Talk:Cannabis/Archive 4

message: The article seems to have gone somewhat out of focus, acquiring a lot of detail which should be in Cannabis (drug) or Cannabis (drug) cultivation (if it should be anywhere). Laurel Bush 09:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced content 

message: Shouldn't we also add  this? - Nearfar 11:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sort of reliable source citing a harm caused by cannabis? HighInBC 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychosis? 

message: Sunholm wrote:
Cannabis will grow almost anywhere that other herbs and plants will grow. Distribution is restricted or distorted, however, by attempts to limit, control or prevent its use as a source of drug material.
In Angeles National Park, Los Angeles there is a constant problem with growing of cannabis.''
Can anyone verify this?? --Whithulme 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution

message: is upside down. Heavy... Rentwa 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeds Photo

message: Hemp and marijuana are SAME PLANT.
Marijuana is simply the Spanish word, hemp is the English American word.
:From Cannabis:
:This is one of several related articles about cannabis. This article deals with the biology of the genus Cannabis. Cannabis (drug) is about marijuana, hashish and related drugs. Hemp is about cultivation for non-drug uses, and the non-drug uses themselves. See also Hemp (disambiguation).
:From Hemp:
:This is one of several related articles about cannabis. Cannabis deals with the biology of the genus  Cannabis. Cannabis (drug) is about marijuana, hashish and related drugs. Hemp is about cultivation and non-drug uses. See also Hemp (disambiguation). 
::Perhaps what you object to are the names? The amount of content precludes a merge in my opinion. The seperation seems to be working well. The topic is just too large for one article. HighInBC 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:SmokeyTheFatCat did. HighInBC 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cannabis and HighInBC, at least concerning the proposed merge. Neither topic is small enough to warrant mutual inclusion. Regarding issues of botany and semantics: it should be noted that broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and kohlrabi are all the same plant. These have all been bred for their various distinctive qualities, just like dogs and cattle. To respond to the argument "Marijuana's...a preparation": I suppose... Do we ever speak of a "gazpacho plant" to signify Solanum lycopersicum? (It's a tomato, dear people.) --Mashford 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems consensus is clear, I am going to remove the tags. If you disagree, just revert my removal of the tags. HighInBC 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: The article currently makes the following two statements:  
"However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types." 
Since fact tags were removed, it seems that these statements are based on one of the two references given at the end of the paragraph.  Because this is very unconventional and dubious use of the term "landrace," this interpretation requires verification.  Chondrite 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not responded because no new arguments are made, no new information is presented, and everything has been addressed at great length elsewhere in this talk page.  I have nothing new to add.  If new data, new arguments, or new requests for information/clarification are made, then I will comment appropriately. Chondrite 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you can't refute any of the statement made here or any of the questions put to you here then obviously you can't, won't or don't know. (Simonapro 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Verification Needed 

message: Add a subsection called Legal significance or something similar, with  
(see main article Legal issues of cannabis)
Cultivation, possession, and use of Cannabis as a drug is widely proscribed by law, which in some cases (US, Canada, othes?) specifically names Cannabis sativa L.  Some prosecuted under these laws attempted legal defense based on the claim that the material was derived from Cannabis species other than C. sativa, and therefore not prohibited by law. Few of these cases were successful. (Small 1975). This focused public attention on questions of classification, and lead some  to claim that political pressure has influenced the acceptance of a particular system of classification. This has been described as a ploy to evade prosecution and to undermine existing legislation. (Small 1975).
It is not brilliant prose but may be a starting point. 
Chondrite 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is in attributing and sourcing the argument, as indicated by the who and fact tags in the proposed revision. Chondrite 18:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can't verify whatever statement to be included in the article with WP:CITE then it doesn't meet wikipedia standards for verfication. (Simonapro 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that the only part of the revised statement that is unattributed and unsourced is exactly the part that you have been working so hard to keep in the article.  Chondrite 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working so hard to keep? Using WP:CITE style is good work. Anyway wikipolicy remains the same. If you can't verify whatever statement to be included in the article with WP:CITE then it doesn't meet wikipedia standards for verfication. (Simonapro 05:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone who bothers to read the statement and the source that is currently provided to support the statement will see that there is no resemblance whatsoever between the two.  Blatant misrepresentation of sources to support otherwise unattributed and unsourced POV statements is a serious breach of multiple wikipedia policies, and has been repeatedly explained. Since you're the one who reinserted the statement in the article after it was removed, you're obviously one who wants to keep the statement in the article.  Therefore the burden is on you to comply with WP:V by providing a WP:RS (regardless of style used in citing that source) that actually supports the statement.  -- Chondrite 21:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  The cited source does not support the statement. The statement remains unsourced POV, and I plan to remove it from the article.  Chondrite 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed NPOV version