Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Article in the news

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

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

Sidebar, again

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

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

That was during the very short period that the sidebar only read "alternative medicine". It no longer does that and did so only as a violation of consensus for a few weeks. I agree it is better placeed under pseudomedicine than alternative medicine, but there isn't really any difference if you look at the definitions. (In fact I did not see that 7 people had commented, because of the white space, but the rest of my current comment stands.) I think it's a better idea to change the sidebar to be more inclusive than to remove this. HIV-denialism isn't classically alternative medicine either, but it is most assuredly pseudomedicine. Carl Fredrik talk 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I thought the whitespace might be a problem. AFAICT, the "traditional" heading in that template is "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine", and I don't see chemtrails being that or quackery. We'll see if there's more opinions. WP will survive either outcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Update. Eggishorn removed the sidebar again on may 11,[7] so today I removed chemtrails from the sidebar again, and was reverted.[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
My 2p. Chemtrails are not ALT-MED. They are lunatic charlatanesque, but not medical. I support the removal of the sidebar. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No one has so far even said it was alt-med — but it is pseudomedicine, and there is one and the same sidebar for both. The two "fields" are virtually indestinguishable in reality, but even if we strongly feel that this isn't alt-med, that argument isn't applicalbe. HIV-denialism isn't more part of alt-med than this is — but there is no debate as to whether that belongs in the "alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar. The sidebar is not only about alt-med, but also pseudomedicine. Also the discussion for changes to the sidebar belongs there. To claim that chemtrails is not pseudomedicine is bizarre, because chemtrails are suggested to have an effect on the body — bringing it directly into the medical field. Are you certain you mean that Roxy the dog? Carl Fredrik talk 09:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thread also at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar, but as I see it, it's one issue. If a sidebar is not in the article, the article should not be in the sidebar.
Per pseudomedicine: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that by definition do not work, and are a form of quackery or health fraud.[1] They are claimed to have the healing effects of medicine..."
Chemtrails fit poorly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
How about if we add it to Template:Pseudoscience and add that to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That definition from pseudomedicine is a shortened version (which I in fact wrote, so it's fun to be quoted). A full definition also includes "theories that by definition are false or rejected", but this is too much for the first sentence of a lede. If you go a little further into that introductory paragraph, you can see that it also tackles false theoretical systems and not just singular practices. Pseudomedicine is in essence anything that is a pseudoscience while simultaneously purporting to be medical. Medical in its turn is anything that is related to the health or physiological or pathological functioning of the individual (human). So a conspiracy theory relating to the function of the body is de facto pseudomedicine.
Chemtrails most assuredly falls under both pseudoscience as well as a medical theory — hence it is pseudomedicine. It is in a sense a medical conspiracy theory, which I changed the header of Template:Alternative medicine sidebar to include upon your request.
I am more than willing to discuss how we can improve the sidebar, to make it include medical conspiracy theories and pseudomedicine in a better way (more clearly interconnected), maybe under a different name such as Template:Medical conspiracy theories sidebar. However, there are issues with chiropractors not wanting to include mention of conspiracy theories — even though that is what they peddle. So we have the problem that medical conspirators don't want to be called alternative, while "alternatives" not wanting to be called conspirators. The middle ground is pseudomedicine, which I find both dislike, but is the best and should label both.
As for your suggestion — navigation bars at the bottom of articles are not used (as in clicked on). A handful of Wikipedians find them useful, but in general no readers find them (add to that how 65% don't even see them because they're blocked in the mobile view). To me that invalidates the replacement with a navigation bar (but not having both), and I find the sidebar to be much more useful.
We should try to keep these quasimedical theories bunched together, because they all deal with the same common theme: a rejection of science, and a rejection of established medical fact. If that means we need a new header for the sidebar, that's fine — but we shouldn't be too pedantic about what is what, when everything is pseudomedicine. Carl Fredrik talk 11:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the difference between ALT-Med and Pseudomedicine? Carl, you and I agree on most things, but I cannot see how this topic fits within any topic area related to medicine. Your connection is too obtuse to be made and not be caught under our WP:OR rules. It was for these reasons that I removed this topic from the sidebar. I started this reply before Carl's reply above and was edit conflicted. I still find that this is not a medical or medical related topic at all. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I made no such request. Disagree with the "medical theory" reasoning, and this change to the template [9] doesn't seem like improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
BTW, how do we know that readers don't click in the navigation bars at the bottom of articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Including the lunatic fringe pseudoscientific theory of chemtrails within any medical topic is drawing a very long bow indeed. It is not and has never been a medical (or alt-medical) theory, it is really just a bunch of conspiracy nuts dreaming up an "explanation" for a perfectly natural phenomenon. - Nick Thorne talk 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
There is plenty of lunatic fringe pseudoscientific theories that purport to be medicine — including that entire side-bar full. If it has medical implications, i.e. is a medical conspiracy theory, then it belongs. We're not validating it by listing it there, just stating that it's just as wacky as AIDS-denialism. Carl Fredrik talk 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Men bättre lyss till den sträng som brast än aldrig spänna en båge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI, this is the English Wikipedia. I have no idea what you are saying. - Nick Thorne talk 14:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems to just be a Swedish proverb.--tronvillain (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any part of this theory that could be called medicine. And I don't recall seeing this classfication anywhere. I only see original research to support it. I suggest removing this classificafion until you can find some reliable souce that makes this classification. -Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What about the fact that the purported function is through a chemical agent, i.e. pharmaceutical drug? Enric Naval — Calling it a medical conspiracy theory doesn't legitimize it, it just includes it with other far-fetched theories. Carl Fredrik talk 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

According to some proponents chemtrails are toxic and make us less fertile. It's not enough, but it's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just straining too far to class this as "pseudomedicine". Almost all conspiracies are alleged to be doing bad things to people. I'd definitely not put that sidebar here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It really doesn't seem to fit into pseuodomedicine - only a subset of proponents of the conspiracy are making the claim that chemtrails negatively affect health, and the claim "x is harmful" doesn't even seem to fit the definitions given at pseudomedicine. Even if they're not used that much, I think the pseudoscience navbar is a much better fit - it's a pity there isn't a more applicable sidebar (like pseudoscience or conspiracy theory).--tronvillain (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no. It is most absolutely a medical conspiracy theory, or if I rephrase it: a pseudoscientific interpretation of medicine. How can this be a matter of discussion? The idea of mind control through the use of a chemical substance, i.e. a drug or pharmacological agent — how can that not be medicine (as in relating to the physiological or pathological functioning of the human body, including the mind/brain/cognitive faculties)? Please answer that Orangemike and Tronvillain. Carl Fredrik talk 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Pseudo medicine is doing something suppose≤dly for a medical reason or treatment that is not supported by the science. No one is making "chemtrails" at all, let alone for some purported medical reason. It is the very claim that chemtrails are even a thing that is properly pseudoscience. - Nick Thorne talk 02:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It literally doesn't fit the definition at alternative medicine (the redirect for pseudomedicine), or the definition that was on the original page before the redirect: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that claim to have the healing effects of medicine but are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect.", "Pseudomedicine is medicine which claims to be effective for diagnosing or treating specific medical conditions, but which has been disproven or which is unproven and the mainstream scientific opinion is that it will not be proven to be effective", and "Pseudomedicine refers to 'treatments that claim to be working concepts of medicine that have no objectively verifiable benefit or are incompatible with the current state of knowledge in the field of science-based medicine.'" But that is irrelevant, given that the sidebar itself includes (medical) conspiracy theories, which this clearly falls under. --tronvillain (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
While the sidebar includes some conspiracy theories, "medical conspiracy theories" was added to it's header during this discussion.[10] Before that, the indication was that it contained "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine" CT's. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a clearer title, given the inclusion of those conspiracy theories. --tronvillain (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I ask again for a reliable source for chemtrails being a medical conspiracy. I checked one reliable source Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 pp 197-199. Their explanation of chemtrails says nothing about medicine. Medicine-related conspiracies can be found in other pages. Please find a reliable source that calls chemtrails a medical conspiracy or similar, and gives an explanation of why. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

From page 197, "or to test compounds on the human populations and natural life below.", and the next paragraph on 197-198, "Activists who highlight the issue usually allege that epidemics of flu-like illnesses follow sightings of contrail patters: sometimes the symptoms include diarrhea, listlessness, and fevers." Exactly how much more medical would you like that conspiracy to be? --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for adding the {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} in again, but I was just going through all the article links within it and expanding the sections they are in. Personally, I can easily see where Chemtrail conspiracy theory would easily fit in as a medical conspiracy theory and therefore it belongs in the template and on this page; however, consensus is consensus, and we should always go with consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No reason you should suspect this thread was here. But you know us Wikipedians, we can discuss topics to an extent that will appear stunning to, well, everybody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

See Also: Could we add related historical events?

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

But the article is not about the government spraying chemicals from planes on civilians. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
In the first paragraph it says "consist of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and deliberately sprayed for purposes undisclosed to the general public". Those articles I've mentioned are about chemicals being sprayed deliberately for purposes undisclosed to the public. We're just talking about related articles, not articles that are exactly the same. Look at the articles linked now and you can see that the article isn't about those articles, either. What is the purpose of the See Also section if not to guide people to related articles? KRLA18 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:SEEALSO, that's not a horrible argument. There's huge room for editorial discretion in "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (like US gov has sprayed stuff on people in secret before)."
I've never heard of these subjects you link to and don't know if the articles are good or not, but they seem to involve spraying stuff on people who weren't told. Did Project 112 involve airplanes at all? Contrails seems to be missing too, and they may be unrelated to chemtrail arguments. Still, not unthinkable. See also currently contains Fuel dumping and Solar radiation management, those seem fairly distant too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A late reply from me. The articles are pretty decent. There isn't a lot of info on those programs, it was investigated by the US senate and became public in the late 90s, I believe. The governments position is that they weren't insidious, and that the chemicals/bacteria they sprayed wasn't harmful. Just testing fallout patterns for nukes, without dropping nukes. Anyways, they seem more related to the "conspiracy" than fuel dumping. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that chemtrail conspiracy theories grew out of Operation LAC, with first hand sources mentioning it to friends/family, and it taking on a life of its own, which is likely how many conspiracies start/spread, with a nugget of truth. But there's no evidence of that that I've seen (but I haven't really looked), so that basis for inclusion isn't proper.
Anyways, Operation LAC was a part of Project 112. Operation Dew was a similar one, but they released aerosols from ships. Whether Operation LAC involved contrails is hard to say, since I haven't seen any pictures. But it is still dumping chemicals out of an airplane. But I can see why it might not be the greatest thing for inclusion, since it may lead some people to believe that those tests are evidence of chemtrails, or provides a basis for it, which may be misleading. But people interested in chemtrails may also be interested in those government programs. I'm not very knowledgeable with wikipedia standards/policies and such, so I'll defer to others. Anybody interested enough can find the articles through this talk page as it is now, anyways. KRLA18 (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

POV fork

Don't feed the trolls. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is a point of view fork and as such should be deleted. We have at least three pages (climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, and solar radiation management) that say they're real, based on science, and this page that says they're not, based on "cause we say so" type unsubstantiated opinion. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

The policy is clearly outlined on the Wikipedia:content forking page: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." --2602:304:CD80:4350:61EB:F8E3:AD68:2131 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But none of those article are about a conspiracy theory. This is a distinct topic (a loony one, but notable) and merits its own page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
They're existence is an accepted scientific fact. We don't need a conspiracy theory to speculate whether they exist. At the very least, it should be disambiguated that chemtrails do exist, but that there's no evidence that the long lasting trails often seen in the sky are or are not chemtrails.--2602:304:CD80:4350:2DC0:F3F9:767D:A131 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No. The existence of condensation trails is a scientific fact. Calling them "chemtrails" is conspiracy mongering nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no such "accepted scientific fact." There is is extensive scientific consensus that the conspiracy is nonsense [11] [12]. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Might the IP be referring to cloud seeding? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That's my guess; specifically, cloud seeding in the context of geoengineering. I've tweaked the first couple of sentences to try and clarify the scope of the article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an Apple vs Apples argument at this point. It's no longer Conspiracy theory, chemicals, yes including Lithium, are used in the upper atmosphere. The Lithium in small parts, added to the Barium, according to NASA researchers, assists in observation.

The Conspiracy Theorists say it's not just condensation from water vapor. That there's chemicals being placed in our skies.

That govt scientists are placing chemicals in the skies is fact. The only theory, is the reason why. Neither side of the argument can prove their argument. If there's hazardous experiments occurring, they're not going to admit it. It took FOIA's just to get the truth about the Govt's previous experiments, exposing people to infectious disease, and radiation.

Naked eye observation today, shows those same 'chemtrails' are not just refusing to disappear, they're merging, causing a haze, which also points towards admitted research. They're attempting to find ways to protect us from the threat of harmful UV rays.

Another easy observation, is the fantastic sunrises, and sunsets, that are occurring with much greater frequency. That is a direct result of the Lithium additive, to the Barium.

NASA used to have to use rockets to disperse the chemical agents. With the advancement of aeronautical engineering, planes can handle flying at much higher altitude.

So its not even an argument anymore. Geoengineering, upper atmospheric wind pattern observation, cloud seeding for rain, using chemicals to create unnatural cloud cover to block harmful UV rays, are all modern sciences.

The only theory left is the reason why they're doing this, but that will remain in the realm of theory. One cant prove nefarious intentions, just like those trying to debunk something, can't disprove it. They can reiterate what the Scientists say, and the rest is purely speculation.

I'd like to hope their intentions are good, and in that case, wish them success in geoengineering. After losing my home to Hurricane Katrina, it would be great if they could 'direct' the next major Hurricane back out to sea, instead of it making landfall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm110478 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Cloud seeding is real, but your going to need reliable sources to support any changes you make to the article, the contrails spreading out into a haze is just what happens to water vapor in plane exhaust when the upper troposphere is more humid, such as before a warm front, this can be used to predict the weather, but doesn't mean the planes are changing the weather. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New editor

I have no idea what I'm doing. It appears that a) "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute", and

b) "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chemtrail conspiracy theory."

and c) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

-well then where? I can not find the appropriate discussion page. Can't that be made clear somehow? Well, I'm breaking the law and putting it here:

- so that the only way to "discuss" it is to "Edit", and that there IS no actual way to "discuss"? So that rather than "discuss" I am supposed to make changes, which can then be removed by someone else, and I can put them back in, and they can remove them again, etc? - or is there a place for discussion somewhere, and I just haven't found it?

I really try to limit my involvement with conspiracy theories, and laughed off the chemtrail conspiracy theories for a long time myself. Especially living in the big city where a lot of airplanes fly over all the time. Now I live in a rural area with no airplane traffic. Sure, some plane or other is bound to come over from time to time, but when we're having a hot day, and we see a trail, and a little while later another trail, exactly parallel, and after a couple of more hours 3-4 more trails, parallel, evenly spaced which over the following couple of hours dissolve into thin clouds - am I then supposed to believe that a passenger plane makes multiple, evenly spaced trails in a place it has no business being in, or that possibly it is cloud seeding, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding - isn't cloud seeding chemtrails? Isn't that what we're talking about? If one wants to be conspiratorial then one can discuss all sorts of things that the government may be dropping on us and whatever, but that is not my errand here, only that SOMETHING is being done, even if it may be that it is just cloud seeding - WHICH IS the dropping of chemicals from planes, regardless of how benign it may or may not be. Thus it seems we need to move away from the judgment and ridicule, and acknowledge at least the cloud seeding as possibly being what it is we're seeing, because one thing is certain: We are not simply seeing planes going about their business of going from one place to another. This activity is as regular as a tractor plowing a field, or seeding it. So long as the cloud seeding is being described in one place, and simultaneously denied here, it seems we have a problem. Ultimately it of course does come down to being about "do you believe what you can see with your own eyes or do you believe what you are told?" Nnnooottt (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not offer discussion forum space. Talkpages are only for discussion about specific article improvement proposals. Howerver, to offer a short answer to your questions:
Cloud seeding and chemtrails are different things. Cloud seeding is a somewhat hit-or-miss attempt to alter local weather in specific circumstances. Chemtrails are a widely debunked but persistently popular conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, as the article notes. The reliable sources that Wikipedia uses as the basis for content call chemtrails utter nonsense.
I hope this helps. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The parallel lines can be easily explained by aircraft following the same routes as each other but there being a light wind. We can't source statements to "things I saw staring up at the sky one day". Bradv🍁 02:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"Ultimately it of course does come down to being about "do you believe what you can see with your own eyes or do you believe what you are told?"" This isn't really accurate, you should ask yourself, "Do I have the knowledge to correctly interpret what I can see with my own eyes?" -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Template_talk:Alternative_medicine_sidebar#Medical_conspiracy_theories_—_alternative_and_pseudo‑medicine

Chemtrail-related discussion, for those interested. Previous related discussions at

Suggestion for Intro

Since the page is highly controversial, I figure it's best I bring my suggestion up on the talk page instead of just doing it like I normally would. In the intro, I believe it would be better wording to put chemical trails instead of "chemtrails". The way it's worded now, the word (chemtrails) is being used to define itself. Trumblej1986 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't agree. The third paregraph defines the word, namely, ....chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words chemical and trail, just as contrail is a portmanteau of condensation and trail. Moriori (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree with Moriori. - Nick Thorne talk 00:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the portmanteau is explained further down, but in the sentence I mentioned, it doesn't make grammatical or logical sense. Trumblej1986 (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You did not mention a sentence. Do you mean the first sentence? "The chemtrail conspiracy theory is based on the erroneous[1] belief that long-lasting condensation trails are "chemtrails" consisting of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And good call on not being WP:RECKLESS, "articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions" is a fair description of this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize on not being clear, yes, I am referring to the first sentence you quoted, and only that sentence. Trumblej1986 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem! That sentence defines chemtrails as "long-lasting condensation trails... consisting of chemical or biological agents". I don't see your suggestion improving anything, switching either or both "chemtrail/s". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete erroneous from the lead section

Saying that it's a "belief" is enough for a NPOV on the topic. I also think that the belief in God is erroneous, but I don't need to note it in the lead section. -Theklan (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. "Belief" isn't a dirty or pejorative word - a belief is a mental representation of the likelihood of the truth of a proposition. I believe there are no leprechauns: my estimate of the probability of leprechauns existing is extremely low. Still, the lede sentence could potentially be reworded. For example, we could just substitute conspiracy theory for "erroneous belief." --tronvillain (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm yes, I would see no problem with conspiracy theory, which is in any case unsubstantiated... —PaleoNeonate – 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
But that gives us "The chemtrail conspiracy theory is based on the conspiracy theory..." Saying that a conspiracy theory is based on a conspiracy theory seems awkward at best (unless we're talking about a conspiracy theory that's based on another conspiracy theory, which is not the case here). There might be other ways of rewording that could work.

I don't see where saying a false belief is a false belief is a problem, but it's not a big deal either way. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The current wording is good. What problem is being solved here? Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's not broken so it does not need fixing. - Nick Thorne talk 06:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the UN's recent climate change report, and the need for drastic measures, is it okay to talk freely about geoengineering (chemtrails) yet?--2602:304:CD80:4350:3D2F:AFC6:9DF9:13FB (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't care what you talk about, but this page is for discussion about improving the associated article "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No need for snide comments Roxy, I was obviously talking about the need to build out the associated article. Please try to remain civil.--76.216.4.53 (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, he tried to tell you that what you said is not relevant to the article and does not belong there. He is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, the lead sentence states: "The chemtrail conspiracy theory is based on the erroneous belief that long-lasting condensation trails, called "chemtrails" consist of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and deliberately sprayed for purposes undisclosed to the general public."
The word "condensation" should be removed as the theory is not that chemtrails are long lasting condensation trails, but rather long lasting chemical trails -- that's the whole theory.--2602:304:CD80:4350:4052:7D74:3524:354F (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The reality is that they're condensation trails, the belief is that they're evil substances. But it could be clarified a tad. Will do! Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Alexbrn, that grammar at least works.--2602:304:CD80:4350:2DC0:F3F9:767D:A131 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how categorically stating "erroneous belief" can be impartial. Just because this belief can't be proved doesn't mean it can be (or has been) disproved. DavidSAlexander (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources that WIkipedia uses call it nonsense [13] [14]. If reliable sources call something bunk, Wikipedia does. We're not in the business of promoting conspiracy theories by omission. Acroterion (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
DavidSAlexander, it doesn't have to be "impartial", it has to be neutral, which means according to reliable sources. As there are no reliable sources that support this conspiracy theory, and many that oppose it, we accurately represent those sources in the article. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which for this theory simply does not exist. Bradv 20:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘

I'm a little surprised at this debate about the word "erroneous". The use of the word is an NPOV violation and reads like a bias in the article. The word "erroneous" is a subjective judgment about a "belief". Someone was supporting an argument for not seeing a problem calling a false belief a false belief. The word belief itself is subjective. Even "concepts" that most people "accept" as science is still really based on belief. You believe there is an outer space, other planets, the Earth is a globe, etc, but how many of you have been to the moon, in a spaceship, to another planet. I know I couldn't build a flat screen TV by myself even if I had everything I needed to build one. But I know they exist because I own one and its in my home and I've touched it. My point being that any article that centers around a "belief" is subjective to begin with. You can't make a subjective mindset "right" or "wrong", "correct" or "incorrect" - it just is its subjective self. Most conspiracy theorists are a bit to very religious about their beliefs. This argument is one of the rare occasions on Wikipedia where an external verified source cannot define the accuracy of the center focus of an article. I don't personally care if the belief is based in pure science or the same mindset that brought us the Easter Bunny - but I do care about an article following the spirit and letter of the rules. Finally, before I delete the word "erroneous" - I would suggest editors and contributors zoom out a bit on this sort of thing. What is the ultimate result of finding every article on Wikipedia and adding the word "erroneous" next to the word "belief"? It would suggest that there is only one acceptable belief about anything and that is a huge NPOV violation.Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerostatetechnologies (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing. Your belief about beliefs is irrelevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that Erroneous should be removed. I thought Wikipedia was all about sharing information, not controlling information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalej78 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

We're not, the internet is big. And new comments in an old thread goes at the bottom of it. Or it may be better to start a new thread, that's the "New section" tab near the top. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can a few more references be added to the word "erroneous" in the lead? That would help sort this out a bit.  Nixinova  T  C  07:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need any sources. There's really only one there to try and ward off the loons who regularly drive-by this article wanting to truthify the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing would satisfy true believers it seems (Special:History/Chemtrails). —PaleoNeonate – 08:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Article speculates

Apologies but I didn't want to bring up old points so I thought to start a new. I personally feel this article is more speculative and subjective than other pages I've seen on Wikipedia. I found multiple citations citing disreputable sources. I find the article itself to be discouraging to free thinking. I also find it to be biased. I see little evidence on many points and instead see explanations alone are taken as fact. I would like to see more comparative data and knowledge pertaining to science rather than opinion as I feel saying it is only conspiracy is a presumption of it's own. For example the last sentence of the Article depicts the only study done on "chemtrails" speaking of the 76 scientist who said they don't believe it was SLAP while leaving out the reason the one scientist said otherwise. I personally feel the article should be in violation and removed in it's entirety but adding a section for compelling data conspiracy theorists have produced could also suffice at least till more actual scientific data exists. Wikipedia for me has always been about learning and not general consensus or opinion. Thank you for your consideration.B1blazin (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is very informative. See WP:GEVAL for why Wikipedia does not lend credence to nonsense like chemtrails. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You did not make any concrete suggestions for improving the article. Your contribution sounds like just another instance of people wanting one specific article about one specific bullshit to be silent about it being bullshit. See WP:FRINGE and WP:Lunatic charlatans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Daily page views spike

In the graph above, there's a big spike at the end of July. Any ideas what caused this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And the graph just updated to show an even bigger spike. Same question I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: see this Google search. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
... Greta Thunberg? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrail are real

Here are proof that Bill gates is in on the chemtrails and that airplanes spray chemicals into the atmosphere to form sun-blocking artificial cloud cover with a toxic cocktail that might contain aluminum, strontium and barium. It has been going on for many years so this article headline saying "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" is wrong and should be left as "Chemtrail" and should be edited so it explains that this is real and is NOT a theory!

Link From CNBC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6uSXW-8p4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libsen (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The video talks about geoengineering. It is mentioned in the first 20 seconds of the video. --McSly (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Operation LAC

This article should probably mention incidents like Operation LAC and distinguish between incorrect hypotheses about condensation on the one hand and instances in which planes actually have been used to distribute potentially harmful material for the purpose of human experimentation on the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptophreak (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you changing the spelling of a quotation?

It's not surprising that a quote from a British publication doesn't use American spelling. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Title is NNPOV

"Chemtrail conspiracy theory" doesn't inform, it tells the reader how to feel about the subject. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory - actually, they go on to call it nonsense - so Wikipedia titles it accordingly. Wikipedia isn't a means to give or imply credibility for nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this actually a "theory" now

Geoengineering is not chemtrails. Guy (help!) 15:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was a skeptic for a while but then the CIA just comes right out with it:

"Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.

An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.

As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.

I could go on, and on, and on, but rather than talk about the things that I find fascinating, let me stop here so that Judy and I can have a conversation and then I can take some of your questions. Again, thank you for inviting me back to the Council and thank you for your continued interest in our country’s foreign relations and national security."

This interview is available on video somewhere, and I believe he goes on to talk about how it would be the cheapest to use jetliners.

Can we chalk this up to conspiracy fact now? What is a chemtrail? It's SAI coming out of a jet. That's what it is.


https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html [1]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection

[2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.201.205 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You are on the wrong page. Try Stratospheric aerosol injection. Moriori (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The technology would be the same. Chemtrails would involve injection/dissemination of particles or chemicals in the earth's atmosphere, very similar to, if not identical to, SAI. However, chemtrails are a conspiracy theory that entities are actively using the technology to spread chemicals within a planes contrails (or that contrails are fake and are only chemtrails); there is no evidence to back up this belief, however. So, while chemtrails are *possible*, and can be done, the actual act of creating them is still a conspiracy theory.

Trumblej1986 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

SAI is only a proposed technology, as the above quote makes clear, and it wouldn't look or act anything like contrails. Furthermore, the contrails which chemtrails believers point to actually have the exact reverse effect that SAI would have. They warm the planet, rather than cooling it. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence to the contrary

None other than John Brennan, previous DCI, speaking to the Council on Foreign relations:


"A method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help to reflect the sun's heat in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do."

ProudPrimate (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The link is rejected by the page, but in in-linked form, it is "youtu" (dot) be (slash) "ZShau-I7SmC" 

ProudPrimate (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like chemtrails, do you have a WP:RS that says it is? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Tell me what a WP:RS is and I'll answer you, exclusionist. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh - Wikipedia reliable source? You don't consider the former head of the CIA a reliable source when he's telling on what the deep state is doing? Are you joking? Because current Secretary of State brags about his time as DCI "we lied, we cheated, we stole". If you're joking, I agree with you. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS for the information you desire. Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Watch the video. It's clearly that. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, how do I post the link so without error? ProudPrimate (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying again – It won't lest me post the link "unknown error". I suspect it's truth suppression. ProudPrimate (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It won't provide me an edit pencil to correct my stupid auto-correct ProudPrimate (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about [15], the topic seems to be Climate engineering. Again, if you want this WP-article to say that John Brennan talked about chemtrails, you need a WP:RS that says that John Brennan talked about chemtrails. But the internet is vast, there are other places you can write that without suppression of your truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see that I did in fact make a considerable error, in the early hours. I owe you an apology. It should have been obvious to me that the video was an overlay of other material over his speech. Not a part of his presentation. I should have watched the whole thing first, then I would have realized that.

Please accept my apologies, all involved. I thought I was more awake than that when I wrote it.

Again, so sorry. ProudPrimate (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I hate making a fool of myself, but I have done so today. ProudPrimate (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your courtesy is much appreciated. For the record, I still believe those metal particulates are used. But I belatedly acknowledge that his testimony does not provide evidence of that. ProudPrimate (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft FAQ

I've started working on a FAQ.

Please feel free to contribute. Guy (help!) 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks decent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
But! Suggest an amendment by adding two words (which I have shown in bold). Q: Why is Wikipedia suppressing the truth? A: It isn't. Wikipedia reflects empirical fact as documented ... Moriori (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
How about a section for those who come with photos or videos of the sky claiming that that it's chemtrails - OR and all that. Getting vandalism on the Contrail for that sort of thing. 2001:8003:38C0:900:711A:9710:5E23:EF2D (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Cabal approved, —PaleoNeonate – 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dead link(s)

Reference 8 from Skeptical Inquirer leads to a 404 page. Could someone replace it with this working link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateMD (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully I can put this one to bed

I have been reading the archives. On page 9, some mod or something said WP:GEVAL is the reason why the "erroneous beliefs" part is okay. That's not true at all. GEVAL states that two ideas cannot be presented as equal. However, calling this theory "erroneous" does not do that. Refutations to the conspiracy theory can be made in the appropriate sections of the wikipedia article. Otherwise, I am of the opinion that it's a NPOV violation. And just to add, I personally don't believe this theory, all I am stating is that it was a rather odd page to stumble across. Reading wiki is a hobby of mine and, relatively speaking, the lack of neutral POV on this page is a very noticeable abnormality. I propose deleting that word, and then as a community deciding on if there are any other similar errors in the article. Present the information objectively. Say "according to soandso, it's an erroneous belief". Everyone is happy. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we cannot present that opinion at all: WP:GEVAL states "validity" and not "presence" with regard to that equality principle. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for response. GEVAL does not permit the community to slap "erroneous" as the first sentence. Who says it's erroneous? When, and why? Let the user read the article and form his own opinion - it is frankly easy to make chemtrails sound erroneous without straight up calling it erroneous, so why do you have a problem with it? 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Well the "rule" is that if reliable sources say it then it has a place on Wikipedia articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:GEVAL is pertinent. For WP:FRINGE concepts Wikipedia does not "let the user read the article and form his own opinion", but plainly describes the nonsense as nonsense. RS says the chemtrail believers are deluded; we reflect that. See also WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Very well. Just strange reading this article after reading so many on articles. It's apparently way different. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The reason why this article is different is because the majority of Wikipedia articles on scientific subjects are exactly that and are based on RS and mainstream scientific opinion as expressed in those RS. This article on the other hand is about a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory subscribed to by the tin foil hat brigade. Perhaps we should change "erroneous beliefs" to "crazy, fruit loop, la la land insanities". - Nick Thorne talk 23:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand you guys are trying to make the argument for GEVAL etc. but I'm invoking WP:IAR. Seriously, this article sticks out like a sore thumb. As I said, I do not believe in the chemtrail conspiracy theory so I have no personal agenda here, but I cannot stress enough how... unique... this article is in its bias. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:696C:C5B5:5F6C:A5B8 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Um, no. IAR is where ignoring rules would improve the encyclopaedia, not degrade it by pandering to batshit insanity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am trying to do. Everyone knows about chemtrails before coming to this article. We don't have to treat it as "batshit insanity" as you so kindly say, that stuff is already innate. The reader can understand from the lack of evidence that it is "batshit", we don't have to spell it out for them. It sticks out very much, and I have never come across a Wikipedia article with an attitude such as this one. I'd even go as far to say that Wikipedia articles shouldn't have any attitude at all. Basically, my point is, that it is unnecessary and childish to treat it as batshit insanity because you are assuming the reader both A) can't make that conclusion themselves after reading the article B) we assume the reader is better off not believing this stuff. And, while that may be true, it's not how any other article operates. Even the more controversial articles such as Race and Intelligence aren't treated this way (not trying to say anything about race and intelligence, was just comparing that article to this one) 2601:18E:101:5FC0:64FE:9A64:4472:92E9 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Loads of people believe in chemtrails. We've had a few here. The deluded nature of these people's beliefs is one of the major strands of the topic which interests rational observers. Anyway, it's not going to change unless Wikipedia's policies are fundamentally re-written so this is just a waste of time to push for. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There are other online forums for fringe theories but Wikipedia "culture" is against these things. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like that's a common misconception, the fundamentals of Wikipedia only need to be rewritten for you bub. Bottom line we keep a neutral perspective and trust the reader to make an educated assessment based off the information there. That's an encyclopedia. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:E0DB:9591:53F4:EAA4 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope we put up what reliable sources states, and all reliable sources say Chemtrails are nonsense. We do not need to make a balanced article out of an unbalanced topic. This is an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This article is not unique in calling-out the wrongness of believers. For example Alkaline diet makes it clear that diet is based on a "misconception". WP:IAR is extremely rarely justified or used, but in any event cannot override WP:NPOV, which is explicitly non-negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I firmly believe you are all incorrect, but I am clearly outnumbered here. So, I will concede my argument. EDIT: I am the OP of this thread btw. 72.169.80.214 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a section of historical examples?

Although there is no evidence for ongoing chemtrail programs, there is conclusive evidence that the US government tested aerosol spraying mechanisms on its own citizens in the past, i.e.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112

Would it be fair to add a section discussing this fact, with appropriate clarification that this does not imply the validity of current chemtrail conspiracy theories?

Those aren't chemtrails. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
For starters, you'd need decent sources that make the connection chemtrails-the aboves (why only US government btw). The article has links to Biological warfare and Chemical warfare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Is an official government statement enough evidence to remove the conspiracy theory tag?

On april the 17 of 2020 the Ministry of health in Spain created order SND / 351/2020, authorized the Units NBC of the Armed Forces and the Military Emergency Unit to use biocides authorised by the Ministry of Health in the work of disinfection to cope with the health crisis caused by theCOVID-19.

The official state newsletter can be found on the site of the BOE [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Stouten (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Aerial dispersal of biocides is not even remotely related to chemtrails, at least not IMHO. Therefore the equating of contrails to chemtrails is still a conspiracy theory. Peaceray (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://boe.es/boe/dias/2020/04/17/pdfs/BOE-A-2020-4492.pdf

Army and St Louis

So we're ignoring the confirmed case of the Army experimenting on the St Louis neighborhood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB1:530:FD2E:7308:F7C3:ABC7 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This one? Operation LAC Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Does not seem to have any connection to chemtrails, or even contrails. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Disinformation

Former head of the CIA admitted that they've been doing aerosol injections for years to combat climate change. This article is old CIA disinformation. Tool! 24.112.156.243 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is about the thing discussed here: Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_9#Evidence_to_the_contrary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Is 100% been all the TV program that they are seeding government has released the paper work to register this is is not a Conspiracy any more 158.140.195.108 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

82.132.186.122 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Geoengineering is really. See .government.uk an BBC websites

 Not done Geoengineering has nothing to do with chemtrail. --McSly (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's unrealistic, but not far fetched

I have been living with some conspiracy nutsack with some time. They have been persistent with these ideas of chemtrails and aliens and abduction and stuff. I know how nagging it gets. But I've been thinking that this chemtrail stuff could be more of a case of human stupidity rather than planned destruction. You can't breathe the Carbon Monoxide a factory spreads, nor the exhaust of an old truck or a bus, these aren't benevolent to people, so perhaps this chemtrail subject could be associated with just air pollution and not "ALIENS". Someone who knows this more than I do will have to peer review this but "trucks need about three or four more times more fuel an average car needs, and the truck exhaust is dangerous for the air. Perhaps this truck exhaust is about three or four more times dangerous than an average car's exhaust", linking this with planes and stuff, "planes need (about, circa, around) twenty times more fuel than an average car needs. So this plane exhaust is twenty times more dangerous than an average car's exhaust"

What I'm suggesting here is to consider the possibility and not go all biased on it. I don't think the government is destroying the world on purpose or whatever conspiracy is linked to this, but I don't think condensation trails are good for breathing just like a bus exhaust isn't either.

I'm just suggesting to get rid of the overly bias, that gigantic bias that is put here only makes the conspiracy worse. If you wanted this conspiracy stuff to be over for, you would take their argument, consider it and say "well I see how this is possible, but I don't think aliens are involved here" instead of neglecting it altogether. From this person i've been living with, and from the little psychology I've studied, they have a reason to believe in this, there is some right to it "you die from breathing a truck's ass, so you'll die from breathing a plane's ass too" but other stuff is wrong "CIA, FIB, Illuminati, flat earth, Aliens, all connected -grandma".

This gigantic bias makes the defense worse, you only get the opposite result. This platform is meant to be neutral, even with the most absurdly stupid things, but at the end of the day, moustache twisting villains don't exist, they are believing these things for a reason. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they're not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.69.61 (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This platform is meant to follow, among other things, the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. It is different from several definitions of the word "neutral", and includes WP:FALSEBALANCE, hence the gigantic bias when writing about conspiracy theories. If you have good sources and want to improve articles like contrail and air pollution go ahead, if you want to improve this article, bring WP:RS about chemtrails. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah Neutral Point of View isn't about providing balance between all points of view, but making sure we have a balance based on how reliable sources are covering the topic. Canterbury Tail talk 19:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

How are reliable sources measured? The author is proclaiming the article is written with WP:FALSEBALANCE. I tend to agree. B1blazin (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RS. I do not know who you mean when you say "the author", but if you mean Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that is not what they said. Treating chemtrails as a reasonable hypothesis would be FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Validity of the Chemtrail conspiracy

I do not subscribe to chemtrail conspiracy, however I have so many reliable individuals and professionals around me who do and have implored me to just be open to the idea its possible. While I know that providing them as a source to you won't validate anything but I do want to know based on who and what source does your site deem the theory to be "erroneous?" The overarching statement that the "scientific community deems it to be erroneous?" Who in the scientific community deems it erroneous? 104.182.220.147 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You can check the reference for that which contains a link to the source papers and the information you seek is likely in there. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

This information is false and yes iv have plenty of proof including 37 years of service with the airforce spraying these chemtrails. It is not a theory. 2603:6010:AF02:CA02:D4D9:49C9:2211:C5F7 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The article begins "The chemtrail conspiracy theory is the erroneous belief ..." It is, however, a belief held by some (not an insignificant number of) people, and as such it is appropriate for inclusion here. I.e., yes, it is a theory. The article contains information the reader may use to arrive at their own conclusions. General Ization Talk 22:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

SLAP

"the scientific community, which refers to the suggested phenomenon as a "secret large-scale atmospheric program", or SLAP" is not what the source says. The source says that "Nearly 17% of people in an international survey said they believed the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP) to be true or partly true."

It is not clear from the source that "SLAP" is the term the scientific community uses. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So, remove the SLAP thing from lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know. Are there other sources for it? The version from January 4 may be better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Shasta stuff

My edits were reverted by @Bon courage:. The edits were about a public hearing which happened in Shasta County in July 2014 where the focus was chemtrails and they had speakers and everything. The county supervisors seemed very on board with the theories. Added two sources but this one is probably the most helpful: [16]. I think this is relevant to the current article in the "Actions" section because it's a case where the "government" is getting involved with chemtrails. Very similar to the paragraph starting In the United Kingdom, in 2005 Elliot Morley, a Minister of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was asked by David Drew, the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Stroud, "what research [the] Department has undertaken into the polluting effects of chemtrails for aircraft. Perhaps I just needed to word my edit better. Input is welcome. Nweil (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What happened in a National parliament and got major press coverage is probably more due than some silliness in provincial politics, which only got local coverage which has now gone from the web. It adds nothing of worth to the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The meeting was mentioned[17] in the Atlantic, a national publication, as well as in a research paper[18] published by Cambridge. Seems to rise above local coverage.Nweil (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The Atlantic is a better source. The other link is broken. Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I think I fixed it sorry Nweil (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, the journal article (in fact published by Berghahn Books) doesn't say much, except to say that this is all linked to the conspiracy theories concerning a 2014 California drought. If the local politicians' credulous reaction to this nonsense is worth including anywhere it would probably be at California drought manipulation conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
You're saying this is significant enough to have a whole separate article yet isn't relevant enough to be mentioned in the main chemtrail article? Nweil (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
No. Isn't that article about other stuff too? Anyway, I've changed my mind since we have a journal article & will include with link. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Actual environmental dangers of airplanes

While chemtrails is rightly discredited, I think this article would be benefited by adding a section that briefly enumerates some of the non-disputed environmental harms caused by airplanes.

One example is lead. While most countries outlawed leaded fuels for automobiles years ago due to the harmful effects of burning fuels with heavy metals, afaik most airplanes still burn leaded fuels today. 

* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-fuel/

I'm sure there's other examples of how airplanes cause real health and climate problems, and I believe that would be a welcome addition to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltfield (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic for this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
See Category:Environmental impact by source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
You want the Environmental effects of aviation article. And lead is only used in Avgas, used by old piston planes and general aviation. Not usually in regular larger airline operations (I.e. not used in jets or turboprops.) Canterbury Tail talk 10:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
That source is now 10 years old, so things may have changed. AFAIK, Avgas has lead because the cost of FAA certification of new engines is prohibitively high, and has resulted in old tech being continued to be used in piston-engined planes. ---Avatar317(talk) 19:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No longer conspiracy

Let's not give unsourced conspiracist claims the time of day. Per WP:FORUM, I would normally remove the comment but, since there are replies, I'm just going to HAT this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Chem trials posted by govt entities are true just under then name geoengineering. Some states are already fighting "Chem trails" along with scientific evidence that proves higher amounts of metals in our air like aluminum l. 104.231.95.74 (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You state posted by govt entities & scientific evidence but you provide no citations from any sources. Please come back when you can provide some verification from reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
You may or may not find the article geoengineering interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous?

I know it's a conspiracy theory but we still need to be neutral WP:NPOV Blitzfan51 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we call it what reliable sources call it - nonsense, a hoax, etc. It does not mean that we water it down to make it seem plausible or that any credible sources think it has validity. Acroterion (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Blitzfan51 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_9&oldid=1184695339"