Talk:Cannabis/Archive 7

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Examining WP:NPOV#Undue weight and Dispute Tag WP:NPOV

Addhoc has been quoted as saying that 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. The criteria is:

  1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The viewpoints in the Species section of the main article meet the criteria. It was always about using WP:CITE style. Points that had lots of commonly accepted reference texts where given several citations. Until as such time as someone can elaborate on where WP:CITE style has not been used (and quotes the specific article passage here), which is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, I am removing the dispute tag. (Simonapro 06:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Reasons for dispute have been given and explained at length in Talk:Cannabis#NPOV dispute: Species. Please do not remove dispute tag from disputed section until there is a consensus that the dispute has been resolved. Thanks, Chondrite 06:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Chondrite says... The remainder of the section discusses multi-species proposals by Schultes and Anderson, and Hillig. This needs to be balanced by accurately representing the single-species side of the debate. Some additional history of the debate would also be useful as the first statement says that the debate goes back more than 200 years, but only describes the past 40 years.
  • The article says... All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy one criterion for a single species type called (Cannabis sativa L.)[2] . The WP:CITE has been given for a single species argument. There is no violation of the criteria above in WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
  • It also has the current Cannabis species model which describes the history of taxonomy. Again the article wins as WP:NPOV#Undue weight has not been violated. There is no cause here for a dispute tag.
  1. Chondrite says... Article presents the recent work of Hillig as if he were a recognized authority in the field, and presents Hillig's conclusions as if they were the last word in the debate, widely accepted by experts in the field. In fact at the time of publication of the cited source, Hillig was a postgraduate student, and although his results have been discussed by others in the peer-reiviewed literature, they do not seems to have been widely accepted yet. Appropriate weight needs to be given.
  • That is an unsubstantiated opinion of yours. Hillig's citation has been varified WP:V by the body that published his findings and by the cited bodies of works that have also cited Hillg in reference to commonly accepted reference texts. For example see Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) United States Department of Agriculture, which uses Hillig's speciation model. Hillig work meets the criteria in WP:V and also WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
  • Also see WP:BETTER at [1]. It is a violation of wikipolicy Honorifics, Do not use honorifics or titles such as Mr, Ms, Rev, Doctor, etc. This is because a citation is supposed to meet the criteria in WP:V whereby Hillig was published and cited by reliables sources. This isn't about Hillig's honorifics and it is a violation to state them. There is no reason here for a dispute tag.
  1. Chondrite says... The article takes a strong POV stance that does not accurately represent Hillig, who stated in his dissertation that his research up until that time had supported recognition of two species (but not three), and that further research was needed to sustantiate his proposed taxonomic treatment.
  • Hillig is quoted verbatim in the article and in full without editing or manipulation. You recently took a quote from Hillig out of context, published before his genetic research, to claim that Hillig had not proposed a three species model. Let us be clear here and quote Hillig A polytypic concept of Cannabis was proposed, which recognizes three species, C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis, and seven putative taxa.. Your position is contradicted by Hillig.
  • You are also refuted by the paper Schultes, R. E., et. al. 1974. Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets 23: 337–367. which proposed the 3 species model BEFORE Small, E., and A. Cronquist. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25: 405–435. There is no reason here for a dispute tag.
  1. Chondrite says... This is not part of the species section but it is closely related. The taxobox lists 3 species, implying that this classification is widely accepted. This is undue weight because the monotypic classification is more widely accepted.
  • Since the user has clearly admitted that this is not part of the species section then it has nothing to do with the current dispute tag that this section deals with. There is no reason here for a dispute tag. As a note the taxobox was the result of a consensus that the 3 species model was correct which is why the article references the 3 articles on the different species. There is no reason here for a dispute tag.
I feel strongly that the need for a dispute tag has been refuted here and in countless other places. Chondrite has placed the tag back in the section again. I will remove it as soon as I can. (Simonapro 07:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
Again, 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 10:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have demonstrated that there is no viable reason for the tag in my previous statement with reference to both wikipolicy and citations along with article content and statements made here. I have demonstrated this well enough to say that it appears that wikipolicy should be upheld above consensus to do something that has no policy mandate. (Simonapro 10:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
For the avoidance of doubt, you haven't demonstrated anything. However, you have indicated your opinions. Clearly, there isn't yet a consensus and in this context, the NPOV tag should not be removed. Addhoc 11:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Then the person who added the dispute tag is called to clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why according to WP:NPOVD which specifies that the WP:NPOV violation needs to be cited and any material that is not cited in the disputed content as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight or else the dispute tag is invalid. (Simonapro 11:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
No, you don't appear to understand, according to WP:NPOVD "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Addhoc 13:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe that this is going to be resolved with anything less than Chondrite's proposal to create a whole new article that he has edited by himself? I think not. (Simonapro 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
The tags are valid unless you can dispell the concerns raised. If those concerns cannot be dispelled, then the tags can be removed after the article addresses the concerns. I do not know enough about the subject to determine which case this is, which is why the tags should remain until a determination can be made. Perhaps you can discuss this matter on Chondrite's talk page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


In response to Simonapro's comments of 07:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC). Thank you for your comments. Could I suggest that you reformat them to renumber your enumerated points, and indent your bulleted points one more level? That would make them easier to read.
1. "The current Cannabis species model" is not a discussion, but a list. I agree that the single species position is partially represented in the interfertility statement. Thanks for pointing it out, I previously overlooked this and have now added it to the explanation of #1. Interfertility is not the only argument that has been advanced in favor of monotypic classifications, and some space needs to be given to the other arguments. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. The article currently attributes polytypic proposals (separate paragraphs identifying Schultes et al. and Hillig and describing the substance of their proposals) but does not do so for the single-species side of the debate. How the single-species concept became dominant during the period between Lamarck and Schultes is notably absent. Discussion of Small and Cronquist, currenty the most widely accepted classification, is conspicuosly absent. E. P. M. de Meijer (with various coathors) has been doing genetic analysis of Cannabis for more than 10 years with numerous publications on the subject, and advocates a monotypic classification.
2. issue 2 is resolved
3. I am unable to find any mention of Hillig at GRIN, but every taxon listed within the genus does give Small and Cronquist (1996) as a reference.
  • WP:Better is a style guideline rather than a policy, and explicitly "contains no rules." "Postgraduate student" is a description rather than an honorific. Other prominent participants in the debate, along with some of the databases cited, are the subjects of Wikipedia articles that provide interested readers with more information: Schultes, Cronquist, GRIN, ITIS, BMJ. If there was a biographical article about Karl Hillig it would very likely include the information he received his doctorate from Indiana University in 2005 and that he has (so far) published two or three papers in scientific journals (I am not suggesting that such an article be created). Any reader who follows up on Hillig's work will quickly discover these facts. See also Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Expertise
4. Hillig's paper with Mahlberg [2] was submitted in 2003 and published in 2004. The Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution paper cited in the article was submitted in 2003 and published in March 2005, [3]. Hillig's dissertation was published in August 2005. The dissertation is more recent, and a far more complete description of Hillig's total body of work then the previous publications.
  • In the first paper he concludes that C. sativa and C. indica are supported but not C. ruderalis. In the 2005 paper, he says that three species are supported. In his 2005 dissertation he says that the some data support recognition of two species but not three, and that further research is required.
  • It is not clear how excluding comments by Hillig about his own work serves to inform the readers of the article. See also Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression
  • I am not sure how Schultes is related to this point.
5. Although not part of the Species section, the taxobox provides a summary of that section and is also undue weight. Section dispute seems more appropriate to me, but the dispute tag can be changed from POV-section to POV if that seems more appropriate.
I am not proposing creation of a new article. I am attempting to collaborate for the improvement of this article. To that end, I have asked you (and anyone else who's interested) to comment on and/or markup a draft of a proposed revision.
-- Chondrite 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1.
  • “The current Cannabis species model” does not have to be a discussion. The list showing the chronological ordering of proposed cannabis species and cannabis subspecies is unbiased and presented as is without POV. It contains the single species proposals and the multi species proposals. Again there is no POV here. It is the historical record. It is up to the reader to progress and draw their own conclusions.
  • The article meets dictionary standards. The article reads… All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy one criterion for a single species type. The dictionary says that a species is A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. The article statement is valid and correct. If you want to expand on what a species is then that is best done on the species article so experts can check your interpretations.
  • You say… How the single-species concept became dominant during the period between Lamarck and Schultes is notably absent. This is absolutely incorrect and shows that you do not under the current Cannabis species model or much about speciation proposals in cannabis taxonomy. Jean Lamarck is responsible for immediately contradicting Carolus Linnaeus’s taxonomy of cannabis. We then have Vavilov and Janisch.
  • Your next statement is not verified with citations Discussion of Small and Cronquist, currenty the most widely accepted classification[citation needed], is conspicuosly absent. E. P. M. de Meijer (with various coathors) has been doing genetic analysis of Cannabis for more than 10 years with numerous publications on the subject, and advocates a monotypic classification[citation needed].
2.
  • issue 2 is resolved
3.The GRIN government reference of Hillig’s work is found at [4].
  • Postgraduating to what position? This is not what WP:V is about. WP:V is about verifying research with reputable sources, as in our case, science publications. This isn’t a biography about Hillig. It is about the work he did through a reputable body that published his findings which are scientifically verifiable and used by the likes of GRIN.
4.
  • Some of the articles you are referencing here are not used in the article. What paper did you get the quote However, additional studies of putative wild populations are needed to further substantiate the proposed taxonomic treatment from. You have avoided putting a link here so we can read it. At this point in time Hillig proposes 3 species, not 2, as you suggested.
5.
  • IT IS NOT PART OF THE SPECIES SECTION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISPUTE TAG IN THE SPECIES SECTION. So there is no 5th point! That taxobox was created because of census as to its layout and content even before I came here.
Dispute tags look horrible on the article. If I was troll I would stick them up everywhere on articles just to upset the community. (Simonapro 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC))


1. The list was a (misattributed) copyvio that has been removed. Using an original-work version of the list is not ideal, as pointed out by HighInBC (above).
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This section purports to describe a long-running debate among plant scientists regarding whether the genus comprises one or more species. The article at Species gives multiple definitions of the term. Interfertility satisfies one of those definitions (Biological/isolation). If that were the only definition then there would be no basis to include any multi-species proposals in this article at all. Multi-species arguments represented in the article have been advanced using morphological and phylogenetic concepts of species. Proponents of the single-species interpretation have spent quite a bit of time on morphology and phylogeny as well. The article describes the morphological and phylogenetic arguments of some multi-species advocates, but fails to represent morphological and phylogenetic arguments of single-species advocates, and is therefore Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression
  • As of 1950 multiple species were not widely recognized. [5] (currently ref 18). Obviously Schultes would not be writing about "taxonomic neglect" in 1972 and proposing a multipe-species model after Lamarck if it were already widely accepted that Cannabis comprised multiple species as described by Lamarck. Obviously something happened in the 200 years between Lamarck and Schultes. Vavilov (and to a lesser extent Janischesvky) represent some of the splitters during that period, but who represents the lumpers? For that matter there's not even any discussion of Linnaeus or Lamarck to establish the beginning of the debate. If we are going to describe the history of this debate than we can do a much better job.
  • References supporting the first point are given in the proposed revision, as has been (as has been repeatedly pointed out). For the second point, see Etienne P. M. de Meijer, Manuela Bagatta, Andrea Carboni, Paola Crucitti, V. M. Cristiana Moliterni, Paolo Ranalli, and Giuseppe Mandolino (2003) "The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L." Genetics, 163(1): 335-346
3. Thank you for providing the link to GRIN. Although GRIN does acknowledge Hillig, it still does not accept multiple species, as shown at [6] and does explicitly accept Small and Cronquist.
4. Hillig was studying in pursuit of his doctorate. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Expertise. Why do you object to including this information?
  • References under discussion are provided in context with the statements they support at User:Chondrite/Draft of Cannabis/Species
  • Hillig does propose a 3-species view of the genus, but acccording to his own words in his most recently published material on the subject, this has not been entirely supported by his results to date and further research is required to substantiate the proposed classification. Failing to include this information is Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression
5. The taxobox is a part of the NPOV dispute. If you feel strongly that this requires the POV-section tag to be changed to a POV tag, I have no objection.
-- Chondrite 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Cannabis (drug)#Wild Cannabis

Cannabis (drug) is a good article that focuses on aspects of Cannabis as a drug. It currently has as it's first section Wild Cannabis, which covers an aspect of geographic distribution that is unrelated to the rest of the content in the Cannabis (drug) article and is better addressed in the article about the genus. I proposed that the section be merged into Cannabis as part of a Geographical Distribution section (to be created). -- Chondrite 19:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The content certainly fits better here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, also support. Addhoc 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely, it has nothing to do with its use as a drug. ReverendG 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK thank you for your comments. Merge completed. -- Chondrite 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

wild cannabis

I deleted the wild cannabis because it doesnt not cite any sources. The only source thats there is the one which does not even pertain to wild cannabis, but rather to, description of a species of cannabis.Cranberryjuice10 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to restore it and try to source it, unless you think it is utter nonsense. --Guinnog 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Guinnog: this isn't a biography of a living person, so unreferenced materials don't necessarily require immediate deletion. I suggest restoring this section, adding citation needed tags, and filling in the references. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know about the citation, I searched on google and other search engines with many queries such as "wild marijuana", and "wild cannabis", but to no avail. There arent any sources which document wild marijuana, and the few that are, are sites which promote marijuana use. :/ Cranberryjuice10 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Landrace is probably what you want. Cannabis has a section on it. (Simonapro 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

That's odd, I'm almost positive I found a source for all those locations a long time ago, yet it's not there now. I'll look around. In the future, by the way, you could add {{fact}} tags or something, you don't need to delete the whole section. --Rory096 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there was no source, ever for all the places. I cant find anything on wild cannabis on internet, so i dont know--Cranberryjuice10 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I need to say it again. Landrace is probably what you want. Cannabis has a section on it. Look up landrace cannabis on the internet (Simonapro 07:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

I removed the notion that canabis grows wild in the Virgin Islands. As a resident I assure you it doesn't as it is in high demand and growers get arrested all the time. We are hardly a hash making community. (Adoos 08:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

It is not really clear why this section is in this article, it seems out of place. It would be more appropriate at Cannabis, Cannabis (drug) cultivation and/or Hemp. It should also be pointed out that the claim in this section that "Speciation has occured in Cannabis" is currently disputed at Cannabis. There seems to be consensus that Wikipedia articles should not cite wikis (including other Wikipedia articles) as sources because wikis can be edited by anyone and are therefore not reliable: Proposed Policy; Attribution FAQ; Current (disputed) guideline. The other source given in this section may not be a reliable source.
Truly "wild Cannabis" occurs throughout Eurasia. Cannabis is introduced plant everywhere else. Outside of Eurasia, populations that have escaped cultivation and naturalized are commonly referred to as escaped, feral, or weedy. -- Chondrite 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All strains of Cannabis can interbreed,,, source

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, which means that all known Cannabis plants satisfy one criterion for a single species type called Cannabis sativa L. or the secondary source reference that was used to make this statement. I see no reason why the reference has been removed but the statement left or then wrongly attributed to another source. There is nothing wrong with it and I think the person deleting it should consider that they argued for half a discussion board before finally noticing it. (Simonapro 07:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

!Vote on taxobox

There is a dispute about the TAXOBOX that should be resolved with a vote.

Cannabis
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae
Division:
Magnoliophyta
Class:
Magnoliopsida
Order:
Rosales
Family:
Cannabaceae
Genus:
Cannabis

Species

Cannabis sativa L

I vote for the first model
(sign your name here for this model please)


Cannabis
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae
Division:
Magnoliophyta
Class:
Magnoliopsida
Order:
Rosales
Family:
Cannabaceae
Genus:
Cannabis

Species

Cannabis indica
Cannabis ruderalis
Cannabis sativa

I vote for the second model
(sign your name here for this model please)
  1. (Simonapro) - "The second model purports suggested species for NPOV."


Comments

  • Umm, Simonapro, we don't vote here we discuss. While we do perform polls alot like the one you are setting up, when people cast their view they don't just sign their names. You need to put an arguement beside your vote or it will not mean anything when it comes time to consensus. Each opinion is taken by the value of it;'s arguements, no arguements means no value. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • [7]AMA case in relation to speciation suggested strawpoll.
  • Avoiding POV arguements means presenting the monospecies, the first model, or an all-inclusive model, the second model, to see if a poll can proposes a consensus taxonomy box to use. (Simonapro 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
  • The first model is the proposed Taxobox currently featured in the article. The second model is the older model that had reached consensus.
  • The new model suggests that the subspecies C. indica and C. ruderalis are actually the species C. sativa. The previous model suggested that the genus C. sativa L. had three possible species, C. indica, C.ruderalis and C. sativa.
Please note the proposed first model suggests that only one species of cannabis exists, C. sativa L.
  • 1 month for vote results starting from -> (Simonapro 07:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Polling is a means to observe the consensus, not decide it. Votes are not binding. Considering there are only three people having this discussion right now, and that we seem to be working fine in sentence format, I prefer to talk this out instead of voting. Now, what exactly is your complaint about the well researched and cited changes that have been made? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In brief it excludes models proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, D. E Janischevsky, Richard E. Schultes, and Karl W. Hillig.
  • Leave it run for a month to see. This was asked of previous users for other matters. I am trying it now. (Simonapro 14:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
You can leave it running all the time you like. But remember it is not binding, nor is it a replacement for disucssion.
Now, in regards to the names you say are excluded, they are mentioned in the article. What more, more modern science has come to different conclusions. I beleive the taxobox is meant to represent the current state of science.
If you think the more modern science is less accurate than the old science, then find peer reviews of the claim's you disagree with. Citation will take you much further than persistence, or voting. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In this case it's a matter of older science (Small and Cronquist 1976) remaining more widely accepted than some newer science (Hillig 2004). Even Hillig says more work is needed to substantiate his proposal. And Hillig is not alone in applying genetic analysis to the question. Meijer et al. have been using techniques similar to thoseof Hillig, but coming to the opposite conclusion. I will add a short paragraph to the article with a synopsis of the recent work of Meijer and others to balance the discussion by accurately conveying that some recent research supports Small & Cronquist, and some does not.
Given that the species entry in the taxobox can only represent one of the views, it should represent the view that is most widely accepted by experts in the field. What is needed to change the taxobox back to a multi-species view is evidence that most experts in the field accept the multi-species view. After 10 weeks of active discussion, no evidence has been provided suggesting that the multi-species view is widely accepted, whereas numerous sources indicate that the single-species view (particularly Small and Cronquist) is widely accepted.
Although only three editors are participating in the discussion at the moment, editor Salix alba commented that "Cannabis sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronquist and Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa, seem to be the most accepted names" (archive 5)
-- Chondrite 16:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The new model, the first monospecial model excludes the species proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, D. E Janischevsky, Richard E. Schultes, and Karl W. Hillig who all propose polyspecies cannabis taxonomy which contradicts the current taxonomy box.(Simonapro 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC))


Simonapro, do you have any evidence that the multi-species view is more widely accepted in the scientific community? Those people are mentioned in the article and given due weight, why do you think their views should be considered the current ones? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See above. (Simonapro 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
Um, I have read the page, I see a link to a discussion on a talk page, but where are the external links to reliable sources supporting your opinion? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and D. E Janischevsky in Small, Ernest (1975). American law and the species problem in Cannabis: Science and semantics.
  • Richard E. Schultes in Schultes, R. E., and A. Hofmann. 1980. Botany and Chemistry of Hallucinogens. C. C. Thomas, Springfield, IL., pp. 82–116.
  • Karl W. Hillig in 2005. Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 161-180.
All thse sources clearly conclude speciation of cannabis into at least two species if not three. (Simonapro 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
None of the sources given indicate that multi-species classifications are currently widely accepted among experts in the field.
Could you please stop removing MMPND as a reference? It is independent from GRIN and although it does cite GRIN as one reference, it also cites many other references that are unrelated to GRIN, and is clearly not redundant. Thanks. Chondrite 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • They are all polyspecies sources that are cited in the article and by other citations in the article including other related species articles. Even the MMPND reference cites the polyspecies taxonomy proposals. Even if revisions and counter-revisions are presented the taxonomy box does not present a NPOV of these revisions and proposes only a monospecies taxonomy.
  • Please remove the MMPND citation unless you can find an included reference on the topic of speciation other than the USDA GRIN database that is already covered. If these other citation's references are so important why are they not included in the article?
  1. EURODICAUTOM 1999, Multilingual Terminological Database, European Commission Translation Service. (12 languages of the European Community). < http://eurodic.echo.lu/cgi-bin/edicbin/EuroDicWWW.pl >
  2. Herklots G.A.C. 1972, Vegetables in South East Asia. George Allen & Unwin Ltd. London (or Hafner Press in New York). (Assamese-romanised, Burmese-romanised, Cantonese - traditional characters + romanization, English, Latin, Tamil-romanised).
  3. Mabberley D.J. 1997, The Plant-Book : a Portable Dictionary of the Vascular Plants, 2d Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
  4. OK but already cited - USDA, ARS, 2000, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database] National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: < http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxdump.pl?cannabis > (27 March 2000).
  5. von H. Haeupler & T. Muer, 2000, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Floraweb - DatenService. < http://www.floraweb.de/datenservice/namenseingabe.html >.
  6. Wiersema J. H. & León B. 1999, World Economic Plants : a Standard Reference. CRC Press LLC.
  7. Xie Zongwa & Yu Youqin (Editors), 1996, Materia Medica, Chinese Terminology, Vol. 1, Renminweisheng Publishing House Beijing, China. (Simonapro 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC))


For clarification: Small, Ernest (1975). "American law and the species problem in Cannabis: Science and semantics." does not accept any of the multi-species models that had been proposed, and in fact explicitly argues against them.
A couple of relevant points from WP:NPOV
  • Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
  • Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Have a look at the featured article at Banksia brownii. Taxonomy of Banksia is contentious and the most recently proposed classification has not been widely accepted.
I am not really sure what you're saying with regard to the MMPND. If you have questions about the sources cited there, I suggest that you contact the University of Melbourne. If you have some reason for removing the reference from the article based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, then let's talk about it.
--Chondrite 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This is easy to see.
  • The new taxobox is supported by (1)Ernest Small & Cronquist.
  • The old taxobox is supported by (1)Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, (2)D. E Janischevsky, (3)Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, (3)Richard E. Schultes and Loran Anderson and (4)Karl W. Hillig.
The taxobox currently only supports one species proposal. It claims that C. Indica is actually Cannabis sativa L. subsp.indica (Lam.) to C. indica.
There is absolutely no mandate on species as to which view correctly adheres to species classification.
  • The MMPND reference contains that same source that has already been referenced. Since you said that other references in the MMPND are important you have been called to explain which ones and why as they are listed above. I am removing it until you answer that question which has been asked 3 times now without answer from you.
  • The reference - Etienne P. M. de Meijer, Manuela Bagatta, Andrea Carboni, Paola Crucitti, V. M. Cristiana Moliterni, Paolo Ranalli, and Giuseppe Mandolino (2003). "The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.". Genetics 163 (1): 335-346. Retrieved on 2005-10-24 - does not say that cannabis has not speciated or supports a single species orientation. Ref removed. (Simonapro 09:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
Simonpro, we know all of this. Please present new evidence if you want to change our minds instead of repeating yourself. Science is not a matter of adding up the sums of the different opinions. As for the MMPND reference, why are you so against it? Has it occured to you that the improvement you are trying to make does not justify the disruption you are causing? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Simonapro, this has gotten ridiculous. I am not going to edit war with you. Please do not remove pertinent and properly sourced material from the article without prior discussion.
  • Discussion of the taxobox is not relevent unless it directly addresses widely accepted or most experts.
  • MMPND cites GRIN (among other sources), and GRIN cites MMPND (among other sources). They are independent. The MMPND is maintained by the University of Melbourne and the GRIN is maintained by an agency of the USDA. It is clearly not redundant to use both. You obviously thought MMPND was a good enough source when you copied the list of Cannabis synonyms from that site and put it into this article verbatim (but with an incorrect citation), so I don't know what the problem could be now.
  • Actually reading sources would be helpful: "Today, the concept of Cannabis as a monotypic genus is widely accepted; taxonomical, morphological, and biometrical studies confirm the continuity of its gene pool despite the extremely high variation found within and between populations (SMALL et al. 1976 ; DE MEIJER and KEIZER 1996 ). In the last few years, the existence of just a single species within the genus has been confirmed by molecular marker studies that show a limited segregation of the different groups within the genus Cannabis and an extremely high degree of polymorphism, estimated to be of the same magnitude within and between populations (FAETI et al. 1996 ; FORAPANI et al. 2001 )."
  • The fact that Ernest Small was given an award by the American Association of Plant Taxonomists for his work with Cannabis is very relevant to the paragraph in this article about his work on Cannabis taxonomy.
-- Chondrite 15:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I will leave the sources alone as long as you don't change them either but the MMPND uses GRIN's USDA reference. There is only one reference database are three citations using it. That is why it is redundant to give more than one. (Simonapro 21:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
I appreciate your clearing that up, I was almost started to think you were opposing the citations based on the fact that they contradicted your opinion. Thankfully, I restrained myself. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To be perfectly clear, GRIN, MMPND, ITIS, and USDA Plants are all different databases that in fact say slightly different things about Cannabis, but which all agree that it is a monotypic genus. They may all cite each other, but that does not mean that they are the same database. Citing them all provides multiple independent corroboration, and MMPND is important in this regard as a source maintained by a respected academic institution that is not affiliated with the USDA.
  • In the context of the taxonomy section I do not think that Green qualifies as a WP:RS: the guideline says that popular works should not be used as references in a scientific context. As a matter of style, it seems that a reference to an online and easily verified work by a recognized expert in the field is preferable to a reference to an offline popular work by an author of undetermined credentials. Green certainly would be an appropriate source to use in the Popular Usage subsection, which needs to be expanded. -- Chondrite 18:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the taxobox on right which reflects the most common current clasification.

Cannabis
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae
Division:
Magnoliophyta
Class:
Magnoliopsida
Order:
Rosales
Family:
Cannabaceae
Genus:
Cannabis

Species/Sub-species

Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativa subsp. indica
Cannabis sativa subsp. ruderalis

We could also present the different classifications as a table, indicating the references for the different names. It could be interesting as it shows how the clasification has changed with time.

Botanical Name Author Rank References
Cannabis sativa L. Species UDSA
Cannabis indica species
Cannabis sativa ssp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronq. subspecies UDSA
Cannabis sativa ssp. sativa subspecies UDSA
Cannabis sativa ssp. sativa var. sativa variety UDSA
Cannabis sativa ssp. sativa var. spontanea Vavilov variety UDSA

--Salix alba (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, include all the subspecies, but explicitly label them as subspecies. What do you think Chondrite and Simonapro? I think it makes good sense. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of presenting the infraspecific taxa in the taxobox. Regarding what to put there, Cannabis ruderalis seems to be in fairly widespread popular use (50,600 Google hits), but none of the sources we have discussed accept it at either the species or subspecies rank, and disagree (even among the USDA-affiliated sites) about what to call it. GRIN lumps it into C. sativa subsp. sativa and ITIS and Plants (the latter finally back online) recognize it as a variety after Vavilov. MMPND gives several synonyms, but does not indicate any approved name or accepted synonyms.
I also like the tabular presentation very much, the prose (which is still just a thumbnail sketch in need of further expansion) is a bit of a quagmire.
-- Chondrite 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem I have is obviously in that the taxobox contradicts (1)Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, (2)D. E Janischevsky, (3)Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, (3)Richard E. Schultes and Loran Anderson and (4)Karl W. Hillig.
  • In | Definitions of species obviously post-evolution and more so, post-genetic research are extremely important and the taxobox should reflect post-genetic approval for speciation.
  • Since it is obvious that GRIN, ITIS and MMPND are all using USDA's taxonomy classification for cannabis (and have cited as such) then there is one sources and not several.
  • Green is not a self-published source as most cultivation manuals are. There are also several primary references on here already. Green's two books are the most scientific of the cultivation manuals on the market. They summarize one or more primary or secondary sources. Since Green is actually cited as agreeing with you I don't see what the problem is. As a secondary science source is meets WP:V and WP:RS.
  • The idea that primary web sites are a good source is a bad idea and rejected by WP:RS.
  • For Ruderalis - Monospecies = C. sativa L. subsp. spontanea Serebr. or C. sativa L. f. ruderalis (Janisch.)- Polyspecies = C. Ruderalis.
  • As you can see from your last statement there is no classification for any species outside of C. sativa L. Everything is now lumped into one species type which only agrees with 2 of the 6 authorities. In short 2/6 for monospecies and 4/6 for polyspecies. (Simonapro 07:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Once again: in the context of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, the view that Cannabis comprises a single species is a majority view; the view that the genus comprises multiple species, having multiple prominent adherents, is a significant minority view. Using the minority POV in the taxobox would be giving the minority POV undue weight by prominence of placement. In order to represent the multi-species view in the taxobox, it is necessary first to establish that it is a majority POV, which can be accomplished by providing evidence that it is the view that is most widely accepted among experts in the field.
  • Cannabis#Ongong Research describes recent genetic analyses and indicates that some research supports a single-species view, while other research supports a multi-species view.
  • ITIS and Plants provide the same classification for Cannabis, and cite the same expert. So they might be considered redundant. ITIS/Plants, GRIN, and MMPND all provide different classifications for Cannabis, and are clearly not "one source."
  • Nobody said that Greg Green was self-published. Green's books are popular (vs. scholarly) works and according to WP:RS should not be used as a sources in articles about science. Whether Green's books are suitable as reliable sources for subjects other than science may be questionable, as the publisher states, "Green Candy Press actively scours the cultural fringe for new writers, illustrators, photographers and other deviants."[8]. What are Green's credentials? Does he hold an advanced degree? Has he published anything related to Cannabis in the peer-reviewed literature? Has his work been recognzed, reviewed, or cited in the scientific literature? What recognized experts describe his work as the "most scientific" of the cultivation guides?
  • None of the online databases currently cited by the article are "primary," nor are they "self-published."
  • The species section currently indicates accepted classifications of putative species C. ruderalis according to the sources we are using.
  • You neglected to mention Paul C. Mahlberg and W.A. Emboden, who are also cited by the article and who support a multi-species view. But this article does not attempt to cite or represent the opinions of every single expert who has ever commented on the single-species vs. multiple-species debate. This approach is not valid, as HighInBC pointed out: "Science is not a matter of adding up the sums of the different opinions."
-- Chondrite 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no majority view for single species cannabis. Cannabis Indica or Cannabis Sativa L. subsp. Indica have both been given equal usage by peer reviewed academic scientific papers. I quote WP:NOV ‘’If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.’’ Since the Taxobox has been recently edited to reflect the weight of single species views then that would be violating WP:NPOV#Undue weight, as it probably is.
  • Even though Cannabis#Ongong Research may describe recent genetic analyses where is the polyspecies view reflected in the Taxobox? It isn’t.
  • It is obvious that all the taxonomy databases cited are using the same referenced which is USDA’s NRCS giving weight to the primary sources of E. Small & Cronq.
  • Greg Green is not in question. WP:V doesn’t ask for credentials of authors or even scientific papers. Since Green’s work isn’t being disputed (and you obviously haven’t disputed it) there is no reason to remove the reference.
  • It is ridiculous to say that none of the articles are primary. E.Small & Cronq would be deemed one big NOR violation (excluding references) if it was published as an article here. All of the Taxonomy contributors in the charts are primary sources based on their discoveries and formal writings. I am not saying they should not be included but in the larger picture WP:NPOV#Undue weight is not being violated if the article balances the Taxobox.
  • It is either a species or is it not. You say putative species “C. ruderalis” but that taxonomy is monospecies.
  • The article does actually cover most of what you propose it should not in that last statement so I don’t know why you think it should not have been done. Most importantly is the issue of how the species article treats your position and I am afraid there is no mandate to explain why you think the E.Small & Cronq’s model is the only viable solution for the Taxobox. Also | Definitions of species has yet to be settled. (Simonapro 07:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Can you identify any sources in support of your first point?
  • To avoid any misconceptions, your fifth point addresses a straw man. My comment was quite explicilty about online databases currently cited, not about journal articles cited.
  • I started a new section for evaluation of sources and suggest that discussion of the various online databases and Greg Green be continued there, so that this section can regain focus on what to put in the species portion of the taxobox.
  • It may be of interest that the Britannica online article about the genus states that it "comprises a single species" referring to C. sativa. Infraspecific taxa are not described in the genus or species articles. The only mention of C. sativa subsp. indica occurs in the article on the "Distribution and abundance" of Urticales. No authorities are given for the binomial or trinomials, nor are references provided, but the subspecies descriptions apparently follow Small and Cronquist (1976).
--Chondrite 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you are being refuted right now below. AJB published polyspecies models on cannabis not single species. (Simonapro 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
Could I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be to provide a reliable secondary source that unambiguously supports the proposition that Cannabis is currently widely regarded as a polytypic genus? -- Chondrite 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of sources

Online taxonomy databases

The article currently cites 4 online taxonomy databases. It has been suggested that: (a) the classifications given for Cannabis by these sites are all based on one common source (USDA ARS), (b) that is the only source represented, and (c) the citations are redundant.

The databases

  1. GRIN is maintained by Agricultural Research Service of the USDA.
  2. ITIS is an international collaboration involving: several agencies of the US government, the governments of Canada and Mexico, and several non-government agencies: About ITIS. The [9]history of data in ITIS database is different from any of the other databases used as sources.
  3. USDA Plants is maintained by National Resources Conservation Service of the USDA and is a collaboration of several agencies within the department. [10]
  4. MMPND is maintained by the University of Melbourne. [11]

ITIS and Plants are currently in agreement, and do cite the same expert. However, they are distinct databases, are maintained by different groups, and could potentially diverge. Neither of these sites give ARS or GRIN as a source for Cannabis.

GRIN and MMPND are quite clearly distinct databases, maintained by different groups. GRIN gives MMPND as a "see also" resource for some taxa, and MMPND cites GRIN as one among several sources. GRIN and MMPND disagree with each other, and neither agrees with ITIS/Plants about the details of Cannabis classification.

It therefore seems to be clearly the case that (a) three different classifications of Cannabis are provided by (b) 4 distinct sources, and that (c) agreement that the genus comprises a single species is not at all redundant, but rather corroboration by multiple independent sources.

Chondrite 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The databases are not in question. What is being pointed out is that USDA is using the primary source of Small and that ITIS, GRIN, MMPND are citing the secondary source of the USDA to form there own secondary sources. There is nothing wrong with this but GRIN also lists Hillig's model http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?2034 and calls Cannabis indica Lam a Synonym for Cannabis sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronquist. GRIN also calls the Genus: Cannabis L., citing Hillig and says American Journal of Botany 91:966–975. [supports two species in genus]. [12] title, A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae) Karl W. Hillig and Paul G. Mahlberg (Simonapro 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
GRIN does acknowledge Hillig et al., but does indicate that a polytypic classification is accepted. See Synonym (botany). -- Chondrite 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you can't read. Cannabis L., citing Hillig and says American Journal of Botany 91:966–975. [supports two species in genus]. Is there something else I should highlight about there being two species in genus, published by the AJB? (Simonapro 06:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
For clarification, the genus page for Cannabis at GRIN identifies several publications by Hillig et al., and notes that one of those papers (Hlling and Mahlberg) supports two species in the genus. That does not state or imply that GRIN accepts Cannabis as a polytypic genus, and in fact the page currently cited by the article explicitly accepts Cannabis as a monotypic genus. Chondrite 08:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. For clarification. GRIN cites both HILLIG AND the American Journal of Botany 91:966–975. [supports two species in genus].. GRIN does not say anything about monospecies or a single species cannabis. Cite your sources. It does cite support for a two species model. In some cases a taxonomy has several synonyms but where does it say single species? (Simonapro 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
GRIN very clearly accepts Cannabis as a monotypic genus. Chondrite 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No citation, no source, POV. Since you refuse to respond to the fact that the AJB clearly implies two species, I can only guess that you just don't want to see any polyspecies models being used by leading scientific botanical bodies that refute your POV. (Simonapro 09:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
The source is GRIN. GRIN accepts a monotypic classification of Cannabis. Chondrite 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Where does GRIN state that Cannabis is monotypic? No quote = POV. (Simonapro 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
GRIN Species Records of Cannabis To make it perfectly clear, select the synonyms option, and press the Get new report buttion. The new report will be accepted names only. See also Abbreviations & symbols in GRIN Taxonomy. -- Chondrite 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What you have there on those two links is exactly what I am saying which contradicts your assertion and quite plainly now, a POV, uncited, and the sources you have given show the different names for species of cannabis including subspecies and their synonyms. It presents BOTH the single species and the multi species models and does not side with any one of them. GRIN DOES NOT HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE SINGLE SPECIES VIEW. I fail to see why you haven't understood that? (Simonapro 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
I haven't understood that because it is complete nonsense and factually inaccurate. Chondrite 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Greg Green

Information currently available suggests that Green's books may be self-published, and no information establishes reliability as a source. See discussion at Talk:Greg Green Chondrite 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely innaccurate. Greg Green is the only current cannabis cultivation author who is not self-published. Since the work of Green has never been in question his source has not been disputed. (Simonapro 07:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

It is s good thing that a work be questioned. If a work does not solicit some kind of scrutiny then only the authors word can be taken. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing up that Green's books are not self-published. But how about other criteria for consideration as a WP:RS? What are Green's credentials? Does he hold an advanced degree? Has he published anything related to Cannabis in the peer-reviewed literature? Has his work been recognzed, reviewed, or cited in the scientific literature? What recognized experts describe his work as the "most scientific" of the cultivation guides? Chondrite 16:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing wrong with Green's citation and never was. I think that removal should be a WP:CIV violation at least. (Simonapro 07:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

It has not been established that Green's books are reliable sources. -- Chondrite 15:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Simonpro, this is the 6th time on this page that you have made reference to Chondrite not being civil. I have seen no such incivility, please provide diffs if I have missed something. Lacking any sort of evidence, please refrain from such accusations as they are unhelpfull. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it is vadalism. WP:CIV violations are quite clear. Don't delete stuff from the article that we are talking about here. I guess when citations that discuss polyspecies and monospecies topics in relation to cannabis are being deliberately removed, when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the citations, that this simply is calling for an edit war. Good luck deleting any more citations. There will be a constant revert of that from now on.
  • WP:RS clearly indicates that A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.
(Simonapro 06:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
It has not been established that Green's books are reliable sources. Directly addressing this point would be helpful. -- Chondrite 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it has. Wikipedia criteria for WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE style means the source meets wikipolicy guidelines in all instances. Since you haven't contradicted this, nor contradicted that statement, then any secondary source that meets WP:V and WP:RS can be included in a science article. Source is listed as Field Crop Breeding. You don't set wikipolicy. (Simonapro 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
Could I again suggest that verifiable information pertaining to Green's authority in the field of botanical taxonomy (or any scientific discipline) would be useful in establishing Green's books as WP:RS? Chondrite 08:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not an exceptional claim. You have not disputed the statement. Since the source is a secondary source meeting the guidelines set forth in WP:RS then what is your concern? Anyone who is a secondary source meeting WP:RS can be cited for making statements on Cannabis sativa L. Since the cite in question is a book about Cannabis Breeding, meeting WP:RS guidelines, then there is little else you can do except dispute the statement with other sources. Obviously since you refuse to respond to the question about the statement (since it also supports your view and has been in the article since before you signed up as a member on wikipedia) I suggest you leave it alone and stop trying to rudely delete any works that might also include citations of polyspecies models (Simonapro 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
Cannabis is a science article. The Taxonomy section deals with an aspect of the plant that has a long history of contention among experts in the field. According to WP:RS#In science, avoid citing the popular press, science articles should not cite popular works. Green's books are popular (vs. scholarly) works. No verifiable information has been provided that supports the idea that Green is recognized as an authority in the field of botanical taxonomy (nor in any other scientific discipline). According to the publisher's website, Green Candy Press actively seeks to publish works of the fringe. See also WP:RS#Beware false authority, WP:RS#Evaluating reliability. Certainly a reference to the work of non-authority (and possibly fringe) Green is not needed to reinforce the description of Small, who is a recognized expert in Cannabis taxonomy, having received an award for that work from the American Association of Plant Taxonomists. Small 1975b is a secondary source: a review article by a recognized expert in the field. It is easily verifiable, available online, and discusses interfertility and other aspects of taxonomy in detail. -- Chondrite 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis/Archive_7"