Talk:Cannabis strain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Devonbuchannan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 April 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Artalek510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Northern Lights? A glaring omission[edit]

This article needs to include the venerable and legendary Northern Lights strain that originated in Washington USA, the Seattle area, and basically created the hybrid cannabis industry. Northern Lights, cloned and imported to Holland (circa 1985), was the original strain that Sensi Seeds made their name on, and became the foundation for countless varieties and strains. In fact, it is likely that most strains possess some Northern Lights genetics. 174.24.242.20 (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Jaques Herra either[edit]

You can't have an encyclopaedia article on weed without mentioning Jack Herra

A Californian Kush commercial?[edit]

Is this a serious item or a Californian "Kush" commercial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.161.172 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Move article?[edit]

I have found this article linked in a fashion implying it covers varieties grown as hemp
It seems, however, to be entirely about drug strains
Therefore I suggest it should be at Cannabis drug strains
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis strains is now a disambig page
Laurel Bush (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I do not see the move as necessary (especially since there is not a separate article for hemp strains), but it's done. I did notice, though, that Cannabis drug strains has its own talk page, while the talk page for Cannabis strains still redirects. Shouldn't Cannabis strains still have it's own talk page? That way WikiProjects Disambiguation and Cannabis can add their templates with the "Disambiguation" class. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested speedy deletion of the disamb page as there is no need to separate hemp cannabis and marijuana cannabis, its all cannabis with varying levels of psychoactives. No need to separate them. Then I can move this page to Cannabis strains and add additional info pertaining to hemp. User:Laurel Bush made the wrong decision when deciding to disamb them and NOT include info hemp. If there was no info on hemp, they should have added some. I also want to make it clear to people (especially outside the USA) that the term marijuana is almost exclusively used to describe the dried, prepared buds of the cannabis plant, while the term cannabis is used for the entire species itself.Yonskii (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Marijuana"[edit]

Not sure why "Yonskii" moved this article last year. "Marijuana" is not a word used commonly outside North America. In the UK and Holland, we call it cannabis, in line with most of the world. Well along with slang words such as "weed" or "grass". I see Yonskii seems to even think that the word "cracker" is used "around the world" to mean white people, which certainly isn't the case. Please do not move articles if you don't have enough world view to make such a change. I have moved it back. Rapido (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana is used within the US to describe the dried buds of the cannabis plant, not the plant itself. Cannabis is the name for the species of plant, not the drug. I also dont see how the "cracker" article is relevant.Yonskii (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get it: marijuana is rarely used outside the US to describe the plant-as-drug. This article should be has been moved back to Cannabis strains to reflect a global WP:WORLDVIEW. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually think lot of people are wrong because some of them say cannabis is a drug whereby it's a plant. Khwestar (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't account for hemp.[edit]

Many varieties of Cannabis are not bred for their cannabinoid content, i.e. hemp. This article seems to ignore hemp and focus on recreational strains of cannabis, but makes no mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.239 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial List of Strains[edit]

Is the the partial list of strains really necessary here? My concern is due to it initially being infested with "Click here for MORE!!!!!!!!" links to leafly.com from a now non-existant user Spreadtoothin (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The list of strains will never be complete or accurate, since new ones are being created all the time. And their relative popularity varies over time (and probably - though I don't know this firsthand - by geography). So, because the list of strains doesn't add anything relevant to the article and is incomplete, I'd say it's best to just remove it. ToddBradley (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I came here to look some up for a writing project. So I would think that maybe having the most famous or notable ones (e.g. Maui Wowie, which is mentioned in many songs from the 70s) would suffice and nothing else. ip.address.conflict (too lazy to sign in right now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.20.21 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I agree about putting just the major strains in. Maybe Skunk #1, Original Haze and Northern Lights. White Widow. Kush..Afghani #1 These strains are the foundations of many strains found around and the landrace strains used to make these strains were from all over the world including Brazil,Afghanistan,Columbia,Thailand and places in Africa. Cornersss (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, id like to ask the Tom Cruise Purple strain be removed. I frequent many forums and have talked to many people, and i don't ever recall the Tom Cruise strain coming up until i read about it here . It seems only beneficial to the few dispensaries that control it to have it posted here as something special. There are dozens and dozens of strains named after actors cartoon characters and just about any meme you can think of. What do others think? I would think it would be more helpful to list some of the other strains i listed above, as they had huge impacts on the cannabis industry and were breeding blocks for many strains around today.Cornersss (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was cleaned up a lot in addition to separate articles for individual strains that didn't meet WP:N. The general criteria for including a variety, etc. here is getting sufficient mention in reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT. In short, we need reliable sources that give more than passing mention. For the Tom Cruise one, that gets some mention in various sources, but that one seems to rise above WP:FART a little bit at least. I'm generally more in favor of pruning things unless something really stands out in sources though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cubing" as a methood of synthesising hybrids[edit]

Can anyone comment on the "cubing" method mentioned in the article? It's unsourced, and I'm not sure if how strains are created is wholly relevant to what strains are. Spreadtoothin (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content[edit]

There is a huge amount of content here which is unsourced. It's a spam and promotion magnet, and the only way to prevent that is to enforce our sourcing requirements for content, and our notability requirement for lists. I'm going to start this work and leave hidden editorial instructions for editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request review of strain list[edit]

Could someone please review the named strains and remove anything which is not sourced to reliable publications?

At WP:OTRS ticket:2017012310012044 someone wrote in that a particular product was inappropriately listed here as a strain. I checked the cited source and it was unclear, so I went with the request.

Thanks for keeping quality standards high. Further discussion is welcome on this talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The overall list was parsed down from mostly unsourced to anything that had at least somewhat adequate sourcing. I've been trying to clean out as much junk as possible, but this one actually had WP:MEDRS sourcing that specifically lists Bedrocan as a variety:

Currently the OMC provides three medicinal cannabis products, Cannabis Flos varieties Bedrocan, Bedrobinol, and Bediol. . .

I've gone ahead and readded the section, but let me know if something else is unclear that triggered this.
On the OTRS ticket, we were having issues with an IP editor this month not liking how Bedrocan has described here (though their concerns didn't fit with the applicable policy. This sounds like what the ticket was discussing too, but that had been addressed already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43 The complaint in the ticket was that Bedrocan is not a strain, but instead a product. The quote you provide calls this a medical cannabis product. The source goes on to say that this product has a certain chemical composition, so that lack of variation made me imagine that this was not natural and instead a processed product.
Can you be more specific in pointing out what the source says that establishes this as a strain? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. On page 2640, it says

Currently the OMC provides three medicinal cannabis products, Cannabis Flos varieties Bedrocan, Bedrobinol, and Bediol which contain a standardised content of THC (18%, 13%, and 5%, respectively) and CBD (0.8%, 0.2%, and 6%, respectively). A single cultivator, selected by the OMC, cultivates the cannabis. The quality of each batch is analysed according to an analytical monograph formulated by the National Institute for Public Health and Environment. Specifications to be complied with, besides THC and CBD content, include the absence of pesticides and heavy metals and adequate microbiological purity. Finally, a pharmacy can only dispense medicinal cannabis to a patient after receipt of a prescription from a physician.

This establishes it as a variety of note in a medical review, which even in my attempt to have a high bar for inclusion here makes this maybe the strongest sourced variety currently in this article (unless I missed something while searching for author COI). Does that make sense, or was there something else that wasn't clear?
Actually Bluerasberry, now that I reread your note on the ticket, the issue looks like someone was calling it a product instead of a variety? I kind of glazed over that at first because varieties are a type of product. They get referred to as a variety, strain, etc. though as the source does. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43 I think I will invite the person to give their own comments here. I had thought that this was a standard processed medical product with chemical specifications. I looked at the ticket again, and they said that they wanted the text posted at the previous revision which is of course not the kind of promotion that Wikipedia does.
It does seem like those medical researchers reported that they were using a variety called Bedrocan. Whatever the case - the person should continue the conversation here. I will ask them to clarify. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there were a few issues in those edits that I hoped were addressed by edit summary given the lack of response here, but I'll keep an eye out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannabis strains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last 6 lines of "Major variety types" need fixing[edit]

First 4 lines seem like free advertising and off topic. Was Avidekel the first cbd strain?Because there are hundreds now. Why should it be listed here over all the others, or at all? Has there been a recent movement to categorize?Because generally the name did a lot of that.The last two lines about hermies should be in a different category, possibly breeding, even if accidental.

Edit request Bedrocan[edit]

Hello Wikipedians,

I have a comment regarding the following text:

Bedrocan

Bedrocan is a medicinal cannabis variety cultivated from a Dutch medical marijuana Cannabis sativa L. strain, having a standardized content of THC (22%) and CBD (1%). It is currently cultivated by Bedrocan Nederland, Bedrocan Canada and Bedrocan Česká Republika. It was first introduced in 2003 and is dispensed through pharmacies after prescription from a physician.[16]

I represent the company Bedrocan in trademark matters. While it seems that various people have wrongly stated that Bedrocan is the name of a variety (or is a variety), like in the article mentioned under this article, this is not the case. Bedrocan is the trademark, the name of the variety is Cannabaceae Cannabis sativa L. Afina. This variety is listed in the official register of Plantscope. Although in Dutch you can also check the website of Cannabisbureau (of the Dutch government): https://www.cannabisbureau.nl/medicinale-cannabis/patienteninformatie/producten. As you can see Bedrocan is mentioned as a trademark ®.

Our concern is that the use of Bedrocan as a variety is detrimental to the trademark of Bedrocan, everybody will use Bedrocan as a generic name and our client will lose its trademark. Moreover, the information is also not correct as it is not the name of a variety.

Would you please consider changing this acticle? Thanking you in advance.

212.67.188.106 (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Arnaud Bos Onel trademarks[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.188.106 (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 04-APR-2018[edit]

Red X No actionable request. This sounds similar to an issue which was handled by WP:OTRS ticket:2017012310012044 and discussed here earlier by the editors @Bluerasberry: and @Kingofaces43:. They should be consulted about this issue. At this time there is no actionable request I can discern from 212.67.188.106's post above, so the COI editor is urged to further develop one with the involved editors I've just mentioned. Regards,  Spintendo      09:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in for more clarification. As before, we have a WP:MEDRS source stating it is a variety, so we reflect that unless other sources of similar quality contradict that. That being said, we generally do not use the trademark symbol per MOS:TMRULES. Even the Bedrocan website calls it a variety.[1] It's not uncommon for crops, etc. to have a variety (that is registered and sometimes patented) as well as have a trademark with the same name of that variety. At least in terms of following our Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it seems like we're describing the variety as sources do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Bos: @Kingofaces43. Thank you for your comments. The Bedrocan website does not call Bedrocan a variety, the company Bedrocan has five varieties whereas Bedrocan is the trademark of one of the varieties, please see https://bedrocan.com/products-services/scientists/cannabis-varieties/#bedrocan. Moreover, the cannabis office of the Dutch government is stating that it is a trademark, also the official Plantscope register of varieties states the correct name of the variety (which is not Bedrocan), we assume that you recognize these as trusted sources. With all due respect for the medical article but this part is not correct, it is common mistake to use the trademark as the name of a variety (please note that these doctors are not experts in plant variety law). For more clarification, the variety name is a generic name of the variety. Anybody can use the name to describe the variety. The trademark is the exclusive right of the trademark owner. Only this owner or anybody with a license can use this trademark. Often there is one variety with a variety name and a corresponding trademark. Sometimes there are multiple trademarks for one variety. We kindly ask you to reconsider this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.188.106 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link you just provided is also the one I mentioned too. It directly lists Bedrocan and others as varieties. Either way, the way Wikipedia works is that we as anonymous editors do not engage in WP:OR. We instead reflect what the sources say. The Bedrocan website and high quality journal publications describe it as a variety, and that's what we're bound to do that by our policies and guidelines unless other reliable independent sources directly contradict it. That would mean either the journal issuing an erratum, or else other similar sources stating it is not a variety (researchers working with crops, etc. and publishing on them actually are expected to have basic knowledge about correctly describing varieties, cultivars, etc.). The variety also being registered with a trademark would not contradict those other sources. I'm not sure what entry you are referring to in Plantscope or the Dutch office of cannabis without a verifiable link either. Ultimately, we need sources to make changes.
As mentioned before, we don't display trademark symbols on Wikipedia as a previous IP tried to insert here per MOS:TMRULES. Beyond that, I'm really not sure what would need to be changed based on sources at this time. Mentioning the company that produced a variety, like I showed in the previously mentioned IP edit, is usually considered undue promotion. Normally what we do is simply list what the variety, cultivar, etc. is and let the linked sources give more background details like trademark, variety patent holder, etc. if it's included in the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horticulture and polypoidy[edit]

After a strain is created then subsequent plants are clones created from cuttings. This keeps the plants female only and avoids the variability of seeding. Also, some of the high potency stains created in the 1980s were made polyploid via colchicine treatment. (Wheat is a hexaploid, 6x dna chromosomes, variant of grasses). Shjacks45 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing For Biologists Wikipedia edit[edit]

The article is overall well organized but in my opinion lacking some key information. One of the biggest points I believe is missing is that strains are in most ways completely inconsistent. it does not mention this enough if at all, when in reality that topic deserves its own section/paragraph. As stated prior it covers the history well, it is a large overview of the topic and has a decent amount of well emphasized facts but a large majority of this subject is some what incomplete without mentioning the lack of consistency. I believe the reason it isn't emphasized is due to this research and exploration of this subject being very recent. another negative is it almost seems like an add for dispensary the way it lists the strains. I like the idea and the content ot be honest but it isn't necessary to have such an extensive list. It feels like that list is only there to make the article thicker.

This is not a persuasive article so it is neutral. Its imagery is also key to understanding the differences between each strain. There are also a lot of seemingly reliable sources cited. there is an introduction and good organization with the headers. Overall I believe a section on the difficulty of replicating a strain is needed to complete this article.

Devonbuchannan (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Diesel[edit]

The article on Sour Diesel is sorely lacking. I did my best to correct the origin, but the creator of the page just changes it back to a fallacious Newsweek article about a man who used butane to increase the potency of inferior cannabis. If anyone can help get the true origin, which is wildly known, but for some reason the page creator ignores in favor of a scrap of false information.

This page needs major factual corrections.[edit]

I don't have time right now, but much is factually inaccurate and poorly sourced. MTWildhack (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks kind of bad and spammy. I don't get why certain strains like Blue Dream and Tom Cruise Purple are mentioned when even Northern Light and Haze aren't mentioned. I probably have some time next week, so feel free to suggest strains that should be mentioned and which shouldn't be mentioned. Sammabis (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2021 (CET)

Awhile back I tried to do a major cleanup of anything without a WP:RS (things like Leafly seem like perennial poor sources). What remains are things that have some sort of mention in things like books, etc. or even medical journals in some cases. As long as we're sticking to good sources, that should help. KoA (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding Section[edit]

Could the entire Breeding section be removed? Most of it's unsourced and reads like advertisements and/or marketing material. The article already explained what a Cannabis Strain is prior to the Breeding section and seems pointless. Perhaps put a link to plant breeding page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding in the Breeding section instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerikasend (talk • contribs) 08:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sativa vs indica, different highs[edit]

This article says bluntly, "Sativa is known for being a more of a 'head high', energizing strain where psychoactivity is more common, whereas indica, is known for being more of a 'body high' that helps pain and is also used as a sedative." This just sounds unscientific and dubious, and the cited reference doesn't appear to support it, unless I'm missing it. I'm not saying it's false, but come on, this is just pothead talk. 73.219.103.208 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I couldn't verify anything like that, and it technically wasn't WP:MEDRS anyways, just a primary source. It probably just survived this long because there were much worse pieces of content or sourcing drawing focus. KoA (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_strain&oldid=1206532051"