This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Does anyone mind if I increase the regularity of archiving to, say, 1 month old threads? It's hard to find currently active threads in the list, Second Quantization ( talk) 14:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting - Oxford publishes a number of dictionaries. The gold standard, flagship, comprehensive product is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which we cite in this article (in what is currently footnote #4). Access to the online edition of the OED is by subscription; most people who use it have access through some sort of institutional or corporate subscription. Subscribers can see the online OED entry on chemtrail at http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/318007 (note 'oed' in the URL); this URL is not provided in our footnote.
Oxford also maintains the Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO), which includes a somewhat stripped-down version of many OED entries. Our article's footnote cites the OED, but provides a convenience link to the less-complete, less-authoritative ODO entry: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/chemtrail
For reference, the OED definition reads "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 purposes."
The various ODO definitions (which are slightly different for UK and US English) are slightly different and should be taken as less authoritative. I'm not sure what the best way to handle or flag the discrepancy between the free ODO link and the comprehensive OED. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You have just mentioned four URLs above:
Do you consider them to be reliable, secondary, sources? Do you understand what WP:NOR is about?
I can tell that you are obviously upset, but your language is too convoluted and filled with spelling and grammatical errors for me to understand all of it. Please proofread your comments before posting them. You are writing walls of text and mentioning many topics, all at once. It's too overwhelming for any editor to truly deal with. Try taking one item and deal only with it until a consensus is reached. Explain briefly the problem with it. Then you might get some help. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public. A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979. Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told...
People stop the reversions. The page was in use and marked as such with an {{ in Use}} tag and large label displayed at the top of the entry that could not be missed. The changes and problems with the entry were discussed. Rather than responding to the proposed changes the proposals were then deleted from this page. Rather than proposing changes and getting consensus, I was asked to be bold and just make them. Neither the reversions nor consensus about reversions was discussed. Last, I do not need consensus to remove unsourced information or that which abuses the cited source. This was the situation requiring immediate action. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Chemtrails is the name given to sky tracks left by the covert release of chemical or biological agents,[1] either by spraying or mixing with jet fuel, of man-made substances not found in "ordinary" contrails (condensation trails).[2][3] The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that the contrails and contrail patterns left by jet aircraft transiting the skies are toxic agents deliberately released for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[4] The theory that pollutants or condensation emitted by everyday air transportation are intended by governments to to cause harm in their citizens has been refuted by the U.S. scientific community.[5] After the conspiracy theory became more popular, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[4] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly been compelled to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails.[6]
The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[1] Chemtrail conspiracy theorists are not generally concerned with legitimate forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting[3] Chemtrail 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.[2][3]
Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical dissemination may be for biological or chemical warfare or defense testing, weather modification, human population control,[7] solar radiation management,[citation needed] or psychological manipulation[citation needed] and that these trails are the cause of respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[4]
The OED definition starts with the words "In the context of various conspiracy theories: ...". That's a good example to follow. The fringe invented nature of chemtrails governs the topic. Our very article title is "Chemtrail conspiracy theory". You can tell your edit is bad because it pushes these head words out of the opening sentence even! Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation."
No idea; it's fruitless to engage in WP:SPECULATION. The subject of this article is a conspiracy theory, and that is nicely summarized in the lede. I have seen no evidence of a problem in the lede that needs addressing; OTOH your edits are problematic because they are pushing the fringe POV that chemtrails are real. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
She reviewed photos... discussed letters with scientists...In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation.
Are “chemtrails” real?: It’s entirely possible. In concluding this lengthy dissertation, I have to admit I can’t disprove their existence. My point is simply this: proponents of the “chemtrail” theory have failed to produce a “smoking gun.” There are logical and believable explanations for all the “evidence” I have seen. No truly damning evidence seems to exist – or if it does, it’s lost in a sea of inconclusive theory, conjecture and photos of normal contrails and meteorological events.
The "Chemtrail" hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications.
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)."
This is not correct:
Source nr [2] is this: http://web.archive.org/web/20130306001902/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf
In this document the Air force indeed denies to be spraying people, but on page 10 we read:
Cloud Seeding and Fire Suppression For a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures. Cloud seeding
requires the release of chemicals in the atmosphere in an effort to have water crystals attach themselves and become heavy enough to produce rain.
Refutation as "normal contrails" is not to be had from this source. The hoax this document refers to strictly applies to spraying by the Air force. They do offer further insights but their interpretation cant be considered "the scientific community". The sources used must be reproduced here on Wikipedia then attributed to their source. At first sight the refs appear to be:
I didn't bother reading any further. The 4th one mentions "RF Chaff". A search for that produces lots of good sources.
Radio frequency chaff: the effects of its use in training on the environment. Abstract: Chaff is a radiofrequency countermeasure released by military aircraft, ships, and vehicles to confuse enemy radar. Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm and is released in packets of 0.5 to 100 million fibers. The Department of Defense has determined that use of chaff in training is required for maintaining proficiency in the use of this countermeasure. At least 500 tons of chaff is released annually during training within selected military operating areas in the United States. Concerns have been raised about impact on the environment and its potential toxicity to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Many of these concerns have been addressed or are being researched by the Department of Defense and other agencies, but much of the data are unpublished. Herein, the authors summarize the issues and review scientific data for the impact of chaff use on humans, animals, and the environment. [4]
Anything wrong with this source? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of the chem-bio agent subject is a WP policy issue. The CBW agents or programs aspect of the theory is in the intro but not mentioned the body. A repeated synthesis complaint over the inclusion of the CBW subject is idiocy.
One can't mix covert strategic military activity that was denied to congress and overt things like saving crops in a small town that has asked for it during drought into one all encompassing legitimate cloud seeding concept. They are not the same. Silver iodide is not the same as Lead iodide which was used too. The source does not mention the past covert use of military cloud seeding to harm or hinder an enemy AT ALL. It mentions only commercial cloud seeding.
Agent Orange for declassified defoliation missions and other chemicals for covert crop-destruction are not the same either. "Operation Ranch Hand" defoliation is only the declassified part of the covert "Operation Hades". I can't think of a better way to demonstrate that use in wartime is not the same thing as the legitimate use of the technology:
"Vietnamese caught in the path of U.S aerial spraying missions complained that they felt faint, bled from the nose and mouth, vomited, suffered from numbness in their hands and feet, and experienced migraine-like headaches. They said that farm animals grew weak, got sick, and even died after being exposed to the chemicals. In late 1967, following a period of massive use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Saigon newspapers began publishing reports on a new birth abnormality, calling it the "egg bundle-like fetus." One paper, Dong Nai, published an article about women giving birth to stillborn fetuses, with photographs of grotesquely deformed dead babies. There were accounts of babies being born with two heads, three arms and 20 fingers or babies with three legs. Peasants whose families had lived on the same land for generations said they had never encountered such strange phenomena. The Saigon government argued that these birth defects were caused by something they called "Okinawa bacteria." The U.S. dismissed these complaints as communist propaganda."[42][106] The Army's position was that Fort Detrick's workers had handled these agents for several years apparently without ill-effects.[96]
Here's another that speaks to the secrecy of the activity: U.S. Planes destroy rice in VietCong territory by Charles Mohr, Special to the New York Times, (Page 1) Dec. 21 1965.
Many of the sources link the chemtrail and CBW subjects. There are many but this was only the first one I looked at:
So far, suggested explanations for the recent rash of lines in the sky have included mass culling of the US population...; weather modification experiments; biological warfare tests; detection and decontamination of chemical and biological agents, especially anthrax; illegal fuel dumping by military jets, and illicit spraying of the carcinogenic pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB).
Johnvr4 ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The RF-4 could carry 52 photoflash carts or chaff carts on each side. We carried chaff to defeat Fire-Can or SAM Radars (more on chaff later). The "rain making stuff" was carried in these racks.
"The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed in the sky for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[1] This theory has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal contrails (condensation trails).[2]"
I think we could take a look at all of them, but this recent one has been added on a few occasions, and I would ask that the IP who has been edit warring over this material please discuss the addition [6]. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Aerosol Shock Tube, nano-aluminum, ignition delay times
2. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Aerosol Shock Tube, nano-aluminum, ignition delay times
3. Abstract We investigated the potential of a new experimental method for combustion studies of solid nano‐particle energetic materials. This new method is based on the recent development in our laboratory of an aerosol shock tube and its combined use with laser extinction (for characterization of particle size and loading) and absorption diagnostics (for characterization of vapor species). We accomplished three main objectives in this study: 1) we demonstrated the ability to load significant amounts of solid materials into our aerosol carrier and deliver this aerosol into our shock tube; 2) we demonstrated laser‐based diagnostic measurements of several key aspects of the ignition process of solid/liquid fuel systems; and 3) we characterized the effect of the addition of aluminum nano‐particles on n‐dodecane ignition under conditions previously not studied.
4. Page 12: The larger aerosol droplets (larger number mean diameter) produced using the spray jet (than with the disk nebulizers) experience faster drop‐out rates due to gravity.
5. Aluminum Oxide Nanopowder (the word oxide is not mentioned in this mil doc but that's what it is: http://www.us-nano.com/inc/sdetail/209'
There's plenty of mention of Aluminum nanoparticles and nanopowder, which is aluminum oxide in the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course the military would not mention that Aluminium Oxide Nanopowder is used as jet fuel additive, which, after burning, as the document mentions, lands affected by gravity (did you really read the entire doc?). It burns to Aluminium Oxide and creates persistent contrails which spread to create the silvery grey haze we see in the sky almost on a daily basis. I'm not saying this is intentional or bad, but that's exactly what is going on. Perhaps it is a good idea to control the global warming in a way. I'm a scientist from Europe and I know about these things. My friend is a pilot of one of those airplanes and he told me that they are adding Aluminium Oxide Nanopowder to the jet fuel as range extender. It is important for the population to know what pollutants they are breathing in. Now that you know it, wouldn't you like to share this knowledge with your extended family, friends, coworkers and everyone else? Or would you rather hide the fact for some unknown reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 21:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Two trails from one airplane engine on one side. How does that happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO8tqWpO9k
Also, watch this video, it's a reasonable video, especially interested to know 1:07 through 1:22 what's being sprayed in this passenger airplane?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqATQtwOY34
Let's talk and see if we can link to these videos from your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 14:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Problem # 1. The following link (2nd from the top) under "External Links" is a dead ship or "broken" non-existing page. (OAP), Office of Atmospheric Programs = Dead Link.
Problem # 2. The following link (5th and the last from the top) under "External Links" is a dead ship or "not found" non-existing page. NASA Langley's Contrail Page = Dead Link.
Do you think these two dead links enhances and expands the encyclopedic content in any way or form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Good question! Because I seem to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia, because I was trying to clear your lungs from all that stuff that's coming down on us (don't tell me you are unaware of that). I guess NASA did not want us to see their outdated page, but you posted archived link anyway. So I guess it is so important to propagate that (now archived) stuff that even archived pages are important to post as encyclopedia-enhancing information. Yet the video that clearly shows that the airplane is spraying stuff out of its wings and not out of its engines, is ignored. Talking about bias and editing out the inconvenient truth and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved conversation from Reversions since I changed subjects.
I really please need a source that says Chemtrial is a word only used by conspiracy theorists. I think that will solve many issues with this piece. Is their a reliable one. I'll even take a questionable one at this point.-JohnVR4-3-26-2014
This doesn't look like a reliable source, I opened a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brad_Steiger_book. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Last paragraph of the Lead: The Steiger source . 5: Brad Steiger; Sherry Steiger (2012). Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Complete Dossier. Visible Ink Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-57859-383-5. was cited in the entry (but recently removed) and now that text has no source. That source says Civil crop dusting and cloud seeding, sky writing etc. are legitimate use of aerial dispensed chemicals and not of concern to chemtrail conspiacists.
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 chemicals 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 Steiger source states that the chemical clouds dispensed for legitimate reasons are not the type of are not the type concerning theorists. ‘Illegitimate’ is only alluded to in a prior section of this book that mentions the origin of chemtrails in 1998 and it is consistent with every reliable source and contrary to that stated about the source in the reliable sources noticeboard. Earlier in the book, this author concludes military interest in this subject or its military, covert, tactical use without prior knowledge or consent is not a legitimate use of aerial spray chemicals. Specifically, it was the partiality declassified CIA-linked human experiments that led to the chemtrail conspiracy theory by 1998. The author is saying covert actions and experiments lacking prior consent are illegitimate and that these CIA sponsored illegitimate tests are a part of the military-intelligence interests and are “the springboard” of the various conspiracy theories. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The solution to this problem is not to remove the source. There was a discussion on whether this source was reliable however that discussion contained gross mis-representations about the book and seemed to turn into a joint personal attack on my credibility rather than an accurate discussion of this source or what it says about the subject. The source needs to be used to directly say all these other things are not chemtrails. This source has been abused for so long and so many accusations have flown around about misusing it, that in this extreme circumstance, it might even need to be directly quoted. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Found in the entry:
The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[4] "The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting[5]—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 needed{copypaste|url= http://www.chemtrailupdate.com/the-origins-of-chemtrails-legend}
I can't determine where the current entry text came from. I can’t tell if this unsourced Wikipedia text, a backswardscopy, a copyright violation of one particular site, or If there was never a source for it, or something else. I am not certain, as this site is newish and I can’t determine what came first or where the text came from. Only these sentences are being questioned for close paraphrasing that is either not cited or is improperly cited. Perhaps a more experienced editor can make sense of it. The text in the entry did not come from the source it (formerly) cited. The cited source was determined to be reliable only for defining this subject however the original source for this material is either unsourced or a copy-paste/ close paraphrase of a copyright-protected non-RS source website chemtrailupdate.com and then attributed to a different source (now even Stieger is removed):
The material looks like the same wording as [8]
The term chemtrail stands for the words ‘chemical’ and ‘trail’, similar to that of contrail which means ‘condensation trail’. This specific term does not mean other aerial spraying forms like cloud seeding, agricultural spraying, aerial fire fighting or skywriting. This term actually refers to the aerial trails that are caused allegedly by the high altitude systematic release of chemical substances that are not ordinarily found in the contrails and results in the presence of characteristic aerial tracks.
Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Steiger’s book - the alleged source of this information, first came out in 2006. This diff (for examples of previous text only) shows the material that was in the entry in 2005 with different wording and no source.
In 2005 we see this:
The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding, aerial firefighting, or with the use of smoke trails at airshows); it specifically refers to covert, systematic, high-altitude dumping of chemicals, generally for some illicit purpose as part of a vast conspiracy.
By 2007, we see this version, also unsourced
The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting). It specifically refers to systematic, high-altitude dumping of unknown substances for some undisclosed purpose resulting in the appearance of these supposed chemtrails.
Is the current text a close paraphrase of url= http://www.chemtrailupdate.com/the-origins-of-chemtrails-legend? Also that source is describing the chemtrail HOAX which is another issue being discussed that is not entirely worked out. This same source source for this material just happens to have a sensible definition which explains a subtle difference between chemtrails and other spraying which this entry’s definitions leave vague and that each of the editors who failed to adequately source it leave out. (Bold text added) [9]
‘Chemtrails’ are contrails that last for a long time and that which are said to be deliberately created for some type of sinister purpose, by the government.
Reliable sources have the same assertion but this important distinction is not in the lead as part of the chemtrail definition. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there are reports from the late 1970s. But Steiger is not a reliable source. Try to find a reliable source for these reports. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there are more than five dubious statements in this article and much of it is already in dispute. I don't not see myself moving away from the position that this entry needs to be changed to conform to the sources and have some consensus among all of us.
A source is being mis-used where there is a statement that says the fringe media pressured these various agencies to respond.
Entry says:Because of the popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many enquiries from people demanding an explanation.[1][3]
I think it is dubious and the source does not mention popularity as the cause for this pressure nor do these vague inquires seem to be specific incident complaints of the type these agencies investigate. This would require times, dates, locations, to proof of an incident much less any "suspect" worthy of investigation by the responding agencies. One caveat is that these are alleged to be CBW issues and an environmental agency, space agency, or weather agency, or FAA would not even be the primary agency to respond, In my opinion, they might be notified or have something forwarded to them if only to answer questions that they might receive. After enough questions they made fact sheets. Were the fact sheets released solely because the theory is popular or because of the exasperating questions? It should worded better. example below: [10]. Not sure what the dead link said. It's not verifiable.
Source states:
A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.
The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace. Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening. ...
Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents' arguments point by point.
This is example consistent with the remaining source: Government agencies have received persistent questions from people who have asked for an explanation. [1] [2] dead link
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 January 2014
Pressure increases when new information on CBW testing is released. I do not yet have a source selected that expressly says declassification of release directly caused the chemtrail paranoia but I feel there will be some.
A source (Skeptical Inquirer) [14] is being mis-used where there is a statement in the entry that says:
An article in the Skeptical Inquirer said that the conspiracy theory was first started by "investigative journalists" like William Thomas, and then promoted in the late-night radio shows of Art Bell...
The source does not say what the entry says it does and elsewhere, the 'position' of the entry is that the "hoax that has been around since 1996" [15] and is the exact same as the conspiracy theory allegedly "started" by William Thomas who first wrote about the subject as an assignment by Environment News Service around January 8, 1999 and was promoted on talk radio after. Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
'
It all began in the 1990s when “investigative journalists” like William Thomas began describing purported plots by the government to inject poisons into the atmosphere via the exhaust trails of jet planes.
This Source cites NMSR observation of the lack of evidence but an abundance of purported chemtrail photographs all of which were determined to be normal contrails. The source says that proponents are oblivious of photos of normal contrails some of which date back to WWII but NMSR who the source is quoting said that the proponents are the ones who originally submitted the photos for NMSR analysis in the first place. Please see the reversion section on this page for photographs vs. evidence. Johnvr4 ( talk) 17:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"I have read the letters and reviewed the referenced web pages. In so doing, I have viewed a number of photos purporting to be of aircraft spraying the chemical or biological material into the atmosphere."
I had tagged Population control as I did not see it in the source. I was mistaken and am satisfied that topic is contained in the source. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I've challenged the unsourced or seemingly unsourced material in the lead repeatedly. Citations of material has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Please follow WP:Proveit and WP:CITELEAD since this is a controversial subject it leaves little leeway and I personally want every statement in the entry to be properly sourced and cited.
WP:Proveit Unverified statements are not acceptable on a main page, may be challenged and should be removed if they fail verification. If you want it to remain in the entry, then "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
If you put it there, or removed a citation needed tag and it is not perfect or has words, ideas or meanings that do not appear in the cited source, you own it. Please properly cite it. Consider it challenged. It is impossible to determine the source without the citation. If you believe there are multiple sources that say something, add one of them.
WP:CITELEAD The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ...The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article... Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
I'm going to try to kill a few issues in the entry with a single stone. If I miss my target, I'd like the opportunity to take a second shot. I am going to neutralize the POV and introduce the CBW aspect.
The POV concern is because both the Canadian and US Air force counter-claims state current activities /capabilities. Neither refutes or try to explain the theorists belief that there were Cold War activities as theorized and that chem-trails are an extension of it. Canada had the Suffolk Experimental Station and were the specialists in the field of Large Area Coverage. The CBW aspect is mentioned in the Lead but not the body-a policy issue. Another policy issue is that a reference is listed but not used in the entry. When the CBW info is introduced, you might see a obvious correlation in Declassification/public disclosure and theorists claims and Official responses in the late 1970s, mid-90s, early 2003. This is not OR. I'm going use properly-used sources to state the public domain facts without any analysis. Johnvr4 ( talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
According to the KSLA report on chemtrails CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'? (notable because it also alleged that high levels of Barium were collected in rainwater after a lab report was misinterpreted) there is a concern that the chemtrail phenomena could be a continuation of secret biological and chemical testing on the public similar to experimentation by the U.S. during the Cold War. Experiments such as those described in the U.S. Senate hearings of 1977 and 1994 report by a committee chaired by John D. Rockefeller that concluded “that hundreds of thousands of military personnel were unknowingly subjected to secret biological warfare related experiments over the last 60-years.”{The source for this article was a broadcast video where photos of prior news articles of military experiments were shown. The experiments described in those articles covered tests declassified in 75-77, 1994, and 2002 and news articles from 1985-2002}
"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? …."
The KSLA text article cited the Rockefeller Commission (he was involved in more than one hearing) and Church Committee investigations (it says in 1977) and 1994 Rockefeller involved hearings. This is a Collection of docs on the subject only for clarification of titles and dates that KSLA text article may refer to: THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO END, U.S. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMS, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 58
PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION in 1977, Agent testing info released in 1994, GAO: "Project 112/Shad," released in 2002 and (GAO: Project 112 Test subjects not being identified, released in 2004). Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The (notable) KSLA coverage broadcast video has CBW material between 1:40-2:05 of the bradcast. (This link may be a copyright violation. It's only for quick reference to verify my statement below) as the station no longer has that broadcast available online).
KSLA reported that these reports of historical tests are of specific concern to those worried about the chemtrail subject.
"Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails"
Anybody who "needed to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails" is not being honest, or is woefully short of research time, or completely selective of what information they feel such a need to respond with.
The terminological inexactitude has been effectively contradicted by so many reliable sources that I am frankly nothing short of appalled to read this statement at the beginning of a Wikipedia article I hoped is authoritative, and which I was researching in the vain hope the available content would be accurate.
The commonly-understood 'chemtrail' applies to a horrifically-common totally artificially-induced phenomenon which bears an absolute-zero relationship with the much more rarely-witnessed event described by the commonly-understood term 'contrail'.
This article does not give the reader confidence that the contained information will in any way disconnect the popular confusion between the two: Wikipedia fans can fully expect the smart reader will choose not to finish reading this article after such an initial blunder... and said reader will seek and find much up-to-date and accurate information elsewhere.
I would attempt to provide the much needed correctional information if it were not for one factor: Wikipedia editors have displayed such intemperate bias that I would fully expect anything I write under this topic (not excluding this present comment) to be unceremoniously deleted.
Why this should be so, I cannot of course begin to imagine. hommedespoir Hommedespoir ( talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Does anyone mind if I increase the regularity of archiving to, say, 1 month old threads? It's hard to find currently active threads in the list, Second Quantization ( talk) 14:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting - Oxford publishes a number of dictionaries. The gold standard, flagship, comprehensive product is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which we cite in this article (in what is currently footnote #4). Access to the online edition of the OED is by subscription; most people who use it have access through some sort of institutional or corporate subscription. Subscribers can see the online OED entry on chemtrail at http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/318007 (note 'oed' in the URL); this URL is not provided in our footnote.
Oxford also maintains the Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO), which includes a somewhat stripped-down version of many OED entries. Our article's footnote cites the OED, but provides a convenience link to the less-complete, less-authoritative ODO entry: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/chemtrail
For reference, the OED definition reads "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 purposes."
The various ODO definitions (which are slightly different for UK and US English) are slightly different and should be taken as less authoritative. I'm not sure what the best way to handle or flag the discrepancy between the free ODO link and the comprehensive OED. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You have just mentioned four URLs above:
Do you consider them to be reliable, secondary, sources? Do you understand what WP:NOR is about?
I can tell that you are obviously upset, but your language is too convoluted and filled with spelling and grammatical errors for me to understand all of it. Please proofread your comments before posting them. You are writing walls of text and mentioning many topics, all at once. It's too overwhelming for any editor to truly deal with. Try taking one item and deal only with it until a consensus is reached. Explain briefly the problem with it. Then you might get some help. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public. A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979. Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told...
People stop the reversions. The page was in use and marked as such with an {{ in Use}} tag and large label displayed at the top of the entry that could not be missed. The changes and problems with the entry were discussed. Rather than responding to the proposed changes the proposals were then deleted from this page. Rather than proposing changes and getting consensus, I was asked to be bold and just make them. Neither the reversions nor consensus about reversions was discussed. Last, I do not need consensus to remove unsourced information or that which abuses the cited source. This was the situation requiring immediate action. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Chemtrails is the name given to sky tracks left by the covert release of chemical or biological agents,[1] either by spraying or mixing with jet fuel, of man-made substances not found in "ordinary" contrails (condensation trails).[2][3] The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that the contrails and contrail patterns left by jet aircraft transiting the skies are toxic agents deliberately released for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[4] The theory that pollutants or condensation emitted by everyday air transportation are intended by governments to to cause harm in their citizens has been refuted by the U.S. scientific community.[5] After the conspiracy theory became more popular, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[4] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly been compelled to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails.[6]
The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[1] Chemtrail conspiracy theorists are not generally concerned with legitimate forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting[3] Chemtrail 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.[2][3]
Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical dissemination may be for biological or chemical warfare or defense testing, weather modification, human population control,[7] solar radiation management,[citation needed] or psychological manipulation[citation needed] and that these trails are the cause of respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[4]
The OED definition starts with the words "In the context of various conspiracy theories: ...". That's a good example to follow. The fringe invented nature of chemtrails governs the topic. Our very article title is "Chemtrail conspiracy theory". You can tell your edit is bad because it pushes these head words out of the opening sentence even! Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation."
No idea; it's fruitless to engage in WP:SPECULATION. The subject of this article is a conspiracy theory, and that is nicely summarized in the lede. I have seen no evidence of a problem in the lede that needs addressing; OTOH your edits are problematic because they are pushing the fringe POV that chemtrails are real. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
She reviewed photos... discussed letters with scientists...In summary, there is no evidence that these “chemtrails” are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation.
Are “chemtrails” real?: It’s entirely possible. In concluding this lengthy dissertation, I have to admit I can’t disprove their existence. My point is simply this: proponents of the “chemtrail” theory have failed to produce a “smoking gun.” There are logical and believable explanations for all the “evidence” I have seen. No truly damning evidence seems to exist – or if it does, it’s lost in a sea of inconclusive theory, conjecture and photos of normal contrails and meteorological events.
The "Chemtrail" hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications.
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)."
This is not correct:
Source nr [2] is this: http://web.archive.org/web/20130306001902/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf
In this document the Air force indeed denies to be spraying people, but on page 10 we read:
Cloud Seeding and Fire Suppression For a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures. Cloud seeding
requires the release of chemicals in the atmosphere in an effort to have water crystals attach themselves and become heavy enough to produce rain.
Refutation as "normal contrails" is not to be had from this source. The hoax this document refers to strictly applies to spraying by the Air force. They do offer further insights but their interpretation cant be considered "the scientific community". The sources used must be reproduced here on Wikipedia then attributed to their source. At first sight the refs appear to be:
I didn't bother reading any further. The 4th one mentions "RF Chaff". A search for that produces lots of good sources.
Radio frequency chaff: the effects of its use in training on the environment. Abstract: Chaff is a radiofrequency countermeasure released by military aircraft, ships, and vehicles to confuse enemy radar. Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm and is released in packets of 0.5 to 100 million fibers. The Department of Defense has determined that use of chaff in training is required for maintaining proficiency in the use of this countermeasure. At least 500 tons of chaff is released annually during training within selected military operating areas in the United States. Concerns have been raised about impact on the environment and its potential toxicity to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Many of these concerns have been addressed or are being researched by the Department of Defense and other agencies, but much of the data are unpublished. Herein, the authors summarize the issues and review scientific data for the impact of chaff use on humans, animals, and the environment. [4]
Anything wrong with this source? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of the chem-bio agent subject is a WP policy issue. The CBW agents or programs aspect of the theory is in the intro but not mentioned the body. A repeated synthesis complaint over the inclusion of the CBW subject is idiocy.
One can't mix covert strategic military activity that was denied to congress and overt things like saving crops in a small town that has asked for it during drought into one all encompassing legitimate cloud seeding concept. They are not the same. Silver iodide is not the same as Lead iodide which was used too. The source does not mention the past covert use of military cloud seeding to harm or hinder an enemy AT ALL. It mentions only commercial cloud seeding.
Agent Orange for declassified defoliation missions and other chemicals for covert crop-destruction are not the same either. "Operation Ranch Hand" defoliation is only the declassified part of the covert "Operation Hades". I can't think of a better way to demonstrate that use in wartime is not the same thing as the legitimate use of the technology:
"Vietnamese caught in the path of U.S aerial spraying missions complained that they felt faint, bled from the nose and mouth, vomited, suffered from numbness in their hands and feet, and experienced migraine-like headaches. They said that farm animals grew weak, got sick, and even died after being exposed to the chemicals. In late 1967, following a period of massive use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Saigon newspapers began publishing reports on a new birth abnormality, calling it the "egg bundle-like fetus." One paper, Dong Nai, published an article about women giving birth to stillborn fetuses, with photographs of grotesquely deformed dead babies. There were accounts of babies being born with two heads, three arms and 20 fingers or babies with three legs. Peasants whose families had lived on the same land for generations said they had never encountered such strange phenomena. The Saigon government argued that these birth defects were caused by something they called "Okinawa bacteria." The U.S. dismissed these complaints as communist propaganda."[42][106] The Army's position was that Fort Detrick's workers had handled these agents for several years apparently without ill-effects.[96]
Here's another that speaks to the secrecy of the activity: U.S. Planes destroy rice in VietCong territory by Charles Mohr, Special to the New York Times, (Page 1) Dec. 21 1965.
Many of the sources link the chemtrail and CBW subjects. There are many but this was only the first one I looked at:
So far, suggested explanations for the recent rash of lines in the sky have included mass culling of the US population...; weather modification experiments; biological warfare tests; detection and decontamination of chemical and biological agents, especially anthrax; illegal fuel dumping by military jets, and illicit spraying of the carcinogenic pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB).
Johnvr4 ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The RF-4 could carry 52 photoflash carts or chaff carts on each side. We carried chaff to defeat Fire-Can or SAM Radars (more on chaff later). The "rain making stuff" was carried in these racks.
"The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed in the sky for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[1] This theory has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal contrails (condensation trails).[2]"
I think we could take a look at all of them, but this recent one has been added on a few occasions, and I would ask that the IP who has been edit warring over this material please discuss the addition [6]. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Aerosol Shock Tube, nano-aluminum, ignition delay times
2. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Aerosol Shock Tube, nano-aluminum, ignition delay times
3. Abstract We investigated the potential of a new experimental method for combustion studies of solid nano‐particle energetic materials. This new method is based on the recent development in our laboratory of an aerosol shock tube and its combined use with laser extinction (for characterization of particle size and loading) and absorption diagnostics (for characterization of vapor species). We accomplished three main objectives in this study: 1) we demonstrated the ability to load significant amounts of solid materials into our aerosol carrier and deliver this aerosol into our shock tube; 2) we demonstrated laser‐based diagnostic measurements of several key aspects of the ignition process of solid/liquid fuel systems; and 3) we characterized the effect of the addition of aluminum nano‐particles on n‐dodecane ignition under conditions previously not studied.
4. Page 12: The larger aerosol droplets (larger number mean diameter) produced using the spray jet (than with the disk nebulizers) experience faster drop‐out rates due to gravity.
5. Aluminum Oxide Nanopowder (the word oxide is not mentioned in this mil doc but that's what it is: http://www.us-nano.com/inc/sdetail/209'
There's plenty of mention of Aluminum nanoparticles and nanopowder, which is aluminum oxide in the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course the military would not mention that Aluminium Oxide Nanopowder is used as jet fuel additive, which, after burning, as the document mentions, lands affected by gravity (did you really read the entire doc?). It burns to Aluminium Oxide and creates persistent contrails which spread to create the silvery grey haze we see in the sky almost on a daily basis. I'm not saying this is intentional or bad, but that's exactly what is going on. Perhaps it is a good idea to control the global warming in a way. I'm a scientist from Europe and I know about these things. My friend is a pilot of one of those airplanes and he told me that they are adding Aluminium Oxide Nanopowder to the jet fuel as range extender. It is important for the population to know what pollutants they are breathing in. Now that you know it, wouldn't you like to share this knowledge with your extended family, friends, coworkers and everyone else? Or would you rather hide the fact for some unknown reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 21:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Two trails from one airplane engine on one side. How does that happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO8tqWpO9k
Also, watch this video, it's a reasonable video, especially interested to know 1:07 through 1:22 what's being sprayed in this passenger airplane?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqATQtwOY34
Let's talk and see if we can link to these videos from your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 14:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Problem # 1. The following link (2nd from the top) under "External Links" is a dead ship or "broken" non-existing page. (OAP), Office of Atmospheric Programs = Dead Link.
Problem # 2. The following link (5th and the last from the top) under "External Links" is a dead ship or "not found" non-existing page. NASA Langley's Contrail Page = Dead Link.
Do you think these two dead links enhances and expands the encyclopedic content in any way or form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Good question! Because I seem to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia, because I was trying to clear your lungs from all that stuff that's coming down on us (don't tell me you are unaware of that). I guess NASA did not want us to see their outdated page, but you posted archived link anyway. So I guess it is so important to propagate that (now archived) stuff that even archived pages are important to post as encyclopedia-enhancing information. Yet the video that clearly shows that the airplane is spraying stuff out of its wings and not out of its engines, is ignored. Talking about bias and editing out the inconvenient truth and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.225.247 ( talk) 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved conversation from Reversions since I changed subjects.
I really please need a source that says Chemtrial is a word only used by conspiracy theorists. I think that will solve many issues with this piece. Is their a reliable one. I'll even take a questionable one at this point.-JohnVR4-3-26-2014
This doesn't look like a reliable source, I opened a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brad_Steiger_book. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Last paragraph of the Lead: The Steiger source . 5: Brad Steiger; Sherry Steiger (2012). Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Complete Dossier. Visible Ink Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-57859-383-5. was cited in the entry (but recently removed) and now that text has no source. That source says Civil crop dusting and cloud seeding, sky writing etc. are legitimate use of aerial dispensed chemicals and not of concern to chemtrail conspiacists.
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 chemicals 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 Steiger source states that the chemical clouds dispensed for legitimate reasons are not the type of are not the type concerning theorists. ‘Illegitimate’ is only alluded to in a prior section of this book that mentions the origin of chemtrails in 1998 and it is consistent with every reliable source and contrary to that stated about the source in the reliable sources noticeboard. Earlier in the book, this author concludes military interest in this subject or its military, covert, tactical use without prior knowledge or consent is not a legitimate use of aerial spray chemicals. Specifically, it was the partiality declassified CIA-linked human experiments that led to the chemtrail conspiracy theory by 1998. The author is saying covert actions and experiments lacking prior consent are illegitimate and that these CIA sponsored illegitimate tests are a part of the military-intelligence interests and are “the springboard” of the various conspiracy theories. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The solution to this problem is not to remove the source. There was a discussion on whether this source was reliable however that discussion contained gross mis-representations about the book and seemed to turn into a joint personal attack on my credibility rather than an accurate discussion of this source or what it says about the subject. The source needs to be used to directly say all these other things are not chemtrails. This source has been abused for so long and so many accusations have flown around about misusing it, that in this extreme circumstance, it might even need to be directly quoted. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Found in the entry:
The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[4] "The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting[5]—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 needed{copypaste|url= http://www.chemtrailupdate.com/the-origins-of-chemtrails-legend}
I can't determine where the current entry text came from. I can’t tell if this unsourced Wikipedia text, a backswardscopy, a copyright violation of one particular site, or If there was never a source for it, or something else. I am not certain, as this site is newish and I can’t determine what came first or where the text came from. Only these sentences are being questioned for close paraphrasing that is either not cited or is improperly cited. Perhaps a more experienced editor can make sense of it. The text in the entry did not come from the source it (formerly) cited. The cited source was determined to be reliable only for defining this subject however the original source for this material is either unsourced or a copy-paste/ close paraphrase of a copyright-protected non-RS source website chemtrailupdate.com and then attributed to a different source (now even Stieger is removed):
The material looks like the same wording as [8]
The term chemtrail stands for the words ‘chemical’ and ‘trail’, similar to that of contrail which means ‘condensation trail’. This specific term does not mean other aerial spraying forms like cloud seeding, agricultural spraying, aerial fire fighting or skywriting. This term actually refers to the aerial trails that are caused allegedly by the high altitude systematic release of chemical substances that are not ordinarily found in the contrails and results in the presence of characteristic aerial tracks.
Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Steiger’s book - the alleged source of this information, first came out in 2006. This diff (for examples of previous text only) shows the material that was in the entry in 2005 with different wording and no source.
In 2005 we see this:
The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding, aerial firefighting, or with the use of smoke trails at airshows); it specifically refers to covert, systematic, high-altitude dumping of chemicals, generally for some illicit purpose as part of a vast conspiracy.
By 2007, we see this version, also unsourced
The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting). It specifically refers to systematic, high-altitude dumping of unknown substances for some undisclosed purpose resulting in the appearance of these supposed chemtrails.
Is the current text a close paraphrase of url= http://www.chemtrailupdate.com/the-origins-of-chemtrails-legend? Also that source is describing the chemtrail HOAX which is another issue being discussed that is not entirely worked out. This same source source for this material just happens to have a sensible definition which explains a subtle difference between chemtrails and other spraying which this entry’s definitions leave vague and that each of the editors who failed to adequately source it leave out. (Bold text added) [9]
‘Chemtrails’ are contrails that last for a long time and that which are said to be deliberately created for some type of sinister purpose, by the government.
Reliable sources have the same assertion but this important distinction is not in the lead as part of the chemtrail definition. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there are reports from the late 1970s. But Steiger is not a reliable source. Try to find a reliable source for these reports. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there are more than five dubious statements in this article and much of it is already in dispute. I don't not see myself moving away from the position that this entry needs to be changed to conform to the sources and have some consensus among all of us.
A source is being mis-used where there is a statement that says the fringe media pressured these various agencies to respond.
Entry says:Because of the popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many enquiries from people demanding an explanation.[1][3]
I think it is dubious and the source does not mention popularity as the cause for this pressure nor do these vague inquires seem to be specific incident complaints of the type these agencies investigate. This would require times, dates, locations, to proof of an incident much less any "suspect" worthy of investigation by the responding agencies. One caveat is that these are alleged to be CBW issues and an environmental agency, space agency, or weather agency, or FAA would not even be the primary agency to respond, In my opinion, they might be notified or have something forwarded to them if only to answer questions that they might receive. After enough questions they made fact sheets. Were the fact sheets released solely because the theory is popular or because of the exasperating questions? It should worded better. example below: [10]. Not sure what the dead link said. It's not verifiable.
Source states:
A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.
The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace. Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening. ...
Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents' arguments point by point.
This is example consistent with the remaining source: Government agencies have received persistent questions from people who have asked for an explanation. [1] [2] dead link
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 January 2014
Pressure increases when new information on CBW testing is released. I do not yet have a source selected that expressly says declassification of release directly caused the chemtrail paranoia but I feel there will be some.
A source (Skeptical Inquirer) [14] is being mis-used where there is a statement in the entry that says:
An article in the Skeptical Inquirer said that the conspiracy theory was first started by "investigative journalists" like William Thomas, and then promoted in the late-night radio shows of Art Bell...
The source does not say what the entry says it does and elsewhere, the 'position' of the entry is that the "hoax that has been around since 1996" [15] and is the exact same as the conspiracy theory allegedly "started" by William Thomas who first wrote about the subject as an assignment by Environment News Service around January 8, 1999 and was promoted on talk radio after. Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
'
It all began in the 1990s when “investigative journalists” like William Thomas began describing purported plots by the government to inject poisons into the atmosphere via the exhaust trails of jet planes.
This Source cites NMSR observation of the lack of evidence but an abundance of purported chemtrail photographs all of which were determined to be normal contrails. The source says that proponents are oblivious of photos of normal contrails some of which date back to WWII but NMSR who the source is quoting said that the proponents are the ones who originally submitted the photos for NMSR analysis in the first place. Please see the reversion section on this page for photographs vs. evidence. Johnvr4 ( talk) 17:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"I have read the letters and reviewed the referenced web pages. In so doing, I have viewed a number of photos purporting to be of aircraft spraying the chemical or biological material into the atmosphere."
I had tagged Population control as I did not see it in the source. I was mistaken and am satisfied that topic is contained in the source. Johnvr4 ( talk) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I've challenged the unsourced or seemingly unsourced material in the lead repeatedly. Citations of material has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Please follow WP:Proveit and WP:CITELEAD since this is a controversial subject it leaves little leeway and I personally want every statement in the entry to be properly sourced and cited.
WP:Proveit Unverified statements are not acceptable on a main page, may be challenged and should be removed if they fail verification. If you want it to remain in the entry, then "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
If you put it there, or removed a citation needed tag and it is not perfect or has words, ideas or meanings that do not appear in the cited source, you own it. Please properly cite it. Consider it challenged. It is impossible to determine the source without the citation. If you believe there are multiple sources that say something, add one of them.
WP:CITELEAD The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ...The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article... Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
I'm going to try to kill a few issues in the entry with a single stone. If I miss my target, I'd like the opportunity to take a second shot. I am going to neutralize the POV and introduce the CBW aspect.
The POV concern is because both the Canadian and US Air force counter-claims state current activities /capabilities. Neither refutes or try to explain the theorists belief that there were Cold War activities as theorized and that chem-trails are an extension of it. Canada had the Suffolk Experimental Station and were the specialists in the field of Large Area Coverage. The CBW aspect is mentioned in the Lead but not the body-a policy issue. Another policy issue is that a reference is listed but not used in the entry. When the CBW info is introduced, you might see a obvious correlation in Declassification/public disclosure and theorists claims and Official responses in the late 1970s, mid-90s, early 2003. This is not OR. I'm going use properly-used sources to state the public domain facts without any analysis. Johnvr4 ( talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
According to the KSLA report on chemtrails CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'? (notable because it also alleged that high levels of Barium were collected in rainwater after a lab report was misinterpreted) there is a concern that the chemtrail phenomena could be a continuation of secret biological and chemical testing on the public similar to experimentation by the U.S. during the Cold War. Experiments such as those described in the U.S. Senate hearings of 1977 and 1994 report by a committee chaired by John D. Rockefeller that concluded “that hundreds of thousands of military personnel were unknowingly subjected to secret biological warfare related experiments over the last 60-years.”{The source for this article was a broadcast video where photos of prior news articles of military experiments were shown. The experiments described in those articles covered tests declassified in 75-77, 1994, and 2002 and news articles from 1985-2002}
"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? …."
The KSLA text article cited the Rockefeller Commission (he was involved in more than one hearing) and Church Committee investigations (it says in 1977) and 1994 Rockefeller involved hearings. This is a Collection of docs on the subject only for clarification of titles and dates that KSLA text article may refer to: THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO END, U.S. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMS, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 58
PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION in 1977, Agent testing info released in 1994, GAO: "Project 112/Shad," released in 2002 and (GAO: Project 112 Test subjects not being identified, released in 2004). Johnvr4 ( talk) 15:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The (notable) KSLA coverage broadcast video has CBW material between 1:40-2:05 of the bradcast. (This link may be a copyright violation. It's only for quick reference to verify my statement below) as the station no longer has that broadcast available online).
KSLA reported that these reports of historical tests are of specific concern to those worried about the chemtrail subject.
"Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails"
Anybody who "needed to respond, repeating that supposed chemtrails are in fact nothing but normal contrails" is not being honest, or is woefully short of research time, or completely selective of what information they feel such a need to respond with.
The terminological inexactitude has been effectively contradicted by so many reliable sources that I am frankly nothing short of appalled to read this statement at the beginning of a Wikipedia article I hoped is authoritative, and which I was researching in the vain hope the available content would be accurate.
The commonly-understood 'chemtrail' applies to a horrifically-common totally artificially-induced phenomenon which bears an absolute-zero relationship with the much more rarely-witnessed event described by the commonly-understood term 'contrail'.
This article does not give the reader confidence that the contained information will in any way disconnect the popular confusion between the two: Wikipedia fans can fully expect the smart reader will choose not to finish reading this article after such an initial blunder... and said reader will seek and find much up-to-date and accurate information elsewhere.
I would attempt to provide the much needed correctional information if it were not for one factor: Wikipedia editors have displayed such intemperate bias that I would fully expect anything I write under this topic (not excluding this present comment) to be unceremoniously deleted.
Why this should be so, I cannot of course begin to imagine. hommedespoir Hommedespoir ( talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)