Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 2 months

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chemtrail conspiracy theory at the Reference desk.

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.

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.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does the title of this article reflect a neutral point of view?

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.

Q: Doesn't this video about cloud seeding / Operation LAC / geoengineering refute the claim that this is a conspiracy theory?

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2015-007937_EN.html 49.190.106.209 (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think that link should be used for in this WP-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not OP but it's pretty obvious what they want. Emdosis (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They want "The Commission has investigated the matter with the Spanish authorities and found no evidence of the allegations of a military geoengineering scheme for changing climate in Spain." to be mentioned in the article? Seems off-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That gives me "We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." vibes, but ok. Emdosis (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It is a question to the European Parliament about some claim about Spanish meteorologists, based on one dead link and one link with a lot of text that does not seem to say anything on the subject of those meteorologists. It is just the question, without any answer. I do not see what text we could add to the article that could be ased on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling It's discreet, but there is an "answer in writing" link on the right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you. Then it is a nothingburger instead of nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 25 June 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. CanonNi (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word contrails is used in place of chemtrails when comparing the two. Delete the second contrails with chemtrails 2600:1702:4CA4:56B0:B445:A4B0:A793:B2F4 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as in the sentence "Believers in this conspiracy theory say that while normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly, contrails that linger must contain additional substances."?

If so, I think you're wrong. If you meant something else, please clarify. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous information

There are now legislative hearings concerning funding for cloud seeding and numerous articles that point to its use, both as a weapon and for weather manipulation. This article blatantly spreads misinformation and should be deleted or otherwise edited to reflect updated information based what has come to light.

Below are links to resources, including government website resources that clearly contradict the misinformation of this article.

https://www.dri.edu/cloud-seeding-program/ https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/83rd2025/Bill/11743/Overview https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107328 https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/03/archives/rainmaking-is-used-as-weapon-by-us-cloudseeding-in-indochina-is.html https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v28/d274 2600:6C4E:177F:5F38:7939:E02E:551B:6D9E (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP has articles on cloud seeding, Operation Popeye, weather manipulation, Climate engineering, Biological warfare, Chemical warfare and about 7 000 000 million other things. What do these sources you linked say about chemtrails, which is the topic of this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done None of the citations mention chemtrails. 2600:6C4E:177F:5F38:7939:E02E:551B:6D9E is conflating the unproven allegation that long-lasting condensation trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are actually "chemtrails" with other technologies. Peaceray (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]