Oops, I better scarper before Verbal wrings my neck. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:16, 13 March 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)


 * The talk pages are for discussing the article's development only. We do not engage in debates about the topic itself on the encyclopedia talk pages.  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrails needed for chemtrails
In order to have an effective argument for chemtrails...you essentially need to debunk contrails. And so external links about contrails are needed to help people understand that chemtrails are not contrails.Smallman12q (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is simply about the source and nature of controversy itself. There is an article on wikipedia about contrails and that's where readers should go for links for information about contrails.  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It also happens to include a section on contrails v chemtrails.Smallman12q (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of those parties involved in the controversy--that's it. Those that subscribe to the theory think chemtrails aren't contrails. Their opponents insist there is no such thing as a chemtrail, what they're seeing are contrails.  As per original research, references about contrails alone aren't pertinent here.  And as per external linking, links must be directly related to the article topic--a contrails article will only "directly relate" if it's speaking about the chemtrail conspiracy theory. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about contrail fact sheets issued by the EPA in response to chemtrails?Smallman12q (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it pertains to the topic of this article, it qualifies and is already cited. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Toxic Skies show
There appears to be a show dedicated to the idea of chemtrails. See http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/30716/anne-heche-stars-chemtrail-story-toxic-skiesor-does-she ,youtube video, http://www.dontchemtrailmebro.com/docs_dctmb/toxicskies_heche.html. Perhaps something should be included in the article?Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Videos almost never qualify at wikpedia. Unsolved mysteries has been removed as well.  Among other problems with the use of such sources in general, this link didn't even addresss chemtrails specifically.  Please review the policies about using references and external linking.  See reliable sources and external linking.  Please read also the policies and guidelines regarding the use of questionable sources and self published sources.  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why global dimming] can't be in the see also section? It is believed that global dimming a side affect of chemtrails. And I have looked at [[WP:SEEALSO and it says "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense Please provide an explanation.Smallman12q (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also why is this (Newton:Ask a scientist Chem Trails) a bad link?Smallman12q (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I was a bit surprised to see that this article gets 1k daily views.=DSmallman12q (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is even better than the intelligent design one. It's amazing what complete nonsense people will buy into.  I start to crack up the second I read "I believe...."  Speaking of that I'm having a sale on my pixie dust and garden soil mixture that neutralizes chemtrails.  Email me for details!  And are there any rational people here other than Professor M?  I need to read the talk page closer and get a feel for who's a wingnut and who's not.

Further Reading and other content removal
I had added these book but apparently they were removed. I'm not here to start an edit war so I'd simply like to gather a consensus as to why they should be removed...(only one of them is self-published) the edit is



I also want to know why this reference keeps getting removed. It is from a reliable source and pertains to the topic. Thanks in advance.Smallman12q (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP policy, you need to justify why they should be included - not we why they should be removed. What do they add that isn't in or couldn't be added to the article. Also, are they all reliable and relevant? WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are also relevant here. Verbal   chat  18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, ussually you have to justify the removal of content...but thats not the point here. As per WP:FURTHER, these books would constitute A list of recommended books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources and may provide useful background or further information.Smallman12q (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The material has been challenged, hence you have to justify it. Why are these books recommended? What do they add to encyclopaedic coverage of this bogus fringe theory? Verbal   chat  18:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh.. Bethel's role at the local paper this is from "Spirituality / Columnist". Nevard (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I sense a lack of WP:NPOV? Bogus fringe theory? These books are related to the topic of the article and provide a method of learning more about it. They are written by the "experts"(those most prominent) who believe in chemtrails as well those more qualified(phd). In addition, the books provide additional reference and notability to the topic.Smallman12q (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV applies to articles, not comments. There is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and wild conclusions based on unrelated events in these "books" on the subject. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bethel cite is acceptable if it's published in a real newspaper. I think there are more than one of his, one of them was used as an inline cite.  But I don't necessarily see why we needed it in that case - six inline cite references for a single statement is overkill.  Two and maybe more of the books that were recently added as "additional references" are printed by self-publishing houses and shouldn't be included on that basis.  We need some idea which of these works are actually independently published and of those, which might have some notability or other significance for inclusion here.  And I want to leave another reminder - WP:NPOV may apply only to article space, but the article talk pages are exclusively reserved for discussions relevant to the article space.  Our own opinions of the topic are irrelevant to editorial decisions, so let's leave them out here while we focus on conforming to core policies.  Professor marginalia (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right for the NPOV. But as for the books...your response is convoluted. Only one of the books is self-published...could you please explain why the others wouldn't qualify on a case by case basis?Smallman12q (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Self publishers or subsidy publishers, similar issues really, sorry. These works are printed by publishers who feature titles such as, The Dulce Wars: Underground Alien Bases and the Battle for Planet Earth, Humanity's Extraterrestrial Origins, and Meet the Sasquatch.  Such works in the conspiracy genre generally qualify as fringe sources at WP.  Though such work can be used as references in some cases, they must conform to the policies and guidelines that address this issue.  At WP:RS, specifically the extremist/fringe clause, the criteria for inclusion are spelled out.  To be included here, the works need to satisfy those criteria.  Whether or not these have sufficient prominence in the field is one issue that needs to be sorted out.  I think Will Thomas's prominence on this topic can be demonstrated.  Tim Swartz is unlikely to be an expert or have notability on this topic.  These are a sampling of his other published books: Time Travel: A How-To Insiders Guide, Magick And Mysteries Of Mexico: Arcane Secrets and Occult Lore of the Ancient Mexicans and Maya, and Bible Spells: Obtain Your Every Desire By Activating The Secret Meaning of Hundreds of Biblical Verses.  I haven't found anything suggesting Dahl or Johnstone are prominent, but a case hasn't been made yet that they are.  Heiss is not published in English.  Have you read it? I notice that this book is listed in the German wikipedia, but what kind of value does it bring the English article?  What prominence does it have?  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I admit, I haven't read the books so I can't attest to their accuracy or notability. What would make a person "prominent" on this topic?(What about Dave Dahl who is Dave Dahl is a U.S. Navy veteran and former university teacher and A K Johnstone has a PhD?) Also, why is the reporternews link unqualified?Smallman12q (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Smallman, don't add references that you haven't seen to the article. There's no purpose to it-you can't possibly vouch they belong here.  Remember we're encyclopedia editors--not clearinghouse data clerks.  Prominence or notability is demonstrated by factors such as how widely the work is cited, and whether its author is represented to be an authority or a significant figure for the topic in third party sources.  I think the Bethel cite can be used as a source.  It's published in a city newspaper.  Where it's used to cite claims that are opinion or disputed by authoritative sources, then the claim should be attributed to him in particular.  He is a newspaper columnist, but he's not an authority of any kind on this topic.  Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I see your point in this case, but I would like to say that while he isn't an authority, he would be considered a reliable source under WP:RS (or am I wrong?). And so I've gone looking for actual references and found a few...I would like to add the following section as historical aerial spraying is supportive of the chemtrail theory in which the public is being "tested".

Historical Aerial Spraying
During World War II and the Cold War, the British Ministry of Defence flew planes from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The health risks of these covert sprayings is still debated.

Test spray flights were also done by Iraq.

Anthrax can be delivered as an aerosol cloud.

There also have been various germ warfare/chemical weapons tests via arieal spraying done on civilian populations in the United States.

Please let me know if the above section can be inserted, and if the references suffice.Smallman12q (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless a source links these tests with chemtrails (and these tests don't meet the definition in the article), then to link them here would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. However, they may fit well into other articles such as chemical warfare. Verbal   chat  22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition of chemtrails in this article is  that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually toxic chemicals or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitude for a purpose undisclosed to the general public.  These articles help support the theory by providing an example of what was done before.Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they support the theory, a reliable source would need to be found to say so. Verbal is correct: for an editor here to link them violates the no original research policy. We can't link them together ourselves at wikipedia; a published source needs to have done so before it can be used.  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm baffled. I'm not trying to say that the British airplanes had contrails that sprayed the populace. I'm simply saying that the British have sprayed the populace(according to the BBC and a few declasified reports). How does WP:OR apply? I have 4 BBC references that refer to the british aerial spraying of civilians. I show examples of past aerial sprayings and their effect on the public.(Chemtrails are a form of aerial spraying)Smallman12q (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you are missing is that none of these sources refer to "chemtrails" specifically. You are making an original conclusion by saying that these are the same as the "chemtrail" claim.  --00:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'm not making the claim that they are the same as chemtrails. Rather I'm saying that something similar to the claim of what these modern chemtrails has already been confirmed and taken place. I'm simply giving it a historical context. At least, thats how I view it.Smallman12q (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that just because you think it is similar doesn't mean we can include it. We would need a reliable source saying that the two issues are related. --Leivick (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to provide a historical context. As the intro clearly states  the chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually toxic chemicals or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitude for a purpose undisclosed to the general public.....Now how does During World War II and the Cold War, the British Ministry of Defence flew planes from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. not fit into that? I am not saying that the british had chemtrails during the cold war...but they did spray the public. As for reliable references...how can the BBC and parliament record be unreliable? I believe there is some miscommunication going on. The addition I have proposed is to provide a historical context. The british have sprayed civilians covertly. The chemtrail theory suggest that chemicals are being sprayed at a high altitude for undisclosed reasons. Verbal stated that these tests don't meet the definition in the article...please tell me why as I don't understand what this debate is about?Smallman12q (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that the BBC refers to the spraying as "chemtrails" or even made reference to their visibility and thus any connection you make is original research. Air dispensed spraying is a real documented activity, it is done all the time either in agriculture or as pest abatement (sometime over populated areas). Chemtrails are something different altogether.  The chemtrail theory asserts that some contrails are actually secret spraying.  Again you are trying to connect two things that you see as related, without providing a source that makes this connection. --Leivick (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you have read the BBC article.Have you even looked at the title: Millions were in germ war tests Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials? The article clearly states that the spraying was done covertly(in other words:secretly). Can you honestly tell me that the article does say that the spraying was done overtly and with the citizens permission?

Here is what it says "The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country."

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

I don't see anything public about this? Smallman12q (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Small, no one is disputing the source of your information, but that to include it as a historical example of chemtrails is inaccurate, much as would chemical sparying of crops nowadays. The problems are as follows:
 * Nowhere does anything use the word "chemtrail". Any conclusion that these are "chemtrails" is in violation of WP:NOR.
 * Even if someone did say "hey, those might be chemtrails!" there is nothing to show that they were disguised as contrails
 * Nothing states that any of these experiments occurred at "high altitude"
 * The fact that they have been exposed shows that they are no longer secret.
 * — BQZip01 — talk 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they were chemtrails. I'm saying that spraying occurred before. They were secret for half a century.Am I misunderstanding WP:NOR? Smallman12q (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. This article isn't about spraying, it is about "chemtrails". It is about an alleged current program, not a past one. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to discuss past instances of spraying, we would need source saying that these event are related to the conspiracy theory otherwise it is synthesis. --Leivick (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I can see that I have no hope of getting approval(whatever the reason, I still don't fully understand)...should I instead copy the content to the aerial spraying article?Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that aerial spraying article is pretty focused on crop dusting, but it is also pretty incomplete, you might look at the Chemical warfare article.
 * Is there enough notability to create a separate article regarding chemical/biological aerial spraying?Smallman12q (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would ask there. --Leivick (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:N, notability is based on the reliability of sources and the gravity of the events. I have stated the sources and hence you should be able to decided the notability. I shouldn't have to ask elsewhere.Smallman12q (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been explained several times, and I will try once more. This is clearly Synth.  Find a reliable source that while writing about chemtrails specifically refers to its historical antecedents.  You cannot find these antecedents; no matter how logical the connection appears to you, it violates the no original research policy.  You cannot develop your own analysis of the history or extent issues related to chemtrails--all you can do is cite reliable sources if and when you find some that do this. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. (It seems to have dawned upon me). Well as I can't add this section to the chemtrail article, should I add it to Aerial spraying(which is about crop dusting and other civilian applications) or to Chemical warfare (which seems to be ready for a split). Or should I create an article called Aerial Spraying (Other) ...I don't really know what category this would fall in...please advise me. I also would like to thank professor marginalia for cleaning up the references without deleting any...though I'm curious to know why you didn't use the normal "grouping" method WP:REFGROUP?Smallman12q (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to propose it on the talk page of those articles, but note that linking from that section to this article would still be OR unless supported by a good RS. The aerial spraying folks might know the right article. Let us know how it goes, Verbal   chat  22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

image caption
Shouldn't the captions be changed to say chemtrails rather than contrails as this it the chemtrail article, not the contrail one?Smallman12q (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because the images are of contrails. There can't be any photos of chemtrails as they do not exist. Verbal   chat  20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we can write "alledged" chemtrails. As this article is on the topic of chemtrails, the pictures should at least represent the topic.Smallman12q (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who alleges these are pictures of "chemtrails"? WP:V applies to pictures too. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These picture are of contrails. Verbal   chat  07:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could add some pictures of "alleged" chemtrails then or say ''Contrails mistaken for chemtrails?Smallman12q (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you'll have to find a free picture that is reliable enough. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try...otherwise,(if you want something done right you have to do it yourself) I'll take the pictures=P.Smallman12q (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that wont work either, unless you can get the pictures published in a reliable source which claims they are, or could be confused for, chemrails. It's just OR again. That's why we have pictures of contrails here. All the best, Verbal   chat  22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. That would be OR. I can still take pictures though and create a gallery of various contrails to help improve the article.Smallman12q (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly can. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But why? We already have three contrails images. Now, if Small could produce a pic of an authenticated "chemtrail"!
 * Because we can. If there are better images produced or ones that show phenomenon mentioned in the article i.e. a criss-cross pattern, multiple parallel lines, etc., they might be applicable. They also may be applicable elsewhere. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is an article about chemtrails, not contrails. We have this article where a bunch of contrail images is pertinent. If we had a gallery of chemtrail images in this article, OK. Even if we had a fifty/fifty ratio of contrail and chemtrail images, maybe OK. But we don't. We don't have one single picture of a chemtrail. Talk about undue weight. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as this article is essentially claiming that some contrails are really chemtrails, WP:UNDUE isn't really applicable.But a few pictures showing the gridding would be good. I just have to find a few under public domain. Here are a few pics I found

Looking back, it also seems some of the older revisions such as https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=172589033 had info that has been removed?Someone should put it back in.Smallman12q (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also some images we could use at flickr. See http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=chemtrail&l=comm&ct=0 and a flickr chemtrail group.Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideal We do not need a dozen pictures. What would be best would be one or two images already published in the public domain that can be attributed to someone notable that is involved in the chemtrails controversy. We do not need chemtrails believers to run around taking new pictures--that would be giving a fringe view weight at wikipedia that it doesn't have outside of wikipedia. And we are not going to be able to verify that any picture is in fact an actual chemtrail. We would not need to do so if we can find a picture that someone noteworthy involved in the controversy claims is a chemtrail, and attribute that photo to them. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't support adding any of these pictures? I thought the article could be improved if a few images illustrating what chemtrail are believed to be were included.Smallman12q (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Woo woo alert
A close watch will need to be kept on the article to prevent absolute silliness being added. One example is an image (right) from the gallery seen just above this section. It is a reprint of text from U.S. Air Services of July 1921. The text makes not the slightest hint of "chemtrail", as it clearly shouldn't. But guess what the name of the image is. It's been called Image:Chemtrail 1921.jpg. What a crock.

User Smallman, to justify the images you put in the gallery above you said the following. "Well as this article is essentially claiming that some contrails are really chemtrails, WP:UNDUE isn't really applicable". This article is most definitely not intended to claim that some contrails are chemtrails. This article says there is a chemtrail conspiracy theory that contrails are toxic agents deliberately sprayed at high altitude. Wikipedia is not saying contrails are chemtrails. Wikipedia is recording a consipracy theory. There is a world of difference. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you know what I meant. The article is about a theory about how contrails are really toxic. Happy? As for the article, you are a bit preemptive since the article doesn't say chemtrails. Rather I simply wanted to point out when the persistant contrail first began.Smallman12q (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe I certainly do know what you meant, and that is that this article exists to posit that contrails are "chemtrails". I think that's how you want it to be. Also you still don't get it about images, or the POV you are trying to attach to them. You say "Rather I simply wanted to point out when the persistant contrail first began". What the hell has that to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory?  Where are references/evidence saying that that article has any relevance whatsoever to chemtrail conspiracy theory?  Furthermore, not that it's relevant to the article, but how do you know "when the persistant contrail first began"? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, remain calm. All I did was post a small gallery of pictures to gather a consensus as to which ones should be included. You have clearly stated your oppostion. The article describes one of the first persistent contrails. The chemtrail theory is about toxic contrails as well as persisting contrails...Another feature that proponents say distinguishes a chemtrail from a contrail is the presence of visible color prisms in the streams, unusual concentrations of sky tracks in a single area, or lingering tracks left by unmarked or military airplanes flying in atypical altitudes or locations.On a seperate note, perhaps you would like to participate in this article's peer review?Smallman12q (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Remain calm!. Ho ho ho. I am anything but not calm, believe me. Now, here you go again. You make so many statements that you need to subsequently amend that it is very difficult to follow you. You said "when the persistant contrail first began" but now you say "one of the first persistent contrails". It is not very rewarding to question something you claim and then have you change your claim. Nonetheless it is very revealing regarding your attitude here. As I said yesterday, the article has enough contrail images but needs images of "chemtrails". Can you supply some? Fully referenced to show that they are "chemtrails" and not just ordinary run of the mill contrails? Can you? Didn't think so. Instead, you want to use contrail images with the POV implication that they are somehow "chemtrails". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to play around with my words, it entertains me. As this is still a theory, there are no proven chemtrails, so instead, I wanted to gather a consensus to put in some contrails that are confused for chemtrails (or something to that degree). I wanted to illustrate what people interpret to be chemtrails, to add a few illustrations per say. v I do enjoy lively debates and am happy to see this page is getting the attention it deserves.Smallman12q (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything further you wanted to add?Smallman12q (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I note your statement that "there are no proven chemtrails". Still, you want to add a bunch of irrelevant images to this article about chemtrail conspiracy to bolster a POV by inference/suggestion. As for playing around with your words, the entertainment comes all our way, especially when you produce such witticisms as "per say". You're lucky I don't do LOLs. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you can construe my speech however you want. I simply want to find images that relate to what is described in the article. You mention that these are a bunch of irrelevant images...could you elaborate?Smallman12q (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not construing your "speech" at all. It's you who is drawing the dirty pictures! (Hope you have heard it). Anyway, move your eye up and right several inches. Read the text in the image. Tell us how that is relevant to chemtrail conspiracy theory, and provide peer reviewed references. OK? Also, the intro to the article says "The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually toxic chemicals or biological agents". Note the word "some". Which of the images you have placed here "are actually toxic chemicals or biological agents"? References please. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles consist of more than just the opening statement. ~.^ Have you seen Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that contrails, the normal water vapor emitted from jet engines, dissipate quickly, while chemtrails linger for up to half a day, often morphing into a cirrus cloud-like canopy, creating an overcast sky....Proponents of the chemtrail theories differentiate chemtrails from contrails by describing them as streams that sometimes persist in the sky for hours, and which sometimes trace criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds. Another feature that proponents say distinguishes a chemtrail from a contrail is the presence of visible color prisms in the streams, unusual concentrations of sky tracks in a single area, or lingering tracks left by unmarked or military airplanes flying in atypical altitudes or locations?Smallman12q (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't know it, but by posting that quote you have inadvertantly improved the article. Conspiracists may well speculate that contrails dissipate quickly but chemtrails linger for up to half a day. I'll take the word of experts on this, that "Condensation trails, or contrails, generated from high-altitude aircraft exhaust.....can persist for many hours". I've added this to the article, with a referemce. Natch. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I replaced the source. Please remember we can't use sources that do not speak to the chemtrail conspiracy theory to synthesize claims in this article. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kaiwhahahaere, I agree that the "chemtrail" thing is a bunch of bull, but the phenomena they describe (rainbows in contrails, "grids" of contrails...suspiciously near navigational aids, etc.) are certainly real and easily photographed. Including pictures to illustrate what they describe is appropriate, as long as we don't give credence to the theory itself. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aircraft flying at different directions at different heights in the same airspace produce contrails in a "grid" pattern. As for the rainbows in contrails, what is different from seeing rainbows in soap bubbles, or waterfalls, or steam geysers, or....? I don't say the article should not contain any pics of contrails, because without contrails the conspiricists have nothing to base their wackiness on. But, the article already has three images of contrails, and Smallman wants to add "a few" more.  That's bollocks. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bollocks you say? I simply want to illustrate what the article is talking about. Adding an image that pertains to what the article says is bollocks? I also would like to ask professor marginalia what makes the source synthesis? You said remember we can't use sources that do not speak to the chemtrail conspiracy theory to synthesize claims in this article, the article says Rising global air traffic and its associated contrails have the potential for affecting climate via radiative forcing...Seasonal cirrus changes over the United States are generally consistent with the annual cycle of contrail coverage and frequency lending additional evidence to the role of contrails in the observed trend. It is concluded that the U.S. cirrus trends are most likely due to air traffic....the article should mention this. I'm still fairly new here, but so I wanted to know if database articles (such as those through ebsco) would be considered reliable sources. I also would like to know why these two sources were removed:
 * Smallman12q (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The two were removed because the first said nothing worthwhile to include here (it certainly didn't source the claim attached to it) and the second was a letter to the editor--letters to the editor aren't WP:RS okay? The source that was removed for synth did not talk at all about chemtrails-we've been over this before.  This article isn't about contrails.  It's about the conspiracy theory about chemtrails.  As far as I know ebsco is not a reliable source, it is simply a host where you can find reliable sources.  Think of it as a kind of library. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A library? I generally believe what I find at the library to be a reliable source. I'm curious as to why you say ebsco isn't a reliable source....also regarding the the synth, you're right...ill add the content to contrails instead(the one regarding contrails modifying weather). Smallman12q (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here from Smallman12q's post at WP:RSN. Ebsco isn't a source, it's a database that gives one access to sources. In the post above, the sources are from the Mt. Shasta News and helenair.com. Mt. Shasta News is a newspaper website; helenair.com is the website of the Helena Independent Record--a newspaper in Helena, MT. Both look like RSes to me. Bear in mind, though, that being a reliable source is only a threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia--editorial judgment will determine whether it's appropriate to use these sources in any given article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, right--letters to the editor can be by any random member of the public, published without any fact-checking or quality control, and so generally shouldn't be considered reliable sources. An exception would be if the letter is by someone who's already known as an expert in a particular field. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining better than I did. The problem with Mt. Shasta News isn't the publisher, but the content--it wasn't relevant to any claim here.  All it said was that "Contrail/chemtrails discussion of air and water quality" was listed as one of several "future council agenda item[s]."  That's a not valid source for the claim, "Versions of the conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and on some radio talk shows theorize that this activity is directed by government officials, and federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation." Professor marginalia (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that because the article stated that contrails...more specifically "chemtrails", would be discussed at a future meeting supported complaints from people who have demanded an explanation. There should be some concern if they are to have a meeting on it. I'll be adding a few publication found in ebsco soon.=DSmallman12q (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. But we can't do this, we can't source claims with this kind of guessing. You really don't need to waste more time sourcing that claim anyway, Smallman.  Wikipedia doesn't need to publicize all kinds of sources-that's not the point of sourcing.  We simply need to verify claims that are made in articles with good sources.  That claim already has more sources than it needs.  No more sources for it are needed--in fact, there are too many.  Padding a claim with sources that are completely redundant,  repetitive or otherwise unnecessary can diminish the article in many ways. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I will add "new" cited information from ebsco when I get a chance.Smallman12q (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? Smallman, what part of the following don't you understand: "You really don't need to waste more time sourcing that claim anyway"? Someone needs to tap you with a cluestick. Please take a hint and stop the push before you get into trouble. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Smallman meant to add new material from the sources found through ebsco, not add new sources to material already sourced. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened to WP:AGF? You instantly assume I'm always in the wrong. I meant that I would add additional new material sourced by publications found through ebsco. (Thankyou professor marginalia=D).Smallman12q (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Smallman meant to add new material from the sources found through ebsco, not add new sources to material already sourced. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened to WP:AGF? You instantly assume I'm always in the wrong. I meant that I would add additional new material sourced by publications found through ebsco. (Thankyou professor marginalia=D).Smallman12q (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Professor marginalia for the parsing of Smallman's comment. Smallman, please accept my apology. I have stricken my comment. To avoid such misinterpretations in the future, please distance yourself from fringe POV and pushing of such POV for some time. That will give editors a chance to change their minds about you. So far you have been giving us a different impression (see heading above ;-), which then colors our understandings of what you are doing and saying. The results aren't a failure to AGF, but an attempt to understand what you are saying, interpreted through the glasses which you have provided us. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm simply trying to improve this particular article because there are some oddities with contrails(not that I'm for this conspiracy). I simply wanted to illustrate/expand the article, but I'm seeing its quite a challenge to do it a nuetral tone. Most of the information is at "unreliable" sites, and the difficult part is finding reliable sources quoting and interpreting these unreliable sites. No worries though, I generally am focused on various economic articles, but this one seems "interesting"=D.Smallman12q (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible books
 * ...the book can be viewed at openbook. It doesn't mention chemtrails, but it talks about using airplanes and aerosol spraying to control the climate.

Possible Video
 * Discovery Channel Best Evidence:Chemical Contrails...can someone please find the discovery channel link?I believe it aired on August 10th, 2007.Smallman12q (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sources
 * http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24152
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/21/science/21AIR.html better for another article as it talks about soot in the air.


 * WorldNetDaily: Not the most reliable site, but even if it were, this is only a paper reporting on the claims of two people. Note that the article specifically omits significant details (such as the fact that contrails can last for hours and the second person is a retired Lt Col in the USAF, but fails to mention what job he did...would you trust a pilot or navigator more than a shoeclerk who served in the Pentagon?); additionally, the "evidence" the person possesses they refuse to test, so no one knows what to make of it. The NY times article doesn't apply. The video link doesn't work. A mere book "confirming" contrails with no direct evidence (only conjecture and speculation) doesn't really help us here. As for the Global Warming book, it is another book about ideas for reducing/preventing global warming/its effects, not "chemtrails". — BQZip01 —  talk 10:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The video link Discovery Channel Best Evidence:Chemical Contrails works...or am I seeing things? The book is still published...(if thats worth anything)...I wanted to include it in further reading which states A list of recommended books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources and may provide useful background or further information. This book would provide useful background and further information on the beliefs of the theory.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a pic at http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/P4.html but I'm not sure if its in public domain as its a courtesy image. There were also a lot of good images at http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/ such as interescting contrail but its no longer available and has been blocked . Some of the images can be seen in google thumbnails.Smallman12q (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed video
I was in the process of removing it when someone else beat me to it. Its source is a blog and liveleak is primarily a media server not necessarily known for its editorial control. A link to such a video is inappropriate in this article. Moreover, the images shown look a lot like a simple weather front. As for large formations of stuff appearing on radar, chaff can also accomplish the same thing and the radar returns are enormous for such a collection of small strips of aluminum/metal. — BQZip01 — talk 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoax category
I don't think it was fair for User:Kaiwhakahaere to add this article to the hoaxes category in this edit as there is still strong ongoing controversy.Smallman12q (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "hoax" is very fitting either. A hoax is different than a conspiracy theory; a hoax is a "set up", a hoodwink, such as renting a monkey suit to pose as Big Foot. I don't think anyone is alleging that "fake" military planes are tracing the grids in the sky. However, my opinion doesn't count.  Chemtrails have been characterized as a hoax by a reliable source.  That doesn't mean it is a hoax, it means that we have the necessary published verification that it's accused of being one. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article has a cite from a reputable source saying it is a hoax. The category is justified by information in the article. I have restored it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're probably right. I just don't think its right to call it a hoax simply because the military says that...even though it is a reliable source...its already labled a conspiracy theory(not that it shouldn't).(This is probably a horrible comparison...but 9/11 conspiracy theory isn't categorized as a hoax). I'm trying to remain nuetral...trying=PSmallman12q (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that labeling it a hoax is incorrect. It is a theory and, by definition, can only be proven "wrong" by checking every aircraft worldwide. — BQZip01 —  talk 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well from that point of view, I too agree that categorizing it as a hoax is wrong.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's not April Fools Day until next week! How can categorizing a hoax as a hoax be wrong? We have a fully referenced statement from a reputable source saying it is a hoax after being investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications. BQZip01's point about it only being a theory which can only be proven "wrong" by checking every aircraft worldwide, is totally back to front. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and the theory that people are spraying toxic chemicals from aircraft to control people/weather/whatever, lacks compelling supporting evidence. Remember, the theory is that the "activity is directed by government officials". I guess that means US govt. I wonder why the US govt would choose to poison me down here in New Zealand. Or have I got it wrong where I said "I guess that means US govt" and in reality it is every government in the world that is spraying their citizens with nasty chemicals? Must be, because enduring contrails chemtrails are seen worldwide.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we are not explicitly proving or disproving the theory, but reporting the fact that the theory exists and there are reliable sources about that theory is the subject of this article. It would be like stating "Al Gore said 'All bees are actually blue, but the human eye sees them as yellow and black because of the corrosive chemical hydric acid.'" and citing the New York Times as the source. The claim itself is completely bogus, the chemical described is quite interesting, but the fact that Al Gore said this (if found in the New York Times) would be without question. The fact that the claim itself is completely false is irrelevant if the existence of a claim is pertinent to an article. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a different policy regarding conspiracy theories as by nature, a conspiracy theory suggests that the main story is a hoax. I don't know how much weight this argument has, but I don't see 9/11 conspiracy theories tagged as a hoax despite hundreds of reliable sources saying it is. I won't go tagging it as a hoax as thats against WP:POINT. Again, I'm trying to remain nuetral, so give me some credit^.^Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A hoax is when the authors know that the claim is false and have made the facts up in bad faith, a conspiracy theory is when the authors believe that the claim is true and they make up their facts from good faith misinterpretations. Either the Air Force paper is mixing the terms, or some hoaxers started it as a hoax, and it was later picked by good faith people who transformed it into a conspiracy theory.


 * Unfortunately, the Air Force paper does not give enough details to clear that specific point. At its current state, I'd say that "conspiracy theory" is the correct current description. "Hoax" shouldn't be added unless we get a source pointing out the hoaxers or how the hoax was prepared as a hoax. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Persistent Contrails
For clarification, persistent contrails (no matter the claims) are not "chemtrails". These are a natural phenomenon with regards to contrail formation and have been around for years. Example (3rd, 4th, and 5th pictures down, more, yet more, ... Persistent contrails predominantly exist in areas of the atmosphere in which moisture content is high (realize that ground-level humidity may be low).

— BQZip01 — talk 11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That figures!
The article says "The term chemtrail does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying", and right beside it someone has inserted an image of a Herc spraying mosquitos. Gotta laugh, before you cry. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess its to prevent further WP:SYNTH as I realized.Smallman12q (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note all the editorializing accompanying some of the photos. Jeezlooweeze. This isn't the town square people. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha. One of the captions says the spray "is not an example of a chemtrail". So WTF is it doing on the page? What next? A photo of a PC on the Apple page saying "this is not an Apple computer". So much for Wiki striving to be encyclopedic. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a rephrase on my part. This is an illustration of the statement already in the article, "The term chemtrail does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting". Providing an illustration of such a statement is apropos and does nothing to affect neutrality. I changed the original caption someone else put in to make it less POV. Feel free to alter it if you wish if you have a better idea or we can just discuss it here, but please don't just bash it when you have the opportunity to fix it. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'm removing the gallery for now.
 * The article is about the conspiracy theory about chemtrails, it's not a "How to" manual for judging a contrail from a chemtrail-we don't have a "How to" reference source to cite yet
 * The section was littered with editor furnished embellishment and commentary sans appropriate references
 * Only the third photo is unambiguously linked by its description to this topic
 * The phenomena photographed in the others have not been sourced and described yet as any having relevance to the conspiracy theory (crow instability, sun dogs, sunsets)
 * This is an encyclopedia that demands published verifiability - and does not allow room for editors to substitute their own storytelling with a backdrop of unrelated photos from commons. None of us here qualify as a verifiable source about how chemtrail conspiracy theorists would react to these particular photos.  The article Bigfoot includes an "authentic" photo involved in the Bigfoot phenomenon.  It did not "stage" a Bigfoot debunk by using pictures of apes or people pretending to be and then "explain them away" as misinterpretations. That's how this should be handled here also.  Based on my Bigfoot rationale, I soon will make a case for another photo taken from commons. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that "[t]he article is about the conspiracy theory about chemtrails..." That said, several concepts are discussed all of which were pictured. These were appropriate illustrations. Many, if not all, were appropriately sourced or were obvious from the description ("dispersing contrails", "criss-cross patterns", etc.) If there were editor furnished embellishment and commentary, then the captions should be edited, not remove the pictures. My purpose of these pictures were to provide illustrations of the stated concepts, not to provide illustrations of chemtrails (which have no independently confirmed sitings). I'm not "substituting my own storytelling", I'm providing an appropriate illustration.
 * In general, I agree that "None of us here qualify as a verifiable source about how chemtrail conspiracy theorists would react to these particular photos," unless there were verifiable claims to the contrary. I disagree with your interpretation with regards to the Bigfoot article. If the bigfoot article mentions apes, gorillas, etc, then providing appropriate illustrations of those animals mentioned in the text would be apropos. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos
To rectify the problems we've encountered finding suitable pictures (chiefly these photos so far don't have direct links to the controversy), I propose some alternatives. This photo is already in commons-I had too many windows open and lost the commons link, but I can find it again. It's from NASA, a one-time "picture of the day" there, and in its summary described a study of cirrus cloud/contrail formations and related weather impacts. This picture is also fairly widely reposted on chemtrails conspiracy blogs and websites as evidence of the wide extent of the "chemtrail" spraying and government "cover-up". One challenge is that these kinds of websites are typically not allowed at wikipedia-however I can connect this picture to the Rense conspiracy website - and Rense was listed as one of the key relevant conspiracy websites in a legit published reference, Conspiracy Theories in American History. Therefore we have verification that this particular photo has been involved in the controversy. Likewise there are photos in the air force factsheet that are public domain and relevant to the controversy. One in particular I also recall seeing on a few chemtrails websites - the inset photo on page 2 with what look like "antenae" eminating from it. I've seen a much higher quality image of it somewhere and I'll try to hunt it down. The images aren't great quality in the factsheet, but it's possible that others can be traced to a better copy also. I suggest if more photos are desired, that's where we get them because they are referenced as relating to this controversy, and they are public domain. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the commons link for the satellite photo:, Herd of Swine (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem including other pictures if they are better, but I think the other photos are certainly applicable to this article. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with this argument, but can we find enough of such images to illustrate the various points?(Nice work finding the image and a link to reliable source).Smallman12q (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gathered four photos-and explained in the text. My post showing where the govt photos are found and characterized on chemtrails sites glitched and went poof.  I'll have to redo it.  Professor marginalia (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked out literally hundreds of photos--I think this is about as far as we can push the "photos" discussion, given that we need free access images and must employ some kind of objective criteria to justify including contrails photos in this chemtrails conspiracy article. I've listed the links showing the double use of these photos on my talk page.  One more thing though.  This photo is as close to iconic as any, I think.  It's been very widely copied and recirculated in chemtrails literature.  However, I've been unable to find where it originated.  If anyone can identify it and can determine if we can use it here, that would be a good addition, I think. Chemtrail conspiracists consider it a chemtrail.  Chemtrail debunkers call it an ordinary fuel dump-and not a chemtrail or a contrail.  But like I said, it circulates widely. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That photo is on this page (lots of other photos explained there too), which says it's a E-6 Mercury "Tacomo", and the original came from: . You have to log in as guest/guest and then select "E-6 (the aircraft)" from the last drop down selector, rather fiddly, but that at least identifies the aircraft.  They don't seem to say anything about fuel dumping though.  I suspect it's government worker photo (hence PD), but hard to tell. Herd of Swine (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Does anyone know anything about tacamo.org? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Petition link
Would it be appropriate to add a petition link to the article? There is currently an official e-petition going on in the UK.(This would show the continued concern). As the site itself is blacklisted, you can see it in this google translator http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpetitions.number10.gov.uk%2FChemtrail-Sprays%2F&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0=es%7Cen%7C Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a place to bulletin notices and the petition itself isn't demonstrably notable. If you find a WP:RS writing about a petition, that would be appropriate here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the good professor here. Internet petitions are inherently unreliable unless you can determine the number of people actually submitting their opinions on the matter. Should this ever result in any demonstrable action reported in another source, a link would certainly be appropriate.
 * BTW, I understand you're just trying to push the limits and see where the barriers on Wikipedia actually lie. Good on you for testing it and finding those limits. Even better for asking on the talk page. This is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work! Excellent work...both of you!!! — BQZip01 —  talk 02:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh...someone who appreciates my probing and inquisitive questions. So hard to find such editors these days.=D.Smallman12q (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Expand references/sources & Improve grammer
Additional references and sources should be added. Currently the article has ~30, whereas a google news search shows there are a few hundred articles.Smallman12q (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article also fails to mention where the term chemtrail came from...it should say...

"The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trails" or ("chem" and "trails")."Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can anyone find the remainder of the isbn number(92-9169-) from [www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/av-en.pdf Aviation and the Global Atmosphere].Smallman12q (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, should "The weather-modification capabilities described in this paper are consistent with the operating environments and missions relevant for aerospace forces in 2025" as in be stated in the article?Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I found an interesting canadian government response at http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/response-en.html but am unsure if it is real. I also found a related link in which a petition regarding high altitude spraying is presented. "Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Mr. Brian Holmes of Ontario regarding aerial spraying. Mr. Holmes has collected signatures from across the country from concerned Canadians who believe that chemicals used in aerial sprayings are adversely affecting the health of Canadians.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to stop this type of high altitude spraying. The petition has been duly certified by the clerk and I present it at this time." I can't seem to find a response, perhaps someone can find it. ThanksSmallman12q (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Government_conspiracy_NPOV
The section Chemtrail conspiracy theory isn't exactly neutral. It seems these statements aren't really nuetral. Does anyone else share my concern?Smallman12q (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Many websites primarily devoted to far right nationalist views focused on chemtrails as well."
 * "Though mainstream news sources rarely report on any public worry over contrails,"

Removal of photo gallery

 * I do not advocate the removal of the section as it is not a "mass of WP:OR". I also believe that the removal of the gallery was unneccessary as Professor_marginalia explained it here: User_talk:Professor_marginalia/chemtrails.Smallman12q (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The pictures are not of chemtrails and the text was unsupported by references as well as having neutrality concerns. The pictures and the video should stay off, and the text needs a lot of trimming and support from solid WP:RS, which it didn't have. I missed the initial inclusion as I was under the impression only the gallery was added. Any bits of it that can be sourced and add to the article can be reconsidered here for inclusion. Verbal   chat  21:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * @Verbal-no, these were govt pictures of contrails which were identified as chemtrails on chemtrail conspiracy websites. The photos were discussed above and I don't understand how there was any NPOV concern or OR concern.  The reason I held off linking where the photos are found was because I hesitated how to do it in an non-confusing or misleading way.  I'll repeat this again--this article is not about chemtrails.  This article is about the conspiracy theory about chemtrails.  Returning to my analogy to Bigfoot, we have a picture of a photo believed by many to be a real Bigfoot--it isn't stricken from the article on the basis it isn't a real Bigfoot.  These govt photos that you removed were all alleged by those who subscribe to the theory to be evidence of govt conspiracy.  The photo that remains here is not a chemtrail, nor does it play any part in the conspiracy theory.  So please check the original discussions here and here, and the backup cited here.  I welcome more feedback about what the concerns are.  As it is now, the removed photos have more relevance here than the one that has been retained.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that because chemtrails are not currently recognized (by most scientists and governments), it isn't possible to have illustrations of chemtrails. Nonetheless, we should try to illustrate the article with images that have been alleged to be chemtrails.Smallman12q (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can make that conclusion here-we'd need a source for that. What I attempted to avoid was coming to any unsourced conclusions whatsoever. We've sourced how photos such as these are used on chemtrail websites related to the conspiracy theory.  I found four govt photos that were each used to make two alternative claims - the same photo means "contrail" to NASA, for example, and "chemtrail conspiracy" to conspiracy theorists.  I held back adding inline cites because I haven't thought of how best to do it without it coming off as parlaying a point of view, or giving undue weight to povs.  These photos are simply examples of photos used in the controversy-they're not included here to invite readers to judge between all the different websites using them.  That's the dilemma.  The photos are only intended to serve as examples of the photos talked about in the article, not to stage a head-to-head match-up between the websites using them.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should take this to Fringe_theories/Noticeboard to get a better consensus?Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These are pictures of contrails, and for that we have WP:RS. We do not have WP:RS that these are chemtrails. We already have pictures of contrails. Adding a gallery is going too far, and they should stay off the page. The article doesn't need more pictures of contrails. Verbal   chat  09:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Contrail-af.jpg|thumb|right]] They weren't called chemtrails either. They're called contrails. We don't absolutely need pictures of chemtrails-we do need photos that relate directly to this topic.  I'm not going to say we need a certain number of photos or a gallery either. But those are questions to settle with consensus, they're not policy violations.  What I do take issue with now is why are we keeping a picture of a contrail that isn't related to this article at all?  There is no ref for the one we kept, while there were refs for the ones we tossed.  I do urge that the photo there now be swapped with another that has been verified to have a direct tie to this topic.  This one perhaps? This photo is taken from a source we've cited 8 times in this article, a document which is itself a key element to the story. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the image swap. Verbal   chat  16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of video
I don't understand why the video was removed? It is a news broadcast demonstrating how the media approaches chemtrails. Could you please point out which number in WP:ELNO is being violated by this link? (I wish there was an EL noticeboard=P).Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrail Controversy, A news clip by fox12idaho (KTRV-TV)
 * Well as there haven't been any further objections, I'll place the link back as per WP:BOLD.Smallman12q (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I object as it doesn't add to the article per WP:EL, and per the reasons I gave for removal. Establish consensus for inclusion. The video consists of two talking heads on a local news station saying they believe in chemtrails, and one guy saying they don't exist. It adds nothing. Verbal   chat  21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It provides a visual example of how the "mainstream" media discusses chemtrails.Smallman12q (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Status
I have bumped up the article's current status to B-class as it seems to meet the criteria. Does anyone agree, disagree?Smallman12q (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * B-class seems fine — BQZip01 —  talk 22:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Patent for contrail creation
Could this patent entitled Powder contrail generation be included as an example in the article?Smallman12q (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would say "not unless something else calls it a chemtrail," but, if used in context in a sentence involving aerial spraying for known testing within the context of this article, it could have a place, but it needs to be explained in that context. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines that "Proponents argue that exsisting patents such ***** are being used to create these chemtrails."I would of course have sources to ensure that this isn't OR or synth.Smallman12q (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro rewrite
I have proposed a rewrite for the introduction as seen below...please let me know what you think(its wikified).

Smallman12q (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like you are placing too much weight on specific versions of the theory, and saying they apply to everyone who believes in it. I don't think the majority of theorists think that "chemtrails" cause Morgellons - indeed, the most common theory is that it's weather modification - so there I'd say "one version of the theory ...".


 * Similarly, the "black and white unmarked jets" seems like a rather odd specification that I'd not heard before. I assume you mean "black or white unmarked jets", but even so, I think "unmarked" is more accurate, and even then, lots of chemtrailers seem to think the planes are also diguised as, or even operating as, normal commercial flights. Herd of Swine (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the current lead rather than going off on further flights of fancy. What do you think is wrong with the current lead? Also, do you believe in chemtrails? Verbal   chat  07:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Smallman, there are so many things wrong with your suggestion that it can never run. Let's look at the first sentence only. It says ''"The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually chemicals or biological agents that are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes in certain regions of the world for a purpose undisclosed to the general public".
 * First of all, your " condensation trails (contrails)" is unacceptable. People call them contrails, not condensation trails, and so does Wikipedia. Click on Condensation trails and see where it takes you. Why would you want to use "condensation trails" instead of "contrails"?
 * "Chemicals"? Where's your ?
 * "Biological agents"? Where's your ? Also, aren't they the same as chemicals? So why the repetition?
 * "....are deliberately sprayed". Where's your ?
 * ".....in certain regions of the world". Where's your for only certain regions being sprayed?
 * "....for a purpose undisclosed to the general public". Where's your ?
 * That's only your first sentence! There are six sentences in the first paragraph alone, some of them making the most outrageous claims. There is not  even one in the whole paragraph. Sorry, Wiki needs better scholarship than that. The current version needs work, but it doesn't need the addition of massive POV inference. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is one version I just picked at random from months ago that I know was solidly sourced with inline cites, though I've trimmed the inlines for simplicity:


 * So adding anything else needs to be solidly sourced and appropriate for the lead. We shouldn't exhaustively list all the various agencies etc that deny chemtrails, nor exhaustively list all the various speculations by believers.  To do so isn't serving the purpose of a lead. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't "exhaustively list all the various agencies etc that deny chemtrails", I simply want to point out the top 3 that are in English... the US, the Canadians, and the British. I can't readily express my personal view as that would create a WP:COI and would be seen as POV pushing. Rather I simply remain as neutral and objective as I can. As for the concerns put forth by User:Kaiwhakahaere, I would like to point out that 1,2,3,4 and 6 all have references and are currently incorporated in the current article. I have offered this rewrite as a proposal and it is subject to change. I will remove all unsourced material.Smallman12q (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Smallman, I think, in general, your rewrite seems fine, but without a side-by-side comparison, it is hard to tell the differences. There are a few problems. Namely, you need to be more inclusive and less specific in the lead. You don't need to touch on every concept in the article, only the highlights.


 * Kai, the idea that chemtrails exist is absurd, but the theory holds that X, Y, and Z are ABC, is perfectly verifiable from multiple sources. It would be like finding out tomorrow from a verifiable source "Al Gore claimed the Earth is the center of the solar system". It's worth pointing out as he is a prominent figure/leader in the world. That is not to say the statement is true, but the fact that he claimed it certainly is true and, in this hypothetical, verifiable. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't want to stray from a NPOV, so I've tried to be as inclusive, but general as I can.Smallman12q (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision 2
Smallman, what on earth are you on about? You are trying to squeeze an article into its intro. It should be a summary, not an epistle. Question. Why are you desperately trying not to say that the theory involves contrails, but insist on specifying "condensation trails (contrails)". They are called contrails and your Condensation trails is a redirect to Contrails, as pointed out in this edit. I am also puzzled why in your rewrite you split the claim "Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those skytracks that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds" from its referenced rebuttal, "However, some contrails are visible for several hours according to Contrails facts, a USAF publication.". Why are the pro chemtrail petitions, activist organizations and websites all wikilinked, but  not the  "universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications" which have refuted the theory and branded it a hoax. Sorry, what we have now is not perfect but it less imperfect than your proposal.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My goal is to make this a featured article. The reason they are not wikilinked is because they are in a quote. I'm not fully sure as to what the standards are about wikilinking within quotes so I decided against it. (I would be happy to oblige to your request and wikilink within the quote if that is the standard). I am not trying to squeeze an article into the intro, but rather I'm writing what I percieve to be a fairly comprehensive and enticing lead.

It clearly stated in WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."

- WP:LEAD

I am a bit puzzled by your quote "Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those skytracks that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds" from its referenced rebuttal, "However, some contrails are visible for several hours according to Contrails facts". I can't seem to find it in the article or my rewrite. Could you please point me to where you derived this quote.Smallman12q (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, quoted directly from the current version:
 * "Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those skytracks that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds. However, some contrails are visible for several hours according to Contrails facts, a USAF publication. Air Force officials say that long lasting contrails result from certain atmospheric conditions, and their duration and rate of dissipation can be accurately predicted when humidity level and temperature are known."
 * The last sentence of your suggested intro ends with "in the appearance of supposedly uncharacteristic long-lasting sky tracks". It is separated from any rebuttal statement explaining that long lasting contrails are not unusual or uncharacteristic. FA? Long way to go before that. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you notice the word "supposedly" before 'uncharacteristic long-lasting sky tracks'? Now I believe you're also not reading correctly...the phrase does not imply that long-lasting sky tracks are unusual, but rather that unchararacteristic and long lasting skytracks are suggested by the conspiracy theory to be unusual.Do you have a suggestion to improve the word choice?(This is a very award grammatical debate=P).
 * While it does need some work to get FA status, it doesn't mean that it can't reach it.Smallman12q (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if not long-lasting, then instead of saying "uncharacteristic", you could state in what way the theorists state they are uncharacteristic? Are they a different color or shape? Herd of Swine (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll add in a line that describes how theorists state they are uncharacterisitc.Smallman12q (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Auto Archive
I have added a bot to autoarchive every 30 days as I feel this page is getting needlessly cluttered and has a semi-active discussion. Does anyone oppose autoarchiving.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin
This article doesn't say much about the origin of the theory. The air force claims it began in 1996 and says "Several authors cite an Air University research paper titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" (http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/research/ay1996/acsc/96-025ag.htm) that suggests the Air Force is conducting weather modification experiments." But I haven't been able to find those authors. Is there a link from 1996 describing chemtrails? I'd like to added an origin section.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As is usually the case with rumors, it's likely impossible to find any definitive "origin". We have cited the claims, some written by reporters.  But we're not reporters.  If some reporter says "so-and-so started the story", we can use it.  But which authors of what are you trying to find? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find online posts and editorials that date to 1996.Smallman12q (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What our problem is
Let's examine the realiity of the situation. Here's an accurate nutshell description of the significant assertion of the theory.

The Chemtrails conspiracy theory contends that chemicals/biological agents are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for undisclosed purposes.

The theory is not "some contrails are chemtrails but that is the theme of the article.

We link to Contrail (but Chemtrail does not appear in that article).

We don't link to Chemtrail to explain what they are, because that article doesn't exist. Therefore, this article has to define Chemtrail and adequately explain how it is created and manifested, with reputable sourcing. But it doesn't and without this information the current article may as well not exist.

It is possible to start by defining the theory roughly as I have in my nutshell above, and then to logically work through an article to cover all bases. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase? I'm confused what the objection is. Everything I've read on the subject indicate that
 * conspiracy theorists do look up at the sky, point to certain skytracks, and claim "that's a chemtrail, not a contrail" -
 * these believers do not all share the same description of what they are made of, who puts them up there, how you can tell a chemtrail from a contrail
 * govt officials and scientists do insist the skytracks believers call chemtrails are just plain old contrails-and have responded to these believers by trying to educate them about contrails
 * believers believe they're being lied to when they're told what they're told the skytracks they claim to be chemtrails are identical to plain old contrails
 * the theory is precisely that some of tracks experts say are contrails are chemtrails. This is referenced in the article.
 * I guess I just don't understand how these things are in any way disputed. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Prof, I didn't intend confusion. What I am saying is that we shouldn't say X is Y, without saying what Y is and providing evidence that it exists. In this instance, govts/agencies are allegedly spraying populations with chemicals.  We don't say which govts are involved, who plans activities, why, where the spray aircraft are stationed, who flies the aircraft, etc. Allegedly, agencies have conspired to do it in secret. That is the conspiracy theory -- not  that contrails are chemtrails -- probably the biggest conspiracy in history because it would need to involve agencies worldwide because contrails are seen around the globe.  Consider the following.
 * UFO conspiracy theory -- early in the first sentence it links to unidentified flying object to describe the subject central to the conspiracy
 * Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories -- early in the first sentence it links to Apollo Moon landings to describe the subject central to the conspiracy
 * Masonic conspiracy theories -- the eighth word in the intro links to Freemasonry to describe the subject central to the conspiracy
 * Chemtrail conspiracy theory -- It doesn't link to a Chemtrail article about chemtrails, or any other article which could describe the subject central to the conspiracy. It can't link to them because they don't exist.
 * We have the cart before the horse, saying that X is Y without defining Y. Hope this makes it a bit clearer. If we renamed this article Chemtrail, edited it somewhat, expanded on the Chemtrail component and created a comprehensive conspiracy theory section, we would have a much more informative, encyclopedic article. It might even lead to the Conspiracy bit being forked off to its own article, but the chemtrail one needs to be established first. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't a seperate article on chemtrails. I'm a bit confused as to what you're requesting or what you're concerncerned about. Do you want a seperate article for the term chemtrail(s)?Smallman12q (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it is encyclopedic. It is logical to establish a comprehensive article about a subject instead of trying (unsuccessfuly) to incorporate it into another article about a conspiracy theory. Take a look at the examples I gave above. Unidentified flying object was established in Wiki on 7 October 2001 and UFO conspiracy theory came along later on 18 Jan 2003.  Project Apollo began on 24 Sept 2001 and it was almost a year before Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories was created on 5 Sept 2002. Freemasonry first appeared on 28 Nov 2001 but Masonic conspiracy theories  was not created until 22 Aug 04. In each of these examples, there was an established informative article which comprehensively described the subject. The followup conspiracy articles didn't need to explain the subject, just provide information relevant to the conspiracy theory. In our current Chemtrail conspiracy theory we are trying to do both, and have produced a mishmash. That happens when you put the cart before the horse. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'm more intent on improving the conspiracy article first and then devolping a seperate chemtrail article.Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not have a separate chemtrail article, as they do not exist outside of these conspiracies/delusions. UFOs do exist, the terrestrial aircraft/object/weather phenomena kind at least. Verbal   chat  20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a simple question: why is there no (linked) definition of the word "chemtrail?" Usaveritas (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia. You are more than welcome to create, modify, and expand the article provided that you have reliable sources, and the content has notability. It's immaterial as to whether chemtrails do or don't exsist, but rather whether there are enough reliable sources to back up their notability. If there are, an article may be created, otherwise, the article will likely be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone one worried about "chemtrails" simply move down here to Australia. We do not have any chemtrails here, only contrails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.50.158 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Justification
As you requested, here is my justification. I added the Category:Planetary engineering because its related. Planetary engineering is defined as the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet-this is something the chemtrail conspiracy theory purports is happening. The Weather Modification Operations and Research Board is a proposed committee in the United States that would oversee weather modification research and operations. While the chemtrail conspiracy theory speculates beyond weather control; weather modification is a major component. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) relates to chemtrails because they are suggested to be used in geoengineering projects in a manner similar to chemtrails.

The external link "Tropospheric Aerosol Program, United States Department of Energy Atmospheric Science Program (ASP)" was added because it refers to a previous Aerosol Program conducted by the Dept of Energy. Using aerosols in the troposhere is similar in nature as to what is suggested by the chemtrail conspiracy theory.Smallman12q (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't buy this. Do you have any RS linking the chemtrail conspiracy theory to this things? This looks like trying to justify the conspiracy by saying these are branches of it. Also, I don't see what population control etc has to do with planetary engineering. Please bring RS to link these topics, as it looks like WP:OR. Verbal chat  20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably meant to refer to BRD misuse . Anyways...according to Category states an article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs. As the topic covers a "suggested" method of planetary engineering, I thought it fit to add the category. Other categories can also be added.
 * As for a reliable source, there aren't many but they do exist: see this Rolling Stone article (its a few pages). Let me know when I can put it back in.Smallman12q (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of it should go back in. Verbal chat  06:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? (Please provide a rationale).Smallman12q (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide RS that these are linked to the chemtrail conspiracy theory and could be added to a more complete article, per policy. Verbal chat  17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did...have you seen the rolling stone article?Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the one paragraph that references chemtrail lunacy on page five justifies any of these additions. Verbal chat  06:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lunacy or not, its referenced by a reliable source.Smallman12q (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The chemtrail paragraph doesn't mention all these things. Verbal chat  13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by all? The article describes various methods to combat global warming...such as using polymer aerosols in the atmosphere(preceding paragraph) and cloud seeding. Smallman12q (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still awaiting response...Smallman12q (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about chemtrails mentions none of these things, they are not connected to chemtrails by this article. Verbal chat  06:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article states "Evidence of this stealth campaign, they say, can be seen in the contrails of jets — which are actually "chemtrails" dumping polymer aerosols into the sky to reflect sunlight and cool the planet." Earlier it says "In comparison to such wild-eyed schemes, the notion of spraying aerosols into the stratosphere seems downright pedestrian."...(It may appear a bit out of context)...have you read the entire article?Smallman12q (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read the whole thing. There is a small paragraph of the extream views of some fringe conspiracy theorists. However, that paragraph does not tie chemtrails and these real projects together. The article is dismissive of chemtrails, and does not make any link. Try bringing an RS that joins these things up explicitly. Verbal chat  13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this bit fromt he Rolling Stone article justifies making referencies to geo-engeneering: "you could generate them easily enough by burning sulfur, then dumping the particles out of high-flying 747s," ALso, what about this article from times ? 87.194.204.236 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the article is dismissive of chemtrails, but it does link them... But that hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists from believing that the government is secretly tinkering with the weather. Type the word "chemtrails" into Google and you'll get about 814,000 hits.Smallman12q (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That introduces chemtrails as a new topic, it doesn't link them. We know chemtrail ct's think the government is involved etc, already. Trying to add these links that aren't established, and without any context, looks like OR and an attempt at validating the conspiracy theory. Verbal chat  09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm am not trying to validate a conspiracy theory...I am simply trying to show to you that there is indeed a link made in the article between various weather experiments(specifically stratospheric aerosols) and the term chemtrails. The chemtrail conspiracy theory already suggest weather modification/geoengineering as a possible reason. Using WP:COMMONSENSE, I believed that adding a more specific type of geoengineering (that is related in context), would be appropriate.Smallman12q (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still awaiting a response with regards to adding Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) to the See Also section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Major researchers and references not mentioned here

 * 1) Clifford E. Carnicom (US) - http://www.carnicom.com who has also done a documentary and radio show below.
 * 2) William Thomas (CA) - Award Winning Canadian Journalist - http://www.willthomas.net/ChemTrails/index.htm
 * 3) Andrew Johnson (UK) - specificaly here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=50 and here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=50 and here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=50
 * 4) Phil Morris (UK) - referenced above
 * 5) Coast To Coast did a 3 1/2 hour show on this with Carnicom and Thomas: on youtube and here: to download (official page). Coat to Coast AM also did a show in 2004 with William Thomas and in 2007 with Clifford E. Carnicom.
 * 6) Other UK person - report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.119.178 (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Significance of the criss cross pattern
Most of what I have heard of chem trails stress the importance that they generally appear in a criss cross pattern. There is a picture on this article of an X shaped trail but no further description. The reason this is so important is because it is rather odd for a bunch of planes to fly criss cross paths so far from airports. BenW (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the argument goes that they are flying at different altitudes...but still..there are some pretty peculiar patterns out there even for that theory. Nonetheless, you must have a reliable source to back up whatever you plan to add.Smallman12q (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...it is rather odd for a bunch of planes to fly criss cross paths so far from airports." Speaking as an aviator, nothing could be further from the truth. There are points in airspace (sometimes they are at VORTACs, sometimes just GPS coordinates) that airplanes fly to/through. Given where they are flying, they often fly through the same points but at different altitudes and directions. Contrails over these points are only natural. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second
There has been information released by Government sources on spaying chemicals and diseases on domestic populations. The United States Government has admitted to spraying chemicals to create rain during the Vietnam conflict. Patents on how to spray the sky to 'reduce' global warming exist as well (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186)

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D13FB3F5F117B93C1A9178CD85F468785F9&scp=1&sq=Rainmaking%20Is%20Used%20As%20Weapon%20by%20U.S&st=cse

That is an archive from 1972 where the U.S Government admitted that it sprayed the skies to create rain during Vietnam -- from the New York Times not what I would call a 'conspiracy' source.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A17F83E5814728DDDA00994DD405B848BF1D3&scp=3&sq=Rainmaking%20Is%20Used%20As%20Weapon%20by%20U.S&st=cse

That's another one from the 70's...

I really cannot understand why this page is labelled 'conspiracy theory' when there is much evidence to support the fact. I mean, you can see it with your own eyes. Contrails used to stay up for 5-20 minutes and fade away I've looked at some of these lines in the sky from work and they'll be there for the entire day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's labelled a "conspiracy theory" because those that know SOME degree of physics (I mean, one doesn't have to be a genious) and fluid dynamics know that it's IMPOSSILE for a plane to fly in certain conditions of speed, air temperature and air humidity without leaving a trail. So while it is entirely possible THEORETICALLY for a plane to spray chemicals from the air (meaning that it's not physically impossible), you guys make it sound like there is no such thing as a condensation trail, that all condensation trails are in fact chemical trails and all of us who actually know some pysics are involved in some kind of criminal plot. So yeah I find it unlikely that I'm involved in a criminal plot for the mere fact that I actually took the time in highschool and college to learn some physics and fluid dynamics. That's why it's called a "conspiracy theory". That being said, it's not physically impossible to attach to a plane some kind of spraying device, BUT, in certain conditions a plane WILL leave a trail that is NOT chemical and that is something no plane constructor or designer can do anything about. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This article should be named "Chemtrails" since the "conspiracy theory" label is biased. While there is a large body of evidence which seems to indicate that the phenomenon doesn't exist, there is still enough compelling evidence to cast doubt. It would be much more objective to rename this article and within the article have a section which states that "Chemtrails" are commonly believed to be nonexistent and the product of conspiracy theorists. The user who created the paragraph above this one has misinterpreted the arguments of those who believe Chemtrails exist. Generally these arguments do not say that contrails don't exist, but rather that some subset of what are commonly believed to be contrails are actually Chemtrails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.140.63 (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, wrong. Wikipedia doesn't define neutrality as "Presenting all sides of a conflict with equal validity". We instead present all sides as they are presented by the reliable sources. This article is balanced exactly like the outside world- a few people think it's a huge coverup with mind-control spray and government-sanctioned weather control, the rest see contrails. -- King Öomie  16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)