Talk:Cannabis/Archive 6

message: Under the "Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity" section of the article, it is stated that there are "approximately 4 chemicals found in Cannabis". This is obviously the work of previous vandalism, considering the akwardness of the sentence structure, and the obvious fact that there are far more than four chemicals found in cannabis. After some quick research, I found sources stating anywhere from 315 to over 400 chemicals. I assumed the previous version of the article probably said 400, so I edited the page as such. Now I've found the page to be reverted to the "approximately 4" statement, and myself accused of vandalism. I don't have any intention of starting an edit war, so I throw this issue upon the mercy of the talk page.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.209.129.107 (talk) 17:11, 17 October, 2006 (UTC).
::Please add new comments at the end of the page, and sign your talk page comments by using four tildes ~~~~.  Certainly it is true that far more than 4 chemicals are known to occur in Cannabis. But the revert you mention seems to have taken place at Cannabis (drug) and should be discussed there.  -- Chondrite 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Chemicals?

message: # ^ Small, E., and A. Cronquist. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25: 405–435.
This citation (part of WP:CITE style used because of WP:NOR wikipedia policy in order to meet requests for facts, such as the fact tag which is removed after cite is given) is currently being removed by user:Chondrite. I am keeping a record of it here because the cite is vital to the orientation of Cannabis species in modern scientific usuage. This exact cite has been removed from the line Whether the different strains of Cannabis constitute a single species (Cannabis sativa L.) or multiple species has been a contentious issue for well over two centuries. This is exactly what that cite describes. (Simonapro 09:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted deletion of citation problem 

message: Right now, as the article stands, there are no less than six verfiable sources, and many more, that attest to scientific usuage for Indica and Ruderalis as species of cannabis. While there exists an arguement for only the L usuage of Cannabis Sativa as the only species of cannabis, the existance of contradicting scientic botanical views with regards to cannabis species can only be reconciled by an article that does not push a biased POV to only use the L model. I think this is clear from the citations and use of WP:CITE form. (Simonapro 08:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many citations attest to scientific usuage for Indica and Ruderalis as Cannabis Species 

message: In order to refute a WP:CITE you must use the same style in the discussion by supplying a WP:CITE to refute the cite. Your POV about what is a verifiable cite or not is just a POV until you use the same style. Which is why your POV edits will be reverted back to the original. (Simonapro 08:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting [[WP:CITE]] because of POV is not wikipolicy. You must use the same style. 

message: The recent addition of dispute tags by user:Chondrite was without discussion here so I removed that redundant citation request so that the important citation requests would be answered in the article. I believe this is a disruptive tag added to take the focus away from the central issue of making a better article. Those tags don't do that. I believe the contributor does not have a valid arguement he can verify with WP:CITE style. I request, using the guidelines in WP:CIV that the user state their case here using WP:CITE style as to why they think the article needs dispute tags and to use cite style to refute the cited claims made. This means the user needs to cite a couterarguement before this can proceed and answer the questions they left unanswered across this discussion page. (Simonapro 10:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed redundant citation request (state case here) 

message: If there are WP:BEER and WP:WINE, shouldn't there also be "WP:POT". I'm serious, we need a weed wikiproject. wherther we're pro-weed or against weed, we could use a project.--201 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject

message: Isn't this article doomed to be controversial if it is edited by potheads? Rintrah 06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Good point. Rintrah 07:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The list of synonyms given in the species section has been copied directly from  Multilingual Multiscript Plant Name Database, which is Copyright © 1995 - 2004, The University of Melbourne.  Inclusion here presents a copyright problem.  The list has been removed per WP:C, and replaced wtih a link in the External Links section. 
The blockquote given under Hillig is a complete copy of the abstract of the paper cited.  Use may be a copyright violation.  This should be replaced with a synopsis as soon as possible. 
Chondrite 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Issues 

message: I added the resolved tag under the section header for issues that seem to be resolved.  If we are in agreement that these issues have been resolved, then I suggest that the marked sections be archived.  Chondrite 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are not being unfront, fair or want anything to do with a consensus when you change the article you proposed on purpose to reflect a single species orientation. The changes you have made are a biased POV with the taxonomy box only meeting your proposal and not a consensus that was reached before you changed the model. The single species orientation is so radically fronted in the article that it is offensive to have even pretended you where seeking consensus when you deceived everyone with this unwarrented change. (Simonapro 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it looks good to me, looks like alot of work with good sources. I don't see the bias, could you spell it out for me? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took this edit  as an indication that consensus has been achieved. The taxobox reflects the current scientific consensus, the Species section identifies recognized synonyms and accepted names, and the Taxonomy section discusses major POV's with appropriate weight, so the article conforms to WP:NPOV. Chondrite 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems clear to me that you discussed this heavily, provided proper citations, and balanced the issue. I think you have done a great job. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh, breathing room. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The single species taxonomy box violates WP:NPOV. (Simonapro 06:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While you have stated your opinion, you have not explained how you came to it. Just saying something is NPOV is without effect, what excactly is your dispute? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolved issues 

message: Article included the following unsourced statement as the second-to-last sentence of the Taxonomy section:
:Cannabis sativa male plants show evidence of selection for traits that enhance fiber production and seed-oil (for fuel) but the female plant produce seeds (for food) and flower buds that can be used as a psychoactive substance because of thier higher levels of the psychoactive delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), whereas C. indica was primarily selected for drug production and has relatively higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN) than THC. 
I replaced it with the following version, in the paragraph describing Small & Cronquist (1976):
:According to this concept, C. sativa subsp. sativa was selected for traits that enhance fiber or seed production and has low levels of the psychoactive delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), whereas C. sativa subsp. indica was primarily selected for drug production and has relatively high levels of THC. 
See also this edit , which seems to have given rise to many of the issues we have been discussing over the past couple of months.  
-- Chondrite 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement rephrased and attributed