Talk:Brownie Mary

message: I'm working on completing the inline sourcing within the next 48-72 hours and completing a final expansion. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: Some sources contain errors copied from wire services. Here are some corrections with better sources in the process of being added:
*Brownie Mary was Grand Marshal of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade in 1997, not 1996.  This error is commonly found outside of sources about the parade from subsequent years.  Sources about the parade from 1997 clarify this error.  The source of the error, surprisingly enough, appears to be Dennis Peron.
*The name and death date of her daughter varies by source.  I've used the one as transcribed in the High Times interview.
**For example, Pimsleur (1999) refers to her only daughter "Peggy" as "Jenny". 
***Birth date variously cited as 1955 or 1952.  She was said to have died at age 22.
*Her birth date varies by source.  Per the above.
*Dates of arrests, sentencing, and charges vary depending on the source.  Whenever possible, I've attempted to use the original source and compare dates to determine where the error occurred, eliminating the typo source if at all possible.
*Reed (1999) mistakenly lists her 1982 arrest as 1984.
*Local news stories about her 1992 arrest were syndicated around the country.  Many appear with different titles and content, but can be traced to their original sources.
*Sources like Woo (1999) say that "she gained national attention with her 1992 arrest", however, her first two arrests were also printed in newspapers around the country.  The 1992 arrest was different because it was carried by cable news around the nation and the world.
**Woo probably meant that she gained increased national and new international attention.  The 1992 arrest led to her appearance on many different TV shows, such Maury Povich and Good Morning America, but her previous arrests in the 1980s brought her to national attention. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errata 

message: ....this is how not to: Rathbun was raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and attended Catholic school, and at the age of 13 she was involved in an altercation with a nun who caned her; Rathbun fought back. 
What is the problem with it?  It goes like this: 
# Basic biographical statement.......
# .....and .....next basic biographical statement..... then a comma....... (why a comma?)
#.....and .....a significant, non-basic event of her youth....... stated in the form of an entire sentence, with a clause and two finite verbs (i.e. a complete and "complex" sentence in its own right), but joined on with an "and" as if it was the natural outcome of a) being raised in Minneapolis, b) being Catholic. (Well, maybe it was!)
# .....semi-colon...... a second complete sentence, joined to three "and, and" bits but only relating to one of them.  In fact, it relates very closely to one of the three bit of that messy sentence, and should be linked to that bit, and none of the others. 
It's quite easy to fix. Turn your important event into a stand-alone sentence, not a tag.  Then join the bit after the semi-colon in some way that contributes to the sense of the sentence. 
My advice with regards to semi-colons is to leave them alone unless they are truly necessary. They have a place in lists in which descriptions are given: At the party John, the fireman; Pete, the plumber; Harry, the undertaker;........"  
Otherwise, they are used to join statements that are "equal" and "balanced".  The notion of "balance" is the important one. The two parts may be in conflict, but they must "fit".  Once you have created a sentence that already has commas and "ands", then you cannot effectively use a semi-colon. Examples: 
: Mary's parents wanted her to join the family business; Mary wanted a career in journalism.   
: Black-backed penguins always have white bellies; white-bellied penguins always have black backs.  
Amandajm (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Raised by Yoda, I was. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing good English....

message: Note: not enough relevant incoming links to this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked to see if this was resolved. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoming links 

message: No free images available. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Image request sent to Maureen Hurley.  Waiting to hear back from her... Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs image 

message: I performed a very light copy edit to this article. Changed one word to reprehensibility for example. Please check the page history to review my minor edits. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying, but those are quotes from actual people.  We don't copy edit quotes unless we are changing the paraphrasing in a deliberate manner. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I somehow missed the quotation marks, too busy reading the material, otherwise I would have left it alone. I am sorry. Quill and Pen (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, we've all made that error at some point.  I know I have.  If you would like to have another go at it, please be my guest. The article could use your help. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Very light copy edit

message: has restored some material which I removed. This looks to me like pure coatrackery.
The FDA material is this section sort of borderline-relevant in my view, but since the article in part seemed to be about an attempt to influence US policies it was at least defensibly relevant in a section entitled "Legacy". I wouldn't though argue with its removal.
But - "howevering" the FDA stuff, in what is meant to be a biographical article, with medical material that makes no mention whatsoever of "Brownie Mary" is just using Mary as a coatrack to hang view on - especially since the note sneaks in stuff like "we now have reasonable evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment in selected pain syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system, and possibly for painful muscle plasticity due to multiple sclerosis", which is rather out of sync with the better-sourced medical content in our main cannabis articles. Is there any source linking Mary with these pronouncements made about cannabis nearly a decade after she had died? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you have a lot of different issues to discuss.  Since my time is limited, I'm afraid I will only have enough free time to address one at a time.  First, you've claimed the FDA content is "borderline-relevant".  How is that possible when the FDA is mentioned in almost every source about Brownie Mary?  In one of many obituaries published when she died,  Reuters wrote: "Mrs. Rathbun was arrested several times for distributing her pot brownies, and lent her little old lady image to the medical marijuana movement gaining strength in San Francisco. That movement eventually led to California's first-in-the-U.S. state initiative in 1996 which legalized medical use of marijuana, under certain conditions, for treating symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other serious illnesses. While the U.S. government has sought to quash California's state law, similar initiatives were passed by voters in six more states in 1998 -- increasing pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to consider removing marijuana from the "Schedule I" list of the most dangerous narcotics."  That's one small mention in a minor obit, there are many more.  Werner 2001 puts it all in context. Brownie Mary inspired the resurgence of the scientific study of cannabis in the United States, which led her as well as researchers to fight against the legal and political roadblocks setup by the FDA and DEA.  Her successful battle to pass prop. 215 led to the funding of the IOM study itself.  As for the other material, how is a footnoted statement from the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the University of California out of sync with anything?  In 2010, CMCR wrote, "we now have reasonable evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment in selected pain syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system, and possibly for painful muscle plasticity due to multiple sclerosis." Does this contradict anything in the contemporary literature?  In any case, I agree that it probably doesn't belong here, so I removed it. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The FDA in general may have relevance, but the relevance of a 2006 FDA press release to a woman who had been dead 7 years, and which does not mention her, is borderline isn't it? Or is there some good source that connects the FDA's stated 2006 position with Mary? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument here has nothing to do with the type of publication used.  The position cited in 2006 is the same position they had prior to the 1999 IOM report.  Throughout the literature on Brownie Mary, the FDA (and their authorities) say cannabis has no recognized medicinal use and remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.  After all, why was she arrested three times and why did she spend the latter part of her life campaigning for medical use?  Because the FDA and DEA wouldn't allow sick people to use it. The fact that they continue to make this claim after Brownie Mary showed it had anecdotal benefits for sick people, and after those anecdotal benefits were tested scientifically, and after the IOM reviewed the evidence and acknowledged the benefits, is entirely relevant. If you like, I would be happy to expand the relevance ASAP and revisit the issue tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice in the review abovr it was said that this material was non-neutral and some neutral wording was proposed: a proposal you didn't accept. I hope you can see why there's a problem here which needs sorting out (which would be a better use of your time than ranting and casting aspersions on my Talk page). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you are talking about in regards to non-neutrality, so you will have to be very specific.  Contrary to what you claim, it appears that the concerns with non-neutrality were directly addressed and the material was removed from the article even though this material is well sourced throughout the cannabis literature.   I don't see any problem that needs sorting out, and I haven't ranted or casted any aspersions on your talk page.  I merely noted that you didn't review the sources you deleted and I commented on your edits while paraphrasing Werner 2001.  Again, there is nothing "coatrackery" about the FDA and IOM material.  Brownie Mary is notable as a cannabis activist who claimed cannabis helped AIDS patients, contrary to the claims put forward by the FDA and DEA, a position which informs law enforcement and criminal prosecution. She's also notable for arguing the medical necessity defense in a court of law.  In her 1992 case, Tony Serra, her defense lawyer, argued  that cannabis helped stimulate the appetites of people with AIDS, helped them sleep, and relieved nausea and depression, a position confirmed by the IOM in a study funded as a reaction to the legislation she helped pass.  In a direct response to Brownie Mary's actions and in her defense, the City of San Francisco passed an ordinance discouraging arrests for medical cannabis and recognizing its medical effectiveness.  Throughout the Brownie Mary literature, we are told that the federal government doesn't recognize the medical effectiveness of cannabis (Adams 1992; DeRienzo 1992, etc.), and this is explained in the context of her medical necessity defense.  The original version of the article made this clear, but it was erroneously changed to conform to the opinions of other editors who didn't understand the subject.  I will make an attempt to restore the original context. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really very simply. If there is to be a "Legacy" section it needs to be the legacy as described in RS, not the legacy as originally synthesized by Viriditas. Having sources which far post-date Mary's death and which make no mention of her tell us we've got problems here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been explained to you above that this is not synthesis but directly connected to her medical necessity defense highlighted as her legacy in that section by those sources.  The government's position has not changed, so citing it in a 1992 article about Brownie Mary (Adams 1992; DeRienzo 1992, etc.), or in 2006 from the horse's mouth is irrelevant.  On the other hand, for a good example of synthesis, look no farther than your edits to March Against Monsanto, which defends using sources  that have nothing to do with the subject of the march, many of which were published before the march ever occurred.  By your own definition of synthesis, you have a "problem" there.  You've even argued for and defended it simply because it promotes a singular POV not found in the sources about the topic. That's synthesis! Meanwhile, on this article, as I already explained above, the FDA and IOM material is directly related to Brownie Mary and does not synthesize or promote any position. When journalists like Jane Meredith Adams of the Dallas Morning News write in an article about Brownie Mary that the federal government "classifies the natural weed as a drug with no proven medical effectiveness, making it impossible for doctors to prescribe it" and when she writes that the U.S. public health service responded to Brownie Mary's publicity by restating "its belief that marijuana is not an effective drug" we know there is nothing being synthesized.  Why is this important?  Because, as the sources explain, doctors can't legally prescribe Schedule I drugs, and scientists have difficulty studying it. Brownie Mary challenged this directly by ignoring the law and claiming medical necessity.  Nothing is being synthesized.  The Economist article on Brownie Mary discusses the fact that even after her death "possession of marijuana remains prohibited, and this law takes precedence over state law".  And guess what?  The FDA's position on cannabis for medical use is based on its status as a Schedule I substance.  According to the FDA itself, Schedule I substances listed on the CSA are administered by the DEA, and the FDA supports the classification because it believes cannabis has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and a lack of accepted safety. Never mind the fact that this opinion is contradicted by scientific evidence and authorities like the Institute of Medicine, the current position of the FDA has not changed. It is the same position taken by then director of the U.S. Public Health Service, James Mason, in 1992, as cited in the article.  And the Institute of Medicine study is covered in Werner's 2001 journal article as well as other sources, and relates directly to the discussion of the efficacy of medical cannabis for AIDS patients. All of this is covered on singular sources about the subject, with the most recent being Lee's Smoke Signals (2013).  You haven't challenged the veracity of any of this material.  You claimed it was synthesized to promote a position, yet that "position' was paraphrased accurately in the New York Times source about medical cannabis, not by me.  Then you claimed that it had nothing to do with Brownie Mary, yet the government claim that cannabis has no medical benefit is found in most of the sources about Brownie Mary and the notable legal defense she mounted in the courts directly attacks this position, as does her political activism detailed in this article.  So nothing is synthesized and everything is relevant to the subject.  Perhaps you could respond by demonstrating the irrelevancy and synthesis that you claim promotes a position.  Don't forget to tell me what this position is.  You seem to be arguing that the position of the FDA and the results of the IOM study have nothing to do with Brownie Mary, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to know how a source is "directly connected" to Mary when it makes no mention of her. I disagree with your characterization of my edits elsewhere (nice whataboutery, BTW) but if you think they're so bad that's no reason for you to make bad edits too, now is it. What's the process for getting this GA reviewed? if you're not going to fix it we're going to need more eyes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished mentioning half a dozen sources that directly mention her. I mentioned your edits defending synthesis on March Against Monsanto because you seem to think it is normal and OK to cite sources that have nothing to do with a subject yet you say it is not OK here.  In any case, I asked you a direct question and I did not receive a reply, but you changed the subject once again.  That seems to be the pattern of your style of discussion.  Again, are you arguing that the position of the FDA and the results of the IOM study have nothing to do with Brownie Mary?  Do you agree that that the government's claim that cannabis has no medical benefit is directly related to this topic as cited in the sources above?  And as for her legacy, sources have already indicated why the government's opinion is important.  Pick one at random, say  Saxon, NYT, 1999: "Her campaigns and arrests helped build support for the 1996 California State initiative that made the use of marijuana conditionally legal. The measure allowed use with a doctor's consent for patients suffering from AIDS, cancer and certain other serious conditions whose symptoms are said to be alleviated by the drug. But the law has led to numerous skirmishes between advocates of marijuana and local and the Federal authorities who say that a voter initiative cannot override a Federal ban on marijuana."  Who are the federal authorities?  The FDA and the DEA.  In terms of cannabis, the FDA is the "sole government entity responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of new prescription and over-the-counter drugs".  In order to have access to legal medical cannabis, the FDA must approve it.  I can't "fix" anything until you specifically explain what is wrong with it.  I've asked you direct question after direct question and I've received no answers, only a shifting of goalposts and a general tendency to engage in holding articles hostage.  So again, are you arguing that the position of the FDA and the results of the IOM study have nothing to do with Brownie Mary?  If so, how can you argue that position when the FDA is a federal authority that can approve cannabis as a medicine, the same federal authority that is discussed in the articles about Brownie Mary?  I count at least five sources alone (there are more) that talk about Brownie Mary and cannabis as a Schedule I drug.  Are you seriously proposing that we remove the statement "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act" when it is that very fact that made Brownie Mary and led her to break the law?  In what world does that make any sense?  The sources in the article already discuss this.  Sweeney 1996: "Congress adopted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana was purely a recreational drug. It was placed on Schedule I, the most tightly-controlled category, reserved for drugs said to have a high potential for abuse and no medical value."  Do you think that might have something to do with why she was arrested and fought so hard for medical cannabis? And, how can you object to the Institute of Medicine report which was funded in January 1997 in direct response to Brownie Mary's Proposition 215 in November 1996, just months after it passed?  Are you seriously arguing that the federal positions on the status of medical cannabis is not relevant to this topic?  Are you seriously arguing that the federal position on the efficacy of cannabis, a position cited throughout the Brownie Mary literature and a position that Brownie Mary directly disputes through her activism and notable court case claiming medical necessity, is not relevant?  It's already sourced in the article, multiple times.  As for the IOM report, it's relevance is clearly established as a legacy, since without her work on 215, the review of the scientific evidence would never have occurred.  Not only that, but the relevance of its findings, that cannabis is effective for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting, is discussed throughout this article and forms the core of Brownie Mary's claims.  How could this not be relevant? Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Nope.  Let's review, you've appealed to an essay (not a policy nor a guideline) on WP:COATRACK.  You've attempted to interpret an essay (not a policy nor a guideline) to claim that the position of federal authorities and scientific reports are not relevant to this topic.  According to this essay you cite (not a policy nor a guideline), the notion that cannabis remains an illegal drug whose medical efficacy is questioned by one government agency while acknowledged by another is a "cover for a tangentially related biased subject".  May I ask what that subject is?  Do the sources about Brownie Mary in this article discuss the fact that federal authorities dispute the legalization of cannabis by the states?  Yes.  Do the  sources about Brownie Mary discuss the fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I drug with "no medical value"?  Yes.  Do the sources about the Institute of Medicine report tie its legacy directly to the prop. 215 initiative that Brownie Mary worked on?  Yes.  Does the fact that the IOM found that cannabis is effective for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting have anything to do with Brownie Mary's campaign to bake brownies for AIDS patients suffering from nausea, vomiting and AIDS wasting?  Yes.  So, where is this synthesis?  Please describe it.  Please specify it in a precise manner so that I can remove it.  And there is nothing "sneaky" about citing the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in a footnote, nor is there anything "naughty" about it.  You apparently do not even know what the organization was doing.  Your interpretation of an essay as a justification for your "view" is strange indeed.  When it was funded, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research was one of the leading research organizations in the world studying the therapeutic use of cannabis, a field that Brownie Mary helped inspire.  The group used the Institute of Medicine report to look at potential therapeutic effects and produced the first U.S. clinical trials of smoked cannabis in two decades. I cannot begin to even imagine what is "naughty" about having this as a footnote, but I'm sure you will invent something.  I've already demonstrated that this isn't synthesis, so unless you can, there's nothing more to do other than to properly improve the source coverage and context of the material so that people like yourself won't get confused in the future.  You have not responded to any of my questions or my points.  At best you've made a bizarre comment about a 2010 report from a respected research institution (a report that was added to the article in 2011, after it was published) which was used to support the accurate statement about the research to date at the time.  Seriously, you don't even seem to understand what you are talking about.  When it was added, it was "a review of the science to date", in its own words. You just seem to be making shit up and flinging shit hoping something sticks. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You linked to the essay not me (actually it's rather fun: the "wongo juice" example is pertinent here). Coatrack is a handy term for what's evident here, which is a species of POV-pushing. You ask: "Do the sources about the Institute of Medicine report tie its legacy directly to the prop. 215 initiative that Brownie Mary worked on?" But as far as I can see this is not clear in the article. What is the source that makes this "direct" tie? And what source ties this to Mary? Pointing to a self-published report that is irrelevant to Mary is all part of the POV-pushing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no POV-pushing.  Everything you've attacked is factually and historically accurate, so you haven't even touched upon any accuracy or verification issues.  The IOM report is part of the legacy of the passing of 215, as that's why it was funded and published.  The secondary literature (and the report itself) are very clear on this.  Calling the IOM report "self-published" is way off.  That's not how we use the term.  It's a widely cited government report, as well as a reliable source on the subject, and it is notable enough for its own article under the title Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999). Non-historical self-published works are generally not notable reliable sources. We reserve the term "self-published" for sources described under WP:SELFPUBLISH.  This is a report funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, written by the Institute of Medicine and published by the National Academies Press.  Versions of it have also been widely published by other reliable sources.  The report had 3 editors from the IOM, 11 principal investigators and advisers from 11 separate universities and 11 staff members whose work was subject to an additional 14 independent reviewers.   This is not a "self-published source" as we use the term. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the report out of UCSD. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coatrackery 

message: I have temporarily removed this passage here until I can find the time to make the sourcing explicit (From Brownie Mary sources already in the article) and in context (medical necessity dispute, government opposition, IOM report published in response to 215).  Content follows:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration  does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.  According to the FDA, "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment"."Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine". U.S. Food and Drug Administration. April 20, 2006.  However, the FDA's position contradicts the findings published by the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies.  The Institute of Medicine published a review of the evidence in 1999 and found that cannabis was "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."Harris, Gardiner (2006, April 21). "F.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana". The New York Times;  According to the American College of Physicians (2008), the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for "HIV wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting" are well documented. See the CMCR Legislative Report (2010) for a review of the science to date.
The fact that medical use of cannabis is not recognized by the government is already sourced in the article (as shown in the above discussion).  The fact that it remains classified as a Schedule I with no accepted medical use is already sourced in the article.  The legacy of 215 led directly to the funding of the IOM report just months after voters approved it.  And while this is also already sourced, it needs to be made explicit due to the concerns of a confused reader. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary holding area

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brownie Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cannabismd.org/reports/abrams3.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721231833/http://www.psychedelic.info/index_2_eng.html to http://www.psychedelic.info/index_2_eng.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified