Talk:Cannabis/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Number of Chemicals?

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)

Attempted deletion of citation problem

^ 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))

The citation in question was at the end of the following passage: "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. 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."

That's three sentences, and three claims. Fact tags were added to the first two claims, and subsequently reverted. This reversion suggested that the citations given at the end of the passage support the first two sentences. The citation in question does support the third sentence, but (by my reading) does not support the first two sentences.

I have copyedited the article, placing the third sentence from the above passage as the second sentence for the section, and reintroducing Small and Cronquist (1976) as a reference supporting the third claim of the original passage.

In the same edit, I reorganized the section so that the passages relating to the classification are grouped toghether, and material unrelated to the debate that was previously interspersed among these passages is now at the end of the section.

In the same edit, I changed the source verification tags back to fact tags on the other two sentences from the original disputed passage. It is not disputed that the classification of cannabis is a subject of debate. What is disputed here is the description of "sativa", "indica," and "ruderalis" as landraces, and "indica/sativa", "mostly indica", or "mostly sativa" as species or subspecies. What is needed to keep these claims in the article are verifiable and credible sources that state speficically that (a) sativa, indica, and ruderalis are landraces, (b) "indica/satva", "mostly indica", and "mostly sativa" are species or subspecies. Chondrite 07:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion of passages and new arrangement of article content unwarrented and without warning of change. Reverted back, added cites and fact tags with new sources. See WP:CIV. Your attitude is not helping. You may not front POV that only the DEA and government is right about Cannabis Species. L never examined Ruderalis! :) End of story (Simonapro 07:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

The current arrangement of the Species section is not logical. Points unrelated to the classification debate are randomly interspersed. No "mass deletion" occurred. Copyedit did not remove any material, merely rearranged it in a more logical fashion, and added back a citation in a context where it is no longer disputed. An unsourced POV claim was removed in a separate edit, but that is hardly "mass deletion". Chondrite 09:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You fail to support your claim that the arrangement is not logical. That is a POV and so any edit there deserves to be reverted back until you can prove that the statement is irrational or illogical. Yes you did remove another statement without a cite but you never asked by using a fact tag. What steps did you take to verify the statement with a citation? I believe, none. (Simonapro 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Many citations attest to scientific usuage for Indica and Ruderalis as Cannabis Species

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))

It is not disputed that multiple-species classifications of cannabis have been proposed. It has not been suggested that information pertaining to multiple-species classifications of Cannabis be removed from the article. It has not been suggested that information on the debate over classification be removed from the article. It has been proposed that the articles related to Cannabis be modified to reflect current scientific consensus regarding classification of cannabis, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Data has been provided that suggest that scientific consensus currently accepts a single-species classification. No data have been provided that suggest that current scientific consensus accepts a multiple-species classification. Based on the data presented in this talk page, it has been suggested that Wikipedia articles pertaining to Cannabis are currently in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Chondrite 09:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you arranging the article to your own POV? Hundreds if not thousands of people have helped put that article together that you are taking apart without discussion. WP:CIV. Please read it once. The citations contradict your POV that scientists don't use Indica or Ruderalis as species. You have been refuted but press on with arranging the article to your own POV. Simply put, the discussion above here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Many_citations_attest_to_scientific_usuage_for_Indica_and_Ruderalis_as_Cannabis_Species, has refuted your entire effort to front a single-species article. You have no answer for it so your last statement here is simply wrong. Sorry but even i agree that speciation of the L model is appropriate for some academic circles but to reject Indica and Ruderalis as species with discoveries more recent than L is just bad science as the cited sources on speciation problems and cannabis. (Simonapro 19:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

You are arguing against a straw man, while failing to address the actual dispute. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate personal POV. Seescientific consensus and WP:verifiability#undue weight. Chondrite 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is you have no mandate for a single-species only cannabis article because of sources that contradict this. (Simonapro 07:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Deleting WP:CITE because of POV is not wikipolicy. You must use the same style.

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))

This is certainly not Wikipedia policy, nor is it stated or implied as part of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding the style of citations.

It is logical fallacy, specifically it is an appeal to lack of proof of the negative. See Burden of proof (logical fallacy) and note that "Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven." This is also not wikipedia policy (although WP:Verify does address burden of evidence) but rather a logical requirement of valid debate.

See also WP:CITE#How to ask for citations. Chondrite 06:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

When a cite is given and it meets the criteria asked for in WP:CITE and WP:V then there is absolutely no reason, none, why any POV should be used to delete/remove/object to or stick dispute tags all over the article without having a valid WP:CITE to counterargue the citation. Your dispute tags are not valid until you show that the cite is wrong or you have a new cite you want to include. You have not done that. So you have dispute tags now until you delete the sections of the article you don't like? I strongly object to your abuse of mytalk page also. You are very uncivil to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonapro#Removal_of_dispute_tags_from_Cannabis It is wrong for you to continue to abuse mytalk page while leaving questions asked of you, open and unanswered for days. (Simonapro 10:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Removed redundant citation request (state case here)

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))

Dispute tags

All civil wikipedia users would like to see the dispute finish and the tags removed. If there is an error in the article (excluding the reproduction article we can deal with above. I am not adding dipute tags over that but have proposed changes there), especially the species section, then it should have been corrected by now. For this reason why are the tags there if the only agenda is the reproduction section and the proposed merger(s)? So without writing too much can those who object to the article content in some way express why, in as short as detail as possible, here pls. Thanks. (Simonapro 09:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

Oppose removal of dispute tags.

Disputed content (as described at the top of the preceding section) has not been revised.
NPOV: Adding the list of synonyms does not address the NPOV dispute and does not really help the article. The IPNI link should be sufficient for readers interested in that level of detail. What we need to do is accurately and neutrally describe the history of Cannabis taxonomy (including current research), describe what's currently most widely accepted, and describe the debate. If the consensus here is that Small & Cronquist is most widely accepted, then we need to modify the taxobox, rename the current species section, and add a new species section that lists Cannabis sativa L.
Other items: Have not been addressed. It is not really clear to me what information the disputed statements are attempting to convey, so I can't propose alternative forms.

Chondrite 16:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opposing the removal of dispute tags. They must be there for a reason and they are your idea. There are numerious citations about the history of cannabis taxonomy. Obviously that is not in dispute because it is cited. If you want to modify the taxobox then what do you propose? That is not what is being disputed over. You need to clarify exactly what it is that you think violates wikipolicy in some way and you need to be clear as to what exactly it is. (Simonapro 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

Chondite, can you link me to a revision of the page showing a state you prefer? I understand you object to the classification of the species as it stands, but it is unclear to me what you would prefer. HighInBC 14:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a draft of a proposed rewrite of the current species section at User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis. It is intended to address issues of POV, Original Resarch, and Verifiability in the current article, as well as to expand and clarify the subject through organization and contextualization. Please comment. Chondrite 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think if removing Indica and Ruderalis from the Taxonomy box might help to establish a better orientation for the L. Model. I also would like to see the L model being more readily open to the eyes in that box. Highlight it even. If you can box in the Green model and add a note to the Small model then I think we are on our way. However why not just keep the dispute tag. I would even do a special discussion list and archive what is here for the purpose of that dispute. (Simonapro 17:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Wikiproject

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)

We already have

and a portal, we're already halfway there.--201 07:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Isn't this article doomed to be controversial if it is edited by potheads? Rintrah 06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now, only one user is disputing article content. (Simonapro 06:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Ok. Good point. Rintrah 07:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rintrah, I don't see your line of reasoning. Potheads edit many articles, look at my contriubtion for a partial list. And the controversy surrounding an article is based on the article not the editors. I think as long as we stick to citations that things will be ok. The only disagreement I have seen here in a while is a technical one. HighInBC 14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do people understand the species article

I think here would be a good place to establish if the article is understood by any who have questions about it. Is it readable, wikiquality material and do you think it should be pruned? What are your views? Let's try to hear from the community on other issues. (Simonapro 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

It is very readable with the exception of The current Cannabis species model is classed as: and the list that follows. The list does not seem encyclopedic in that it seems to use some sort of scientific jargon and notation. Encyclopedias are to be read my laymen, and should explain things better.

Another thing which bothers me is the statment which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy one criterion for a single species type. Ok, so they all satisfy one criterion, are there other criteria, is one enough to mean anything significant? HighInBC 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is lots of scientific jargon. Diputes have caused much to surface in terms of citations becoming statements and quotes from stuff that is outside the scope of what most people need. I would prefer the layman orientated article with advanced material covered in the cited papers of links to specialized articles. The idea of mergers is simply the opposite of this. The criteria for speciation is in dispute. The most common criteria is that a species should not be able to produce viable offspring outside of its species breeding barrier. Unfortunately nature violates this man-made criterian so modern speciation is being examined on a genotypic level with geographical isolation playing a close important secondary role. Domestication and speciation at the genetic level has cause some grey areas to emerge. Because taxonomy is constantly developing it is very hard to say that one model should be considered superior to others. In fact if you look at the 2005 citations they are clearly stating a case for speciation in cannabis. Older papers (Over 20 years olders in most cases) may favor older models such a L. taxonomy classification even though L. did not see some strains of cannabis that we now know are genotypical different species. This is especially true of land-race Indica varieties. Hope this helps. (Simonapro 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Does the proposed revision at User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis clarify or confuse the nature of the debate? Does it enhance or detract from reader understanding of what is being debated? Does it remove important information that is present in the current version of the article? Chondrite 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry this section is not about your own personal article. Please let that remain the topic of another section. I have asked a question here and you have rudely changed the topic without regard for the original question. I see on your user page that you directly refused to undertake the proposed AMA Requests for Assistance at [1]. When you are removing sections without following the AMA case guidelines asked of you then that is considered uncivil. I think you need to read WP:CIV and answer why you decided against the AMA case advised that was offered to you. (Simonapro 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

It is relevant to this discussion because I am proposing a major revision to this article, and that is a draft version of the proposed revision. In response to the question: I think that the current species section of this article mentions a long-running debate, but does not clearly describe the who, what, when, where, or why of the debate, therefore does not help readers who are unfamiliar with the subject understand the subject. It also problems of WP:NPOV#Undue weight as described in other sections of this talk page. Chondrite 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

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)

Ortiz where are you

To talk click the plus sign and type then click save

Resolved issues

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)

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))

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)

I took this edit [2] 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)

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)

OK I archived off a bit over 100K of old discussion and issues that were marked as resolved. As of this edit, this talk page is still 63K. Chondrite 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, breathing room. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The single species taxonomy box violates WP:NPOV. (Simonapro 06:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

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)

Unsourced statement rephrased and attributed

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 [3], 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)

Problems with reproduction section

To start with:

Like all flowering plants, the reproductive structures of Cannabis are flowers. Cannabis has imperfect (or unisexual) flowers; the male (stamenate) reproductive structures are completely separate from the female (carpellate, sometimes called pistillate) structures.

How can this statement be correct if there exists hermaphrodite plants in Cannabis populations? Please explain (Simonapro 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Individuals that are commonly called hermaphrodites by cannabis cultivators are actually monoecious. See Hermaphrodite#In plants Cannabis flowers are imperfect: stamens and carpels do not occur within the same flower. In monoecious cannabis, stamenate (male) flowers are separate but may be interspersed within racemes (buds) of carpellate flowers. Chondrite 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the reproduction section to include more fact tags and also reverted to a previous citation you deleted on Sep 7th without a valid reason. Even if you do something new that replaces something old, removing citation and not using them is uncivil. (Simonapro 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Green is cited several other places in the article. The form of the statement that was reverted to is (a) misleading buecause it implicitly excludes subdioecy, which is also known to occur in some populations (b) logically out of place in the article.

The statements in the reproduction section that are currently tagged for cites are non-controversial and easily sourced. I will provide the requested citations within a few days. Chondrite 15:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Subdioecy isn't even covered by wikipedia. If the plant herms then it is a hermaphrodite. If a branch is free of hermies then it is still good to call the plant a hermaphrodite. The work done by others here is very good and you are deleting it. I will address your use of mytalk page in which you have critiqued my use of wikipolicy. Please look up and note already that I have called the wp:cite a style and not a policy, calling wp:nor the policy yet you have just said I did not and then tried to explain to me what I already knew. You are not even reading what the discussion says. (Simonapro 07:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Subdioecy is mentioned in Plant sexuality#Plant population. It is also known as trioecy. As previously noted, Cannabis plants having both male and female reproductive structures are more accurately described as monoecious individuals than as hermaphrodites, although the latter term is in widespread popular usage (and is in fact used incorrectly in the Plant sexuality article). Chondrite 07:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is terminology for Plant populations. Hermaphrodite means only hermaphrodite plants. This trait has breed true in some populations. Genetic principles of the creation of monoecious hemphttp://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3783050 is my source. Now it is your turn to show sources for Subdioecy cannabis plant populations. (Simonapro 11:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

The current lead sentence of the reproduction section: "Cannabis has two known forms of plant sexuality, dioecious and hermaphroditic or monoecious.[15] " It says there are two known forms, but mentions three. It does not state whether these terms apply to the individual or population level. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, there is a difference between moneocious and hermaphroditic, as described in Plant sexuality and Hermaphrodite#In plants. Giving them as synonyms in this article contradicts those articles. Clarke (1991) Marijuana botany and many others describe Cannabis as having unisexual flowers. Thus the correct term for an intersex individual is monoecious. Because hermaphrodite is in widespread usage, it is good to mention the term in the article but also good to point out that the terms are not synonymous and that monoecious is correct.

It is true that, at the individual level, cannabis exhibits two forms of plant sexuality: monoecy and dioecy. That is, an individual might might only male flowers, an individual might bear only female flowers, an indvidual mgiht bear both male and female flowers.

At the population level:

some populations are described as monoecious (all individuals have both male flowers and female flowers),
some populations are described as dioecious (all individuals bear only male flowers XOR only female flowers, no individuals bear both male and female flowers),
some populations are described as subdioecious: some individuals have only male flowers, some individuals have only female flowers, and some individuals have both male and female flowers. Subdioecy is very common among popular drug cultivars. This is common knowledge among cultivators and in fact may be the most frequently encountered mode in drug populations, but I have not included it in the reproduction section because I am looking for a good encyclopedic source.

In addition to subdioecy, some populations (e.g. commercially available 'feminized' forms of drug cultivars) have been described as gynodioecious (no individuals are male, some individuals are females, and some individuals are hermaphrodites), again common knowledge or at least widely discussed, but in need of an encyclopedic source.

Another mode that is sometimes discussed and should not be ruled out is cryptodioecy, in which both male and female flowers occur so that the individual appears monecious, but the flowers of one sex are not functional and so the plant is functionally dioecious. It is fairly common knowledge that this occurs in Cannabis but again needs an encyclopedic source before adding to the article.

This is all compounded by the ability to reverse sex (sexual lability) in Cannabis (as discussed by Hirata, Schaffner, and others), which in some cases can be described as sequuential monoecy, or the condition where an individual exhibits all flowers of one sex, followed by all flowers of another sex (alternates between dioecious forms).

So at the individual level cannabis exhibits two forms of plant sexuality, but at the population level, many more than two modes have been described. The distinction between the individual and population levels is important.

As with taxonomy, organisms don't usually like to squeeze into the neat little boxes we try to put them in. Saying that "two modes are known" implies some limits on both plants and human knowledge that probably don't exist. Many things are known to many people. Describing each mode that has been reported in an encyclopedic source is more open-ended.

Modes of sex determination and expression are very complex and the terminology can be confusing. Starting the reproduction section off by jumping right into it without explaining the basics first does not seem appropriate. It will be more helpful to the reader if we start with the bsaics first and then build up to the more advanced material.

Chondrite 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if wikipedia contradicts terms used from citations and sources as long as WP:CITE style is used. Since we have all the terms used in published cannabis related studies and articles then we can use them here. It is a POV to only front one source and you will have to use WP:CITE style here to show how it is used.
Yes you do understand that there are three modes and yes I suppose you can describe each and every mode using the known plant sexuality expressions but you will have to use WP:CITE style again in relations to Cannabis papers. (Simonapro 06:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

As requested many weeks ago at [4] and again here in this section, the brand-new Reproduction section, currently only edited by one user, needs to be dealt with as another issue. The user has decided to remove article content in relation to reproduction and remove citations after being asked not to remove citations. This means that this section is going to be disputed because of WP:CIV violations. Since the abuse has taken place the article has been moved to a new article with a new discussion. The article can be found at [[5]] and the discussion with disputes can be found at [[6]]. (Simonapro 06:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

This is a POV fork. The fork was not done correctly and violates NPOV and Wikipedia:Summary style. Article size guidelines indicate that readable prose < 20K should remain in the main article, and above 30K discussion should begin about how to split the article. Readable prose prior to this fork was ~18K and total text source including markup < 30K. Fork was performed without consensus or even discussion. Content pertains to the genus and current Cannabis article size permits full discussion. Expansion of article or section would logically spinout the section, with a suitable NPOV summary. It is wikiquette to place a split tag on the page to be split and allow discussion and consensus before making a unilateral move.

I will probably revert this unilateral POV fork and leave a redirect at the new page, unless consensus favors the split. Chondrite 21:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article at Saffron includes much detailed information in the main article. Featured article at Banksia brownii has reproduction information in the main article under the ecology section, with a detail page at Ecology of Banksia that has very detailed information about pollination. Cannabis is not saffron or banksia or Arabidopsis and this article this should inform about notable aspects of the genus. As with taxonomy, reproduction in cannabis is quite notable, having been described as one of the most complex systems in the plant kingdom. Chondrite 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you have decided to make the article an expert article with a brand new reproduction section that is in dispute and also having removed the dispute tags from your own section which is being worked on in another wikipedia article called Cannabis Reproduction I see you have removed dispute tags from the inclusion of them at Cannabis reproduction. Since you have no explaination for this I would expect sooner of later you will have to explain your actions to this community. You will also have to explain why you deleted the contents of that discussion. Where is the history and why was it hijacked without consensus for a merger. Explain your actions for the deletions. This could be seen as vandalism in volation of WP:CIV.(Simonapro 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi Simonapro, I would comment that WP:VAND defines vandalism in terms of attempts to damage the encyclopedia, and Chondrite's motivation was obviously to improve Wikipedia. Also, WP:CIV explains that civility violations are when an editor's comments are inappropriate, not for actions that constitute being WP:BOLD. Addhoc 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, I do not object to spinning out the Cannabis reproduction section to a separate article, but we need to incorporate an NPOV summary in the main Cannabis article to avoid creating a POV fork. As I had clearly stated my intention to revert the POV fork and no objection was voiced for several days, I went ahead and reverted it until such time as a suitable NPOV summary can be developed. Please add a split tag to the section if you think it should be split. Please feel free to add dispute tags to the section if content is disputed. Chondrite 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I also clarify that: (a) article at Cannabis reproduction was not deleted, it was converted to a redirect which is tagged to indicate that we expect to put something there once we get it sorted out (b) neither discussion nor edit histories were deleted and remain available at Talk:Cannabis reproduction and History, respectively (c) it is not "my own" section but rather a contribution to Wikipedia under GFDL that is freely available to be mercilessly edited by any member of the community who has an interest in doing so. Chondrite 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you are removing dispute tags that are critical of your [7] section. I object to your revision, change it back, because I removed it in the first place because of errors. It should simply not be in the cannabis article. Others have voiced concern over the complexity of the content. Knowing this that revert was not in good faith. Addhoc has suggested you are bold. I would suggest that you don't take suggestions. Still you are stuck with citing modern sources to support your claims to no-speciation in cannabis. The taxonomy section will be about speciation until it is disproved or verified as flawed. (Simonapro 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Dispute Tag violation WP:NOR

Chondrite has not and refuses to provide WP:CITE to factually establish objective verfiable data WP:V to establish a verfiable bases for his counterargument which he says is the reason for his dispute. Since questions where asked and not one WP:CITE style was used, as evident at [8], then the dispute tag is in violation of WP:NOR because the opinions violate WP:NOR. WP:NOR is wikipolicy. (Simonapro 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

For the avoidance of doubt, a dispute tag cannot be a violation of WP:NOR. Addhoc 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has said that wikipedias dispute tag violates WP:NOR. Misuse of tags occur when the reason / argument / statement for using the tag is conjecture or opinion without sources. Did you know that is policy on WP:NOR? I have quoted it already. No WP:CITE for an opinion = WP:NOR violation, equals misuse of tag. (Simonapro 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Your choice to ignore references that have been provided is not my NOR violation. Chondrite 07:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of the lack of citations from Chondrite who does not have a counterargument has concluded that only one phrase without citation should be removed. See end of [9]. After getting this information from Chondrite I removed the tag and the phrase. Since Chondrite did not argue any other citation and in some cases refused to answers questions I take it that the matter is concluded and that an RfC is not needed. However should the dispute tag appear again without reason or violating WP:NOR then further WP:NOR violations should be directly reported for RfC. (Simonapro 08:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

I would reiterate that a dispute tag cannot be a violation of WP:NOR. Addhoc 10:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then here is the WP:NOR violation for not providing sources for dispute tag arguments. It can be found on WP:NPOV When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. WP:NPOV. So if you can not support your view using WP:CITE from a prominent representative of the view then you are violating WP:NOR. Without WP:CITE you have no arguement. No arguement means that the use of dispute tags was done in error and should be immediately removed. (Simonapro 11:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Could I suggest you follow the advice of WP:NPOVD...

"In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

Addhoc 11:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That is WP:NPOVD and not WP:NOR which clearly states that The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors consensus. A consensus can not violate wikipolicy. Dispute tags are removed if they violate the terms of their use i.e - wikipolicy WP:NOR which clearly states When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. In order for the dispute tag to be valid it MUST either prove that WP:CITE is non-existant, in error or conflicts with policies such as WP:V. If it doesn't then as per WP:NOR a counterarguments needs to cite from prominent representative of the view or the dispute tag is being misused. As it is now. (Simonapro 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Your statement that a NPOV tag "MUST either prove that WP:CITE is non-existant, in error or conflicts with policies such as WP:V" is clearly mistaken. A NPOV tag refers to WP:NPOV instead of WP:V. I would suggest you carefully read these policies. Thanks, Addhoc 16:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is covered. Read WP:NOR. A dispute tag, as in this instance, has no mandate because the user who added it to the article does not have a valid WP:CITE to WP:V the reason behind the dispute tag, hence it is a POV, a personal subjective reason for having the tag and not a verifiable one. WP:NPOV is clear when it says... When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. NO FACTS, NO VALID OPINION, NO REASON FOR DISPUTE TAG. How clearer can it get. There is absolutely nothing about a consensus in this policy. I don't make the rules. (Simonapro 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Can I suggest that this line of argument is a red herring, as requested references have been provided [10], [11], and this has been repeatedly pointed out [12], [13], [14]? -- Chondrite 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try and just brush aside that you have avoided several questions these past few days by calling this new one a red herring, lol. Addhoc please explain to everyone in your own words using quotations from Chondrite as to..

Why is there a dispute tag?
What policy supports the claims made for using the dispute tag?
What parts of the article are violation wikipolicy?

These 3 questions are for Addhoc to answer because clearly Chondrite is unable to support the need for a dispute tag with verifiable objective data and wikipolicy. (Simonapro 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Ok, given there is a NPOV tag at the start of the species section...

Obviously, there is a NPOV dispute.
Again very obviously, WP:NPOV.
Finally and equally obvious, the species section.

Addhoc 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you follow. Reasons to establish these points have not been given. There are no reasons other than opinions that don't count. No objective data using WP:CITE style means no reason for dispute tag. There is no reason for it. It is like me sticking it on any section I please without stating why. The tag is not for that purpose. (Simonapro 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

The central issue concerns whether this article section conforms to WP:NPOV by accurately representing all major viewpoints with proportionate weight, as opposed to WP:NPOV#Undue weight regarding an individual POV. Addhoc 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Chondrite has not provided any proof that Undue weight is occuring as he is unable to point out where a statement is not supported with a citation in the species article. See below.(Simonapro 06:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC))