Difference between revisions of "Document talk:Chemtrails - Proof and Purpose"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Editing this and ANY document: add) |
m (→In the first paragraph: reply) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===In the first paragraph=== | ===In the first paragraph=== | ||
:"As the operations intensified, NASA, aviation authorities, and military organisations responded to queries made by concerned citizens that the trails in question were merely condensation trails (contrails) generated by jets, which, they claimed, '''have always''' persisted and expanded '''in all''' temperatures, humidity levels, and altitudes." Can the author be contacted to provide a reference to his source for this statement? Compare that false statement with, for instance, the FAA/EPA/NASA Fact Sheet about condensation trails: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf | :"As the operations intensified, NASA, aviation authorities, and military organisations responded to queries made by concerned citizens that the trails in question were merely condensation trails (contrails) generated by jets, which, they claimed, '''have always''' persisted and expanded '''in all''' temperatures, humidity levels, and altitudes." Can the author be contacted to provide a reference to his source for this statement? Compare that false statement with, for instance, the FAA/EPA/NASA Fact Sheet about condensation trails: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf | ||
| + | ::I see no serious conflict between what the author says (as a single-sentence summary) and your reference pdf. To describe it s ''"false"'' is OTT IMO. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:26, 17 August 2014 (IST) | ||
:Can we correct the statement in the article? Or do we just note that it is false here in Discussion, and provide the correct information. How about highlighting the bunk in the article, and providing correct information in a series of footnotes? | :Can we correct the statement in the article? Or do we just note that it is false here in Discussion, and provide the correct information. How about highlighting the bunk in the article, and providing correct information in a series of footnotes? | ||
:Actually, the introduction (yellow box at the top) is not even a correct statement about the article - "climate engineering" is not mentioned in the article at all! --[[User:Yuri Zephyros|Yuri Zephyros]] ([[User talk:Yuri Zephyros|talk]]) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (IST) | :Actually, the introduction (yellow box at the top) is not even a correct statement about the article - "climate engineering" is not mentioned in the article at all! --[[User:Yuri Zephyros|Yuri Zephyros]] ([[User talk:Yuri Zephyros|talk]]) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 06:26, 17 August 2014
Contents
Erratum
"Barium is a piezoelectric substance"
- No, barium is a reactive metal. Possibly the author is thinking about barium titanate.
In the first paragraph
- "As the operations intensified, NASA, aviation authorities, and military organisations responded to queries made by concerned citizens that the trails in question were merely condensation trails (contrails) generated by jets, which, they claimed, have always persisted and expanded in all temperatures, humidity levels, and altitudes." Can the author be contacted to provide a reference to his source for this statement? Compare that false statement with, for instance, the FAA/EPA/NASA Fact Sheet about condensation trails: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf
- Can we correct the statement in the article? Or do we just note that it is false here in Discussion, and provide the correct information. How about highlighting the bunk in the article, and providing correct information in a series of footnotes?
- Actually, the introduction (yellow box at the top) is not even a correct statement about the article - "climate engineering" is not mentioned in the article at all! --Yuri Zephyros (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (IST)
Editing this and ANY document
No editing of the actual article other than to provide internal links and improve formatting. Use the 'Edit with form' option to edit explanatory information about the article. Issues concerning the alleged accuracy of information in the article (beyond the briefest of overall mentions in the "Wikispooks comment" section of the form) should be confined to the article discussion page. The 'yellow-box' info (ie the article description) is also OK to edit, but currently does not mention "Climate engineering" and frankly, for a brief intro, I personally regard what it does say as reasonable - but I'm open to argument that it isn't. You could also propose it for deletion as rubbish and/or author a page or debunking article with links yourself --Peter P (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (IST)
