Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 4

British tests
The cited Guardian article describes the use of harmless biological and chemical agents to test the spread pattern when such material is sprayed from an airplane. Chemtrails are not mentioned. Is it original synthesis to include this paragraph here? From 1940-1979, the United Kingdom conducted secret simulated germ warfare tests over populated areas. Aircraft sprayed chemicals and bacteria believed to be safe to investigate how such agents would spread in the event of an attack. Some residents of the testing zones claim that they resulted in a higher than normal incidence of birth defects. The Ministry of Defence released a report documenting the tests in 2002. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3. While it apparent that these biological/chemical agents that were dispersed through air are indeed similar in context with chemtrails, no consensus was made. However, the discussion was held in March, so there is no reason not to try and gather a consensus now. To answer your question, as this debate was held before, its best to arrive at a consensus on the talk page(or at a notice board) so as to avoid the appearance of WP:OR.Smallman12q (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks to me like a consensus against inclusion, and I am convinced by the arguments put forth. If we find a source explicitly discussing chemtrails and these tests we can come back to it, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well then...*continues to wait for such a publication*.Smallman12q (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article state that "zinc cadmium sulphide [were dropped] on the population." ---Cadmium is not harmless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhh, this is chemistry 101. Normally poisonous elements combine with others to form a substance that can be digested and flushed from the body without assistance. Sodium Chloride (table salt) for example. Both base elements will kill you if consumed. -- King Öomie  16:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV
Is this section really neutral?

"Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents: "If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, 'Well, you're just part of the conspiracy'," he said."

This really seems to be an application of the ad hominem argument...and it creates a false premise.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the notable opinion of an expert, and people who believe this rubbish are loons and often regarded as such - saying that would be a problem. It's commonly stated, so it should probably be in the article. The quote should remain, I'm open to changing the text around it. Verbal chat  20:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit WP:UNDUE...I'll wait to see what other people say...Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's stating that, in his experience, attempts to explain the actual scientific reasons contrails form are met with accusations that the... enlighted party is 'in on it'. We don't have to limit the quotes we choose to the ones that are unbiased. The pre-quote summary could be reworked, though. -- King Öomie 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's NPOV and seems to me that's a bit controversial. First, it looks like that "notable opinion" doesn't provide much to the con arguments and globally to the quality of this article as it doesn't give any explaination to the phenomena. I think it shows a jugement that is not necessarily a rule for all conspirationists ("logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents"): let's say that there are mathematicians or physicians who are conspirationists. Well, we can conclude that it is the opinion of an "expert of contrails", not an expert of "conspirationists". Let's avoid such quotes. Mik--193.49.124.107 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any policy reasons? NPOV means neutral by the way, what we strive for, and it doesn't mean removing unflattering content that is reliably sourced. Verbal chat  16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Many people seem to misunderstand what NPOV means for Wikipedia purposes. Yes, articles should maintain a neutral point of view, but that most certainly does not mean that articles have to be a complete whitewash of the subject to the exclusion of any and all properly sourced criticism and contrary views. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a whitewash...the quote seems lopsided. And the way its used, its a POV-assertion.Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A notable and attributed POV of an expert. What's your point? Do you dispute the opinion of the expert (not that it matters, I'm just interested)? Verbal chat  22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that such a quote will addle the article's otherwise balanced approach. I do not have the credentials do dispute him as that isn't my area of expertise. It should be recognized however, that his argument is an ad hominem argument. I for one do not support the use of ad hominem arguments. In this case however, it is used as a quote which happens to represent that scientists POV. I'm not disputing his opinion; such debates are "childish dispositions" and are unrelated to the overall topic. I'm here to ensure that the article maintains as neutral a point of view that a conspiracy theory article can. Smallman12q (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

request you remove "theory" from the title, add UK government admitance of testing in the 80's which is easy to find, and...nah forget it, you won't anyway, but maybe someone with a brain will read this. 90.207.92.146 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an IP
Gazing at the sky above Central Hungary on this sunny afternoon, I can see a good two dozen crisscrossing trails, many of which have been slowly dissipating for the last hour. They have not appeared before and I am many miles from the nearest airport. Judging by the turns of these trails, the jets spraying them (for they are not airliners) appear to have some system. We also have a biplane that sprays chemicals to dispel mosquitos in summer. They leave a chemical trail, or "chemtrail". Where's the conspiracy? Naturally, if a government - or a Wikipedia editor - denies something and launches into ad hominems, that does not mean it is a "conspiracy". Remember Gallileo? The very title of this article begins with a puerile attack on people who wish to know and understand the world about them, and who would never believe a politican at first blush. Very often a denial is as good as confirmation.213.222.131.222 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your observation is WP:OR; I'm not saying it is inaccurate, but it has no place in discussion here as this is a place to discuss the article, not debate "chemtrails". However, to satisfy your curiosity, those aircraft are likely flying over a GPS point or navigational beacon, which are often nowhere near airports. Their rate of dissipation is governed by laws of physics and vary by location, temperature, altitude, winds, etc. This is all in the article.
 * If you wish to discuss the article, by all means do so. Could you be more specific on what is wrong with the title? — BQZip01 —  talk 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And have a look at the logical fallacies article. Verbal chat  19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with ruminating over what's going on in the sky. But as per Wikipedia policy, title changes & article additions can only be made using verifiable sources, which happen to be the public media and government publications (as well as some independent journals).Smallman12q (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another Sunday and another slew of crisscrossing trails in the sky. One plane I saw at the same height was trailing nothing, not even a contrail. The logical fallacy for me are the weasel words "conspiracy theory" in the title. No one can seriously deny chemical trails are most definitely possible to create in the sky by whatever means (see above for the mosquito repellent), so my question is why does the title bear those words "conspiracy theory" (which Verbal cannot resist using ad nauseum in just about all his responses) - it smacks of a deliberate attempt to stifle discussion, denigrating all those who dare to question the conventional "wisdom" as lunatics (again per Verbal). Again, see Gallileo. I apologise for contributing my ruminations; I understand the strictures on using the Talk page. But let's face it, original research as it is termed in this forum of the government faithful is often left unpublished or out of the mainstream-sanctioned arena (e.g. Wikipedia) for a good (read bad) reason.213.222.131.222 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Another Sunday and another slew of crisscrossing trails in the sky." Again, this is not the place for WP:OR
 * "One plane I saw at the same height was trailing nothing, not even a contrail." It is nearly impossible to visually determine the altitude of an airplane from the ground without special training and some equipment. Your depth perception cannot possibly tell if two objects at 4+ miles are 1 mile apart, next to each other, or even further apart.
 * "The logical fallacy for me are the weasel words "conspiracy theory" in the title. No one can seriously deny chemical trails are most definitely possible to create in the sky by whatever means (see above for the mosquito repellent), so my question is why does the title bear those words "conspiracy theory" (which Verbal cannot resist using ad nauseum in just about all his responses) - it smacks of a deliberate attempt to stifle discussion, denigrating all those who dare to question the conventional "wisdom" as lunatics (again per Verbal)." Mosquito repellent is aerial spraying, not the subject of this page. That kind of spraying though is acknowledged in the article. The title does not "stifle" discussion; the Wikipedia rules stifle discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. If you want to create your own webpage, then do so; nothing on Wikipedia can stop you from doing that. If you have reliable sources, let's see them.
 * "Again, see Gallileo. I apologise for contributing my ruminations; I understand the strictures on using the Talk page. But let's face it, original research as it is termed in this forum of the government faithful is often left unpublished or out of the mainstream-sanctioned arena (e.g. Wikipedia) for a good (read bad) reason." The government doesn't control Wikipedia content; period. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

sure it does... Government controls mainstream media (or visa versa, same people), and wikipedia only consists of the sacred "reliable sources" which just happen to be govt. sources and mainstream media sources.. so yeah, goverment AND mainstream media DO control wikipedia, albeit indirectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.87.50 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to break this to you, but you are not Galileo. 134.106.41.25 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible doesn't mean 'plausible'. Who's denying that chemtrails are POSSIBLE to create? It would have been POSSIBLE to fake the moon landing, that doesn't mean the moon landing was DEFINITELY faked. -- King Öomie 13:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be one of those logical fallacies I mentioned. I wonder how many more will come up? Verbal chat  13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Recalling that this page is intended for discussing the article rather than more general discussion about the article's subject, perhaps we could clarify exactly what the purpose of this discussion is. seems to have expressed that they are unhappy with a few aspects of the article, for example the title being Chemtrail conspiracy theory, but we don't have any proposals as far as I can see on how anything should be changed. As such, I'm unclear as to where this discussion is supposed to be heading. Adambro (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that makes about 5 of us... — BQZip01 —  talk 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I too am unsure as to what the the IP is leading too...however, as the title of this section suggests "Comment from IP"...I posit that this merely a remark rather an opening to a meaningful discussion. On a side note(perhaps further derailing this thread...), there is a famous book by one of Intel's founders, Andrew Grove, Only the Paranoid Survive.Smallman12q (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of this article, and all similar articles, should immediately be changed to remove the words "Conspiracy theory". Are you going to put that next to the holocaust, too, just because some people don't believe it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.220.130 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ContrailScience.com
I just came across this great website and it quite convinced me that there wasn't any chemtrail conspiracy, so I included it in the external links. plus, it has a link to a histerical photo of a stork contrail! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinerustle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There MIGHT be some nasty chemicals in that particular contrail. Suffice to say, I don't want to be behind it. -- King Öomie  21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove At Least Weather Control From Theories About Chemtrails - Possibly The Best Evidence For Contrail Unnaturalness
Hi, here it is this one, I understand that the news broadcast was initially about cloud seeding in Northern California to create more rain, but it later mentions that in San Fransisco's PG&E offices they have a department there that freely operates a program with no government rules or restrictions, though some recent laws let them take test drives. Does KTVU News make the mistake of including persistent contrails (from commercial airliners/military jets) in the broadcast? Listen closely from 3:07-3:27, it says quote (the man who the second half of it with others runs the private corporatist program, he implies these are tests to see if it works - by contrails) [the parenthesis are my commentary, so you can better understand it], Narrator: And what about unintended weather modification such as those persistent jet contrails that criss-cross our sky, these are over Mendocino County where military jets practice... ''The Man: They are blocking some of the sunlight coming in (Like factory pollution/ice age.), they also trap some of the heat (Also like a greenhouse effect which pertains to how global cooling/warming/dimming - I am just going to call it climate change enthusiasts blame most Co2 output only from human beings - even though the polar ice caps of Mars and the moons of Jupiter are melting, and 30,000 real climatologists and meteorologists signed a petition about it being unvalidated and they are skeptical about human made climate change - not denying climate change itself.), so the jury is out to what the exact effects are (Oh so lets just guess? Since nobody cares about the weather and passing laws before enacting such a program right?), but those contrails do have an effect on the weather and climate (Stop it, your giving away too much (Best examples (this is a weather modification company that does more than just cloud seeding - I know cloud seeding is not chemtrails), and )!)...'' Notice how the last man does not say it is only for cloud seeds to make limited rain, it will effect the weather and climate in other ways.

Other newscasts, like the weathermen here both say some strips of some kind of metal alloy is released by military jets for weather warfare exercises which is to protect us, , and , plus. We should make a section in the article where lawful proposals have been made to use contrails to decrease (or intentionally increase for some agenda - as chemtrail conspiracy theorists propose) the effects of climate change by geo-engineering the planet. I guess we can rule out that weather control by persistent contrails (wrongfully called chemtrails - which is slang) is not a theory anymore.

The Chaff experiments (it is also on Wikipedia Chaff (countermeasure), but what is interesting is that it shows up on radar - and it is showing up over the continental U.S radar, and its purpose is to give false data to scientists, so they would think there is rain when there is not, could not this affect climate change studies?) mentioned in the various newscasts are therefore real, this does not mean chemtrails are real, it just means some other materials are being added to the jet fuel with new compartments mostly (this means 90% of chemtrail pictures and videos are actually showing normal contrail and the spread out is maybe because of climate change, but a third trail can be seen at the tip of the tale of the plane, even one added to one of the engines - which this has yet to be explained by anyone) at the nose tip of the small or commercial airliners. You can see it in this video, the song and information is entertaining so you will not get bored, the small strips of material (as explained on the contrail science website as a metalized plastic strip dropped from the planes - maybe angel hair) at the end of the video are probably from the Chaff experiments, and do not forget the Weather Control episode of the "That's Impossible" show is filled with some truth. Although I do not agree with every opinion shown in this last video, only the two cones from one engine and one cone from the tail is unusual (even if a engine is at tip end of the tail [notice dumping fuel is done at one time in a fast matter and only from two places but not the tail, and not on and off], which there is no aircraft with an engine on the tip end of the tail, which even if there was, you can not turn it on and off in mid flight).

So finally, what I am implying in this message is that no one can say what the true agenda of adding materials or aerosol spraying (as done in 1940-58-67's - these dates are used by de-bunkers of this article to say that it is just the same as long time ago, forgetting that those were isolated experiments themselves - mostly famously for a British town and the Vietnam War - cloud seeding by military jets.) are for, we mostly know that they may have negative side effects, and since its resurgence in 1996 (in small amounts) until now, we can (until a real experiment is done to measure them scientifically) know what these new materials are that are added to persistent contrails and why. However, as seen in a still from a video at the top right of the You tube page, you can see a jet fuel being dumped (jet fuel either gets dumped as depending on the type of plane from the middle of the wings or between the wings and the tail - but never from the tail itself), but in the video the little wisps being turned of and one are coming from the tail of the planes, which there is nothing supposed to be coming out from there and should not exist (but it does), so this is a mystery. I do not support or oppose the chemtrail conspiracy theory (I would change the wording) because I am a neutral skeptic, and go by scientific observation, so if 50 years from now it gets disclosed that it was some sort of experiment or that it was not it will not matter, because it has been admitted and denied long time ago that experiments on masses of people without their knowledge is a common practice for security reasons. Verdict is that something is going on with the recent contrails. So please if you are finished reading this one hour message, feel free respond right here on the page. Thank you and goodbye.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Verdict"? In favor'' of the conspiracy theory? I think not.
 * "mentioned in the various newscasts are therefore real" Yeah, funny how the news is an unassailable source when it agrees with you, and part of the cover up when it doesn't.
 * "I guess we can rule out that weather control by persistent contrails (wrongfully called chemtrails - which is slang) is not a theory anymore. " Guess again.
 * You're free to post what you want (within the rules), but this is just insane. If you're truly a skeptic, then you MUST see how precious little evidence there is for ANY of this garbage. A skeptic doesn't look at 2-3 disparate points and decide "Yup, there must be a huge cover up here involving advanced technology the government's been keeping secret". In the words of Stephen Hawking- "If the government truly is covering up [a conspiracy], they're certainly doing a better job at that than anything else". -- King Öomie  12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for responding (sorry this is long, it is better written, so just bear with me)... However, firstly your taking this too seriously and way out of context, I never said the verdict was that it is a confirmed conspiracy, I said until we get enough evidence we can not say it was! My verdict as of now is I am not sure, like most people. Here is why, yes it does come from rense.com (a conspiracy website), but I only included it here because it has a good list of confirmed experiments on people, its admitted and the source is at the bottom of the page (plus billions go annually to the black budget programs, so not even Boeing is involved). A true skeptic is someone who is neither in favor of the status quota or what conspiracy theorists claim, for this subject, there is contradictory evidence from both sides of the debate, and no one human being has analyzed all the evidence for and against it, so for me to say it is or not would be foolish.


 * Secondly, I never said the newscasts are true or false, I just presented some video evidence of them explaining the chaff experiments over the continental U.S and possibly other parts of the world, and when did I say when they do not agree with me they are part of the cover up? There is no part in the videos were they say it is not or it is a conspiracy. I have read your previous statements in other sections of the talk page and thought you might be more reasonable, guess I was too optimistic.


 * Sensationalizing my comments is not helpful here. Also I do not need to guess again, because if you read the quote from scientist guy (I refer to him as the man), he says it can modify weather (he is one of the coordinators of the program), I wrongfully said control, but there is a thin line between the two. I admit I wrote faster than I was thinking and may have mixed some stuff up, but all the links, especially the first one to KTVU News was accurately quoted, I wonder if you actually saw the video from 3:07-3:27 (it is okay, just check it out, it is only 20 seconds long), it says (no commentary, just the exact quote): Narrator: And what about unintended weather modification such as those persistent jet contrails that criss-cross our sky, these are over Mendocino County where military jets practice. Man: They are blocking some of the sunlight coming in, they also trap some of the heat, so the jury is out to what the exact effects are, but those contrails do have an effect on the weather and climate. It makes sense, since all that smoke has to go somewhere, if I smoke it will pollute, if smoke comes from planes it will pollute too (depending on what it is composed of).


 * Also, there are at least three other news investigations about chemtrails (you can easily find it on You Tube), but those are old and mostly debunked, they are neutral because they say there is no way to confirm if the barium is coming from the airplanes or not, you need a well funded experiment to prove it (government paid scientists will not do it, because their funding will be taken away - if it is a conspiracy). It is funny how the KTVU broadcast is talking about cloud seeding, and when they ask him about persistent contrails, the man explains to them that some of them do have an effect on the weather and climate, if he only said weather, okay making rain is about weather, but if climate is effected by other means then this is classic geo-engineering, block sun light - trap heat - we do not know what the effects are, unless I am wrong and cloud seeding changes the climate? Oh oh, if I am right, I guess this would mean they have to pay carbon scam credits/taxes too (notice they rarely mention the sun, carbon monoxide, polluting factories - which I think these should also pay)?


 * So my revised ongoing verdict is that (your Stephen Hawking quote does not prove anything, if they are, then they are, why can not they do it?), 1. Extra ingredients are added to normal cloud seeding programs (I think I even saw a little mention of that in the main article itself), which is currently in a testing phase, because some weather modification proposals (which say they do more than just cloud seeding) have been passed (I do not know the exact ones but they are said to have little effect and are in a few states - its been added to some bills, so when the main bill gets passed, these little recommendations do to). 2. Current chaff experiments (Chaff (countermeasure)) over the continental U.S look like persistent contrails which also explain the web like metalized plastic stuff they see coming from the military looking jets - which are give false radar information (this is not for a evil purpose, its just war game exercises) which the 4 weatherman links in the previous message say they are (they are links 4-7, check them out again and ignore the titles of the videos, just watch the video itself). 3. Some airplanes have a tail propeller or engine (which currently no plane in existence has) that has wisps of contrail coming from the end of the tip of the tail (which there is supposed to be nothing there), these planes are for weather modification/control as said in by the man in the KTVU broadcast, testing geo-engineering before passing the laws to do so (this does imply a secret conspiracy - but if it means well then it is okay), very limited experiments with almost no consequences at all, it is all going to be okay and it is good for stopping climate change. The best evidence is from contrail science.com, just skim through the first parts of the page (which itself has the links to the evidence - like new regulations and patents and past experiments ). Also, this is the video showing the unexplainable on and off - plus the two cones from one tail propeller or engine. Ignore the title and music if you choose too, and just watch this video, if you can explain those two things then I will commend you. Note, none of the videos I put links to are created by me, I just found them to see if I can debunk it myself . Here is some good articles to read about (two are from a conspiracy sites, but links to news agencies - focus on the what the government proposal papers say - sulfur from airplanes - here is a quote from Time Magazine, Of course there's a catch: sulfur dioxide is a main cause of acid rain and a respiratory irritant. We'd have a cooler but dirtier Earth, also, the others are about geo-engineering from time.com - in order) www.infowars.com/obamas-plan-to-geo-engineer-the-planet-mirrors-cfr-policy-documents/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used,, www.prisonplanet.com/government-report-calls-for-global-authority-on-planetary-geo-engineering.html prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used, . I know these are not about chemtrails specifically, but imply that the new phenomenon of special persistent contrails is from planetary geo-engineering. I am also sure that this talk page had a lot people posting some form of evidence only for it to be ignored (I have looked at all the previous posts).


 * Finally, I have listed the 3 most scientifically possible explanations for a verdict on the on and off phenomenon of chemtrails (even chemtrail conspiracy theorists do not agree with each other - you can say there are two schools of thought), only the last one implies a conspiracy, but all others can be traced to real ongoing things based on new government regulations, patents, and state experiments, just short of actual geo-engineering. I am open minded on the matter, but would like to think that it is not a conspiracy. You can respond here, thanks.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not put hab here, I am responding to another users message, please ask my permission before closing my message, it is not a opinion piece, it is a response. You can put your reason here or on my talk page. I will put my last message in another section, if I have too. Thank you.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but wikipedia is not a forum to discuss the science or evidence for chemtrails, and tempting though it may be to "have the last word" when the discussion veers off into speculation and debate, doing so is flouting the guideline also. IP, please review the wikipedia's content policies.  You Tube and prison planet aren't suitable sources for wikipedia, and editors cannot contribute their own revolutionary insights or conclusions from studying those sources, or any other.  All analysis added to the article, or talked about on this page, must come from published, reliable sources.  What we conclude ourselves from studying their materials can't be used here.  So this discussion is closed. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand, and thank you for taking the time to explain the removal. Next time I will put the source material first, the prison planet and info wars websites all together contain unwarranted junk, however the sources they site itself is reliable and is from some big time think tanks. I am not really new to wikpedia, but if you have the time please check out the last You Tube video, I am not here to revolutionize anything, just wanted some to see if anyone can answer my last question. Therefore, I guess we can close this here, just respond on my talk page. Best regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

German MMS admits chemtrails are real
Here's a link to the video report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4 I'd like to get some input on how to add this information to the wiki. Where should I put it, how much should I write, etc... Can someone with privileges remove "conspiracy theory" from the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you can't use this because youtube videos are not considered reliable sources to use as references on wikipedia. The article name was settled on some time ago from the consensus of editors to adopt the a common usage in the reliable sources used here and because the article is about the cultural phenomenon rather than a "chemtrail" itself (which are simply conjectures without any authoritative definition as of yet). Professor marginalia (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This video is a good example of why youtube clips cannot be considered RS. The clip is taken from a commercial German TV station, but the subtitles are misleading. The translation is incorrect at times, as it leaves out certain words and misleadingly mistranslates whole phrases. There would be no support of the notion of chemtrails in the segment originally aired, even if we found it at the station's website. So, the clip provided is unreliable (WP:RS) and misleading, and the original clip has no connection to the topic at all. Putting it into the article would at best be WP:OR, and bad one at that. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this video report doesn't even deal with "chemtrails" in any way. The uploader's subtitles claim so, but that doesn't make it true. The report is actually about chaff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28countermeasure%29 - The subtitles then replace "chaff" with "chemtrail"... among other things. Der_Hans 18:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment removal
What explicitly is the following comment violating in Talk page guidelines that it warrants removal in this edit by User:Verbal? You know, I have been following this discussion, since I was in the last section. It seems this phenomena is only occurring in NATO countries. I have asked some people (few of them lifelong pilots, military and non-military) from Brazil, China, Dubai, and they have not seen them. I find it interesting that you do not see massive amounts of videos and blogs about Chem-trails from Brazil or South Africa for example. I saw one about Spain or Germany as mentioned in this section, I think it might be the recession that is causing this or something else. Is this why only Americans and Europeans are going nuts over this stuff?--67.188.124.21 (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Smallman12q (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Collapsed as off topic. Verbal chat  18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

=Interesting video= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSWnXQsgOU&feature=player_embedded

Should we add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.107.253 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's definitely not WP:RS. 134.106.41.29 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A smoking gun: "Chemtrails" is being used by some to refer to geoengineering
You might this interesting, people are using the term to refer to other than conspiracies. No, they aren't synonyms. But the term isn't SOLEY used by conspiracy theorists any longer.

From [Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)] - a "bizarre traffic spike" to the page was explained by the fact that people were researching "chemtrails".

And since this is the case, it can be proven somehow, at some point.174.74.68.103 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is original research on primary data (WP:OR), you need to provide reliable sources (WP:RS). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, well aware. For inclusion in the article, this holds no water. It was meant for the editors. To clarify my point a bit:
 * "Chemtrails" and "Conspiracy theory" are not synonymous in every current use of the term, requiring a second look at the title and message of this article. It is entirely possible that when this article was renamed to include "conspiracy", it was a valid move at the time. It is no longer valid to equate "Conspiracy theory" with all uses of the term "chemtrails", as people are using it as a layman's term to refer to at least one form of geoengineering, which we all agree is not a synonym for "conspiracy theory". I will be working on the RS problem.174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak argument, not even original research but basically speculation. The "smoking gun" stuff was absolutely unnecessary, not to say ridiculous. All posture, no substance. Come back when you have something. 92.76.132.6 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * sounds more like some people are saying that "chemtrails" is a geoengineering conspiracy. So "chemtrail conspiracy theory" describes that just fine 166.205.137.239 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Chemtrails, aka geoengineering, are found all over this country and in many places around the world." 174.74.68.103 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a "letter to the editor", not a reliable source. This isn't a forum for soapboxing about the dangers of chemtrails nor for spamming links and quotes that don't qualify to the sourcing policy.  This is not a place to try and change people's minds about chemtrails.  So for any further discussion that continues down that vein needs to be halted in its tracks, and immediately archived. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with ya prof...
 * ...those comments just need to be removed. They are not contributing to the discussion and are not related to the article because they do not meet WP:RS criteria. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Guidelines currently call for archiving rather than removal. But if that doesn't squelch it I'd support going the next step. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not policy. These repeated comments are quickly becoming disruptive, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You've asked for better references as to the fact that chemtrails are geoengineering are commonly used to refer to the same thing and I am attempting to do that, but now my attempts are being called "disruptive"? That raises red flags to me. Anyway, here is another one:

"Movie examines chemtrail theories

A documentary about geoengineering that features some north state residents is set for a screening tonight in Redding."174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Archiving. Done. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

ISDAC
Hi, I am not sure what this is 1, but after reading this document it could be summarized as program by the NSA's (a research institute) ARM department to see the effects of aerosol spraying and monitor a three weeks testing program for April 2008. This is not about possible future geo-engineering, so this is about the present moment. This is just one of many patents, an incomplete list of patents can be seen here (some links at the bottom go to conspiracy websites, but it has nothing to do with the patents) 2. Also, ISDAC is not a cloud seeding program, it contains aerosol/electromagnetically charged particulates, which would make it automatic geo-engineering and not just weather modification by cloud seeding to create rain. The purpose is to see what effect their aerosol spraying has on the cloud/weather/climate, so it is a test (stimulate) and result (retrieval) experiment. There is also Operation Cloverleaf and Raindance to know about. Also, if patents and programs already exist for future geo-engineering experiments, would then that would mean we should see similar chemtrial like phenomenon in the future? Then I guess a conspiracy theorist is one who thinks they not going to conduct tests in the near future, but are doing it now? By the way, I am not implying this is malicious conspiracy, however I am implying that this was a temporary geo-engineering program that was conducted for a short time with a few to no effects. However, if this is true, that would these little experiments, if put together with thousands of other possible experiments (with reports of Corexit found in peoples pools on the mainland 3), as whole would be large in scale, and may account for some of the chemtrail sightings. Plus (going a little off-topic now), in the CFR's papers on geo-engineering they said a C-130 Hercules plane is best suited for the job, well that is same plane they used to spray the dispersing chemicals in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which I find interesting. So basically this is something I found (thanks to a tip from a friend) just by looking for patents, but I could be wrong, any thoughts with what we can do with the document? Thanks for reading.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think ISDAC is what you think it is. There is recent climate research that aerosols are major factors in Arctic warming.  They aren't actually spraying any aerosols, but they plan to fly about and take readings throughout the Alaska.  You might want to read .  Just to clear up any misconception, a conspiracy theorist is someone that refuses rational arguments, and possibly has weak reading comprehension too.  216.113.193.88 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I understand that ISDAC is a program to get results from how much aerosols are affecting the Arctic area, but according to Wikipedia itself, it states that from the early 1990's to now there has been a 87% increase in greenhouse gases from contrails, whether there is something in the contrails doing this or that climate change is causing contrails to spread a heating to cooling effect remains unanswered (note, in the first place there was no rational arguments to be refused, so now is this rational enough?). So when a reputable I.P. user like me comments from a neutral point of view on the controversial matter, one would think a presumed Wikipedia n would offer new information, and not regurgitate a cheap joke. There is only one part that I may have misread (that led me to the probable conclusion), but its exact wording I will include some here so you can see it for yourself and how easily one would think it means something else...

Several different aircraft flight patterns are needed to achieve the objectives of the experiment. Vertical spirals over the Barrow site will be performed at the beginning and end of each flight to provide aerosol input data for the cloud models and to provide aerosol and cloud evaluation data for the retrievals (this sentence threw me off as I thought why would they need to input data first and then retrieve it, they should just retrieve it, and retrieve usually means getting something you released back to yourself, I also read how they would do it, and they did not really show in the pictures about throwing something out first). If sky is clear, one vertical spiral will be performed to sample aerosol up as high as the aircraft will fly. Horizontal legs of 15 minutes, each below and above each cloud layer, will be performed to better characterize the aerosol going into the clouds (they should have reworded it as 'to better characterize how [the natural] aerosols go into the clouds [notice they call it the aerosol as if its a independent variable in a experiment],' IF they were not dispersing the aerosols to begin with, SO does this mean pushing the aerosols already there into the clouds or pushing the aerosols they put into the clouds?). At an aircraft speed of 100 ms-1, these legs would span 90 km. 15-minute horizontal legs through liquid clouds (whenever something is sprayed it is at first usually in liquid form, or could it mean rain clouds?) will be performed to characterize the size distribution in liquid and mixed-phase clouds. 15-minute horizontal legs through ice clouds will be performed to characterize the crystal size distribution in ice and mixed-phase clouds. It should be possible to fly all of these flight patterns in a 3-hour flight, depending on the number of cloud layers. Thus, 45 hours (that is a lot of flight time) of flights will permit 15 flights, and 30 hours of flights will permit 10 flights. Although icing is always a concern in the Arctic, our experience during M-PACE (referring to similar previous experiments as mentioned in the first parts of the report) suggests probes could sustain operation for at least 40-50 minutes at an average liquid water of 0.1 g m-3; analysis of SHEBA data for April suggests lower LWCs and smaller droplets than those encountered during M-PACE, so that de-icing will probably not be necessary for horizontal legs through liquid clouds for less than 15 minutes. Actual flight profiles will be subject to aircraft and air traffic control (that means the FAA and other departments would know about this program). 1.5 Expected Results. This refers to the next paragraph in section 1.5 on pages 14-15 (so you know where to look).


 * So basically, as you can see there is a lot of uncertainty and I have studied the meanings so it could either mean one thing or another respectively. Also, since they word the operation in vague terms, you would have assume they are just going to take readings and nothing more. So that is why I am not here to prove anything in this sample, since I am here to see if anyone can explain this program so that the average people will not get confused over it, as you can see some parts are open to interpretation, or not (please be courteous). So I really commend you for reading this. Any informed comment on this subject matter is appreciated. Thank you.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is this going? Without RS none of this can be used in the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I firstly like to thank you for not removing my comment for no reason and having the resolve to read it through. If you read the report, it says in April 2008 the program was conducted from the Arctic to Alaska and back and forth, also you might find other terms like radiative heating and aerosol size distribution. Now we can discuss those later, but this is reliable source since it is sponsored by many agencies, departments, universities, and research firms. Also, in some of the footnotes of the paper it mentions also measuring the biological and chemical properties of the aerosol, now it would have been better to measure for or call it CFC's (which stands for chlorofluorocarbon that causes ozone depletion and it exists because of natural and non-natural aerosols), so I am not sure why they just call aerosols. However if you go on the first page of the paper 1, it say's the title, and its sponsors or authors, creators of the patent for it, and those who were involved with the experiment (it is a lot so I am not going to list them all here, though the title is Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC)). Also, I want to get approval from other users, since this document may turn out to be nothing, something harmless, and not worth inclusion in this article, so it is just to be sure (I just found 30 links that when I have time after your response, I will put here). Some are directly tied to Chemtrails too, but need more scrutiny. Regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well for inclusion into the article, a Reliable sources will have to have commented on it - can you provide a link to any that do so? We couldn't add it based on our analysis of the document. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the first few pages of the document. They are measuring the particle concentration in Artic's air, and they want to study how this aerosol affects cloud formation and other meteorological stuff. They are not spreading aerosol, they are only measuring the pre-existing aerosols.


 * For example: "Aerosols have a strong seasonal cycle at the NSA (North Slope of Alaska)." Seasons determine how much aerosol there is in the air.


 * Or also: "Previous studies of arctic aerosol have shown that (a) submicron mass concentrations exceeding 2 μg m-3 are often found in stratified layers at altitudes up to 9 km (Barrie 1986) throughout the Arctic during winter and early spring; (b) this aerosol is predominately anthropogenic and transported from Europe and Asia (Shaw 1982, 1988; Norman et al. 1999);". They are measuring the aerosol that is caused by man in Europe and Asia and transported by nature to Alaska. Hint: smoke stacks of factory cause aerosol, so do car exhausts, big movements of land during road work, pollen of plants, etc.


 * This document is not about "chemtrails", and the researchers don't claim anywhere to cause any "chemtrail", and they don't cause anything that could fit its description. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Chemtrail references in popular culture
Wasn't there an episod of X-Files with govt types spraying from planes? I don't recall if it was specifically about chemtrails though. Maybe not. Weavehole (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)weavehole

Name change needed?
Please take a look at this article, and especially to the picture. It seems we are talking about the same thing - the UN is addressing geoengineering, which includes cloud-seeding using a spray that comes from airplanes, yet Wikipedia calls the idea of "chemtrails" a conspiracy theory (aka: BS?). - "U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects". There are 'conspiracy theories' about why airplanes are spraying something that turns into clouds, but the fact that it is happening is no theory. What am I missing here? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * US Patent 5,003,186 issued to Hughes Aircraft: 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RS saying that the UN is talking about chemtrails? This may be interesting for the geoengineering article, though. 92.76.137.170 (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this article is more about the conspiracy theory which thinks that any and all persisting and spreading contrails must have chemicals in them placed by the government for nefarious purposes. This is distinct from cloud seeding or other geo-engineering experiments that do not result in anything that looks like contrails. Contrails are merely a result of the water vapor which is a major byproduct of jet exhaust. They have noting to do with cloud seeding or other geo-engineering experiments which are real but don't produce contrails. Mystylplx (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article already clearly states "The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is an abbreviation for condensation trail. It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting." Oberono (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I thought the term for cloud seeding using a spray from airplanes was called Chemtrails. So what are those trails/clouds called - is there a specific name for them? I meant to go to that page to add an article but ended up here. Thanks in advance 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably the closest thing to what you're looking for. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, it looks like we do have a problem. Cloud-seeding and crop dusting are vastly different. At the bottom of the page, it has a link to "Chemtrails" - but there is no page for chemtrails, instead it goes here, to the "no such thing as chemtrails" page. I guess what we are syaing is, there is no word for the white lines in the sky that form into clouds, other than geoengineering. But I would argue that there must be a name for this specific form of geoengineering, and further, that many people use the term "Chemtrails" to refer to these.
 * So, we either need to find out what the name is for those white lines that become clouds, and have a Wiki article for those, OR we need to have a separate page for Chemtrails other than this one referring to the theories about what they are/why they exist. As has been pointed out, the term here on Wiki is being used to refer to the lines that are NOT part of geoengineering. So - how does one tell the difference? What are the other ones called? Is there a Wiki page for them? What do we do to solve this? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The "white lines in the sky that form into clouds" are contrails; they are formed by the condensation of water vapor that is produced when jet fuel is combusted. "Chemtrail" will get its own page when any evidence of such a phenomenon existing is presented.  Until such time as that occurs, there are two phenomena worth discussing: the scientific phenomenon of condensation trails, and the conspiracy theory regarding chemical trails. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What Throwaway85 said. There's no evidence that any such thing as "chemtrails" exist. Apparently, back in the 90's, someone looked up in the sky for the first time in their life, saw perfectly normal contrails, and decided they must have sooper secret chemicals in them. They then managed to convince a bunch of other people, who also had apparently never looked up, to believe their conspiracy theory. Thus we have the Chemtrail conspiracy theory page on Wikipedia which is about said conspiracy theory.Mystylplx (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm a bit older than the both of you. Condensation trails never used to form into clouds, ever. This is a new phenomenon, and it is not caused by simple condensation. Please refer to this article and look at the picture, read the caption below it. It is this that I am referring to - intentionally making clouds by spraying something out of planes (geoengineering). These are the white lines that I am questioning - what are they called, and is there a Wiki page for them already? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like they have removed the caption that was originally underneath the picture, but I copied it luckily, for hwat it's worth, this is what it used to say underneath the picture of the airplane: "An agricultural aircraft flies over Prachuab Khirikhan in a bid to seed clouds, about 300 km (186 miles) south of Bangkok, April 4, 2007." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you never looked up. I remember them from the 70's as a kid forming into clouds. I've seen pictures from WWII of them forming into clouds. This is not a new phenomena. BTW, the picture you showed is cloud seeding and there's already an article for that. It does not "make clouds" it causes rain in clouds that already exist. It's been being done since at least the 1950's and looks nothing like contrails. Mystylplx (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for your edification, here's a picture of contrails turning into clouds taken in 1944 so the idea this is somehow a new phenomena is obviously incorrect. Mystylplx (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

POV in this article
After just a bit of browsing through this article, I have come across some profoundly disturbing trends. 3 of the lead images had their captions changed from "chemtrails" to "contrails" without any references. Is it legal to change the title/subject of an image so completely? In a nutshell, it is obvious there is a point of view than has a hold on this article, but at least play fair. Are there rules in Wikipedia supporting this behavior? Could someone point me to the rules on using/citing images and their subtitles/captions? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they were originally labeled "contrails" as that's what they were, and the change to "chemtrails" was considered POV. Oberono (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view is probably relevant here. It is important to note that this article is about chemtrails, it isn't supposed to be written from a point of view that supports their existence. Therefore, because the existence of chemtrails is not a scientifically accepted phenomenon, we shouldn't label images of what the majority would consider contrails as chemtrails just because that is what the article is about. We can't label them as chemtrails when there is no real evidence that that is what they show and, as I've said, the vast majority would consider them to be contrails. Adambro (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed them to "trails left by jets", except for verified contrail pics. Oberono (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is about Chemtrails being conspiracy theory, is it NOT about Chemtrails' existence. There is no article on Wikipedia about Chemtrails. I agree wholeheartedly about using the term "trails" for images, unless the content of the trails can be proven and RS provided. My concern is that we stay as NPOV as possible within the confines of this article which is essentially from the point of view that chemtrails don't exist, and that they are not geoengineering either (which as I have said previously, does not have proper RS).174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several theories about the purpose of "chemtrails". Since they are all put forth by conspiracy theorists and not by RS, wikipedia takes an agnostic stance, not privileging one over others. Wikipedia can thus not conclude that chemtrails are part of a geoengeneering exercise as there are no RS clearly stating that they are. So long as that's not the case, chemtrails remain a seperate concept, put forth by fringe theorists, assuming different purposes. Doing otherwise would be synthesis.92.77.148.211 (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While the discussion page does not require the same RS as the articles, I wish for some references for your staement that all theories about chemtrails are put forth by conspiracy theorists. The term is used by most people to refer to geoengineering, so to call those people conspiracy theorists means that you have trouble believing geoengineering exists. This article used to be called "chemtrails" and included the conspiracy theories, but was put forth in a much more NPOV way. The name of the article was changed to CCT without any discussion by a quick look at the discussion archives from this same time period. I am going to suggest it be reverted to fix the POV issue on this page. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Oberono's comment at the bottom of this page, it basically answers this question. I will not comment on the abortion of logic you tossed at me. 92.76.136.131 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources removed
A number of sources have been remove by Oberono. Should they be put back in, or is the current revision superior to that of the older one?Smallman12q (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make sure the sources are directly relevant to the text, and do not constitute WP:OR - there was previously a huge mess of references. I've noted with each removal why I removed it.  Oberono (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to make it so that you have one or two sources for each thing that needs a claim. For instance, currently there is " Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for global dimming, population control, weather control, or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[1][2][7][8]", where [7] points to NINE different citations. So there's a sentence with five claims, and then thirteen differente citations at the end of it.  I'm going to try to identify which claim comes from which source, and separate them out, preferring WP:RS Oberono (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I've now done. I really don't think there's any need for such a multitude of references, because nobody is disputing that these claims are being made. Hence, simplifying the references makes for a more accessible article. Oberono (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please replace the references so that the editors can look at them and decide on their relevance collectively. Wikipedia articles' content cannot be decided by a single individual.174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The references are in the older version of the article (Particularly 1,4,5, and 10).  References are there to verify what the article claims.  Multiple references might be needed if there was dispute, but nobody doubts the things referenced, so they only need one reasonably RS link each.  Remember this is about describing what the theory claims, and not actually making the claims in the theory. We can say things like "versions of the theory ascribe the trails to covert geoengineering", but not "the trails are a form of geoengineering".  The first needs only one reference, and nobody would dispute it.  The second might need rather more justification, as it's highly disputed.   Oberono (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The removed sources were validly removed. Sources should be wp:rs and none of the sources removed by Oberono were in that category. Mystylplx (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Kucinich use of word
Why would Dennis Kucinich mention "chemtrails" in this bill if they do not exist? `Space Preservation Act of 2001' What is he referring to? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Likely for the same reason that others use the term....they think they exist. We really can't know for sure, unless he also mentions them other places, which might give a clue as to what he believes and why. As for Wikipedia, we follow the RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably because Kucinich is not necessarily better informed, just like anyone has his ideological stances, and because of the following: "When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said “I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”" I suggest you read []. 92.77.137.29 (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link. It provides a good explanation (but certainly doesn't increase my confidence in Kucinich as a presidential candidate). Scary! Now can you figure a way to get that information in the article using RS? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the problem, this article is only for conspiracy theories about chemtrails. It doesn't make sense to include this bill under "conspiracy theories" and the fact that we are given no other choice, other than a "cloud-seeding" article, makes me wonder if we're running into a POV issue. We are forced to either play along with "it's all BS, if you see lines forming into clouds, they are just contrails and you've obviously never looked up before" or say nothing at all.174.74.68.103 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We follow what RS say. The moment the real existence of chemtrails is confirmed in RS, this will become an artifact to be mentioned in a section of an article on the real phenomenon, and that will necessarily involve a change of title. Until then this gets treated as a fringe idea like AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Note that our verifiability policy does not concern itself with whether an idea is true or false, only if it's verifiable in RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Does RS stand for real science? Or...? (By the way, thanks to you all for your patience with my questions.)174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I imagine it stands for reliable source.174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly.....;-) Take care. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Chemtrails are real" -Dennis Kucinich, while answering questions during a 2004 presidential tour. Source: "Above Top Secret" by Jim Marrs. Page 119. I'd also like to add that chemtrails come in different colors. I didn't see any mention of this in the article. I saw a black one from horizon to horizon the other day. And lastly, I'd like to voice a concern for the future of this article. When/if chemtrails are admitted, this article will possibly be merged to the "geo-engineering" article. Or if this article is kept, its focus will shift to what can still be marginalized as "conspiracy". What this does, is it allows certain bits of information to be quietly deleted in the name of shifting the scope of the wikis. This article currently states that all sorts of prestigious universities, scientific political groups, and people with power have declared unequivocally that chemtrails do not exist (and that you are a bad person if you believe they do exist). It would be a travesty for future wiki readers to miss out on this information. Hopefully there's a wiki expert here who will know how to make it stick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim Mars is hardly a reliable source, nor is the conspiracy forum Above Top Secret. And if "chemtrails" are ever proven to be real, and that the purpose of them is geoengineering, then this article will reflect that, though I doubt it will ever be merged with the geoengineering article since geoengineering is a much larger subject. I find it highly unlikely that will happen though, since "chemtrails" are simply perfectly normal contrails as they've always been. Mystylplx (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archives have disappeared
It may be a momentary glitch, but right now the talk page has only one section, and the 3 or 4 archives are missing. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like somehow the page was wiped during one of my edits, and I have no idea how this happened. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=399837498]
 * Should be restored now. Oberono (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
This article was changed from "Chemtrails" to "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" without discussion. I believe the title change is a clear POV issue.

From what I can see, the term is used overwhelmingly to refer to the act of cloud-seeding/geoengineering - which is clearly no 'theory'. Indeed, theories exist about everything, especially issues with so little official information available. With the new release of the film "What in the world are they spraying" as well as a few news investigations which all support "chemtrails" = geoengineering, I would argue there is enough evidence that the term is being used to refer to geoengineering, though there are certainly fringe/conspiracy theories that should be included in this article as well.

There is a statement in the intro that says "chemtrails don't refer to cloud-seeding" etc., but that statement has no references to back it up - and to my knowledge is not true. Yet, the whole slant of the article is based on that one unfounded statement.174.74.68.103 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article was created on March 14th, 2004, and its title was the same when it was created as it is now. Your link just shows the creation of a redirect, not an article. There was no title change. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * An old diff or revision does not reveal what the page name was at the time. It was me who provided the page move link from Chemtrail theory to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I responded to a post at Help desk. The move can also be seen at . There are no other page moves in the history so the page was created as Chemtrail theory in 2004. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, of course you're right. What it wasn't was created as 'Chemtrails' as the OP claimed. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't listen to the hour and a half video provided by the IP, but it seems made by conspiracy theorists. It's not a reliable source for "cloud seeding people are giving to their spraying the name of chemtrails". To sustain this you would need stuff like technical books of science papers that talk about cloud seeding. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * PD: A cursory search of google books "cloud seeding" chemtrails chemtrail suggests that "chemtrail" is not a term used in cloud seeding, and that only conspiracy theorists use it in association with cloud seeding. Note that google books has about 400 books that mention "cloud seeding" without ever mentioning chemtrails --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no WP:RS that say what chemtrails ARE, but there are lots that say what people THINK THEY ARE. They think they are a variety of things, from weather modification, to spreading poison, to something to do with HAARP.  In all these there is also the element of conspiracy.  You can't change it to the "Geoengineering Conspiracy Theory", as there are multiple things that people think the trails are, and so the article has to list them.  "Chemtrails" is a general term for a variety of conspiracy theories about the trails that scientists claim are persistent contrails.  Oberono (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're raising the issue of plato's beard? The older revision had sources which you have since removed under the pretense that the statements aren't disputed (and yet here they are). Anyhow, I'm responding to the ip's request for comment. The title is indeed a POV issue, as labeling any theory as a conspiracy denotes a particular slant. Nonetheless, as with the titling of other conspiracy articles, Wikipedia follows mainstream conventions in labeling. As such, if something is deemed to be a conspiracy theory by Mainstream media, then its title will be that of a conspiracy theory here. (The ip should be aware that such issues have been raised before, such as at the failed proposal, Conspiracy theory.) As for your other suggestion in which chemtrails=geoengineering...this is not necessarily true. The chemtrail theory suggests that the trails are for an unknown purpose...and as such it is difficult to define/limit to geoengineering. There are other geoengineering/climate related articles on Wikipedia such as: Climate Change Science Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate and Societal Interactions Program, U.S. Global Change Research Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. Global Change Research Information Office, Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration,Charged Aerosol Release Experiment‎ which cover current official efforts. Hope this helps.Smallman12q (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My "pretense" for removing the references was to make the article+references more readable. If there's a sentence with five claims and at the end of that there's literally 15 different cited references, it's hardly helpful. The references mostly looked okay, and I'd have no problem putting them back for other points in the article if needed.  But they were not needed for that one sentence in the intro.  Also, I'll stand by my point that nobody disputes that some of the chemtrail conspiracy theorists claim that the trails are part of a geoengineering project.  Nor is anyone disputing it here on this talk page.  I don't think this has anything to do with Plato's beard, as this claim quite clearly exists, but perhaps I initially phrased it poorly. Oberono (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oberono, next time you're tempted to remove a long list of references, note that many editors' work is thus being trashed and those refs may be there for a reason unknown to yourself. There is a way to keep long lists of references in an unobtrusive manner. An example can be seen here from 54-58. Look at the code and you'll see how to do it. Especially in a lead such a list can be very disturbing and this is one way to deal with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * -The tag should be removed. There is nothing POV about the article and Oberono's recent contributions have made it less not more POV.Mystylplx (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The title itself is the POV issue. The title should be "Chemtrails", with the intro explaining what chemtrails are taken to mean and including the various theories about why they exist in the article itself. We have an article about Unicorns but not many people actually believe they are real. Do we need to say "Unicorn theory"? The title is wrong at the outset, as it implies a singular theory, but in the intro, there are several theories listed. There are "chemtrails" and then there are theories about them. But to offer only "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" implies there is one unified theory, and leaves the geoengineering connection out of the picture altogether. Geoengineering is the main definition in popular culture for the term, and it is in the "related links". I am not interested in any of the theories about why they exist, only in removing the POV problem in the title. There is always the arbitration process if we are unable to agree here, but just so you know I will be gone for the next week and a half.
 * As for the movie, that was not meant for anyone to view, but only to show an example of popular culture using the term "chemtrails" when referring to weather manipulation. It may prove hard to convince anyone here that the majority of people who use the term chemtrail are referring the act of cloud-seeding, especially since this is a popularized term and not a scientific one. Perhaps someone here knows how Wikipedia handles issues like this?
 * Oberno, how is it that you would call geoengineering a conspiracy, or has an element of such?174.74.68.103 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oberono has adressed this already, yet you seem not to argue on the basis of RS that chemtrails are geoengineering, instead move to semantic shenanigans. Nobody here has called geoengineering a conspiracy, it's only you equating it with "chemtrails" and assuming stuff. 92.76.136.131 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unicorns are a part of western mythology and have been for centuries (millenia?). Chemtrails, on the other hand, are a theory by fringe non-professionals purporting to describe (a secret) reality. We cannot take these claims at face value, RS tend to object. Thus, the article describes chemtrails as what RS tell us they are. 92.76.136.131 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unicorns are not a conspiracy theory. No one claims they are real. And there is no geoengineering connection. Geoengineering is real. Chemtrails are not. Chemtrails are simply normal contrails as they have existed since they first emerged when planes started being capable of flying that high.Mystylplx (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy Theory" is a labels that RS apply to fringe theories that involve a conspiracy as part of the explanation. Chemtrails are described as a conspiracy theory repeatably in the mainstream media, and in many books on conspiracy theories (Conspiracy Encyclopedia, Burnett 2006, Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies for Dummies, Hodapp and Kannon, 2008,   Conspiracy Theories in American History: an Encyclopedia, Knight, 2003,  Conspiracies and secret societies: the complete dossier, Steiger, 2006,  The Little Book of Conspiracies: 50 Reasons to Be Paranoid, Levy, 2005,  et al).  So calling it a conspiracy theory is entirely justified.
 * Suggesting that I'm saying "geoengineering is a conspiracy" is ludicrous. One might as well say that assassination is a conspiracy, because of the JFK assassination conspiracy theory.  It makes no sense at all. Oberono (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the beginning of this article in 1994, the term as used in popular culture has more than likely gone through some changes. It is obvious to me that when most people use the term now, they use it interchangeably with geoengineering - specifically cloud-seeding. For some people, the "why", or theorizing about chemtrails is not an issue and is of little interest. Yet this article does not allow for a separation of the "what" and the many "why"s.

If "chemtrails" is being used to refer to making clouds/weather manipulation (geoengineering), presumably it can be proven through an internet search of coupled terms. Is there is anyone here who knows how to do that, and has NPOV as a goal? It might also be helpful to look at the history of how the term has been used over time since '94 by a similar internet search.

RS for the stance that ALL popular meanings of the term fall under "conspiracy" needs to be provided, or there is no support for the title to remain as is. Even though I have pointed this out, there has been no RS provided for the statement '"chemtrails" does not (ever) refer to "geoengineering"' - which is needed as it's the basis for the title (in that geoengineering is not a theory) and is included in the intro.

From what I can see, there are several theories regarding chemtrails, some being conspiracy theories. If it can be shown through a study of search term pairs (as above), or by other methods that "chemtrails" is being used sometimes (if not most times) in popular culture to refer to the specific form of geoengineering know as cloud-seeding, then to call all uses of the term a conspiracy theory is invalid.

In my humble opinion, an NPOV article would look something akin to:

"Chemtrails"

"...Is a popularized term referring to trails left by aircraft that linger and spread, becoming a cloud-like cover and are distinct from contrails... Theories range from cloud-seeding to ...chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials.[1] As a result, official agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation.[1][2] The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by government agencies and scientists around the world, who say the trails are normal contrails...."

If it can be proven that "chemtrails" never means geoengineering, then it makes sense that the title remains as is. The intro is an explanation of different theories surrounding chemtrails, and to claim that those theories do not include cloud-seeding is thus far unsupported, although at the time this article was created the term may have had a more narrow definition.

If anyone here knows how Wikipedia deals with popularized terms, and defining them, please do share.

This article's title has issues of POV in the following areas (from [NPOV]:


 * Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Undue weight is given to the wacko theories and no allowance given for the supporters of the term as a reference to cloud-seeding.

(As for the name itself:)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. IMO, there is no weight given to the most widely used viewpoint, and undue weight given to fringe theories.

On naming an article, from [Article titles]


 * 1) Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject.
 * 2) Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article
 * 3) Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * 4) Conciseness – shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.
 * 5) Consistency

~ I realize it is on me to find RS for the term being used to sometimes refer to geoengineering. Any suggestions on how to do a study of search terms, or other ways to discover how popularized terms are being used?174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * RS - Here is a 2 part news report - they are defining chemtrails as weather modification (geoengineering). This news report is on YouTube, so may not be appropriate for the actual article, but is a start to supporting my points here in the talk page that it is not the case "chemtrails" never refers to weather modofication. part 1 part 2~ 174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think at most you might say that the term "chemtrails" is sometimes used to refer to some proposed forms of climate modification. Geoengineering is a HUGE subject (mostly theoretical), and spraying stuff is only one of many many possible forms of geoengineering.  There is no way you can say that chemtrails refers to geoengineering in general.  Nobody actually involved in geoengineering uses that term.
 * The video you link to simply says that there's a theory that it's the government secretly doing weather modification. Basically your video says it's a conspiracy theory Oberono (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We are saying the same thing - "...the term "chemtrails" is sometimes used to refer to some proposed forms of climate modification" - This is my entire point. One of those forms of weather manipulation is cloud-seeding, and is being used as we speak . Yet we have this in the intro: "The term chemtrail .... does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting." This statement has no refs. And since climate modification is not a conspiracy theory and IS one of the various theories or explanations/definitions of "chemtrails", the title of this article is no longer accurate, as it states that ALL uses of the term are conspiracy theories.
 * "My video" is a RS reference to the fact that the term is being used to describe weather manipulation.174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, "chemtrail" is not a common term in cloud seeding, and it only appears in relationship to conspiracy theories. Your video is about conspiracy theories, and it's using the terminology used by conspiracy theorists. You should show examples where people use "chemtrails" to refer to common forms of climate modification. Examples that are not really about conspiracy theories, and that are not written by conspiracy theorists. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see 174.74.68.103 has still not provided RS for the claim chemtrails are a popular term meaning geoengineering, making it synthesis. Chemtrails are a theory concerning persistent contrails left by airplanes, suggesting that they a) behave unlike contrails should and did before sometime in the 90s, b) consist of chemicals spread across the sky for some purpose. Point a) seems to be consensus of Chemtrail theories, while b) is where they differ. Thus, chemtrails are neither the same as geoengineering nor another word for cloud seeding, but a theory whose premise is not shared by science and in its further claims suggests a vast and secret exercise (rendering it conspiracist). Only in the purpose of the exercise does geoengineering come up as one of many assumed purposes. This is basically also what the article says (and, the basis of RS, has to say). If you found RS showing that chemtrails are now, indeed, being used as a popular term for geoengineering, we'd add it, but we'd have to leave the above basically intact. 92.76.137.221 (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cloud seeding doesn't make any sort of persistent or spreading trail. The word "chemtrail" refers to persistent spreading contrails. Period. I'm not sure why you keep putting up the Reuters article which is not about chemtrails and never even uses the word "chemtrail." Also it should be noted that some believers in chemtrails think the purpose of the trails is weather modification, but that does not mean the term itself (chemtrail) refers to any or all forms of weather modification. The term "chemtrail" refers to persistent spreading contrails. Mystylplx (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To 174.74.68.103, you seems to be having some circular reasoning there, and are making very little sense. Things get labeled as conspiracy theories if there is a theory about them being a conspiracy.  Not if they are about non-existent things.  The theory here is that the trails are being sprayed as part of a conspiracy to alter the climate, or some for some other goal.  So - it's a conspiracy theory.  The term "chemtrails" does NOT refer to weather manipulation, that's just one theory that people have proposed.  And cloud seeding (for rain making) is NOT geoengineering, it's weather modification.  There's a difference between weather and climate.  Oberono (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And to take your logic to another extreme. Many RS note that "chemtrails" are thought to be used for population control.  Population control is a real thing that has been widely discussed, and even implemented by some governments (more so than geoengineering).  So then you'd say that means "chemtrails" is not a conspiracy theory?  Should we then say "Chemtrails is a term used by some people to refer to geoengineering, population control, and/or holographic sky manipulation"? No, it's a conspiracy theory, with the usual slew of variants that all conspiracy theories have.  Oberono (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I was saying. The term "chemtrail" refers to persistent and/or spreading contrails, which chemtrail believers think proves they must have some kind of secret chemicals in them. (In spite of the fact they've been doing that since contrails first existed) They then theorize all kinds of reasons why those chemicals are added, including weather modification, population control, or space weapons, etc. That doesn't mean chemtrails as a term refers to "weather modification, population control, or space weapons, etc" it simply means that various among chemtrail believers think perfectly normal contrails are some kind of proof of any or all of the above. But the term "chemtrail still refers to perfectly normal persisting and spreading contrails. Mystylplx (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a requested reference, (Steiger, Brad & Sherry (January 15, 2006). Conspiracies and Secret Societies. Visible Ink Press. pp. 95.) which states that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is not cloud seeding, firefighting, crop dusting, or smoke trails. Oberono (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We are defining a popularized term. So, we go to those using it to find the definition, as has been done in the intro - but the article is ignoring one viewpoint altogether (creating a problem with undue weight & POV as previously mentioned): some people are using the term interchangeably with geoengineering, whether that's scientifically valid or not. How Wikipedia deals with defining a popularized term is something I need to look into. I feel the job done so far with this term is heavily slanted, breaking a cardinal rule on Wikipedia. This article essentially says, If you use the term chemtrails, you are more than likely wearing a tin hat. Not all uses of the term are conspiracies - therefore the conspiracy theories should a subsection of this article (albeit a large one), allowing for the fact that one way people are using the term may have scientific validation. I personally don't see anything nefarious about attempts to cool the planet - on the face of it, it seems like a good idea, provided the methods used are safe. As for the claim that cloud-seeding does not produce long lines that spread out, it does no good to make claims without providing RS (no offense intended). 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. NOBODY, not even the conspiracy theorists, uses the term "chemtrails" interchangeably with "geoengineering".  That's nonsense.  Painting roofs white is a form of geoengineering, so does that mean painting roofs white is a form of chemtrail?  It makes no sense.  Geoengineering is just one of several explanations proposed by chemtrail theorists to explain what they see as unusual numbers of persistent contrails. That is quite clearly noted in the overview were "global warming mitigation measures" is given as one of the proposed explanations.  If you think it's the most common theory, then feel free to modify the article to say that, citing references. Oberono (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never heard anyone, reliable source or conspiracy theory source, use the term chemtrail interchangeably with "geoengineering." The word "chemtrail" always means contrails that persist or spread. Sometimes conspiracy theorists posit that contrails that persist and spread must have secret chemicals in them for the purpose of geoengineering... but then they also claim all kinds of other nefarious purposes as well. The term "chemtrail" still means, to those who believe in them, "contrails that persist and spread." Mystylplx (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is going around in circles. It's obvious 174.74.68.103 has no RS at all to back his/her assertion that chemtrails are a popular term for geoengineering. I'd say we let this discussion rest until she/he can do so. 92.76.132.6 (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here from the NPOVN. It seems to me that there are many sources for associating the article's subject with conspiracy theories and no or few identified sources for proving scientific consensus for something non-conspiratorial and different from contrails.  I would suggest that persons wanting to remove the "conspiracy theory" part of the title provide sources which are reliable and do not talk about the article's subject in terms of a conspiracy.  Blue Rasberry  19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for visiting from the NPOV forum. Here is an article that might be useful in my argument, please give me your opinion whether it works for RS - that chemtrails are being used to refer to geoengineering, and not always by conspiracy theorists. I'll give you a head's up on your talk page since it's been awhile...


 * "''PHOENIX - She might be retired from political life, but former state senator Karen Johnson is not retired from being an activist. After serving in the House of Representatives for eight years and the senate for four, Johnson retired in 2008 to her home in Linden where she now has time to garden and become more active in issues that concern her.


 * One of these issues took her on a recent trip back to the state capital to try to bring the subject of chemtrails and geoengineering to her former colleagues, including Governor Jan Brewer and Senator Sylvia Allen''..."   174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What's your point here? She's a conspiracy theorist. And I'd say that geoengineering is used as a way of describing/referring to chemtrails, not the other way around. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is your opinion (slander) supposed to be useful in some way? I can't figure out how it has any place here - what am I missing?174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't make personal attacks on me for describing her as she's described in the media: "A conspiracy theorist on matters ranging from water fluoridation to the North American Union". I asked what your point was and you've avoided the question. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IP174, I'd suggest you strike the word "slander" lest you be accused of making legal threats, which is one of the fastest ways to get blocked here. A simple and factual description of a person is not slander and such a description places things in context, i.e. what they say can't be trusted to be factual. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The day that chemtrails, as currently defined by conspiracy theorists, are proven to exist, i.e. that they are right, AND that mainstream RS document that change in our understanding, THEN the title will be changed, and not before then. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrail vs. Trail
I have reverted several changes by an IP regarding "trail" being used in captions vs "contrail". As there is NO evidence that these are anything other than contrails, I have accordingly changed the captions back. If you feel I am in error, please discuss. — BQZip01 — talk 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're on solid ground. Keep it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The captions already said "trail" (other than the one with RS from NOAA that it was indeed an image of contrails) I simply reverted another IP's change from "trail" to "contrail" because it was lacking references. To truly remain NPOV, one would need to prove that these are not images of Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) or any other spraying to conclusively name the images "contrails". 174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...In much the same way that a photograph of a moon rock would have to be captioned "Moon material", in the absence of an explicit expert statement that the substance wasn't actually cheese? We should not misrepresent the contents of our photographs by pretending a greater degree of doubt regarding their contents than actually exists; WP:WEIGHT is a core element of WP:NPOV.  Even in an article about a conspiracy theory, we should not pander to conspiracy theorists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)NPOV says we take reliably sourced information and report it straightforwardly. It does not say that we take reliably sourced information and "neuter" it.  If the photo comes from a reliable source, and the subject of the photo is identified by that source as a contrail---NPOV says we absolutely do not replace it with an alternative pov, but instead be accurate to what the source says it is.  All conceivable alternatives, the vast universe of multi-various opinions--they are not all granted equivalence here.  I think you've misapplied the NPOV policy here. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The first image in the article - if you look at the source, it says "A high-flying jet leaving an expanding trail". But in the article, it's been changed to say "A high-flying jet leaving a contrail".  So by your own argument, this image caption should be changed to reflect it's source. Otherwise, we are dealing with a POV issue and lack of RS.174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The caption left by a random individual who uploaded a photo to Wikipedia is not a reliable source within any of our usual definitions. It's worth noting that the uploader is a 'believer' in chemtrails, so I can't help but assume that the caption was deliberately left ambiguous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemtrails don't refer to geoengineering? Citation needed
This statement is not sourced yet appears in the intro ~ "It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting". There are 4 references following the larger paragraph, yet none state that "Chemtrails" does not refer to cloud-seeding. In fact, most times people are using this term to refer to geoengineering. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeez, what's up with those references. Ref #10 has 9 sub-references.  How can anyone find anything in there. Aren't there guidelines for this?  Seems like they should be split up, and attached to specific sentences, rather than lumping them at the end of a paragraph.  Oberono (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It sort of looks like someone had an idea of what they wanted to present, and just said whatever fit that idea. If you look at the refs, they seem more to support the phenomenon people refer to as chemtrails and not that it's all a conspiracy. I wonder if someone just swept through the article, leaving refs intact, but changing the context to fit the "no such thing as chemtrails" theme, while no one was looking. I suppose it's a common occurrence on Wiki.174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no WP:RS refs that support chemtrails. Mystylplx (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ...Which explains the lack of a Chemtrails article on Wikipedia. My point was that the articles used as refs in the intro support (however mildly and and perhaps lacking reliability) the theory of chemtrails rather than the conspiracy - contrary to the context of the intro.174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction, imho, this Reuters article is a RS that supports chemtrails. The problem is that the editors most active on this page insist "chemtrails" does not refer to geoengineering. I would urge the editors to provide proof, proper references for this position. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That Reuters article does not even mention chemtrails. It seems like some variations of the theory say that the purpose of "chemtrails" is geoengineering. It doe not then follow that articles on geoengineering are evidence of chemtrails.  That's just backward. Oberono (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Reuters article mentions chemtrails by the image of the airplane spraying - if that is not called a chemtrail (or that act of spraying one) I implore you to tell me what the IS called so that I can work on the correct article. From what I can tell, the spraying from planes to make clouds, or geoengineering, is referred to as chemtrails in popularized language. Numerous articles used as references on the chemtrail conspiracy page support that. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not mention chemtrails at all, it's you reading it into a picture. The picture unfortunately does not have a description, but we cannot just assume. The chemtrail conspiracy theory is actually several conflicting theories as to the contents and purposes, not just one. (The only part in the text referring to "spraying" is "spraying seawater", which is not what the proponents of the chemtrails CT seem to be talking about.) The article obviously refers to geoengineering and possibly to cloud seeding. And as Oberono said, geoengineering is not evidence of chemtrails as proposed by this CT. 92.77.148.211 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems 174.74.68.103 has given up on this particular approach, but it needs saying: it's up to the editor claiming that chemtrails mean geoengineering to provide sources and it's impossible to prove a negative. What the article does show is people use the term chemtrails for non-geoengineering concepts. Ignoring this would be POV and pushing some editor's pet conspiracy theory. 92.76.136.131 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I have not given up, but I am leaving for a few days and won't be back until next week.174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

US "ban"

 * Pardon me, I'm not sure what The Examiner is, if it's "reliable" like the Anti-Defamation League, or the US government, (http://www dot examiner dot com/skepticism-in-national/chemtrails-banned-by-united-nations) but, not having a lot of time right now, I see it is one of the first results in a google search for "chemtrails geoengineering" that produced 74,700 results. That chemtrails are deployed with the excuse, "to save us from global warming", has got to be the preeminent theory, right? I've seen this stated in every source I've ever read on the issue. There is a section in this chemtrail wiki that contrasts chemtrails to contrails. Pehaps someone could write a section that contrasts chemtrails to geoengineering... This would be very helpful for the obviously large group of people who don't know what the difference is. Honestly, according to this wiki, chemtrails are identified by their appearance. The picture in the Reuters article is, therefore, a "chemtrail (conspiracy)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The picture in the Reuters article is cloud seeding. It's a very temporary trail that doesn't persist or spread, thus not a "chemtrail" even according to those who believe in "chemtrails." And again, some chemtrail believers think the purpose of those trails is geoengineering. That doesn't mean the words "chemtrail" and "geoengineering" are synonyms. Meanwhile other chemtrail believers think the purpose of them is population control, space weapons, and all kinds of stuff. Mystylplx (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This "US ban" was already discussed in Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory. There was a Reuters news piece: U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects (page 2)"Some of the geo-engineering schemes proposed include: Ocean fertilization. (...) Spray seawater into the atmosphere (...) Placing trillions of tiny solar reflectors out in space (...) Artificial volcanoes. Tiny sulfate particles or other materials are released into the stratosphere (...) (page 2) Carbon capture and storage. (...) Mooney said the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) should expand its de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilization agreed in 2008 to all geo-engineering, although the proposal was resisted by some countries, including Canada, earlier this year." Canada opposed only because the definitions of "geo-engineering" were unclear. Not going to quote the whole article: it says that governments shouldn't make these experiments in real life, but it doesn't say or imply that these experiments have already been started by anybody. Not sure if the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity finally expanded its moratorium to cover geo-engineering. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant document?
Hi. I came across this page about the topic. I have not read the entire thing in any great detail. Is it relevant? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, no. It is not relevant, though it is already addressed in the article. This particular memo is from some random person with no verifiable credentials. It is along the same vein of thought as "because someone in prominence mentioned it, it must therefore already be in existence." It is the same idea that some conspiracy theorists point to regarding Dennis Kucinich's (sp?) insertion of "chemtrails" into a bill in Congress (which never passed in that form). While "chemtrails" and their surrounding theoretical implications were mentioned, they were only mentioned in a manner of "this is the kind of stuff we should prohibit", not "we shouldn't use this stuff anymore because we've already used it," though the latter is usually the conclusion drawn by those who believe in these conspiracies. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Chemtrail Conspiracy "Theory"
Is this really a "theory", or is it a hypothesis? I'd say "theory" might be a misnomer.

Wfunction (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, the term "conspiracy theory" is HARDLY a neutral point of view. Some quotations:


 * "The purpose of the term 'Conspiracy Theory' is to discourage institutional analysis." -Noam Chomsky


 * Author Floyd Rudmin writes: “Conspiracy theory” is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory,” evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory” means, in effect, “We don’t like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.”


 * In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as “heresy,” “witchery,” and “communism” also worked like this. The charge of “conspiracy theory” is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. “Conspiracy theory” implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.


 * All such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Members of the community who are sympathetic to new thoughts might shy away from the new thoughts and join in the shunning due to fear of being tainted by the pejorative label. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A 'conspiracy theory' is a theory which attempts to explain an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. It doesn't have to be a, technically speaking, Scientific theory. In fact they are almost never scientific at all. And in this case the belief in chemtrails (as opposed to contrails) fits the definition of 'conspiracy theory' to a tee.Mystylplx (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is of the lowest quality with regard to bias. "there is no scientific evidence to support their existence" but of course no actual scientific assessment of the alleged phenomena at all, only assertions by the us air force "fact sheet" that it's normal for contrails to last all day. None of the other citations link directly to arguments against, or even for the existence of chemtrails. No reference to the guy whose evidence is soil samples with unexplained elevated aluminum and barium levels, which is surely the best evidence. The worst part of the article is this: >Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents: "If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, 'Well, you're just part of the conspiracy'," he said.[2]

This simply has to go! This is just saying "we found an expert in the field who thinks these conspiracy theorists are idiots" but without saying exactly why he thinks they are idiots, and what fault is found with their logic. If Patrick Minnis has not refuted any claims specifically then his comment has no place in this article nor does the introduction with the "logic is not exactly a real selling point" slur. Asserting over and over that chemtrails are simply contrails doesn't qualify as an argument any more than alleging that long contrails are chemtrails without physical evidence. Obtaining physical would involve flying behind one of these aircraft and taking samples of the suspect white streak. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of scientific assessment of the phenomena of contrails included in the article. But you're right--there's no scientific assessment of chemtrails since there's no scientific evidence they even exist. Soil samples are perhaps an example of the worst possible sort of "evidence" since soil can be contaminated in many ways and the vast majority of those ways are near the ground. The very idea that soil samples can provide evidence that perfectly normal contrails must be infused with sooper secret chemicals is a perfect example of the thinking that leads this to be called a conspiracy theory. It's yet another example of how Patrick Minnis was right on the money.


 * Though I agree that obtaining an air sample from one of these trails is the only way to scientifically determine whether there's anything in them other than what would be expected. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, no one has done that. But until and unless that happens, and then assuming they find something untoward, the article is written correctly. Mystylplx (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's some analysis of the chemical and physical properties of airplane exhaust contrails and cirrus clouds: Contrail Occurrence and Persistence and Impact of Aircraft Exhaust on Cirrus. Nothing you wouldn't expect from burning hydrocarbons - water, soot, and sulfates. MachinaLabs (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

obvious bias in favour of denial
where there is a claim that one group of INDIVIDUALS is attempting to potentially poison the entire planet there is obviously going to be contention and conflict within discussion on the subject. the more that wikipedia is restrictive and limiting as to what information is placed here, the less reliable a resource the site becomes; thus there is considerable importance that open mindedness is allowed instead of denial labelled as 'healthy skepticism' - open mindedness does not discount - skepticism is bias and opinion.

this does not mean that you need to accept everything you read as being true, however, where there is a claim to 'conspiracy' whereby there is uncertainty as to the true nature of what is being described, for wisdom to prevail there needs to be the acceptance that yes, organised groups of psychopaths do indeed attempt to kill large numbers of people, the earth story is littered with such events and tragedies. furthermore, where the prevailing 'story' of this phenomena on wikipedia is presently so clearly skewed in favour of agencies and groups claiming that (by way of inferal) that 'agencies and groups must be right because they are not individuals and thus are open to greater scrutiny and exploration' does not take into account the nature of groups and the nature of suppression of free will within such groups. in this case the groups who are being cited are very often the same groups that are considered to potentially be responsible for causing the chemtrails, so to cite them and a few 'skeptics' and say 'ok, case closed' is obviously neither open minded nor rational, sane, wise or caring.

if you are internally in denial then you will not be allowing viewpoints that are open minded and in acceptance of possibilities, this means that your entire being must be open to internally healing and ending denial of all of you before you will be able to see clearly enough to respond instead of react - to accept instead of deny.

the denial here must end.

with specific reference to the two urls added that have triggered this 'edit war' - the first is a detailed documentary made over many months by people who dedicated themselves to exploring the subject and includes interviews with american government representatives and various other people who are quite possibly people within the agencies that ARE being sited on this page but whose voices were not included within the pages/websites that have been linked to here.

the second url is an interview with a man who used to be in a responsible position within the fbi saying that he has personally witnessed the planes with spraying equipment. to claim that this is irrelevant to the subject because the link is pointing to youtube and not some other site is highly irresponsible, indeed in some senses psychopathic.

without wishing to open up the can of worms that is present under the surface in such conversations, the undoing of this edit by editor labelled 'ninety-one' is particulary disturbing since this editor's history is primarily focussed on editing 'law enforcement' pages and who claimed that the addition of these links is against policy here because 'external links are not appropriate to an encyclopaedia' - this reverting pushed the editing to exceed the '3 revert rule' and thus will be seen to be of questionable intent by anyone with an open mind.

i note that the latest editing note by 'Kingoomieiii' claims that 'youtube videos are not suitable for external links' (especially with biased content) - yet here is the page on wikipedia on the subject of youtube videos - [] - which clearly states that wikipedia policy has no issue with youtube videos being linked provided the copyright is not infringed and other policies are adhered to. as for the videos being 'excessively biased' - where there is an ongoing investigation into attempted murder it is not the case that a being is ignored because they are expressing what is 'truth' to them. wikipedia attempts to be 'neutral' but that is being abused here - this subject cannot be 'neutralised' by way of claiming bias - it is an unresolved subject for many people - if you do not KNOW the truth and can show that what you are expressing is 100% undeniably the truth then to claim that another person's message on the subject is biased is delusional on your part - or worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunist (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE applies here. The "bias" happens to be the balance of the reliable sources on the matter, and it's reflected in the article (as it should be). I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies relevant to controversial topics before pressing on. -- King Öomie  17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

having read some way through the policies here i note the following:

the subject of this page being labelled as 'conspiracy theory' means that the conclusion is unresolved and as such the policies suggest including all viewpoints. the present content of this page is imbalanced in that it is primarily a discourse on how this phenomena is 'not real' rather than being inclusive of all the viewpoints and details available.

to label my comments as being 'soapbox' is a denial of the nature of the subject matter as being unresolved.

i see clearly that the wikipedia ideology is not presently flexible enough to support the possibility that what is being relied upon as 'pillars' are themselves not open enough to evolving to allow for genuine truth. the focus on 'verifiability' in place of 'truth' that is highlighted in the policies are resulting in misdirection and incomplete awareness being presented as 'useful truth'.

if you constantly label new awareness as being inappropriate because 'the ideas do not conform to what is generally held to be true by agencies and publishers' then wikipedia becomes a museum dedicated to stagnation in place of a genuinely useful tool for learning. there will be a herculean amount of editing and re-editing and massive amount of energy being expended by editors simply to ensure that evolution does not occur.

thankyou for clarifying the limiting nature of this website, i will converse with mr wales on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunist (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the alternative you suggest for the "museum dedicated to stagnation" is "Presenting roundly debunked pseudoscience as fact", as it appears to be, I'll stick with my dusty curatorial position, thank you very much. WP:V has stood firm here for a decade, and it isn't going anywhere. I suspect Mr. Wales will say the same.
 * Also, your keyboard, I'm sure, has a very helpful "Shift" key that alters the relative size of the letters you press. You're clearly a fluent english-speaker, please make use of it. -- King Öomie  18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had many things suggested about my intentions in the past, but being a front for chemtrail psychopaths solely because I happen to edit law enforcement-related articles is probably my new favourite. For the record, I am not a psychopath and I am not acting as a front for any psychopaths who may or may not secretly want to kill everyone else on the planet. ninety:one  00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What in the World are they Spraying
It is odd that this documentary called "What in the World are they Spraying" is not mentioned. How many other full length films deal with the subject? Even if you can question the film, then much of it must be verifiable - for example the Congressional Hearings on Geoengineering and Chemtrails mentioned in them. OR for that matter FALSIFIABLE.
 * Not at all. If you can find any notable, reliable reviews, it certainly could be added. As for the alleged Congressional hearings, I'd like to see ANY link to those. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1770768/ has the movie synopsis. As for the actual congressional hearings you have to watch the movie or go to the webpage to find the links.

http://vimeo.com/16219493

is the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The only verifiable evidence mentioned, the soil & water analyses, are related to acid rain, mainly caused by coal-fired power-stations. The evidence for this phenomena is substantial & well-founded. The west coast of North America & many North Pacific islands are now being affected by China's massive expansion of coal-fired generation. This is hard, provable fact, not speculation. Geo-engineering is an idea, not praxis, so has to be discounted as evidence. Cloud-seeding is a locally focused tool, which can have good results, (but is only applied to small areas in the lower troposphere, not at or above the tropopause over hundreds of miles) as is lightning discharge by use of rocket-trailed wires. This about the limit of weather-modification technology. Archolman 21:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

People are also blaming spider mite webs on contrails
Here are some videos from YouTube that suggest that a certain kind of web they are seeing is caused by "chemtrails." The webs are actually made by spider mites, which do indeed kill foliage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgnNIBO3dJg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ciIuwsARA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO6edz_oD1s

Here's actually a case of blaming spider webs (as opposed to spider mite webs) on "chemtrails": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QArPK9k1Gro

In this case it's spider gossamer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5fC8c9pdMQ

Here's one that blames honey bee colony collapse disorder on "chemtrails": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psdg3OAw_a8

--Jtlapp (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Youtube is not a reliable source — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Preventing Edit war / Cloud seeding vs. chemtrails
Special:Contributions/71.193.58.117 wants to get a text on cloud seeding in China into the article, I have reverted this twice, it has been reverted by another editor before. The reason being that the source provided does not make any mention of chemtrails and does not seem to describe chemtrails at all, but is on cloud seeding.

I suggest 71.193.58.117 discusses his text here and provides good sources and clear rationale for inclusion, before just reinstating obviously controversial claims. SK (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources are and . This doesn't mention chemtrails at all, and doesn't describe anything that could be passed as a chemtrail. The Wired source even links to our cloud seeding article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * P.D: Reminds me of this discussion back in October 2010, when someone wanted to rename the article to Geoengineering. As usual, such a rename requires reliable sources that make a direct link between chemtrails and the new name. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wasn't aware of a talk page. I agree the topic of chemtrails is controversial, however controversy and fact can live under the same roof. The fact remains that chemicals being dispersed from an airplane during the process of cloud seeding due indeed leave a trail behind, a chemical trail, or chemtrail.  Go here and you'll see an airplane in china with a chemtrail during a cloud seeding operation.


 * Quoted from the chemtrail wiki:
 * "The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks. Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for ...weather control."


 * - Here is what I tried to add to this wiki:
 * "Arguing that the chemtrail theory is not a hoax proponents point to China who in 2008 used Cloud Seeding rockets and airplanes from it's Beijing Weather Modification Office to spread chemicals into the sky in an attempt to keep the Beijing Olympics from being rained out. Their arsenal included 4,000 rocket launchers, 7,000 anti-aircraft guns, and 30 airplanes. The rockets and airplanes have also been used to induce precipitation by spraying the clouds with silver iodide or liquid nitrogen. "


 * Also, it's not necessarily "chemtrails vs cloud seeding" as you're saying. It's more that chemtrails are a result of cloud seeding operations. I'm not sure I have an opinion one way or the other regarding the process, but how can you deny that a chemical trail produced by a plane during cloud seeding is not a chemtrail?
 * 71.193.58.117 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with your text. The first, and most problematic, is that your sources don't support your conclusion. If you are concluding, and not reporting on what the text says, that's original research. Wikipedia merely reports on what reliable sources say about a topic, it's not interested in making new claims.
 * The second problem it that your conclusion does not sit well with the characteristics the theory's proponents ascribe to chemtrails. As the article says:
 * "Proponents of chemtrails characterize these chemical trails as streams that persist for hours, and by their criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds."
 * AFAIK, this is part and parcel of any chemtrail theory so far. Lately, I have seen chemtrailers trying to blend chemtrails with geoengineering, but it's unclear whether they modify the previous theory or conveniently ignore parts detrimental to their discoursive strategies. In any case, the persistence of certain trails is still the very basis of chemtrail claims, even more so since we have to go by what reliable sources say. Regards, SK (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that chemtrails are spread in secret and have unknown composition, while China has made the spreading public and has explained the composition. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out the following two quotes from the very first section of this wiki describing a chemtrail:
 * "The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials."


 * "The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks. Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for...weather control"

If you want to "conveniently ignore" the fact that cloud seeding produces chemtrails fine, but stop with these ridiculous excuses. To say that cloud seeding does not produce chemtrails because "chemtrails are spread in secret and have unknown composition, while China has made the spreading public" is laughable. None of your excuses make logical sense. If you would like to use Wikipedia to explain chemtrails it's there for the taking. Or you can use it to promote an obviously biased perspective, as is the case now. Good luck either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.58.117 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on cloud seeding. Chemtrail theorists, AFAIK, so far pointed to percieved unusual persistence of certain trails (from your quote:"resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks", further specified in the section of the article I quoted above.). This is the recieved notion of chemtrails, if you wish. Does cloud seeding result in persisting contrails? You need to provide reliable sources associating cloud seeding with chemtrails. Wikipedia cannot make these connections itself, as that would be original research and Wikipedia does not do original research. Yours, SK (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On an aside, IP71.193.58.117 can I recommend you create an account? Shot info (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia supports neutrality. (LOL)
So what will it take to get this article out of "conspiracy theory" land? Or do the editors want to prevent this topic from being viewed with an open mind. Think about someone who knows nothing about the subject, it sends a condescending tone that seems to say "nothing to see, move along folks. " 63.225.172.116 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to see, so please move along folks. This is the amusing thing about conspiracy theories.  Tell someone that there is nothing to see and they see it even more clearly.  What do you think this article should contain?  Gillyweed (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It should not be based on the government's 'expert' opinion, as they are the subject of the conspiracy.63.225.172.42 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "the governments expert opinion." There are opinions of experts who work for the government, but that's not the same thing as the government itself having an opinion. In this case all the expert opinions, both those who work for the government and otherwise, are in agreement. If you take away the opinions of all the experts this article would be left based on the non-expert opinions of the conspiracy theorists. This is why it's a conspiracy theory--no one who knows what they are talking about believes in it. Mystylplx (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mystylplx, you stated "..In this case all the expert opinions, both those who work for the government and otherwise, are in agreement." How can you claim to know all expert opinions of this topic are in agreement?! Obviously that is not possible, as the average human lifespan would not be enough time to learn all expert opinions. :) It's rather childish as well that you automatically assume that a 'conspiracy theorist's' research is not a part of the 'expert opinions' you speak of. Remember, it was Wikipedia, not chemtrails, that appended the label 'conspiracy theory' as the title. It seems to me that Wikipedia editors are a bit too comfortable throwing around the consensuses of thousands of people whenever they feel a superiority conflict arising. 63.225.172.42 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, all the expert opinions I've seen. If you have any WP:RS that say different then by all means bring them forth. Otherwise, lacking any reliable expert support it remains a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring forth reliable sources, please. Do have any concrete improvements in mind? Implement them or at least propose them. SK (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am preparing some new text for the article. Should be ready shortly. 63.225.172.42 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And you probably should get an account as well Shot info (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I got an account, then added some text to the article, and came back about an hour later to find everything I did was magically gone! I can't log in either. Gee, I wonder why? 63.225.172.42 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the stuff from the college students personal site, that is exactly what does not count as a reliable source Mystylplx (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the stuff from the college student. Educated adults usually avoid referring to college research and academic writing as "stuff", which is quite offensive. Next time, please avoid removing the text until the editors have had a chance to see it? Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.172.42 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're all editors here; there are no specific people in charge of reviewing submissions, only the guidelines that Wikipedia is based around. Your addition appears to be original research and thus is not usable in the article; we require reliable sources, as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "..we require reliable sources, as noted above." Yeah, Wikipedia's interpretation of 'reliable', which includes mainstream media crap, and nothing else! 'reliable, reliable, reliable' yep. Ok. Sure. If you say so. 63.225.177.44 (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to change WP's guidelines on reliable sources, take the discussion to the appropriate page. It's no use complaining here ad nauseum and disrespecting your fellow editors. SK (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable! It's perfectly ok for USA TODAY to make statements not backed up by any traceable scientific studies (see 1st cite), but a lowly college undergraduate's work (with scientific references) is out of the question! Clearly there is too much credit given to these mainstream publications. Take a look at the discussion archives for this article, the same repeating cycle of disinformation is occurring. Content that supports the Government POV is praised for the most part, and ANYTHING else is quickly ripped apart or deleted without an intelligent reason. If this is acceptable Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia is probably owned by the government (most likely it is) and they are pretending to have NPOV and Neutrality! Jardycoho (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there were any scientific references in that web page then they could be used. Unfortunately the closest thing to a scientific reference on that page is a link to a page showing the periodic table. There's nothing scholarly on that page. It's just a random web page by a random college student. Mystylplx (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're talking about most if the current references on the article, right? Jardycoho (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about all the references in the article unless some new ones have been added? Clifford Carnicom, Dave Dahl and William Thomas. Carnicom is a self employed computer consultant and conspiracy theorist. Dave Dahl has written a book on the potential weather changing effects of contrails, but doesn't think they have anything in them but the expected jet fuel and doesn't believe in any "conspiracy." And William Thomas is a professional conspiracy theorist (he makes his living at it) with no education or expertise or education in meteorology or anything else that would lend him any credibility on this subject. Most of the student in questions presentation comes from Carnicom. None of them are reliable or credible sources except Dahl. Mystylplx (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "..Carnicom is a self employed computer consultant and conspiracy theorist." What are you implying here? 63.225.177.44 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT IP63.225.172.116 Shot info (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)