Talk:Cannabis

Old talk moved to Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 3

'Hermaphrodite' for Plants and Animals. 'Intersexual' for Human Beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_sexuality classifies plants that share the same sex organs as Hermaphrodite not Intersex. Intersex is a new terminology used mainly in reference to people who have the hermaphrodite condition or have gone through an operation which allows them to share the same sex organs. It has managed to crop up sometimes in relation to plants and fish but the dictionaries do not support a plant classification for Intersexuals. It does for hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodite

• her·maph·ro·dite

n.

  1. An animal or plant exhibiting hermaphroditism.
  2. Something that is a combination of disparate or contradictory elements.

[Middle English hermofrodite, from Medieval Latin hermofrodtus, from Latin Hermaphrodtus, Hermaphroditus, hermaphrodite. See Hermaphroditus.]her·maphro·ditic (-dtk) adj. her·maphro·diti·cal·ly adv. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

• Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English hermofrodite, from Latin hermaphroditus, from Greek hermaphroditos, from Hermaphroditos 1 : an animal or plant having both male and female reproductive organs 2 : something that is a combination of diverse elements - hermaphrodite adjective - her·maph·ro·dit·ic /(")h&r-"ma-fr&-'di-tik/ adjective - her·maph·ro·dit·ism /-'ma-fr&-"dI-"ti-z&m/ noun Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Intersex (Intersexual)

• in·ter·sex·u·al

  1. Existing or occurring between the sexes: intersexual competition.
  2. Biology. Having both male and female characteristics, including in varying degrees reproductive organs, secondary sexual characteristics, and sexual behavior, as a result of an abnormality of the sex chromosomes or a hormonal imbalance during embryogenesis.

n.

   An intersexual person.

inter·sexu·ali·ty (-l-t) n. inter·sexu·al·ly adv. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Misplaced content

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

Sorry. I have just saved an edit while intending to preview. It is largely re misplaced content. Laurel Bush 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Psychosis?

Shouldn't we also add this? - Nearfar 11:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Laurel Bush 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Nowadays a lot of young British people think cannabis is completely harmless - I think some balance/note of caution is in order (just MHO). Rentwa 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance against legitimate science or balance against popular demonizations?24.33.28.52 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You say alot of people think cannabus is completely harmless, do you have information to the contrary? HighInBC 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Distribution

Sunholm wrote: Cannabis will grow almost anywhere that other herbs and plants will grow. Distribution is restricted or distorted, however, by attempts to limit, control or prevent its use as a source of drug material.

In Angeles National Park, Los Angeles there is a constant problem with growing of cannabis.

Can anyone verify this?? --Whithulme 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeds Photo

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

Indeed, just noticed that too. Can someone please invert the photo to correct it? Anon. 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exported image file, rotated it 180 degrees, saved it, and uploaded it. Cannabis 14:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Page deserved link from 'Mindfuck' article. Rentwa 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The first section should be renamed Taxonomy. It should be noted that the drug laws of the US and other nations accept the Linnaean classification, whereby Cannabis is a monotypic genus comprising only C. sativa. In this classification, sativa, indica, and ruderalis are subspecies or varieties. It is true that the taxonomy of Cannabis has long been debated, with some taxonomists favoring the single-species classification, and other taxonomists favoring reclassification as multiple species (lumpers and splitters).

Note that the taxobox gives Carolus Linnaeus as the binomial authority, but then gives three distinct species, which does not follow Linnaeus. This should be updated to be consistent: either give the binomial authority for the actual classification used, or update the taxobox to follow the Linnaean (single species) classification.

Also, the taxobox, using Linnaeus, describes Cannabis under order Rosales, while the text refers to taxanomical developments bringing Cannabis from families Urticaceae and Moraceae (nettles and mulberries respectively to a family of its own as Cannabaceae. While this Familial development is correct as per Linnaeus, the order unfortunately is not. According to Linnaeus the correct taxanomical order should be Urticales, not Rosales, as there are fundamental differences between these families.

The following statements in the article make misleading use of the term landrace:

"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."

The article at landrace also gives cannabis as an example. However all of these uses of the term are incorrect. Regardless of the taxonomic scheme favored, no cannabis breeder or botanist considers sativa, indica, or ruderalis to designate landraces. A landrace is a variety or form that is particularly well-adapted to the environment in which is found and which needs no special cultivation in order to suceed in that environment, and which is typically named by the region in which it is found (see List of landraces). An example is the Afghani highland landrace, which grows wild in the mountains of Afghanistan and has been hybridized by breeders to produce several well-known cultivars, including Northern Lights, Hash Plant and Mazar. Not all indica varieties are well-suited to the highlands of Afghanistan, nor will the Afghanistan highland landrace grow well (without cultivation) where other indica varieties flourish. As species (or subscies) indications, sativa, indica, and ruderalis are far to broad to designate particular landraces.

Generally speaking, C. sativa (or C. sativa supsp. sativa) prefers warm and moist tropical or subtropical conditions with a long growing season, whereas C. indica is well-adapted to somewhat cooler and drier conditions found at higher lattitudes and/or altitudes, and completes it's life-cycle in a shorter growing season. C. ruderalis is indigenous to the higher latitudes of northeastern Eurasia, and thus well-adapted to a very short growing season and relatively tolerant of cold temperatures.

Note that reference #2 in the Cannabis article is a blog, that currently has no mention of cannabis, and should be removed.

"All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy the criteria for a single species type called (Cannabis sativa L.)"

Contrary to the assertion by Simonapro (above), the ability to interbreed and to produce reproductively competent offspring is not the defining characteristic of plant taxonomy. Interspecies (and even inter-genus) breeding is common in some plant families (e.g., Orchidaceae). For such families, tribes and alliances are indicative of the relative reproductive compatibilities. Simple geographical isolation is also insufficient for speciation, although geographically isolated species may eventually speciate. See species for a discussion. The reason there is a debate about the classification of Cannabis is precisely because species is a rather vague concept that is difficult to pin down.

The following line is a non-sequiter that is out of place in the discussion of species/taxonomy, and should be moved to another section (to be created):

"Cannabis has three different forms of plant sexuality, with some plants being dioecious, and other plants being hermaphroditic or monoecious."

This statement is inaccurate: "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies, indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica, each found as a cultivar and a wild variety.[5][6]"

Sativa and indica would be the species (or subspecies). Indica/sativa crosses are not properly subspecies, but hybrids. If the given references actually make this statement, then their authority is highly questionable.

The remainder of this section provides useful information, but should be better organized, and should pay some attention to the lumpers and splitters nature of the debate.

Because the taxonomy of Cannabis has long been the subject of debate by experts, it would probably be useful to add the expert tag to ensure that all aspects of the debate are covered. However it needs to be cleaned up first. Chondrite 19:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing is that we delete everything and only use the Carolus Linnaeus model. See WP:NOR. You need to cite sources for only using that model. The topic of cannabis speciation is controversial and so the controversial issue should be covered in the article, not excluded by only using the L model. The article has cited a number of sources that meet WP:CITE guidelines. This next line really sums it up well, 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.

We can also look at your suggestions:

• Could you provide wikipedia examples for renaming the Species section to Taxonomy.
• As noted in the article, the topic of Cannabis speciation is a complex speciation topic, but citations have been given. Note the use of the words "TRADITIONALLY(ALBEIT CONTENTIOUSLY)" and the careful way this has been explained to the reader with all the ramifications.
• Carolus Linnaeus's taxonomy has been given. Then the other variations have been cited, not just Carolus Linnaeus as used by the DEA.
• The landrace article also contains cannabis. The term is even used by Robert C. Clarke in his book "Marijuana Botany". You can read one of these science articles where he uses the term landrace http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha02201.html So we have a number of scientific historical records with citation for using landrace and cannabis. Here is another. http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha03109.html . You could maybe WP:CITE for landrace strains and create a new section called cannabis landrace in the cannabis strains article.
• Changed interbreeding section to read "All strains of Cannabis can interbreed, and produce fertile offspring," to satisfy speciation criteria. As noted already in article by citation, speciation is debatable, and so the debated points have been listed. It doesn’t say that this is the defining characteristic criteria for speciation, as you assert. It is a vital point that the interbreeding of all strains of cannabis produces fertile offspring. There is no reason to remove it.
• The #2 reference was probably vandalism and has been reverted.
• Your ideas as to what constitutes a species or a subspecies for Cannabis is unfortunately violating WP:NOR unless you WP:CITE. WP:CITE have been given and it has already been identified that the topic of cannabis speciation is controversial.
• If you read the cited sources they talk about the controversial issues. They don't just list everything off like it is gospel truth as some other publications do. They talk about the controversy and cite sources.
• Could you give an example of a plant sexuality section.

(Simonapro 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your comments. I added a reproduction section that will no doubt require a lot of edits. I have addressed your other comments below.

• The debate over scientific classification is a very important aspect of Cannabis, and I am not proposing that description of the various systems and of the debate be removed. If anything the description of the debate should be expanded and clarified. What I am proposing is that (a) the cannabis-related articles on wikipedia use a consistent classification (b) the classification system used should accurately represent the current scientific consensus, and (c) it be emphasized in the article that regardless of the scientific concensus, the US and other countries recognize the Linnaean classification in law (see http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1975-01-01_3_page002.html).
• Google test (search term, # results): "Cannabis sativa L" 174,000 ; "Cannabis sativa" 752,000 ; ""Cannabis indica Lam" 1,250; "Cannabis indica" 148,000. Clearly popular usage supports the single-species classification. However this is not really a question of popular usage but of scientific classification. So the PubMed test (search term, # results): "Cannabis sativa L" 165; "Cannabis sativa" 430; "Cannabis indica Lam" 0; "Cannabis indica" 26. Additionally, a PubMed search in the category Cannabis Genetics shows that nearly all recently published papers use the Linnaean classification, and no recently published papers use alternative classifications. Finally the PubMed taxonomy database lists Cannabis sativa L, but has no listing for Cannabis indica. Nor do any of the linkouts. See also: http://www.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au/Sorting/Cannabis.html Based on these resources it is very clear that the current scientific consensus suppors the Linnaean classification. Therefore, giving priority to any of the non-Linnaean classifications is minority POV. This article and other articles in the category should be modified to reflect the scientific consensus.
• Using the section title Species is also a minority POV. The section is (rightfully) mostly about the debate over scientific classification, and should be renamed to reflect this. Either Taxonomy or Scientific Classification would be appropriate section titles.
• "This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain" is unsourced and POV.
• As previously noted, the article at landrace is both uncited and incorrect. It makes the same mistake as this article. The material cited above (links to Journal of the International Hemp Association) does make reference to landraces, but does not support the statement made in this article that Sativa, Indica, and Ruderalis are landraces. Unless a credible reference can be found that specifically states that indica, sativa, and ruderalis types are considered landraces, this statement should be removed. It is extremly unconventional. I have also modified the article at landrace to remove the apparently original research there until a suitable reference can be provided.
• Even if it were generally accepted that Indica and Sativa are species, it is not OR that a hybrid between two species is itself not a species. Certainly the hybrid of two subspecies is not itself a species, nor would an hybrid of two subspecies itself be considered a subspecies. Hybrids are hybrids. The cited source for this assertion is either incorrect, or (perhaps more likely given the some of the other material in the article) has been misquoted. The statement in the article "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies" is contradictory to the remaining discussion of proposed classifications, in which none of the proposed classification systems described makes any mention of (e.g.) "Mostly Indica" as a proposed species or subspecies designation. Thus the claim is either OR or minority POV and, if the latter, should be described as such. "It is popular among non-scientists to describe 5 major types of Cannabis, often (incorrectly) called species or subspecies. "
• Breeding compatibility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for classification in the same species. Rather than "satisfies the criteria" (implying all), this breedig compatility satisfies one single criterion. If it was that simple there would be no debate over classification.

Chondrite 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no counterargument and because the scientific consensus seems to be strongly supportiive of Cannabis as a genus comprising a single species, I propose that all of the articles on purported species (C. sativa, C. indica, C. ruderalis, and C. rasta) be merged into the genus article. Chondrite 07:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The counterarguement was given in the first one. What you are proposing is that google hits for keywords and some political usage equates to a majority condition by which scientist validate one POV and not the other. The jury has been out on this one for some time. All the ramifications for the different classifications have been made in the article and cited with WP:CITE style. What you are ultimate fronting is one POV over another POV. The article should not be biased and it currently is not.
• Your own move to create a whole new section on reproduction should be edited somewhat because the article is about cannabis and not plant reproduction. I will leave you to come up with a model for that and then I will check WP:CITE. (Simonapro 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC))

• "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Wikipedia currently presents Cannabis as a genus comprising several species. The peer-reviewed scientific literature (as represented in the MEDLINE database) overwhelmingly follows a single-species classification. Therefore the current structure of the wikipedia articles is inherently biased, in giving undue weight to the multi-species POV, and according to wikipedia policy should be changed to represent the prevailing scientific consensus, with description of the proposed alternatives.

• A compelling counterargument to the above point will clearly demonstrate that the majority of experts in the field now support a multi-species classification.

• The reproduction section is specifically about reproduction in Cannabis (genus), which is likewise a complex subject that has been controversial for a century. This subject may also be closely related to the debate over classification. The section would certainly benefit from expansion and copy editing.

Chondrite 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a plant article that has complex reproduction information within the main article? I think it is overkill for the main article. (Simonapro 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Proposed merger

Hemp and marijuana are SAME PLANT. Marijuana is simply the Spanish word, hemp is the English American word.

From Cannabis:

This is one of several related articles about cannabis. This article deals with the biology of the genus Cannabis. Cannabis (drug) is about marijuana, hashish and related drugs. Hemp is about cultivation for non-drug uses, and the non-drug uses themselves. See also Hemp (disambiguation).

From Hemp:

This is one of several related articles about cannabis. Cannabis deals with the biology of the genus Cannabis. Cannabis (drug) is about marijuana, hashish and related drugs. Hemp is about cultivation and non-drug uses. See also Hemp (disambiguation).

Perhaps what you object to are the names? The amount of content precludes a merge in my opinion. The seperation seems to be working well. The topic is just too large for one article. HighInBC 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Topic much too large for one article (or attracting too much of both opinionated interest and specialist knowledge), and the current arrangement seems to be working fairly well. Laurel Bush 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

I do see an issue as to where "Marijuana" should point to. I am inclined to think it should to "Cannabis", despite the fact this is likely to attract edits from people thinking the article should cover, in minute detail, all cannabis-related topics. Laurel Bush 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

Hemp and marijuana are not the same plant and there's no need to yell. Marijuana's not even a plant. Marijuana is a preparation made from the dried/cured flowers and leaves of high-THC varieties of Cannabis. Hemp, on the other hand, refers to low-THC varieties of Cannabis. In my opinion there is a distinct need to keep the articles about drug-type varieties of Cannabis and the fibre and oilseed varieties of Cannabis separate. By the way, who's calling for this merger? Cannabis 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:SmokeyTheFatCat did. HighInBC 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm chuckling. Nice. And I believe cannabis strains now used as hemp are deliberately bred (since circa 1930) to be low-THC, irrespective of possible adverse impact on suitability as sources of non-drug material (eg, fibre, food and fuel). Laurel Bush 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

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

Hemp is a man made artificial strain of cannabis. Hemp and Marijuana are different things. (Simonapro 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Hemp and marijuana are indeed different things. Although the same genus, and perhaps the same species, they have different history, cultivation, and use, and there is sufficient information about the particulars of each to support two articles. The article at Cannabis should identify the difference but not give priority to either. The article at Hemp should be renamed Cannabis (hemp), with a redirect from Hemp. Chondrite 07:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed Verification

The following statement appears in the article, with two references: "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies, indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica, each found as a cultivar and a wild variety."

One of the cited references, Small and Cronquist (1976), does not support the statement.

The other cited source is Green (2005). Please provide the direct quote from Green that supports the above statement. Chondrite 07:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to Small and Cronquist (Small, E., and A. Cronquist. 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25: 405–435) from this statement, and added verify tag until Green can be verified. Chondrite 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Green is used to support that statement.
• Please don't remove references that are used as cites. The Small reference is exactly what you need actually. (Simonapro 05:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Small and Cronquist (1976) is a good reference and should be included in the article. However, by my reading, it does not support the statement quoted above. It remains to be seen whether Green does. Please do not remove verification tags until the sources are actually verified. Providing direct quotes from the source material that support the disputed claims is the best way to do this. Chondrite 06:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. (Simonapro 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

More Failed Verification

Article states:

"However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace "land-race" [2] known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, breeders and seed breeders, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types [3]."

References provided:

[2] The art of selection and breeding fine quality cannabis by DJ Short, Cannabis Culture Magazine, CC41 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html, 07 Mar, 2003 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html

[3] http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info6.shtml

The references do not support the statements. The first reference condradicts the statement that it is provided to support by identifying specific landraces that are varities of Sativa and Indica. The second reference says nothing at all about landraces.

Sources failing verification removed from article. Claims are currently unsourced. Fact tags have been added and should not be removed until credible and verifiable sources have been provided in support of these claims. Chondrite 10:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The cite reads: In the past, this chore was made easier by the fact that most of the commercially available herb was seeded and imported from outdoor plantations, usually near-equatorial in origin. These "land-race" Sativa varieties were the building blocks of the burgeoning domestic productions of the times. and The "goal" at the center of most of my breeding targets would be to replicate, as near as possible, the experiences produced by the great land-race varieties of old: Highland Oaxacan or Thai, Santa Marta or Acapulco Gold, Guerrero Green, Panama Red or Hawaiian Sativa… or the hash from regions such as Lebanon, Afghanistan or Nepal. Since the breeder is talking about Sativa as a land-race and naming land-race then we must include the Afghanistan Indica strains and land-race. Ok, granted Ruderalis is excluded, but covered in all of the citations that talk about the species problem. Your edits are highly controversial when there is WP:CITE to refute your claim. (Simonapro 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)).

DJ Short describes several landrace varieties of Sativa. This not only does not support the claim of the article that Sativa is a landrace, it directly contradicts it. The citations given do not support the claims made in the article. I am going to remove the cites. References that have failed verification but are otherwise useful can be moved to the further reading section.

After several attempts to source the statement, it should be becoming clear that the only source that describes Sativa as a landrace is this article on Wikipedia (and mirrored copies). Including this very nonstandard usage is detrimental to the article and to the credibility of Wikipedia on the subject. If the article was changed to say that many landrace varities or forms of C. sativa subsp. sativa are known to exist, that would not be controversial. That would be best in the context of a distribution section. Chondrite 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If Short is calling any strain of Sativa a landrace then he has identified a landrace Sativa. There is absolutely no mandate in the biological sciences to exclude a strain of Sativa as landrace because it is just a variety of Sativa. Cite your sources because at the moment that is your POV and violates WP:NOR. WP:CITE style has been used. Refute it with cite or leave it alone.(Simonapro 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

The article does not state that landraces of sativa exist. That landraces of sativa exist is supported by the reference provided and was never in dispute. The artcle states that sativa, indica, and ruderalis are landraces, and that landraces are species or subspecies. This is incorrect usage, is not supported by the reference, and is disputed. As noted previously the current statement could be rephrase to be factually accurate and supportable and used in the article, preferably in a section on geographic distribution. Chondrite 07:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Article states:

"However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace "land-race" [2] known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, breeders and seed breeders, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types [3]."

References provided:

[2] The art of selection and breeding fine quality cannabis by DJ Short, Cannabis Culture Magazine, CC41 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html, 07 Mar, 2003 http://cannabisculture.com/articles/2788.html.

Additional references in discussion,

[3]Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Cultivation in the Tai'an, District of Shandong Province,

Peoples Republic of China Robert C. Clarkehttp://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha02201.html (I will include this if it is not there because it is good).

Does the DJ Short article and the Clarke article call any strain of cannabis a land-race? Yes, both do.

Clarke calls Hemp ‘Cannabis Sativa L.’ is his title. In the paper he calls this species landrace many times. For example, ‘’In the Tai'an district, the landrace variety is referred to as either "Lai Wu" or "Fei Cheng" hemp, named after the famous eastern Lai Wu and central Fei Cheng hemp producing counties of the Tai'an District. Little if any intentional human selection has occurred and the evolution of the !!!!landrace!!!! has been directed almost entirely by unconscious selection by farmers and by natural factors. No special selection for crop improvement is exercised by farmers.’’

Breeder Short says ‘’ the great !!!!land-race!!!! varieties of old: Highland Oaxacan or Thai, Santa Marta or Acapulco Gold, Guerrero Green, Panama Red or Hawaiian Sativa… or the hash from regions such as Lebanon, Afghanistan or Nepal.’’

Landrace is even used by wikipedia in two places relevant to this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landrace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cannabis_strains

I didn’t edit the cannabis strains article. So landrace is being used by wikipedia users in relation to cannabis. It is a valid term and nothing is wrong with the way it is used in the article. (Simonapro 10:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Clarke, R.C. 1995 has previously been discussed. It does discuss landraces of C. sativa but does not support the way the term as used in the article, for the same reason that Short does not. In fact both sources quite clearly contradict the statement in the article, as previously explained. Chondrite 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a POV. Since both articles and the new one added are consistant in using the term landrace in reference is Sativa, Indica or Ruderalis species is scientific consistant in every single citation used in reference to this. If you don't like the way they use it then you will have to provide sources to the contrary and you have not.

• You are refuted again by Allozyme analysis revealed that the hemp accessions in the germplasm collection under study derive from both the C. sativa and C. indica gene pools (Hillig, 2004 ). Hemp !!!landraces!!! from Europe, Asia Minor, and central Asia are assigned to the hemp biotype of C. sativa and hemp !!!landraces!!! from southern and eastern Asia are assigned to the hemp biotype of C. indica. Accessions of wild or naturalized populations from eastern Europe and the northwest Himalayas are assigned to the feral biotypes of C. sativa and C. indica, respectively. Ruderal accessions from central Asia are tentatively assigned to C. ruderalis, although few morphological differences were found between these accessions and those assigned to the feral biotype of C. sativa (Hillig, in press ). Plants of accessions cultivated for drug production were characterized as having either narrow lanceolate or linear-lanceolate leaflets or wide oblanceolate leaflets. Both biotypes derive from the C. indica gene pool and are morphologically distinct (Anderson, 1980 ; Hillig, 2004 , in press).’ Karl W. Hillig2 and Paul G. Mahlberg ‘A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)’ http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/966 (Simonapro 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Additional Verification Needed

The article currently makes the following two statements: "However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types."

Since fact tags were removed, it seems that these statements are based on one of the two references given at the end of the paragraph. Because this is very unconventional and dubious use of the term "landrace," this interpretation requires verification. Chondrite 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion clutter free by not repeating a section for discussion. Thanks. See WP:CIV. (Simonapro 05:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Source verification is a different subject than Taxonomy, and therefore warrants separate talk page sections. Requesting source verification is not incivil. Please do not remove source verification tags from the article until the sources have been verified. Chondrite 06:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIV. I think given the degree of help you have received so far that you are being uncivil by making additions and changes that have not reached a consensus here given that there is dialogue. So far you have suggestion very wide spread alterations to follow a POV without an alternative and have added a whole new section that is ½ the size of the article. You are now even using large section headings to abuse the discussion forum. Please remain civil. Note that I do not mind that kind of change or work load but you are clearly deleting citations in the article that indicate what you want to know. You have been given sources above for the use of the term Landrace with Cannabis in technical papers. You can not refute its use nor can you refute the use of Indica, Sativa and Ruderalis as separate species in technical papers and cites. I have left it to your own good taste to understand that the new section you added is probably unwarranted in the history of Wikipedia plant articles and to try a different approach. You are asking for facts that are in the Small paper you keep deleting. You obviously don’t have Green’s work either. Please leave the article alone unless you can remain civil and read the citations before asking for them. You have been given the citations and it is up to you to ask questions about them here. You can’t argue that you have not been given the cites if you have not read them. (Simonapro 07:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

WP:Verifiability is a core policy of wikipedia. Source verification tags do not request citations, they request that the given sources be reviewed to ensure that wikipedia is presenting an accurate interpretation of those citations. My own review of Small and Cronquist (1976) fails to verify the interpretation presented in the article that are purported to be based on that source. Several other claims in the article have been tagged for source verification, based on very unconventional use of the terms species, subspecies, and landrace. If the sources are verified then the tags will be removed. If the sources are not verified then the claims in the article will be reworded or removed. Providing verifiable quotes from the source material that support the claims in dispute is the simplest way to resolve the dispute. Removing the source verification tags is POV and/or vandalism. Chondrite 07:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIV. WP:CITE has been given. Removal of the fact tag(s) is not vandalism when WP:CITE has been given. You will have to show that the WP:CITE has not been given. You have removed citations and that is uncivil. Even if you don't think the cite is good you can work on finding citations that help the citations you already have. You are removing an important citation about the controversy and fronting only the L species type and disregarding every single other article that is contrary to your own POV that violate WP:NOR to suggest that there is a varifiable cite that says something like "Cannabis Indica is not a species" without introducing the controversy on this issue. There are even articles dedicated to Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa. Your own sexual reproduction section would probably warrent controvery on plant reproduction let alone here. Any POV which censors the species controversy or tries to front only a DEA perspective should be removed.(Simonapro 09:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

This section is still not answered by Chondrite because it refutes his entire arguement.(Simonapro 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Still not answered even though Chondrite is putting up dispute tags on the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis&oldid=78830749

I have not responded because no new arguments are made, no new information is presented, and everything has been addressed at great length elsewhere in this talk page. I have nothing new to add. If new data, new arguments, or new requests for information/clarification are made, then I will comment appropriately. Chondrite 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you can't refute any of the statement made here or any of the questions put to you here then obviously you can't, won't or don't know. (Simonapro 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Attempted deletion of citation problem

1. ^ 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))

removed unsourced POV

Removed the following: "This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries which do not recognize the differences cited in the above mentioned works of Schultes and Anderson, Hilling, and the mitochondrial study published in 2005."

Can be reinserted as "X maintains that..." (or similar) with a suitable source to avoid OR POV. Chondrite 07:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Use your own standards. Add a fact tag. Do not remove content with discussion or you will start revert wars. Cite cources. See WP:CIV. (Simonapro 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Request for cite was made in this talk page on 7 September 2006. As three weeks have passed without the requested cite being provided, the unsourced POV statement is now removed from the article to the talk page pending a source and suitable NPOV rephrasing. Chondrite 09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually if it is cited in the Schultes paper or any of the others then the cite was good and should not have been edited. Here is another great citation for it: Small, Ernest - American law and the species problem in Cannabis: Science and semantics 1975 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1975-01-01_3_page002.html It should go back in nicely. (Simonapro 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

How do Schultes (1980) and Small (1975) both manage to comment on mitochondrial DNA studies that weren't conducted until 2005? The statement is blatant POV and unsourced. It needs to stay out of the article until it can be sourced and reworded. Chondrite 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I will reword it then to reflect content on both papers unless the original contribitor can add cites to it. (Simonapro 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

This statement has found it's way back into the article in slightly modified form: "This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries." citing Small (1975).

Although this argument has been made, it was not made by Small, who actually says

"In the United States, in federal and most state legislation governing cannabis drugs, specific reference is made to " C. sativa L." as the source plant. In recent court cases defendants have argued that their material was obtained from non-proscribed species of Cannabis, C. indica Lam. or C. ruderalis Janisch."

"In no case known to the writer where the state was adequately informed on the botanical aspects of the issue has the ploy resulted in circumvention of cannabis legislation. However in a few instances where the state was not adequately prepared, cases have been dismissed on the basis of the issue. At present in both the United States and Canada, an explosion is occurring in the number of cases involving the question (appendix I)."

"The purpose of this paper is to provide in abbreviated form the essential information necessary to a satisfactory understanding of the problem, and to present the basic considerations which serve to invalidate the contention that present legislation governing cannabis drugs is seriously defective in terminology."

"As has been stressed throughout this paper, all of these groups are best treated as constituent elements of Cannabis sativa L."

The reference given does not support the statement. Assuming it can be properly sourced, the statement must be rephrased in a more neutral way to avoid POV ("It has been argued that..."), and should be balanced by describing the opposing argument(s) (for which Small may be one good reference).

This debate should definitely be mentioned in the taxonomy section of this article, and described in more detail at Legal issues of cannabis. Chondrite 11:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article reads This practice seems to be the result of political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries.[14]. I have changed it to read There may be political pressures to maintain that "all" Cannabis is designated Cannabis sativa L. for the purposes of avoiding challenges to current laws in various countries.[14] because editing had taken it out of context. In [1] Small states that In recent court cases defendants have argued that their material was obtained from non-proscribed species of Cannabis, C. indica Lam. or C. ruderalis Janisch. The eminent plant taxonomist A. Cronquist of the New York Botanical Garden and I have testified for the state on numerous occasions recently. In no case known to the writer where the state was adequately informed on the botanical aspects of the issue has the ploy resulted in circumvention of cannabis legislation. However in a few instances where the state was not adequately prepared, cases have been dismissed on the basis of the issue. At present in both the United States and Canada, an explosion is occurring in the number of cases involving the question (appendix I). and The well-known student of hallucinogenic plants, R. E. Schultes of Harvard University, has testified for the defence in dozens of court cases since 1972, following a notable reversal of opinion regarding the taxonomy of Cannabis. 'Schultes and a number of colleagues have recently published their viewpoint (1974), that Cannabis comprises three species', essentially as found in some of the literature. Schultes' claims have been supported in court and print by Emboden (1974) and additionally in court recently by a number of reputable botanists. Fullerton and Kurzman (1974) have recently presented an extensive evaluation of the merits of the cases of myself, and the supporters of the defence, and Fullerton has vigorously defended the position of the defence on this and other matters connected with narcotics trials, in the courtroom. Their extensive analysis of the botanical issue is unwarranted, since neither is a botanist, and so neither has the competence necessary to evaluate the issue. The presentations advanced to this point by taxonomists and others who have testified on behalf of the defence are, in my opinion, seriously deficient both in terms of providing adequate orientation to the nature of taxonomy, and in analysing Cannabis scientifically. The purpose of this paper is to provide in abbreviated form the essential information necessary to a satisfactory understanding of the problem, and to present the basic considerations which serve to invalidate the contention that present legislation governing cannabis drugs is seriously defective in terminology. Anyway I reworded the statement. (Simonapro 06:25, 4 October 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))

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))

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))

NPOV and factual accuracy dispute: Species

The points that are disputed have been repeatedly identified and discussed at great length in this talk page. In summary:

• "However, Cannabis has shown three distinct landrace "land-race" [2] known as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis that are geographically isolated. Botanists, especially cannabis specialists, breeders and seed breeders, often refer to these three cannabis landrace as separate species or subspecies types [3]."
  • Sources cited do not support claim (see Talk:Cannabis#Failed Verification)
  • Factual inaccuracy
    • improper/nonstandard usage of "landrace". Landrace designates a cultivar (specifically, a "naturalized cultivar"), which ranks with variety. (See Zeven A.C. (1998) "A review of definitions and classifications" Euphytica, 104(2), 127-139)
    • as stated in the reference provided, many more than three landraces of Cannabs have been described
    • none of the landraces described are described as species or subspecies, in the cited source or in the literature generally
    • no botanists do or would describe putative species or subspecies as landraces
    • no botanists do or would describe landraces as species or subspecies
  • Self contradictory
    • landrace cannot simultaneously be an infraspecific ranking and a specific ranking
    • substitution yields the following statements, which are clearly nonsensical:
      • "Cannabis has shown three distinct cultivars..."
      • "Botanists...often refer to these three cannabis cultivars as subspecies or species types."

• "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies, indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica, each found as a cultivar and a wild variety.[8]"
  • Verify source: source may not support claim. Quote requested, see Talk:Cannabis#Additional Verification Needed
  • Factual inaccuracy
    • indica/sativa, "mostly sativa", and "mostly indica" are not formal botanical names or classifications
    • Whether the taxa are taken as subspecies or species, hybrids are not generally regarded as species
  • Self-contradictory
    • Landrace claim is that three species are recognized, this statement claims that 5 species are recognized
    • None of the other proposals mentioned recognize 5 species

• POV regarding accepted scientific classification of the genus
  • Multiple scientific classifications have been proposed, including single-species (after Linnaeus) and multiple-species (several authors, as noted in article).
  • To conform to WP:NPOV#Undue Weight articles related to Cannabis should accurately represent the degree of acceptance of each of these proposals by experts in the field.
  • This article and related articles present multiple-species classifications as if they are widely accepted
  • Despite repeated requests, no evidence has been provided suggesting that multiple-species classifications are widely accepted
  • Wikipedia:Search engine test results using google and Entrez PubMed suggest that the single species classification is the most widely accepted in both popular and scientific usage. This is not suggested as authoritative, but rather as a starting point.
  • IPNI and University of Melbourne Plant Names Index suggest that the single-species classification as the most widely accepted.
  • See Talk:Cannabis#Taxonomy
  • Note: it has not been proposed that information regarding multiple-species proposals be removed from the article. Claims to the contrary are a straw man. That multiple classifications have been proposed and that there is debate among experts in the field is not disputed. To the contrary, it has been repeatedly suggested that the discussion of the classification debate in the article be clarified and expanded.

Issues were first raised on 6 August. Attempts to improve the section to be more factually accurate and nuetral have degenerated into an edit war, and the debate is currently at an impasse, with the species section effectively frozen at a non-consensus revision.

As this talk page clearly shows, the species section has in fact been disputed for some time. Rather than continuing to pursue a non-constructive edit war, I have opted to add dispute tags to the article. This is exactly the purpose for which these tags exist. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, particularly the section Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV? which describes exactly what is happening with POV here.

Removal of dispute tags from an article that is disputed is WP:Vandalism. The dispute tags may be removed when consensus is reached among editors of the article that the disputed points have been satisfactorily addressed.

This is a call for consensus. Editors, please comment. Chondrite 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Failed_Verification contains two important papers, one from a botanist and cannabis specialist, Clarke, and the other from a breeder who both refer to strains of Cannabis as landrace and or land-race. Since we have two citations and two useful wikipedia links that use landrace in connection with cannabis strains you can not say that a landrace can not be a species. You have never cited a source to say that a landrace is not a species. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landrace and the paper Emboden, W. A. 1981. The genus Cannabis and the correct use of taxonomic categories. J. Psychoactive Drugs 13: 15–21. Most important you are totally refuted by the following citation. ‘Allozyme analysis revealed that the hemp accessions in the germplasm collection under study derive from both the C. sativa and C. indica gene pools (Hillig, 2004 ). Hemp !!!landraces!!! from Europe, Asia Minor, and central Asia are assigned to the hemp biotype of C. sativa and hemp !!!landraces!!! from southern and eastern Asia are assigned to the hemp biotype of C. indica. Accessions of wild or naturalized populations from eastern Europe and the northwest Himalayas are assigned to the feral biotypes of C. sativa and C. indica, respectively. Ruderal accessions from central Asia are tentatively assigned to C. ruderalis, although few morphological differences were found between these accessions and those assigned to the feral biotype of C. sativa (Hillig, in press ). Plants of accessions cultivated for drug production were characterized as having either narrow lanceolate or linear-lanceolate leaflets or wide oblanceolate leaflets. Both biotypes derive from the C. indica gene pool and are morphologically distinct (Anderson, 1980  ; Hillig, 2004 , in press).’ Karl W. Hillig2 and Paul G. Mahlberg ‘A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)’ http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/966

• Never once does this quote... "It is traditionally (albeit contentiously) divided into at least five subspecies, indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica, each found as a cultivar and a wild variety."... say that the subspecies are formal botanical names or classifications. We have given citations that use these terms in, Greg Green. 2005. The Cannabis Breeder’s Bible. Green Candy Press 14 which meets WP:V. You will find these terms used by breeders. See http://www.cannabismarijuana.com/search.html for example.

• You are wrong about your use of dispute tags. You claim that the Removal of dispute tags from an article that is disputed is WP:Vandalism. The dispute tags may be removed when consensus is reached among editors of the article that the disputed points have been satisfactorily addressed.’’ Actually WP:VAND states...

Abuse of tags

Bad-faith placing of tags or speedy-deletion tags on articles that do not meet such criteria, or deceptively placing protected-page tags on articles.

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. ‘’Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus’’. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

WP:CON refutes your claim that the dispute tags may be removed when consensus is reached among editors of the article that the disputed points have been satisfactorily addressed. Again read – Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus You are using dispute tags in violation of WP:V.

• You have failed to answer the questions on this discussion page for days running and you have abused my talk page. (Simonapro 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

It should be abundantly clear that content in this article is disputed. The tags are placed in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. Removing dispute tags that are placed in good faith is vandalism. Please do not do so again. Your insistence that there is no dispute or no basis for dispute does not constitute consensus. I have attempted to the best of my ability to respond to all questions and requests for clarification at least once. It is certainly possible that I have missed something. Chondrite 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You already have your invalid reason for using the tags and that was refuted by wikipolicy WP:V with respect to WP:CON. Good faith would be to respect the rules of wikipedia and not to violate WP:V. I never insisted that there was no dispute. Cite where I said there is no dispute. I cited WP:V and quoted it to refute your use of the tags. There are many questions you are left answered since the start of this whole discussion. See everything above. (Simonapro 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Coming late to the debate.

1. Yes a dispute tags seems appropriate. Just one would be good, three seems excessive.
2. Landraces seem to be at the level of variety/cultivar which is below that of species or sub-species. I checked the first 200 google links for landrace and they all use it at the variety/cultivar level. In light of this it would be undue weight to claim otherwise.
3. IPNI makes no claim to as the acceptance of difference synonyms of plants, they mearly try to document all the synonyms ever used.
4. Botanical taxomony is an inprecice art, plants don't always respect the nice boxes we try to put them in. Likewise botanists disagree.
5. Cannabis sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronquist and Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa, seem to be the most accepted names GRIN, Plants
6. We seem to have missed Cannabis sativa subsp. spontanea (Czer.) Serebr. - a synonym for ruderalis.
7. The section should probably be renamed to taxomony, to make it clear its about the botanical taxomony and not about breaders names. In particualar indica/sativa, pure indica, pure sativa, mostly sativa and mostly indica are breaders names not botanical names.
8. The interbreading supports clasification below species. Species can interbread by definition.
9. Is that a typo in ref 11 A study of systematic wood anatomy in Cannabis?
10. We are not professional taxominists and should not attempt to present ourselves as such which would be WP:OR. Best to document that: C. stavia, is a species; C. stavia subsp. sativa and Cannabis sativa subsp. indica are the two most accepted suspecies, which some authors are class as varities, other do not recognise APNI, and have in the past been classed a seperate species; a number of other varities have been applied.
11. Its worth mentioning the new results but should point out that this is current research and not generally accepted by the botanical community.

I think that we can document the current state of C. taxomony as long as we strive for appropriate weight and avoid POVs. --Salix alba (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of Salix said. I included from one of the references the entire species and subspecies model. I believe that will settle any problem discerning what was discovered and the taxonomy given. I believe this covers most of the points except for how land-race should be used. I believe it is important terminology given its usage in the citations with regards to cannabis. Granted I accept that Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis are only universal names and exist only in strain form where we can name each one. However this article directly links to a List of cannabis strains. What really needs to be worked on is the species table. I think only Sativa should be there with a note that there is more to know in the species section.(Simonapro 09:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your comments.

• All three of the dispute tags were applicable, but I can see that three might seem excessive. I have restored one.
• Title of reference is correct.
• It is true that many breeders, seed companies, and cultivators informally describe "indica/sativa" ratio of cultivars to indicate ancestry or gross phenotypic characteristics. This is widespread and does merit some discussion. Because it's informal, appropriate sources may be difficult to locate.
• Landraces are a very important subtopic. In the past three decades, development of drug cultivars has expanded greatly, primarily in the Netherlands, but elsewhere as well. Through internet seed sales and international shipping, "Dutch genetics" have replaced traditional varieties in Europe and North America, with some presence in other parts of the world. Because Cannabis is a wind-pollinated outcrosser, this has had an impact on traditional cultivars. Some have expressed concern over this (see also Heirloom plant). Landraces are also important in modern cultivar development, as some breeders (e.g., DJ Short) have actively sought out genetics that are not represented in the Dutch gene pool to hybridize. The term has developed a certain cachet among cultivators. These issues are sometimes discussed in the popular literature. Breeding is an important subtopic that should probably have at least a section in this or a related article. Discussion of landraces in these contexts, as well as in geographical distribution, is very appropriate.
• The outcome of this discussion may affect the articles at Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis and Cannabis rasta, all of which are currently described as species. All are currently merge candidates to this article. Other articles, such as Cannabis (drug) cultivation, may also be affected.

Chondrite 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with a merger. A cross-reference maybe but mergers like this are too big and awkward given the sizes of each of the articles which require more citations. (Simonapro 11:07, 2 October 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))