Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014
Will a registered editor please assist in correcting a language usage error and a lack of documentation in the first paragraph?

Language

Please change "refuted" in this sentence with "disputed:" "This theory has been refuted by the scientific community..." According to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispute), 'dispute' means to "call in question: to dispute a proposal." Whereas, "refute" means "to prove (a person) to be in error." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute). No 'proof' is provided against the actuality of chemtrails.

Documentation

Will the author please provide documentation of the "scientific community's" participation as claimed in that same sentence above? The only reference is a US Air Force source. The US Air Force DOES NOT represent the "scientific community."

many thanks! John L

75.45.104.84 (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have to deny this request, though please understand that I do understand your line of thinking.
 * Reasoning for denial: A lack of documentation (and/or reliable sources) on any given topic does not instantly grant weight towards the existence of that topic. This is also called 'the burden of proof'. In this particular instance, the burden of proof is on those who believe in the chemtrail conspiracy theory to actually provide the necessary evidence that chemtrails exist.
 * Silly example: I propose that a space-dwelling spaghetti monster lurks on the other side of the sun, where we can never see it. The evidence rests on ME to prove that such a creature exists, not on other people to prove that it does not.
 * A mere dictionary definition doesn't really alter the weight of this factor, and the source by the USAF is no minor source - there are 30+ sources throughout the article itself that also serve to strengthen the opening statement, which is that chemtrails (as described in the article) do not exist.
 * Proposed solution: What you really need to do is provide the source (and they must meet Wiki guidelines) that show that there is actual debate on the existence of chemtrails within the scientific community. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The USAF source says "The 'Chemtrail' hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications."


 * In the lead I specified what is being refuted. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, I should've been more clear. When I said it wasn't a minor source that's what I was meaning. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply: Thank you for reading my request. However, you did not address your misuse of the word 'refuted' and the necessity for a correction. You misinterpreted my word definition source as having to do with proof. -- John L. 23:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.104.84 (talk)


 * Reply2: If Chemtrails were the Title of this article, then you may have reason to seek proof. However, the title specifically only references a "theory."  As such, the article needs only PROVE the existence of the theory itself and give the reasons for its existence.  Your demand for proof of the subject of the theory is an argument for changing the title.  It's clear from the confusion of the discussion that the article should be renamed "Chemtrails" and "theory" should be relegated to a subsection. -- John L. 23:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.104.84 (talk)


 * The given USAF source says: "The 'Chemtrail' hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications."
 * The source isn't just the Air Force: It's the combined information from MANY established universities, various scientific organizations, etc.
 * As such, the word is correct: This conspiracy theory HAS been refuted.
 * Discussions as to re-naming the article have been done in the past, and the name of the article will not be changed. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * USAF source lacks specific attribution:
 * The USAF media document must be removed entirely from this article because of it's generic, unsupported, unscientific nature.


 * Your Air Force source is NOT a scientific paper. It is a document written for the media intended to debunk the assertion that the Air Force ITSELF is responsible for Chemtrails.


 * While the USAF media document CLAIMS the support of "established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications," it does NOT provide that evidence. I challenge your use of that document which you claim is valid simply because (to use YOUR words) the "USAF source SAYS" SO.  The document contains NO proof of the claims that you've referenced; and you are unable to find that proof of "established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications" anywhere within it. - John L.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.104.84 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The USAF is a fine source for this unexceptional statement over which there is no serious dispute. We should avoid couching it as opinion, as that would improperly imply there was some doubt about it. Alexbrn talk 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that Wiki's guideline of 'always assume good faith' no longer applies here (for me personally) and that it's fairly clear you had rather subversive intentions in mind when you first created the Semi-protected Edit Request.
 * Also, you ignored what was stated earlier, and quite clearly so: The document in question is more than just the USAF, but is the combined information from universities and the scientific community. I stand with Alexbrn on this. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea that USAF materials must be removed is an example of the circular reasoning seen in many conspiracy theory and fringe topics, from 9/11 to Lyme disease, in which proponents of the conspiracy theory claim that the mainstream account or sources contradicting the theory must be excluded because they're part of the conspiracy and can't be viewed as neutral or credible. Plain, straightforward statements will always be given preference over Internet rumors, especially on fringe topics, where the adherents of the theory are always more passionate about the subject than public officials who would rather not have to take the time to deal with stuff cooked up on the Internet. Wikipedia isn't a sounding board for fringe theories: it documents them, but is obligated to plainly state that they are seen as fringe ideas.  Acroterion   (talk)  ' 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The USAF document contains no verification of its own claims


 * Because you don't seem to understand my point, I'll attempt to address it as simply as possible.


 * Your bias and circular logic is obvious in your statements. You have argued that there can be no disputing the USAF media validity because there is no serious dispute. In other words, you are saying THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPUTE.


 * Yes, there is dispute. And there should be, because the document is propaganda.


 * I challenged you to show the SPECIFIC documentation of the USAF media piece's claim (from WITHIN the document itself). You can't because it contains none. Its claims are UNSUPPORTED and, as a consequence, they must be treated as opinion.


 * I DID NOT ignore the USAF claim. I simply pointed out that it CANNOT be claimed as true because it does not document its own claims of wide refutation.  --- John L  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Nobel (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Source, please, that shows it is propaganda? TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with user:John L. that this statement needs to be attributed to the Air Force. The source is full of dubious opinion that has already been discussed repeatedly (without resolution). The Air Force is not scientists and universities and they don't cite any in that source.  This has been discussed numerous times including under the topic of "chemtrails" definition as a name for Crop dusting, etc. and Chaff. That statement is repeated in the entry twice and in every  case must be attributed to the Air Force just as it is in the 2nd use in the entry.  Those refuting or disputing seem to be US, UK, Canadian gov departments and agencies rather than universities and the scientific community's consensus.  Please note that scientists such as those at NMSR (and quoted by skeptical inquirer) cannot refute the existence of chemtrails for the same reason that the flying spaghetti example cannot be disputed- which is because it cannot be seen or at least no scientist has seen it and there is NO EVIDENCE either way.  The scientists are refuting alleged chemtrail photos while the Air Force source in question states that most chemtrail photos are Photoshopped.  No one should be arguing for removal of this source. What is being said is that the statement is being misused as is the case with numerous questionable interpretations by same the group of editors who insist on discussion but seem to never understand the issue being discussed.   Nonsense arguments are presented along with refusing to budge and throwing out accusations of pushing conspiracies.  This content is in dispute and decision should fall on the quality of the arguments rather than a majority of editors some of whom who have stated their POV and are willing to protect it rather than allow the correct use of a source or sources.  Stating that its an opinion implies doubt?   It implies there is more than one side to the argument, nothing more.  The Air force source doc even contradicts itself.  If one wants to state that sentence as fact then attribute it and cite it to the scientists and universities making these statements.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * TL;DR ... another editor will have to deal with this. I just revert and delete bull crap, and am not that familiar with the topic at hand. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"The document is propaganda:" show me in reliable sources (i.e., the New York Times) that the Air Force statement is "propaganda." Both Johnvr4 and John Nobel are pushing a fringe theory in this thread ("chemtrails are real") against the mainstream view that the notion of chemtrails are a popular conspiracy theory. Please read WP:FRINGE. Please remember that Wikipedia represents mainstream views, and describes fringe theories and conspiracy theories as the mainstream media views them.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More baseless attacks on me by user:Acroterion. I haven't seen any source proposed for the patent stuff or how it relates to the topic.
 * I am stating once again that the Air Force is the source of the "refuting" statement and it needs to be attributed to them as it is elsewhere in the entry. "Additionally, the USAF states that the "'Chemtrail' hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications."[3]"
 * Enough folks have complained about it over several sections. Lets fix it already!  Air force fact sheets are not always wholly factual and you must say that this statement about what has been refuted is the Air Force  viewpoint (as well as government agencies/departments of US, UK, and Canada).
 * Take note in the source that even the Air Force prefaces with the word "Fact:" for the facts while everything else is the Air force's opinion. If one takes this entire fact sheet as fact or states something from this sources as fact they are forever baselessly labeled as inserting pseudoscience or fringe material or pushing a POV by other editors.
 * For example:
 * "Chemtrails- Chemtrails is a term coined to suggest contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere."
 * Photographs which show military aircraft with sprays coming from unusual locations on the aircraft are usually re-touched photos (a process that is easy to create using common computer programs)".
 * "The "Chemtrail" hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications. (It is the photos on websites being refuted which are normal contrail photos." source: NMSR scientific organization who refute web photos submitted not the possibility of tests etc.)
 * Johnvr4 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Believers in the theory argue that airplanes don't leave contrails that persist in the sky under normal conditions"
I am struggling with this. Even chemtrail people understand that there are "vapor trails" (which by definition persist - they are "trails") - see the quote at the bottom of the right hand column on page 198 of the Knight ref where it says "these trails do not dissipate as vapors trails do". I get it, that it is useful to make an affirmative statement about what the conspiracy theorists believe. would something like "Believers in the theory argue that normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly, and contrails that do not dissipate must contain additional substances"? We could also tack on, maybe "and that these substances are secret, and are added for secret purposes." something like that? Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that would work fine - though I'm not sure it's quite as rational as that, since it seems that trails coming from what appear to be "unmarked" aircraft, or from aircraft flying at what are taken to be unconventional altitudes, or from aircraft that appear to be taking unorthodox trajectories, are also seen as "chemtrails" - irrespective of how the trail dissipates. Alexbrn talk 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, done. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The distinction in defining is quite rational for an irrational subject. Persistence of the trail and cloud it forms is part of the key to defining what the crazy belief is. Some sources have that the cloud formed from the long-lasting contrail is (or also is) the chemtrail and what falls from that cirrus cloud is what is the proponents fear. The significance of persistence is noted in numerous sources has been discussed numerous times on this talk page even as part of the definition in the fist lines of the entry and not one editor would allow this important distinction to be in the LEAD so it is tucked way down there at the end of the overview in this sentence: "Proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those trails left by aircraft that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds.[3]"  For the record the issue could have been solved weeks (or months) ago but no one allowed it.Johnvr4 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At first blush, this sounds like a valid complaint. See:
 * "The chemtrails are, supposedly, different from contrails. They are longer lasting; they spread out into dripping feathers and mare’s tails, sometimes into complete sheets of cirriform cloud; they are laid down in parallel lines, X shapes, square blocks and cross hatches."
 * This source is written by an ex-meteorologist and has detailed scientific explanations of why contrails form. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Knight book concern
Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia (2003) edited by Peter Knight. Should the opinion of this author/editor be allowed to be stated as fact and solely attributed to this source in the entry. I tried to fix one then saw another. I'm not opposed to using this source as long as we properly use facts and opinions (and quotation marks in the direct quotes). Says:Contrails are also chemtrails, part of Mass immunization, pulse detonation engines and unusual high altitude contrails etc.  He also makes numerous conspiracy-themed sites, theories, ideas notable such as operation Cloverleaf (plus there's some garbage about environmental pollution concerns being a conspiracy theory).Johnvr4 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good source (and Knight is the editor, not necessarily the author). Are any statements in the entry seriously disputed? If not, we can simply assert them. Alexbrn talk 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Alexbrn's use of this source is disputed. It seems that what happened was the authors opinion was copy-pasted in a direct quote from page 198 of his book and is stated as fact in the entry without quoting him. I fixed it and added the quotes and where is came form "The conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media, and when it is, it is usually cast as an example of anti-government paranoia"diff and you reverted my edit diff without any legitimate reason only to a reinsert your version that appears to be a copyright violation.  There is no way in Wikipedia anyone should be allowed to get away with this.  Enough already! Do not Revert any more edits.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A paraphrase is not a copyright violation, and adding quotation marks around a paraphrase misrepresents it as a direct quotation. Furthermore, Knight is not the "author" of the piece. You don't own the article, and your bad edits should certainly be reverted.
 * (Add) I asked if the text was "seriously disputed". I don't mean to be rude, but your disputing it does not mean it is. Alexbrn talk 17:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is only a close paraphrase. No one has said that I own anything so I'm not sure where this is coming from.
 * You do not acknowledge the editor as the author and no other author is mentioned in the citation or the source. So who is the author and who is making the statement(s)?  is it James, Nigel?
 * I said that disagree with your use of this source to state an authors (or is it the editor) opinion as fact in the entry.
 * "It is usually cast as an example of anti-government paranoia"? The statement is not consistent with other reliable sources in use. Anti-government "Paranoia" in not a legitimate concern we all share. According to Mark PILKINGTON "The "chemtrails" crisis preys on concerns which, to varying extents, we all share – continued environmental pollution, the threat of biological warfare and terrorism, mistrust of government."
 * Varing degrees of mis-trust of government (well-founded or not) is not the same as full-blown anti-government paranoia in the "mainstream media" articles about alleged chemtrails. Which Mainstream media outlets is he speaking of? USA today-Where he says says only people who mistrust government see chemtrails.  The USA today source does not mention paranoia or mistrust of gov.  It mentions the Gov association with two chemtrail theories"Many guess that the federal government is trying to slow global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. Some propose more ominous theories, such as a government campaign to weed out the old and sick."
 * Concern over Government sponsored programs to reflect sunlight is paranoia? Climate Intelligence Agency: The CIA is now funding research into manipulating the climate. ""The CIA's decision to fund scientific work on geoengineering will no doubt excite conspiracy theorists""


 * So other sources also dispute it including the USAToday source that the book is referring too.
 * Next, you are being rude. Please clarify: Are you saying that its not "seriously disputed" because I am the one who disputes it?
 * My opinion is as valid as yours or anyone elses and the opinion that an edit is "bad" does not give you or anyone a legitimate reason to revert it. Please see WP:reverting, WP:Revert only when necessary WP:ATA and WP:BRDJohnvr4 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, nothing that seriously disputes that the treatment this conspiracism "usually" gets in mainstream media is as anti-govt paranoia (as indeed we see throughout the article). Your view does not count in this assessment, we need RS. Alexbrn talk 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Alexbrn: Your last statement didn't really make any sense...???)
 * ~ Although it may not fit as a direct response in the present context, there's something that I feel is critical to the overall perspective - so I will add it here (not having see it in this Chemtrails article's documentation).
 * The reality of the "theory" is proven true by two specific US patents. So, it cannot be referred to as paranoia. At this point, the only thing you may question is whether the process is presently being implemented.
 * See:
 * United States Patent 5,003,186 - Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
 * United States Patent 8,152,091 - Production or distribution of radiative forcing agents
 * --- John L — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Nobel (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with appropriate use of Knight as a source for conspiracy-related topics. As for the statements immediately above, patents prove nothing, except to support a statement that patents exist. Please read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, and primary sources like patents must be used sparingly and in the context of discussion by reliable secondary sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Your referenced links make it clear that a patent can be both a Primary and Secondary source. -- John L — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Nobel (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please address the concerns that I brought up as the assumption is that there is not a disagreement to my description.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit War - No discussion - why not?
I think it is incumbent, per BRD that Johnv4r explains, and attempts to justify, his POV edits that Alexbnr and now I have reverted. I can't see how they could possibly be justified, when examined rationally. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the specific concern or concerns with the content my edit that editors feel is POV and not supported by the reliable source I provided in this diff? Make a new subsection of this section with each POV concern you have.
 * Despite all of the previous discussion and explanation (especially here:, here:, and every other section), I do not understand how anyone might believe how any of my edit can't be justified or should be discarded as my POV. The information comes straight out of the reliable sources.
 * User Roxy the dog also reverted and editors are required to check the validity of the the POV concern expressed in an edit summary prior to the reversion. BRD requires Alexbnr to do the same which was impossible given that his reversion was less than one minute after my edit. He had no time to consider anything about the validity of my edits or whether it was an improvement.  Some editors falsely believe that BRD gives them the right to revert because they don't like it.  It is not the intention of BRD to encourage reverting and some editors here believe it gives them free license to do it all the time. "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."


 * Therefore it is incumbent upon reverting editors to explain the specific concern were my edit made the entry worse. WP:REVEXP and WP:Revert only when necessary


 * I am discussing the concerns that I have with the entry and the edits I make with logical arguments and reliable sources. I have to point out that User Roxy Dog did not participate in a single one of those discussions. As I expressed above the problem is that certain editors will not budge or try to reach consensus from their positions.  I feel the POV concern about my edit is illegitimate and without any foundation what-so-ever and I am confident the reversion of my edit introduces POV that is far from neutral and far from accurate.  Please explain the POV concerns and we will discuss it however these discussions are taking place without any apparent rational thought or logic or reasonable comment in response to my concerns.  My valid concerns are being ignored and the discussion seems to be going no where.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Other editors have tended to disagree with your arguments and proposed edits. Doing things like removing "their [the believers'] arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community" from the opening para is really just tendentious fringe POV-pushing. Alexbrn talk 15:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, silence such as this, on Wiki, equals= Disagreement. Editors, on pages such as this, have grown tired of constantly responding to attempts to insert pseudo-science into the articles. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First this complaint has nothing to do with my recent edit or the reversion. diff please?
 * I think what Alerbrn is talking about is from months ago and I do not think I ever removed that statement or that source. If the statement was moved or removed, it was because it was redundant. The statement appeared in the entry twice and was properly attributed to the Air force only once.  Therefore, any expressed position that I removed anything to push a POV is not accurate at best and a fabrication at worst. I said that the statement about what was refuted by the scientific community comes directly from the Air Force which you appear to have have some sort of problem with.  This was discussed by many people besides me and your argument or lack of one does not hold water.   Alexbrn's recent edits on the other hand appear to me to tend to mask the original source for ideas or replace easily accessed sources with those behind paywalls.
 * I feel that stating that I am "tendentious fringe POV-pushing" without foundation is a personal attack. I also feel that each of you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Show me the diff. So we can discuss the concern. Be very specific.
 * Editors have grown tired? Of what, not responding to concerns? Constantly reverting? Throwing out accusations of pseudo-science, POV pushing etc.?  Johnvr4 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the before and after diff. Notice that the text "but their arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) which are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions" has been removed from the first paragraph. If you don't even know the damaging effect your edits are having, even after they have been explained to you, I question if you have sufficient competence to be editing this page. Alexbrn talk 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And, yes: Tired of editors such as yourself. You now occupy almost all of this Talk page, but have made almost zero actual contributions to the article itself. I, and I imagine other editors involved, simply do not have such extensive amounts of time to constantly reply to each of your lengthy "concerns", almost all of which are fringe, and do not belong in the article. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I too have grown weary of the WP:IDHT I have seen here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am tired as well (particularly of the accusations, and reversions, and requests to discuss prior/further) yet I have to question your competence in logical discussion and in reverting and have expressly done so here in this section without response. Is there really a complaint that these changes were not discussed prior to my edit? I think that position is laughable however I will entertain it if you would please show me the line in my edit that you feel was not already discussed on this page.


 * In the diff provided as false evidence of "the damaging effect my edits are causing without even realizing it" by user:Alerbrn, The sentence I removed in this edit was "Believers in the theory argue that airplanes don't leave long-lasting contrails under normal conditions" which is not found in the USAToday source Alexbrn provided and implies a belief in the non-exitence of normal contrails under any circumstance or consequently a belief that every single plane everywhere in the history of air travel must be spraying chemtrails.  This is POV which I do not believe can be found in any source.  If it can be, I am sure Alexbrn will be able to cite it properly next time.  Alexbrn even removed government involvement from the first sentence definition-something that is in nearly every source.


 * The argument that I am pushing a POV or anything else in my edit by removing the above or moving the below sentence is simply idiotic.


 * It is Painfully obvious that in the first Para (3rd sentence of entry) of my edit it says
 * "Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly responded that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails.[3]"


 * In the third Para (7th sentence of the entry) of my edit we see "Their arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) which are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.[9][2]"


 * As I've explained the reasons for the reversions of my edits you are making are illegitimate and the notion that I am POV pushing is ridiculous. Any statement indicating that I am attempting to insert pseudo-science into the articles is a lie and without a shred evidence. If there is a legitimate concern, please state it now with a diff and the specific concern.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the majority of editors disagree with you, then this article might not be the best place continue to work on.--MONGO 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree with what? POV pushing.  There is a notice board for POV that but they'll also want specific examples, which will fall flat.
 * Ok other editors disagree. There is a notice board for that too- no one seems able to present or explain a valid concern why they disagree or what the specific issue is which is a requirement for each reversion. What exactly are they in disagreement over? I've asked repeatedly but the world wonders.  This makes consensus nearly impossible.  The disagreement is and has always been about the poor use or abuse of sources in this entry and most of the editors want to keep it that way with repetitive illegitimate reversions. This is the issue threatening the integrity of Wikipedia not my willingness to improve it.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its obvious, since numerous other editors have routinely reverted your edits, that you do not have consensus for your edits. Therefore, since you are in the minority on the issue and it appears that is not going to change, the best things for you is to give up.--MONGO 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is there is no consensus because certain editors have unfounded concerns about me and have fabricated imagined reasons to justify routinely reverting my edits where the is no valid reason for their concern.  I have asked user:Alexbrn and User:Roxy the dog what the specific POV concern was that required them to revert my edit. The purpose of this section is to justify 3 reversions.  WP polices I have cited above require a valid explanation.  The one concern presented was wholly bogus so I repeat the question:  What is the specific POV concern requiring the reverting action?Johnvr4 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Do NOT make mass edits to ANY talk page
This is in direct violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism and is considered vandalism. Stop this at once, thank you. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Talk pages are NOT an internet forum. Again: If you have something to add to the article, with a proper source, then be bold and add it. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments is vandalism. The recent edit by User:TheWizardOfAhz has deleted two separate users legitimate comments, suggestions, and proposals for the entry from this talk page. Adding this section and statements which are entirely unrelated to the entry is also vandalism.  So there's double vandalism. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I pointed out specific issues with this whole piece as it currently stands. They are changes I propose that were to be discussed.  The deletion of my proposal is Vandalism as was pointed out, a mass edit has been made resulting in the deletion of my legitimate comments and proposed changes to a semi-protected entry.  It is not at all appreciated. Restore it or I may be bold and restore it myself.  My boldness here or in the entry is none of anyone else's concern.  When I'm bold, the unsoucrced statements I have pointed out will disappear.  The article is based on a primary doc that has a dead link. That may go away too. When it does the definition of the term as it is currently used falls completely apart.  Changes I may make changes were discussed here. Don't revert back when they are made. A choice was made to delete the concerns rather than address them.  Unacceptable.  My opinion is that the type "boldness" on a talk page similar to that on display here is practically a type of cowardice, though so is a lack of response in addressing the now deleted concerns.Johnvr4 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will just point you to WP:VALID. Multiple reliable sources state that the scientific consensus is against chemtrails because it lacks scientific evidence of any kind whatsoever. There are no other good-quality sources contradicting them, or giving reasons of why this is not good. Given this, it's perfectly neutral to state the consensus in wikipedia voice in the lead. If this sounds non-neutral to you, it might be because you are convinced personally that it's not correct. You are welcome to point out problems with specific sources. It wouldn't be the first time that a mistaken article is fixed in that way (although it's extremely improbable in this case). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of anything. I don't believe in the theory though what you believe or what I am convinced of is irrelevant to any discussion of the content. I have no stake in this entry except resistance to leaving such a slated and biased article with blatant rampant mis-use of sources on a subject that lacks a reliable definition of the subject or that has a mis-represented definition of the subject(s).
 * However valid or factual, no source for the statement was listed. Despite your argument of multiple reliable sources, and arguing your case here, not one source was provided.  As discussed previously on this talk page I have removed it and replaced it with an accurate and sourced yet somewhat contradictory statement from the previous mis-interpretation. I hope the source that I used is reliable as it was already in use. I assumed consensus had been reached on its validity.Johnvr4 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, are you wordy or what? Translation: You don't like the reversion I'm making of the vandalism you are doing to the page, but you cannot offer a legit reason as to why. Under no circumstances should the sort of mass-editing of talk pages, such as this, be done. The Talk page is not the article itself, and is not an internet chat forum.

Secondly, you are adding off-topic and improperly sourced info to this page, and then writing a screen-full of wordy text to try and back yourself up. Please visit Wikipedia:Community_portal for a solid source of how to make good, constructive, and properly-sourced additions. Thank you. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"chemtrails" definition as a name for Crop dusting, etc
From the text that was reverted, one sentence called my attention: "Chemical trails consist of manmade chemicals deliberately sprayed from aircraft." Crop dusting and cloud seeding fit this definition, but they are not called "chemical trails" nor "chemtrails".

Sources say that chemtrails -as defined by proponents- don't exist at all. This definition doesn't reflect this point.

This is probably the source for this definition:



I would need a fuller quote, but it seems to say that "chemtrails" are different from crop dusting.

Then I used the "Look inside" feature of Amazon to peek into that source. It's not a formal work and it only makes short resumes of each topic. For example, Theophysics had very superficial coverage. I wouldn't be surprised it contained loose definitions in several topics. It should be replaced by a better-quality source. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've assumed consensus was reached in using this source. It has been reintroduced many times. In fact the source is used to define the use of terminology of the subject of the entire page.  However the source is being mis-represented to express a particular point of view unsupported by other reliable sources.


 * The full quote from the source is here: I'm sorry for any inadvertent typos (I don't mind if my typos are fixed or my concerns are moved to more appropriate sections of this page).

"As opposed to contrails, chemtrails consist of manmade chemicals deliberately sprayed from aircraft. There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical[s] in this manner, crop dusting over farms fields, to destroy weeds or insects harmful to crops; cloud seeding to areas of drought; firefighting by dumping fire extinguishing chemicals on forest fires or other blazes; and the release of smoke trails in air shows or to create advertising messages. The chemtrails that have caused great concern are none of these, but rather the artificial clouds that conspiracists are convinced are raining down influenza and other diseases."


 * The current text of the entry says

"The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting.[4] [not in citation given]

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 characteristic sky tracks.[citation is needed for high-altitude]"


 * I propose to more accurately define "chemtrail" the and also "chemtrail conspiracy theory" as it is currently hopelessly confused. If the definitions can't have consensus in agreement with the available reliable sources then I think the entry should be nuked.


 * My proposed and boldly edited change was to correct the misrepresentation but this was reverted numerous times pending consensus that this source is misrepresented. It is clear to me that the current use a misrepresentation of the source and the material should be removed and not restored.  The material fails verification.  There is not a lot of great sources for what the the terms specifically do or do not refer to. The Oxford dictionary has the definition I propose using for "chemtrails" (above).  I also proposed and boldly edited NPOV wording from the USAtoday article to replace contradictory definitions that were present in the entry.  A High altitude requirement of a "chem trail" is not in all sources.


 * I propose:
 * Chemtrails consist of manmade chemicals deliberately sprayed from aircraft. The term refers to all forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting however the chemtrails that concern conspiracy theorists are none of these explanations.
 * Johnvr4 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The OED has:
 * which seems about right. We need to make the "conspiracy theory" context clear, and the "believed to be" aspect too. Alexbrn talk 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And get rid of lowish-quality sources, such as Stieger's book. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Link to OED context? Ok we have chemtrail definition and now how it is used in the context of the theories. I agree with the use of these-as long as they are not in conflict with any other reliable use of definition which depending on Steiger and other definers may be an easily resolved issue by mentioning the experts disagreement. If sources don't agree (even opposing sources) that has to be addressed too. So Stieger should not go yet.


 * Removing Steiger, I'm Opposed for now. reason: This entry is an opinion piece that is far from neural. So what is proposed is that we ignore neutrality and to resolve the above described source-abuse issue, the proposal on the table is to keep the complete and utter misrepresentation of the chem trail definition in place and throw out the very source that's been status quo and relied upon as the subject definition by the consensus everyone editing this entry for who knows how long. All for a topic that has so few reliable sources.
 * Sounds legit!
 * I've no real comment on Stieger's legitimacy except to say he is a very-well established source- at least on the main page (snicker).
 * Let us (or let me) fix the sourcing in the material we have until a better source is found. Perhaps some of those dead links are archived and have a better or useable definition if they can be found (is it airliner types planes only?) I was thinking of making another section to balance false evidence with past history and grey areas all of which would concern some plausible vs. nefarious use of these subjects and perhaps and other one for mis-identification.  I'm not sure yet- perhaps past use of the technology, devices, where wild beliefs stem from and actual covert capability and the cold war activity it came from.  There are a few nuances and grey areas that will need some discussion first.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Steiger book was added back in December 2010, in the middle of a flurry of activity. Chances are that other editors didn't check the reference for accuracy. Steiger looks good on the surface, but when I read it found sloppiness, mistakes, contradictions, omissions, incomplete research, non-checking of original sources...... Then I looked for comments on Steiger's work, and they were fairly negative (I listed them on the RS/N thread). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok there were two separate issues with the quotes above User:Enric Naval's quote of the original left text off and so did mine.
 * I've corrected the first sentence of my quote by adding the rest of the quote and fixing a typo (in bold). It reads: As opposed to contrails, chemtrails consist of man-made chemicals deliberately sprayed from aircraft.  I had mis-read and mis-quoted the last part of the sentence without including the first part.  My proposals and edits each contained this mis-interpretation.  I've read the entire passage and it says exactly what I wanted it to say. which is somewhat opposite of what only reading this one part that is in th middle of a long passage in the source that provide more context for this quote.  All chemicals sprayed by airplanes are not chemtrails. However this passage poorly written with text easily taken out of context.
 * The text of the entry may still not be not properly sourced. TBD.Johnvr4 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Last, there is another quote from the Stieger book that links both the subjects of the article and my area of interest under the topic heading Central Intelligence Agency. Stieger implies the some illegitimate purpose context for difference that he is talking about when he when he speaks of legitimate reasons for some aerial spraying. It reads:


 * "The CIA has also conducted secret chemical and biological experiments on the American public for fifty years, injecting individuals,spraying areas of cities, infecting unsuspecting citizens. As many as half a million people have served as guinea pigs for the government without their knowledge. Soldiers,minorities, drug addicts, prison populations,homosexuals, and the entire populations of major U.S. cities have been wantonly used without their consent. Since 1998, conspiracy theorists have accused the secret government of spraying “chemtrails” across U.S."


 * The above passage also sheds a tiny bit of daylight between the Hoax which began in 1996 and the conspiracy theory it says began in 1998. I think I read somewhere that William Thomas' "investigative involvement" in this subject began in 1999. According to the book, conspiracists began reporting suspicious chemtrail or aerosol spraying in the late 1970s.  For his chemtrail source Stieger cites USA today and Thomas, William. “Lab Reports Show 3 Distinct Pathogens.” That author has a book entitled Chemtrails Confirmed as well as non-RSs Carnicom.com and Jeff Rense. Except USAToday, none of these sound very reliable and they have unusable or dead links.
 * Johnvr4 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you read that this text. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like a reliable source. However, we could use this other source, but only because it comes directly from Thomas. We can attribute this information directly to him.


 * The 1996 hoax described in the Air Force paper already seems to fit the description of a conspiracy. In his 1999 paper Thomas cites the same paper as the 1996 hoax ("Weather as a Force Multiplier"). The paper describes existing conspiracy theories that are already held by several people. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Which paper describes the existing theories? Do you have the page number or a quotation? I saw no mention of existing theories in Weather as a Force Multiplier:Owning the Weather in 2025 or Thomas' 1999 paper.(forgot to sign)Johnvr4 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OED has the following. I am not sure if this is an updated OED entry or what.  Hope it helps. "chemtrail, n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈkɛmtreɪl/, U.S. /ˈkɛmˌtreɪl/ Etymology: < chem- (in < chemical adj.) + trail n.1, after contrail n. In the context of various conspiracy theories: an aircraft's visible condensation trail, believed to contain chemical or biological agents released for sinister or covert puposes. Cf. contrail n.
 * 1990  Chem. 131 Man. (Dept. Chem., U.S. Air Force Acad.) Fall (title)    Chemtrails.
 * 1999  Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois) 24 Mar. a12/3   What are the ‘chemtrails’? That is the term..coined to describe the strange contrails that many people have observed. They seem to be making people sick.
 * 2002  Guardian 31 Aug. (Weekend Suppl.) 30 (heading)    Books on Islam, ‘chemtrails’ from planes, a terrorist attack, a toxin, a virus, anthrax: what really lies behind the mystery rash that has afflicted schoolgirls across the US since September 11?
 * 2007  L. Dunning Lost Landscapes 155   All things associated with UFOs (cattle mutilations, alien abductions, chemtrails, sightings, reports, videos, photos, and updates) can be found on this web site.
 * 2010  E. Kintisch Hack Planet xi. 223   A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky."


 * The U.S. Air Force publication Contrail Facts has "Chemtrails is a term coined to suggest contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere."Johnvr4 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

“The conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media, and when it is, it is usually cast as an example of anti-government paranoia"
Per request, I have started a new discussion. I am still having trouble with this sentence. The first part sounds good but not the second. 1. The conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media, 2. and when it is, it is usually cast as an example of anti-government paranoia.[3]

The cited source is James/ Knight "Mainstream news agencies rarely report on concerns over contrails, and when they do it is in terms of antigovernment “paranoia.” When USA Today ran a contrail story, it liked the story to something out of the X-Files, arguing that it was only those who are suspicious of government who  believe that lines in the sky are evidence of malfeasance."

USAToday "…”Philip Marie Sr., a retired nuclear quality engineer from Bartlett, N.H., who says the sky above his quiet town is often crisscrossed with "spray" trails... The situation Marie and others describe is straight out of The X-Files.”" KSLA ""Those who fear chemtrails could be secret biological and chemical testing on the public point to the 1977 U.S. Senate hearings which confirmed 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Later, the 1994 Rockefeller Report concluded hundreds of thousands of military personnel were also subjected to secret biological experiments over the last 60-years…But could secret testing be underway yet again? ….""

First, we see that this argument about “those suspicious of government” does not appear in the cited USA Today reference which speaks of the concerns of a nuclear quality engineer. The wording does however appear in a KSLA report but again it is not in the form of anti-government “paranoia.” According to KSLA, What those who fear chemtrails are citing are Congressional reports and news articles on CBW testing the further describe their concerns rather than "Anti-government 'paranoia'" or something from an episode the X-files.

Something like this more closely fits all of the sources. Concern over contrails or the topic of chemtrails is seldom covered by the mainstream media. When the topic is covered, it is usually cast as an example of government mistrust. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tha USA Today piece mentions government a lot. You've also watered the text down again by removing references to the conspiracy theory. Reverted. Alexbrn talk 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, USAToday, James/Knight, and KSLA all mention government in every theory that is presented. This is why my edit states "When the topic is covered, it is usually cast as an example of government mistrust. Yet your previous edits have removed a government from definition of the theory.


 * From James/Knight we also have "Concern over contrails appears to tie in with more deep seated suspicion towards government" in addition to the text from each source above. The author and editor in the cited source did not take issue with removing the word theory as they even removed chemtrail.


 * I do not understand the concern of text being watering down. Can you please clarify this position or concern? Nothing has been watered down at all, much less watering down by me, much less repeatedly by me.
 * Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Our Current Science source makes the point that the believers think it may be "forces unknown" (our lizard overlords?) rather than mere government responsible. So we should not overplay "government". Your edit removed the necessary "conspiracy theory" qualifier from a mention of chemtrails (implying they might be real) and changed a well-sourced mention of paranoia (=irrational) into "mistrust" (=reasonable). This is watering-down. Alexbrn talk 05:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First my intent was not to water down. My intent was to follow the source(s).  I should have probably said alleged chemtrails in my edit where I mentioned it. I'm not able to read the Current Science source as it is behind a pay wall.  I see a quote in the citation containing "Military involvement" rather than "forces unknown" and I'm certain whatever is mentioned implies some amount of gov suspicion. Almost every source says gov is suspected in each of the various theories.  Can you clarify the line that Contrail Science adds to this conversation.  Would the following be adequate?


 * The chemtrail conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media. When the topic is covered, it is usually cast as an example of government suspicion. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know about intent - we can only control the text here: that's our job! We need to keep the word "paranoia" to be faithful to the source (as well as to the reality). The Current Science source says "Chemtrail theorists believe the lines are chemical or biological agents that some unidentified organization is deliberately spraying into the atmosphere". This would accord, I think, with the David Icke chemtrail view, that it's ultimately the reptoids who are directing this operation (the government are just pawns). Alexbrn talk 13:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Add) Though I think it would be fine to put "paranoia" in quotation marks, mirroring the source. Alexbrn talk 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

for what it is worth, i think plain old paranoia is fine and find the use of quotes theatrical. sure the 1st dictionary definition is the medical diagnosis, but the 2nd one - which is used all the time in everyday discourse - is "a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others" which is exactly what we are talking about, with respect to the conspiracy theory.Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that quotes would be OK if we can say it comes from James/Knight or that book simply because the word does not appear in the USA Today source he cites or in the other mainstream articles and we don't know who or what he is quoting. I didn't fully consider the 2nd meaning that editor Jytdog presents (as I come from a psychology background). The 2nd meaning seems to be contingent on the degree of the rationality of the belief. The chemtrail conspiracy theory has many different beliefs but they all involve a suspicion that airplane contrails are evidence of ongoing spraying of a substance that will cause harm.  That one is somehow evidence of the other in the context of everyday air travel is irrational (and likely diagnosable).  If James/Knight is quoted, it would literally say that concern over contrails is termed antigov "paranoia" in mainstream media and that contradicts another source in use which has NASA legitimately investigating whether everyday contrails are having some effect on the climate.  "The contrail threat isn’t entirely imagined, however. NASA has been carrying out genuine research into the possible effects of contrails and increased air activity on the environment."


 * Proposed: If we want to use the word I think it should go something like When the topic is covered, it is usually cast as an example of government suspicion which Nigel James calls "paranoia." Or, perhaps? ...which Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia (edited by Peter Knight) calls "paranoia." Johnvr4 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * research by NASA or others into possible environmental effects of contrails has nothing to do with irrational fears that there are chemicals secretly added by secret groups that are doing terrible things. The former is rational investigation; the latter, paranoia.  This article is about the latter. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First, Sorry this is long. Please try to understand the concern. I think some editors are mistaking some amount of rational concern about alleged sprayed agents (some covert) with paranoia-delusional concerns over contrails. There is valid research by well known orgs such as NAS, NASA, NOAA.  But there is less well known research by "secret groups" that have some history of "doing terrible things" and it simply does not fit to literally call any or all mistrust or concern or suspicion of gov "anti-gov 'paranoia'."
 * Many of the concerns are not based in paranoia, they are based upon congressional reports, declassified government documents and news stories from mainstream media. To place these somewhat rational concerns onto patterns of normal contrails or the clouds they form is the "paranoia." If James/Knight had cited articles for his statement that actually had this language or even the word "paranoia," this would be an easier discussion.


 * On the concern of "overplaying Government," If you look in the James/Knight source from which the "paranoia" quote comes from, before contrails we have Cold War on pp 189-195. On page 193 we have a section "US Gov in conspiracy during the later years of the cold war" followed by on page 194 the section "The cold war as a source of contemporary conspiracy culture." Specifically mentioned is the link to the "House Select Committee on Intelligence Agencies in 1976 and more recently to the opening of archives related to the various intelligence agencies."   Also note on page 158 under CIA on the opening of Archives of intelligence agencies and various congressional reports especially the "Rockefeller commission" in proliferating (CIA-related) Gov conspiracies.  These docs are linked not just to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory(s) but to almost all contemporary conspiracy theories!


 * To restate what I've said above, varying degrees of mis-trust or suspicion of government (well-founded or not) is not the same as full-blown anti-government paranoia in all the "mainstream" articles about alleged chemtrails. There are many chemtrail theories. The Mainstream media outlet James/Knight is speaking of is USA Today. The USA Today source does not mention paranoia or mistrust of gov.  It mentions the Gov association with two of chemtrail theories "Many guess that the federal government is trying to slow global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. Some propose more ominous theories, such as a government campaign to weed out the old and sick."
 * On the Concern that rational research has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory and whether the concern over Government sponsored programs is somewhat rational or full-paranoia, I offer this article from Slate.com Climate Intelligence Agency: The CIA is now funding research into manipulating the climate. ""The CIA's decision to fund scientific work on geoengineering will no doubt excite conspiracy theorists...The last time the government tried to do cutting-edge research related to the atmosphere...people speculated that it might be a death ray, a mind control weapon, or, worst of all … a way to control the weather."


 * Even the paranoid-sounding theories about weeding out the old and sick comes from news reports on declassified documents ("in people with 'weakened' or 'compromised' immune systems"). For example:
 * 2002: U.S. Admits Bio-Weapons Tests, Sue Chan, Associated Press/ CBS News, October 8, 2002 (Note: This is Project 112/SHAD)
 * "The United States secretly tested chemical and biological weapons on American soil during the 1960s, newly declassified Pentagon reports show. The tests included releasing deadly nerve agents in Alaska and spraying bacteria over Hawaii, according to the documents obtained Tuesday. The United States also tested nerve agents in Canada and Britain in conjunction with those two countries, and biological and chemical weapons in at least two other states, Maryland and Florida. The summaries of more than two dozen tests show that biological and chemical tests were much more widespread than the military has acknowledged previously...The documents did not say whether any civilians had been exposed to the poisons...Some of those involved in the tests say they now suffer health problems linked to their exposure to dangerous chemicals and germs...Researchers later discovered the bacterium, a relative of the one that causes anthrax, could cause infections in people with weakened immune systems."


 * In this this article veterans had paranoid-sounding concerns and their suspicions of a secret program were validated with declassified documentation. I ask, was it permissible to call such concerns "paranoia" prior to the official admissions and declassification of the information?
 * 2002: Pentagon: Chem, bio tests involved U.S. troops, Jamie McIntyre, CNN, May 23, 2002 (Note: This is Project 112/SHAD)
 * "…Pentagon began sifting through classified information about the 1960s tests in August 2000, after some veterans expressed concern they might be suffering ill health effects because of exposure to harmful substances. Two previous Pentagon reports found five tests used only "harmless stimulants" and a single test used a stimulant that could have caused illness in someone with a compromised immune system. Thursday's report was the first acknowledgement by the U.S. government that several tests used either Sarin or VX."


 * I simply do not get antigovernment "Paranoia" from the USAToday source and don't see how anyone could. To state as fact that when mainstream media covers the topic they do it is in terms of antigov paranoia I feel is way too absolute of a statement. James/Knight saying that USA Today article makes this argument does not suffice as fact in this instance.  If we find some mainstream articles that say the word "paranoia" then we can say they (sometimes or often) cover the topic in terms of anti-gov "paranoia." It sounds as if Knight and other editors are implying mainstream coverage mentioning alleged chemtrails are always strictly in terms of anti-gov "paranoia" rather than any particular arguably-rational basis for the concern such as CBW testing.  Only if there is no arguable rational basis for a concern is it likely full-fledged paranoia. Such as beliefs that "Those airplane contrails are going to make us sick." KSLA is noteworthy because it is a major network affiliate that specified which declassified reports were behind the concern and it mistakenly reported a rational basis for these concerns with supporting comments from officials. I don't feel that a "paranoia" basis for the concerns in reports by mainstream media is supported as referenced by James/Knight from the USAToday article.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

you are saying too many things at once and it is not possible to respond to all this.Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Tone
Hello everyone! This is my first post on the back end of things at Wikipedia so please take it with a grain of salt. I read the article and although it provided ample information for refuting the Chemtrail Theory, it does so in very poor tone. The sentences often seem condescending making those who may believe in the theory out to be less than intelligent. Regardless of an authors personal feelings on the subject or those who chose to believe it, there should be no indication of those feelings when reading. After the second paragraph, I was almost offended that I was even curious enough to research the topic as the tone is one that implies "This is simple science and you're an imbecile if you think anything different."

I'll give some examples: "Because of the widespread popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation. Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to confirm that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails."

Is this paragraph even necessary? To me it only points out the author's personal frustration with the theory. Again I'm not an expert but the wording is mildly antagonistic.

"The conspiracy theory is seldom covered by the mainstream media, and when it is, it is usually cast as an example of anti-government paranoia."

This quip has nothing to do with the rest of the information in its paragraph and seems to serve as a way to call its believers "anti government and paranoid"

"Official statements on the non-existence of chemtrails have not discouraged the conspiracy theorists."

Nothing wrong with the sentence, but the tone is off.

"There are web sites dedicated to the conspiracy theory, and it is particularly favored by right-wing groups since it fits well with deep suspicion of government."

Again, maybe true but if I could bet money, I would bet my life savings that the author is anything but right wing. I shouldn't be able to tell that from a Wikipedia article should I?

Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic does not dissuade 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.

It may be a quote but its random placement in the article makes it seem like an "oh by the way" rather than a natural continuation of the information presented.

Although the article may meet standards of accuracy, it certainly wreaks of bias on the authors part. Perhaps someone could work on neutralizing the wording and forming better contructed paragraphs that support a logical flow from beginning to end. Thanks for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.172.101 (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014
There is proof of intent to spray and modify the weather. Some of these patents are already referenced and documented in government contracts.


 * 1) 2550324 - April 24, 1951 - Process for Controlling Weather


 * 1) 258678 - June 15, 1952 - Material Disseminating Apparatus for Airplanes


 * 1) 2908442 - October 13, 1959 - Method for Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs & Clouds


 * 1) 2963975 - December 13, 1960 - Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet


 * 1) 3126155 - March 24, 1964 - Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator (Referenced in #3990987) ...patent #3990987 is a wing-tip smoke generator patent.


 * 1) 3127107 - March 31, 1964 - Generatin of Ice-Nucleating Crystals


 * 1) 3313487 - April 11, 1967 - Cloud Seeding Apparatus


 * 1) 3338476 - August 29, 1967 - Heath Device for Use with Aerosol Containers - Referenced in #3990987 ....weather modification patent


 * 1) 3429507 - February 25, 1969 - Rainmaker


 * 1) 3432208 - November 7, 1967 - Fluidized Partical Dispenser


 * 1) 3441214 - April 29, 1969 - Method & Apparatus for Seeding Clouds


 * 1) 3456880 - July 22, 1969 - Method of Producing Precipitation From the Atmosphere


 * 1) 3518670 - June 30, 1970 - Artificial Ion Cloud


 * 1) 3534906 - October 20, 1970 - Control of Atmospheric Particles


 * 1) 3545677 - December 8, 1970 - Method of Cloud Seeding


 * 1) 3564253 - Februrary 16, 1971 - System & Method for Irradiation of Planet Surface Areas


 * 1) 3587966 - June 28, 1971 - Freezing Nucleation


 * 1) 3601312 - August 24, 1971 - Methods of Increasing the likelihood of Precipitation by the Artifical Introdution of Sea Vapor Into the Atmosphere Windward of An Air Lift Region


 * 1) 3608810 - Septmember 28, 1971 - Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions


 * 1) 3608820 - September 20, 1971 - Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein


 * 1) 3613992 - October 19, 1971 - Weather Modification Method


 * #3630950 - December 28, 1971 - Combustible Compositions for Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable for Cloud Modification and Weather Control and Aerosolization Process -

USRE29142 - Reissue patent of US3630950 -
 * 3659785 - December 8, 1971 - Weather Modification Utilizing Micro-encapsulated Material


 * 3677840 - July 18, 1972 - Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of SIlver for Weather Modification Use ( in #3630950 they specifically stated oxidizing and metal agents work best)


 * 3769107 - October 30, 1973 - Pyrotechnic Composition for Generating Lead Based Smoke (LEAD BASED!) Noted in patent to be used for WEATHER MODIFICATION


 * 1) 3785557 - January 15, 1974 - Cloud Seeding System


 * 1) 3795626 - March 5, 1974 - Weather Modification Process


 * 1) 3808595 - April 30, 1974 - Chaff Dispensing System (noted in patent to dispense a freon slurry at high altitudes)


 * 1) 3813875 - June 4, 1974 - Rocket Having Barium Release System to Creat Ion Clouds in the Upperer Atmosphere.


 * 1) 3835059 - September 10, 1974 - Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles for Weather Modification and Apparatus Therefore


 * 1) 3835293 - September 10, 1974 - Electrical Heating Apparatus for Generating Super Heated Vapors


 * 1) 3896993 - July 29, 1975 - Process fo Local Modification of Fog & Clouds for Triggering Their precipitation and for hindering the development of hail-producing clouds


 * 1) 3899129 - August 12, 1975 - Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification


 * 3899144 - August 12, 1975 - Powder Contrail Generation


 * 1) 3940060 - Februrary 24, 1976 - Vortex Ring Generator


 * 1) 4042196 - August 16, 1977 - Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes

RE29142 - Februrary 1977 - Reissue of 03630950 (combustible compositions for generating aerosols particulary suitable for cloud modification & weather control and aerosolization process)


 * 1) 4096005 - June 20, 1978 - Pyrotechnic Coud Seeding Composition (they list the portions of silver idodate, fuel, aluminum & magnesium, etc)


 * 1) 4129252 - December 12, 1978 - Method & apparatus for production of seeding materials


 * 1) 4141274 - February 27, 1979 - Weather Modification automatic Cartridge Dispenser


 * 1) 4167008 - September 4, 1979 - Fluid Bed Chaff Dispenser (remember the patent for this was to spray a freon 'slurry' in atmosphere


 * 1) 4362271 - December 7, 1982 - Procedure for the artifical modification of atmospheric preciptation as as well as compounds with dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure.


 * 1) 4412654 - November 1, 1983 - Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids


 * 1) 4470544 - September 11, 1984 - Method of and means for weather modification


 * 1) 4475927 - October 9, 1984 - Bipolar Fog Abatement System


 * 1) 4600147 - July 15, 1986 - Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus

conditions
 * 1) 463355 - February 17, 1987 - Method and apparatus for modification of climatic


 * 1) 4684063 - August 4, 1987 - Method of producing cumulus clouds


 * 1) 4684063 - August 4, 1987 - Particals generation and removal


 * 1) 4686605 - August 11, 1987 - Method and appartus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere and /or magnetosphere


 * 1) 4704942 - November 10, 1987 - Charged Aerosol


 * 1) 4744919 - May 17, 1988 - Method of dispering partiulate aerosol tracer


 * 1) 4999637 - March 12, 1991 - Creation of artifical ionization clouds above earth


 * 1) 5003186 - March 26, 1991 - Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming


 * 1) 5038664 - August 13, 1991 - Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitdue above the earth's surface

.
 * 1) 5104069 - April 14, 1992 - apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft.
 * 1) 5174498 - December 29, 1992 - Cloud Seeding


 * 1) 5357865 - Oct 25, 1994 - Method of cloud seeding


 * 1) 5984239 - Nov 16, 1999 - Weather modification by artificial satellite


 * 1) 6025402 - Feb 15, 2000 -


 * 1) 6315213 - Nov 13, 2001 - Method of modifying weather

149.78.37.101 (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please note Wikipedia does not allow original research, or synthesisis of information, but requires reliable sources that actually state whatever you are wanting to add to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014
Please remove "for sinister purposes" from the first sentence of the introduction. The language is emotionally charged and adds no informational value. It's an opinion as opposed to sourceable fact.

Thanks for consideration

Delerium2k (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done - I've removed the word sinister as non-neutral under WP:NPOV. Thanks! -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 05:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * – this is a neutral word choice as it properly reflects the sources (Fraser has a heading: "Sinister Spreading") – a common theme in the conspiracy theory is belief that whoever's behind them is up to no good. Alexbrn talk 07:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Chemtrail/local politician article, maybe it can be used for something
[] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014
There are web sites dedicated to the conspiracy theory, and it is favored by groups with deep suspicion of government

24.144.147.87 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying there is a particular site that the article should link to? What would need, is a reliable source which states that "website X" is  favored by groups with deep suspicion of government.  Can you provide such a reliable source? (see [{WP:RS]] for what I mean by "reliable source"). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why only as conspiracy theory?
I came here after hearing a radio show in which the "expert" talked about chemtrails as various chemical and/or electro-magnetic etc. trails. He said they cause clouds to form. I never heard him talk about this as a conspiracy or some-thing always done intentionally (though he did mention China's efforts during the Olympics and one other intentional case). The man is a meteorologist and/or weatherman named Scott. The host seemed to think that he is significant in the discussion. But through the entire quarter or half hour, I never heard either one talk about a conspiracy. I had never heard this term before, so this is all I have to add. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We would need to know the exact name and credentials of this expert so we could look up what he has published in reliable sources. --Neil N  talk to me 03:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi anon (211.225.33.104). I wonder whether you might like to read the articles on contrails and the environmental impact of aviation. These may have been the subjects that the "expert meteorologist" was discussing, and are broadly accepted without having a "conspiracy" label attached. These cover the largely established and accepted phenomena around the "contrails", vapour, exhaust gas and other discharges from aircraft - IE: the stuff that aircraft affect in the atmosphere by just flying from A to B - without any artificial or conspiratorial overtones. THIS particular article (on "chemtrails") deals with something else - the *alleged* artificial or deliberate dissipation of agents in the atmosphere by airlines as part of some undefined nefarious global conspiracy. Guliolopez (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Chemtrails seem to be well-documented though, i.e. see the first three minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c34U0Pwz4_c — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA991 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's conspiracy-theorizing. Alexbrn talk 04:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy
Chemtrails are not a conspiracy, being that there are documents proving government collaboration and goal setting regarding changing the weather. The word "Conspiracy" is not neutral.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.

75.161.40.239 (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What article change are you proposing, using what source?  05:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, without a suggestion for article improvement, we can't really do anything. "Conspiracy theory" is an accurate description, and your own introductory sentence is an example of it, so you can't say that the theory doesn't exist. When it is proven to be a fact, we will change the title, but not until then. That's how we do it at Wikipedia. The accusations are far more than cloud seeding (weather modification). We know of that possibility, experiments, and practice in various parts of the world. That's not news and it's not nefarious. This article is about something quite different.
 * As far as "neutral" goes, we follow the sources. If the sources are biased, we are required to remain neutral as editors and not censor that biased sentiment. We must convey that bias accurately, ergo the article will contain non-neutral wording, and the sources will show who is associated with that sentiment. It is not Wikipedia.
 * Don't confuse "neutral" with false equivalence. It is editors who must remain neutral to the content, not articles. They may contain non-neutral content, if that's what the sources say. Without that content we could eliminate a large share of the encyclopedia and would totally fail at fulfilling the goal of Wikipedia, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, a large share of which is decidedly biased and non-neutral. We document it. In fact, we like biased sources! That's what makes Wikipedia interesting. Totally neutral sources often say little to nothing and are often rather blah, but they do exist, and we do use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP makes a common error about NPOV. A neutral point of view responds to what the preponderance of reliable sources state. If something is widely regarded as a hoax, it is stated thus. If something or someone is regarded as terrible, the article will reflect that (within the boundaries of WP:BLP). If, as is the case here, something is regarded as a fringe or conspiracy theory, it is so stated, plainly and directly. Wikipedia is not a congenial home for rumor, armchair theorizing, guesswork, fear-mongering, fantasy, or bullshitting, except to the extent that it is being documented and described as such. That is neutral: credulous acceptance of things people say on the Internet as fact is not neutral.
 * The conspiracy theory described in this article is quite apart from the acknowledged government and private weather modification experiments, and posits a widespread, active effort with the collusion of commercial airlines, to possible nefarious purpose. The documents that have been produced as evidence do not support that, and are at best theoretical exercises, proposals in response to global warming, or what-if exercises. Other "evidence" provided is provable as either misrepresentation or fakery from the Internet echo chamber. Coverage in major media consistently describes this as a fringe or conspiracy theory, so that is how Wikipedia describes it.   Acroterion   (talk)   11:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

German government
The German government has confirmed that aerosols are being released into the atmosphere. See this graph: http://www.bmbf.de/pubRD/infographik_climate_engineering.pdf I recommend adding this information to the article. 05 October 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.54.203 (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to mention chemtrails at all. It's generally accepted aviation can contribute to global warming. Alexbrn talk 00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I checked the German description in the graphic and also the source document [] . It describes possible options to influence the climate, not realized methods, a huge difference. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is biased because it ASSUMES conspiracy, right on the title.
Contrary to all the Wiki policies I have seen in place in Wiki articles, this is by far the most biased and government alligned article of all. You simply ASSUME it's a "conspiracy theory" because gorvernments denied it. Where is the independent, objective and unbiased view in that? You want PROOF that it's a fact? A pilot of a commercial airliner made a mistake that PROVES the existence of "CHEMTRAILS" -- by forgetting to turn them off before he landed! After seeing this, I hope you change at least the title, if nothing else. 95.94.52.138 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! Having "conspiracy theory" in the title is not that unusual on WP, you can see several at . As for your source, we can´t use it, since (among other things), as worldtruth.tv:s disclaimer says, "The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Eddie, unless otherwise noted." WP is supposed to summarise the mainstream sources on a subject, and Eddie is not that. Should Eddies view on chemtrails be mentioned in a mainstream source (WP:RS), then it might deserve a mention in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I see now that your PROOF is in the article, sourced to . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OP: You have to resolve the Burden of Proof on Wiki (aka reliable sources) before something on Wiki can be changed. There is sufficient evidence that shows that Chemtrails are indeed nothing more than a fringe conspiracy theory, and pretty much a total lack of evidence to the contrary. And all I see in that YouTube video is a jetliner landing in foggy conditions with condensation - kinda routine, actually.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015
Please add to end of article: Recently, supporters of the chemtrail hypothesis have started Facebook pages showing photos of typical clouds,purporting them to be of chemtrail or similarly sinister origin. When meteorologists or earth scientists comment on the photos identifying them as the classic cloud formations they are, these scientific comments are removed.

Source: my own experience. I am a retired geologist, former Earth science teacher, BS from Cornell University and MS from the University of Michigan. I myself have commented on classic alto cumulus ("mackerel sky") and cumulus mammatus (classic signs of vertical instability, often seen before thunderstorms) on Chemtrail pages, only to have my comments removed

Ech27 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not done: your personal experiences and observations are not admissible on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and reliable sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of threats of violence perpetrated by conspiracy theorists?
I've heard on a couple occasions about chemtrail theorists getting arrested and charged for making death threats against meteorologists, pilots and people in government agencies. If this can be verified, can there be some mention of it included in the article? 74.102.3.14 (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but you need to find reliable sources. Blogs and forums posts and such are not going to work for something like that (and neither are things like police reports and court documents). Take a look at WP:RS to know what to look for. Grayfell (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The article might be too one-sided
The article talks about chemtrails as something made by a conspiracy theory, while it actually exists: it only shows 'proofs' of their non-existance while disregarding the proof about their existance.--79.46.87.245 (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully suggest you read "Zen, and the art of motorcycle maintenance" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

using the word conspiracy
The mere fact that the article uses the words "conspiracy theory" exposes the immediate nature of an agenda to mislead, while at the same time trying to discredit any logical discourse into the subject itself. The word "conspiracy" is used to discredit the hypothesis.

The article is one sided and void of any documentation (which there is plenty) or input to prove these chemical trails do exist and are made by design. The article is loaded with open ended statements such as, "It is well established by atmospheric scientists that contrails can not only persist for hours, but it is a perfectly normal characteristic for them to spread out into cirrus sheets." What scientists say this and where is their proof? And this statement, "Experts on atmospheric phenomena say chemtrails do not exist." What experts, how do they proof this? Articles such as this expose the obvious nature and intent of the writer, which is to discredit this subject matter while loading up on the click-ratio-view for concerned web searchers to see the word "Conspiracy."

Title usage such as conspiracy theory and writing of this nature belong on fox news, not here. Signed Aoleon sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoleonsound (talk • contribs) 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Wrong. Incorrect. The citations explain which scientists have said this. There is zero proof otherwise. It is therefore a conspiracy theory. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Wizard. You are the one who is incorrect.  I concur that the title, tenor and tone of this article assumes bias, and should be changed.JGabbard (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but there is no evidence, nor even consensus, for such a change to be made. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's reported as a conspiracy theory in reliable published sources, so Wikipedia is obligated to plainly state that it's a fringe conspiracy theory. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia doesn't give fringe views credence, it just reports them as they are reported in broader journalistic and academic circles.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We have numerous "conspiracy theory" titles here. Until they are confirmed as true by multiple mainstream RS, the titles will contain those words. Removing them would create a false balance in people's minds, leading them to assume they might be true, even in the lack of evidence. We can't allow that to happen. Don't worry, any change in what RS say will be reflected here. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "What scientists say this and where is their proof? And this statement, "Experts on atmospheric phenomena say chemtrails do not exist."  What experts, how do they proof this?" -The small numbers in superscript after these statements are citations that will take you to the source for these statements. Chemtrails are indeed a fringe conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What do believers think is really going on?
Just a request, as an interested reader, that someone add a sentence somewhere explaining what believers in the chemtrails conspiracy theory believe chemtrails are for. I mean, why do they think the government (and the airlines, and half the world) is spraying stuff into the atmosphere? What motives do they attribute to the "chemtrail sprayers"? Otherwise, I like the article. TCSaint (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

...

Well. If you want to know what those conspiracy nuts believe. They think California, Texas and Utah run cloud seed programs where aircraft spray chemicals to produce rain. Since at least the 1970s

http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php?id=44 http://www.tdlr.texas.gov/weather/summary.htm

Almost every state. They spray salt aerosols for cloud seeding. Its a "conspiracy theory" except, that its on the government's website. Another "conspiracy theory" is the US, India, EU and Chinese military spraying barium salt aerosols for atmosphere tracking and radar studies.

The issue is more a public relations issue. Its completely real. However, if you told public then it would become issue because they would think every jet in sky was raining barium down on them and the government would be pressured to ban it. The EPA might get involved and there would be an environmental review process.

Barium sulfate is 25% of coal ash by weight, so there is more barium in the atmosphere from burning coal than anything else, but its too complicated to explain to paranoid public. Most of the trails are water vapor or sulfur particles, but public cant tell difference and will assume any jet overhead is spraying them. "Chemtrails" is public relations nightmare 23.242.75.236 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the documentary it showed the govt made up ufo myths to make anyone looking into their secret aircraft programs look crazy. Maybe the chemtrails thing is similar. It's likely to effect the weather as those sources show, but the cminate change topic can be controversial so that might be why the govt doesn't want to talk about their climate change mitigation programs. But the problem with using those sources for this article is that they don't mention chemtrails, no direct correlation. Maybe there are reliable sources that have made the connection, that's the only way it could be included here. Popish Plot (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above statement regarding cloud seeding is irrelevant. Cloud seeding is an openly acknowledged programme. It has nothing to do with the "chemtrails" theory, because cloud seeding does not create the trails that are described as "chemtrails". Totally different things. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The truth behind it all
... "But the study also pointed to climate downsides: desulfurising fuel would reduce the formation of cooling sulfate particles, which currently offset some global warming." "The sulfur content of aviation fuel has not been regulated, however, and hits highs of 3000ppm - though aviation fuel averages 600ppm in practice."



So to recap: chemtrails are a sinister corporate-government conspiracy to kill 1000-4000 people annually in order to improve airline profits and slow global warming. Chemtrails are emitted by a mix of chemicals stored in tanks on the plane, i.e. the fuel tanks. Chemtrails do likely involve a change in the visible appearance of jet contrails over time and from place to place depending on market factors regarding the fuel. But... it's all straightforward fossil fuel usage, so nobody cares.

Admittedly, I think Wikipedia standards will likely be invoked to say that none of this can go in the article, but hope springs eternal. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It almost certainly won't (and shouldn't) go in this article because you've decided to broaden the concept of "chemtrail" and "conspiracy" far beyond their usual definitions. I wouldn't be surprised if we had an article on the environmental impacts of air travel, however, where this type of information could be appropriate.  (Indeed, I would be a bit surprised if this type of information weren't already in such an article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Environmental impact of aviation would be a more appropriate article for that content. From what I can see in that article, the subject of sulfur levels of fuels is touched on; but it doesn't currently appear to mention the variable ppm levels nor on the health risks associated with specific compounds found in the fuel (instead linking to articles about those compounds for the additional details). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015
162.226.73.70 (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 04:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Drop the 'conspiracy theory' from Chemtrail title please
Wikipedia is wrong by attaching conspiracy theory to chemtrails. Chemtrails by definition are chemicals sprayed in the atmosphere and has nothing to do with subduing the populous, control, or covert operations. Simply put spraying chemicals into the atmosphere leaving a 'chemtrail'. Spraying chemicals into the atmosphere is documented by your own sources (cloud seeding, and climate engineering). You can bring up the conspiracy theory part of it but it needs to be dropped from the title. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmc74 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article covers the conspiracy theory which believes the trails left by planes have a sinister purpose. --Neil N  talk to me 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The word chemtrail is not known in contexts other than in the conspiracy theory that chemicals are sprayed covertly. Chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere are not normally called chemtrails. Aszilagyi (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling
Also, what are the guidelines on spelling? I looked here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling, but didn't see a reason we couldn't use the American spelling of kilometer instead of the International spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31415Guy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a separate issue, but:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_English
 * To use this template on an article's talk page, place near the top of the talk page. Kortoso (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The specific policy is found here: WP:ENGVAR, specifically MOS:RETAIN. The gist of it is to preserve the spelling used when the article was first written, unless the article has ties to a particular variation of English. Justin Beiber should be Canadian English, while Pranab Mukherjee would be Indian English, for example. Since this theory has proponents in multiple English-speaking countries, I don't think this topic has a specific tie to a national variety. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, since the spelling of "kilometre" has been used, the precedent has been set. One more Wikipedia page in British English. Kortoso (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, a quick scan through the article shows a prior use of the spelling "kilometers" (in second paragraph of section "Contrails as chemtrails", and is still in the article) - and that use of the "kilometers" spelling dates back to when it was initially used in an edit dated 3-Jan-2013 (when the section was labelled "Contrails vs Chemtrails"). Meanwhile the use of the "kilometres" spelling wasn't done until an edit on 30-May-2015 (where references to "miles" was changed to "miles/kilometres"). Given the prior usage, it appears that the US spelling should take precedence per WP:ENGVAR. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated for consistency, using the precedent from the 3-Jan-2013 edit to use US spelling. I did spot another use of the "kilometres" spelling from the convert template, but it only dates back to 1-May-2014, so still pre-dated by the Jan 2013 edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate Scientist Blows Whistle on Jet Aerosol Dumps – Chemtrails
Covert Aerosol Geoengineering is now completely out of the closet. Dr. Kirkby's public announcement to a group of scientists that Jet aircraft are dumping aerosols (aka Chemtrails) high in the atmosphere shines a bright light on the IPCC's corrupt pseudoscience of so-called "Climate Change". Dr. Tim Ball's book: "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" provides a detailed look into the continuing "Climate-Gate" of fraud.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/27/climate-scientist-blows-whistle-on-aerosol-dumps-chemtrails/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.20.236 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * not reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed: Not a reliable source. The website itself says that it is merely the views of one man. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Aerosol doesn't mean chemtrail. Kirkby meant the usual exhaust emissions. Aszilagyi (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As Aszilagyi says, Kirkby was talking about aerosols. Clouds are aerosols, exhaust emissions are aerosols. To imply that he means spraying of "chemtrails" is ludicrous. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015
Do to the many documented facts concerning chemtrail it is no longer a viable "conspiracy theory". 13 parents are found and registered dating from earlier than the 1920s as shown below and explaining the first chemtrail was to help modify the weather. Fact found:there are hundreds of documented US patents under the label of "geoengeneering and weather modification" Anyone can look them up they are in the data base. 1891 - 0462795 – method of producing rain-fall 1914 - 1103490 – rain maker (balloon images) 1917 - 1225521 – protection from poisonous gas in warfare 1920 - 1338343 – process and apparatus for the production of intense artificial clouds, fogs, or mists 1924 - 1512783 – composition for dispelling fogs 1927 - 1619183 – process of producing smoke clouds from moving aircraft 1928 - 1665267 – process of producting artificial fogs 1932 - 1892132 – atomizing attachment for airplane engine exhausts 1933 - 1928963 – electrical system and method (for spraying chemtrails) 1934 - 1957075 – airplane spray equipment 1936 - 2045865 – skywriting apparatus 1936 - 2052626 – method of dispelling fog (mit) 1937 - 2068987 – process of dissipating fog 1939 - 2160900 – method for vapor clearing 1941 - 2232728 – method and composition for dispelling vapors 1941 - 2257360 – desensitized pentaerythritol tetranitrate explosive 1946 - 2395827 – airplane spray unit (us. dept. of agriculture) 1946 - 2409201 – smoke-producing mixture 1949 - 2476171 – smoke screen generator 1949 - 2480967 – aerial discharge device 1950 - 2527230 – method of crystal formation and precipitation 1951 - 2550324 – process for controlling weather 1951 - 2570867 – method of crystal formation and precipitation (general electric) 1952 - 2582678 – material disseminating apparatus for airplanes 1952 - 2591988 – production of tio2 pigments (dupont) 1952 - 2614083 – metal chloride screening smoke mixture 1953 - 2633455 – smoke generator 1954 - 2688069 – steam generator 1955 - 2721495 – method and apparatus for detecting minute crystal forming particles suspended in a gaseous atmosphere (general electric) 1956 - 2730402 – controllable dispersal device 1957 - 2801322 – decomposition chamber for monopropellant fuel 1958 - 2835530 – process for the condensation of atmospheric humidity and dissolution of fog 1959 - 2881335 – generation of electrical fields (haarp – for re-charging clouds!) 1959 - 2903188 – control of tropical cyclone formation 1959 - 2908442 – method for dispersing natural atmospheric fogs and clouds 1960 - 2962450 – fog dispelling composition (see references) 1960 - 2963975 – cloud seeding carbon dioxide bullet 1961 - 2986360 – aerial insecticide dusting device 1962 - 3044911 – propellant system 1962 - 3056556 – method of artificially influencing the weather 1964 - 3120459 – composite incendiary powder containing metal coated oxidizing salts 1964 - 3126155 – silver iodide cloud seeding generator (main commercial ingrediant) 1964 - 3127107 – generation of ice-nucleating crystals

These patents continue through 2014. To state that chemtrail are a conspiracy is to deny that cloud seeding for farmers ever occured and that weather manipulation that is well documented never happened in the Vietnam War and both are well documented and are not conspiracies themselves. We cannot deny chemtrail are a documented occurrence and even a child can look up to the sky and see a difference between a vapor contrail and a chemical line trail that lingers without evaporating. It simply a documented and proven fact and factually backed occurrences can not be classified as a conspiracy theory.

Documentedtruth (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC) usgov.org patent office and records Wikipedia weather modification
 * See WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. --Neil N  talk to me 16:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The request is not on the topic of this article... Cloud-seeding isn't a "sinister purpose" as considered by the theory.  16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Cloud seeding is nothing to do with the "chemtrails" theory. Cloud seeding means spraying cloud nuclei into an existing rain cloud to make it drop its rain, and thus disperse the cloud. What chemtrail believers call "chemtrails" are the exact opposite of that - clouds being formed in clear air (at a much higher altitude than typical rain clouds). I think this distinction needs to be made otherwise the same nonsense about cloud seeding will keep being brought up. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Contrails are accidental and may be causing geoengineering
"Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental" Geoengineering http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/airplane-contrails-may-be-creating-accidental-geoengineering-180957561/?no-ist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The possible climate effect of aircraft emissions (resulting in contrails) is well-known. It is not relevant to the "chemtrail conspiracy theory" which is the topic of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Disputed sentence in lead
There seems to be a dispute over the text in the lead section which states "... and if any chemicals were released at such altitude they would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles away, or degrade before touching the ground."

The argument in the reverts seems to be about the lack of a reference. However, the ref near the start of the same sentence in the article supports all of that text except for the word "harmlessly" (which is implied, but not actually stated). Given the similarity in the wording, I am guessing this is the original source of that content for the article, and the ref was just poorly placed by whomever inserted it. The exact text in that existing reference states "Witnesses claimed to become ill soon after seeing trail-leaving planes in the sky, but any sprayed chemical agents or substances would drift several hundred miles before reaching the ground, most likely evaporating or degrading before reaching their victims."

Before adjusting the placement of the ref and removing the word "harmlessly", I wanted to start a discussion here to see what consensus exists on that content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The content should be in the body (referenced) and summarized in the lede, where strictly speaking a citation is not needed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to see we have a reference for it, I looked but couldn't find one. A detailed, sourced sentence in the body and a summary in the lede would be good, but simply attaching the existing reference to the end of the disputed sentence would also be fine. (From the edit summaries, User:Meowcatzmeow who's been cutting this sentence fragment seems more concerned that by saying "if chemtrails were real" Wikipedia is suggesting that chemtrails might be real, but I can't see that this is a problem, it's a clearly hypothetical sentence.) --McGeddon (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Two months later I've gone ahead and restored this with the suggested Fortean Times reference. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016
Italic text

Refutations and corrections of Wikipedia's "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" entry

Given the "External links" recommended at the end of this Wikipedia entry, "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" appears to have been written by someone on either the NASA or EPA payroll. Thus it is not surprising that the primary litmus for deciding that chemtrails are simply a "conspiracy theory" is believe the experts and ridicule all else:

A multi-agency response to dispel the rumors was published in a 2000 fact sheet by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a step many chemtrail believers have interpreted as further evidence of the existence of a government cover-up.

The entry is badly written and hardly more than a "conspiracy theory" rant, but a few points significantly depart from reality and therefore deserve a rebuttal:

1. The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".

The term "chemtrails" is a meme utilized by the U.S. Air Force Academy on the cover of its 1990 U.S. Air Force Academy Chemistry 131 manual. Given that the manual was not known to the public until Harold Saive retrieved it from government microfiche http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/chemtrails-chemistry-manual-usaf-academy-1999.pdf, it may even have originated with the U.S. Air Force.

2. The Air Force further clarified that the Air Force's Air University strategy paper Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 "does not reflect current military policy, practice, or capability," and that it is "not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future."

Given the military's ongoing chemical and biological warfare experimentation on nonconsensual populations since the Cold War, this is yet another barefaced ("plausible deniability") lie that the public has grown accustomed to swallowing.

3. Proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those trails left by aircraft that persist for as much as a half-day or transform into cirrus-like clouds.

Chemicals and metals are being added to jet fuel to create the highly conductive atmosphere the military wants. In the 9th edition of Conceptual Physics, Paul Hewitt points out that jet fuel itself creates plasma:

Plasma Power: A higher temperature plasma is the exhaust of a jet engine. It is a weakly ionized plasma, but when small amounts of potassium or cesium metal are added, it becomes a very good conductor, and when it is directed into a magnet, electricity is generated. This is MHD power, the magnetohydrodynamic interaction between a plasma and a magnetic field.

The Hughes Aircraft's 1991 Stratospheric Welsbach seeding patent points to the necessity of adding conductive particulates, despite the side effect of increased "global warming":

One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude. While this method would increase the reflection of visible light incident from space, the metallic particles would trap the long wavelength blackbody radiation released from the earth. This could result in net increase in global warming.

These "persistent contrails" would indeed be contrails but not normal contrails of condensed moisture; rather they would be delivering chemicals and metals that would gradually disperse into cirrus contrailus cloud cover.

The problem for the military is that additives in the jet fuel simply do not provide enough conductivity for all of their purposes, despite the "increased air traffic traveling through the grid-like U.S. National Airspace System's north-south and east-west oriented flight lanes."

Finally, the U.S. Air Force distance standard is that a contrail typically forms one wingspan behind the aircraft. Photographic and video evidence consistently indicates that a very different aerosol trail—in fact, a chemtrail—forms nearer the engines.

4. The rate at which contrails dissipate is entirely dependent on weather conditions and altitude. If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.

Independent scientist Clifford E. Carnicom, whose site at www.carnicominstitute.org is consistently visited by military and environmental agencies, proved again and again in the high, dry desert of New Mexico that the chemtrails overhead are not contrails, and that they certainly do not "dissipate quickly" but instead turn into a thin white film of chemicals and metals that coat New Mexico's once deep blue skies.

5. The [Space Preservation Act of 2001] received an unfavorable evaluation from the United States Department of Defense and died in committee, with no mention of chemtrails appearing in the text of any of the three subsequent failed attempts by [U.S. Congressman Dennis] Kucinich to enact a Space Preservation Act.

This should come as no surprise to those familiar with the "national security" record of the U.S. military. To admit the existence, much less the use, of chemtrails, "extraterrestrial weapons," and "environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons" would be unthinkable.

Stargirth (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing done because no edit suggestion is unambiguously requested, per the template notes. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Rosalind Peterson, President of Agriculture Defence Coalition
No longer a conspiracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5is16A8pfw

If needed, here is the debunk of this old story: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rosalind-peterson-leaker-addressing-un-about-chemtrails-and-geoengineering.t3514/ Nillurcheier (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A youtube video with no context whatsoever means very little. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016
See also : US PAT 5003186. Hughes Aircraft 1991. Welsbech Strotospheric seeding. A chemical is sprayed into the atmosphere to prevent heating of the Globe. The gas is transparent to sunlight but absore long wavelenght Infra red ( heat ), and emit the heat into space. Leaving the clode cold. And the assumption that Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere can be argued. The patent enables the global Temprature to be lowered, but the Greenhouse gases stay in the Earth atmosphere.

Dark gungal (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a clear request, the patent is irrelevant to this article. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

new source
German public television: 212.200.65.107 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * German video checked: describes potential theoretical options to reduce global warming by chemical ingredients added to airplane turbine combustion. No claim of or proof for existence of chemtrails in this video. BR Nillurcheier (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016
This wiki is incomplete without referencing the impetus for suspicion. A 1991 US patent titled "Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming" (5,003,186) from Hughes Aircraft Company and David B. Chang, provides evidence for a valid counterpoint. The patent explicitly refers to Welsbach materials, such as Aluminum Oxide, as potential additives to jet fuel: "The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year ."

159.118.112.90 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally, the problem is that there are a massive number of patents for things which no one actually does. (Indeed, patents are frequently issued for things which haven't been tested and for which the technology doesn't even exist.  The aerospace industry is rife with them.  For a very recent example, see Boeing's 2015 patent on a laser nuclear fusion engine: .)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016
The title of this page is incorrect. It is not a conspiracy theory. There is documented fact of chemtrails, and it should be titled as such. Titling a page like this automatically, psychologically, tells the viewer that chemtrails do not exist when they do; it can be something used to put out forest fires; U.S patent US7413145 Aerial Delivery System, or it can be strange lines in the sky but it is not conspiracy theory.

Ncbro21 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ The lead makes it clear that this article is not about contrails, nor standard chemtrails, but "chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public" - that is the "conspiracy theory" and that is what is discussed - Arjayay (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016
there are published memos in the wikileaks, speaking different than what you have cited.

50.196.190.245 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  General Ization  Talk   00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2016
Djagda (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Blank request —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction needs a citation?
The summary ends with this line: "Contrails are formed at high altitudes (5–10 miles or 8–16 kilometres) and if any chemicals were released at such altitude they would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles/kilometres away, or degrade before touching the ground."

Is that a claim that should be sourced? I actually think it is wrong, because not all chemicals would necessarily "disperse harmlessly" or "degrade." It is too definitive for being such a broad statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31415Guy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 June 2015

The facts are misleading the actual footnote 10 the article says, "Witnesses claimed to become ill soon after seeing trail-leaving planes in the sky, but any sprayed chemical agents or substances would drift several hundred miles before reaching the ground, most likely evaporating or degrading before reaching their victims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.140.126 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

+1 please add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.196.67 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2015‎

Introduction is not precise
The introduction says "any chemicals released at such a height would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles away, or degrade before touching the ground" but the linked article says "any sprayed chemical agents or substances would drift several hundred miles before reaching the ground, most likely evaporating or degrading before reaching their victims".

So, the dispersion and the degradation are very likely but not a given fact like the several-hundred-miles-drift. Suggested improvement:

any chemicals released at such a height would fall many hundreds of miles away and most likely degrade or disperse harmlessly before touching the ground Xilebo (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think the use of the word "sinister" is incorrect. Spraying to control the climate isn't sinister. They're trying to help. So the sentence should be modified to say that some think it's for sinister reasons, but it's also for GEO Engineering purposes. 198.84.236.50 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Continues
Creating "global dimming" is the stated goal of numerous geoengineering patents; it is one of the primary goals of atmospheric spraying. The controversy of Chemtrails as a conspiracy theory continues to this day, most notably by Dana Wiginton, founder of Geoengineering Watch (www.geoengineeringwatch.org). A careful study of his site may suggest the theory is in fact not a conspiracy. Recent video by the BBC suggests the same (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh6iXh0y71s) as does testimony suggested by citizens who have tested the soil and air samples in their communities only to find the level of aluminum to be 20,000 times the toxic limit (http://losangelesskywatch.org/lab-test-results). Lawsuits are pending as well, suggesting plaintiffs may seek damages in the billions owing to lost health and agricultural product.Chemtrails1 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe those sources have already been discussed, but at a glance the LA Skywatch one demonstrates a very poor understanding of the science involved, and further supports that this is a fringe theory. Such theories need much stronger sources, specifically secondary sources, meaning that someone who is knowledgeable about the science would have to review the findings. These would, themselves, also have to be reliable sources. There are many Wikipedia articles covering climate change and climate engineering, but this article is specifically about the conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The impacts of weather modification by shooting chemicals into the air, or spraying from planes, were discussed at a United Nations conference on Global Warming. So, they were discussing fictitious things at a United Nations conference?  It is not arguable that these things are happening. 198.84.236.50 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Lots of things have been proposed. Proposals are not facts, and research is not the same as action. If you want to call discussion and tentative research fiction, so be it. If you can find reliable sources, bring them forth, but until that happens it absolutely is arguable. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unproven conspiracy theory
Is there an example of a proven conspiracy theory that is still labeled as a "conspiracy theory?" This may be parsing the issue too finely, however, a conspiracy theory by definition is unproven, no? Hence seems redundant to state as in lead "Chemtrails, according to the unproven chemtrail conspiracy theory,....." If there are no scholarly objections, in a couple of weeks or so I'll simply remove the word "unproven," from that line. SteamWiki (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the intro. The word "unproven" is important to make it obvious.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Absent Issues
Motives are absent. One can quote Agenda 21 but that makes you sound paranoid when there are a few more immediately obvious and logical culprits with great motivation. Historical battles have been won and lost due to weather good or bad. If the military industrial complex is not interested in manipulating the weather they are fools. They are not fools. They are not transparent either. It's most likely secret for good reasons (health, environment, military advantage of secret weapons, etc). The farming industrial complex has demonstrated, like all corporations, they have no morals unless forced to and would allow organic farming to fail so they can push their genetically modified products for profit. The fossil fuel industry would benefit from chemtrails by pushing off radical climate change as long as possible, thereby pushing off radical energy reform. Naturally they'd all likely coordinate and collude. Lastly, non-transparent governments may already know that climate change has tipped past recovery and there is not alternative and like Michael Rupert states that collapse is coming and we have neither the infrastructure, political will, or energy necessary to fix this great extinction event. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any references for the material you would like to see added? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cloud Pattern Shift/Migration
"Chemtrail"'s may be considered conspiracy theory; However the article should also include some mention of Cloud Migration theory. In short, one effect of global-warming is cloud patterns have shifted poleward -- the Tropics don't have the same amount of cloud cover as it did pre-industrial (receives more sunlight too).

Cloud drift is an established phenomenon; "Chemtrails" are simulated clouds distributed in the same areas where cloud cover has decreased -- appears that chemtrails were an attempt to mitigate for global warming.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C0:C000:1210:7529:5D56:57FC:8EA4 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That information would need reliable sources first. While cloud patterns have shifted, this was only recently documented, and sources would need to clearly explain the connection between those finding and this topic to be considered. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemtrail - Is a colloquialism
Chemtrail is a colloquialism in common everyday use to refer to the aerosol sprays emitted from high altitude tanker jetliners. The technical term for aerosol spraying from planes is Geo Engineering or climate modification. These tanker planes have customized spray ports along the wings. Commercial planes also have spray ports as in this video made by a passenger on a commercial flight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DybLUGo8xp0 This video shows a chemtrail being left by the plane while the jet engines are NOT leaving a CONTRAIL. A contrail is a vapor trail left for a short while - ten minutes - when the air temperature allows. Chemtrail aerosols not only remain in the air but expand into a suspended vapor covering 1/3 of the sky from one chemtrail.

Tanker planes have been filmed turning off and on the aerosol sprays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSx44akT8As

A new effect of the nano particulates sprayed from tanker planes and jet lines is massive forest fires like the McMurray fire in Alberta Canada which in 11 days has burned 1370 square miles (CNN). The Rocky Fire in California in 2015 burned 10 square miles in 24 hours. Aluminum is used in rocket fuel because of its expansion rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant Burning aluminum particles creates wind (air displacement) resulting in such super fires as above.

Documentation for tanker planes and commercial airliners spraying aerosols with metal particles can be found by using any of the following terms; Aerosol spraying, Geo Engineering, Climate modification, Chemtrails.

Djagda (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * YouTube videos and a website run by tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts fall way short of meeting Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy. Please go and read some actual science about atmospheric phenomena like condensation trails and high level cirrus clouds to understand why this woo does not belong here and why con-trails are a perfectly natural phenomena that can disappear quickly or remain for a long time and even spread dramatically, all depending on the atmospheric conditions at the time. -  Nick Thorne  talk  14:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And correction, the insert of truth you just deleted was to Nick Thorne, not djagda. Funny how the truth is always deleted here and corruption and lies win out. Go figure, these surnames give so much away, "thorne", "wales", etc.,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick, how do you explain the increased aluminium and barium in the soil, especially in pristine environments? 198.84.236.50 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no "increased aluminium and barium in the soil", just people misinterpreting test results. Soil naturally contains around 7% aluminium by mass, on average. Barium levels vary hugely by geographical location, but barite is a common enough mineral. (By the way the video above showing "spray nozzles" is clearly a fuel dump.) Umop ap!sdn (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)