Talk:Cannabis cultivation

message: Wikipedia's quality relies on citations to sources. A popular custom is that when content is added without a source then anyone can remove it without a reason.
I see lots of content here without sources and I feel that this information is unreliable and not a benefit to this article. I propose to remove it. Anyone would still find it in the article's history if they wanted to revive it somehow by matching it with sources. Any comments from anyone?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to the party but I agree, a lot of this reads like some black market growers' opinions on the right and wrong way to do things, as opposed to a neutral description of cultivation and harvesting processes. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed all the unsourced descriptions of specific growing methods. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose deletion of everything without a source 

message: There are no sources provided in the hydroponics section, which may be deleted if WP:SCIRS is not fulfilled. This revert was justified because a large new addition was made by  with only one source added at the end (this), and no inline attributions provided - see WP:CIT. There is a concern about possible WP:COPYVIO. No mention of 'cannabis' was made in the new edit, justifying its deletion. Rewdem has been warned about WP:MOS violations, absence of inline citing, and 3x edit warring, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewdem did provide the references below in an incorrect format. Zefr (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydroponics section 

message: I propose deleting this section in this cultivation article. It is presented in this article as being an excerpt of the separate environmental impact article, but in fact is verbatim duplication of the entirety of the separate article. Moreover, the environmental impact is not insignificant and truly merits a separate article, which merits extensive expansion.
Additionally, the enviromental impact is included at the end of this article, as an afterthought, when it is one of the primary things anyone should consider before undertaking cannabis cultivation, regardless of the legality of cannabis in any particular ecosystem, and some ecosystems are more suitable than others for growing it naturally and sustainably, i.e., outdoors, and not as a non-native plant competing with indigenous species for natural resources like water. For this reason I believe the link to the separate article on environmental impact should be presented very early on in this cultivation article, preferably in the opening summary.
The legality of growing cannabis in any given region should be based not on its psychoactive effects, but rather its environmental impact when growing outside its native range. As an example, consumption in the US could be fully legal and regulated, while cultivation could remain illegal, thus simply necessitating legal (and sustainable) importation from climates more suitable to cannabis cultivation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrgill (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits and these comments seem to be based on your opinions. That's not how Wikipedia works. Our own thoughts and observations on article subjects are not relevant. Relevant policies are WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you recommend addressing the current duplication issue? The entirety of the impact article is masquerading as an "excerpt" in this article. What is a neutral, fact-based take on duplication between two Wikipedia articles, in your opinion? Derrgill (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the entire article as currently written fits inside this article without bloating it, it is already effectively merged with this article, so I'd say the answer is to redirect that article here until such time as someone makes the effort to expand it to a more developed article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So... this content was added with this edit: , which used the  template without specifying a section. This is probably due to the fact that the "sub-article" is only one section and frankly a little scattershot. However, after messing with the template coding a little I have managed to make it an actual excerpt. Redirecting is still an option but this seems like a decent solution for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Impact Section