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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
Chemtrail conspiracy theory received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
A: Yes. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable independent sources. Mainstream scientific sources are preferred when addressing topics related to science and technology. There is overwhelming consensus that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is a false and implausible narrative.
A: No. Those things are superficially similar but the core premise of the chemtrail conspiracy theory is the false idea that there is a widespread covert plot to drop chemical or biological agents from aircraft, and that long-lasting contrails are evidence of this.
Q: Why is Wikipedia suppressing the truth?
A: It isn't. Wikipedia reflects empirical fact as documented in reliable independent sources. We will include any fact that is (a) published in a reliable source and (b) demonstrably relevant and significant. Material that is excluded is not being censored or suppressed, it just fails to meet our criteria for inclusion. If your proposed content is rejected, bring more and better sources. For guidance on what constitutes a reliable source you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard.
@Bon courage: Hello. You reverted my recent addition to the article, here, with an edit summary of "No they didn't". Are you saying that the Tennessee Senate did not pass a bill that would ban the use of chemtrails in the state? The cited article in The Tennessean seems to say that they did. So, is the article wrong, or am I misunderstanding what it says, or what? Please let me know. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ban something that doesn't exist. Some text may be viable describing how some politicians are mixed up in conspiracy theories (as the source said). Bon courage (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit, I'd just say it isn't WP:DUE. Legislatures are passing all kinds of silly laws at the moment the either fly in the face of reality, or are blatantly unconstitutional. We don't need to document each time they do so, or else articles will become bloated with "This legislature passed a law, and then this one did, and..."
Maybe if it becomes a trend, we'll get RSes that notice and do a comprehensive overview of it. But for now, it doesn't seem to be necessary to include this.
That said, Bon courage, your edit summary was... not terribly helpful. Might be better to explain a bit more next time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage: The Tennessee Senate did in fact approve a bill to ban something that doesn't exist. Since there's no such thing as chemtrails, the law, if it's actually enacted, won't have any practical effect, but it'll be on the books, for all the world to see. @HandThatFeeds: I get what you're saying, but in my view this actually is worth mentioning in the article. Our readers might want to know that this conspiracy theory is being taken seriously by state legislators who one would have hoped would know better. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't say they "banned chemtrails" because this implies they exist; we'd need to explain the whole context. The source couches it as a conspiracy theory, puts "chemtrails" in quotation marks and says the legislation actually address geoengineering experiments. Which is why I wrote "no they didn't". Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, it's trivia. Yes, it exists, but we don't put everything that exists on the topic into the article. Hence my link to DUE. I think it's giving undue weight to this one legislature that passed a law which will do nothing, effectively wasting their time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a less clickbaity take in WaPo.[1]Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking forward to the unintended consequences of this, should it actually be enacted, of people pushing to have fossil fuel burning power stations and equipment banned under it. Since everyone knows the effects of fossil fuel burning it will be argued that continuing to use them is intentionally trying to affect the temperature or weather. Canterbury Tailtalk 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.