Talk:High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Citations in lead

An IP insists on tagging the lead for "citations needed" [1] but has apparently neglected to read the Naiditch and Popular Science articles cited which clearly support statements in the lead. I don't understand the IPs request for "links for quick follow through". Maybe someone else can. I'll not be reverting any further. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Moby Dick.

Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.

Who's Sharon Weinberger? Scientist? Geophysicist? Any expert in the subject?

Or just a journalist?

If she's just a journalist, why does her opinion deserve any coverage? Dornicke (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you disputing the appropriateness of using that particular quote from the Wired article, or are you saying Sharon Weinberger is not a reliable source of opinion about the popularity of conspiracy theories regarding HAARP? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I have no idea why does the opinion of a journalist that is absolutely irrelevant outside US borders has more weight in the article than, for example, criticism made by the European Union. Dornicke (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You might have a point IF Weinberger was alone in the opinion that HAARP attracts conspiracy theories. But that is not the case. A number of reliable and mainstream sources cited say essentially the same thing, and so are relevant and given due weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A journalist who is absolutely unknown for most of the planet deserves more coverage than the European Union? This is due weight for you? Ok... Dornicke (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some specific proposal? e.g. "change the section to "this wording", per this source". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

HAARP shutdown, Air Force quote

A recent quote by a deputy assistant secretary for the Air Force has caused the fringe blogosphere to fill with misinformed news of an "admission that HAARP can control the weather" [2]. Sorry to say there is a huge difference between controlling small bits of the ionosphere and controlling the weather, as a recent Alaska Dispatch news story makes clear:

Responding to questions from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski during a Senate hearing Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, said this is “not an area that we have any need for in the future” and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do," he said. "To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.” Comments of that sort have given rise to endless conspiracy theories, portraying HAARP as a super weapon capable of mind control or weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Scientists say all of that is nonsense, and that the degree of ionosphere control possible through HAARP is akin to controlling the Pacific Ocean by tossing a rock into it.

All this is to say that edits like this one are not appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadfeild

LuckyLouie, is it the type of media that Peter Hadfield used that concerns you and revert my edit? If it were typed down on his blog you would accept it, but when it is in a video format uploaded to Youtube you do not? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, we include material in proportion to the amount of coverage something has gotten in reliable sources. In other words, anyone could put out a Youtube video or post something on their blog, but as a self published source, it's not considered notable enough for Wikipedia to report it, unless some reliable secondary source (like a news outlet, an academic study, etc) does also. Do you have secondary reliable sources, such as a news outlet, that have taken notice of Peter Hadfield's "revelation"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadfield published the video years after the video. Due to the fact it is not an actuality I don't think any large media outlet considered it interesting for its readers. But that does not have to mean it is al of a sudden not Encyclopedic, is it? Will see if I can add it in a different way with other sources. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If by adding it in a different way, you mean citing it to reliable secondary sources, that's great. Otherwise you run counter to WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Wikipedia policies can seem counter-intuitive to newcomers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Counter productive too at times.Ernstblumberg (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Tone 2

I very much can deal with the term Conspiracy Theorist when it is a correct assertion, as often there is no other word that can plainly identify those who take issue with the facts underlying the reported story... I'm not sure if it constitutes WP:LABEL but the bias I take with this article is what the opposition to the 'Conspiracy Theorists' has been called, the lack of actual references, and the amount on WP:WEASEL present. The paragraph as it stands looks like this:

"HAARP was a target of conspiracy theorists, who claimed that it was capable of... (snip for brevity) ...the 2003 destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. Commentators and scientists say that proponents of these theories are "uninformed", because most theories put forward fall well outside the abilities of the facility and often outside the scope of natural science."

The issue I take with this is that the author has put Conspiracy Theorists on one side of the argument and Commentators and Scientists on the other, implying that the former are neither Commentators nor Scientists and giving zero examples of either party's members to verify. That is actually very far from fact and all the 'commentators' party has for a reference is a scientifically inaccurate source that claims that HAARP is being used to zap the moon with radio waves to find out it's soil properties (illogical because we already have physical samples of the moon, we handled EME communication a long time ago with far weaker equipment and could have used that, and I cannot find a secondary source that specifically states the same thing is being done for the same reason with HAARP) and a Q+A page that basically regurgitates the official HAARP webpage in response to questions with no actual calculus or understanding. For this simple reason, I will be removing the 'scientists' word from the "Commentators and Scientists" and eliminating the statement about 'uninformed' as well as why. It breaches WP:NOR without direct refs. I will simply replace it with 'Commentators disagree'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.182.71 (talk • contribs) 14:42, December 9, 2014‎

Sorry, the cited links lead directly to comments by scientists, including a specific statement that the conspiracy theories are "uninformed". There's no original research involved. WP:FRINGE directs us to clearly indicate which views are mainstream and which views are a tiny minority. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

dated again

The whole article has verb tense problems considering that it tends to be written as if the various activities were all ongoing, when mostly none of them are. However news in June was that the DoD had halted plans for dismantling so that academics could come in and take over the facility. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Technical Accuracy?

The statement "At an altitude between 70 to 350 km (43 to 217 mi) (depending on operating frequency), the signal is partially absorbed in a small volume several tens of kilometers in diameter and a few meters thick over the IRI." is much less than accurate. A statement does not have to be technical to be accurate, i.e. The integer value of pi is 3, is an accurate statement, though not precise; a more precise, but not completely accurate statement is, "Pi to ten digits is equal to 3.141592653590" is more precise but not completely accurate as pi is an infinite series and it would take a number with an infinite number of digits to be completely accurate, an impossibility.

Back to HAARP and the Ionosphere: For one, the ionosphere is much like the visible portions and formations of the rest of the atmosphere and are rarely "a few meters thick" There are various layers in the ionosphere that are frequency sensitive (mainly because of the charges and densities of the layers), but I dare say (having spent since 1973 bouncing my ham radio signals off the ionosphere, and four years and four months working at the American Weather Station, Ascension Island ) this article was written by someone with less that Subject Matter Expertise. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References