Jump to content

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zerostatetechnologies (talk | contribs) at 00:09, 23 January 2019 (→‎Delete erroneous from the lead section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Article in the news

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/youtube-wikipedia-links-debunk-conspiracy.html

-- GreenC 03:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about the government spraying chemicals from planes on civilians, could we add related articles in the See Also section, like Project 112 and Operation LAC, in which the government sprayed chemical aerosols on the population, primarily in the 1950s? KRLA18 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is not about the government spraying chemicals from planes on civilians. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph it says "consist of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and deliberately sprayed for purposes undisclosed to the general public". Those articles I've mentioned are about chemicals being sprayed deliberately for purposes undisclosed to the public. We're just talking about related articles, not articles that are exactly the same. Look at the articles linked now and you can see that the article isn't about those articles, either. What is the purpose of the See Also section if not to guide people to related articles? KRLA18 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:SEEALSO, that's not a horrible argument. There's huge room for editorial discretion in "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (like US gov has sprayed stuff on people in secret before)."
I've never heard of these subjects you link to and don't know if the articles are good or not, but they seem to involve spraying stuff on people who weren't told. Did Project 112 involve airplanes at all? Contrails seems to be missing too, and they may be unrelated to chemtrail arguments. Still, not unthinkable. See also currently contains Fuel dumping and Solar radiation management, those seem fairly distant too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A late reply from me. The articles are pretty decent. There isn't a lot of info on those programs, it was investigated by the US senate and became public in the late 90s, I believe. The governments position is that they weren't insidious, and that the chemicals/bacteria they sprayed wasn't harmful. Just testing fallout patterns for nukes, without dropping nukes. Anyways, they seem more related to the "conspiracy" than fuel dumping. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that chemtrail conspiracy theories grew out of Operation LAC, with first hand sources mentioning it to friends/family, and it taking on a life of its own, which is likely how many conspiracies start/spread, with a nugget of truth. But there's no evidence of that that I've seen (but I haven't really looked), so that basis for inclusion isn't proper.
Anyways, Operation LAC was a part of Project 112. Operation Dew was a similar one, but they released aerosols from ships. Whether Operation LAC involved contrails is hard to say, since I haven't seen any pictures. But it is still dumping chemicals out of an airplane. But I can see why it might not be the greatest thing for inclusion, since it may lead some people to believe that those tests are evidence of chemtrails, or provides a basis for it, which may be misleading. But people interested in chemtrails may also be interested in those government programs. I'm not very knowledgeable with wikipedia standards/policies and such, so I'll defer to others. Anybody interested enough can find the articles through this talk page as it is now, anyways. KRLA18 (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar, again

There is a new disagreement if sidebar belongs here, [1][2][3] and [4][5][6]. Previous discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_8#alternative_medicine_sidebar. So the question is, has consensus changed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, CFCF, per "It is quackery and pseudomedicine, and per WP:BRD there was insufficient discussion", you did see that there were 7 editors in the previous discussion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was during the very short period that the sidebar only read "alternative medicine". It no longer does that and did so only as a violation of consensus for a few weeks. I agree it is better placeed under pseudomedicine than alternative medicine, but there isn't really any difference if you look at the definitions. (In fact I did not see that 7 people had commented, because of the white space, but the rest of my current comment stands.) I think it's a better idea to change the sidebar to be more inclusive than to remove this. HIV-denialism isn't classically alternative medicine either, but it is most assuredly pseudomedicine. Carl Fredrik talk 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, I thought the whitespace might be a problem. AFAICT, the "traditional" heading in that template is "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine", and I don't see chemtrails being that or quackery. We'll see if there's more opinions. WP will survive either outcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Eggishorn removed the sidebar again on may 11,[7] so today I removed chemtrails from the sidebar again, and was reverted.[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My 2p. Chemtrails are not ALT-MED. They are lunatic charlatanesque, but not medical. I support the removal of the sidebar. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one has so far even said it was alt-med — but it is pseudomedicine, and there is one and the same sidebar for both. The two "fields" are virtually indestinguishable in reality, but even if we strongly feel that this isn't alt-med, that argument isn't applicalbe. HIV-denialism isn't more part of alt-med than this is — but there is no debate as to whether that belongs in the "alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar. The sidebar is not only about alt-med, but also pseudomedicine. Also the discussion for changes to the sidebar belongs there. To claim that chemtrails is not pseudomedicine is bizarre, because chemtrails are suggested to have an effect on the body — bringing it directly into the medical field. Are you certain you mean that Roxy the dog? Carl Fredrik talk 09:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thread also at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar, but as I see it, it's one issue. If a sidebar is not in the article, the article should not be in the sidebar.
Per pseudomedicine: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that by definition do not work, and are a form of quackery or health fraud.[1] They are claimed to have the healing effects of medicine..."
Chemtrails fit poorly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we add it to Template:Pseudoscience and add that to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That definition from pseudomedicine is a shortened version (which I in fact wrote, so it's fun to be quoted). A full definition also includes "theories that by definition are false or rejected", but this is too much for the first sentence of a lede. If you go a little further into that introductory paragraph, you can see that it also tackles false theoretical systems and not just singular practices. Pseudomedicine is in essence anything that is a pseudoscience while simultaneously purporting to be medical. Medical in its turn is anything that is related to the health or physiological or pathological functioning of the individual (human). So a conspiracy theory relating to the function of the body is de facto pseudomedicine.
Chemtrails most assuredly falls under both pseudoscience as well as a medical theory — hence it is pseudomedicine. It is in a sense a medical conspiracy theory, which I changed the header of Template:Alternative medicine sidebar to include upon your request.
I am more than willing to discuss how we can improve the sidebar, to make it include medical conspiracy theories and pseudomedicine in a better way (more clearly interconnected), maybe under a different name such as Template:Medical conspiracy theories sidebar. However, there are issues with chiropractors not wanting to include mention of conspiracy theories — even though that is what they peddle. So we have the problem that medical conspirators don't want to be called alternative, while "alternatives" not wanting to be called conspirators. The middle ground is pseudomedicine, which I find both dislike, but is the best and should label both.
As for your suggestion — navigation bars at the bottom of articles are not used (as in clicked on). A handful of Wikipedians find them useful, but in general no readers find them (add to that how 65% don't even see them because they're blocked in the mobile view). To me that invalidates the replacement with a navigation bar (but not having both), and I find the sidebar to be much more useful.
We should try to keep these quasimedical theories bunched together, because they all deal with the same common theme: a rejection of science, and a rejection of established medical fact. If that means we need a new header for the sidebar, that's fine — but we shouldn't be too pedantic about what is what, when everything is pseudomedicine. Carl Fredrik talk 11:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between ALT-Med and Pseudomedicine? Carl, you and I agree on most things, but I cannot see how this topic fits within any topic area related to medicine. Your connection is too obtuse to be made and not be caught under our WP:OR rules. It was for these reasons that I removed this topic from the sidebar. I started this reply before Carl's reply above and was edit conflicted. I still find that this is not a medical or medical related topic at all. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made no such request. Disagree with the "medical theory" reasoning, and this change to the template [9] doesn't seem like improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, how do we know that readers don't click in the navigation bars at the bottom of articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Including the lunatic fringe pseudoscientific theory of chemtrails within any medical topic is drawing a very long bow indeed. It is not and has never been a medical (or alt-medical) theory, it is really just a bunch of conspiracy nuts dreaming up an "explanation" for a perfectly natural phenomenon. - Nick Thorne talk 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of lunatic fringe pseudoscientific theories that purport to be medicine — including that entire side-bar full. If it has medical implications, i.e. is a medical conspiracy theory, then it belongs. We're not validating it by listing it there, just stating that it's just as wacky as AIDS-denialism. Carl Fredrik talk 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Men bättre lyss till den sträng som brast än aldrig spänna en båge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is the English Wikipedia. I have no idea what you are saying. - Nick Thorne talk 14:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to just be a Swedish proverb.--tronvillain (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any part of this theory that could be called medicine. And I don't recall seeing this classfication anywhere. I only see original research to support it. I suggest removing this classificafion until you can find some reliable souce that makes this classification. -Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that the purported function is through a chemical agent, i.e. pharmaceutical drug? Enric Naval — Calling it a medical conspiracy theory doesn't legitimize it, it just includes it with other far-fetched theories. Carl Fredrik talk 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to some proponents chemtrails are toxic and make us less fertile. It's not enough, but it's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just straining too far to class this as "pseudomedicine". Almost all conspiracies are alleged to be doing bad things to people. I'd definitely not put that sidebar here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't seem to fit into pseuodomedicine - only a subset of proponents of the conspiracy are making the claim that chemtrails negatively affect health, and the claim "x is harmful" doesn't even seem to fit the definitions given at pseudomedicine. Even if they're not used that much, I think the pseudoscience navbar is a much better fit - it's a pity there isn't a more applicable sidebar (like pseudoscience or conspiracy theory).--tronvillain (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no. It is most absolutely a medical conspiracy theory, or if I rephrase it: a pseudoscientific interpretation of medicine. How can this be a matter of discussion? The idea of mind control through the use of a chemical substance, i.e. a drug or pharmacological agent — how can that not be medicine (as in relating to the physiological or pathological functioning of the human body, including the mind/brain/cognitive faculties)? Please answer that Orangemike and Tronvillain. Carl Fredrik talk 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo medicine is doing something suppose≤dly for a medical reason or treatment that is not supported by the science. No one is making "chemtrails" at all, let alone for some purported medical reason. It is the very claim that chemtrails are even a thing that is properly pseudoscience. - Nick Thorne talk 02:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It literally doesn't fit the definition at alternative medicine (the redirect for pseudomedicine), or the definition that was on the original page before the redirect: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that claim to have the healing effects of medicine but are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect.", "Pseudomedicine is medicine which claims to be effective for diagnosing or treating specific medical conditions, but which has been disproven or which is unproven and the mainstream scientific opinion is that it will not be proven to be effective", and "Pseudomedicine refers to 'treatments that claim to be working concepts of medicine that have no objectively verifiable benefit or are incompatible with the current state of knowledge in the field of science-based medicine.'" But that is irrelevant, given that the sidebar itself includes (medical) conspiracy theories, which this clearly falls under. --tronvillain (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While the sidebar includes some conspiracy theories, "medical conspiracy theories" was added to it's header during this discussion.[10] Before that, the indication was that it contained "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine" CT's. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a clearer title, given the inclusion of those conspiracy theories. --tronvillain (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again for a reliable source for chemtrails being a medical conspiracy. I checked one reliable source Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 pp 197-199. Their explanation of chemtrails says nothing about medicine. Medicine-related conspiracies can be found in other pages. Please find a reliable source that calls chemtrails a medical conspiracy or similar, and gives an explanation of why. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From page 197, "or to test compounds on the human populations and natural life below.", and the next paragraph on 197-198, "Activists who highlight the issue usually allege that epidemics of flu-like illnesses follow sightings of contrail patters: sometimes the symptoms include diarrhea, listlessness, and fevers." Exactly how much more medical would you like that conspiracy to be? --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for adding the {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} in again, but I was just going through all the article links within it and expanding the sections they are in. Personally, I can easily see where Chemtrail conspiracy theory would easily fit in as a medical conspiracy theory and therefore it belongs in the template and on this page; however, consensus is consensus, and we should always go with consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason you should suspect this thread was here. But you know us Wikipedians, we can discuss topics to an extent that will appear stunning to, well, everybody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete erroneous from the lead section

Saying that it's a "belief" is enough for a NPOV on the topic. I also think that the belief in God is erroneous, but I don't need to note it in the lead section. -Theklan (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. "Belief" isn't a dirty or pejorative word - a belief is a mental representation of the likelihood of the truth of a proposition. I believe there are no leprechauns: my estimate of the probability of leprechauns existing is extremely low. Still, the lede sentence could potentially be reworded. For example, we could just substitute conspiracy theory for "erroneous belief." --tronvillain (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yes, I would see no problem with conspiracy theory, which is in any case unsubstantiated... —PaleoNeonate – 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that gives us "The chemtrail conspiracy theory is based on the conspiracy theory..." Saying that a conspiracy theory is based on a conspiracy theory seems awkward at best (unless we're talking about a conspiracy theory that's based on another conspiracy theory, which is not the case here). There might be other ways of rewording that could work.

I don't see where saying a false belief is a false belief is a problem, but it's not a big deal either way. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is good. What problem is being solved here? Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not broken so it does not need fixing. - Nick Thorne talk 06:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised at this debate about the word "erroneous". The use of the word is NPOV and reads like a bias in the article. The word erroneous is a subjective judgment about a "belief". Someone was supporting an argument for not seeing a problem calling a false belief a false belief. The word belief itself is subjective. Even "concepts" that most people "accept" as science is still really based on belief. You believe there is an outer space, other planets, the Earth is a globe, etc, but how many of you have been to the moon, in a spaceship, to another planet. I know I couldn't build a flat screen TV by myself even if I had everything I needed to build one. But I know they exist because I own one and its in my home and I've touched it. My point being that any article that centers around a "belief" is subjective to begin with. You can't make a subjective mindset "right" or "wrong", "correct" or "incorrect" - it just is its subjective self. Most conspiracy theorists are a bit to very religious about their beliefs. This argument is one of the rare occasions on Wikipedia where an external verified source cannot define the accuracy of the center focus of an article. I don't personally care if the belief is based in pure science or the same mindset that brought us the Easter Bunny - but I do care about an article following the spirit and letter of the rules. Finally, before I delete the word "erroneous" - I would suggest editors and contributors zoom out a bit on this sort of thing. What is the ultimate result of finding every article on Wikipedia and adding the word "erroneous" next to the word "belief"? It would suggest that there is only one acceptable belief about anything and that is a huge NPOV violation.Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the UN's recent climate change report, and the need for drastic measures, is it okay to talk freely about geoengineering (chemtrails) yet?--2602:304:CD80:4350:3D2F:AFC6:9DF9:13FB (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't care what you talk about, but this page is for discussion about improving the associated article "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for snide comments Roxy, I was obviously talking about the need to build out the associated article. Please try to remain civil.--76.216.4.53 (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, he tried to tell you that what you said is not relevant to the article and does not belong there. He is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lead sentence states: "The chemtrail conspiracy theory is based on the erroneous belief that long-lasting condensation trails, called "chemtrails" consist of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and deliberately sprayed for purposes undisclosed to the general public."
The word "condensation" should be removed as the theory is not that chemtrails are long lasting condensation trails, but rather long lasting chemical trails -- that's the whole theory.--2602:304:CD80:4350:4052:7D74:3524:354F (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that they're condensation trails, the belief is that they're evil substances. But it could be clarified a tad. Will do! Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alexbrn, that grammar at least works.--2602:304:CD80:4350:2DC0:F3F9:767D:A131 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how categorically stating "erroneous belief" can be impartial. Just because this belief can't be proved doesn't mean it can be (or has been) disproved. DavidSAlexander (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources that WIkipedia uses call it nonsense [11] [12]. If reliable sources call something bunk, Wikipedia does. We're not in the business of promoting conspiracy theories by omission. Acroterion (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DavidSAlexander, it doesn't have to be "impartial", it has to be neutral, which means according to reliable sources. As there are no reliable sources that support this conspiracy theory, and many that oppose it, we accurately represent those sources in the article. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which for this theory simply does not exist. Bradv 20:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork

Don't feed the trolls. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is a point of view fork and as such should be deleted. We have at least three pages (climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, and solar radiation management) that say they're real, based on science, and this page that says they're not, based on "cause we say so" type unsubstantiated opinion. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

The policy is clearly outlined on the Wikipedia:content forking page: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." --2602:304:CD80:4350:61EB:F8E3:AD68:2131 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But none of those article are about a conspiracy theory. This is a distinct topic (a loony one, but notable) and merits its own page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're existence is an accepted scientific fact. We don't need a conspiracy theory to speculate whether they exist. At the very least, it should be disambiguated that chemtrails do exist, but that there's no evidence that the long lasting trails often seen in the sky are or are not chemtrails.--2602:304:CD80:4350:2DC0:F3F9:767D:A131 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The existence of condensation trails is a scientific fact. Calling them "chemtrails" is conspiracy mongering nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such "accepted scientific fact." There is is extensive scientific consensus that the conspiracy is nonsense [13] [14]. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might the IP be referring to cloud seeding? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's my guess; specifically, cloud seeding in the context of geoengineering. I've tweaked the first couple of sentences to try and clarify the scope of the article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Apple vs Apples argument at this point. It's no longer Conspiracy theory, chemicals, yes including Lithium, are used in the upper atmosphere. The Lithium in small parts, added to the Barium, according to NASA researchers, assists in observation.

The Conspiracy Theorists say it's not just condensation from water vapor. That there's chemicals being placed in our skies.

That govt scientists are placing chemicals in the skies is fact. The only theory, is the reason why. Neither side of the argument can prove their argument. If there's hazardous experiments occurring, they're not going to admit it. It took FOIA's just to get the truth about the Govt's previous experiments, exposing people to infectious disease, and radiation.

Naked eye observation today, shows those same 'chemtrails' are not just refusing to disappear, they're merging, causing a haze, which also points towards admitted research. They're attempting to find ways to protect us from the threat of harmful UV rays.

Another easy observation, is the fantastic sunrises, and sunsets, that are occurring with much greater frequency. That is a direct result of the Lithium additive, to the Barium.

NASA used to have to use rockets to disperse the chemical agents. With the advancement of aeronautical engineering, planes can handle flying at much higher altitude.

So its not even an argument anymore. Geoengineering, upper atmospheric wind pattern observation, cloud seeding for rain, using chemicals to create unnatural cloud cover to block harmful UV rays, are all modern sciences.

The only theory left is the reason why they're doing this, but that will remain in the realm of theory. One cant prove nefarious intentions, just like those trying to debunk something, can't disprove it. They can reiterate what the Scientists say, and the rest is purely speculation.

I'd like to hope their intentions are good, and in that case, wish them success in geoengineering. After losing my home to Hurricane Katrina, it would be great if they could 'direct' the next major Hurricane back out to sea, instead of it making landfall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm110478 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud seeding is real, but your going to need reliable sources to support any changes you make to the article, the contrails spreading out into a haze is just what happens to water vapor in plane exhaust when the upper troposphere is more humid, such as before a warm front, this can be used to predict the weather, but doesn't mean the planes are changing the weather. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&oldid=879724291"